WWI

[superfractal]

I see. Sounds as if the Italian politicians & military high command hadn't really thought things through, & made any of the necessary preparations. But you should take into account the likelihood of that alerting the Austrians, & causing them to reinforce the border.

369350[/snapback]

 

Hew Strachen's "The first world war", claims that Cordona was inept. And that Italy's economy was largely agricultural and needed to seriously industrialised during the war.

[swerve]

Hew Strachen's "The first world war", claims ... that Italy's economy was largely agricultural and needed to seriously industrialised during the war.

 

So it was. But Austria-Hungary was on a similar level overall (though more diverse economically - some parts more industrialised than anywhere in Italy, some parts more backward), Russia even more agricultural, & Turkey & the assorted Balkan countries which took part yet more so. So Italy was on a par with, or ahead of, all its opponents except Germany, & some of its allies.

[Old Tanker]

One of the worst aspects of WWI was various nations shopped around their supposed power to see which side would give them the best deal if they joined up.

 

Among the nations were Japan, Italy , Turkey and Romania. I find that damn near criminal but a degree of that still goes on today.

[superfractal]

So it was. But Austria-Hungary was on a similar level overall (though more diverse economically - some parts more industrialised than anywhere in Italy, some parts more backward), Russia even more agricultural, & Turkey & the assorted Balkan countries which took part yet more so. So Italy was on a par with, or ahead of, all its opponents except Germany, & some of its allies.

369459[/snapback]

 

But the military of Italy was also unprepared for war, although Austria-Hungary was building up to war prior to the invasion of Serbia.

How exactly AH force's matched up with italy' im not sure.

[KingSargent]

QUOTE(KingSargent @ Sat 16 Sep 2006 0250)

I have never seen a detractor of Haig come up with somebody who could have done better. Maybe by 1918 some good men had developed, but Haig was in the upper ranks from 1914. FTM, nobody else of any nation found a solution to the trench deadlock any faster than Haig either."

 

Plumer has often been suggested, and he seems to be regarded as quite capable by his contemporaries. Though, I'm unsure if he was a real prospect for C-in-C at the time.

smoothly?

369009[/snapback]

That was my point. Haig was 2nd from the top in 1914, CinC BEF from mid(?) 1915.

 

At that time, Plumer was a comparatively junior general. Plumer was good and got better, but he wasn't ready for a top command before 1917. Besides, if Lloyd George had managed to sack Haig, I doubt he would have liked Plumer running the BEF any better.

 

Monash was "just a little old Jew from Australia" (some contemporary Brit's words, not mine), besides being way down the food chain.

 

And I can't think of anybody who would have backed so many innovations (both mechanical and doctrinal) as Haig did.

[KingSargent]

But the military of Italy was also unprepared for war, although Austria-Hungary was building up to war prior to the invasion of Serbia.

How exactly AH force's matched up with italy' im not sure.

369531[/snapback]

 

By the time the Italians came in, Conrad had killed off the cream of the A-H Army in Galicia, especially the long-service officers and NCOs.

 

Trying to build (or re-build) an army with conscripts from rural areas who couldn't even understand their German-speaking officers (most of whom were 90-day wonders by this time) was simply not possible.

[KingSargent]

One "alternate strategy" actually considered pre-war was for the BEF to be shipped to Antwerp where they could join the Belgian Army in acting against the flanks of the German advance through Belgium.

 

The Germans were nervous enough about this to send heavy seige guns to Antwerp, which meant those guns weren't available at Maubege and Verdun.

 

Sending the BEF any farther than NWE in 1914 just was not possible. The transports weren't there to go farther. The CW had the transports scattered around the world, they didn't have a concentrated transport fleet sitting around waiting to take the BEF to Serbia. Getting the BEF across the Channel was enough of a chore.

[Richard Lindquist]

The story of the Italian (and A-H vis-a-vis Italy) is told in a lot of detail in "Isonzo: The Forgotten Sacrifice of the Great War" by John R. Schindler, 2001, Praeger Publsihers, ISBN 0-275-97204-6.

 

The A-H troops on the Isonzo front were largely Slovenians and Croatians who fought very fiercely against Italy and were pretty well led.

 

Cadorna made Sir Douglas Haig look good.

[Old Tanker]

One "alternate strategy" actually considered pre-war was for the BEF to be shipped to Antwerp where they could join the Belgian Army in acting against the flanks of the German advance through Belgium.

 

369605[/snapback]

 

I believe they did send in the RM or a naval dv.or such but pulled them out quickly when the Austrian seige guns showed up.

 

One general who Haig sacked over complaining about casualties was Allenby.

Don't know how good Allenby was but Haig sacked him and he was shipped to the ME.

[JWB]

Could the Brits have employed a coastal strategy where the RN would blast German positions that were within range of dreadnaught guns so the BA could advance into Belgium? (Passchendale is about 10 miles from the surf). Or did the Blockade require every ship available?

[swerve]

Could the Brits have employed a coastal strategy where the RN would blast German positions that were within range of dreadnaught guns so the BA could advance into Belgium? (Passchendale is about 10 miles from the surf). Or did the Blockade require every ship available?

 

I think the experience of holding the corner of Belgium we (& the survivors of the Belgian army) hung on to left the British army not very interested in more of the same.

 

Belgium has very little coast, & the Germans didn't even occupy all of it. Taking back the rest, up to the Dutch border wouldn't have made much difference. Stretched the line a bit, which would have been good, but left us holding a narrow, dead flat, boggy, coastal strip under the German guns, with them probably having better communications between different parts of the line than us, which was not good.

 

Antwerp was not a place to use big ships. It's up a river, & both banks of the estuary are Dutch.

[Redbeard]

Then there of course is the much debated Baltic alternative. I don't find it realistic and it is open to debate if anybody then did, but anyway it would have involved some very tough fighting, both at sea and on land, first to open the access to the Baltic, and then only could the Russian army be landed somewhere on the German Baltic coast.

 

IMO taking Zealand/Copenhagen and thus opening Oeresund would require an army force of at least 150.000 men and heavy casualties, plus a major part of the RN, also accepting heavy casualties.

 

Copenhagen and Oeresund was heavily fortified and was manned by appr. 50.000 men, who on mobilisation could be increased to appr. 100.000 (5 inf Div + fortress and support troops). The straits were heavily mined, and basically the Germans could safely supply/reinforce Copenhagen from behind the minefields.

 

But of course it is a question of how large casualties you will accept, and whether a Baltic operation would have greater chances than Gallipoli. If successful they would both be crucial to keeping Russia in the war.

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

[swerve]

Then there of course is the much debated Baltic alternative. I don't find it realistic and it is open to debate if anybody then did, ...

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

 

There is also the question of attacking a neutral, & how to reconcile that with the previous propaganda campaigns. "Gallant little Belgium" would suddenly have become "Gallant little Denmark", to the delight of the Germans.

[Richard Lindquist]

Could the Brits have employed a coastal strategy where the RN would blast German positions that were within range of dreadnaught guns so the BA could advance into Belgium? (Passchendale is about 10 miles from the surf). Or did the Blockade require every ship available?

369629[/snapback]

 

The British did use monitors and the coast defense BB Glatton and Gorgon (both ex-Norwegian). As far as monitors were concerned, there were:

 

Humber class (X3) with 2x6in and 2x4.7in

 

Abercrombie class (X4) with 2x14in (USA)

 

Lord Clive class (x8) with 2x12in

 

Marshal Soult class (X2) with 2x15in

 

Gorgon class (X2) with 2x9.2in and 4x6in

(Norwegian coastal BB taken over at start of war).

 

M15 class (X14) with 1x9.2in

 

M29 class (X5) with 2x6in

 

Erebus class (X2) with 2x15in and 2x6in

 

All of these ships were used in bombardment of German positions along the coast.

[larrikin]

I think the experience of holding the corner of Belgium we (& the survivors of the Belgian army) hung on to left the British army not very interested in more of the same.

 

Belgium has very little coast, & the Germans didn't even occupy all of it. Taking back the rest, up to the Dutch border wouldn't have made much difference. Stretched the line a bit, which would have been good, but left us holding a narrow, dead flat, boggy, coastal strip under the German guns, with them probably having  better communications between different parts of the line than us, which was not good.

 

Antwerp was not a place to use big ships. It's up a river, & both banks of the estuary are Dutch.

369671[/snapback]

 

Problem is that is exactly what Haig was trying to do with 3rd Ypres/Paschendale. That's why he attacked out of a salient against the strongest German defences on his front and continued to do so, and continued to try for breakouts instead of bite and holds. Rawlinson was supposed to attack directly along the coast and the RN was supposed to land troops in support behind the German front when the breakout occurred.

[larrikin]

Then there of course is the much debated Baltic alternative. I don't find it realistic and it is open to debate if anybody then did, but anyway it would have involved some very tough fighting, both at sea and on land, first to open the access to the Baltic, and then only could the Russian army be landed somewhere on the German Baltic coast.

 

IMO taking Zealand/Copenhagen and thus opening Oeresund would require an army force of at least 150.000 men and heavy casualties, plus a major part of the RN, also accepting heavy casualties.

 

Copenhagen and Oeresund was heavily fortified and was manned by appr. 50.000 men, who on mobilisation could be increased to appr. 100.000 (5 inf Div + fortress and support troops). The straits were heavily mined, and basically the Germans could safely supply/reinforce Copenhagen from behind the minefields.

 

But of course it is a question of how large casualties you will accept, and whether a Baltic operation would have greater chances than Gallipoli. If successful they would both be crucial to keeping Russia in the war.

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

369687[/snapback]

 

I don't think the Brits ever really considered attacking Denmark. Their problem with the Baltic was German minefield, U-boats, and the HSF which could transit back and forth through the Keil.

[baboon6]

I don't think the Brits ever really considered attacking Denmark.  Their problem with the Baltic was German minefield, U-boats, and the HSF which could transit back and forth through the Keil.

369729[/snapback]

 

The only person really keen on the idea was Fisher, who ordered a whole range of vessels designed and built for amphibious operations. The three "large light cruisers" were eventually completed post-war as aircraft carriers, while a number of monitors were built and served in both world wars. I am unaware of the full story of the proposed landing craft ("Beetles"). Were any completed and if so did they see any active service?

[Richard Lindquist]

The only person really keen on the idea was Fisher, who ordered a whole range of vessels designed and built for amphibious operations. The three "large light cruisers" were eventually completed post-war as aircraft carriers, while a number of monitors were built and served in both world wars. I am unaware of the full story of the proposed landing craft ("Beetles"). Were any completed and if so did they see any active service?

369764[/snapback]

 

Two of the "large light cruisers" the Courageous and Glorious (aka the Outrageous and Spuriouswere completed in jan 1917 and cruised with the fleet. Using them for shoal water bombardment in the Baltic was a crazy idea, sine four monitors with dual 15in guns could have provided the same firepower at a fraction of the cost. Courageous was converted to a minelayer where her mine rails earned her the nickname of Clapham Junction. After the war the two ships were used for gunnery training until converted to aircraft carriers under the provisions of the Washington Treaty (as was the USN Lexington and Saratoga and the IJN Kaga and Akagi).

 

Furious was Jackie Fisher's ideas carried to their ultimate absurdity. She had two single 18in guns which would have made ranging virtually impossible. Only the stern weapons was installed as she was given an aircraft hanger and runway on her bow. Later the stern gun was removed to make way for a hanger and runway at the stern. Then she was reconstructed to give a single bow to stern hangar and runway.

[Ken Estes]

The 18" guns [2+spare]from Furious went to three of the Lord Clive class 12"monitors on the Flanders coast, firing up to 60K yards. They were placed in a wierd gunhouse on the stern, retaining the 12" armored turret forward.

[Ken Estes]

I can't help wondering if a WWII like mediterranean strategy woulld have help. In this context I mean knoclking out Germany's allies one by one:

....The border between Italy and Austria is not entirely mountain peaks and the Austrians during most of the war were outnumbered on this (and other) fronts. Perhaps an Entente Expeditionary Corps could have broken through. The Habsburgs collapsing would have forced the Germans to divert many troops from the west front.

 

....

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

369228[/snapback]

In a perverse way, the Italians did it, after 12 horrific battles of the Izonzo. THe 1918 victory at Vittorio Veneto left the road open to Vienna and, hence, Bavaria and doubtlessly could have ended the war. However the German army was already reeling back and then told the govt that it would have to seek a peace. One can only speculate on the Prussian humiliation of a defeat at the hands of the Italians, so maybe the armistice/peace was hastened.

[Nick Sumner]

On landings by the CW behind the German lines

 

http://www.ijnhonline.org/volume1_number1_...ng_1917.doc.htm

[KingSargent]

Antwerp was not a place to use big ships. It's up a river, & both banks of the estuary are Dutch.

369671[/snapback]

I don't know about 1914, but by the 1940s Antwerp was the biggest port in North West Europe. Plenty of room for big ships. As for the Dutch holding the banks of the estuary, that means no one can interdict the channel without attacking Holland and widening the war.

 

Fisher's Baltic schemes were about on a par with his other LooneyTunes ideas.

 

Bacon, who ran the Channel Fleet for most if not all of the war, had many plans for amphibious landings on the Belgian coast to coincide with a breakthrough inland, say at Ypres. The breakthrough never happened. Besides most of the Royal Marines wound up in the 63rd (Royal Naval) Division, so people who had any idea of what soldiers should do in boats was already dead or committed.

 

Churchill did send the Royal Marines to Antwerp in red double-deck London buses (one of which is in the Imperial War Museum). They and the Royal Naval Air Service Armoured Cars (Rolls-Royces) had an interesting little encounter with the German 8th Cavalry Division on Von Kluck's flank.

[swerve]

I don't know about 1914, but by the 1940s Antwerp was the biggest port in North West Europe. Plenty of room for big ships. As for the Dutch holding the banks of the estuary, that means no one can interdict the channel without attacking Holland and widening the war.

 

Not a place to use big warships for shelling ground positions. Read it in context!

 

The only access to Antwerp by sea is through Dutch territorial waters. Merchant shipping is allowed free passage, but the Dutch closed it to warships in 1914. The British marines went there by train, overland, & retreated overland. They were evacuated via Oostende, not the port of Antwerp. British & Belgian troops who retreated downriver because the Germans cut off the overland route were interned by the Dutch.

 

So to get your big ships to Antwerp, you have to fight the Dutch. You then find yourself fighting in narrow waters, with multiple channels & thousands of hiding places for torpedo boats & minelayers. It'd make forcing the Dardanelles look like simplicity itself. And you have to get deep into that tangle to get within range of Antwerp. Great way to lose a fleet.

 

See what I mean?

Edited September 20, 2006 by swerve

[Xavier]

Not a place to use big warships for shelling ground positions. Read it in context!

 

The only access to Antwerp by sea is through Dutch territorial waters. Merchant shipping is allowed free passage, but the Dutch closed it to warships in 1914. The British marines went there by train, overland, & retreated overland. They were evacuated via Oostende, not the port of Antwerp. British & Belgian troops who retreated downriver because the Germans cut off the overland route were interned by the Dutch.

 

So to get your big ships to Antwerp, you have to fight the Dutch. You then find yourself fighting in narrow waters, with multiple channels & thousands of hiding places for torpedo boats & minelayers. It'd make forcing the Dardanelles look like simplicity itself. And you have to get deep into that tangle to get within range of Antwerp. Great way to lose a fleet.

 

See what I mean?

370105[/snapback]

 

don't forget the sandbanks in the estuary, and what good would a fleet on hte Scheldt do anyway?

What may have been useful ,if practical to do, is to reinforce Antwerp earlier and entrench along the Scheldt, Lisse rivers, saving Antwerp and Flanders, resulting in a longer frontline, but right on the German right wing, and the U-boats wouldn't have their channel bases later on

[Daniel Papp]

In a perverse way, the Italians did it, after 12 horrific battles of the Izonzo. THe 1918 victory at Vittorio Veneto left the road open to Vienna and, hence, Bavaria and doubtlessly could have ended the war. However the German army was already reeling back and then told the govt that it would have to seek a peace. One can only speculate on the Prussian humiliation of a defeat at the hands of the Italians, so maybe the armistice/peace was hastened.

369822[/snapback]

 

Apparently holding back proved to be the wrong decision for Italy. Romania, Yugoslavia and Chechoslovakia kept fighting Hungary after the ceasefire, so their territorial gains could be acknowledged in the peace treaties (and they were). Italy holding more Austrian territory could have argued for more of the Adriatic coast on the expense of Yugoslavia.