adamsj
Gaint Hobbit!
.. How would you break the stalement?
WW1:- If you were a command of an army in the western Front ...
- Thread starter adamsj
- Start date
Rodgers
Following YOUR child home
Do I have tanks available to me? If yes, I dont think there is much more to say....
I remember playing some sort of WW1 simulation game way back that tried to illustrate the massive problems faced at the time, no matter what tactics you tried. Pretty frustrating but got the message across. Will be interesting to see what people come up with
If no tanks available to me - and assuming I'm in control of Allied forces not German - maybe some sort of amphibious landing on the north sea coast of Germany/Holland? It would draw off troops from the trench lines and if ultimately unsuccessful may have created a sufficient diversion to allow a conventional "push" on the Western Front to gain ground, possibly break out into open country.
It would need to be fairly mobile to avoid getting bogged down on the beach and I dont fancy relying on the motorised transport available then too much - possibly use cavalry in strength? Were there any decent armoured cars available then?
Trouble is I dont know enough about the relative naval strengths or landing capabilities or the terrain such landings would encounter. So my idea could be a load of rubbish. I'm sure someone will tell me if it is
Nice idea for thread BTW
I remember playing some sort of WW1 simulation game way back that tried to illustrate the massive problems faced at the time, no matter what tactics you tried. Pretty frustrating but got the message across. Will be interesting to see what people come up with
If no tanks available to me - and assuming I'm in control of Allied forces not German - maybe some sort of amphibious landing on the north sea coast of Germany/Holland? It would draw off troops from the trench lines and if ultimately unsuccessful may have created a sufficient diversion to allow a conventional "push" on the Western Front to gain ground, possibly break out into open country.
It would need to be fairly mobile to avoid getting bogged down on the beach and I dont fancy relying on the motorised transport available then too much - possibly use cavalry in strength? Were there any decent armoured cars available then?
Trouble is I dont know enough about the relative naval strengths or landing capabilities or the terrain such landings would encounter. So my idea could be a load of rubbish. I'm sure someone will tell me if it is
Nice idea for thread BTW
Switch625
I don't care.
Without tanks and reliable air-power, the situation on the Western Front had no real choice but to be static. There was no real "key" until tanks became available in significant numbers, and even then they were not terribly decisive.
Artillery was not that effective against entrenched positions, so the massive artillery strikes that preceeded most offensives succeeded only in making the ground hell to walk through.
In short, I have no real ideas, other than liberal use of the "creeping barrage" strategy, which also had less-than-stellar results.
Frankly, I'm not sure things could have played out any differently on the Western Front.
Artillery was not that effective against entrenched positions, so the massive artillery strikes that preceeded most offensives succeeded only in making the ground hell to walk through.
In short, I have no real ideas, other than liberal use of the "creeping barrage" strategy, which also had less-than-stellar results.
Frankly, I'm not sure things could have played out any differently on the Western Front.
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
I agree with Switch. There would have been not much of a chance to break the stalemate, except for surrendering. Tanks weren't as efficient then as they were in WW2 or even today.
MadScot
Brandy's back!
OK, if I'm allowed one wish for a new technology, I don't want tanks!!!!. Give me the walkie-talkie!
The problem isn't really the efficiency of the weapons - the problem is that as a general on the Western Front, I have virtually no tactical or operational control - once the troops advance from the forward trench line, the only communications is runners or signal flare or flags. So there's no way to react to sudden breakthroughs, or to problems.
Cambrai showed that Great War tanks were perfectly capable of breaking into the German trench lines - but despite actually creating a break through, the information never got back to the allied commanders fast enough to feed the waiting cavalry (still the exploitation arm in that war) into the gap. So tanks wont be enough of an edge Im afraid.
If I'm not allowed radios
....
(assuming an allied point of view)
Avoid sideshows. It's a battle of attrition. Half a million men sat in Salonika dont help if they aren't fighting. The German colonies will wither on the vine - don't waste precious resources going after them. Pick a plan and stick to it. The allies have the manpower advantage - use it. The casualties will be huge whatever you do - so pull a Verdun on the Germans. Try to pull them into a battle of attrition on all fronts - the allies only really achieved this once - Spetember 1916 (Somme, Verdun & Brusilov offensives).
Switch - artillery was often ineffective because it was the wrong type of shells fired. Typical ammo pre-war was shrapnel - useless against entrenchments - most of the shells fired during the Somme barraage either failed to explode (something like a third of them I think, which is another reason artillery was ineffective at times) or were useless shrapnel. Heavy HE shells did work - both British and Germans proved that in 1917 and 1918. But there was never enough weight of the good stuff.
Rodgers - problem with amphib landing is risk of another Gallipoli. With rail, defenders can reinforce faster than attackers. You'd run risk of ending up in a confined beachhead, with the same trenches etc in the way as everywhere else.
The problem isn't really the efficiency of the weapons - the problem is that as a general on the Western Front, I have virtually no tactical or operational control - once the troops advance from the forward trench line, the only communications is runners or signal flare or flags. So there's no way to react to sudden breakthroughs, or to problems.
Cambrai showed that Great War tanks were perfectly capable of breaking into the German trench lines - but despite actually creating a break through, the information never got back to the allied commanders fast enough to feed the waiting cavalry (still the exploitation arm in that war) into the gap. So tanks wont be enough of an edge Im afraid.
If I'm not allowed radios
....(assuming an allied point of view)
Avoid sideshows. It's a battle of attrition. Half a million men sat in Salonika dont help if they aren't fighting. The German colonies will wither on the vine - don't waste precious resources going after them. Pick a plan and stick to it. The allies have the manpower advantage - use it. The casualties will be huge whatever you do - so pull a Verdun on the Germans. Try to pull them into a battle of attrition on all fronts - the allies only really achieved this once - Spetember 1916 (Somme, Verdun & Brusilov offensives).
Switch - artillery was often ineffective because it was the wrong type of shells fired. Typical ammo pre-war was shrapnel - useless against entrenchments - most of the shells fired during the Somme barraage either failed to explode (something like a third of them I think, which is another reason artillery was ineffective at times) or were useless shrapnel. Heavy HE shells did work - both British and Germans proved that in 1917 and 1918. But there was never enough weight of the good stuff.
Rodgers - problem with amphib landing is risk of another Gallipoli. With rail, defenders can reinforce faster than attackers. You'd run risk of ending up in a confined beachhead, with the same trenches etc in the way as everywhere else.
Demetrias
Emperor
Anywhere on Western Front.
1) Let me do Gallipoli right the first time.
A) pick better beach.
B) Move inland the hour you land don't wait.
C) Take out the freakin railroad.
On French Battle Fields
2)Don't move an inch. We win because it just becomes a country wide siege. And we have America supplying us.
A) Does not loss men. So cancels attrition.
B)They can't break through the lines either.
Germans side.
3)Repeat french idea.
4)Then beat russia and sue for peace.
5) Gets Russian lands and don't loss guys.
1) Let me do Gallipoli right the first time.
A) pick better beach.
B) Move inland the hour you land don't wait.
C) Take out the freakin railroad.
On French Battle Fields
2)Don't move an inch. We win because it just becomes a country wide siege. And we have America supplying us.
A) Does not loss men. So cancels attrition.
B)They can't break through the lines either.
Germans side.
3)Repeat french idea.
4)Then beat russia and sue for peace.
5) Gets Russian lands and don't loss guys.
GodsPetMonkey
Holy Simian!
Agreed, but its surprisingly hard to establish a good beach-head, this was shown at Gallipoli. The element of surprise was lost, early, and if your going to try to land in northern Germany, you have to remember that Germany had a navy, a big navy, a big navy with U-Boats, chances are, your forces would have been spotted early, all it takes is a few machine gun placements, and your as good as stuffed.
America supplying you is indeed a handy thing, but putting the supplies on British (and French) ships is not... U-Boats caused many a head-ache for the supply lines and in WWI there werent any good ways to detect and destroy them, luckily U-Boats werent very reliable. As for holding the front, it wont work, sure, the Germans would lose a lot of troops in the process, but they WILL break through eventually. Its only a matter of time.
Germany can just sit on the Russian front (as long as the revolution goes ahead). By the end of 1917, the Russians had pretty much stopped fighting, most advances didnt go ahead as more and more troops refused to move, and in fact, a lot of conversations were started between Russian and German troops, many of the Russians were later trying to convince the Germans that they should rise up against the Kaiser like they had against the Tzar.
The western front is a different matter, the allies have a numerical advantage, and the best way to weaken it would to be to carve up the rear, with the navy of course! The problem is, with the exception of the U-Boat, most of the German navy was getting a lot of trouble from the British battle fleets, but if Germany is able to avoid getting the USA involved, eventually both sides will want to talk peace, and that should be that (with a large amount of land taken from the Russians of course).
I think what would be a more interesting topic is if Germany hadn't lost WWI (either ending in stalemate, or Germany winning). Some real alternate History there....
And slightly OT, anyone here seen a WWI German tank? There is such a thing, in fact, if you are ever in Brisbane, you can see it. It was captured by Australian troops and brought back here, quite interesting, not many were made, but it looks a lot more like a modern tank then the hunks of crap the British used in WWI (if I remember, only 3 or 4 actually saw service...)
Rodgers
Following YOUR child home
"Rodgers - problem with amphib landing is risk of another Gallipoli. With rail, defenders can reinforce faster than attackers. You'd run risk of ending up in a confined beachhead, with the same trenches etc in the way as everywhere else."
Yeah, take your point but that was why I suggested the use of cavalry to allow a fast break out. Maybe the whole thing would have worked as a kind of pincer movement with the landing going in not too far behind the trenchlines on the North Sea coast and then heading westward towards a simultaneous push along the coast by the trench-bound tommies.
This (if successful) would have eliminated the need for major supply routes for the landing troops (they would have been able to link with their own forces fairly soon, or possibly used captured supplies as they went), solved the problem faced by the trench-bound troops of running into defense in depth and thus running out of steam (the landing forces carve up the rear areas, disrupt supplies, prevent reinforcements, attack rear echelon defences etc). The end result? A massive hole in the northern end of the trench line and hopefully an end of the stalemate. Of course, in practice that would never actually happen - it would be a masscre on the beach or shortly afterwards
Yeah, take your point but that was why I suggested the use of cavalry to allow a fast break out. Maybe the whole thing would have worked as a kind of pincer movement with the landing going in not too far behind the trenchlines on the North Sea coast and then heading westward towards a simultaneous push along the coast by the trench-bound tommies.
This (if successful) would have eliminated the need for major supply routes for the landing troops (they would have been able to link with their own forces fairly soon, or possibly used captured supplies as they went), solved the problem faced by the trench-bound troops of running into defense in depth and thus running out of steam (the landing forces carve up the rear areas, disrupt supplies, prevent reinforcements, attack rear echelon defences etc). The end result? A massive hole in the northern end of the trench line and hopefully an end of the stalemate. Of course, in practice that would never actually happen - it would be a masscre on the beach or shortly afterwards
MadScot
Brandy's back!
Originally posted by Rodgers
Yeah, take your point but that was why I suggested the use of cavalry to allow a fast break out. Maybe the whole thing would have worked as a kind of pincer movement with the landing going in not too far behind the trenchlines on the North Sea coast and then heading westward towards a simultaneous push along the coast by the trench-bound tommies.
This (if successful) would have eliminated the need for major supply routes for the landing troops (they would have been able to link with their own forces fairly soon, or possibly used captured supplies as they went), solved the problem faced by the trench-bound troops of running into defense in depth and thus running out of steam (the landing forces carve up the rear areas, disrupt supplies, prevent reinforcements, attack rear echelon defences etc). The end result? A massive hole in the northern end of the trench line and hopefully an end of the stalemate. Of course, in practice that would never actually happen - it would be a masscre on the beach or shortly afterwards
Shades of Anzio, there. Faced withapparently impregnable defence lines, try an amphibious landing behind the lines. I agree it could work - but I suspect your prediction of a possible disaster is more likely if it were approached as an all-or-nothing gamble.
It would have the attraction of eliminating the Flanders U-boats if it worked - wasn't an amphibious raid mounted towards the end of the war for such a purpose. (I can't remember the battle - Zeebrugge??).
Rodgers
Following YOUR child home
The reason I though it most likely to fail was getting the troops ashore quickly - I think that dilemma was only really solved when the landing craft of WWII came along.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
Exactly! Kill the sideshows, whack Churchill over the head with a big metal pipe, and instead train all of those troops for infiltration tactics. Then, attack somewhere hard until the Germans pull troops from elsewhere to plug it, then hit at the freshly weakened spot. The Germans actually created something resembling mobility by doing just this sort of thing in 1918. If you want to use amphibious landings, sure, but tactically rather than strategically as a way of turning the line in Belgium.
R.III
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
Some good work on this has already been done, if I'm not mistaken, in "Virtual History" (edited by Niall Ferguson). Essentially, the theory in the paper I'm referring to is that we would have ended up with something similar to the European Union half-a-century early.
R.III
Jimcat
Culture Vulture
I actually agree with Ozz. If I had any sort of political and military power during the First World War, I'd spread the word: "This war is insanity. Stop killing each other, go home to your families, live the lives that you're supposed to live. If your commanders order you back to the trenches, shoot them."
Of course, I'd probably be shot myself for saying such a thing. But it'd be worth a try.
Of course, I'd probably be shot myself for saying such a thing. But it'd be worth a try.
Switch625
I don't care.
It's hard for us to imagine, but everybody wanted war back then. They wanted everything "settled."
I look at the number of casualties and my mind just locks up. I can't wrap my brain around the scale of death and destruction in that war. The Marne. The Somme. Verdun. Ypres. Insanity.
General Falkenheyn likely could have achieved a breakout during the battle of Verdun at one point, but he was so married to the idea of attrition warfare that he didn't exploit the opening. He didn't want the battle to end too soon. Not enough Frenchmen had died. His inflexibility gave the French time to regroup and close the gap that had opened in their lines.
Now that's an interesting thought. What if the Germans had taken Verdun? I can imagine that France might have considered a truce on German terms if that had happened. The French staked the war on that battle, and they needed to win it. They might well have lost the will to fight if they had lost the battle of Verdun.
I look at the number of casualties and my mind just locks up. I can't wrap my brain around the scale of death and destruction in that war. The Marne. The Somme. Verdun. Ypres. Insanity.
General Falkenheyn likely could have achieved a breakout during the battle of Verdun at one point, but he was so married to the idea of attrition warfare that he didn't exploit the opening. He didn't want the battle to end too soon. Not enough Frenchmen had died. His inflexibility gave the French time to regroup and close the gap that had opened in their lines.
Now that's an interesting thought. What if the Germans had taken Verdun? I can imagine that France might have considered a truce on German terms if that had happened. The French staked the war on that battle, and they needed to win it. They might well have lost the will to fight if they had lost the battle of Verdun.
Jimcat
Culture Vulture
Well, almost everyone wanted war in the summer of 1914. After a year or two of fighting, just about all of the soldiers in the trenches, and a good number of the officers and political leaders had lost the stomach for it. Even Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany, when he visited the front, became despondent and muttered "I never wanted this." By 1916 it was the German generals, against the will of the German public and soldiers, who were forcing the issue.
EdwardTking
Deity
The dug in machine gun defintely ruled the day for the defense.
The solution was to train up your troops to attack at night.
The Germans started to do this with their Storm Troopers;
but never quite managed to address all the complications.
This worked very well for the UK in the Falklands in 1981.
The solution was to train up your troops to attack at night.
The Germans started to do this with their Storm Troopers;
but never quite managed to address all the complications.
This worked very well for the UK in the Falklands in 1981.
newfangle
hates you.
The Canadian corps achieved the first break in the stalemate. They didn't use tanks. They used highly skilled tacticians and engineers to construct an underground tunnel system, and massive artillary implementation. They were the first allies to break the notion that machine guns are a bad thing. They launched the most massive artillary barrage against Vimy Ridge in 1917. 750 000 large shells were fired. 10 times the amount in machine gun shells were fired. The creeping barrage was implemented to protect the troops by keeping the enemy stunned at all times.
There is no point in discussing alternatives. The stalemate was broken in a perfect way by the brilliant Arthur Currie.
There is no point in discussing alternatives. The stalemate was broken in a perfect way by the brilliant Arthur Currie.
MadScot
Brandy's back!
Sorry, but I hardly think that qualifies as breaking the stalemate. The capability to break into the enemy's trenchlines was demonstrated on a number of occasions, and by most of the major combatants. Messines Ridge, the initial assault at Verdun, Cambrai, the German 1918 offensives, the German attacks on the Russians in 1917 even. Rigourously enforced battle planning, surprise, overwhelming weight of fire - all properly applied were capable of providing a break-in. Only 13 days after 1st July 1916, the British Army was capable of mounting a relatively successful attack on the Somme; it didn't take long to learn the basics.
The problem is that once the surprise had gone, all the advantages lay with the defence. They could reinforce the point of attack more easily - the attacker's lines of supply now lay accross the wasteland of no man's land, while the defender could rail almost to the battlefield. Indeed, the deeper the break-in, the worse it almost became. In WW2 an army could rely on the initial shock and dislocation of the defenders to allow the attacker to exploit the breach; in WW1 the abysmal communications between the HQs and the would-be exploiting units closed that window of opportunity.
It is significant that most WW1 battles, even successful ones, are named for tactical features - it is Vimy Ridge after all. This demonstrates the by necessity limited scope of any offensive on the Western Front.
Sobieski
Prince
I would do what the Canadians did to break the stalemate in places like Vimy. First of all get rid of the whole class system of military that existed in the British, and to a greater extent the French army, and instead replace it with a system where every soldier knows exactly what is going on. Second I would employ the artillery creep tactic that the Canadians used. General Currie all the way.
Similar threads
