In 1914, many of the trends in military technology were moving in directions that, all other things being equal, would have decreased the ability of forces to move upon the battlefield. For example, the widespread use of mobile heavy guns, with ranges that were much longer than those of the field guns of the day, would have increased the ability of defenders to fire upon columns of march, thereby reducing their freedom of movement of their opponents. (The use of spotter aircraft would have allowed such weapons to make full use of their ability to fire at extreme ranges.)
The table shows the orders for such weapons that were placed by the French Army before the war.
In our time line, the production of these weapons was delayed by the outbreak of the war. (This was a function of the calling the colors of factory workers and the need to devote industrial capacity to the production of ammunition.)
In some situations, the employment of units composed of armored cars, armored trucks, and truck-borne infantry might have enhanced the ability of armies in the field to take advantage of fleeting opportunities. At the same time, however, such units would also have been well suited to the task of counter-reconnaissance. That is, they would have been attached to cavalry forces in order to reduce the freedom of movement of enemy cavalry.
Behind the lines, the trend towards replacing horse-drawn wagons with motor trucks would have facilitated the supply and reinforcement of forces in position, thereby enhancing the power of the defensive.
The table shows the orders for such weapons that were placed by the French Army before the war.
In our time line, the production of these weapons was delayed by the outbreak of the war. (This was a function of the calling the colors of factory workers and the need to devote industrial capacity to the production of ammunition.)
In some situations, the employment of units composed of armored cars, armored trucks, and truck-borne infantry might have enhanced the ability of armies in the field to take advantage of fleeting opportunities. At the same time, however, such units would also have been well suited to the task of counter-reconnaissance. That is, they would have been attached to cavalry forces in order to reduce the freedom of movement of enemy cavalry.
Behind the lines, the trend towards replacing horse-drawn wagons with motor trucks would have facilitated the supply and reinforcement of forces in position, thereby enhancing the power of the defensive.
Agree with Hoplofile, Static WW1 trench like warfare happened in lots of places, even in the 39-45 era, because firepower was high. Even if an opponent has tanks, if you have rapid fire MGs like a MG34, ATGs, low profile tank destroyers and things, they can be stopped, if you have enough density of defenders and good weapons. (of course if your lightly armed, thinly spread Romanians trying to stop a Soviet offensive it don't work). The density of armies in a delayed 1924 war on the western front will still be high. Its unlikely in peace time, that someone would think of some weapon like tanks, build hundreds of them, keep it a secret, then deploy it unsuspecting army, without counter measures in play.
Fearless Leader
Donor
I'm not sure that this satisfies the conditions of the OP but here it goes.
One of the less prominent points in Christopher Clark's Sleepwalkers is that the Alliance systems of OTL were not set in stone. There was a good deal of tension within them and they probably would eventually fracture in the absence of the Great War.
I could see a scenario in which early 20th century tensions are solved in a series of smaller conflicts during which time some trench warfare occurs but nothing to the scale of OTL. Though these tensions aren't resolved fully, they do manage to delay a full scale European conflict for 20 years or so. Thus when the Great Powers do go to war in TTL they do so with considerably more technology and doctrine as well as different alliance structures.
One of the less prominent points in Christopher Clark's Sleepwalkers is that the Alliance systems of OTL were not set in stone. There was a good deal of tension within them and they probably would eventually fracture in the absence of the Great War.
I could see a scenario in which early 20th century tensions are solved in a series of smaller conflicts during which time some trench warfare occurs but nothing to the scale of OTL. Though these tensions aren't resolved fully, they do manage to delay a full scale European conflict for 20 years or so. Thus when the Great Powers do go to war in TTL they do so with considerably more technology and doctrine as well as different alliance structures.
No you can’t delay it long enough for two huge reasons
1). If you delay it more then a very short time period it won’t happen or it will happen so differently that it is no longer the WW1 as we know it.
Give Russia to much time and Germany will decide the opritunity to fight them and France combined is gone, Wait long enough for England to realize Germany is not capable of building a fleet or empire to challenge them and England will be much less likely to fight. Give AH time to change rulers and who knows what happens. So WW1 has a very short window in which it will be able to happen as the all in war we know it
2). Much of the reason the equipment was developed that eliminated trench warfare was Because Of WW1. So without it these tactics and equipment will not be developed (or if they are it will be a LONG time coming). The world SHOULD have seen the trench warfare problem coming before WW1 but they didn’t. They had the ACW (American Civil War) and the Crimean war both showed the future but no one paid attention so without WW1 you will not learn that lesson so it will take decades before the equipment and tactics change,
1). If you delay it more then a very short time period it won’t happen or it will happen so differently that it is no longer the WW1 as we know it.
Give Russia to much time and Germany will decide the opritunity to fight them and France combined is gone, Wait long enough for England to realize Germany is not capable of building a fleet or empire to challenge them and England will be much less likely to fight. Give AH time to change rulers and who knows what happens. So WW1 has a very short window in which it will be able to happen as the all in war we know it
2). Much of the reason the equipment was developed that eliminated trench warfare was Because Of WW1. So without it these tactics and equipment will not be developed (or if they are it will be a LONG time coming). The world SHOULD have seen the trench warfare problem coming before WW1 but they didn’t. They had the ACW (American Civil War) and the Crimean war both showed the future but no one paid attention so without WW1 you will not learn that lesson so it will take decades before the equipment and tactics change,
Modern Imperialism
Banned
Would they learn about trench warfare and tactics while observing smaller or regional wars? Iran and Iraq War developed into trench like warfare in otl. You can have better military equipment and technology but that might not always be as good if they don’t have the right tactics or doctrines
Well they didn’t learn in the various wars in the late 1800s that featured trench warfare. They didn’t learn from the wars that featured new fast firing guns. They didn’t learn from the wars that had the first machine guns and Gatling guns. So basically they learned very little from any give war for the last 50 years but perhaps somehow in the 4 or 5 years you could delay WW1 they would learn something, yeah right.
No they need a HUGE wake up call with tens of thousands killed in battle after battle or it is going to be ignored.
No they need a HUGE wake up call with tens of thousands killed in battle after battle or it is going to be ignored.
The problem is that everybody sent observers to the Russo-Japanese war to watch thousands die assaulting field fortifications and machine guns, and left saying that the whole thing proved that you should train your troops to attack standing up and 'ELAN' would carry the day.
Not that simple. With 1914 tech how are you going to breach a rapid firing artillery and machine gun defense with a mass conscript army? You might be able to get a small professional force like the BEF up to the theoretical skill level, but even then it is theoretical and there is going to be a huge learning curve.
marathag
Banned
Earthworks around Petersburg? Why that's just dull American mobs who don't know how to fight a proper war.
And those 'Experts' gave even less credit to the Russians and Japanese martial spirit.
Nope, Red Trousers, spiffy Blue Coat and a shiny Bayonet will win the field.
The tragicomic part was that the Japanese had hired Prussians to train up their army. Faithful execution of Prussian tactics and strategy in the face of new technology resulted in previously unimaginable slaughter.
Naturally, the thing to do in Europe the next time a war was fought with new technology was to Prussia harder.
From a technology stand point or from the view of tactics you get absolutely NO change by delaying the war to a 1917 start date. All the changes IOTL that you get during those years is the DIRECT result of experiences in the way. The Airplane will be ever so slightly improved but otherwise you would be hard pressed to tell the difference.
So assuming the sides fall out as originally happened and all other things being basically equal you will get prett much the same result. Any differences will be related to changes in personal as officers age and retire. So odds are you will still get what you got. Trenches bombs artillery chemical warfare and all.
Trench Warfare started out because of the advancement in guns and was made even worse by airborne reconnaissance making it very difficult to out flank or otherwise surprise your enemy. And until you get the tech and tactics to get around that it will stay the same
So assuming the sides fall out as originally happened and all other things being basically equal you will get prett much the same result. Any differences will be related to changes in personal as officers age and retire. So odds are you will still get what you got. Trenches bombs artillery chemical warfare and all.
Trench Warfare started out because of the advancement in guns and was made even worse by airborne reconnaissance making it very difficult to out flank or otherwise surprise your enemy. And until you get the tech and tactics to get around that it will stay the same
Actually, they gave quite a lot of credit to Japanese martial spirit; the fact that the Japanese won the siege of Port Arthur despite their losses was taken as validating the élan theory, that is that sufficient willpower could overcome any merely material obstacle. Totally the wrong lesson, of course, but it made sense at the time...
What technological advancements?
Tanks were born of WWI trench carnage. While internal combustion vehicles will be developed and get better, and tracks will be used for agricultural tractors and heavy-duty earth-moving work, it's not a given tanks are born without that war.
Combat aircraft are more of a possibility. But, if lesser wars take place in which the major powers are only marginally involved or not at all, the development will be slower and there's a chance the Czar or some other well-intentioned ruler comes up with a renewal of Hague IV.1 1899. Which slows aerial things even more.
Easily portable machine guns (i.e., SMGs) also came truly into their own because of the need for them in trench assault tactics.
Deleted member 94680
this
and this
aaaand this.
WWI developed to be the mud-caked trench slog we envisage it to be (the eastern and middle eastern theatres would like a word) because it evolved the way it did OTL. Hardly anyone (literally no-one?) envisaged it to be the War it became simply because it was so different to the Wars that had gone before. No War pre-WWI (OTL) presaged WWI to it's extent and developments. You can't have anyone study OTL antebellum conflicts and draw the conclusions of what kind of War WWI was going to be, purely because it was so different to all antebellum conflicts.
In regards to what new technologies may come about, I do think that many people too often forget about artillery in favour of "flashy" things like Tanks, SMGs or Aircraft. If WW1 is delayed, we could see a lot of more modern and capable artillery introduced by a couple of nations, with France and especially Austria-Hungary getting some new artillery pieces in service. A-H was planning a substantial artillery modernization and reorganization before war began, and they would have extremely modern artillery pieces at their disposal, in large numbers, with 170+ guns per Corps planned, unless I am mistaken. Artillery tractors would also start to make their appearance, making the artillery much more mobile, then it was during the early years of WW1, even Heavy (150+mm) pieces, substantially reducing the number of horses (and men) in artillery service. In general we could see motorization to a greater extent, although mostly confined to supporting branches, not used to motorize combat troops, but motorizing artillery, medical and logistic services.
We could also see aircraft see some further development, but I would say that any development would be more directed towards air reconaissance and artillery spotting, then towards bombing. So more like a replacement for the cavalry, in its scouting purposes, then going for pure combat roles, for which they have not yet proven themselves to be actually useful for.
Horse Cavalry is likely to remain as is, though, I would say that it is a certainty that Lance and Saber are going to be abandoned for good the later the war is delayed. All cavalry that remains is likely to be employed as Dragoons, with their primary roles being recon and serving as mobile reserve of sorts. Perhaps we could see some efforts in motorizatioin being made, by procuring Armored Cars or Motorcycles with Sidecars, to compliment the Horse Cavalry, not replace it entirely.
TBC...
EDIT: Rifles are likely going to remain the same, with perhaps some trend towards shortening the rifles into "Short Rifles", similar to SMLE or Springfield 1903 rifles. Some nations are going to change their rifles/cartridges, with Britain and Austria-Hungary two most likely nations to do so, with Britain going for well known P14 rifle and its .276 Enfield, while Austria-Hungary was trialling 4 different rifles in 1913/14 period, aiming to replace its Mannlicher M95 Straight Pull rifles and their 8x50R, rimmed round nosed cartridge. French "may" end up with semi-automatic, they did play around with the concept before WW1, but without the pressures of war, I do not know that there will be both the will and the funding availlable to do something like that.
MGs are going to remain the same ones that served during WW1, so generally Watercooled Maxims and its derivatives, with some outliers as well, like French Hotchkiss aircooled MG or Austro-Hungarian Schwarzlose MG, with delayed blowback operation. LMGs could make their appearance as well, Lewis was a prewar design, as was Madsen LMG, but to what extent we will see them adopted I am not sure. Perhaps they will remain out of reach of infantry, being issued to cavalry, in an effort to increase their firepower, since they are too expensive for peacetime budgets to handle, to be produced and issued to all of infantry. Mortars were worked on by Germans before WW1, so we are likely to see them in service, although first generation may end up looking a lot like German wheeled mortars of WW1, unlike more familiar and modern looking Stokes types.
Thoughts?
We could also see aircraft see some further development, but I would say that any development would be more directed towards air reconaissance and artillery spotting, then towards bombing. So more like a replacement for the cavalry, in its scouting purposes, then going for pure combat roles, for which they have not yet proven themselves to be actually useful for.
Horse Cavalry is likely to remain as is, though, I would say that it is a certainty that Lance and Saber are going to be abandoned for good the later the war is delayed. All cavalry that remains is likely to be employed as Dragoons, with their primary roles being recon and serving as mobile reserve of sorts. Perhaps we could see some efforts in motorizatioin being made, by procuring Armored Cars or Motorcycles with Sidecars, to compliment the Horse Cavalry, not replace it entirely.
TBC...
EDIT: Rifles are likely going to remain the same, with perhaps some trend towards shortening the rifles into "Short Rifles", similar to SMLE or Springfield 1903 rifles. Some nations are going to change their rifles/cartridges, with Britain and Austria-Hungary two most likely nations to do so, with Britain going for well known P14 rifle and its .276 Enfield, while Austria-Hungary was trialling 4 different rifles in 1913/14 period, aiming to replace its Mannlicher M95 Straight Pull rifles and their 8x50R, rimmed round nosed cartridge. French "may" end up with semi-automatic, they did play around with the concept before WW1, but without the pressures of war, I do not know that there will be both the will and the funding availlable to do something like that.
MGs are going to remain the same ones that served during WW1, so generally Watercooled Maxims and its derivatives, with some outliers as well, like French Hotchkiss aircooled MG or Austro-Hungarian Schwarzlose MG, with delayed blowback operation. LMGs could make their appearance as well, Lewis was a prewar design, as was Madsen LMG, but to what extent we will see them adopted I am not sure. Perhaps they will remain out of reach of infantry, being issued to cavalry, in an effort to increase their firepower, since they are too expensive for peacetime budgets to handle, to be produced and issued to all of infantry. Mortars were worked on by Germans before WW1, so we are likely to see them in service, although first generation may end up looking a lot like German wheeled mortars of WW1, unlike more familiar and modern looking Stokes types.
Thoughts?
Last edited:
Yes. The reason why I did not dwell on that is that more and more modern artillery means more trenches, not less.