Kensai wrote:...If the Germans manage to make a good dash to Paris in the first two months (4 turns), the chances are very high of actually winning the game. Of course this applies if the player has chosen the historical war plan cause all the other are mixing the cards.
I am very curious to know what happens if there is an opposite Schlieffen: Moltke-Kaiser plan to send 7 armies and break Russia first. That's quite the bet!
Kensai wrote:I think that too, bob.. The only way I can see it happening is if the combined Austrohungarian and German armies beat them decisively early enough so then A-H alone can march towards Moscow, while the Germans are ferried back on trains to man the front before it crumbles. But indeed, what's the point there? Supposedly it will be already 1915 so the trench tech will be high already. But without a second front the Germans could in fact dedicate into more "sacrificial attacks" or help kick out the Italians earlier.
In any way, I think the Schlieffen Plan is the best bet. If Moltke had adhered completely to the plan ("keep the right flank as strong as possible!!") perhaps the Germans would have achieved a 1870 repeat.
HerrDan wrote:Yes and the war would be over before Christmas! Unfortunately, Moltke made many mistakes and lost the oportunity for a decisive early victory, but in any case, if the Glorious German Empire didn't have to use its forces in so many theaters (being always forced to "lend a hand" to its weaker partners) the W.E would never be able to hold them, indeed the Ludendorff offensives almost achieved victory as late as in 1918, so I don't think it's that simple: "win early or game over", but it's surely the best of the possibilities and the german were the only ones with this possibility at hand, so I'd suggest anyone to try it.
bob. wrote:I wouldn't say the Ludendorff Offensive almost achieved victory. I would say, it was a desperate last attack without any real goal that was impossible to "win". It was a considerable gain of ground, but in the end that was not an advantage but a disadvantage. They lost lots of men to gain a worthless huge salient, awesome!
After the initial 1914 campaign I don't think any individual offensive would be able to win the war for either side.
HerrDan wrote:I would say that you need to read more about it, before making such a senseless post...
Cheers.
HerrDan wrote:I would say that you need to read more about it, before making such a senseless post...
Cheers.
Never again in 1918 would Germany possess the same hitting power. Yet even after their colossal military gamble failed, there was no civilian authority remaining in Germany to force Hindenburg and Ludendorff to alter course. Making war had become the only policy, as Hindenburg and Ludendorff persisted in launching four more offensives that ultimately drove their men to the wall. While the German army grew ever weaker, Entente forces grew stronger as they coordinated their war-making efforts under Foch, selected as the Allied generalissimo during the crisis of March, and as the "Yanks and tanks" took to the field in ever increasing numbers.
The details of the subsequent Ludendorff offensives are less important than their lack of positive strategic results. Even worse, by June a depleted German army now had to defend a front of 510 kilometers instead of the 390 kilometers it defended in mid-March, and largely without the force-multiplying benefits of the Hindenburg Line. Having suffered a million casualties since March—especially severe among the highly trained and difficult to replace storm trooper units—the army would suffer grievously that summer from the lack of such benefits.
fred zeppelin wrote:Well, there's this: http://www.historynet.com/the-tragic-pursuit-of-total-victory-germanys-unrelenting-offensive-that-lost-wwi.htm
Excerpt:
HerrDan wrote:Fred Zeppelin your sources are really great...for a 8th grade student perhaps...
William J. Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF), has taught at the Air Force Academy and the Naval Postgraduate School. He currently teaches at the Pennsylvania College of Technology. A regular contributor to TomDispatch, he is the author of Hindenburg: Icon of German Militarism (Potomac, 2005). His email is wastore at pct.edu.
bob. wrote:Wow, that's a great argument for your claim that "Germany almost achieved victory"! How about instead of bashing others you just say why you have that opinion? This is what a forum is about, after all...
bob. wrote:Wow, that's a great argument for your claim that "Germany almost achieved victory"! How about instead of bashing others you just say why you have that opinion? This is what a forum is about, after all...
bob. wrote:I wouldn't say the Ludendorff Offensive almost achieved victory. I would say, it was a desperate last attack without any real goal that was impossible to "win". It was a considerable gain of ground, but in the end that was not an advantage but a disadvantage. They lost lots of men to gain a worthless huge salient, awesome!
After the initial 1914 campaign I don't think any individual offensive would be able to win the war for either side.
bob. wrote:But even if we assume the Germans make huge and strategically important gains, do you think the Entente would have just made peace? Honest question, I know nothing about that. I guess they did panic in some cases during the Kaiserschlacht, but that seems only natural during a large offensive.
One thing is IMHO for sure though: the Germans were done for militarily anyway, so the best thing the Germans could hope for would be that the Entente PERCEIVES them as way stronger than they really are.
Altaris wrote:IMO, the Allies won in 1918 because they finally learned how to effectively use combined arms of aircraft dominance and recon, tanks/assault troops, and coordinated creeping barrage artillery tactics (which really stemmed from better recon allowing artillery to pinpoint its fire). It's somewhat ironic, IMO, that the Germans were the ones who took these lessons to heart 20 years later, being on the receiving end of these tactics which were so much more successful than the offensives of 1915-1917.
The USA's entry had some impact too, mostly in boosting the morale of the British/French with fresh troops and leading to Ludendorff's offensives being launched in a desperate gamble to break the Allies before the Americans tipped the balance irrevocably. On the German side, 1918 saw the tipping point of the British blockade really unraveling the German morale on the homefront too.
In a PBEM game, I think the Central Powers have some chance of success, largely depending on the decisions made by the Western Entente. It's absolutely critical for the Entente to build up medium/heavy artillery throughout the war, if they fail to do so before Russia falls, Germany can very well defeat the Allies once they can concentrate in the West. Prudent use of WSU expenditure by the British/French is the key to both holding off the Germans in the late war and the eventual turning of the tide. Of course this does need to be offset with troops in the field, but troops alone won't win the key battles in the trenches.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests