Axis History Forum

This is an apolitical forum for discussions on the Axis nations, as well as the First and Second World Wars in general hosted by Marcus Wendel's Axis History Factbook in cooperation with Michael Miller's Axis Biographical Research and Christoph Awender's WW2 day by day.

Skip to content

Empires Of The Great War

Discussions on all aspects of the First World War not covered in the other sections.
Hosted by Terry Duncan.

Re: Empires Of The Great War

Postby Kelvin on 10 Jun 2011 11:26

German mischief led to more arms preparation of both France and Russia and this led to more worry to German war planner. Russian Great Programme of 1913 ( annual intake increased to 585,000 men) and French Three Years Army Act of 1913 and extended the maximum service age of man from 45 to 48 and thus enabled French to put 4.97 million men on battlefield.
On the eve of war, if u check the stock of their shells, French and Russian were more prepared than German. In 1914, Russian had 6.43 million 76.2 mm shells and 450,000 122mm shells and French had 5.72 million 75 mm shells in stock. German only had 3.82 million 77mm shells and 875,000 105mm shells in stock. Upon mobilization, German had 1,077 infantry battalions facing 1,108 French infantry battalions while on the Eastern Front, 158 German infantry battalions facing 408 Russian battalions in East Prussia. u can see both Russian and French were more prepared than those of German in ammunition stock and mobilitzation of men for war.

Remark : if Russian Great Programme completed in 1917, Russian army would have 8,358 artillery pieces ( 6,048 x light field guns, 666 x mountain guns, 1,176 x light howitzers, 312 x 4.2" guns and 156 x 6" howitzers. And also included increase annual intake and military aviaiton. It was what German feared.
Last edited by Kelvin on 10 Jun 2011 14:27, edited 1 time in total.

Kelvin
Member
Hong Kong
 
Posts: 1336
Joined: 06 Apr 2007 14:49

Re: Empires Of The Great War

Postby Kelvin on 10 Jun 2011 13:37

Regarding France, I should think that France adopt right policy prior to 1914 : made more friends and took advantage of German mistake since 1890. She succeeded in making military agreement with Russia in 1892 , thus paved the way for two front war for their German enemy. Romania has been ally of Austria-Hungary since 1883 and was neutralized by three French loan and did not join their Austrian ally in 1914.
The most successful was to make Triple Alliance became de facto Dual Alliance. France succeeded in removing Italy from German camp. In 1900 secret agreement, France and Italy settled their long time colonial disputes : French recognized Italy 's position in Tripoli while Italy recognized France 's position in Morocco. And in another secret agreement of 1902, Italy even agreed to remain neutral in any war between France and other powers, thus meant Italian Third Army no longer launched offensive on the Rhine in future Franco-German war. Also both sides also end their long time traiff war since 1887. And French loan began to pour into Italian capital market and French Finance capital became dominant in Italian money market by 1914. Even in 1911, French agreed to convert the interest of Italy 's 8 billion Lire national debt from 5 % to 3.75 %.

French diplomacy was successful prior to 1914.

Kelvin
Member
Hong Kong
 
Posts: 1336
Joined: 06 Apr 2007 14:49

Re: Empires Of The Great War

Postby Kelvin on 12 Jun 2011 05:31

The difficult terrain of Austro-Italian border limited Italian offensive capability as that terrain there enabled Italian to defence and Austrian to attack. Only area enabled Italian to attack was the plain area of the Isonzo and Italian had launched 11 offensives on the Isonzo but attack in this area would expose the Italian rear to the Austrian from Trentino.

Although the Italian suffered a crushing defeat in Caporetto in 1917 and she did won a great victory at Vittorio-Veneto in 1918. Austrian suffered several hundred thousand casualties.

Kelvin
Member
Hong Kong
 
Posts: 1336
Joined: 06 Apr 2007 14:49

Re: Empires Of The Great War

Postby Kelvin on 12 Jun 2011 05:53

With regard to effectiveness of the powers in WWI, IMO, unlike WWII, both sides did not get any clear cut victories :

Russian army suffered a crushing defeat in Tannenberg in 1914 and again in Gorlice-Tarnow campaign of 1915 and the whole of Poland was occupied by German. But when Russian facing Austrian, she crushed the Austrian in Galicia and took about 130,000 Austrian soldiers and occupied Lemberg in 1914 and in 1916, Busilov offensive again crushed the Austrian forces, taking 400,000 Austrian soldiers.

German crushed the Russian at Tannenberg in 1914 and again in Gorlice-Tarnow in 1915 , annhiilated the Italian in Carpoetto in 1917 and knocked Romanian out of the war in 1916 but all her offensives in the West all ended in failure : Marne in 1914, Iypes in 1915, Somme and Verden in 1916 and 1918 offensive. German stronghold in Qingdao was captured by Anglo-Japanese forces in 1914

The contribution of Turkish army was defeat of Anglo-French forces in Gallipoli campaign in 1915 and again British expedtionary forces for Bagdad, was destroyed by Turkish at Kut in 1916 but Turkish suffered a crushing defeat by British forces in Megiddo in 1918 and Damascus was captured.

Both British and French offensives all ended in failure and they suffered a crushing defeat in Gallipoli in 1915. British fleet suffered a defeat in battle of Coronel in 1914.

Austrian was always defeated by Russian but she did conquer Serbia and Monetengro in 1915 and helped German destroy the Italian at Carpoetto in 1917.

About Italian army, I have mention in the previous post. :)

Kelvin
Member
Hong Kong
 
Posts: 1336
Joined: 06 Apr 2007 14:49

Re: Empires Of The Great War

Postby South on 12 Jun 2011 06:24

Chozen Kelvin, (Good morning; believe that's a Hong Kong flag below your name.)

Re: "...the powers in WWI...no clear cut victories";

Would you not consider the 31 May 1916 Battle of the Jutland Sound a clear-cut victory for the Brits?

The German fleet could not risk challenging the British fleet for several months. In actual vessel damage and personnel losses and injuries the Brits received more damage and casualties. Yet, after Jutland the German fleet avoided the Royal Navy for the rest of WWI. Can this not be called a definitive victory?


Warm regards,

Bob

South
Financial supporter
United States
 
Posts: 1561
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: Empires Of The Great War

Postby Terry Duncan on 13 Jun 2011 02:21

Would you not consider the 31 May 1916 Battle of the Jutland Sound a clear-cut victory for the Brits?


Very much so. Battles at sea are not decided by losses, but by who controls the sea afterwards. Jutland was close fought, but it convinced the Germans that the surface fleet could not achieve anything, and that the only hope was with the U-boat arm.

The problem with Jutland is that everyone expected a Trafalgar type result, but forgot that Trafalgar was the end result of over two decades of wars and naval supremacy, and indeed that the admiral and fleet that won were not even the highest ranked admiral or the main fleet! It was spectacular and the Germans did very well, and can hardly be faulted for not achieving miricles, but they had waited too long before risking a fleet action and the resulting decision to move to another USW campaign only ensured their defeat.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
United Kingdom
 
Posts: 3177
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54

Re: Empires Of The Great War

Postby Mad Zeppelin on 13 Jun 2011 12:30

Skagerrak/Jutland had nothing to do with the blockade or submarine warfare. - If Scheer had known that the GF was at sea, he would immediately have returned to port. - The idea was simply to catch a small British detachment and annihilate it - with the improbable prospect of being able to repeat that procedure several times in order to achieve some kind of parity...

A major fleet engagement wasn't intended by the German side, it just happened. But the contention often read that this convinced the German HSF to remain in port doesn't hold tight. - They were in action at the British east coast again as early as August 1916. - And it were the British who now avoided contact. They knew that their shells were junk; and only by mid-1918 was the GF starting to receive the new 'Green Boy' shells; until then, the British were eager not to fight it out with the Germans, whose vessels had shown a disturbing longlivety.

Mad Zeppelin
Member
Germany
 
Posts: 1285
Joined: 08 Sep 2004 20:05
Location: Germany

Re: Empires Of The Great War

Postby Terry Duncan on 13 Jun 2011 14:46

Skagerrak/Jutland had nothing to do with the blockade or submarine warfare.


A very strange assertion since it was in his report to the Kaiser two weeks after Jutland that Scheer made plain that the surface fleet could achieve nothing, and that if anything was to be achieved against the blockade and winning the war, it would have to come from the U-boat arm.

If Scheer had known that the GF was at sea, he would immediately have returned to port.


Certainly, but naval battles are not won by timidity, and the German fleet was an excellent weapon that could have been risked with little damage to the German war effort.

But the contention often read that this convinced the German HSF to remain in port doesn't hold tight. - They were in action at the British east coast again as early as August 1916.


Yes, and at 2nd Heligoland Bight, and the abortive raid on the Scandinavian convoys. Not a lot for the last 30 months of the war, and it did at least put an end to the threat of major tip-and-run raids.

And it were the British who now avoided contact.


Almost the complete opposite of the truth about what transpired. Whilst I would not recomment Wikipedia as a serious study, it does relieve me of having to write a lengthy rebuttal of this point;

The Action of 19 August 1916 was one of only two further attempts made by the German High Seas Fleet to engage elements of the British Royal Navy following the mixed results of the Battle of Jutland in World War I. The lesson of Jutland for Germany had been the vital need for reconnaissance so as to avoid the unexpected arrival of the British Grand Fleet during any raid, so on this occasion four Zeppelins were deployed to scout the North Sea between Scotland and Norway for signs of British ships, while four more scouted immediately ahead of German ships. Twenty four submarines were also deployed, off the English coast, in the southern North Sea and off the Dogger Bank.[1]

Although Jutland had been officially hailed as a success, the German commander Admiral Reinhard Scheer felt it important that another raid should be mounted as quickly as possible to maintain morale in his severely battered fleet. It was decided that the raid should follow the pattern of previous ones, with the battlecruisers carrying out a dawn artillery bombardment of an English town, in this case Sunderland. Only two battlecruisers were still serviceable after Jutland, Moltke and Von der Tann, so the force was boulstered by the addition of three battleships, Bayern, Markgraf and Großer Kurfürst. The remainder of the High Seas Fleet, comprising 16 dreadnought battleships, was to carry out close support 20 miles behind. The fleet set sail at 9.00pm on 18th August from the Jade river.[2]

Information about the upcoming raid was obtained by British Intelligence in Room 40 through intercepted and decoded radio messages. Admiral Sir John Jellicoe, commander of the British fleet, was on leave so had to be recalled urgently and boarded the light cruiser Royalist at Dundee to meet his fleet in the early hours of 19th August off the river Tay. In his absence, Admiral Cecil Burney took the fleet to sea on the afternoon of 18th August. Vice-Admiral David Beatty left the Firth of Forth with his squadron of six battlecruisers to meet the main fleet in the Long Forties. The Harwich Force of 20 destroyers and 5 light cruisers commanded by Commodore Tyrwhitt was ordered out, as were 25 British submarines which were stationed in likely areas to intercept German ships. The battlecruisers together with the 5th Battle Squadron of five fast battleships were stationed 30 miles ahead of the main fleet to scout for the enemy. The assembled fleet now moved south seeking the German fleet, but suffered the loss of one of the light cruisers screening the battlecruiser group, HMS Nottingham, which was hit by three torpedoes from submarine SM U-52 at 6:00 am.

At 6:15 am Jellicoe received information from the Admiralty that one hour earlier the enemy had been 200 miles to his south east. However, the loss of the cruiser caused him to first head north for fear of endangering his other ships. No torpedo tracks or submarines had been seen, so it was unclear whether the cause had been a submarine or entering an unknown minefield. He did not resume a south-easterly course until 9.00 am when William Goodenough, commanding the light cruisers, advised that the cause had been a submarine attack.[3] Further information from the admiralty indicated that the battlecruisers would be within 40 miles of the main German fleet by 2.00 pm., and Jellicoe increased to maximum speed. Weather conditions were good, with plenty of time for a fleet engagement before dark.[4]
Town class cruiser Falmouth, sunk after torpedo attacks from two submarines

The German force had received reassurances about Jellicoe's position, when a zeppelin had spotted the Grand Fleet heading north away from Scheer, at the time it had been avoiding the possible minefield. Unfortunately for the British, Zeppelin L13 sighted the Harwich force approximately 75 miles ENE of Cromer, mistakenly identifying the cruisers as battleships. This was precisely the sort of target Scheer was seeking, so he changed course at 12.15 pm also to the south-east and away from the approaching British fleet. No further reports were received from zeppelins about the British fleet, but it was spotted by a U-boat just 65 miles north of Scheer. Scheer turned for home at 2:35 pm abandoning his potential target. By 4.00 pm Jellicoe had been advised that Scheer had abandoned the operation and so turned north himself.[5]
Nassau class battleship SMS Westfalen damaged by torpedo from E23

A second cruiser attached to the battlecruiser squadron, Falmouth, was hit by two torpedoes from SM U-63 at 16:52 and sank the following day while being towed to the Humber, when hit by two more torpedoes fired by SM U-66. By 17:45 the Harwich force had sighted German ships, but was too far behind for any prospect of an attack before nightfall so abandoned the chase.

A British submarine E23 commanded by Lieutenant-Commander R.R Turner managed to hit the German battleship Westfalen at 5:05 am on the 19th, but the ship was able to return home.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_of_19_August_1916

They knew that their shells were junk;


They had known since 1912. As usual nothing had been done.

only by mid-1918 was the GF starting to receive the new 'Green Boy' shells; until then, the British were eager not to fight it out with the Germans, whose vessels had shown a disturbing longlivety.


A nice soundbite but devoid of facts, other than to note the German vessels had managed to survive well in action.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
United Kingdom
 
Posts: 3177
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54

Re: Empires Of The Great War

Postby Mad Zeppelin on 13 Jun 2011 16:48

[A very strange assertion since it was in his report to the Kaiser two weeks after Jutland that Scheer made plain that the surface fleet could achieve nothing, and that if anything was to be achieved against the blockade and winning the war, it would have to come from the U-boat arm.]

That they could do nothing against the blockade was known since 1914, they didn't need Jutland to find out about this. Even before the war, Tirpitz had been aware that in case of a wide blockade his precious fleet would be almost useless.
The whole sortie had much to do with the fear that the German navy would be marginalised in future - if not some decisive action occurred. But even then Scheer was bound by motto: 'Be successful - but take no risks.'
Scheer was a proponent of unrestricted submarine warfare, his advice after Jutland was aiming at getting that implemented again (it had been part of Falkenhayn's 1916 strategy for the western theatre of war but been cancelled due to Bethmann Hollweg's objections and US pressure).

Mad Zeppelin
Member
Germany
 
Posts: 1285
Joined: 08 Sep 2004 20:05
Location: Germany

Re: Empires Of The Great War

Postby Terry Duncan on 13 Jun 2011 18:21

That they could do nothing against the blockade was known since 1914, they didn't need Jutland to find out about this.


It is curious then that Scheer should mention that the surface fleet cannot achieve anything in a report in mid-June 1916 if it was known already in 1914.

Even before the war, Tirpitz had been aware that in case of a wide blockade his precious fleet would be almost useless.


The German fleet strategy had been worked out with the assumption that the GF would adopt a close blockade strategy, and not a distant blockade. Distant blockade was a rather unpleasant surprise, and apparently not one the naval staff had considered, so maybe Tirpitz forgot to tell them?

Scheer was a proponent of unrestricted submarine warfare


Certainly, but it was only after Jutland that he concluded that the surface fleet was unable to achive anything.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
United Kingdom
 
Posts: 3177
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54

Re: Empires Of The Great War

Postby Mad Zeppelin on 13 Jun 2011 18:38

The German Fleet had been constructed under the assumption of a close blockade, anything else would officially be ruled out by Tirpitz. That, however, did not mean they were blind to other options, they were only bound and gagged not to discuss them in public. Tirpitz would suppress any opinion not conform to his empire building plans; the HSF must not be put in question.

Mad Zeppelin
Member
Germany
 
Posts: 1285
Joined: 08 Sep 2004 20:05
Location: Germany

Re: Empires Of The Great War

Postby Terry Duncan on 14 Jun 2011 02:42

Curiously by 1914 the worst of the problems had passed. German relations with Britain were improving, and they were better with France than for many years, and only German relations with Russia had remained without much improvement. Some of the leading German figures were and are described as Russophobic - Motlke and Bethmann for example - and a similar pattern can be found elsewhere. Individuals disliked certain nations, but it was far from centred on Germany, Conrad hated Italy - his ally! - whilst many disliked or distrusted Russia.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
United Kingdom
 
Posts: 3177
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54

Re: Empires Of The Great War

Postby Mad Zeppelin on 14 Jun 2011 06:25

The problems hadn't passed, they were still around. - Until 1914, the German government had not been interested in waging war, they always had actively sought to keep the peace.
In 1914, they still weren't out for war; but they were willing to risk a war, should their opponents be ready to resort to violence. That worked at once: Russia was more than ready to use violence; so, Bethmann Hollweg's test immediately led to war (this was chiefly aided by Moltke's war plans, but the final decision was a political one; the generals had no say in it). - In stating that Anglo-German relation had improved, the British were lying to themselves; they were knee deep in an alliance with France and Russia, and there was no way out for them.

Mad Zeppelin
Member
Germany
 
Posts: 1285
Joined: 08 Sep 2004 20:05
Location: Germany

Re: Empires Of The Great War

Postby Gooner1 on 14 Jun 2011 11:22

Kelvin wrote:By 1914, German seemed more concern about Russia and then Britain. Given relative small population of France , ( 39 million in 1914), French military potential was limited. On the other hand, Russia had the largest population of Europe. ( Combination of Austria-Hungary and Germany in 1914) and also had much natural resouces for industrial development ( Iron, Manganese and coal in Ukraine, Oil in Maikop, Gronzy and Baku and other ores in Ural and Siberia. So, Russian military and economic potential was huge and maybe one day, stronger than Germany. Harold Mackinder 's theory maybe had some effect on German politican.



Nail on the head there. With its much larger population and unlimited natural resources Russia would inevitably become the greatest military power on the continent, supplanting Germany.

Gooner1
Member
United Kingdom
 
Posts: 934
Joined: 06 Jan 2006 12:24
Location: London

Re: Empires Of The Great War

Postby Terry Duncan on 14 Jun 2011 15:33

Curiously by 1914 the worst of the problems had passed.


The problems hadn't passed, they were still around.


As I noted previously;

Curiously by 1914 the worst of the problems had passed.


In stating that Anglo-German relation had improved


They had.

the British were lying to themselves


Bethmann and Lichnowsky were German, not British.

they were knee deep in an alliance with France and Russia, and there was no way out for them.


Not once Germany forced the decision by declaring war on both nations, and invading Belgium, a key British interest for three hundred years or so. Britain would have needed to do nothing at all if Germany had refrained from urging Austria to war.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
United Kingdom
 
Posts: 3177
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54

PreviousNext

Return to First World War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 1 guest