WI WW1 was 20 years later then in OTL?

hmm, well that would be interesting. Without WWI, there would be no tanks, or if they existed it would be very primitive. Ditto with Aircraft Carriers. Airplanes would be about the same as they would be historically, just a bit worse. With no major wars it could be assumed that the tactics of mass waves would still be used and the same trench warfare slaughter would occur. Some nations might be a bit wiser form wars in colonies, or maybe a few minor european wars between balkan nations, that would be bound to happen. You could basically see a repeat of WWI with more destruction on Civillian populations from the air. Also, the Ottoman Empire, Imperial Russia, and Austria Hungry could have split up by then from internal pressure. So lots of what ifs.
 
I'm not sure how that would be possible without ASBs, but what if WW1 broke out in 1934 instead of 1914?
Germany needed a war in 1914, and needed it quickly before Russia get its act together and could steam-roller it.

hmm, well that would be interesting. Without WWI, there would be no tanks, or if they existed it would be very primitive.
Why? The technology exists and some bright spark may have gotten funding to do this. After all, once the internal combustion engine and caterpillar-tracks become available, and armoured and mobile artillery piece becomes very valuable

Ditto with Aircraft Carriers.
Eh? how did WWI create carriers?

Airplanes would be about the same as they would be historically, just a bit worse.
Reasoning?

With no major wars it could be assumed that the tactics of mass waves would still be used and the same trench warfare slaughter would occur. Some nations might be a bit wiser form wars in colonies, or maybe a few minor european wars between balkan nations, that would be bound to happen.
I'm not sure that the great powers would have learnt anything from the colonies or Balkan nations, they would have dismissed most findings as involving inferior armies ( as they did pre-1914)

You could basically see a repeat of WWI with more destruction on Civillian populations from the air.
Not sure, it depends upon what happened to military doctrine in those years...

Also, the Ottoman Empire, Imperial Russia, and Austria Hungry could have split up by then from internal pressure. So lots of what ifs.
Erm, not really.... the split up of the Ottoman Empire is long-shot and A-H even more so... and why on earth would Russia have split up, it didn't after 1905, and took 3 years of awful war to just get rid of the Tzar?
 
Why? The technology exists and some bright spark may have gotten funding to do this. After all, once the internal combustion engine and caterpillar-tracks become available, and armoured and mobile artillery piece becomes very valuable
Well the problem with this reasoning is that the use of tanks isn't prevented by technological reasons, it was psychological reasons. Army officers were in love with cavalry, it took having thousand upon thousands of mounted soldiers getting massacred to finally get the military leadership of western nations to see common sense. One could argue that the repeating rifle should have spelled the end of the mounted calvary charge, but military officers can be pretty hard headed sometimes. So until you actually get large masses of soldiers charging to their deaths against fixed machine gun positions you are probably not going to see the military leadership in europe or elsewhere adopt armored warfare.

Reasoning?

Well air warfare for the first few decades of the 20th century, and do a degree a few more still was a trial and error process, dog fighting started with pilots taking pistols with them up in the air and shooting at each other during the great war and evolved into heavy machine guns being mounted on airplanes. I don't see a reason why militaries of the world seeing aircraft acting as more than simple reconaissance platforms without the realities of battle teaching them otherwise.
 
Aeroplanes would be a lot less advanced. Pre 1914 they were a a hobby for Rich adventurers it took world war one and the mass production and mass investment in research to get the aeroplane industry going. Simply put without a major war funding for the industry will be rich eccentrics and the occasional experimental unit in armed forces, not the RAF.
Re: Cavalry no one thought that mounted soldiers could survive on the modern battlefield, all cavalry units were intended to be used as dragoons, i.e. using horses to advance to battle and then fight on foot. As it turned out trench warfare meant they never got a chance after November 1914 in the West but both the Russians and the Germans used cavalry quite successfully in the East and the Russians even used them in WW2. Truck development was more dictated by commercial pressures so by 1934 you should see experimental motorized units in most Western Armies, similar to this though probably with Armoured cars rather than Tanks.
 

Redbeard

Banned
Actually I think that we might have arrived earlier at motorised and mobile warfare earlier than in OTL.

OTL WWI happened at a time when firepower and strategic mobility (railways and steamships)had tremedously increased, but tactical and operational mobility (combustion engine) hadn't yet. If we postpone the war by 20 years there is a good chance that combustion engine technology has matured enough to support mobile warfare. OTL WWI was a freaky break in a natural development prodcing freaky focus on how to break the freaky stalemates seen in OTL WWI.

The idea of an armoured fighting vehichle was by no means new by OTL WWI -as soon as a relaible and strong combustion engine is available, it will spread as wildfire. Probably light and fast, some with tracks, others on wheels, and predominantly for deep penetrations and flanking movements. That is quite well in context with traditional cavalry roles, and would rather be seen as the saviour of the cavalry arm than a threat. By early 20th century it had long since been recognised that horsed cavalry did not have an independent or decisive battlefield role any longer, but was relegated to supporting the other services - mainly by recon. This was well underway allready during Napoleonic wars.

Some armies will let the new motorised "cavalry" operate by themselves, they will have a serious disadvantage as did armies letting their horsed cavalry loose. Others will understand to have the services co-operate - they might produce "blitzkrieg" ahead of OTL. The biggest difference would be the absense of reliable radios on the vehicles, but the idea of having firepower (horse batteries) co-operate with cavalry was old and well proven.

In the air the advantage of observation planes would be obvious, as would the idea of negating the enemy this advantage by shooting down his observating planes. Most determining would be the maturing of engine technology (which developed surprisingly little in OTL WWI) and I imagine the planes of this 1934 not being that different from OTL 1934 planes. The colonial empires will have obvious advantages from using light bombers and patrol aircraft to police the empire and suppress rebellions. So the idea of having planes support army operations would not be absent. Long before radar and reliable radios onboard fighter aircraft the strategic bomber will be very difficult to intercept, and this ATL probably will overestimate the effect of bombing as much as OTL interwar years.

On the seas I think we will see a lot more battlecruisers - fast, well armed, very big and with minimal protection. As long as you don't have very volatile propellant and incautious handling procedures that will not necessarily be a big problem. At sea the advantage of airborne observation and recon, and negating that to the enemy, will be at least as obvious as on land. The idea of having planes drop torpedoes to slow down an enemy so your capital ships can catch up and finish the job is logical too. I'm not sure the idea of a big massed airstrike like USN WWII will advance beyond the heads of some excentric junior officers however. But airforce generals might, also in this TL, convince politicians that they can hit and destroy capital ships with level bombers.

In OTL medium AA guns like the mulitible 2pdr. or 40mm Bofors were developed in the early 30s, but lacked funding to be in widespread service. If an early 30s crisis means strong AA batteries on warships - naval airpower actually may experience a setback. The technology for putting up a massive barrage was present, but the planes would still be flimsy 200 mph biplanes. We are still far from 1000+ hp aero engines needed to have the really efficient WWII like planes.

Submarines will mainly be seen as fleet weapons - small ones to operate in confined waters and big ones on the open seas in close co-operation with the battlefleets.

In logistics the railway will still be the main fundament, and to what extend the truck will replace the horse will mainly depend on how the agricultural sector develop in the various nations. Short of a WWI I could imagine a more widespread mechanisation of agriculture in early 20th century. That would drastically reduce the number of horses available for military mobilisation and thus necessisate motorisation.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Actually I think that we might have arrived earlier at motorised and mobile warfare earlier than in OTL.

Hmmm, do you mean in some type of limited fashion? Someone mentioned the likelihood of some colonial conflicts and some Balkan fights so I think you would probably see some kind of limited inclusion of the technology into the fights. Without a world war to forced the issue I'm not sure any real or major strategy could develop as I see military leadership very hesitant if not hostile to inclusion of machines with manpower. Possible though ... just might have tanks (or whatever they would be called by then) more like primitive OTL WW2 ones.

OTL WWI was a freaky break in a natural development prodcing freaky focus on how to break the freaky stalemates seen in OTL WWI.

Yes, I think tanks of this TL would not have a real focused use and a large spectrum of types and uses might negate their effectiveness early in such a conflict. As the war progressed (or regressed I suppose) nations would work out how best to use what.

Probably light and fast, some with tracks, others on wheels, and predominantly for deep penetrations and flanking movements.

Others will understand to have the services co-operate - they might produce "blitzkrieg" ahead of OTL. The biggest difference would be the absense of reliable radios on the vehicles,

Hmmmm ... I'm not convinced that a 'blitzkrieg' strategy would even be conceived before commanders see the mass slaughter in front of there eyes. I'm not sure you would even see armored units grouped together really. I can see forces just attaching fighting vehicals to infantry for scouting, close combat protection, and other minor roles without ever seeing a need for armored divisions. I think the/a war will change that very quickly mind you. I suppose it can be argued that if units and armies have even limited armored forces that the trench stalemate could be avoided anyway. I hadn't thought of the impact of an absence of radios. That only makes me think even more that armies might just scatter armored forces somewhat like France in 1940.

The colonial empires will have obvious advantages from using light bombers and patrol aircraft to police the empire and suppress rebellions. So the idea of having planes support army operations would not be absent. Long before radar and reliable radios onboard fighter aircraft the strategic bomber will be very difficult to intercept, and this ATL probably will overestimate the effect of bombing as much as OTL interwar years.

Yes, see it the very same way.

On the seas I think we will see a lot more battlecruisers - fast, well armed, very big and with minimal protection. ...

... I'm not sure the idea of a big massed airstrike like USN WWII will advance beyond the heads of some excentric junior officers however.

Yeah, I don't think air power and the navy are going to have much luck in mixing into the domain of big guns on big ships. I think such a conflict is going to see major major sea battles (ship to ship) the likes of which we can only imagine. Germany is going to have time to close the gap with Britain. I'm not sure how many resources the French have to devote to naval matters but the Brits might be forced to coordinate a naval strategy with her allies to keep the numbers advantage over Germany.


Submarines will mainly be seen as fleet weapons - small ones to operate in confined waters and big ones on the open seas in close co-operation with the battlefleets.

Do you mean as to act as a screen much like the 'rings' kept around modern battle groups? I can see submarine technology becoming very important to such a war with devastating effects if such a route is only taken. But was there anyone in naval circles who had incentive to push the submarine?


The technology is one thing but the diplomacy involved in a two decade delay is another. What's the alliance and politics situation going to look like. The Triple Alliance would seem to be more weak than it was in OTL WW1. After the death of FJ, is there any real hope that Austria can stay together? The slavic regions would be all too happy to opt out of the empire and if they go, then Hungary will probably just go 100% independent. If A-H falls from being a major power then even the post-Bismarck cocky gruff German foreign policy is going to have to change. Is there time or the will for them to woo Britain, or change their situation? Not sure in such a Europe would Germany go to war at all so it calls into question what would have to happen to spark this 1930's WW.
 
Biltzkrieg was originally invented in the 1890's by a brit, much like heavier-than-air powered flight.
 
Yeah, I don't think air power and the navy are going to have much luck in mixing into the domain of big guns on big ships. I think such a conflict is going to see major major sea battles (ship to ship) the likes of which we can only imagine. Germany is going to have time to close the gap with Britain. I'm not sure how many resources the French have to devote to naval matters but the Brits might be forced to coordinate a naval strategy with her allies to keep the numbers advantage over Germany.

.............

Do you mean as to act as a screen much like the 'rings' kept around modern battle groups? I can see submarine technology becoming very important to such a war with devastating effects if such a route is only taken. But was there anyone in naval circles who had incentive to push the submarine?

Actually there is no way for the Germans to close the gap with Britain without the British doing something about it. The size of the Reichsmarine is legislatively set by the Reichstag, while the size of the Royal Navy is not.

As historically, it will be the British that will experiment and be the initial innovators with the submarine and naval aviation. The Royal Navy, and some in the Admiralty, will continue to look at alternative and cheaper means of obtaining naval dominance without the expense of a modern battleship. Fisher had developed the concept of the 'flotilla defense' system (I can't recall the correct name right now) which was centered around submarines and fast torpedo boats backed up by battlecruisers.
 
I remember a quote from Ian Hogg's book on anti-aircraft artillery, it was from a Major Hawkins writing in the Royal Naval Journal several years before the war and was to the effect that the battleship would be replaced as the leading capital ship by aeroplane carriers, which would use long range aircraft armed with aerial torpedoes to attack enemy fleets. About the only thing he got wrong was that he predicted that they would be seaplane carriers and would winch their planes into the water for take off.

He also predicted the air to surface missile in 1912.
 
Actually there is no way for the Germans to close the gap with Britain without the British doing something about it. The size of the Reichsmarine is legislatively set by the Reichstag, while the size of the Royal Navy is not.

Hmmmm ... Seems I read where there was starting to be some reservations about the continued increased funding for keeping the lead in capital ships. Perhaps that was simply when the RN was trying to stay double the next power. Still though, it would seem that if they wanted, the Germans had more room to expand their shipbuilding than the British ... but I agree that the British are not going to sit by and watch the historical soul be compromised. I realize there were always epic battles in the Reichstag over the Naval Laws but your saying that they would halt or stop Germany eventually without catching the UK? Does that create a chance for some type of reapproachment between the two (especially if Germany is courting due to a likely collapse of A-H?)? Does such a victory or challenge in the Reichstag have a chance at leading to some important changes in German democracy?

As historically, it will be the British that will experiment and be the initial innovators with the submarine and naval aviation. ... Fisher had developed the concept of the 'flotilla defense' system (I can't recall the correct name right now) which was centered around submarines and fast torpedo boats backed up by battlecruisers.

Hmmm ... I had always assumed that the British admiralty were hostile to the submarine. I suppose this might just be their attitude after WW1. I wasn't aware of Fisher's idea ... that's very interesting. Picturing such 'flotilla defense' systems colliding and battling during such a 1930's conflict paints some fantastic images.
 

Deleted member 1487

Several things: First, many of the the generals that led the OTL war will be retired. This allows a new generation of leaders to come in and change up standard procedure. Next, in all armies there were officers agitating for all kinds of upgrades to doctrine and technology, and again, by the 30's they are likely to be gone. Finally, things change in 20 years. Doctrine evolves and won't be the same as it was in 1914. Radio technology will be much more advanced, and even if everything stays the same, it will have a VAST impact on the field. One of the greatest problems of the era was that generals really could not control the battle once it started, beyond a few points. This led to many annomolies in the way that WW1 developed over other conflicts.

Just imagine WW1 with company commanders able to call in artillery strikes like in WW2. Even if the technology stays the same, this makes a big impact on tactics, and likely strategy too. Now obviously this won't solve the strategic issues, like operational exploitation, but a war in 1934 will have more mobility with more reliable and widespread trucks. It would likely be brutal, but the trench warfare scheme is unlikely to appear again. That is unless neither side violates Belgian neutrality, then the broken terrain of Alsace is likely to prevent much mobility.
Russia is going to be an entirely different game though. Think Kesselschlacht with Imperial forces on both sides.

Edit: forgot to mention that the Germans gave up the naval race in 1912, so it is likely that the alliance schemes change again. With Franz Fredinand around too, then the AH empire might even be more stable and a tougher opponent in 1934
 
BTW, WWI was the only thing that killed the idea of a British Imperial Federation. without it, whomever they are fighting gets their arse handed to them on a plate pretty soon. also, 3rd Irish Home Rule Bill.
 
To realistically delay WW1 to the 1930's you almost have to presume some major changes in the internal politics, diplomatic posture, and/or military procurement policies of several major powers. You also probably have to assume that events in the Balkans and near east will still lead to conflicts between the AH Empire and Serbia, and/or increased internal conflicts in the AH empire and Ottoman Empire. Also, to avoid a war among the major powers (Germany, France, and Russia), you have to assume they have reconsidered some of their "secret" treaty obligations, and possibly entered into some sort of arms control regime. The same would go for relationships between Britain and Germany. Factors which could result in a delay is the rise of a non-European power or force who represents a common threat to the interests of European nations. This could come from Japan, some sort of revolutionary anti-colonial or communist movement, or (unlikely) even the United States.

All of this would affect force structures if a European War breaks out involving the same basic alliance structures extant in 1914. I tend to think this would work to the disadvantage of Germany. Austria-Hungary and the Ottomon Empire are likely to be less capable, although I suppose Italy might not turn coat. I would also imagine that Germany might have decided not to continue its unwinnable naval rivalry with Britain, which might create more incentive for the UK to remain neutral, but which would hurt Germany if Britian does enter the war.

I tend to think that, absent a major war among major powers, a whole host of military and technological innovations will go undeveloped or underutilized, especialy those which acheived their utility in wars among technolofical equals. Only those innovations of use in wars of colonial pacification would match OTL's advances. I think this would be most obvious in naval matters, which really only involve the major powers. It took WW1 to demonstrate the value of submarines. On the other hand, I see no reason the development of naval aviation and airships would not occur, albeit at a slower rate of technological innovation. Airpower is an excellent way to pacify or punish colonial populations. I think armies would mechanize about as rapidly as in OTL, and armored fighting vehicles (tanks) would still be developed since such weapons would be very useful in colonial wars. Gas would be developed and, combined with aviation, might become a major weapon system, especially for colonial wars. Artillery, infantry, and small arms development would be about the same.
 
Huge differences in technology. WW1 provided a BIG impetus for development

Look at aircraft, for instance. Before WW1, Bleriot was just able to cross the Channel and crash land in England. After WW1, Alcock & Brown were able to cross the ATLANTIC (admittedly, they crash landed in Ireland)

Huge difference in politics: the European empires didn't commit mutual suicide. If there is a Russian revolution it doesn't involve Lenin. USA still not quite a World Power (but utterly dominant in Mexico, Latin America and South America) . Japan still an ally of Britain

Other things (off top of my head)

Mortars - not popular
Radio - no portable transmitters
no Liddell Hart - so no inspiration for Guderian
no 'Roaring Twenties' - maybe no Great Depression

Feminism in general and 'votes for women' in particular would be less developed. Women might not even have the vote.
 
Colonies would have more infastructure than in 1914. Germany would have a rail link in Cameroon all the way to lake Chad for example and and an increased European population (doubled??) which might make the war more interesing in those places. Germany would have larger style Hindenburg airships for carrying passengers working by then to allow some limited communication and supply with the colonies as well.

Diesel engine technology was just becoming good enough to make submarines go long distances in 1914. If the submarines go up to the 2000 ton size they would be as big as small cruisers, somebody would have thought of commerce raiding or at least using submarines for commerce protection (you would have had enough extra crew to make a prize crew even if the thought of ruthless underwater attack would have been out of the question).
 
Top