WI Better Austro-Hungarian Performance 1914?


1. Agreed. Greater budget would mean more of everything, both men and equipment, and would make A-H standing army not as fragile force as they were OTL.

2. I am frankly unsure of this. I doubt that it will be accepted into service, due to conservatism of the A-H command, and it seems that money could be better spent elsewhere. Type of rifle soldiers are armed is not a deciding factor in a war, especially a modern war such as WW1, where roughly 70% of the casualties was caused by artillery. There was nothing wrong with their M95s, except maybe the cartridge was a bit outdated, but keeping that 8x50R cartridge enabled them to press into service roughly a million older rifles, like the M88s, which meant they had enough arms to share to everyone until more modern weapons were produced in sufficient quantity. If you want better performance from A-H infantry, greater numbers of MGs would do, as well as some sort of better training.

3. Very much in agreement. Without him Russians are going in blind, while A-H command has not had its confidence shaken, does not have to rapidly change its plans, and has a greater amount of trust in its intelligence services.

4. Well, I would say that Russia is the primary enemy, while Italy can be held off. Even OTL, Borojević managed to do so, with extremly limited resources at his disposal, and in ATL where A-H is not crippled right from the start, I would say that they should not have any problems holding their own against the Italians. As for anexations, I am not sure they are willing to do so, maybe some minor border corrections, getting more advantageus positions in the case of a second war, but no large scale anexations, simply because they do not want any more minorities. If they manage to smash Russia hard enough, maybe we could see perhaps Ukraine separated from Russia, and a friendly king put on the throne, to serve as buffer zone as well as grainary of sorts.

5. Well, that is doable, create it out of Polish lands carved out of Russia, ensuring a friendly state as well as a buffer zone towards any possible Russian resurgence.

Greatest need that the army has is for modern heavy artillery, in sufficient numbers, to be introduced as quickly as possible. They did use artillery tractors before the war, and argument can be made that these tractors will be cheaper in the long term then horses, so that A-H artillery becomes less reliant on horsepower, and horses are less scarce resource, which can then be shifted elsewhere, either to other branches of the military, or into the civilian economy. Motor vehicles could also appear in greater numbers, generally for supply purposes, using the OTL subsidy scheme earlier and on a greater scale, where civilians could buy trucks with help from the military, but military had the right to take those trucks in case of war. More observers and military ataches should be used to see what the foreign armies are doing, and hopefully some good ideas are copied and implemented in the army. Things like more MGs per battalion (Germany and Russia), planning to build armored trains if war comes (as Germany did), greater use of aircraft for reconaissance, adoption of universal short rifle (G.Britain, USA), adoption of hand Grenades (as Russia did in 1912), testing armored cars and ordering small test batches (Italy used armored cars in 1912 Italo-Turkish war), or perhaps expanding upon the 1905 Daimler Panzer Motor?

Navy too could do with some additional ships, OTL they planned to lay down 6 more Tatra class destroyers, and funding was approved in May of 1914, but war put a stop to that. More light units such as destroyers and various TBs and perhaps a few more submarines could do wonders for the A-H navy.

Airforce especially could do with a boost, it was a really neglected service, and with even small increases in funding, they could expand substantially.
 
Last edited:
Top