WI: Alternate German Chief of the General Staff?

BlondieBC

Banned
I see it (with hindsight) as a far more effective strategy. The Germans had their military attache observations; which while remarking on the rapid growth of the Russian army where also stinging in their appreciation of the Russian ability to command that force. Via their industrial investments in Russia, they also had detailed knowledge about Russia's lack of industrial war making potential. So the markers where there for the Germans to appreciate Russia as a large but beatable enemy

Russian soldiers where sent to the front often with no boots or field kitchens in 1914 because their mobilization plans where so poorly organized and commanded; a well developed assault with the striking power of the German and Austrian army at the outset would likely have given the Russians a very rough handling

The follow on question is can Russia's political collapse occur sooner than 1917 if the primary effort is made against them from the outset

Might move it up one year. Russia was running out of food, and this was a big factor in the fall. So a lot depends upon how the war goes. From the military perspective, the Central Powers want to take the food growing regions quickly, but not fast enough the Russians can't evacuate the civilians. Now this goes against the other desired to capture/destroy Russian armies which wants to take things fast. The Germans really have to decide if there strategy is the destruction of the Russian military or the undermining of the Russian government.
 
Confederate artillery at Gettysburg had 100 rpg issued on the third day. They massed 115-140 guns in support of Pickett's charge and fired off their units of fire in 40 minutes.
 
Might move it up one year. Russia was running out of food, and this was a big factor in the fall. So a lot depends upon how the war goes. From the military perspective, the Central Powers want to take the food growing regions quickly, but not fast enough the Russians can't evacuate the civilians. Now this goes against the other desired to capture/destroy Russian armies which wants to take things fast. The Germans really have to decide if there strategy is the destruction of the Russian military or the undermining of the Russian government.

If the Russians are rushed forward so carelessly as they where in 1914 and are facing 4 German Armies instead of 1; their attacking forces, due to poor tactical deployment, poor command competence, starvation and sore feet would likely be compelled to be taken prisoner in large numbers
 

BooNZ

Banned
Might move it up one year. Russia was running out of food, and this was a big factor in the fall. So a lot depends upon how the war goes. From the military perspective, the Central Powers want to take the food growing regions quickly, but not fast enough the Russians can't evacuate the civilians. Now this goes against the other desired to capture/destroy Russian armies which wants to take things fast. The Germans really have to decide if there strategy is the destruction of the Russian military or the undermining of the Russian government.
Was this an actual consideration or something you deduced? Ultimately the CP advance in the east will be limited by the rate railways can be captured, rehabilitated, repaired and constructed. Logistics would slow down the CP powers more than the dregs of the Russian military.
 
Thanks for the info.



However, only after 1905 they did in fact move away from the alliance with Germany and A-H.
T
There's never an alliance. Salisbury would try and use the Triple Alliance as leverage against France and Russia.

In the period from Nicholas ascension to the Morocco crisis, there are no tensions on the continent

The British reject the idea of an alliance with Germany and move to Entente with France. It begins as part of the effort to contain Russia- the Japanese alliance, the entente serve to break the Franco-Russian alliance against Britain

The anti-German angle comes latter.
 
T
There's never an alliance. Salisbury would try and use the Triple Alliance as leverage against France and Russia.

In the period from Nicholas ascension to the Morocco crisis, there are no tensions on the continent

The British reject the idea of an alliance with Germany and move to Entente with France. It begins as part of the effort to contain Russia- the Japanese alliance, the entente serve to break the Franco-Russian alliance against Britain

The anti-German angle comes latter.

The Balkan wars?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Was this an actual consideration or something you deduced? Ultimately the CP advance in the east will be limited by the rate railways can be captured, rehabilitated, repaired and constructed. Logistics would slow down the CP powers more than the dregs of the Russian military.

We are discussing potential strategies not used IOTL, so I think that should answer your question. I thin the wording on my post is pretty clear.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
If the Russians are rushed forward so carelessly as they where in 1914 and are facing 4 German Armies instead of 1; their attacking forces, due to poor tactical deployment, poor command competence, starvation and sore feet would likely be compelled to be taken prisoner in large numbers

Likely the Russians will stop about the Bug
 

BooNZ

Banned
Would large scale encirclement/surrender plus being driven back to the bug cause political unrest out of the gate in 1914?
In my opinion Entente solidarity would be a casualty before political unrest becomes an issue. In a CP head east scenario, aside from a few symbolic wins by Serbia, the Entente are not going to taste anything reassembling a battlefield victory until 1916 at the earliest.

While the CP efforts are focused on grinding the Russian forces to paste, the French will be struggling to make an impact across a narrow and easily defended Franco-German border. The British armies will either be sitting at home or meddling in Russian/French spheres on interest in the Ottoman empire, while the Italians will be seated firmly on the sidelines. To relieve pressure on the Russians, the French will be compelled into ongoing bloody offensives before they have effective equipment or doctrines.

In the above circumstances, from a Russian perspective the burden of war is being borne by Imperial Russia, while its western allies provides ineffectual assistance. A separate peace between Russia and the CP powers might be seriously considered. From an Anglo-French perspective, the possibility/prospect of a separate Russian peace is likely to provoke them to contemplate the same. Britain specifically owes no loyalty to Russia and would happily throw Russia under the bus to preserve the status quo in the west - and Britain is likely to be in a position of influence if France and Russia have both exhausted their armies through 1914-1915.
 
Would large scale encirclement/surrender plus being driven back to the bug cause political unrest out of the gate in 1914?

Very difficult to organize an encirclement on the offensive in WW1, much easier if the enemy marches into it.

The Germans really have to decide if there strategy is the destruction of the Russian military or the undermining of the Russian government.

I don't think anyone in power thought of making campaign plans designed to undermine the government, they wanted to defeat the armies in the field. Of course there were only 2 of 10 Russian armies opposite EP in the first 6 weeks of a war, limiting the opportunities available.
 
The march speed of WW I is the man on foot. Figure 1 m/s. Panzers in WW II was 10x that, or about the speed of a 14th century Mongol army. Guess what the march speed of the early WW II Russian army is? That is why all those cockamamie Lend Lease trucks were sent. Faster tactical speed is one key factor in avoiding encirclement.

Very difficult to organize an encirclement on the offensive in WW1, much easier if the enemy marches into it.

(^^^) What he said.
 
In theory cavalry divisions could do an encirclement, or assist with one, but they never managed it in 1914.
 
In theory cavalry divisions could do an encirclement, or assist with one, but they never managed it in 1914.

8inSomme16.jpg


Might be a problem?
 
In theory cavalry divisions could do an encirclement, or assist with one, but they never managed it in 1914.

The Russians where periodically immobilized by starvation, command squabbling and sore feet which allowed German infantry to flow around them and compel their surrender or conduct panicked retreats. If the Russians do the reckless unsupplied attacks in 1914. German cav could help flow around them and set up pickets to compel larger scale surrenders or raid farther to the rear
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Very difficult to organize an encirclement on the offensive in WW1, much easier if the enemy marches into it.



I don't think anyone in power thought of making campaign plans designed to undermine the government, they wanted to defeat the armies in the field. Of course there were only 2 of 10 Russian armies opposite EP in the first 6 weeks of a war, limiting the opportunities available.

Agreed on no longer term plans. It is why we have to discuss with a good bit of analysis to determine the ATL where there is a longer run War Plan. It is also a big portion of why France, not Russia was the preferred target. It is a lot easier to imagine a quick German win around Paris, not Moscow.

Also interesting that even in a Russia First War Plan, the second year of the war may still be about knocking France out of the war.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
The Russians where periodically immobilized by starvation, command squabbling and sore feet which allowed German infantry to flow around them and compel their surrender or conduct panicked retreats. If the Russians do the reckless unsupplied attacks in 1914. German cav could help flow around them and set up pickets to compel larger scale surrenders or raid farther to the rear

Cav is hard to coordinate due to poor communications when we get this open a battle.
 
Cav is hard to coordinate due to poor communications when we get this open a battle.

German cav, to my knowledge had been trained for deep independent operations and encirclements; and they where equipped with carrier pigeons; and during annual maneuvers there were pioneer companies attached to them that basically did nothing but string telephone and telegraph lines behind them

Certainly a far cry from ww2 tank battalions getting to the rear of the enemy; but still more able to communicate than the ACW for sure
 
Top