Who would win: Germany vs France and Russia (1914)

NoMommsen

Donor
Continuation pf post #40

Now for a possible course of events :
How this might play out at first :
  • from 15th/17th August up to about the 30th August a "Tannenberg" south the border and a "Masurian Lakes I+II" around Suwalki/Augustowo-forest wiht reducing of russian 1st as well as 2nd army in OTL Tannenberg levels, while 4th army stll heavily beaten in futile attempts to cross the Njemen/Memel, its remnants (though still considerable) thrown back towards/around Kovno.
  • Russian 5th and 3rd armies clash with the "Silesian Army" between Lodz and Krakow and will have to break away, after some sort of beating though not as devastating, to cover Warsaw after the defeat of the "northern" russians.
Instead of destroying units equivalent of 1 1/2 to 2 armies(most parts of 2nd, some part of 1st and some ... more part of 4th and 5th army) IOTL, ITTL in the same amopunt of time (until 30th August) an equivalent of 2 1/2 to 3 armies are destroyed.

Next round in september will be with now 6 to maybe 7 (don't have all the numbers and dates of availability of all the reserves) (purely) german armies against
7 maybe 8, perhaps even 9 russian armies of which at least 2 are still far from being fully fight-worthy yet.

With this ratio-of-troop and the OTL-performance of russian vs. german troops ... tbh : I am not too afraid for the germans on this front.
I could well see them on a line Memel - Kovno - Grodno - Sjedlice - Lublin- San/Vistula-triangle at the change of 1914/15.

Meanwhile in the west :
The french having no other route to attack as OTL into Lorrain and Alsac and bleed them self white without gaining much of territory, probably/maybe even losing some in front of their fortress line Verdun-Nancy-Toul and Epinal-Belfort.

Some game the germans would be able to play almost indefinitly.

Some other IMO considerable change in such a TL :
IOTL here the russian got some hefty bloody noses from the germans but could at least "claim" the Vistula and Lodz as an "achievement" in not being bashed as at Tannenberg.
ITTL the don't have such a "victory"-equivalent or real victories as conquering Lemberg an most of Galicia and the Bukowina, touching, almost crossing the Carpathians to show to their populace as IOTL.
ITTL the "only" get bloddy noses.

How would the populace and public in Russia ... "like" this ?



Without involvement of others - as stated by the OP - this would in the end result in a german victory with possibly France and Russia "looking" (not "suing"/"begging") for peace shortly before tsarist Russia collapses, resulting in some kind of negotiated peace (maybe brokered by Britain ?).
 

Anchises

Banned
A World War 1 where Germany avoids the BEF, the blockade and the financial and industrial might of Britain ? How is it even a question who would win ?

Sure the absence of A-H on the Eastern Front would complicate things but it is outlandish to assume that Russia could seriously hope to win decisive victories given their OTL performance. The logistical constraints alone would prevent Russia from decisively knocking out and I really doubt that Germany in such a scenario would neglect its Eastern Border region.

Stuff like the ammunition crisis is still going to happen and I just don't see a Brussilov offensive or other (tactical) victories to boast public morale.

For Russia the war is going to feel like initially hitting a brick wall and then slowly being pushed back with escalating casualties.

The Western Front wouldn't look promising for R-F either. If both countries don't go through Belgium we are going to see a massive carnage along the Border. This favors Germany due to population, industrial output and morale.

Realistically the Germans would realize their faulty strategic thinking fairly quick. Once they realize that the feared Russian mobilization isn't going to materialize and that the Russian Empire actually is the "sick man" we would probably see a defensive strategy in the West and a focus on the Eastern Front.

The interesting question is: Will there be a negotiated peace before Russia cracks? If the Germans smell blood in the water they would probably push for something similar to OTLs Brest-Litovsk. And once the Germans have secured their sphere in the East France has no way of gaining anything by continuing the war. A negotiated settlement is likely.
 
@longsword14
Exactly, what I meant. The "Schlieffen"-plan of OTL is far from being of the table.

Problem : Belgium
I don't see how Britain could stay out of the conflict, not aligning itself with on the combattant sides as asked for by the OP...

of this thread.

Despite the OP hand wave I assume that Belgium is a trap that brings in the UK, at most I could see France getting a British nod for a very limited drive through the tiniest corner rather than allowing Germany any such quarter. But I accept the OP might assume that such a minor violation of Belgium is not war triggering for the UK. In any event I think Germany reorients East without the A-H in alliance. Despite the Russian weaknesses the perception is they will be a more dangerous foe here, able to put more force upon Germany, a gamble with only the 8th is a bridge too far. And siphoning off enough Corps to properly defend the East should gut the Western offensive "plan". That gamble is too much with yet even more Corps bled off or more realistically whole Armies. Thus the OP to me is offering a red-herring, Belgium is off the German table.
 
Seems you try - once again - to apply the kind of "1st-grader mathematics" to tactical situations of WW 1 like :
(much ?) MOARE troops along the same (or even shorter) frontline with the same amount of enemy troops defending
equals
safe receipt for victory for the attacker​

Well, exactly and especially Worl War 1 should show you, that this is simply wrong.
Little "exercise" that might show even you some ... misconception in your thinking (dunno how often this has already been done on this board) :
  • "casualty-causing-zone" of an artillery piece : 10x10 meters
  • along a given front there are let's say 5 men per 10 meters positioned
    • one hit of said artillery piece kills 5 men
  • now we assume the russians - or french - place double the numbers in their front : 10 men per 10 meters
    • one hit of said artillery piece kills ... how many men ?? ... .... RIGHT 10 men are killed
And that's the reason, why your rather simplicistic approach of pouring more men against a front results in more "win" is simply wrong.
Even the russians did not have so many troops to let them be killed until the germans run out of any ammo.

In discussing the Battle of the Frontiers I see a misunderstanding of how things play out on the ground. Despite potentially have superiority in men the box is too small to exploit it, rather than swamping the defenses the French offensive supplies meat to a grinder. The math is most usually taught 3 to 1 to give an offense enough power to break a defense, I am uncertain the French can get that superiority and their lack of proper artillery further weakens them. The French doctrine appears designed for sweeping offense in open terrain, a Napoleonic re-hash rather than a sober look at broken, defensible ground and a slow slog against entrenched machineguns with plunging fires only limited by ammunition supply. France is compelled to attack and will suffer badly, not because she is weak or foolish, but she has built the wrong tool for the task. And on the other side folks misunderstand that the Germans are equivalent two for one in effect, they simply had superior training, tactics, leadership and logistics to Russia. Bravery can only take one so far in modern war, steel simply cares not for spirit, the Germans in fact defeated two Russian Armies in East Prussia with her one Army, adding more Germans is not a one for one, as long as Germany can hit half the Russian strength she is not losing, winning is another order of math.
 
Not at all. The Russians have gold coming out the wazoo. They have over two billion rubles in the state bank and the treasury and this doesn't even count the silver they've got stockpiled

Now I would like some idea of what Russia buys. She should have been virtually self-sufficient. She does have gold and the Straights are open. More equipment does not seem to help the Russians but I welcome a discussion as to what she needed and its effect. And I want to hear how she puts purchases to the front, as far as I can tell her logistics chain simply failed despite having the cargo, more stuff does not untie the knot. That said I think Russia is far better off here, whether that translates to a better war is still open. Germany is likely buying fertilizer to keep her agriculture from faltering. Add some rubber and a few other odds and ends and she can sustain herself as she did, only without starving the populace or hollowing out her economy. And I fear that takes barely more than she gave the Ottomans.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Now I would like some idea of what Russia buys. She should have been virtually self-sufficient.
...
From what I've learned so far, they bought :
  • rifles, artillery guns, shells, fuzes, locomotives, etc.
So, all general : finished industrial products. Regarding war material, the Sichomlinov war-ministry administration was rather reluctant in offering contracts to russian producers, because
  • they were (sometimes MUCH) more expensive
  • they were rendered incapable of producing the ordered amounts in the questioned time (capacity)
  • they were rendered unable to produce the necessary quality in their products (capability)
The necessary industrial know-how on almost every level was renderd inadequate - beside some (partial) exeptions like the Putilov-works.

For the transportation problems ... well, some "relief" might come from the open/working ports at the Black Sea. The trains unloaded of grain might transport the delivered industrial goods further north.
However, IOTL the administration of the railways south of the Pripjet-swamps (giving some orientation) was rather a mess, as the various civil as well as military administrations were ... not really cooperative with each other, esp, in that the military administration ignored civil (trade, grain, economy) demands.
 

Deleted member 9338

Getmany is defeated no later than 1916, maybe sooner as Russia has access to food through the Black Sea.
 

kernals12

Banned
Britain is the big winner! Selling everything that isn't bolted down to the highest bidder. Buying Russian grain and selling it to the Germans. Buying German industrial goods and selling it back to the Russians. Building guns and ships for whomever can afford them.
You can't feed your family with reichmark or rouble notes. Diverting capital and labor to produce weapons of war makes countries poorer.
 
Germany manhandles France, who proceeds to bleed herself white conducting "One last Offensive and the Germans will surely crack!" over and over and over into the German Machine Guns, while Germany proceeds to tear Russia apart. I'd say the war ends in late '15, mid '16 at the latest, with a German Victory.
 
You can't feed your family with reichmark or rouble notes. Diverting capital and labor to produce weapons of war makes countries poorer.

Britain isn't fighting a war though. That's everyone else's problem. Britain is getting everyone else to pay for the military goods and isn't diverting anything from the civilian economy.

It would be more like the USA of OTL which went through a huge war time boom.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Getmany is defeated no later than 1916, maybe sooner as Russia has access to food through the Black Sea.
Food was NOT a commodity Russia lacked, not at all.
The problems was : Ruassia was unable (due to a bunch of reasons like railway admin, pricing, etc.) to even remotly properly distribute all the food that actually was there.


...
It would be more like the USA of OTL which went through a huge war time boom.
Oh, ah, ... wait ...
I just see a new conflict on the horizon : UK and US fighting for war goods customers ... :biggrin:

(Just reading a Master's Thesis Paper of 1938 on Wilson_Britain relations, where it's stated, that the US were at that time on the brink or even at the beginning of an economical recession/depression and therefore in dire need of some ... external economic "push-up".)
 
Last edited:

Anchises

Banned
From what I've learned so far, they bought :
  • rifles, artillery guns, shells, fuzes, locomotives, etc.
So, all general : finished industrial products. Regarding war material, the Sichomlinov war-ministry administration was rather reluctant in offering contracts to russian producers, because
  • they were (sometimes MUCH) more expensive
  • they were rendered incapable of producing the ordered amounts in the questioned time (capacity)
  • they were rendered unable to produce the necessary quality in their products (capability)
The necessary industrial know-how on almost every level was renderd inadequate - beside some (partial) exeptions like the Putilov-works.

For the transportation problems ... well, some "relief" might come from the open/working ports at the Black Sea. The trains unloaded of grain might transport the delivered industrial goods further north.
However, IOTL the administration of the railways south of the Pripjet-swamps (giving some orientation) was rather a mess, as the various civil as well as military administrations were ... not really cooperative with each other, esp, in that the military administration ignored civil (trade, grain, economy) demands.

Well I just thought about Russia's munition crisis.

I don't know if Russia had sufficient capital reserves but IOTL they were planning to buy munition in the West but this failed because the capacities in France and GB were exhausted by the Western Front.

ITTL Russia might buy large quantities of munition from GB.

This begs 2 questions:

- How would this would have influenced the financial (and in extension domestic) situation of the Russian Empire?
- Is the Russian transport system able to actually distribute the munition effectively ?
 

BooNZ

Banned
From what I've learned so far, they bought :
  • rifles, artillery guns, shells, fuzes, locomotives, etc.
...

I read an interesting case study on the Russian rifle procurement efforts in the US. Almost immediately following the outbreak of the war, the Russians issued emergency rifle orders with established US arms manufacturers including Remington. To cut a long story short, the US arms manufacturers struggled with mass manufacturing techniques and high Russian build standards, to the extent deliveries were virtually non-existent through 1915. Ultimately Russian expertise and oversight was needed by the US manufacturers to remedy the systemic deficiencies. Soon after, the Russian empire collapsed.

Based on the above, munitions are the only war materials the Russians are likely to be actually receiving before 1916.
 
From what I've learned so far, they bought :
  • rifles, artillery guns, shells, fuzes, locomotives, etc.
So, all general : finished industrial products. Regarding war material, the Sichomlinov war-ministry administration was rather reluctant in offering contracts to russian producers, because
  • they were (sometimes MUCH) more expensive
  • they were rendered incapable of producing the ordered amounts in the questioned time (capacity)
  • they were rendered unable to produce the necessary quality in their products (capability)
The necessary industrial know-how on almost every level was renderd inadequate - beside some (partial) exeptions like the Putilov-works.

For the transportation problems ... well, some "relief" might come from the open/working ports at the Black Sea. The trains unloaded of grain might transport the delivered industrial goods further north.
However, IOTL the administration of the railways south of the Pripjet-swamps (giving some orientation) was rather a mess, as the various civil as well as military administrations were ... not really cooperative with each other, esp, in that the military administration ignored civil (trade, grain, economy) demands.

Thank you for that. Assuming the Russians can sort the flow of goods then this is a boon to their war effort, I am uncertain it is enough to offset the morale bashing a lack of victory is crafting. At best I see Russia seek a settled peace, she likely has lost little territory and has enough internal unrest to warrant a graceful exit before the Czar is put on the block.
 
I'd say there would be a stalemate in Western Front around German and French border most likely, but the Eastern Front would have been similar. The fighting would take more in German territories as they did with East Prussia but maybe in Posen, Breslau and Danzing regions as well. Just like in our timeline, the Germans would push the Russians out with many disadvantages that the Russian Army had. With Eastern Front being more vulnerable, the Germans focus on defensive positions in French border and France attempts to invade Germany but it's manpower gets slaughtered by machine guns. Germany, without the British blockade, manages to get supplies and resources overboard and with it's good railway network, the army is more organized and manages to push into Russia. The Russians would have more men to fight the Germans and are able to resist more and take more German casualties but they eventually still retreat. The Germans would capture major cities like Minsk, Kiev and perhaps Riga as well. They would try attempting to take Petrograd and Moscow as well, but the offensive would be stopped around Pskov-Smolensk area due to overstretched lines and lack of railroads in Russian occupied territory to provide for German troops. The Germans would as well, not be able to take Southern Ukraine since their interests would be in Northern Russia. Not only the troops are lacking supplies due to lack of railroads, they also have to deal with the Russian winter as well and we know how that turned out for Napoleon, and Hitler. Some people in an occupied territory would welcome the Germans usch as Poles, Lithuanians and etc. But the Germans would have to deal with Belorussian and maybe even Ukrainian partisans which would revolt more frequently. The Cossacks who remain in the occupied territory would raid the German military camps and cause trouble for supplies to the Germans since they'd wage a guerrilla warfare. Many innocent civilians would be rounded up and be accused of helping Cossacks and partisans. A genocide could be even possible. The Russians, seeing the opportunity as Germans face many difficulties, would surround and blockade the German armies due to the knowledge of geography and landscape in their home front. Because of this, the Germans are in a terrible situation and the rest of the army would retreat due to inability to fight in these conditions. The Russians would retake lands but they would eventually deal with stronger German defenses in Polish and Baltic territory. Peace negotiation could be possible since the Russians would still face high casualties if they'd continue to fight Germans in Poland with very little gains. The war would have been a stalemate with a slight French/Russian victory.

aICfJtT.png


This is how the front, for me, would look.
 
Last edited:
Unless the Entente cordiale has changed the goal of guarding the French Channel ports falls to the RN

Um... Have you read the OP and context of this thread? There is no Royal Navy involvement for said duty to fall on. France is alone in the Atlantic, though to be fair they'd also be able to bring up their main naval force from the Med. given Germany has no way to project power in that region. Given that the High Seas Fleet also would need to keep an eye on the Russian Baltic Fleet (Which, while in the early months of the war is still being refitted/rebuilt after basically getting destroyed during the Russo-Japanese War will given time be able to sail out with a full compliment of state-of-the-art vessels) and lacks supplied bases further afield than those in its home waters though, and even if they can deal the French a decisive blow in the Channel they don't have the capacity to get much further than that.

Well I just thought about Russia's munition crisis.

I don't know if Russia had sufficient capital reserves but IOTL they were planning to buy munition in the West but this failed because the capacities in France and GB were exhausted by the Western Front.

ITTL Russia might buy large quantities of munition from GB.

This begs 2 questions:

- How would this would have influenced the financial (and in extension domestic) situation of the Russian Empire?
- Is the Russian transport system able to actually distribute the munition effectively ?

Everybody ended up with a bit of a munitions crisis after the first few months of the war: nobody expected just how much the demands of trench warfare would place on the reserves of shells compared to how quickly the munitions contracts they had could refresh the supplies. As for Russia (and, indeed, France and Germany as well) purchasing their ammunition abroad, I personally question just how large of a quantity of finished war goods are going to be available on the international market for purchase without G.B implementing a major government policy of retooling its industry as part of the war effort. As several other posters have pointed out, it takes alot of time (months to years) and industrial expertise in order to convert civilian industry so it can effectively produce things like rifles, so even if private initiatives lead to vastly expanded production there's going to be a bottleneck for a solid chunk of the early war (and, afterwards, the expected payoff for the private bussinesses is going to be less and less and state-mandated shifts in French, German, and Russian industry towards meeting their own war needs and the comparative advantages created by hours, war wages, currency differences as wartime inflation sets in ect. limits the rise in prices), leading to a "bidding war" of all the belligerents to get contracts for the scarce but vital goods whatever the price tag. In those circumstances, Russia would quickly get the short end of the stick as France and Germany can afford to pay more; forcing Russia to either go without (and thus having a major military disadvantage) or divert an even bigger share of her internal transport network and heavy industry capacity into directly fashioning war equipment, causing a quicker break-down of her domestic economy as maintenance of her quality of life and basic infrastructure would suffer

You can't feed your family with reichmark or rouble notes. Diverting capital and labor to produce weapons of war makes countries poorer.
'

Actually you can. Granted, you do so less effectively when the rate of your wage increases is less than inflation's effect on the price of food, but fundimentally society places some value on the production of war material as a guranteer of safety/security and a hedge against the even greater lose of wealth of NOT having them when you need them. This is particularly true when violent conflict is either seen as likely in the near future or already coming/arrived since, to use an old adage: You may not be interested in the war, but the war is VERY interested in you.

After all, the capital and labor "lost" in producing that bullet you fired into the other fellow to your society is less than that lost if he is allowed to keep shooting and kills or wounds one of your citizens, who's future productivity is thus lost, or destroys/captures property.
 

BooNZ

Banned
The Russians would have more men to fight the Germans and are able to resist more and take more German casualties but they eventually still retreat.
To remain an army in being, the Russians would need to retreat sooner rather than later after initial defeats.
 
Last edited:

BooNZ

Banned
The Germans would capture major cities like Minsk, Kiev and perhaps Riga as well. They would try attempting to take Petrograd and Moscow as well, but the offensive would be stopped around Pskov-Smolensk area due to overstretched lines and lack of railroads in Russian occupied territory to provide for German troops. The Germans would as well, not be able to take Southern Ukraine since their interests would be in Northern Russia. Not only the troops are lacking supplies due to lack of railroads, they also have to deal with the Russian winter as well and we know how that turned out for Napoleon, and Hitler. Some people in an occupied territory would welcome the Germans usch as Poles, Lithuanians and etc. But the Germans would have to deal with Belorussian and maybe even Ukrainian partisans which would revolt more frequently. The Cossacks who remain in the occupied territory would raid the German military camps and cause trouble for supplies to the Germans since they'd wage a guerrilla warfare. Many innocent civilians would be rounded up and be accused of helping Cossacks and partisans. A genocide could be even possible. The Russians, seeing the opportunity as Germans face many difficulties, would surround and blockade the German armies due to the knowledge of geography and landscape in their home front. Because of this, the Germans are in a terrible situation and the rest of the army would retreat due to inability to fight in these conditions. The Russians would retake lands but they would eventually deal with stronger German defenses in Polish and Baltic territory. Peace negotiation could be possible since the Russians would still face high casualties if they'd continue to fight Germans in Poland with very little gains. The war would have been a stalemate with a slight French/Russian victory.

Imperial Germany should not be confused with Nazi Germany, or Napoleon.

Imperial Germany was far stronger with significantly more rail expertise and resources than Nazi Germany. It did not have a Barbarossa plan on the books, but it had a firm grasp of logistics as it applied to rail and horse. Imperial Germany will have no expectation of destroying Russia in a single campaign. The Russians had no shortage of railways, but their quality and management was not optimal. OTL the Nazis managed to co-opt the Soviet rail infrastructure relatively quickly (full conversion mid 1943), so I doubt this would be a problem for a slower advancing and better resourced Imperial Germany.

The WWII Soviets partisans were substantially a product of Nazi brutality, coupled with Soviet material and moral support. In this scenario Imperial Germany is no shackled to a warped ideology, nor absolute economic scarcities to turn local 'Russian' populations against them to the same extent. I doubt Imperial Russia has the means to promote partisan activities to the same extent as the Soviets, although Okhrana was world class. A German advance through Russia will be challenging and military occupations are rarely sweetness and light, but ultimately victory in the east is well within the capabilities of Imperial Germany.

Notwithstanding the above, the absence of A-H in this scenario makes an advance into the Ukraine logistically challenging. The Cossack heartlands are also in the Ukraine and they have a vested interest in the survival of Imperial Russian regime, so things have the potential to get messy. I would expect the Germans to initially focus on advancing further North (closer to Baltic) with a view to securing Petrograd and Moscow, before turning to the Ukraine some time in 1917, if Imperial Russia somehow remained standing.
 
The Russian railway system in Poland and close to their German front was as far as I've read a complete shambles. I fail to understand how folks think multiple Russian armies are going to be properly supplied in Poland or further into German territory. I also don't think the Germans will advance too deep into Russian territory. I think they will at least for the first year limit themselves to cautious advances and counterpunches on both fronts. In the second/third year provided one opponent seems closer to cracking I expect more weight thrown on them to finish the fight.

Other things I'd expect:
1. The Russian Baltic fleet is devastated or bottled up and German warships shell/raid positions and towns on the coast.

2. Northern France is blockaded as due to the OP conditions a blockade will not bring in Britain. I'd expect many French ports to be wrecked.

3. Colonial sideshow. Probably even less so than in OTL.

4. Asian fleets. Not sure what France has in Asia. Either one fleet obliterates the other or we have it scatter and raid shipping.

I think it would be a bloody drawn out fight which exhausts all combatants. I expect Germany emerges victorious but with nothing more than minor territorial adjustments in either direction and maybe a small indemnity. If an opponent collapses, that opponent will be completely crippled however.
 
Top