Anybody here well-read on the Great War & want to discuss it?

As my interest in WW1 is purely strategic and military rather than political. For those interested Wiki is pretty detailed

This thread is in danger of getting too political. Discussions for example on Africa and the Middle East have no relevance to secret and unbuilt projects
 
As my interest in WW1 is purely strategic and military rather than political. For those interested Wiki is pretty detailed

This thread is in danger of getting too political. Discussions for example on Africa and the Middle East have no relevance to secret and unbuilt projects
Apologies! Not intending to steer this to politics, I put this thread in the Bar just to discuss the war. I thought the Sykes-Picot Agreement / Balfour Declaration was a interesting topic for WW1.
 
I thought the Sykes-Picot Agreement / Balfour Declaration was a interesting topic for WW1.
And, in fact it is. As most of the information you're posting here. It is highly interesting to me. In fact I'm using it as a guide to learn more about the subject. Thank you very much.
But the truth, as uk 75 points out, is that we're going off-topic and into politics. The causes of WWI involve many political factors. We better try to stay on technology.
 
2-You will lose the barrage because it took millions of shells to keep it going, and that was not sustainable more than a few days;
7-Because your logistics now have to cross a couple dozen kilometers of smashed defensive lines... turned into a hellscape of craters, soon to be an ocean of mud.
That being said, if logistics and technology are to blame for the stalemate of the Western Front, why then was the Eastern Front so fluid in your opinion?
The problem was over-reliance on artillery and poor tactical usage of it.
There were equally heavy - if not heavier - barrages in WW2 using artillery and massed heavy bombers, but there were of much shorter duration against known military targets. Trying to blast strands of barbed wire and hit comparatively small target profiles a wide as a trench was pointless with primitive aerial observation. To compound that by thinking "if we bombard for a week or two we are sure to hit something" was madness. And of course long barrages were highlighting where the attack was and when it would take place.

The Eastern Front had less concentrations of artillery and therefore tended to be more fluid.

Churning out millions (billions?) of shells was a complete waste of resources.
 
@Hood : spot on.

And of course long barrages were highlighting where the attack was and when it would take place.

This. Look, another absurdity to throw on the WWI pile ! The british did it at the Somme, the Germans at Verdun, the French at Chemin-des-dames. And as you say - a) the ennemy got the message - sigh, facepalm - b) moved a safe distance away from the barrage max range, c) reinforced its line of defense there, and d) just waited for the exhausted offensive to come dying in front of them.

WWI was a murderous game of fools.
 
Last edited:
Could it be considered that due to a combination of technological confluence of some mature but other still immature tech that resulted in lack of stretegy. Sort of evil perfect storm ?
 
I didn't knew about that one.
However, if one of the main causes of WWI was the emergence of Imperial Germany, establishing competence with existing powers, why not start the timeline from the Napoleonic Wars?
A weakened Hasburg Empire and Napoleonic devastation in Northern Europe resulted in the German Unification giving birth to Imperial Germany.
In that case, why not blame the 30 Years War for making Germany the impoverished backwater of Europe for centuries to come? Or looking further back, the over proliferation of princely states and nobility in the Middle Ages? The lower nobility were so numerous and impoverished that some turned to banditry in the 16th century.

It’s really no wonder that the political unification of Germany in the second half of the 19th century and first half of the 20th was so traumatic for Europe. In comparison, England had attained the sort of unitary state in the 10th century that no Holy Roman Emperor could hope to attain. The Germans were arguable the most politically backward and least cultured Europeans into the 19th century.
 
Do you think T.E. Lawrence's efforts with the Arab tribes were in vain considering the Sykes-Picot Agreement / Balfour Declaration and how the Middle East was divided?
The Arab Revolt was a success for the Hashemites considering that their rule still continues in Jordan. One can argue that an all encompassing Hashemite Arab State centered in Damascus would ultimately have failed considering how quickly Arabia fell to Ibn Saud. If anything, British influence contained Saud to Arabia and saved Hashemite rule in Iraq. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire is still being felt in the Middle East even today, over a century later, which makes sense considering that Turkmen in various dynasties had controlled the entire region for the better part of a millennium.
 
Do you think the Schlieffen Plan was inherently flawed then? Considering the railway networks Germany had at its disposal, would a first strike East been a better move? Since I was a child I was always told, and this is still true today, that Germany intended to defeat France first while Russia was still raising its armies, as Russia's mobilization was must slower. That being said, I have often wondered if that were the case, would it not have been a better strategy to hit Russia first while it was disorganized, while holding down France at the border? That would also avoided the consequence of violating Belgium's neutrality and ensuring the UK's entry into the war.

The Schlieffen Plan was too ambitious, the first Army had move west of Paris around and reach French and BEF troops from behind.
However the soldier's would exhaust from this forced march.
biggest issue for Germans was to fix the destroy French and Belgium railways and bridges.
Next to that have Russian faster mobilise as German expected, total failure of German secret service and Von Moltke, the Younger.
Lucky were Russian forces totally incompetent in combat with Germans...
Were Hindenburg appropriate the fame of his subordinates (in fact he sleep during battle of Tannenberg)

Now on East Senario
in Alternate History forums, are allot discussion about this Senario.
Here The German attack with 7 armies, Russia first and defends with rest the West front of German Empire.
This Senario has interesting aspect were French Army demand to move true Belgium.
While Belgium King refuse do neutrality of Belgium !
Under 1839 Treaty of London is British Empire oblige to defend Belgium neutrality agains every invader !
What could bring paradoxical situation that BEF take action against French forces in Belgium...
Theoretical could this war goes to 1917 were Russia collapse and goes for Peace,
While German forces move from East to west front for general attack on west front.
 
And, in fact it is. As most of the information you're posting here. It is highly interesting to me. In fact I'm using it as a guide to learn more about the subject. Thank you very much.
But the truth, as uk 75 points out, is that we're going off-topic and into politics. The causes of WWI involve many political factors. We better try to stay on technology.
Very fair. I am glad I could at least steer you in a path to learning, haha!

The problem was over-reliance on artillery and poor tactical usage of it.
There were equally heavy - if not heavier - barrages in WW2 using artillery and massed heavy bombers, but there were of much shorter duration against known military targets. Trying to blast strands of barbed wire and hit comparatively small target profiles a wide as a trench was pointless with primitive aerial observation. To compound that by thinking "if we bombard for a week or two we are sure to hit something" was madness. And of course long barrages were highlighting where the attack was and when it would take place.

The Eastern Front had less concentrations of artillery and therefore tended to be more fluid.

Churning out millions (billions?) of shells was a complete waste of resources.
That being said, would you not credit the lack of artillery to the sheer vastness of the Eurasian Steppe then? Would that imply then, at least given how primitive technology was then, artillery was only useful when in closer proximity to resource hubs and targets, or better yet, if the logistics chains could actually be maintained?

@Hood : spot on.



This. Look, another absurdity to throw on the WWI pile ! The british did it at the Somme, the Germans at Verdun, the French at Chemin-des-dames. And as you say - a) the ennemy got the message - sigh, facepalm - b) moved a safe distance away from the barrage max range, c) reinforced its line of defense there, and d) just waited for the exhausted offensive to come dying in front of them.

WWI was a murderous game of fools.
Was that not exploited later in the war due to the inherent complacency behind what was expected of barrages? I swear I recall something of the sort.

Could it be considered that due to a combination of technological confluence of some mature but other still immature tech that resulted in lack of stretegy. Sort of evil perfect storm ?
I do agree there. I think there was so much new technology that strategy / tactics could not keep up, ergo new things were constantly being attempted, while old things were phased out. For example the role of cavalry on the Western Front greatly diminished, while on the Eastern Front it remained relevant, meanwhile the opposite was true for artillery. By the war's end, combined arms were finding the necessary synchronicity to achieve synergy and morph into the sort of tactics / strategy being pioneered before WW2.

The Arab Revolt was a success for the Hashemites considering that their rule still continues in Jordan. One can argue that an all encompassing Hashemite Arab State centered in Damascus would ultimately have failed considering how quickly Arabia fell to Ibn Saud. If anything, British influence contained Saud to Arabia and saved Hashemite rule in Iraq. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire is still being felt in the Middle East even today, over a century later, which makes sense considering that Turkmen in various dynasties had controlled the entire region for the better part of a millennium.
I am still learning about the rise of the House of Saud and the various tribal conflicts post war; the Middle East Front was not just important to the war, but to everything... yet I will leave that statement there in respect to uk 75 & antonio. I will say however I will focus on that area's history for my alternate history timeline in regards to the role of the Hashemites.

The Schlieffen Plan was too ambitious, the first Army had move west of Paris around and reach French and BEF troops from behind.
However the soldier's would exhaust from this forced march.
biggest issue for Germans was to fix the destroy French and Belgium railways and bridges.
Next to that have Russian faster mobilise as German expected, total failure of German secret service and Von Moltke, the Younger.
Lucky were Russian forces totally incompetent in combat with Germans...
Were Hindenburg appropriate the fame of his subordinates (in fact he sleep during battle of Tannenberg)

Now on East Senario
in Alternate History forums, are allot discussion about this Senario.
Here The German attack with 7 armies, Russia first and defends with rest the West front of German Empire.
This Senario has interesting aspect were French Army demand to move true Belgium.
While Belgium King refuse do neutrality of Belgium !
Under 1839 Treaty of London is British Empire oblige to defend Belgium neutrality agains every invader !
What could bring paradoxical situation that BEF take action against French forces in Belgium...
Theoretical could this war goes to 1917 were Russia collapse and goes for Peace,
While German forces move from East to west front for general attack on west front.
I agree on both accounts. I do wonder about how the UK would react if France violated Belgium's neutrality and not Germany. The same applies to Switzerland, as I had mentioned earlier with France's Plan H. On a side note, I also wonder about the almost Russian occupation of Swedish Gotland... but that is off topic.
 
I do wonder about how the UK would react if France violated Belgium's neutrality and not Germany.
Given France is an ally I think there would be a blind eye turned to that (after all Fisher's Baltic Plan would probably involve infringing Danish territory).
As with any geopolitical situation, you focus on the enemy and turn a blind eye to the actions of your mates.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom