World War 1 (or great war as my Grandad says)

[Finnish Dragon]

For AlexanderG,

theoretically that plan was excellent but von Moltke jr. modified that plan. He decided to send some extra troops to Eastern Front and Alsace-Lorraine area to bolster defense. He also planned to march from Brussels to Paris directly and not to take the French cities of Boulogne, Calais and Dunkirk. The original plan included an attack against Paris from the Channel coast and Le Havre area as well. I think the original plan had better chance of success but it required a lot of troops and an excellent traffic management.

Had Germany respected the neutrality of Belgium then UK wouldn´t have a real casus belli against Germany. I think UK wouldn´t have joined the war without a good reason to fight for.

Russian Army in WWI was only partially reformed. They had a lot of men but their supply and equipment were inadequate. They had some decent generals such as Brusilov and Mannerheim who later joined the Finnish Army and became the commander of Finnish Army during WWII. To tell the truth most Russian generals were incompetent or average generals at the best form example Rennenkampf and Samsonov. It is true that Brusilov hurted the Austria but it was also expensive for Russian Army as well but Russia didn´t take Austria out alone. Italian,Romanian and Russian armies and four years of attrition war did it.

For a complete mobilization Russia needed at least one month(probably two) because their country was much larger than Germany and their infrastructure was worse. Germany needed needed about two weeks to mobilize her army. So they had from 2 to 6 weeks to destroy Russian border armies. Germany should have been able to destroy Russian armies in detail.

 

[Grosshaus]

I wouldn't make Mannerheim anything special at the time. He hadn't seen any action as a commander, after all he was just a spectator in Manchuria. He rose to be great with the practice gotten from Finnish Civil War, but that's a different thing.

 

[unmerged(18269)]

theoretically that plan was excellent but von Moltke jr. modified that plan.

No, the plan was flawed. Even if nothing was done the plan the Germans would have found that they would still be forced to turn before Paris. How did Schliefien deal with this ? He penicled in an extra 250,000 man at the moment of expected contact with the French but did not explain how the men got there.

I think UK wouldn´t have joined the war without a good reason to fight for.

Yes it would, because it has been the policy of the UK to fight the strongest Power on the continent.

They had a lot of men but their supply and equipment were inadequate

This is a myth. It was used as an excuse by the Russian generals in the North not to attack the Germans. It was not true.

It is true that Brusilov hurted the Austria but it was also expensive for Russian Army as well but Russia didn´t take Austria out alone. Italian,Romanian and Russian armies and four years of attrition war did it

By 1916 the Austrians were done. The Germans took over everything. The Romanians did not help out, infact by declaring war when they did they forced Russian troops to come to their aid when Romania was over run AND provided the Germans with extra food and oil. The Italians didnt do anything except bleed themselves.

For a complete mobilization Russia needed at least one month(probably two) because their country was much larger than Germany and their infrastructure was worse. Germany needed needed about two weeks to mobilize her army. So they had from 2 to 6 weeks to destroy Russian border armies. Germany should have been able to destroy Russian armies in detail.

Russia did not need to fully mobolize to fight a defensive war though. It had 6 Armies ready to go in August. It just choose to use 4 of them against the Austrians.

 

[phelbas]

This is a myth. It was used as an excuse by the Russian generals in the North not to attack the Germans. It was not true.

The russians amy have had weapons, but the were not necceasarilly in the hands of the soldiers at the front. Administrative problems led to soldiers going to the front without a rifle, with orders to take one of one of his comrades when they were killed. Sections of the 12th army had to be withdrawn from the front in 1915 as nobody had taught the men how to use their rifles. Admin may not have been helped by the fact that the telegraph system may have been down as soldiers got down the poles to use as firewood.


Russias problem lay in having an army of un-educated peasants led by a bunch of incopetent aristocrates, ussually in their postion because of their title or friendship with the Tsar.

 

[String]

Re: Re: World War 1 (or great war as my Grandad says)

Originally posted by Snow King
I don't want to insult General Haigh's memory or you or anything, but Haigh was, to put it nicely, not the smartest commander in the world. He prefered mass assaults with artillery barrages, which were almost always ineffective in destroying the enemy.
.

but what was he supposed to do then?
he had no other means but artillery and infantry... tanks were still pretty useless in ww1, no real bomber aircraft available, what else could he have done? there was no way to out flank the enemy either..

 

[unmerged(18269)]

The russians amy have had weapons, but the were not necceasarilly in the hands of the soldiers at the front. Administrative problems led to soldiers going to the front without a rifle, with orders to take one of one of his comrades when they were killed. Sections of the 12th army had to be withdrawn from the front in 1915 as nobody had taught the men how to use their rifles. Admin may not have been helped by the fact that the telegraph system may have been down as soldiers got down the poles to use as firewood.

John Keegen disproves this as a myth. The fact was the Russian generals were spooked after Tananeberg.

Russias problem lay in having an army of un-educated peasants led by a bunch of incopetent aristocrates, ussually in their postion because of their title or friendship with the Tsar.

The peasent part wasnt such a problem. The Russians fought just fine against the Austrians and when commanded properly did juts fine against the germans to. The problem was that too many generals were there because of their connections and not their skills. While the Western Armies could simply can a shity general and replace him the Russians didnt have that pool of talent. All they have was Brusilov and by the time he was placed in over all command the Russians were in deep shit. Then again Bruisilov foolishly launched his offensive, should have just dug in and held out.

 

[unmerged(9600)]

Originally posted by Sytass
Planning the Great War for 1875?

Well, it would be a lot less lethal, that's for sure. As rough as the American Civil War was, they didn't have the Maxim gun, nor steel artillery.

Actually, a great war in 1875 would have been a massacre. The French knocked out right quick, and the Russians still so backwards by comparison to the Germans that they can't capitalise on the temporary weakness in the Eastern Front. The British were a non-factor.

 

[unmerged(13241)]

Re: Re: Re: World War 1 (or great war as my Grandad says)

Originally posted by String
but what was he supposed to do then?
he had no other means but artillery and infantry... tanks were still pretty useless in ww1, no real bomber aircraft available, what else could he have done? there was no way to out flank the enemy either..

Haig stopped the tanks, even if wasn't for the admirality they wouldn't have been developed. Tanks were very usefull in WWI, especialy as soon the FT-17 started to appear.

No, the plan was flawed. Even if nothing was done the plan the Germans would have found that they would still be forced to turn before Paris. How did Schliefien deal with this ? He penicled in an extra 250,000 man at the moment of expected contact with the French but did not explain how the men got there.

Not only that, an unmodified plan could have resulted in a disaster for the Germans. They could have lost Alsaice (the French offesnive accordign to they secret plan) and Eastern Prussia. The German did pretty well, taking Belgium and northern France, two of the most industrilzed regions in Europe. The "flaw" was the assumtion that the war would be short and had to be won by offensives. (Not neccesserily wrong, WWI was the exception of the rule )

Russia did not need to fully mobolize to fight a defensive war though. It had 6 Armies ready to go in August. It just choose to use 4 of them against the Austrians.

IMHO it were 5 armies.

 

[King of Men]

Re: Re: Re: Re: World War 1 (or great war as my Grandad says)

Originally posted by madner
Haig stopped the tanks, if wasn't for the Admiralty they wouldn't have been developed. Tanks were very useful in WWI, especially as soon the FT-17 started to appear.

Do you have a source for this? According to John Terraine

Officers from Haig's staff observed [early tank trials]; he was impressed by their reports, and immediately wove the new weapon into his battle plans. He was distressed to learn that this was premature; neither the tanks nor their crews would be ready to take part in the opening of the battle on July 1st.

He goes on to quote a Haig's diary, on receiving word that tank production had been delayed again :

This is disappointing as I have been looking forward to obtaining decisive results from the use of these 'Tanks' at an early date.

Seems pretty forward-looking to me.

 

[unmerged(18269)]

Not only that, an unmodified plan could have resulted in a disaster for the Germans. They could have lost Alsaice (the French offesnive accordign to they secret plan) and Eastern Prussia.

Iam not sure about Prussia since the corps that Moltke withdrew didnt get their in time for the battles anyway.

 

[Allenby]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: World War 1 (or great war as my Grandad says)

Originally posted by King of Men
Seems pretty forward-looking to me.

And after the battle of Flers in 1916, Haig ordered another 1,000 tanks - more forward thinking than others.

 

[w_mullender]

About Haig form Blackadder, sums up my opinion:

Edmund: Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?
Darling: How can you possibly know that, Blackadder? It's classified information!
Edmund: It's the same plan that we used last time, and the seventeen times before that.
Melchett: Exactly! And that is what so brilliant about it! We will catch the watchful Hun totally off guard! Doing precisely what we have done eighteen times before is exactly the last thing they'll expect us to do this time! There is, however, one small problem.
Edmund: That everyone always gets slaughtered the first ten seconds.
Melchett: That's right! And Field Marshal Haig is worried that this may be depressing the men a tadge. So, he's looking to find a way to cheer them up.
Edmund: Well, his resignation and suicide would seem the obvious solution.
Melchett: Interesting thought. Make a note of it, Darling!

 

[King of Men]

It sums up the Somme pretty well, yes. But even then, this was not because of any ingrained bloody-mindedness of Haig, but simply because he overestimated (badly) the power of his artillery to crush the Germans. And he did show some small ability to learn from his mistakes; infantry attacks did evolve over the years, from wave attacks to infiltration, advance by fire and movement, and tank support.

 

[Allenby]

Quoting from Blackadder is exactly the wrong approach when making a reasoned judgement on the conduct of Generals on the Western Front in the First World War, because it is a product of popular culture's misguided opinions on the subject.

The First World War, for too long has been told by the likes of Owen, Sassoon and Remarque, and not with the reasoned logic that it should be. When talking and theorising about the First World War, people get far too emotive about the terrible nature of the conflict, without actually realising that it was that same nature which made heavy casualties inevitable on the Western Front. As French General Charles Mangin said 'no matter what you do, you lose a lot of men'

Haig made mistakes - commanders always do. If Haig and his staff didn't progress with the profound changes that were happening in warfare, then it is unlikely that the BEF would have triumphed on the Western Front - yet they did. Haig took over command of an inexperienced citizen force in 1915 from Field Marshal French and under his leadership crafted it into a war winning army. I would argue that with his victory, Haig was the man who prevented the war from stretching into 1919.

 

[King of Men]

Originally posted by Allenby
Quoting from Blackadder is exactly the wrong approach when making a reasoned judgement on the conduct of Generals on the Western Front in the First World War, because it is a product of popular culture's misguided opinions on the subject.

w_mullender did say that the quote sums up his opinion. For all you know, that opinion has been formed by years of serious study at a military academy, poring over orders of battle, the minutiae of regimental organisation, and the precise blast radii of grenades. It is hardly w_mullender's fault if he concludes that the popular culture has it exactly right, but can't be bothered to post his entire doctoral thesis.

I admit, it's not likely. But it's at least as possible as carrying well-defended trenches by infantry assault..

 

[Allenby]

Originally posted by King of Men
I admit, it's not likely. But it's at least as possible as carrying well-defended trenches by infantry assault..

Quite high then - given that the preliminary artillery bombardment is properly prepared, adequately concentrated, with the heaviest guns and ensuring that suprise is achieved

 

[King of Men]

Well, that's why I specified infantry.

 

[w_mullender]

Originally posted by Allenby
Quoting from Blackadder is exactly the wrong approach when making a reasoned judgement on the conduct of Generals on the Western Front in the First World War, because it is a product of popular culture's misguided opinions on the subject.

I dont see what is wrong with the quote I gave. It gives a simple and funny overview about what was wrong and is more clear than 2 pages of battle descriptions. In what way is it misguided? During the first 3 years of the trench warfare almost no progress was made by infantry attacks and a "sit and wait" could have produced almost identical results. If you read the complete quote it also suggests that the generals knew up fromt what the result would be.

The First World War, for too long has been told by the likes of Owen, Sassoon and Remarque, and not with the reasoned logic that it should be. When talking and theorising about the First World War, people get far too emotive about the terrible nature of the conflict, without actually realising that it was that same nature which made heavy casualties inevitable on the Western Front. As French General Charles Mangin said 'no matter what you do, you lose a lot of men'

I agree that whatever strategy or tactics one would employ a lot of soldiers would get killed. But what is true that the generals didnt seem to have learnt from their own colonial wars in which they used mitrailleurs. Sending you infantry "over" where most of them get killed by machine guns isnt very smart. The truth is the generals decided it was better to attack tthen to sit.

Haig made mistakes - commanders always do. If Haig and his staff didn't progress with the profound changes that were happening in warfare, then it is unlikely that the BEF would have triumphed on the Western Front - yet they did. Haig took over command of an inexperienced citizen force in 1915 from Field Marshal French and under his leadership crafted it into a war winning army. I would argue that with his victory, Haig was the man who prevented the war from stretching into 1919.

Uhm without americans, german troubles and the blockade?

 

[King of Men]

Originally posted by w_mullender

I agree that whatever strategy or tactics one would employ a lot of soldiers would get killed. But what is true that the generals didn't seem to have learnt from their own colonial wars in which they used mitrailleurs. Sending you infantry "over" where most of them get killed by machine guns isnt very smart. The truth is the generals decided it was better to attack than to sit.

Well, in fact they knew damn well that heavy casualties were to be expected. But they thought that sufficiently motivated and supported infantry could carry trenches. Possibly some wrong lessons were drawn from the Russo-Japanese war and the Boer war. But to say that nothing had been learned is rather overstating the ase.

 

[Allenby]

Originally posted by w_mullender
I dont see what is wrong with the quote I gave. It gives a simple and funny overview about what was wrong and is more clear than 2 pages of battle descriptions. In what way is it misguided? During the first 3 years of the trench warfare almost no progress was made by infantry attacks and a "sit and wait" could have produced almost identical results. If you read the complete quote it also suggests that the generals knew up fromt what the result would be.

I happen to think Blackadder is very funny too, but it shouldn't be used to summarise a side's strategy. The reason why a 'sit and wait' strategy would not have been any use was because the British Army (which I refer to in particular) would not have learnt any new skills by defending - the war was won by taking the offensive, and so whilst the British Army suffered losses while attacking, particularly in 1915 and 1916, it went on a valuable learning curve which crafted a citizen force into an army worthy of defeating the Germans.

Originally posted by w_mullender
I agree that whatever strategy or tactics one would employ a lot of soldiers would get killed. But what is true that the generals didnt seem to have learnt from their own colonial wars in which they used mitrailleurs. Sending you infantry "over" where most of them get killed by machine guns isnt very smart. The truth is the generals decided it was better to attack tthen to sit.

The lessons learnt from from these colonial campaigns were very misleading - the deadlock of trench warfare was only going to be broken by taking the attack - this would involve developing the army into a weapons system that encompasses air power, concentration of artillery, tanks, and advanced infantry tactics working in cooperation. This was made possible by going onto the offensive and learning from any mistakes made, and seeing where parts of the weapons system could be improved. By sitting and waiting, on the defensive, the British Army would not have been able to have pulled off the victory of 1918.

Originally posted by w_mullender
Uhm without americans, german troubles and the blockade?

The Americans contributed one army to the offensive in 1918. Had the war stretched into 1919, they would have taken the lead in the Entente, and as the main fighting force on the Western Front. As of 1918, the main fighting effort was being made by the British Army, and the victory on the Western Front in that year was primarily a British victory. Having said that, the growth of the AEF had an adverse psychological effect on Germany.

As for the blockade and Germany's internal troubles, it cannot be conclusively said that these two factors were the immediate cause for Germany looking for parley in 1918, but they certainly formed part of a combination that made it obvious to Germany that victory was not possible. It is my argument that the German Army's defeat on the Western Front was foremost in causing Germany to seek peace, with the blockade and underlying internal troubles as being secondary, longer term factors.