We all know that the Great War wasn't all that great. It's in many ways the war of blunders. I'm interested in what people think were some of the more important/interesting/amusing. Many are well-known: Russian lack of functioning high command. Germany's fleet thing. General failure until 1914 to grasp the effects of modern firepower. Churchill's turkey. Austria-Hungary's... well, Austria-Hungary.
One that I don't think get enough attention is the complete failure of the UK (and US) to prepare for war. The UK amazingly went to war in 1914 without an army. It took years before they started to pull their weight. Even Sweden had realized in the decades before that mass armies were necessary FFS. If the UK had put 2 million trained and equipped men on the continent in 1914 they may not exactly have been able to suck sausages in Berlin but the war in the west would certainly have been very different.
IMHO France did some important shit right, in some ways better than anyone else. They realized that they needed every man in uniform and acted on that info.
And imagine that I said something about how awesome dreadnoughts were.
I don't think the word "Great" was used to imply grandeur or wonderful, but more as a quantitative measure as in Large, Big.
Quote from: Josephus on December 01, 2011, 11:40:12 AM
I don't think the word "Great" was used to imply grandeur or wonderful, but more as a quantitative measure as in Large, Big.
Really? Are you sure? :hmm:
How did the UK not have a sizable army? They had a worldwide empire to garrison, and had many units from nations within that empire serving. I find it surprising that their army was so lacking, if that is the case.
You need a fleet to protect an Empire like that, the army was not so important, a small professional force of about 250,000 men.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 01, 2011, 12:15:56 PM
You need a fleet to protect an Empire like that, the army was not so important, a small professional force of about 250,000 men.
Heh, no wonder you guys lost the Colonies. ;)
Yes the British army was completely adequate until a pesky war broke out. Who could have known?
Gallipoli turned out shit but it wasn't doomed from the start.
Yeah, the execution was fucked up but the idea was sound: the Ottomans were the weakest link, could had been easily knocked out by taking Istanbul, then marching up AH's weak underbelly 3 years before it actually happened.
But of course that is in hindsight: Nobody knew how the western front would look like. Every great offensive there was The Real Deal which would end the war swiftly. It is perhaps understandable that they tried to seek decision there.
The British didn't have a large army essentially because they didn't envision fighting a large-scale war in Europe. Keep in mind that they hadn't had to do so since Napoleon. The British were prepared for war, except that the wars they were prepared for were colonial wars and a naval war to keep hostile forces off the British Isles (note that AFAIK, there were never any real Central Powers plans to actually invade Britian). To their credit, as soon as the war broke out and they decided to send an expeditionary force to the continent, they realized that they would need a much larger army. It just took time to build it up--it wasn't simply a matter of getting more men into the service, they had to be equipped and supplied, too.
Keep in mind, too, that the British did have a huge army--the Indian Army. It was just that they felt that they had to keep the vast majority of it in India as a garrison there.
As for the US, we weren't prepared for war because we had long followed an isolationist foreign policy, and had never had any intention of fighting in Europe.
Quote from: dps on December 01, 2011, 02:15:21 PM
The British didn't have a large army essentially because they didn't envision fighting a large-scale war in Europe. Keep in mind that they hadn't had to do so since Napoleon. The British were prepared for war, except that the wars they were prepared for were colonial wars and a naval war to keep hostile forces off the British Isles (note that AFAIK, there were never any real Central Powers plans to actually invade Britian). To their credit, as soon as the war broke out and they decided to send an expeditionary force to the continent, they realized that they would need a much larger army. It just took time to build it up--it wasn't simply a matter of getting more men into the service, they had to be equipped and supplied, too.
Keep in mind, too, that the British did have a huge army--the Indian Army. It was just that they felt that they had to keep the vast majority of it in India as a garrison there.
As for the US, we weren't prepared for war because we had long followed an isolationist foreign policy, and had never had any intention of fighting in Europe.
Yes, every country had reasons for their blunders.
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2011, 02:53:36 PM
Quote from: dps on December 01, 2011, 02:15:21 PM
The British didn't have a large army essentially because they didn't envision fighting a large-scale war in Europe. Keep in mind that they hadn't had to do so since Napoleon. The British were prepared for war, except that the wars they were prepared for were colonial wars and a naval war to keep hostile forces off the British Isles (note that AFAIK, there were never any real Central Powers plans to actually invade Britian). To their credit, as soon as the war broke out and they decided to send an expeditionary force to the continent, they realized that they would need a much larger army. It just took time to build it up--it wasn't simply a matter of getting more men into the service, they had to be equipped and supplied, too.
Keep in mind, too, that the British did have a huge army--the Indian Army. It was just that they felt that they had to keep the vast majority of it in India as a garrison there.
As for the US, we weren't prepared for war because we had long followed an isolationist foreign policy, and had never had any intention of fighting in Europe.
Yes, every country had reasons for their blunders.
Sure but there seem to me to be different categories we could put countries in:
1) Countries like France or Germany which had plans for a major ground war, but
a) had bad/poorly conceived plans, or
b) had arguably good plans, but botched the execution,
2) Countries like Belgium whose plans mostly came down to saying, "Gee, I hope we don't get invaded" but who had no real choice in the matter, and
3) Countries like the US and the UK who had no plans for a major ground war and which could have avoided going to war if they really had wanted to.
Quote from: dps on December 01, 2011, 03:18:52 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2011, 02:53:36 PM
Quote from: dps on December 01, 2011, 02:15:21 PM
The British didn't have a large army essentially because they didn't envision fighting a large-scale war in Europe. Keep in mind that they hadn't had to do so since Napoleon. The British were prepared for war, except that the wars they were prepared for were colonial wars and a naval war to keep hostile forces off the British Isles (note that AFAIK, there were never any real Central Powers plans to actually invade Britian). To their credit, as soon as the war broke out and they decided to send an expeditionary force to the continent, they realized that they would need a much larger army. It just took time to build it up--it wasn't simply a matter of getting more men into the service, they had to be equipped and supplied, too.
Keep in mind, too, that the British did have a huge army--the Indian Army. It was just that they felt that they had to keep the vast majority of it in India as a garrison there.
As for the US, we weren't prepared for war because we had long followed an isolationist foreign policy, and had never had any intention of fighting in Europe.
Yes, every country had reasons for their blunders.
Sure but there seem to me to be different categories we could put countries in:
1) Countries like France or Germany which had plans for a major ground war, but
a) had bad/poorly conceived plans, or
b) had arguably good plans, but botched the execution,
2) Countries like Belgium whose plans mostly came down to saying, "Gee, I hope we don't get invaded" but who had no real choice in the matter, and
3) Countries like the US and the UK who had no plans for a major ground war and which could have avoided going to war if they really had wanted to.
Sure, categorize away.
Fact: it was known to almost all countries (even several of the retarded ones) that the next major war in Europe would be a war of mass armies.
Fact: the Brits did nothing to prepare for this even though they were playing the alliance/guarantor game on the continent.
Fact: this left their ally France to fight for her life while the Brits were building the mass army they obviously needed.
Fact: France managed to weather the storm until the Brits got going but this was NOT a sure thing and if she hadn't it would have been pretty much game over.
The Brits tend to get away with this in the history books while less serious errors like alleged Haigian incompetence or Gallipoli get attention. Seems to me that the decision to not bring an army to an army fight was a much bigger blunder and had much bigger consequences.
Could Britain have afforded a large conscript army *and* a large standing fleet?
From 1815-1914 Britain had a tiny army costing virtually nothing whilst running a huge empire, the fleet was not that expensive either, for most of the period other countries did not even compete. The chickens may have come home to roost in 1914, though arguably the French and Russians should have had more then enough troops to deal with Germany, but the benefits of low taxation for an entire century should not be underestimated.
@dps - The British Indian army was also tiny throughout the 19th century, a quick google gives the figure of 155,000.........IIRC 57,000 of these were European troops.
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2011, 03:46:29 PM
The Brits tend to get away with this in the history books while less serious errors like alleged Haigian incompetence or Gallipoli get attention. Seems to me that the decision to not bring an army to an army fight was a much bigger blunder and had much bigger consequences.
How were the Brits to know that the French would get so soundly crushed in the opening months by the Germans? Even more importantly, how were they to know that the Russian Steamroller would get Hindenburged? How were the Brits to know that the millions that France + Russia could put into the field would not be enough? They didn't need a huge army, because their allies had huge armies - bigger armies, in fact, then their adversaries.
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2011, 03:46:29 PMSeems to me that the decision to not bring an army to an army fight was a much bigger blunder and had much bigger consequences.
But you have to keep in mind that they would have put themselves at an immediate disadvantage.
Quote from: Kleves on December 01, 2011, 05:29:10 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2011, 03:46:29 PM
The Brits tend to get away with this in the history books while less serious errors like alleged Haigian incompetence or Gallipoli get attention. Seems to me that the decision to not bring an army to an army fight was a much bigger blunder and had much bigger consequences.
How were the Brits to know that the French would get so soundly crushed in the opening months by the Germans? Even more importantly, how were they to know that the Russian Steamroller would get Hindenburged? How were the Brits to know that the millions that France + Russia could put into the field would not be enough? They didn't need a huge army, because their allies had huge armies - bigger armies, in fact, then their adversaries.
The French didn't get soundly crushed in the opening months, luckily for the Brits.
Are you saying that Britain had strong reason to believe that France and Russia would quickly defeat Germany in case of war? I haven't encountered this before.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 01, 2011, 05:23:26 PM
From 1815-1914 Britain had a tiny army costing virtually nothing whilst running a huge empire, the fleet was not that expensive either, for most of the period other countries did not even compete. The chickens may have come home to roost in 1914, though arguably the French and Russians should have had more then enough troops to deal with Germany, but the benefits of low taxation for an entire century should not be underestimated.
I bet I could understimate 'em.
What I'm saying is that, in 1914, the population of Russia was ~ 170 million, while that of France was ~ 40 million. Germany had ~ 68 million and A-H had ~52 million. Total, the Central Powers were outnumbered by around 90 million. Why should the British have expected that the added weight of their manpower would matter? You could argue that the British should have been willing to pay their share of blood from the start, but I don't think it's fair to say that they should have foreseen that they would need to tap so deeply into the national manpower pool to sustain France and Russia.
Because one Russian has rarely, if ever, been worth one properly-equipped, properly-trained, and properly-motivated soldier.
Quote from: Kleves on December 01, 2011, 06:45:43 PM
What I'm saying is that, in 1914, the population of Russia was ~ 170 million, while that of France was ~ 40 million. Germany had ~ 68 million and A-H had ~52 million. Total, the Central Powers were outnumbered by around 90 million. Why should the British have expected that the added weight of their manpower would matter? You could argue that the British should have been willing to pay their share of blood from the start, but I don't think it's fair to say that they should have foreseen that they would need to tap so deeply into the national manpower pool to sustain France and Russia.
If France and Russia quickly defeats Germany on their own then Britain indeed doesn't need a mass army. If Germany quickly defeats France (and Russia) then a big British 1914 army would have been sorely needed. If no quick victory occurs then a big British army is necessary for the slogging match and you risk French collapse while creating it. I don't see how anything other than a quick French/Russian defeat of Germany would mean that a big British army wasn't necessary. In addition a quick defeat of Germany would obviously be a lot more likely with a British mass army.
Most other European countries had grasped that mass armies were the present. Britain believed that they magically could do without one. This nearly cost them the war and certainly made the road to victory a lot harder than it could have been. Classic blunder, and like many blunders it made sense from a peacetime convenience perspective.
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2011, 06:30:28 PM
Are you saying that Britain had strong reason to believe that France and Russia would quickly defeat Germany in case of war? I haven't encountered this before.
Why would it have to be quick. If Russia and France can win by attrition while the British fleet starves Germany isnt that also a win for Britain?
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2011, 07:03:36 PM
Most other European countries had grasped that mass armies were the present. Britain believed that they magically could do without one. This nearly cost them the war and certainly made the road to victory a lot harder than it could have been. Classic blunder, and like many blunders it made sense from a peacetime convenience perspective.
Aint hindsight swell?
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2011, 07:06:34 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2011, 06:30:28 PM
Are you saying that Britain had strong reason to believe that France and Russia would quickly defeat Germany in case of war? I haven't encountered this before.
Why would it have to be quick. If Russia and France can win by attrition while the British fleet starves Germany isnt that also a win for Britain?
You can certainly find increasingly unlikely scenarios where somehow Germany gets defeated through blind luck. They make poor plans though.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2011, 07:07:26 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2011, 07:03:36 PM
Most other European countries had grasped that mass armies were the present. Britain believed that they magically could do without one. This nearly cost them the war and certainly made the road to victory a lot harder than it could have been. Classic blunder, and like many blunders it made sense from a peacetime convenience perspective.
Aint hindsight swell?
Except it wasn't hindsight for mighty military geniuses like for instance Sweden, which got rid of its 17th century recruiting system and switched to universal conscription in 1901.
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2011, 07:21:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2011, 07:07:26 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2011, 07:03:36 PM
Most other European countries had grasped that mass armies were the present. Britain believed that they magically could do without one. This nearly cost them the war and certainly made the road to victory a lot harder than it could have been. Classic blunder, and like many blunders it made sense from a peacetime convenience perspective.
Aint hindsight swell?
Except it wasn't hindsight for mighty military geniuses like for instance Sweden, which got rid of its 17th century recruiting system and switched to universal conscription in 1901.
Which mass army did Sweden lead to victory after 1901? :hmm:
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 01, 2011, 07:29:11 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2011, 07:21:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2011, 07:07:26 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2011, 07:03:36 PM
Most other European countries had grasped that mass armies were the present. Britain believed that they magically could do without one. This nearly cost them the war and certainly made the road to victory a lot harder than it could have been. Classic blunder, and like many blunders it made sense from a peacetime convenience perspective.
Aint hindsight swell?
Except it wasn't hindsight for mighty military geniuses like for instance Sweden, which got rid of its 17th century recruiting system and switched to universal conscription in 1901.
Which mass army did Sweden lead to victory after 1901? :hmm:
I don't follow.
Quote from: Kleves on December 01, 2011, 06:45:43 PM
What I'm saying is that, in 1914, the population of Russia was ~ 170 million, while that of France was ~ 40 million. Germany had ~ 68 million and A-H had ~52 million. Total, the Central Powers were outnumbered by around 90 million. Why should the British have expected that the added weight of their manpower would matter? You could argue that the British should have been willing to pay their share of blood from the start, but I don't think it's fair to say that they should have foreseen that they would need to tap so deeply into the national manpower pool to sustain France and Russia.
Well that's somewhat deceptive. Since the Russian empire is continuous unlike the French, German, and British empires you are including all their subjects. However, many of these subjects are not militarily useful. They can't be equipped, or mustered very well and some are actively hostile.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 01, 2011, 07:29:11 PM
Which mass army did Sweden lead to victory after 1901? :hmm:
You're missing the point.
Without mass conscription, Sweden might have had the extra civilian labor to ship up a few more thousand tons of iron to their Nazi overlords in WW2. So in that sense, their military recruitment system had a decisive impact in WW2.
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2011, 06:30:28 PM
Are you saying that Britain had strong reason to believe that France and Russia would quickly defeat Germany in case of war? I haven't encountered this before.
yes of course. The plan was that the French would tie up the Germans in the West, and the Russians would plow through a virtually undefended East. And it wasnt that far off - the Allies just underestimated the staggering degree of Russian command incompetence.
Britain's policy of keeping a small standing army - and relying on continental allies to do a lot of the heavy lifting when war broke out - had been successful for centuries. I'm not sure how much blame Britain deserves for not keeping a larger army by 1914 considering:
(A) They already had what appeared to be formidable continental allies encircling Germany
(B) The policy of a small standing army (partly fueled by a geographical isolation that was still equally true in 1914) had been successful for centuries
(C) As far as I'm aware, the naval race with Germany was already putting a strain on the British military budget
(D) Compared to other nations' pre-war plans, e.g. Plan XVII, the Schlieffen Plan, and Russian lack of effective planning, the British mistake of not keeping a larger army was less spectacularly costly
That being said, in hindsight it would have made sense for Britain to have had a larger army when the war broke out. But was it a particularly egregious error? I say no.
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2011, 07:03:36 PM
If Germany quickly defeats France (and Russia) then a big British 1914 army would have been sorely needed
No it wouldn't have. If France and Russia are defeated, then the British army is a waste of resources, because only the RN matters at that point.
QuoteMost other European countries had grasped that mass armies were the present. Britain believed that they magically could do without one. This nearly cost them the war and certainly made the road to victory a lot harder than it could have been. Classic blunder, and like many blunders it made sense from a peacetime convenience perspective.
But really it didn't. The French endured, and once that happened the Allies had won.
Big armies just go totally against the British way of doing things. It's really not as simple as making Britain realise it needs a big army for the next war, it would require a huge overhaul in the very way Britain thinks of its army.
The army was a secondary force, auxiliary to the navy and generally not respected. Armies just 'aren't British'.
The Brits were very much into quality over quantity, the thin red line of well drilled soldiers armed with the height of technology holding out against the great unwashed beyond. The fewer soldiers they had to bother with the better.
And hell, given the massed Russian and French numbers surely a few top of the line Brits placed in the right place would be enough?
Knock out the German navy in one big Trafalgar mark 2 and keep the Russians and French funded and minimally supported and all will be good for Britain.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 01, 2011, 07:29:11 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2011, 07:21:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2011, 07:07:26 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2011, 07:03:36 PM
Most other European countries had grasped that mass armies were the present. Britain believed that they magically could do without one. This nearly cost them the war and certainly made the road to victory a lot harder than it could have been. Classic blunder, and like many blunders it made sense from a peacetime convenience perspective.
Aint hindsight swell?
Except it wasn't hindsight for mighty military geniuses like for instance Sweden, which got rid of its 17th century recruiting system and switched to universal conscription in 1901.
Which mass army did Sweden lead to victory after 1901? :hmm:
A rouge Russian admiral nearly carried out a preemptive strike on the Swedish navy before getting called back.
It's an interesting POD (point of departure), a Russian collapse occurring just a few months earlier could have changed a lot of things.
Moreover, such a blatant attack on a neutral would cast the Entente and the Central Powers as morally equivalent. It could have swayed the diplomatic and military evaluations of other neutral powers in their decisions on whether to intervene.
Why did the Russians want to attack Sweden?
Quote from: Ideologue on December 02, 2011, 01:00:25 AM
Why did the Russians want to attack Sweden?
I'm a bit drunk so I'll have to look it up in the morning, but the admiral in charge of the Baltic fleet thought that Sweden would definitely come in on the side of the Central Powers and wanted to strike first.
Quote from: Kleves on December 01, 2011, 05:29:10 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2011, 03:46:29 PM
The Brits tend to get away with this in the history books while less serious errors like alleged Haigian incompetence or Gallipoli get attention. Seems to me that the decision to not bring an army to an army fight was a much bigger blunder and had much bigger consequences.
How were the Brits to know that the French would get so soundly crushed in the opening months by the Germans? Even more importantly, how were they to know that the Russian Steamroller would get Hindenburged? How were the Brits to know that the millions that France + Russia could put into the field would not be enough? They didn't need a huge army, because their allies had huge armies - bigger armies, in fact, then their adversaries.
they should have let the germans win.
Quote from: fahdiz on December 02, 2011, 01:10:00 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 02, 2011, 12:53:02 AM
A rouge Russian admiral
fancy
That's one of those words I literally could not spell correctly to save my life. :(
Quote from: Neil on December 01, 2011, 11:01:34 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2011, 07:03:36 PM
If Germany quickly defeats France (and Russia) then a big British 1914 army would have been sorely needed
No it wouldn't have. If France and Russia are defeated, then the British army is a waste of resources, because only the RN matters at that point.
Deliberately obtuse much? It would have been needed to prevent the quick German defeat of France and Russia.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 01, 2011, 09:23:37 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2011, 06:30:28 PM
Are you saying that Britain had strong reason to believe that France and Russia would quickly defeat Germany in case of war? I haven't encountered this before.
yes of course. The plan was that the French would tie up the Germans in the West, and the Russians would plow through a virtually undefended East. And it wasnt that far off - the Allies just underestimated the staggering degree of Russian command incompetence.
^_^
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on December 01, 2011, 10:32:10 PM
Britain's policy of keeping a small standing army - and relying on continental allies to do a lot of the heavy lifting when war broke out - had been successful for centuries. I'm not sure how much blame Britain deserves for not keeping a larger army by 1914 considering:
(A) They already had what appeared to be formidable continental allies encircling Germany
(B) The policy of a small standing army (partly fueled by a geographical isolation that was still equally true in 1914) had been successful for centuries
(C) As far as I'm aware, the naval race with Germany was already putting a strain on the British military budget
(D) Compared to other nations' pre-war plans, e.g. Plan XVII, the Schlieffen Plan, and Russian lack of effective planning, the British mistake of not keeping a larger army was less spectacularly costly
That being said, in hindsight it would have made sense for Britain to have had a larger army when the war broke out. But was it a particularly egregious error? I say no.
Less spectacularly costly 1) to Britain 2) with hindsight, sure. Before the war the Brits couldn't know that their huge gamble would only cost them France being almost defeated and Russia ultimately being knocked out of the war, and not the whole war. It was also an error that had a completely obvious solution: mass army. Unlike some other countries at the time Britain was also a rich, modern and centralized state that could easily have implemented it, had they wanted to.
Quote from: The Brain on December 02, 2011, 03:18:40 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on December 01, 2011, 10:32:10 PM
Britain's policy of keeping a small standing army - and relying on continental allies to do a lot of the heavy lifting when war broke out - had been successful for centuries. I'm not sure how much blame Britain deserves for not keeping a larger army by 1914 considering:
(A) They already had what appeared to be formidable continental allies encircling Germany
(B) The policy of a small standing army (partly fueled by a geographical isolation that was still equally true in 1914) had been successful for centuries
(C) As far as I'm aware, the naval race with Germany was already putting a strain on the British military budget
(D) Compared to other nations' pre-war plans, e.g. Plan XVII, the Schlieffen Plan, and Russian lack of effective planning, the British mistake of not keeping a larger army was less spectacularly costly
That being said, in hindsight it would have made sense for Britain to have had a larger army when the war broke out. But was it a particularly egregious error? I say no.
Less spectacularly costly 1) to Britain 2) with hindsight, sure. Before the war the Brits couldn't know that their huge gamble would only cost them France being almost defeated and Russia ultimately being knocked out of the war, and not the whole war. It was also an error that had a completely obvious solution: mass army. Unlike some other countries at the time Britain was also a rich, modern and centralized state that could easily have implemented it, had they wanted to.
The problem is, it wasn't a huge gamble--it was the expected course of events, and if the Russians had been even marginally competant or the French hadn't been so committed to an immediate attack throught the heavy German fortifications in Alsace-Lorraine, it would have worked.
It's not even keeping a larger army though. The British theoretically had around 700 000 troops at most in 1914. That includes full mobilisation of all reserves. By contrast the French were planning with around 1 500 000 and the Germans considerably more than that.
Although it's worth remembering that the Entente was based on Britain sending a force of 100 000 in case of a Franco-German war. That force was sent, it was just wiped out in the first few months.
Quote from: The Brain on December 02, 2011, 02:58:28 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 01, 2011, 11:01:34 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2011, 07:03:36 PM
If Germany quickly defeats France (and Russia) then a big British 1914 army would have been sorely needed
No it wouldn't have. If France and Russia are defeated, then the British army is a waste of resources, because only the RN matters at that point.
Deliberately obtuse much? It would have been needed to prevent the quick German defeat of France and Russia.
Which is exactly what they did.
British strategy: 1
The Brain: 0
But what about the ACW?
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 02, 2011, 12:00:09 PM
But what about the ACW?
The british didn't have enough soldiers in that war either.
I love Great War revisionism, therefor I :thumbsup: this thread.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 02, 2011, 12:00:09 PM
But what about the ACW?
How about a map showing the Great War's African campaigns had the South won the ACW?
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 02, 2011, 12:00:09 PM
But what about the ACW?
That is what it would have looked like if everybody tried to fight the Great War with no standing army.
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2011, 05:06:02 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 02, 2011, 12:00:09 PM
But what about the ACW?
That is what it would have looked like if everybody tried to fight the Great War with no standing army.
Germany would have won that war then I think given their immense industrial capacity and innate organization.
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2011, 05:06:02 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 02, 2011, 12:00:09 PM
But what about the ACW?
That is what it would have looked like if everybody tried to fight the Great War with no standing army.
The only winner would be the Giant Ants of Brest-Litovsk. :(
Quote from: Barrister on December 02, 2011, 05:26:13 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2011, 05:06:02 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 02, 2011, 12:00:09 PM
But what about the ACW?
That is what it would have looked like if everybody tried to fight the Great War with no standing army.
The only winner would be the Giant Ants of Brest-Litovsk. :(
No chance, they were large and powerful yes but had no general staff and their logistical support was very sub par.
They suffocated under their own weight. Dumb.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 02, 2011, 05:34:05 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 02, 2011, 05:26:13 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2011, 05:06:02 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 02, 2011, 12:00:09 PM
But what about the ACW?
That is what it would have looked like if everybody tried to fight the Great War with no standing army.
The only winner would be the Giant Ants of Brest-Litovsk. :(
No chance, they were large and powerful yes but had no general staff and their logistical support was very sub par.
And eventually Incan Torpedo Boats would have intervened to save the day.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 02, 2011, 05:23:06 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2011, 05:06:02 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 02, 2011, 12:00:09 PM
But what about the ACW?
That is what it would have looked like if everybody tried to fight the Great War with no standing army.
Germany would have won that war then I think given their immense industrial capacity and innate organization.
And their Aryan superiority.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 02, 2011, 01:00:25 AM
Why did the Russians want to attack Sweden?
Here's a thread I made about it a while back.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=4251.0
Quote from: Neil on December 02, 2011, 11:24:42 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 02, 2011, 02:58:28 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 01, 2011, 11:01:34 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2011, 07:03:36 PM
If Germany quickly defeats France (and Russia) then a big British 1914 army would have been sorely needed
No it wouldn't have. If France and Russia are defeated, then the British army is a waste of resources, because only the RN matters at that point.
Deliberately obtuse much? It would have been needed to prevent the quick German defeat of France and Russia.
Which is exactly what they did.
British strategy: 1
The Brain: 0
Hindsight is great. At least enjoyable, apparently.
Quote from: dps on December 02, 2011, 06:23:39 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 02, 2011, 03:18:40 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on December 01, 2011, 10:32:10 PM
Britain's policy of keeping a small standing army - and relying on continental allies to do a lot of the heavy lifting when war broke out - had been successful for centuries. I'm not sure how much blame Britain deserves for not keeping a larger army by 1914 considering:
(A) They already had what appeared to be formidable continental allies encircling Germany
(B) The policy of a small standing army (partly fueled by a geographical isolation that was still equally true in 1914) had been successful for centuries
(C) As far as I'm aware, the naval race with Germany was already putting a strain on the British military budget
(D) Compared to other nations' pre-war plans, e.g. Plan XVII, the Schlieffen Plan, and Russian lack of effective planning, the British mistake of not keeping a larger army was less spectacularly costly
That being said, in hindsight it would have made sense for Britain to have had a larger army when the war broke out. But was it a particularly egregious error? I say no.
Less spectacularly costly 1) to Britain 2) with hindsight, sure. Before the war the Brits couldn't know that their huge gamble would only cost them France being almost defeated and Russia ultimately being knocked out of the war, and not the whole war. It was also an error that had a completely obvious solution: mass army. Unlike some other countries at the time Britain was also a rich, modern and centralized state that could easily have implemented it, had they wanted to.
The problem is, it wasn't a huge gamble--it was the expected course of events, and if the Russians had been even marginally competant or the French hadn't been so committed to an immediate attack throught the heavy German fortifications in Alsace-Lorraine, it would have worked.
Britain based its plans on Russian competence? Blunder.
Quote from: The Brain on December 03, 2011, 04:58:59 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 02, 2011, 11:24:42 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 02, 2011, 02:58:28 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 01, 2011, 11:01:34 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2011, 07:03:36 PM
If Germany quickly defeats France (and Russia) then a big British 1914 army would have been sorely needed
No it wouldn't have. If France and Russia are defeated, then the British army is a waste of resources, because only the RN matters at that point.
Deliberately obtuse much? It would have been needed to prevent the quick German defeat of France and Russia.
Which is exactly what they did.
British strategy: 1
The Brain: 0
Hindsight is great. At least enjoyable, apparently.
You certainly seem to be enjoying it.
Quote from: Neil on December 03, 2011, 09:22:08 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 03, 2011, 04:58:59 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 02, 2011, 11:24:42 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 02, 2011, 02:58:28 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 01, 2011, 11:01:34 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2011, 07:03:36 PM
If Germany quickly defeats France (and Russia) then a big British 1914 army would have been sorely needed
No it wouldn't have. If France and Russia are defeated, then the British army is a waste of resources, because only the RN matters at that point.
Deliberately obtuse much? It would have been needed to prevent the quick German defeat of France and Russia.
Which is exactly what they did.
British strategy: 1
The Brain: 0
Hindsight is great. At least enjoyable, apparently.
You certainly seem to be enjoying it.
Am not.
OK new question. What do people think of the commanders of WW1? Who was great and who was not?
Joffre? Haig? Falkenhayn? Ludendorff? French? Conrad?
I've always had a soft spot for Falkenhayn ( :wub: ), but not based on any rational stuff.
I'm a Haig revisionist :blush:
Monty was the best WW1 general. He just happened to be fighting in the wrong war.
What about Brusilov? Was he as good as he's sometimes made out to be?
Quote from: The Brain on December 12, 2011, 11:41:05 AM
Joffre? Haig? Falkenhayn? Ludendorff? French? Conrad?
I've always had a soft spot for Falkenhayn ( :wub: ), but not based on any rational stuff.
Joffre is a hard one to rate. His leadership in 1914 was part brilliant and part remarkably incompetent. I do admire the extent the French Army reformed, experimented, and thought outside the box in 1915 but results were abyssmal and the extent he had a hand in either the innovation or the failures is not clear to me. But, you know, there was a reason he was fired in 1916.
French is also a hard one. He was the victim of the fact his country was not prepared to fight a land war of that scale so he had to launch attacks where his guns were starved for ammo in an artillery centric war. And Haig managed to get him booted. It was Loos that got him fired was it? I do not recall.
Haig was a very good general IMO. I think alot of people really underestimate the difficulty in having to invent entirely new tactics and implement new weapon systems all the time like the generals in WWI did and now that concept is generally accepted (that warfare and weapons are constantly evolving) it was really alien at the time. Every offensive Haig launched I thought he worked very hard to implement all the new weapons and tactics and try to give his men the optimal chance to succeed and sometimes it worked really well...at least at the beginning. World War I battles tended to take on a life of their own and just suck men and material in and Haig really seemed to lose control as the vortex would start sucking in British reserves but is that his fault or just the nature of the beast? But at the very least the Germans suffered just as much if not more from his offensives which is not something you can say to the same extent about Allied efforts in 1915.
I hate Conrad with a pathological loathing so it is hard to be objective. He was one of the big drivers in getting A-H into the war in the first place (and thus starting it) because of his pathological hatred of Serbia. He then incompetently mismanaged the Second Army and managed to make sure Austria-Hungary would lose on both fronts by suicidally attacking both Serbia and Russia at the same time. He then seemed to work as hard as he could to undermine his German allies whenever he could, seemingly out of jealousy because of how badly his army had performed in comparison to the Germans. Just a loathsome man, general, and politician IMO. But I really dislike him so take that with a grain of salt.
Falkenhayn was simply incorrect in his strategic thinking. The Germans needed to expend as few troops as possible on the Western Front while Russia was still fighting. They had to keep Austria-Hungary and their other allies in the war and I think Falkenhayn blundered by turning to attack in the West in 1916. Especially after he had so much success in 1915 by going East. I think his hatred of the British and fury about their blockade of Germany played a big part in the decision. And then his efforts were largely undermined by Conrad's absurd attack on Italy right when he needed them to hold the Russians in the East. Was that his fault or Conrad's? Naturally I blame Conrad but Falkenhayn needed to at least make sure he was informed about what the Austro-Hungarians were doing. Surely it wasn't that well kept a secret that they were preparing an attack at Trentino.
Quote from: The Brain on December 12, 2011, 12:00:24 PM
What about Brusilov? Was he as good as he's sometimes made out to be?
Well there is no doubt Brusilov was a competent, innovative, and consummate professional which is not something you saw in the Imperial Russian Army very often. I mean he did nothing but crush the enemy he was attacking constantly and only Russian failures elsewhere tended to slow him down. On the other hand, it is pretty easy to look like a genius when most of your battles are against Austria-Hungary. I say the best compliment for Brusilov was that the German Army copied his tactics (especially with regard to artillery) and strategic thinking he used during the Brusilov Offensive for their own attack on the Western Front in 1918 to a large extent.
Pity he became a Commie.
Quote from: The Brain on December 12, 2011, 11:41:05 AM
OK new question. What do people think of the commanders of WW1? Who was great and who was not?
Joffre? Haig? Falkenhayn? Ludendorff? French? Conrad?
I've always had a soft spot for Falkenhayn ( :wub: ), but not based on any rational stuff.
My favorite: Giulio Douhet.
I think Falkenhayn deserves some points for realizing the true nature of the war. ie. his Verdun offensive was for attrition not the elusive breakthrough. It's a sad ironic thing that if he wasn't so convinced that a true breakthrough was impossible, it might, it might just had happened at the opening phase of that offensive. But as I said, IIRC he was the first high level decision maker to not only realize how that war could be won, but also acted on it.
And sure, now we say all those troops and materials should had been spent at the East. Probably. But I think there are too many what-ifs going full scale homeland invasion of 1916's Russia to be certain of it.
But I would vote for Brusilov. Sure, he faced the Austro-Hungarians, but so did most of the other Russian generals, all the Italians, and some French dudes in the Balkans later, and he was the only one who repeatedly defeated them in pure military terms. What I mean, is that he faced them with an army clearly not superior to A-H's, and not only played a good part in breaking the A-H army's back for good in 1914 (I read from a Hungarian historian once that the army basically bled dry in that year when it comes to core troops and real offensive capabilities, and I tend to agree), but also managed to almost break them again at the height of trench warfare, before the severe economic problems would start to tear the A-H army apart from the inside.
All other A-H enemies were kept at bay until the army collapsed.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 02, 2011, 05:23:06 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2011, 05:06:02 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 02, 2011, 12:00:09 PM
But what about the ACW?
That is what it would have looked like if everybody tried to fight the Great War with no standing army.
Germany would have won that war then I think given their immense industrial capacity and innate organization.
Germany industrial capacity wasn't that great. In fact, the bottom line in both World Wars was that the root of Germany's defeat was that they couldn't match the industrial output of their enemies.
Conrad comes across as very annoying in the history books. Of course his country was retarded but that's not a great excuse.
Quote from: Tamas on December 12, 2011, 02:42:20 PM
I think Falkenhayn deserves some points for realizing the true nature of the war. ie. his Verdun offensive was for attrition not the elusive breakthrough. It's a sad ironic thing that if he wasn't so convinced that a true breakthrough was impossible, it might, it might just had happened at the opening phase of that offensive. But as I said, IIRC he was the first high level decision maker to not only realize how that war could be won, but also acted on it.
But German and French casualties were just about equal at Verdun as were Allied and German casualties on the Somme. Trading man for man with the Allies was not an attrition tactic that was going to work.
I do not think the Germans could have broken through at the opening phase of the offensive but they could have taken Verdun and forced the French to take up positions behind the Meuse. Which is precisely why Falkenhayn didn't want to do it.
Quote from: The Brain on December 12, 2011, 03:50:10 PM
Conrad comes across as very annoying in the history books. Of course his country was retarded but that's not a great excuse.
He was one of the primary reasons his country acted so retarded.
Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2011, 03:56:47 PM
Quote from: Tamas on December 12, 2011, 02:42:20 PM
I think Falkenhayn deserves some points for realizing the true nature of the war. ie. his Verdun offensive was for attrition not the elusive breakthrough. It's a sad ironic thing that if he wasn't so convinced that a true breakthrough was impossible, it might, it might just had happened at the opening phase of that offensive. But as I said, IIRC he was the first high level decision maker to not only realize how that war could be won, but also acted on it.
But German and French casualties were just about equal at Verdun as were Allied and German casualties on the Somme. Trading man for man with the Allies was not an attrition tactic that was going to work.
Well yes. At the end he made the wrong conclusion out of an otherwise perfectly correct (and again: early, compared to his enemies) realization. But trading casualities at a 1:1 rating was surely not the original plan for the offensive.
Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2011, 03:56:47 PM
Quote from: Tamas on December 12, 2011, 02:42:20 PM
I think Falkenhayn deserves some points for realizing the true nature of the war. ie. his Verdun offensive was for attrition not the elusive breakthrough. It's a sad ironic thing that if he wasn't so convinced that a true breakthrough was impossible, it might, it might just had happened at the opening phase of that offensive. But as I said, IIRC he was the first high level decision maker to not only realize how that war could be won, but also acted on it.
But German and French casualties were just about equal at Verdun as were Allied and German casualties on the Somme. Trading man for man with the Allies was not an attrition tactic that was going to work.
The attack at Verdun was designed to maximize French casualties while minimizing German casualties, and was not concerned with actually advancing and taking territory. As it happened, however, the initial attack was so successful that the Germans couldn't resist the temptation to try and sieze Verdun, with the predictable outcome of their casualties increasing dramatically. If they had stuck with the plan, they might have acheived a favorable kill ratio.
Quote from: Tamas on December 12, 2011, 04:01:35 PM
Well yes. At the end he made the wrong conclusion out of an otherwise perfectly correct (and again: early, compared to his enemies) realization. But trading casualities at a 1:1 rating was surely not the original plan for the offensive.
Well to fair to him the game changed alot between 1915 and 1916. Advances in artillery and infantry tactics and weapons outpaced his strategic thinking. But that happened all the time to generals in that war.
Quote from: dps on December 12, 2011, 04:02:59 PM
The attack at Verdun was designed to maximize French casualties while minimizing German casualties, and was not concerned with actually advancing and taking territory. As it happened, however, the initial attack was so successful that the Germans couldn't resist the temptation to try and sieze Verdun, with the predictable outcome of their casualties increasing dramatically. If they had stuck with the plan, they might have acheived a favorable kill ratio.
That is a good point. Those kinds of considerations ruined many a WWI plan.
The Verdun battlefield is awesome. :wub:
Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2011, 04:04:55 PM
Quote from: dps on December 12, 2011, 04:02:59 PM
The attack at Verdun was designed to maximize French casualties while minimizing German casualties, and was not concerned with actually advancing and taking territory. As it happened, however, the initial attack was so successful that the Germans couldn't resist the temptation to try and sieze Verdun, with the predictable outcome of their casualties increasing dramatically. If they had stuck with the plan, they might have acheived a favorable kill ratio.
That is a good point. Those kinds of considerations ruined many a WWI plan.
What's interesting is that I've often seen wargamers playing WWI games make the same kind of mistakes, even though we have the benefit of hindsight and
know to a great extent what does and doesn't work. For example, in March to Victory/Over There, experienced players know that it's a mistake to advance the BEF into the Brussels area in the opening turn, because that lets any Central Powers player who's not completely inept cut the BEF to ribbons. Yet, if the CP player give the Entente an opportunity to move the BEF into central Belgium, 9 times out of 10, the Entente takes the bait. In fact, often the CP players will be less aggressive than they probably should be (the Germans can actually be at the Franco-Belguim border west of Brussels before the Entente gets to move it the CP is aggressive enough) because they know that the BEF will advance too far east given the chance.
Mackensen. :wub:
:wub:
I like his giant deaths head.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalsecurity.org%2Fmilitary%2Fworld%2Feurope%2Fimages%2Ftotenkopf-2.jpg&hash=e5109563d4d06e59fdc6d1a95023eb2cfb2ce37d)
So dreamy. :wub:
I like his gentle, approachable demeanor. :wub:
Chapeau is very nice too.
Conrad annoys me. His failure to exterminate the Serbian race is unforgivable.
Quote from: Neil on December 12, 2011, 08:08:13 PM
Conrad annoys me. His failure to exterminate the Serbian race is unforgivable.
It's not like you have made much progress on that front.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2011, 08:25:55 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 12, 2011, 08:08:13 PM
Conrad annoys me. His failure to exterminate the Serbian race is unforgivable.
It's not like you have made much progress on that front.
My homeland is Serbenrein.
What about Pershing? What was the deal with black American units and the French?
Quote from: Neil on December 12, 2011, 09:12:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2011, 08:25:55 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 12, 2011, 08:08:13 PM
Conrad annoys me. His failure to exterminate the Serbian race is unforgivable.
It's not like you have made much progress on that front.
My homeland is Serbenrein.
:huh:
Our dayhome lady is a Kosovar Serb, and she lives in your homeland.
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2011, 11:22:30 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 12, 2011, 09:12:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2011, 08:25:55 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 12, 2011, 08:08:13 PM
Conrad annoys me. His failure to exterminate the Serbian race is unforgivable.
It's not like you have made much progress on that front.
My homeland is Serbenrein.
:huh:
Our dayhome lady is a Kosovar Serb, and she lives in your homeland.
Well, she just made the list.
BB just sold out his dayhome lady to the ethnic Albertan gestapo :(
Quote from: Valmy on December 13, 2011, 02:20:09 PM
BB just sold out his dayhome lady to the ethnic Albertan gestapo :(
Neil is Native? I wonder what tribe he belongs to.
Quote from: Neil on December 12, 2011, 09:12:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2011, 08:25:55 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 12, 2011, 08:08:13 PM
Conrad annoys me. His failure to exterminate the Serbian race is unforgivable.
It's not like you have made much progress on that front.
My homeland is Serbenrein.
I didn't know where you were talking about, so I googled it and this thread comes up as the 2nd search result ! :gasp:
Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2011, 12:05:50 PM
Falkenhayn was simply incorrect in his strategic thinking. The Germans needed to expend as few troops as possible on the Western Front while Russia was still fighting. They had to keep Austria-Hungary and their other allies in the war and I think Falkenhayn blundered by turning to attack in the West in 1916. Especially after he had so much success in 1915 by going East. I think his hatred of the British and fury about their blockade of Germany played a big part in the decision. And then his efforts were largely undermined by Conrad's absurd attack on Italy right when he needed them to hold the Russians in the East. Was that his fault or Conrad's? Naturally I blame Conrad but Falkenhayn needed to at least make sure he was informed about what the Austro-Hungarians were doing. Surely it wasn't that well kept a secret that they were preparing an attack at Trentino.
Say the Germans stood pat in the West in 1916 and focused on the East, while giving the Austrians some help in Italy? Would this bring down the Russians earlier? Capperetto Italy and maybe knock them out as well?