Your the general WWI

[kristopherb]

Assume your a general for either side of the war. What tactics would you have used to
1 Break the stalemate?
2 Gain Naval superiority?
3 Which nation (if any) would you bring in and why?

Spoiler :

1
Get you units to dig under the enemy lines and attack from behind
Concrete no mans land
Strike Italy

2
Bring Norway and Sweden into the war, this would have brought there navy's against the foes.

3. Swden,Norway and Spain.

 

[Volum]

Very unlikely Norway would have joined the war, alltough we where seen as "The Neutral Ally" back then.

 

[superisis]

Don't think sweden had an extensive navy at the time. I believe we developed ours between ww1 and ww2 (and then made the real advances after ww2).

My tactic? Develope and focus on tank warfare.

 

[Backwards Logic]

I would have introduced combined-arms warfare much sooner.

 

[Adler17]

I would have tried to introduce tanks, shock troops and aerial warfare much earlier. As well Uboat warfare. I would have tried to get support from Sweden and Spain. Sweden to make pressure and liberate Finland and Spain to open another front against France. Both would be difficulty, though.

Adler

 

[Quildavyr]

I would not join the war.Opened Bosphorus to English and French for money,then recruit more Prussians to modernize the army.

 

[Dachs]

1 Break the stalemate?

In the West? With that kind of ratio of force to space plus the disgustingly low mobility away from railroads? That requires another front. For the Central Powers, it is folly to try to break through Italy, because attacking that way never worked for the Habsburgs back when they were fighting the Bourbons and the Valois; why now, when the defensive has such a massive tactical and operational advantage? Knocking out Italy wouldn't even require the withdrawal of many of the Allied troops. Even in OTL, the withdrawal of a million men from the Eastern Front didn't help the Germans break through in 1918, so winning on any one front is not going to allow victory. After 1914, tactical or operational breakthrough is virtually impossible; you need either technological advancement or to win the battle by indirect attacks on the enemy's strategic rear, unless you want to go for attrition. For the Central Powers, all but attrition are impossible after the failure in front of Paris. They need a negotiated peace to win.

2 Gain Naval superiority?

Tactically, naval battles are pretty uninteresting by now, being almost entirely a series of T-crossings. Initiative on the part of individual commanders is what's needed by both Hochseeflotte and Royal Navy, and neither of them really had any of that (save for Beatty and von Hipper, the first of whom ran into a trap). Also, it should be noted that Germany is the only country that might even possibly want to break the naval stalemate, because the British just need for the blockade to take effect. Anyway, for the Germans to establish a viable route to the outside they need for the RN to have a distraction of some kind and they need to be able to seize on that distraction and smash the remainder of the Home Fleet/Grand Fleet before the whole thing can unite. That means enlisting someone sizable outside of Europe, and I don't believe that the Germans have the clout to do that unless they can keep Italy on their side before 1915. Since sacred egoism in Italy probably militates toward siding with the Allies anyway (there's more in it), a German breakout is highly unlikely at best.

3 Which nation (if any) would you bring in and why?

For the Central Powers, they sort of need Constantine I to be on their side to deny the Allies the perhaps undeservedly critical Salonika bridgehead (from where, in 1918, they threatened Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria and thus caused the collapse of the entire German house of cards in almost an instant). Having Norway and Denmark (Sweden is unlikely at best) also in the game would help, and the military possibilities of coercing Denmark into the Central Powers do exist, although the two of them are more likely to react to something based on trade, and that means that the Germans need the blockade to break the blockade.

The Allies too need Greece, but much earlier, that is in 1915, in order to support the Gallipoli landings by relieving Serbia and threatening Bulgaria. I have written a TL on the possibilities of this in the NES alternate history threads. Denmark could be coerced as well by initiating the Borkum Plan, but that requires a significant amount of British landpower that is in all likelihood going to be smashed by the far superior Heer anyway. Britain, France, and Russia mostly just need to keep their ring around Germany and wear her down via blockade, while not collapsing on land. After that, it's just inevitable.

 

[Backwards Logic]

Actually, the German's broke through big-time in 1918. They covered more ground here than they did in 1914. The reason they ran out of steam was their supply line was stretched so thin that they had to slow down.

 

[Dachs]

Actually, the German's broke through big-time in 1918. They covered more ground here than they did in 1914.

They didn't actually reach the 1914 lines. 1914 Map 1918 Map The so-called "breakthrough" yielded so many benefits, too: massive casualties, no actual holes in the Allied lines (and thusly no breakthrough ), and the abandonment of prepared defenses that would be nearly impossible to crack had the Germans the manpower to defend them.

The reason they ran out of steam was their supply line was stretched so thin that they had to slow down.

Actually, the reason that they ran out of steam had a good deal more to do with the German High Command's (read: Ludendorff's) inability to stop attacking a strongpoint after it was reinforced, thus causing disgusting numbers of casualties for his men and reducing his significant numerical advantage. Supplies did have a good deal to do with it as well, though; transportation of large amounts of food and ammunition across what used to be no-man's-land for three years ain't easy. Also, note that neither side actually had any holes in their lines after the "breakthroughs" - the Heer still had an intact front as of 11 November, while the Allies had a strategic reserve that easily plugged the holes.

 

[Backwards Logic]

As you probably know, Ludendorff's offensive relied heavily on fast infantry attacks coordinated with artillery bombardments. This attack was so strong it nearly broke the British lines, with the British 5th Army completely collaspsing. And to say Ludendorff attacked allied strongholds is incorrect: The initial wave simply bypassed them. This offensive relied so much on surprise and speed that they didn't have time to deal with the fortified areas. He left those for later, when his regular infantry caught up to them. The problem with Ludendorff here is that his stromtroopers outran his artillery. Infantry - Artillery = death. Only after the stormtroopers were spent did he throw mass numbers at everything. That's when he destroyed Germany's chances at driving the British into the sea.

 

[Verbose]

As you probably know, Ludendorff's offensive relied heavily on fast infantry attacks coordinated with artillery bombardments. This attack was so strong it nearly broke the British lines, with the British 5th Army completely collaspsing. And to say Ludendorff attacked allied strongholds is incorrect: The initial wave simply bypassed them. This offensive relied so much on surprise and speed that they didn't have time to deal with the fortified areas. He left those for later, when his regular infantry caught up to them. The problem with Ludendorff here is that his stromtroopers outran his artillery. Infantry - Artillery = death. Only after the stormtroopers were spent did he throw mass numbers at everything. That's when he destroyed Germany's chances at driving the British into the sea.

Which I believe amounts to Ludendorff not really having much of a plan beyond smashing through, and then things would somehow take care of themselves, or so it was expected. Same as every other commander in WWI basically.

 

[Backwards Logic]

Well, he did have a pretty good plan, just poor execution. He knew he had to wipe out the French and British before the Americans got involved. So to do that, he wanted to split the French and British armies in half and drive the Brits into the sea. Once that happened, he could turn towards Paris and capture it before the Americans arrived. He expected the Brits to fall quickly, as they had been pretty exhausted after 1917, but they didn't (other than the 5th army). Once his advance was halted, the allies turned it around at Amiens on Aug 8th of 1918 (with the help of the doughboys). So there was a plan, it just didn't work out.

 

[Hasdrubal Barca]

Main tactic in WWI? Never attack, just build an impossible to penetrate Maginot type line with semi-automatic turrets and anti-armor heavy guns behind the main line and start pulling back with the minimum human losses as possible.

Equip existing divisions with as much machine guns/grenades and anti-chars grenades.

Create a mined second no man´s land between the former line and the new stronger line.

Increase production of airplanes and develop the countries comunication and suplly lines, better roads, railroads and airtransportation.

In sum, out-casuality the enemy, if they lose 100x times much more people then you, then eventually they will stop comming.

 

[Verbose]

Depends on what we're doing for the day:

To get the Schlieffen plan to work as intended, start inventing mechanised (road independant, so that'll be a bit of a challenge) transport for my right wing set to outflank Paris.

As the French, whether hurtling into Alsaçe-Lorraine or tasked with stopping the German advance, simply build half'n'half of long range heavy arty and flat-trajectory field arty (i.e. not what the French did), AND institute am effective regimen of quality control in my munitions fatories pre-war. (This one is bloody good advice for all sides in the early stages of the war.)

I can probably up the German casualty rate by something like 50% that way alone, which should hopefully be sufficient to stop them in their tracks. Oh, and get a light to medium machinegun to be deployed in the frontline. Then it will really be murder on the Germans.

 

[Dachs]

As you probably know, Ludendorff's offensive relied heavily on fast infantry attacks coordinated with artillery bombardments.

That was what everyone else did for four years. The main difference Ludendorff had was numbers.

This attack was so strong it nearly broke the British lines, with the British 5th Army completely collaspsing.

Yes, that's absolutely correct. But Ludendorff still did not puncture the Allied front. The Fifth Army was able to withdraw successfully along with the remainder of the BEF with forces intact, and were reinforced in short order by the Allied general reserve. With the speed of march (i.e. attacking speed) vastly shorter than the speed of reinforcement (i.e. the speed of a railroad car), Ludendorff could kiss any major offensive success good-bye even if he achieved short-term tactical success.

And to say Ludendorff attacked allied strongholds is incorrect: The initial wave simply bypassed them. This offensive relied so much on surprise and speed that they didn't have time to deal with the fortified areas. He left those for later, when his regular infantry caught up to them.

Yes, that was his plan. However, as B.H. Liddell Hart has said (even Wiki agrees), Ludendorff failed to follow his own "brilliant plan". After initial successes, he dispatched troops towards areas where his offensive had already stalled (viz. Arras as the main example), losing disgusting amounts of men and material, along with time (perhaps even more critical given the AEF's buildup). His Sturmtruppen didn't win everywhere, and true to the famous quote "We chop a hole, and the rest follows", he kept trying a dull blade on the firm Allied oak until his troops were exhausted.

The problem with Ludendorff here is that his stromtroopers outran his artillery. Infantry - Artillery = death. Only after the stormtroopers were spent did he throw mass numbers at everything. That's when he destroyed Germany's chances at driving the British into the sea.

I agree that his handling of the infiltration tactics was extremely poor, but I fail to see the possibility for Germany to "drive the British into the sea". The German Imperial Heer simply doesn't have the speed to exploit any tactical success without exhausting itself and leaving itself open to a counterattack. This was true for the entire war on the Western Front. Ludendorff temporarily succeeded due to a few new innovations, but the iron law of speed caught up with him and his offensive stalled, leaving an exhausted German Army open to Allied counterattack. My point is proven even more when we look at the aftermath of German failure in Operation Michael. The German Heer, despite massive numerical and technological inferiority, leadership issues at the top (Ludendorff fell apart emotionally after the failure of his grand offensive), and the fact that it suffered a huge morale breakdown, was able to maintain cohesion and retreat to the frontiers of the Reich without being annihilated. This is what would have happened had Ludendorff had more success: the Allies would have retreated some more, but they would have been able to reestablish a firm line of defense later on as the Germans ran even lower on supplies.

Also, it's true that infantry without artillery equals major pain for the infantry, but only if the other side has their own artillery. Ludendorff was expecting to be able to capture many enemy artillery pieces and/or prevent the Allies from using their own due to the fluid nature of the front, so both sides would lose their advantage. The German failure to rupture the Allied lines combined with the Allied ability to retreat better led to the situation at the catastrophic end of "Michael"; it was an issue inherent in the German offensive mindset.

Which I believe amounts to Ludendorff not really having much of a plan beyond smashing through, and then things would somehow take care of themselves, or so it was expected. Same as every other commander in WWI basically.

Actually, the other commanders in the First World War counted too much on the plan later and didn't think about breaking through in the here and now. Haig is a pretty good example of this (for a funnier and slightly overblown portrait of this, look at General Melchett in Blackadder Goes Forth). Ludendorff just went to the other extreme.

Well, he did have a pretty good plan, just poor execution. He knew he had to wipe out the French and British before the Americans got involved. So to do that, he wanted to split the French and British armies in half and drive the Brits into the sea. Once that happened, he could turn towards Paris and capture it before the Americans arrived. He expected the Brits to fall quickly, as they had been pretty exhausted after 1917, but they didn't (other than the 5th army). Once his advance was halted, the allies turned it around at Amiens on Aug 8th of 1918 (with the help of the doughboys). So there was a plan, it just didn't work out.

Yes, there was a plan of sorts. Did it make any sense given the material he had? No.

In sum, out-casuality the enemy, if they lose 100x times much more people then you, then eventually they will stop comming.

Yes, all of that is quite intelligent, and were I in charge I'd do the same, but according to the first post in thread we're looking for a way to get a breakthrough, not a way to win. Actually, I personally think that getting a breakthrough involves losing later on due to overextension, but that's just me.

EDIT: w00t! 4000 posts!

 

[Demetrias]

Main tactic in WWI? Never attack, just build an impossible to penetrate Maginot type line with semi-automatic turrets and anti-armor heavy guns behind the main line and start pulling back with the minimum human losses as possible.

Equip existing divisions with as much machine guns/grenades and anti-chars grenades.

Create a mined second no man´s land between the former line and the new stronger line.

Increase production of airplanes and develop the countries comunication and suplly lines, better roads, railroads and airtransportation.

In sum, out-casuality the enemy, if they lose 100x times much more people then you, then eventually they will stop comming.

This is my plan for a Germany win. Just stop attacking after 1914 and let the French Slaughter themselves. The French had almost that many more casualties then the Germans until the Germans started copying stupid French tactics because they were growing impatient. Russia would have collapsed just like it did in OTL and then you could have gotten some sort of status quo peace out of the French and English and Germany would have ended up with all of Poland, the Baltic states and maybe parts of the Ukraine.

 

[cubsfan6506]

I would og quite do to the shear stupedity in starting the war.

Also demetrias Germany needed to win to save their country from the blockade.

 

[Swedishguy]

Me? As a supreme general of the Swedish forces? I'd probably lean back and avoid going to war. Sweden was a poor agricultural state that was pretty backwards compared to other countries in Western Europe - and numbers weren't on Sweden's side.

 

[REDY]

I would choose Italy or USA and stays neutral with large profit of selling weapons

 

[Dachs]

I would choose Italy or USA and stays neutral with large profit of selling weapons

Italian neutrality after 1914 was almost impossible. Pro-irredentist political riots were going off every day, and with Giolitti's fall in the previous year there was little political will to stay out of a war that looked so lucrative. Italian operational management was extremely poor (instead of the Dardanelles campaign, why not launch one in Dalmatia and Istria? It's not like the K.u.K. navy was very good), but the decision to join the Entente was a very good one in a grand-strategic sense.