WI - More Successful Brusilov Offensive?

OTL’s Brusilov Offensive proved to be quite successful but what if it had been a much more decisive Russian victory?

What could be done? Having General Evert actually launch his part of the offensive? Russian commanders further exploiting their victories such as the one at Lutsk?

What effects could this have on the CP and the Entente? Could it cause AH’s collapse in 1916-17? Could the World War end in Germany being forced to sue for peace as her allies collapse?
 
After reading through my copy of Prit Buttar’s “Russia’s Last Gasp: The Eastern Front, 1916-17.”, I think I found a few reasons as to why the Brusilov Offensive wasn’t a more decisive victory:
  • A strict adherence to Brusilov’s original plan, meaning that many didn’t make the effort to further exploit their victories.
  • General Alexei Evert refusing to follow Brusilov’s plan and instead offering other alternatives.
If anyone is willing to offer other reasons, I’d be happy to hear them.
 

Deleted member 94680

The problem is (apart from Evert) the Brusilov Offensive achieved all it could realistically manage.

The methodology behind it was so different, so new, so ‘dangerous’ (to many in the Stavka) that the likelihood of it being carried forward was pretty slim. Even Brusilov himself went back to ‘normal’ Russian tactics later on and never repeated his ideas.

Norman Stone’s The Eastern Front makes it pretty clear that incompetence and graft in the Russian military would prevent a ‘new way of working’ (as it were) from taking hold without radical changes that the Tsarist system just wouldn’t countenance. The way I see it, Brusilov only managed to get his ideas implemented as a kind of ‘one shot deal’ to break the deadlock and turn the tide. The assumption seemed to be, “once we’re on the move again we can get back to normal”.
 
The methodology behind it was so different, so new, so ‘dangerous’ (to many in the Stavka) that the likelihood of it being carried forward was pretty slim. Even Brusilov himself went back to ‘normal’ Russian tactics later on and never repeated his ideas.

Norman Stone’s The Eastern Front makes it pretty clear that incompetence and graft in the Russian military would prevent a ‘new way of working’ (as it were) from taking hold without radical changes that the Tsarist system just wouldn’t countenance. The way I see it, Brusilov only managed to get his ideas implemented as a kind of ‘one shot deal’ to break the deadlock and turn the tide. The assumption seemed to be, “once we’re on the move again we can get back to normal”.
Could Brusilov’s tactics be implemented permanently and throughout the Imperial Russian Army or would there be continued offensives similar to those around Lake Naroch?
 
Top