2014 Group Build discussion

[NARSES2]

Kingdom of Poland 191x set up be Austro- Hungary.  Tzarist Russia/ Belorus boarder dispute with KoPoland???

Yup could be part of the Federalisation plans of Ferdinand

[NARSES2]

...Would Mustafa Kemal have become the major military & revolutionary political figure he did? Or would he have become a statistic in a failed military coup, rather than "Atatürk"?



Guy

No WW1 so no Armenian Genocide (nothing to distract the eyes of the world).
Armenian war of independance leads to an Armenian state encompassing Lebanon plus parts of what we know as Israel, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Iraq.  Strong ties with Imperial Russia due to the similarities of their orthodox churches and Russias desire for a route to the Med.
Fast forward to 1938 when Jews expelled by the pretty much everyone start arriving in Southern Armenia (supported by the Pan-African Islamic Empire who see a chance to get the christians out of Jerusalem) clamouring for a homeland...

The Middle East in this scenario is fascinating. I agree re the possibilities of an Armenian State.

However we (I as moderator) do need to be carefull with this area of the world in particular. It's ripe for What If but also could be prone to difficulties. More then happy to allow people to express themselves as long as the normal rules of the site are respected regarding politics etc.

Happy to offer words of advice as to what my red lines are in this respect before you start your builds/backstories. PM me if anyone wants this clarification

[Geoff]

Or there is an Armenian diaspora to Tzarist Russia that attacks the Ottomans?

[NARSES2]

Right I've opened up 3 Child Boards for models, artwork and stories. Officially for use from 1/1/2014

[zenrat]

...Would Mustafa Kemal have become the major military & revolutionary political figure he did? Or would he have become a statistic in a failed military coup, rather than "Atatürk"?



Guy

No WW1 so no Armenian Genocide (nothing to distract the eyes of the world).
Armenian war of independance leads to an Armenian state encompassing Lebanon plus parts of what we know as Israel, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Iraq.  Strong ties with Imperial Russia due to the similarities of their orthodox churches and Russias desire for a route to the Med.
Fast forward to 1938 when Jews expelled by the pretty much everyone start arriving in Southern Armenia (supported by the Pan-African Islamic Empire who see a chance to get the christians out of Jerusalem) clamouring for a homeland...

The Middle East in this scenario is fascinating. I agree re the possibilities of an Armenian State.

However we (I as moderator) do need to be carefull with this area of the world in particular. It's ripe for What If but also could be prone to difficulties. More then happy to allow people to express themselves as long as the normal rules of the site are respected regarding politics etc.

Happy to offer words of advice as to what my red lines are in this respect before you start your builds/backstories. PM me if anyone wants this clarification

Yes.  The Turkish government get ever so upset when those pesky Armenians remind the world of the 1,500,000 murdered in 1915.

[Mossie]

Here's a festive one.  Christmas Truces.  Following many unofficial truces in 1914 during quiet periods and especially during Christmas, fraternisation  with the enemy was firmly forbidden by both sides in 1915.  Despite this, there were several instances of troops breaking orders and doing so anyway.

Okay, lets say the fears of the various High Commands were realised.  Rather than a few isolated instances, the truces continued on a much larger scale in 1915, ending in mutinies at Christmas when the the issue was forced.

Now, whether this ends WWI or not I'll put out to debate.  It be could be all Hollywood, Christmas Spirit, Goodwill to all Men etc.  One side or other could be more affected than the other (possibly the Germans, as they seemed to be the most forthcoming), leading to changes in offensives etc and the final map being drawn differently.  It could be very unpleasant, atrocities occurring when friendly troops oppose each other, mass shootings etc.  I'll open it up to those more knowledgeable in Great War matters than me.

[rickshaw]

Your scenario is closer to the truth than you perhaps realise, Mossie.  There were several examples of where unofficial truces, some lasting months broke out on the Western Front in 1915.   Some units simply refused to fight the enemy unless the enemy attacked and vice a versa.  I've read only scattered accounts of these truces but yes, the High Command on both sides were seriously worried by them.  That, plus the fears of Communist agitation (while more than likely not real as the Communist views didn't really get set in until about 1917 in first the French and to a much lesser extent the British army but it's all about perceptions) meant Haigh at the very least was getting counter-intelligence reports about the state of his own troops morale.  The Germans were justifiably worried more, I think about the possibility of pacifism breaking out in their ranks. 

[zenrat]

Most of the fictionalised recreations of the Western Front that i've seen have an officer blowing a whistle, climbing out of the trenches and leading "his chaps" at a walk across no-mans land towards the enemy.
I always wonder how accurate this was.  Wouldn't it be likely that the officer looked back to find no-one had followed him?

[rickshaw]

Most of the fictionalised recreations of the Western Front that i've seen have an officer blowing a whistle, climbing out of the trenches and leading "his chaps" at a walk across no-mans land towards the enemy.
I always wonder how accurate this was.  Wouldn't it be likely that the officer looked back to find no-one had followed him?

That would have been accurate for the first 2 and half years of the war.  He more than likely would have been dead within a few paces of the parapet anyway, so he wouldn't have had time to look back.   He would expect his NCOs to make sure that the men were following him.

After about the end of 1916, the British instituted a great many reforms and started using infiltration tactics, moving forward in short rushes under the cover of a creeping barrage.  By 1918 they'd pretty well perfected it, before the Germans whom are normally credited with having done so.  I'd recommend reading Paddy Griffith's Battle Tactics of the Western Front: The British Army`s Art of Attack, 1916-18.

You have to remember, like all wars, the tactics in use on the battlefield evolved and did so often quite quickly under the pressure of facing the enemy.  There are distinct periods on the Western Front, for all sides.  When something didn't work, they tried something different.  The real problem was that the Generals were "learning on the job".  Trench warfare was something completely new to them.  They hadn't kept up with technical developments and the primacy of the defence caught them just as much, if not more so, by surprise as it did everybody else who'd been talking and writing about the offensive spirit would always win battles.   Problem was, machine guns and barbed wire didn't give two sh!ts if you were offensively spirited, they just killed you when you charged forward.

I blame it all on the media, both then and now.  They created a meme of blood, mud and trenches and that has stuck in the public's consciousness ever since.   As the only film of the day, which gets played over and over again tends to emphasise that view, trying to shake it with a more realistic view is pretty hard.  Always remember for every Somme there is the Vimy Ridge and for Passchendale there is the 100 days.  For the Schiefflent Plan there is Mons and for Verdun there is Amiens.

[NARSES2]

I blame it all on the media, both then and now.  They created a meme of blood, mud and trenches and that has stuck in the public's consciousness ever since.   As the only film of the day, which gets played over and over again tends to emphasise that view, trying to shake it with a more realistic view is pretty hard.  Always remember for every Somme there is the Vimy Ridge and for Passchendale there is the 100 days.  For the Schiefflent Plan there is Mons and for Verdun there is Amiens.

The thing that still constantly annoys me is how so many histories, written or video, still treat the 100 days as almost an appendix, even British ones. The only time the British Army (I inc. our Commonwealth cousins in that term  ) has been the main force, attacking and defeating the main enemy, in the main sphere of conflict in our history. I'm not being disrespectful to the French and Americans, it's just one was exhausted by its incredible efforts in the first 3 years of the war and the other wouldn't be fully ready until 1919.

[rickshaw]

I blame it all on the media, both then and now.  They created a meme of blood, mud and trenches and that has stuck in the public's consciousness ever since.   As the only film of the day, which gets played over and over again tends to emphasise that view, trying to shake it with a more realistic view is pretty hard.  Always remember for every Somme there is the Vimy Ridge and for Passchendale there is the 100 days.  For the Schiefflent Plan there is Mons and for Verdun there is Amiens.

The thing that still constantly annoys me is how so many histories, written or video, still treat the 100 days as almost an appendix, even British ones. The only time the British Army (I inc. our Commonwealth cousins in that term  ) has been the main force, attacking and defeating the main enemy, in the main sphere of conflict in our history. I'm not being disrespectful to the French and Americans, it's just one was exhausted by its incredible efforts in the first 3 years of the war and the other wouldn't be fully ready until 1919.

What about The Falklands, Chris?  Surely that qualified as the British, alone, being the main force, attacking and defeating the main enemy, in the main sphere of conflict?

However, it's a good point anyway.  The 100 Days showed that the British Army had finally absorbed all the lessons they had learnt at such great expense and put them into action, driving the enemy from the battlefield into head long retreat, back to their homeland.  What people forget is that the German Army was defeated.  It was forced to sue for peace, and on the Allies' terms, not through negotiation.  It is a shame that the Allies let them off the hook.  If they had followed them up and marched into Germany there couldn't have been any "stab in the back" theory.  The Militarists would have been exposed for the failures they were and Hitler would have had a much harder time coming to power.  However, that was all in the future and no one thought such demagoguery as Hitler could rise to power.

The British problem was the same as what eventually slowed and halted the German offensive in 1918, once they had forced the British and French back from the frontlines, deep into their reserve areas - how do you move the massive amounts of supplies required to sustain a breakthrough and pursuit across the devastation of no-man's land?   All the transportation routes have been destroyed, all the bridges, etc.  There is a ~50 mile wide strip where transportation of any large quantities is impossible without a massive investment in building new roads and railway lines which takes time which you can ill afford if the momentum is to be sustained?   As it was, a miniscule force of only a reduced corps was able to actually be considered for the pursuit which was insufficient to be realistic.

[NARSES2]

What about The Falklands, Chris?  Surely that qualified as the British, alone, being the main force, attacking and defeating the main enemy, in the main sphere of conflict?

However, it's a good point anyway.  The 100 Days showed that the British Army had finally absorbed all the lessons they had learnt at such great expense and put them into action, driving the enemy from the battlefield into head long retreat, back to their homeland.  What people forget is that the German Army was defeated.  It was forced to sue for peace, and on the Allies' terms, not through negotiation.  It is a shame that the Allies let them off the hook.  If they had followed them up and marched into Germany there couldn't have been any "stab in the back" theory.  The Militarists would have been exposed for the failures they were and Hitler would have had a much harder time coming to power.  However, that was all in the future and no one thought such demagoguery as Hitler could rise to power.

The British problem was the same as what eventually slowed and halted the German offensive in 1918, once they had forced the British and French back from the frontlines, deep into their reserve areas - how do you move the massive amounts of supplies required to sustain a breakthrough and pursuit across the devastation of no-man's land?   All the transportation routes have been destroyed, all the bridges, etc.  There is a ~50 mile wide strip where transportation of any large quantities is impossible without a massive investment in building new roads and railway lines which takes time which you can ill afford if the momentum is to be sustained?   As it was, a miniscule force of only a reduced corps was able to actually be considered for the pursuit which was insufficient to be realistic.

As for the Falklands mate. You are right of course but it depends on what your definition of war is, and yes I know any conflict is a war to those taking part. To my mind the Falklands along with Iraq were conflicts not wars. Larger then "peace keeping operations" and smaller then wars in my own little brain. It's like the old question about which was the last battle fought on English soil ? Sedgemoor is considered the correct answer and one I would give but I have seen Preston 1745 given (I've also seen Orgreave Coke Ovens during the Miner's strike given) but both of those in my view were skirmishes. Obviously every one has their own view on the subject.

As for the 100 days, you are right entirely in what you say (again in my opinion). I'm hoping the forthcoming anniversary of WWI brings forth some good books (and documentaries) addressing the issues again and with the aid of recently discovered documentation among the large amount of regurgitation that will inevitably be published, not that that's necessarily a bad thing. Max Hasting's "Catastrophe" is a good start.

[RLBH]

The thing that still constantly annoys me is how so many histories, written or video, still treat the 100 days as almost an appendix, even British ones.

I've seen it observed that in 1918, the Germans had developed infiltration tactics and trained elite units in their use on the offensive, whilst the British had developed the same tactics, but considered it a standard part of the infantry commander's toolbox and trained everyone in them.

[rickshaw]

The thing that still constantly annoys me is how so many histories, written or video, still treat the 100 days as almost an appendix, even British ones.

I've seen it observed that in 1918, the Germans had developed infiltration tactics and trained elite units in their use on the offensive, whilst the British had developed the same tactics, but considered it a standard part of the infantry commander's toolbox and trained everyone in them.

Basically right.  And that was in part the undoing of the German offensives in 1918.  Once their specially trained Stosstruppen were exhausted and used up, the offensives ground to a halt whereas the British were able to simply reinforce their advancing, infiltrating troops with troops who were also trained in infiltration tactics and so the momentum was sustained.  Also, whereas the Germans tried for the "Big Push" to achieve a breakthrough, the British adopted the strategy of numerous smaller, "bite and hold" operations, which forced the Germans to try and redeploy their reserves from one side of the line to the other rapidly, as one smaller offensive advanced, achieved it's more limited objectives and then held them while another one started a few days later on the other flank.   This used up the German reserves and eventually, by trying to reinforce the front, everywhere, the Germans were in the end unable to hold anywhere sufficiently strong enough to resist the next British offensive, which broke through their lines.  Haigh was flexible enough to then move to exploit that breakthrough and mount another limited offensive which would in turn break through as well.  The end result was the Germans were forced to undertake a general withdrawal which rapidly turned into a rout.

The British training and "battle schools" are an unfortunately under-examined aspect of the British WWI effort.  Through them troops were trained and retrained in the latest tactical theories and methods, behind the lines and so new tactics were quickly dissiminated throughout the Army and practised so everybody knew and understood them.   The "Battle Schools" in particular paid a crucial part, organised at Division level, they retrained troops and practised them on either mockups or abandoned sections of the front, which had been advanced past in the most realistic manners.  By the end of the war, the British Army, despite it's reputation for "muddling through" had in fact been transformed to the most professional one in the world IMHO.   It surpassed the Germans, as the results on the battlefield showed.

[NARSES2]

The British training and "battle schools" are an unfortunately under-examined aspect of the British WWI effort.  Through them troops were trained and retrained in the latest tactical theories and methods, behind the lines and so new tactics were quickly dissiminated throughout the Army and practised so everybody knew and understood them.   The "Battle Schools" in particular paid a crucial part, organised at Division level, they retrained troops and practised them on either mockups or abandoned sections of the front, which had been advanced past in the most realistic manners.  By the end of the war, the British Army, despite it's reputation for "muddling through" had in fact been transformed to the most professional one in the world IMHO.   It surpassed the Germans, as the results on the battlefield showed.

Agree with that summing up. They've just rediscovered one of the battle schools somewhere (can't remember exactly) and the "scale model battlefield" used to explain a recent success was still visible after excavation