Which Great Power(s) Had the Greatest Over- or Under-Performance In WWI?

[Kevin C. Smith]

Inspired by this thread, I am curious what is everyone's opinion about the performance of the various Great Powers that fought WWI? Not only overall (1914-1918) but also in each year of the war. Who do you think managed to punch above their weight in 1914/15/16/17/18? Offensively or defensively? Conversely, who looked better on paper than their performance?

 

[BrockSampson]

Worst I’d say is Austria-Hungary. They had tough terrain to deal with but still underperformed compared to their strength in paper. To say nothing of the beating they took at Russian hands.
Best has to be Germany. They fought a two front war, against most of the rest of the world, with a blockade strangling trade, and propped up A-H at the same time. All that and they still lasted for years, inflicting terrifying casualties, broke Russia, nearly broke France, bankrupted Britain, and only lost in battle after the US came in against them to prop up the Entente and the blockade made things untenable at home.

 

[Citycat]

Under performance in WWI was discussed in the other thread, and the general consensus was Russia as the biggest underperformer.

For over performance, I would argue the Ottoman Empire performed better than anyone expected in WWI. As they were "easy beats" for most of the 19th and early 20th century being labelled the "Sick Man of Europe" and being carved up piecemeal by great and small powers alike in multiple losing conflicts as recently as the last 1-3 years before 1914, by time WWI came they had a poor reputation.

In WWI, the Allies believed the Turks would be the soft underbelly of the Central Powers, but it did not turn out to be the case and attacking the Ottomans proved difficult and failed to break the deadlock like the Allies had hope for.