A few what-ifs about the campaigns of 1914

[Chiron]

They can try, but they probably won't get far.

The 1862 Battle of Fredericksburg saw a Union Army attempt a river crossing against entrenched Confederates. It was a bloodbath the Union did not win.

Fast forward to 1914 and the Serbians would get slaughtered by the Austro-Hungarians so badly that the generals who ok'd that bit of stupidity would deserve to be court-martialed and shot.

In 1862 Burnside had an excuse. He knew he wasn't qualified to lead an army, said as much, but took the job anyways because there wasn't anyone better under consideration.

RE: Critical research failure on Burnside. He actually had a good plan, but a string of bad luck and insubordinate junior officers occurred.

1. The Bridges he ordered to be sent were held up by the Secretary of War, costing him several days and allowing Lee to get to Fredricksburg.

2. He was actually winning the battle, and had even punched holes in the Confederate lines. Had radios been invented at the time, Meade could have called up Franklin, who could have ordered Gibbons to widen the breach he made which could have routed Jackson's Corps. Hell had Gibson taken the initiative and followed Meade, things would have been different.

3. Marye's Heights was a failure to just charge in. On the second go around the following year, the Union just charged up instead of shooting it out and overran it quickly. Had Burnside instead of Hooker led this personally, it would have had been done as Burnside knew from his successful North Carolina Campaign that victory went to whoever aggressively bayonet charged. In fact he, after seeing Hooker drop the ball, intended to exactly that with 9th Corps only for his Corps commanders led by Hooker to mutiny on him. And Lincoln let them get away with it.

Burnside's greatest successes came when he was far away from Washington DC's political meddling in the Army of the Potomac and could freely maneuver and inflict lopsided defeats on the Confederates. Cumberland Gap is the US Army's greatest, most lopsided battle victory won. In this battle, Burnside by aggressive maneuvering, forced 2,300 Confederate Soldiers to surrender without firing a shot or losing a single man.

Get your history right. Cause next thing you know you will be saying Antietam Creek was just a jump, skip, and a hop and I will have to whack you up side the head with the actual terrain.

 

[bintananth]

@Chiron

We're speaking past each other here. Burnside would not have been given command of the Army of the Potomac if he wasn't a competent General at the Corps level. His record, both before and after his stint as CO of the AotP, clearly demonstrates this. He was also astute enough - unlike many others throughout history - to recognize where his competence ran out.

Anyways were getting off-topic here ...

 

[Chiron]

@Chiron

We're speaking past each other here. Burnside would not have been given command of the Army of the Potomac if he wasn't a competent General at the Corps level. His record, both before and after his stint as CO of the AotP, clearly demonstrates this. He was also astute enough - unlike many others throughout history - to recognize where his competence ran out.

Anyways were getting off-topic here ...

The AotP regardless of who led it, always performed poorly due to Lincoln's meddling. Grant who had a string of victories in the west with minimal losses, wound up slambanging with Lee due to Lincoln's constant demands for results while simultaneously protecting DC.

But to the Topic:

Combining scenario 1 and 2. If the Germans hold the Forts and coax the French to advance on the Sarne River, it is possible for the two fresh Corps could easily bag enough French troops and potentially seize Verdun and Saint Mithiel and from that point France has two critical penetrations. It can stop one, but not 2 and splitting the baby means both counter-attacks fail due to not enough force. Even if by some miracle they can blunt the Germans, it is highly likely the Germans will control the entirety of the Grand Est of France and that would force the French to seek terms and likely convince Italy to join the Central Powers.

 

[WolfBear]

I've got an additional what-if to ask here, if you don't mind:

What if Russia would have devoted all of its energies against Germany at the start of World War I and only focused on Austria-Hungary after the Western Front would have already been stabilized? It's more logical that way since if France falls, then any Russian victory against Austria-Hungary would likely become meaningless.

 

[Buba]

What if Russia would have devoted all of its energies against Germany at the start of World War I

This would require A-H cooperation
Nevertheless Russia could siphon off 12-15 Divisions off the Austrian Front and/or instead of battering its head against the bogs and forests of East Prussia divert one army from that front.
Instead it could strike into the Posen Province.
Still, Germany had space to trade for time, fortresses on rail hubs (all bridges on lower Vistula thus guarded), while Russia had exactly 3 (saying - three) tracks (2 in Warsaw, one in Dęblin/Ivangorod) across the Vistula to feed any offensives westward. Hence Russia - at best - is stuck on a line the Oder, Posen, Bydgoszcz, lower Vistula.

 

[WolfBear]

This would require A-H cooperation
Nevertheless Russia could siphon off 12-15 Divisions off the Austrian Front and/or instead of battering its head against the bogs and forests of East Prussia divert one army from that front.
Instead it could strike into the Posen Province.
Still, Germany had space to trade for time, fortresses on rail hubs (all bridges on lower Vistula thus guarded), while Russia had exactly 3 (saying - three) tracks (2 in Warsaw, one in Dęblin/Ivangorod) across the Vistula to feed any offensives westward. Hence Russia - at best - is stuck on a line the Oder, Posen, Bydgoszcz, lower Vistula.

I'm concerned that a Russian strike on Posen would simply result in German attacks from East Prussia and Upper Silesia encircling the Russian force in Posen.

As for A-H cooperation, A-H was attacking Serbia, not Russia--no? Russia could tell Serbia to fight on its own for 1-2 months.

 

[Buba]

I'm concerned that a Russian strike on Posen would simply result in German attacks from East Prussia and Upper Silesia encircling the Russian force in Posen.

The attack from East Prussia follows two railroads and is made across territory which Russia had left bereft of railroads for expressly this reason. The German attack stops on the line of the middle Vistula-Narew-Biebrza rivers.

As for A-H cooperation, A-H was attacking Serbia, not Russia--no? Russia could tell Serbia to fight on its own for 1-2 months.

The difference between A-H warplans R and B was one army more or less on each front. Also, it is simply impossible to fit 50 A-H Divisions on the Serbian front - not enough space
Some simply had to go north.

 

[WolfBear]

The attack from East Prussia follows two railroads and is made across territory which Russia had left bereft of railroadf for expressly this reason. The German attack stops on the line of the Narew-Biebrza rivers.

Interesting. Anyway, can Russia go through Posen and there from there try going to Danzig? Or would that be too logistically audacious?

The difference between A-H warplans R and B was one army more or less on each front. Also, it is simply impossible to fit 50 A-H Divisions on the Serbian front - not enough space

So, let Austria-Hungary invade Volhynia? It's not like they will accomplish very much there anyway.

 

[Buba]

Yes. IMO Russia should had struck westward, against Posen, with the right flank veering north and trying to go through Bydgoszcz to Danzig. Or at least Tczew (no idea what the German placename is) as to complete cut off rail connections to East Prussia. With yet another army applying pressure on Silesia.
But that is not possible in 1914 as it would require pre-war planning and not knowing that A-H will put 40 Divisions between the Vistula and Lvov-Kowel railway. Very risky to have most of the Austrian army against your deep left flank.

Taking Volhynia has the effect of shortening the front, as the Russian forces are effectively cut in two by the Pripet Marches. A weaker force can then be left in Volhynia to fend off Russian in north Ukraine, the bulk concentrating against those in Poland.

 

[WolfBear]

Yes. IMO Russia should had struck westward, against Posen, with the right flank veering north and trying to go through Bydgoszcz to Danzig. Or at least Tczew (no idea what the German placename is) as to complete cut off rail connections to East Prussia. With yet another army applying pressure on Silesia.

Did Russia have enough troops for this?

But that is not possible in 1914 as it would require pre-war planning and not knowing that A-H will put 40 Divisions between the Vistula and Lvov-Kowel railway. Very risky to have most of the Austrian army against your deep left flank.

So, what should Russia have done *without* hindsight?

Taking Volhynia has the effect of shortening the front, as the Russian forces are effectively cut in two by the Pripet Marches. A weaker force can then be left in Volhynia to fend off Russian in north Ukraine, the bulk concentrating against those in Poland.

Interesting. So, Russia *will* have to defend Volhynia.

 

[Buba]

Did Russia have enough troops for this?

It did. IMO. The 1st and 2nd Armies could be used for such an attack, while having some Cossaks and other useless cavalry units make noise on the East Prussian border and thus keep the German 8th Army wary of invasion there.

Interesting. So, Russia *will* have to defend Volhynia.

There was a reason for the fortresses at Kovel, Lutsk, Rovne ...

 

[WolfBear]

It did. IMO. The 1st and 2nd Armies could be used for such an attack, while having some Cossaks and other useless cavalry units make noise on the East Prussian border and thus keep the German 8th Army wary of invasion there.

There was a reason for the fortresses at Kovel, Lutsk, Rovne ...

You wouldn't happen to have a map of all Eastern European border fortresses during World War I, would you?

 

[WolfBear]

2) What if the initial Russian advance into East Prussia does not panic Molke into sending two reserve Corps to East from the western front. What use are those forces put to in the west, and to what effect? In the east, these forces did not arrive in time to effect the battle of Tannenburg.
In the west, their departure probably did not change the outcome of the battle of the Marne, but might it alter the "race for the sea" or where the final trench line for the year falls? West of Calais would be significantly different from east of Calais, for example.

Are the Germans still capable of winning the First Battle of the Masurian Lakes without these extra troops?

As for the Marne, I'm wondering if we could see the Western Front trenches be set along the Marne River rather than along the Aisne River in this TL. There wouldn't actually be any need for the German forces to retreat if the First Army isn't on the verge of encirclement, right?

I'm not sure that much changes in the Race for the Sea, to be honest. Maybe all of Belgium is occupied by the Germans rather than "only" 95% of it, but otherwise, probably no changes, to be honest. AFAIK, the Germans could not win at Ypres due to logistics, similar to the Marne.

 

[Buba]

You wouldn't happen to have a map of all Eastern European border fortresses during World War I, would you?

No