Instead of Verdon, a bigger Asiago

[elkarlo]

I think that this board is lacking in WWI AH, something fierce.

That said, I don't think many people in general appreciate how dire the situation was for the Italians. They basically exhausted themselves against the fairly stretched thin AH armies.

Von Falkenhayn was all about the western front. Which, as history has proven him wrong in that choice. It was clear that the west, being as dense, and hotly contested would remain mostly a stalemate for most of the war.

A good strategy, is to take out the weaker powers, and keep your weaker allies from being taken out. Russia, was hurt fairly badly by the 1915 offensive, but they couldn't go much further into Russia for obvious reasons.

Serbia had been taken out, yet the Salonika front remained. I don't think that the infrastructure of the area would have lent CP being able to make a decisive drive into Greece. Besides Greece was still oddly neutral.

The AH armies did fairly well against the poorly equipped and led Italians. Their operation at Asiago was fairly successful, despite not having a large enough attack force. If the Germans had transferred some divisions, as well as munitions/ammo. I feel that the the battle of Asiago would have looked much like the battle of Caporetto, save for that the CPs would have been fresh enough to make a true break through.

I feel with Italy taken out, or crippled, would have led to the AH army being able to deal with the Brusilov offensive a bit better. Maybe not win, well def not, but they might have been in a place to recover quickly. Also given with no Verdun, the Germans being in Italy could rush East quicker, as disenguaging the Italians isn't the same as disenguaging from the UK and French Armies.

With Italy out of the war, and Russia tottering by early 1917. Perhpas AH could have had the energy to drive a bit into the Balkans, tying up Entente troops, and pestering them there. Which could have led to a CP victory in 1917.

What do you think? I know that AH is rather weak, yet they seemed to have super natural recovery abilities.

 

[BlondieBC]

IMO, most posters on this board think Verdun was not the best German plan for 1916. Most posters understand that Italy was weak. That being said, on to your post.

Russia was hurt in 1915, but I would not say badly. Russia could easily afford to replace the men lost, and they still had a lot of land to trade for time if needed. Russia was internally weak in 1915, but the general belief seemed to be France was weaker than Russia.

Salonika was not taken for understandable reasons: The front line held was easy to defend. Both A-H, Ottomans, and Bulgaria wanted it, and Germany did not want to cause problems between its Allies. Owning Salonika is of limited value because it is only really another sub and raider base, there are still lots of areas that that the Entente can land troops in Greece. Now, I would still look at it twice if you put me in a time machine to go back to early 1915, but it does not look like a war winner.

Italy had some potential, and it is probably worth a German corp or two to assist in its capture. The loss of NE Italy will harm the Italian morale, but in my opinion, it is by no means a war winner in 1916. If the Milan area can also be captured, it is even a better outcome.

Brusilov is really is a major turning point, because of Romania entering and the loss of so many A-H troops. A-H forces mixed with German did well, A-H alone lost to Russia mostly. So probably having a few more corp of Germans available for reinforcements will make Brusilov a minor Russian victory and keep Romania out of the war.

So doing this probably can be done with 4 corps, or a full Army. Now the next question is what to do with the extra armies in 1916. Or put another way, where is the Grand offensive in 1916? How this battle will be important. What was you plan on the west and do you plan any major offensive besides Salonika and NE Italy?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I think that this board is lacking in WWI AH, something fierce.

Ha You must be new.

That said, I don't think many people in general appreciate how dire the situation was for the Italians. They basically exhausted themselves against the fairly stretched thin AH armies.

In 1916 the Italians were relatively fresh compared to everyone else, as they had only been at war for a year. Mountains are tough to crack, as the Russians found out in 1915.

Von Falkenhayn was all about the western front. Which, as history has proven him wrong in that choice. It was clear that the west, being as dense, and hotly contested would remain mostly a stalemate for most of the war.

History proved him right, because the war was won and lost on the Western Front. Granted, he neglected the Eastern Front too much to his detriment, but much of that has to do with faulty intelligence.

A good strategy, is to take out the weaker powers, and keep your weaker allies from being taken out. Russia, was hurt fairly badly by the 1915 offensive, but they couldn't go much further into Russia for obvious reasons.

Not really. The allies tried that and fail...badly. Russia was hurt, but her strategic depth was the best protection. No one knew that internal troubles would topple Russia when it did and neither did they realize that the Russians were capable of a major offensive like they launched, nor did anyone figure the Austrians would collapse so hard, even Brusilov!

Serbia had been taken out, yet the Salonika front remained. I don't think that the infrastructure of the area would have lent CP being able to make a decisive drive into Greece. Besides Greece was still oddly neutral.

It was a strategic blackhole that benefited the CPs to keep in the war. It was an open air prison and a source of continuous malaria casualties to the French and British.

The AH armies did fairly well against the poorly equipped and led Italians. Their operation at Asiago was fairly successful, despite not having a large enough attack force. If the Germans had transferred some divisions, as well as munitions/ammo. I feel that the the battle of Asiago would have looked much like the battle of Caporetto, save for that the CPs would have been fresh enough to make a true break through.

The problem was the lack of infrastructure to sustain an offensive or breakthrough. It says more about the shittiness of the Italians rather than anything else. Still they held on when supply issues became a major problem for the AHs. There is little chance that the Germans getting involved would have done anything of the like, other than waste resources and let the Entente take the initiative again in the West. Falkenhayn was rightly scared of more Entente offensives, because they very nearly broke through in 1915 in Autumn.

I feel with Italy taken out, or crippled, would have led to the AH army being able to deal with the Brusilov offensive a bit better. Maybe not win, well def not, but they might have been in a place to recover quickly. Also given with no Verdun, the Germans being in Italy could rush East quicker, as disenguaging the Italians isn't the same as disenguaging from the UK and French Armies.

It still means troops diverted from the critical Eastern front sector when they were needed most. It would be better for AH not to attack at all and meet the Russians when they attacked with everything it had. Italy could be left to rot on the vine, because they couldn't breach the Alps. The Russians were much more dangerous. As were the French. The only flaw in Falkenhayn's plan was not forcing Conrad to defend in 1916. That and not attacking on both banks at Verdun.

With Italy out of the war, and Russia tottering by early 1917. Perhpas AH could have had the energy to drive a bit into the Balkans, tying up Entente troops, and pestering them there. Which could have led to a CP victory in 1917.

Italy wouldn't have been out of the war even if the CPs broke through at Asiago, a feat that was logistically beyond them. The Entente would have rushed in troops and stabilized things just as the CPs were far beyond their supply lines.

What do you think? I know that AH is rather weak, yet they seemed to have super natural recovery abilities.

They had a supernatural ally that propped them up. This POD is a non-starter and strategically dangerous for the CPs. Falkehayn had a good plan, but didn't commit enough troops to it. Conrad was a moron that let the Russians nearly push AH out of the war.

 

[Devolved]

World war one was won and lost on the Western Front just as in WW2 it was the Eastern Front. That was because those were the places that the German army was destroyed. Winning both World wars required killing vast numbers of German soldiers.

The prblem with killing vast numbers of Germans is that you are going to have to face them and take vast losses yourself. WW1 generals understood this, that was why most generals saw other theatres as sideshows.

 

[Sarantapechaina]

They had a supernatural ally that propped them up. This POD is a non-starter and strategically dangerous for the CPs. Falkehayn had a good plan, but didn't commit enough troops to it. Conrad was a moron that let the Russians nearly push AH out of the war.

I would say that troop usage wasn't what submarined the Verdun campaign plan. After all, the whole concept was geared towards a subsequent offensive elsewhere on the front, and you can't do that if all your reserves have been sucked into fighting. Verdun, after all, was not an end in itself. Foley argued that the Germans really stumbled at Verdun by faulty tactical implementation of Falkenhayn's principles by commanders on the spot, but conceded that it's not clear that the Germans could have secured the proper ground for good kill ratios even with better tactics.

 

[Hendryk]

I think that this board is lacking in WWI AH, something fierce.

Yeah, and also don't have nearly enough discussions about Hitler and the American Civil War, either.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

[will not post pictures of cheese, will not post pictures of cheese...]

 

[elkarlo]

Russia was hurt, but I don't think they could have been knocked out of the war in 15. Just not possible. As was said, they could simply retreat, and buy time by drawing the CP armies deeper in, which would not be a good thing for the CP.

I agree that the west was where the war was won/lost. Which is why I think the Germans shouldn't have concentrated on it, until they had dealt with the other theaters first. As the war dragged on, the Germans had to send troops/advisers to prop up other fronts.

Italy was imho not in a fresh state in 1916. In fact, I feel as though they for the most part were only saved by the fact that their front was secondary, and they weren't outnumbered, nor even on the receiving end of offensives all that often. The Battle of Asiago showed how vulnerable they were, to even a weak offensive. I feel a massive offensive coupled with an easy peace would knock them out of the war. They simply couldn't deal with AH on a tactical nor strategic level.

As for Salonika, the AH would just tie down more Entente troops. I don7t think they could advance much more than they did OTL given the terrain.

I think the grad strat for 1916 would be, to guard against Russia, take Italy out, and defend on the West with a Hindenberg line type strat. It is up the the Entente to attack there, as the Germans are on their ground.
If they can knock Italy out, they can press Russia a bit more, and perhaps keep Romania neutral. Isn't this pretty much Von Hindenburg7s 1917 strat?

 

[elkarlo]

I did a lot of thread searches, nothing really dealing with the AH empire during WWI. Was there a trend a while ago that I missed?

Most of what I find is 'what if Italy stayed with the CPs?' type threads. Which is silly as Italy would be a liability. Their Navy was weak, they had tons of coast and ports to protect with little to no forts. They imported most their coal, and good amount of their food. They'd just exacerbate the food/materials shortages that the CP had to begin with. Plus they'd prolly alienate the Ottomans outa the CP.

Plus, they had no real control of most of Libya. Ethiopia with the UKs encouragement, would prolly swallow up Eritrea, and Itl Somalia. Just not worth it imho.

Anyhow, I think esp if the Germans used gas in 1916, given that the Italians had poor masks, that didn't really protect them against phosphine gas, that they'd prolly be run over by a good offensive.

 

[elkarlo]

I would say that troop usage wasn't what submarined the Verdun campaign plan. After all, the whole concept was geared towards a subsequent offensive elsewhere on the front, and you can't do that if all your reserves have been sucked into fighting. Verdun, after all, was not an end in itself. Foley argued that the Germans really stumbled at Verdun by faulty tactical implementation of Falkenhayn's principles by commanders on the spot, but conceded that it's not clear that the Germans could have secured the proper ground for good kill ratios even with better tactics.

I think the situation at Verdun spiraled out of control. There were some great successes, but as the battle went on, it seemed the Germans got sucked into a brawl, instead of a proper tactical exchnage, which they were aiming for.

 

[BlondieBC]

I did a lot of thread searches, nothing really dealing with the AH empire during WWI. Was there a trend a while ago that I missed?


Anyhow, I think esp if the Germans used gas in 1916, given that the Italians had poor masks, that didn't really protect them against phosphine gas, that they'd prolly be run over by a good offensive.

Look up WIKING. He talks a lot about Brusilov and A-H.

I guess a lot of the analysis on what should be done depends on why one thinks the CP lost and where the Entente won. The CP had the war won on January 1, 1917 if they don't do unrestricted sub warfare and no Zimmerman. IMO, even no Zimmerman may have been enough to win the war and an USA failure to extend unsecured credit for an additional 6 months wins the war for the CP in a cold peace. Russia success in 1914 and 1916 against Hungary won the war for the Entente. In 1914, the A-H loses hundred of thousands of prisoners and Italy enters the war. In 1916, A-H loses hundred of thousands of people and Romania enters the war. For me, turning points flow from these events.

Verdun was not a strategic success, but when combined with Somme, the Entente lost more than the Germans. So, Verdun is simply an costly, indecisive loss. If Verdun had still happened, but Brusilov had just been a minor Entente victory, then the CP win most likely. It was the losses from the entire war, collapsing economy, tsarist incompetence, and lack of food that ended the Romanov rule. I agree it is hard to see Russia folding say in mid-1916. Food shortages get worse in late winter, early spring.

Now I believe Germany doing an east first plan in 1916 wins the war, because a major, multi-army attack from Germany anywhere in the east prevents the Russians from having a big victory in Brusilov. As would simply holding more corps in reserve and moving the corp to the east faster in 1916. In either case in 1917, A-H has around 400K more troops (two full armies), Romania is not in the war (freeing up at least a German Army), and Romania might join the CP when Russia falls (Adding another A-H army and two Romanian armies). So the CP will have at least 3 and maybe up to 6 more armies to use in 1917 or 1918. There are a lot of butterflies from Brusilov failure and Romania not entering the war, they are good for the CP.

It is hard to know exactly what the Germans would do in 1917, since Hindenburg is likely not GHQ commander without Verdun. But lets take some lower butterfly scenarios:

1) 1917 - After fall of Tsar, peace terms offered to Russia where Russia losses Finland, Lithuania, and Poland. A few weeks later, a 3 to 6 army offensive is launched towards St. Petersburg. Russian forces are driven back and likely some are routed. With columns driving on St. Petersburg (even if still a long way off), the Russians make peace by late 1917.

Or

2) 1918 - Things go on much as our time line, Zimmerman and like still happen. But in early 1918, the Germans use an additional 3 to 6 armies in the final offensive in France. They attack on a broader front, and likely take and hold Amiens. This scenario is much harder to call, but the Entente may want to make peace.

or

3) More like your Italy first plan, the extra 3 to 6 armies are used for an offensive in Italy, likely taking the Northern Italy Plain, and possibly driving Italy making peace.

But remember my bias. Anything that stops Brusilov wins the war. Anything that stops Zimmerman + 1917 unrestricted warfare ends the war. I am less sure about 1914, because to redo the entire German plan would take a POD at least a year before the war, and there are so many butterflies. France does not lose so industry. Britain may be delayed entering war, or may not conscript troops til much later. How does the Tsar react if he knows the Germans have a Russia first plan, and Russia will likely lose Poland and the Baltics to begin the war, etc?

 

[BlondieBC]

Russia was hurt, but I don't think they could have been knocked out of the war in 15. Just not possible. As was said, they could simply retreat, and buy time by drawing the CP armies deeper in, which would not be a good thing for the CP.

Italy was imho not in a fresh state in 1916. In fact, I feel as though they for the most part were only saved by the fact that their front was secondary, and they weren't outnumbered, nor even on the receiving end of offensives all that often. The Battle of Asiago showed how vulnerable they were, to even a weak offensive. I feel a massive offensive coupled with an easy peace would knock them out of the war. They simply couldn't deal with AH on a tactical nor strategic level.

As for Salonika, the AH would just tie down more Entente troops. I don7t think they could advance much more than they did OTL given the terrain.

I think the grad strat for 1916 would be, to guard against Russia, take Italy out, and defend on the West with a Hindenberg line type strat. It is up the the Entente to attack there, as the Germans are on their ground.
If they can knock Italy out, they can press Russia a bit more, and perhaps keep Romania neutral. Isn't this pretty much Von Hindenburg7s 1917 strat?

Yes Russia would be very difficult to impossible to knock out in 1915, but it still may have been the best plan. Germany would have gained additional land and resources of various value depending on which areas were captured. At a minimum, there is the additional food that can be looted from the land plus possible mines, looted factories, and even things like scrap metal. A major push taking parts of the western Ukraine also surrounds Romania, likely making it insane for Romania to join the Entente. BTW, A-H wanted to have an Italy offensive plus and Ukrainian one. The German GHQ did not like the Italy Plan because it was supported by a single gage railroad.

On Italy, Italy was attacking more frequently than either France or Britain, on to rough terrain. There is a lot to be said for low quality Italian troops being allowed to attack up hill.

The real problem with all this though is we have hindsight. I know Russia was weak and fragile in WW1, but the Germans, and as far as i can tell, and the rest of the world had no clue the Tsar was in his last months of power by 1916.

And the plan you want is the A-H plan for 1916, not Hindenburg. But good luck finding a German officer who will admit the A-H may have been right in 1916, and not following their advice cost them the German Empire.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I did a lot of thread searches, nothing really dealing with the AH empire during WWI. Was there a trend a while ago that I missed?

I've written quite a bit about AH. Their army is a hobby of mine ever since I visited the war museum in Vienna. I have a ton of books in English and German about the Austro-Hungarians, so if you're interested about anything let me know. You can search my threads and you'll find something. I've still a lot of work to do on a few of them though.

As far as Italy, the best thing that can happen for both Italy and the CPs is for Italy to stay out of the war. AH probably would have survived the war if not for Italy.

But remember too that it was a strategic blackhole for the Germans and Austrians. They just had to make sure they didn't lose, but there was very little to gain from going on the offensive against them. The mountains could be held very cheaply compared to what it would cost to knock them out of the war. Look at what happened after Caporetto; the AHs were bled to death due to the lack of infrastructure from Austria to Italy. Their army starved in the Italian plains because there weren't enough rail lines to supply the AH army in Italy. They would have been better off withdrawing to their mountains after the offensive or never going on the offensive at all!

I think the situation at Verdun spiraled out of control. There were some great successes, but as the battle went on, it seemed the Germans got sucked into a brawl, instead of a proper tactical exchnage, which they were aiming for.

There are multiple ways to look at things. Falkenhayn was right in his understanding of the situation, but the problem was in execution. He didn't execute the battle himself, which is another issue. First of all he didn't expect the French to break so quickly and fall back, which meant that the 5th army's infantry was separated from their artillery early on. Next, because the West Bank wasn't incorporated into the attack the flanking fire heavily cost the Germans when they were trying to advance. Additionally when the Germans advanced they found that they held ground that was indefensible, because it was the French that had the necessary high ground to make the German attack successful, so they were forced to continue to attack to grab it. Finally, it was the unexpectedly excellent defense of Petain that made it nearly impossible to achieve the goal of seizing the Souville-Tavannes-Vaux axis.

Additional trouble was caused by faulty intelligence too. Falkenhayn was convinced that the attacks were grinding the French out horribly, because they were constantly rotating divisions out of the battle. Intelligence suggested it was because they were too worn out to fight anymore, when in fact it was simply Petain's 'bucket' system to ensure that no division became too worn out to fight.

As it was, the French took considerably more dead and permanently wounded than the Germans. 167,000 French dead to 100,000 German. Also the German wounded were twice as likely to recover and return to battle as the French wounded at Verdun. In that sense the Germans 'won'.
I'm not saying that the way it was executed was a victory or a good idea, despite the French morale collapse in 1917, but it wasn't as unfavorable to the Germans as thought. That and the idea, as well as the logic that justified it, was sound. It was the right play at the time, but the poor execution of the offensive and certain misconceptions by the 5th army and OHL that doomed it.

Honestly I cannot think of what the Germans could have done instead of Verdun in 1916 that would have made sense.

 

[elkarlo]

Look up WIKING. He talks a lot about Brusilov and A-H.

I guess a lot of the analysis on what should be done depends on why one thinks the CP lost and where the Entente won. The CP had the war won on January 1, 1917 if they don't do unrestricted sub warfare and no Zimmerman. IMO, even no Zimmerman may have been enough to win the war and an USA failure to extend unsecured credit for an additional 6 months wins the war for the CP in a cold peace. Russia success in 1914 and 1916 against Hungary won the war for the Entente. In 1914, the A-H loses hundred of thousands of prisoners and Italy enters the war. In 1916, A-H loses hundred of thousands of people and Romania enters the war. For me, turning points flow from these events.

Verdun was not a strategic success, but when combined with Somme, the Entente lost more than the Germans. So, Verdun is simply an costly, indecisive loss. If Verdun had still happened, but Brusilov had just been a minor Entente victory, then the CP win most likely. It was the losses from the entire war, collapsing economy, tsarist incompetence, and lack of food that ended the Romanov rule. I agree it is hard to see Russia folding say in mid-1916. Food shortages get worse in late winter, early spring.

Now I believe Germany doing an east first plan in 1916 wins the war, because a major, multi-army attack from Germany anywhere in the east prevents the Russians from having a big victory in Brusilov. As would simply holding more corps in reserve and moving the corp to the east faster in 1916. In either case in 1917, A-H has around 400K more troops (two full armies), Romania is not in the war (freeing up at least a German Army), and Romania might join the CP when Russia falls (Adding another A-H army and two Romanian armies). So the CP will have at least 3 and maybe up to 6 more armies to use in 1917 or 1918. There are a lot of butterflies from Brusilov failure and Romania not entering the war, they are good for the CP.

It is hard to know exactly what the Germans would do in 1917, since Hindenburg is likely not GHQ commander without Verdun. But lets take some lower butterfly scenarios:

1) 1917 - After fall of Tsar, peace terms offered to Russia where Russia losses Finland, Lithuania, and Poland. A few weeks later, a 3 to 6 army offensive is launched towards St. Petersburg. Russian forces are driven back and likely some are routed. With columns driving on St. Petersburg (even if still a long way off), the Russians make peace by late 1917.

Or

2) 1918 - Things go on much as our time line, Zimmerman and like still happen. But in early 1918, the Germans use an additional 3 to 6 armies in the final offensive in France. They attack on a broader front, and likely take and hold Amiens. This scenario is much harder to call, but the Entente may want to make peace.

or

3) More like your Italy first plan, the extra 3 to 6 armies are used for an offensive in Italy, likely taking the Northern Italy Plain, and possibly driving Italy making peace.

But remember my bias. Anything that stops Brusilov wins the war. Anything that stops Zimmerman + 1917 unrestricted warfare ends the war. I am less sure about 1914, because to redo the entire German plan would take a POD at least a year before the war, and there are so many butterflies. France does not lose so industry. Britain may be delayed entering war, or may not conscript troops til much later. How does the Tsar react if he knows the Germans have a Russia first plan, and Russia will likely lose Poland and the Baltics to begin the war, etc?

Will look it up.

I agree, the war was in the bag in 1917, before the US joined. But that strat fell in line with the Germans, and their love of Hail Mary schemes. I just feel that they should have spent cleaning up the side lines in 1916, and then go on the offensive in 1917. I think that would have made the Spring offense of 1918 happen in the summer of 1917, when Germany would have enough steam to make some serious gains. While letting the French and Brits smash their heads on the western lines.

The Germans being who they were, I am sure they had plans that had every sit covered, including Russia first.

I guess without Verdun, Falkenhayn would still be in charge. Shame, he was brilliant, but I think he should have been in charge of a theater instead of the whole show. As he did some brilliant work in Romania and the ME. If he were to be put in charge of a front instead of going after Verdun, the CP would have had it clinched.

The Zimmerman deal was so dumb, I used to think it was made up by the Brits. Amazing how dumb that was.

Do you think that intergrating German units and having Germans being in command of the Eastern front would have blunted the Brusilov offensive?
Anyhow, it was pretty scary, as that was Russia's potential. It was the one time when everything was working right at the right time.

Isn't scenario 1 pretty much how the OTL went down, save for a quicker peace treaty being signed?

In the 3rd, what would Italy falling out of the war in Autumn 1916 do? Say the Brusilov wasn't a massive success, just a minor one. What would AH do, now that they had no active front? As the Bulgarians pretty much took care of the Salonikan theater.

 

[elkarlo]

Yes Russia would be very difficult to impossible to knock out in 1915, but it still may have been the best plan. Germany would have gained additional land and resources of various value depending on which areas were captured. At a minimum, there is the additional food that can be looted from the land plus possible mines, looted factories, and even things like scrap metal. A major push taking parts of the western Ukraine also surrounds Romania, likely making it insane for Romania to join the Entente. BTW, A-H wanted to have an Italy offensive plus and Ukrainian one. The German GHQ did not like the Italy Plan because it was supported by a single gage railroad.

On Italy, Italy was attacking more frequently than either France or Britain, on to rough terrain. There is a lot to be said for low quality Italian troops being allowed to attack up hill.

The real problem with all this though is we have hindsight. I know Russia was weak and fragile in WW1, but the Germans, and as far as i can tell, and the rest of the world had no clue the Tsar was in his last months of power by 1916.

And the plan you want is the A-H plan for 1916, not Hindenburg. But good luck finding a German officer who will admit the A-H may have been right in 1916, and not following their advice cost them the German Empire.

I don't think Russia could be taken out in 1915. Too much space, still in outer Russia, and the armies were still intact. I think pushing too deep would've over extended the supply lines too much, as it took a while to readjust the rail gauge.

Didn't the Russia do scorched earth? I don't think the CP got much loot outa the 1915 camp.

I don't think anyone saw 1917 coming in 1916. The endurance was pushed past it's limits, and something snapped. I still don't fully understand how things feel apart that quickly. Though I guess Russia being so big, had the dino's tail problem, by the time it realizes something is happening, it's already too late.

Heck surround Romania and offer their a bite of bessarabia, and they might stay outa it.
Which is what AH should have done. Done what they could have to keep Italy outa the war. Then afterwards, go and take it back.

The Italians were also fighting the war a year behind schedule, with poor command, and with no heavy artillery, and no reliable way to cut wire. Honestly, I am shocked that the Italians didn't kill their officers and go home.

I know, but still, what do you think of the idea? If somehow someone in HQ decided to take out the small fries, before going in for the kill. I think it's a decent idea.

 

[elkarlo]

I've written quite a bit about AH. Their army is a hobby of mine ever since I visited the war museum in Vienna. I have a ton of books in English and German about the Austro-Hungarians, so if you're interested about anything let me know. You can search my threads and you'll find something. I've still a lot of work to do on a few of them though.

As far as Italy, the best thing that can happen for both Italy and the CPs is for Italy to stay out of the war. AH probably would have survived the war if not for Italy.

But remember too that it was a strategic blackhole for the Germans and Austrians. They just had to make sure they didn't lose, but there was very little to gain from going on the offensive against them. The mountains could be held very cheaply compared to what it would cost to knock them out of the war. Look at what happened after Caporetto; the AHs were bled to death due to the lack of infrastructure from Austria to Italy. Their army starved in the Italian plains because there weren't enough rail lines to supply the AH army in Italy. They would have been better off withdrawing to their mountains after the offensive or never going on the offensive at all!



There are multiple ways to look at things. Falkenhayn was right in his understanding of the situation, but the problem was in execution. He didn't execute the battle himself, which is another issue. First of all he didn't expect the French to break so quickly and fall back, which meant that the 5th army's infantry was separated from their artillery early on. Next, because the West Bank wasn't incorporated into the attack the flanking fire heavily cost the Germans when they were trying to advance. Additionally when the Germans advanced they found that they held ground that was indefensible, because it was the French that had the necessary high ground to make the German attack successful, so they were forced to continue to attack to grab it. Finally, it was the unexpectedly excellent defense of Petain that made it nearly impossible to achieve the goal of seizing the Souville-Tavannes-Vaux axis.

Additional trouble was caused by faulty intelligence too. Falkenhayn was convinced that the attacks were grinding the French out horribly, because they were constantly rotating divisions out of the battle. Intelligence suggested it was because they were too worn out to fight anymore, when in fact it was simply Petain's 'bucket' system to ensure that no division became too worn out to fight.

As it was, the French took considerably more dead and permanently wounded than the Germans. 167,000 French dead to 100,000 German. Also the German wounded were twice as likely to recover and return to battle as the French wounded at Verdun. In that sense the Germans 'won'.
I'm not saying that the way it was executed was a victory or a good idea, despite the French morale collapse in 1917, but it wasn't as unfavorable to the Germans as thought. That and the idea, as well as the logic that justified it, was sound. It was the right play at the time, but the poor execution of the offensive and certain misconceptions by the 5th army and OHL that doomed it.

Honestly I cannot think of what the Germans could have done instead of Verdun in 1916 that would have made sense.

Wow, didn't know that. My great grand father was in the AH army. Was a Ukrainian too. Honestly, can you give me a list of the English titles? I would love to get my hands on them.

Italy was prolly the biggest loser to win an make it through the war. It was just a bad idea all around. If AH gave them some of tyrol and what not, and promised them Albania. Both sides would've walked away better off for it.

Didn't realize that they starved. I thought it was just the normal level that was pretty much the situation in AH at that time. But agreed, they should've pulled back. WHich would've hampered the Italians more.


Hmm, interesting. I personally think that the Germans made the perfect plan at Verdun, it went well, but as you said, he factors changed, and they should've stayed contend, instead of trading blows with the French. As they got sucked into an attritional battle. I think they should've stopped at the halfway point, instead of throwing good money after bad.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Wow, didn't know that. My great grand father was in the AH army. Was a Ukrainian too. Honestly, can you give me a list of the English titles? I would love to get my hands on them.

This is a very short list. Some of the books I have are expensive and have to be ordered from Austria, specifically the war museum, though they have english translations for them. I can give you links for those if you want, but they are specialist tomes about artillery or assault infantry units.

Good background about the situation leading up the time of Conrad:
http://www.amazon.com/Rebirth-Habsburg-Army-Friedrich-Contributions/dp/0313293619

Good for understanding the system and society, especially the reasons that the Ukrainians hated the Habsburgs (hint Polish oppression)
http://www.amazon.com/Habsburg-Mona...=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324564376&sr=1-8

The best book in English:
http://www.amazon.com/Army-Francis-Joseph-Gunther-Rothenberg/dp/1557531455

Still the very best books are all in German...

Didn't realize that they starved. I thought it was just the normal level that was pretty much the situation in AH at that time. But agreed, they should've pulled back. WHich would've hampered the Italians more.

It was both the shitty production situation and poor logistics. Its interesting to compare the supply situation in South Tyrol and the Italian plain in 1918. The best thing they could have done would have been to pull an Operation Albrecht in North Italy and lay waste to the countryside and pull back to the mountains. The Italians wouldn't have been able to do a single thing about it.

Italy was prolly the biggest loser to win an make it through the war. It was just a bad idea all around. If AH gave them some of tyrol and what not, and promised them Albania. Both sides would've walked away better off for it.

It would have been a terrible decision to give Italy anything. Give them a finger and they take the whole hand...
Also it would have unbalanced the monarchy politically speaking, a non-starter.

 

[Anaxagoras]

If the Germans do not launch their offensive at Verdun, then the French will launch a massive offensive of their own to correspond with the British offensive at the Somme. This will probably result in the bulk of German forces allocated to the Italian Front to be pulled back to the Western Front.

 

[elkarlo]

This is a very short list. Some of the books I have are expensive and have to be ordered from Austria, specifically the war museum, though they have english translations for them. I can give you links for those if you want, but they are specialist tomes about artillery or assault infantry units.

Good background about the situation leading up the time of Conrad:
http://www.amazon.com/Rebirth-Habsburg-Army-Friedrich-Contributions/dp/0313293619

Good for understanding the system and society, especially the reasons that the Ukrainians hated the Habsburgs (hint Polish oppression)
http://www.amazon.com/Habsburg-Mona...=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324564376&sr=1-8

The best book in English:
http://www.amazon.com/Army-Francis-Joseph-Gunther-Rothenberg/dp/1557531455

Still the very best books are all in German...



It was both the shitty production situation and poor logistics. Its interesting to compare the supply situation in South Tyrol and the Italian plain in 1918. The best thing they could have done would have been to pull an Operation Albrecht in North Italy and lay waste to the countryside and pull back to the mountains. The Italians wouldn't have been able to do a single thing about it.


It would have been a terrible decision to give Italy anything. Give them a finger and they take the whole hand...
Also it would have unbalanced the monarchy politically speaking, a non-starter.

Thanks, added them to my wish list. I will take it from there. Not sure I want a tome

Ah, interesting, I would not have thought of doing a large scale raid in WWI, well at least not after Oct 1914 or so. But Italy did suffer pretty badly from lack of foodstuffs, and their civ death rate showed that. A bit more, and it could have been large scale food riots.

True, I guess just promise them Albania and stall then.

Indeed. The Poles were pretty nasty to the Ukrainians in AH. As were the Hungarians to the Romanians. But my great grand father served, and even made it to Corporal. Really wish, I could get more info on him.

 

[elkarlo]

If the Germans do not launch their offensive at Verdun, then the French will launch a massive offensive of their own to correspond with the British offensive at the Somme. This will probably result in the bulk of German forces allocated to the Italian Front to be pulled back to the Western Front.

True it would suck out a lot of their reserves, but not as many any Somme +Verdun did. i7m not sure how Germany dealt with that, the Russians and Romanians.