What if

Right as promised the subject is now open for debate, comment, criticism etc.

So let me know how you feel about the possibility of this for a 2014 Group Build ? We can then firm the whole thing up before the end of December, hopefully !

Chris

Personally, I do not find it much appealing - but that's me, maybe a better outline would not be bad?

Africa would also be an option, IMHO?

Ah, overlooked the parallel post with more details!  :rolleyes:

Anyway, still not totally sold on it, as it either confines builds to the 191X era, or needs MANY parallel timelines to be developed/explained. I find it complicated.  :-\

I'd suggest a much looser build, with simply WWI as the guide, similar to the previous Australia and Asiarama builds.  Do what you want around that, with the proviso that there's a measure of respect to it.

I'd be into a WWI build....give me an excuse to buy a certain Airfix bomber or two.....

:thumbsup:

Back in 1973, my history tutor set a group of us the task "Discuss the newspaper headline from  1919--FRANZ FERDINAND FOUND ALIVE AND WELL IN GRANGE-OVER-SANDS: WAR FOUGHT BY MISTAKE"   Can I count this as my first written whiff?

More  seriously, where would the Anglo-German "Naval Race" end up?   or how quickly would the Schneider Trophy races improve high speed flight?  or  how would the development of AFVs be changed?

So long as it doesn't involve ruddy bi-planes and tying the model up with string it sounds OK to me.........  :-\

Right lets be clear on one thing. The build is not restricted to WWI indeed given this scenario WWI as we know it probably wouldn't have happened.

You can build whatever you want as long as your back story contains a nod to the basic premise of the GB. It gives you a chance perhaps to play with the Worlds Edwardian Empires as if they'd continued into the 20/30/40's etc ?

As regards the British Empire it is entirely possible that India would have been given Dominion status without WWI. I won't go into the reasons why or why it didn't happen after WWI here as the material is available out there. India independent in the 20's creates an interesting scenario and it's doubtfull if there would have been partition if this had happened as well.

Another scenario was raised in a PM to me by Rickshaw. He postulated that the Austro-Hungarian Empire probably wouldn't have survived 10 years or so anyway and then postulated another assassination, that of George V. My reply was

Hi Brian

I totally agree with you regarding the Austro Hungarian Empire although in one or two accounts I've read Ferdinand had some interesting ideas about the possible "Federalisation" of the Empire, particularly with regards to the Czech lands. It's just that it's an obvious point of departure from our timeline and removes the "Causas Belli" for the war, although not the deep underlying causes.

An assansination of George V, or perhaps the Prince of Wales, whilst in India, especially if Russian involvement was suspected would have some very, very interesting consequences. An Anglo-Russian War with France supporting its ally Russia and Germany coming in on Britain's side ? You'd end up with what were in most peoples eyes far more natural alies ?

China is another area of world interaction. The Old World Powers saw it as ripe for plunder, the US had other views.

At the moment this is just a suggestion, not set in stone. However I really would like to hang the GB on what is such a significant historical milestone and if I'm honest I can't think of anything else.

The 2013 Asiarama threads will remain open throughout 2014 for those who want to continue with that.

The History(2)? channel are doing an alternative WWI story line documentary on the 8th December I think?

Something about a martian invasion in 1913 so everyone was on the same side fighting them?

Anyways, probably not much help here but thought I`d mention it.

As an alternative to the obvious POD departure that the assassination or rather lack of it, of the Arch-Duke Ferdinand provides can I offer an alternative?

What if instead, 1914 had seen the assassination of George V.  Perhaps by a crazed, lone Indian Assassin. I could easily envisage such an event.  This lone Indian Assassin may well have been to Russia where he had come into contact with Revolutionaries, such as Lev Davidovich Bronshtein or Valdimir Ulanov or Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili or any of the other multitudes of such people who were running around the countryside, inciting unrest.    After his return to India, his discontent with his peoples' predicament led him to hatch a plan to strike at the centre of British power, so he moves to the UK.

Once there, working in a succession of menial positions he manages to purchase a rifle and find out the itinerary of the monarch.  Ensconced in a hidey hole, overlooking the route George V is to travel, he shoots and kills him.  This causes a flurry of oppression of Indians, in the UK and back on the sub-continent, destroying the largely romantic view that many Englishmen held of the Indians as a subject peoples (having forgotten the horrors of the Mutiny two generations before).  If the increased oppression in India had resulted in a sort of "mini-Mutiny", then Britain might find itself hard pressed to suppress that and fight in Europe at the same time.

While such an event wouldn't have destroyed the British Empire it would have changed matters rather dramatically.

British suspicion would have fallen on possible Russian involvement - shades of the Great Game which both sides thought had ended at the turn of the Century. This would have meant less willingness to support the Russians and could well have resulted in the Russian Empire collapsing faster, perhaps in 1916, rather than 1917.  This would have repercussions on the Western Front, with more German troops freed for use their, faster and more resources becoming available from the Ukraine earlier, thereby staving off starvation and hunger in the Central Powers which caused the collapse of their morale in 1918.

Edward VIII would have ascended the throne as a 20 year old.  He would have been more impressionable and naive.  George V's influence was largely responsible for preventing Haig from being sacked in 1917.   Without that and the monarch much more under the thumb of the Prime-Minister, Haig would have been replaced.  David Lloyd-George would have had his way, the emphasis of Allied strategy against the Central Powers would have changed from the Western Front to his favoured "knocking the supporting props out" from under Germany.  This would have meant just as the Germans were increasing their troop numbers on the Western Front, the Allies were decreasing theirs.   In our timeline, this resulted in the German Offensives of 1918 which were barely held by the existing Allied forces.  If that was to occur in 1917 instead, then the Germans may well have achieved a breakthrough, with catastrophic results.

While this might not have resulted in defeat for the Allies, it would have been a major setback and thereby prolonged the war.  As this was achieved without resorting to unrestricted submarine warfare, the Americans would have continued to be reluctant to intervene and the Allies would have been fighting with their backs to the corner for longer.

While an Allied victory would have come, it would have taken considerably longer and may have been the result of negotiation, rather than efforts on the battlefield.  Longer term, it would be possible to see a Europe even more scarred by the experience (if that was possible).   A stalemate would see matters more unresolved than they had been in real life.  Perhaps a military dictatorship in Germany which would mean that Hitler would have remained a failed house-painter?   Edward VIII would have matured into a real king and not come under Wallis Simpson's influence.   The British Empire's hold on India would have tightened with the elimination of a generation of rebels, meaning that nation's independence would have been delayed by some time.

So, where does this leave us?

Narses has said he largely wants Europe post-WWI to resemble the map of Europe, pre-WWI.  With this scenario, the Germans are able to negotiate their way out of war.  This results in the Central Powers still as going concerns.  Germany remains united and Poland never gets recreated, East Prussia remains connected to the rest of the nation.  Austro-Hungary staggers on.  Even before WWI it was on shaky ground with nationalism tearing the Empire apart.  The Hungarians, the Czechs, both wanted to lead and control the Empire but only one could really be in the cockpit.  So, after a succession of minor and distant Royals, the Empire dissolves in say about 1930, perhaps under the pressure of the Great Depression.   This time though, without the guiding hand of Wilson, et al at Versailles to draw their lines on the map, the resulting nations are much more ethnically cohesive and their countries aren't determined by Nationalistic claims in quite the same way.

With Germany having negotiated it's way out of the war, there is no "stab-in-the-back" claims, nor do reparations cause quite the problems they did post-Versailles.  Kaiser Wilhelm II however is still going to more than likely have been deposed.  The Army were fed up with him and while they had taken an Oath of Loyality to him, most of the rank and file returning from the war were restless for a change.   I could foresee a military coup, with Ludendorf perhaps becoming Head of State with von Lettow-Vorbeck as the power behind the throne.  Both were very active in politics post WWI in real life.  Both would want to revenge the stalemate, so I could see a rearmed Germany being ready to go by about 1935, perhaps provoked by something like the Munich Crisis where Germany attempts to expand SE into the warring Mittel-Europe and Balkans?

The UK, occupied by events in India, as already alluded to, has remained largely aloof from European squabbles.  France, of course has been trying to lick it's wounds from the War.  Neither has prepared necessarily well for the eventual European conflict.  Both has largely forgotten the tactical lessons of the war, rather as they had in real life.   France, has as in real life, created the Maginot Line and retreated into a siege mentality.  The UK has built up it's navy and as in real life, reduced it's army to an Imperial Constabulary.

In the East, Russia has succumbed to Bolshivism.  It has taken longer and more than likely doesn't occur until about 1921.  It is racked by civil war for most of the interwar period.

In the West, the United States coming later to the war and perhaps without Wilsonian idealism driving its involvement, has retreated after the war into isolationism as it largely did in real life.

In the Far East, Japan is as in real life, largely running rampant in China, which is riven by civil war.

I have some ideas for WWI, but they wouldn't fit with the alternate time line.  One is something around Plan 1919 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_1919), the other is an alternative tank design. 

I might be able to fit the tank in as it was designed pre-war, but as far as I can gather, Plan 1919 wouldn't be elliglble for the GB as it assumes WWI carried on as per our time line?

I am taking your thoughts on board and will think about them during the next few days or so. Must admit part of me is thinking of pulling the idea but as said before I don't know where else to go. If we don't go down the GB route then maybe it's a Theme Build idea ?

Quote from: Mossie on November 28, 2013, 04:00:24 AM
I have some ideas for WWI, but they wouldn't fit with the alternate time line.  One is something around Plan 1919 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_1919), the other is an alternative tank design. 

I might be able to fit the tank in as it was designed pre-war, but as far as I can gather, Plan 1919 wouldn't be elliglble for the GB as it assumes WWI carried on as per our time line?

Mossie. Plan 1919 is still viable if that's the route you wish to go down. WWI could still occur just not with the starting point of Sarejevo. It might have started latter, indeed it's almost inevitable. Germany was extremely concerned that Russia's industrialisation would mean that by 1916 it might be on a par with Germany military wise and would move into the lead after that. Must admit I'm not at all sure that was true but it was a real fear for the Germans and fears and perceptions drove politics at the time. Now given that war is a huge driver for progress (there's an oxymoron for you) any war starting in 1916 would still kick off in a 1914 style.So  Plan 1921 ?

Must admit my builds would be 1930/1940's Austro Hungary and Imperial Russia during the Third Balkan War

Once there, working in a succession of menial positions he manages to purchase a rifle and find out the itinerary of the monarch.  Ensconced in a hidey hole, overlooking the route George V is to travel, he shoots and kills him.


The London School Book Depository? ;D

I am not sure much would change.  Ferdinand's assasination was not so much the cause of WWI as the excuse for it.  Something else would have happened.

There is, also, the point that Germany & Britain were knocking heads more frequently over colonial matters in the late-19th & early-20th centuries (esp. in Africa & the Asia/Pacific region) which may have led to a different start-point &, maybe, a different main theatre of operations, with the war being much further removed from Europe (at least initially).

Direct points of contact were to be found between Neu Guinea/Papua, the Gold Coast/Togoland, Nigeria/Kamerun, German East Africa/British East Africa/Uganda/Northern Rhodesia, German South West Africa/North & South Rhodesia/Bechuanaland/South Africa & South Africa, with its ex-Dutch, pro-German Afrikaaner majority, was a powder keg waiting to explode in the face of Britain. Then there were all the island groups in the Pacific.

So, what if WW1 began as a sort of large scale inter-colonial war that got out of hand? :-\

:cheers:

Guy

Quote from: Old Wombat on November 29, 2013, 01:02:57 AM
There is, also, the point that Germany & Britain were knocking heads more frequently over colonial matters in the late-19th & early-20th centuries (esp. in Africa & the Asia/Pacific region) which may have led to a different start-point &, maybe, a different main theatre of operations, with the war being much further removed from Europe (at least initially).

Direct points of contact were to be found between Neu Guinea/Papua, the Gold Coast/Togoland, Nigeria/Kamerun, German East Africa/British East Africa/Uganda/Northern Rhodesia, German South West Africa/North & South Rhodesia/Bechuanaland/South Africa & South Africa, with its ex-Dutch, pro-German Afrikaaner majority, was a powder keg waiting to explode in the face of Britain. Then there were all the island groups in the Pacific.

So, what if WW1 began as a sort of large scale inter-colonial war that got out of hand? :-\

:cheers:

Guy

Interesting points from Guy.  Much closer to home is Heligoland: given the 'Dreadnaught Race' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnought#Anglo-German_arms_race) and the to-ing and fro-ing over 'ownership' in the 19th Century and beyond, who's to say this wouldn't have been a flashpoint that eventually precipitated WW1?

Quote from: royabulgaf on November 28, 2013, 07:50:40 PM
Once there, working in a succession of menial positions he manages to purchase a rifle and find out the itinerary of the monarch.  Ensconced in a hidey hole, overlooking the route George V is to travel, he shoots and kills him.


The London School Book Depository? ;D

I was thinking more the Midlands School Book Depository.  ;D

I was wondering if anybody was going to notice the heavy-handed hints...

Quote
I am not sure much would change.  Ferdinand's assasination was not so much the cause of WWI as the excuse for it.  Something else would have happened.

Exactly.  Ferdie's death was merely the spark which lit the powder train that had been laid.

The real cause of WWI was IMHO, the lack of civilian control by the German government over their military.  Once Schlieffen had created his plan, war was inevitable.   The problem was that the Germans only had one plan.  No matter what the situation, the answer was simple - INVADE FRANCE!  Arch-Duke Ferdinand gets assassinated?  Invade France!  Serbs and Austrians trade shots across the boarder?  Invade France!   Russia mobilises?  Invade France!   Have a show down at an Oasis in the middle of the Sahara?  Invade France!   With that sort of monomania at work, war was inevitable.

Everything was pushing towards war in Europe.  A rigid alliance system, a stupid German Kaiser who was more interested in the trappings of office and not the responsibilities, a rigid German response to all inevitabilities, etc., etc.

The only way IMHO to fulfil Narses' brief - Europe's map was to remain largely the same was to change the major dynamics, not by saving Ferdinand but by upsetting the Allies' applecart and killing IMO the key player on the British side, George V.   With him gone, Haig no longer has his main protector and he gets sacked and so the "Periphery school" gets it's way and the Western Front is downgraded, which helps the Germans stave off defeat.  A negotiated settlement results and Europe's main continental power, Germany is largely left intact and the status quo remains.

Quote from: Old Wombat on November 29, 2013, 01:02:57 AM
There is, also, the point that Germany & Britain were knocking heads more frequently over colonial matters in the late-19th & early-20th centuries (esp. in Africa & the Asia/Pacific region) which may have led to a different start-point &, maybe, a different main theatre of operations, with the war being much further removed from Europe (at least initially).

Direct points of contact were to be found between Neu Guinea/Papua, the Gold Coast/Togoland, Nigeria/Kamerun, German East Africa/British East Africa/Uganda/Northern Rhodesia, German South West Africa/North & South Rhodesia/Bechuanaland/South Africa & South Africa, with its ex-Dutch, pro-German Afrikaaner majority, was a powder keg waiting to explode in the face of Britain. Then there were all the island groups in the Pacific.

So, what if WW1 began as a sort of large scale inter-colonial war that got out of hand? :-\

:cheers:

Guy

Problem is the UK's Royal Navy did rule the seas.  The Germans start at an immediate disadvantage in such a conflict, they have to get their forces out of Europe to overseas in the face of a massive and belligerent Royal Navy.  Therefore, while conflicts may have started "out there", the conflict wouldn't stay "out there" for very long.   Then you have the monomania of the German High Command that their only response to any crisis was to invade France.

Germany, despite all its rhetoric was even before the war stopping further colonial expansion.  Colonialism simply wasn't economic.  Most of the German colonies were essentially bankrupt. To be frank the Germans came into the colonialism game late, got the leftovers which weren't worth anything and found suddenly they were pouring more money into their overseas possessions than they were getting back. While National Pride wouldn't allow them to admit it, getting rid of the colonies was perhaps the best thing to happen to Germany.   It meant there was no longer any major drain on their economy and the best and brightest weren't being lured overseas with false promises of fame and fortune.  

So, an attempt (ostensibly local) to take over one of Britain's more profitable colony's might not be out of the question? ;)

:cheers:

Guy

Quote from: Old Wombat on November 29, 2013, 08:07:22 AM
So, an attempt (ostensibly local) to take over one of Britain's more profitable colony's might not be out of the question? ;)

:cheers:

Guy

It would be for doubtful gain.   The British, particularly the Royal Navy (if it was an island or coastal colony) would snuff it out before it could achieve anything, except see Germany's overseas exports/imports stopped by blockade.  If it was an inland colony, say in Africa, it would take longer but the outcome would be the same.  As long as Germany refrains from attacking on the continent, the more British resources would be allocated to repulsing/retaking the colonial attack and Germany could do nothing.

Right

Where's the sad looking smiley waving a white flag when you want one ?

Seriously I've thought long and hard about this and come up with Plan B - see here http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,38038.0.html (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,38038.0.html)

Hope this helps but this is what we will be going forward with. Other alternative ideas can always be incorporated within Theme Builds

So, it is 1914 World Map

- If WW1 was avoided, what did Germany accomplish by 1930s - 1940s?
- Was there a Russian Revolution? WW1 gave some opportunities, so the revolution might not have been in 1917. Whoever was in charge in Russia had a border with Sweden. A little tension there wouldn't come as a surprise.

I like the idea of a low intensity war among the African colonies.- not enough to have the high seas fleets pounding crap out of each other all over the globe, but gunboats and aircraft with the odd u-boot thrown in. Possible use of tanks in the open deserts of GWA????????

Finnish revolution to remove Tzarist/Bolshovik rule

Could also still have the Alaskan based Tzarist forces slugging it out with the Bolshoviks in Siberia as well

Hungary v Romania

Austria v        ?

Turkey v Bulgaria

Serbia v everyone

world war one ends november 1916 with a peace treaty leaving the world map as it is

what would the 20s and 30s have been with the old empires with post ww1 OR LATER technology?

count me in on this one

CBE

I just want an excuse to buy/build some WWI tanks and aeroplanes

:thumbsup:

So, No WW1.
Kaiser Bill & George V help their cousin (?) Czar Nicholas with his bolshy problem and Russia remains Imperial.
Britain, horrified at what nearly happened in Russia clamp down on lefty agitators in the colonies.
Australia rises up against the Imperial Yoke led by a young English immigrant going under the pseudonym Shaw but who became more famously known as Lawrence of Australia...

Camels and slouch hats.  Rolls Royce armoured cars with red desert camo.  Whippings by young Indigenous boys...

Alternatively no WW1.  No Galipolli.  No ANZAC spirit and close relationship.
NZ seizes Norfolk Island resulting in a series of naval battles that culminate in Kiwi Navy Dreadnoughts shelling Sydney.

Quote from: perttime on November 30, 2013, 08:00:48 AM
So, it is 1914 World Map

- If WW1 was avoided, what did Germany accomplish by 1930s - 1940s?
- Was there a Russian Revolution? WW1 gave some opportunities, so the revolution might not have been in 1917. Whoever was in charge in Russia had a border with Sweden. A little tension there wouldn't come as a surprise.

Yes 1914 World Map

You can have a Russian revolution if you want and it takes any route you want it to.

Quote from: Geoff on November 30, 2013, 08:06:07 AM
Finnish revolution to remove Tzarist/Bolshovik rule

Quote from: Geoff on November 30, 2013, 08:05:04 AM
I like the idea of a low intensity war among the African colonies.- not enough to have the high seas fleets pounding crap out of each other all over the globe, but gunboats and aircraft with the odd u-boot thrown in. Possible use of tanks in the open deserts of GWA????????

Quote from: Geoff on November 30, 2013, 08:06:07 AM
Finnish revolution to remove Tzarist/Bolshovik rule

Quote from: Geoff on November 30, 2013, 08:58:31 AM
Could also still have the Alaskan based Tzarist forces slugging it out with the Bolshoviks in Siberia as well

Yes to all these

Quote from: crudebuteffective on November 30, 2013, 09:06:43 AM
world war one ends november 1916 with a peace treaty leaving the world map as it is

what would the 20s and 30s have been with the old empires with post ww1 OR LATER technology?

count me in on this one

CBE

Yup if that's the way you want to go

Quote from: zenrat on December 01, 2013, 01:23:06 AM
So, No WW1.
Kaiser Bill & George V help their cousin (?) Czar Nicholas with his bolshy problem and Russia remains Imperial.
Britain, horrified at what nearly happened in Russia clamp down on lefty agitators in the colonies.
Australia rises up against the Imperial Yoke led by a young English immigrant going under the pseudonym Shaw but who became more famously known as Lawrence of Australia...

Camels and slouch hats.  Rolls Royce armoured cars with red desert camo.  Whippings by young Indigenous boys...

Alternatively no WW1.  No Galipolli.  No ANZAC spirit and close relationship.
NZ seizes Norfolk Island resulting in a series of naval battles that culminate in Kiwi Navy Dreadnoughts shelling Sydney.

You can have WWI if you want Nils. It's just plots happening after 1914 must use the 1914 World Map

O yes!!!
I see a maritime diorama with the carrier-fleet of the "Kaiserliche Marine" in front of my inner eyes!
The until that moment ultra-secret "SMS Otto Lilienthal", the "SMS Albrecht Ludwig Berblinger" and the "SMS Friedrich Wilhelm Jungius", all equiped with monoplane- and biplane-fighters, -bombers and -torpedo-bombers driven by single or double Coanda-jet-engines, it's support group of battlecruisers, destroyers, U-boats and supply-ships (ammunition, fuel, spare-planes). And so the world's unique carrier-force.


WOW!

But this will be too monstrous! :(

Max


Edit:
Nevertheless; I will take part of the GB... but I must think over an interesting story and a kit/model, I will use for.

Quote from: Geoff on November 30, 2013, 08:05:04 AM
I like the idea of a low intensity war among the African colonies.- not enough to have the high seas fleets pounding crap out of each other all over the globe, but gunboats and aircraft with the odd u-boot thrown in. Possible use of tanks in the open deserts of GWA????????

This is something along the lines of what I was thinking, with a slow escalation, & then having this be the trigger for a European land war; say ca. 1916/1918, maybe even 1920-ish, which could be a way of evolving some military equipment & tactics before the outbreak of the Great War. Thus, the mindset of military commanders could have changed to thinking about mobile warfare, rather than static artillery-duel warfare, by the time the Europen war starts.

Without WW1 the Bolshevik Revolution would not have happened (certainly not in 1917), as it was the incompetence of the nobles of the Russian General Staff which triggered the overwhelming popular support for the revolution, while the war itself distracted said nobles from the threat posed by the Bolsheviks & allowed them to build a stronger revolutionary underground base. With the nobility able to focus on this internal threat the Bolsheviks may have been neutralised in Russia & forced to start elsewhere (Germany or France, perhaps?).

The Western armies were not immune to this communist influence, either, with many mutinees occurring because of the revolution in Russia. However, by 1914 most Western armies had ended the practice of "bought" commissions & most officers of the rank of colonel & below (& an increasing number of General Staff officers) were, in fact, from middle class backgrounds - & the middle classes were the powerhouse of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.

:cheers:

Guy

Quote from: Old Wombat on December 04, 2013, 07:16:45 PM
This is something along the lines of what I was thinking, with a slow escalation, & then having this be the trigger for a European land war; say ca. 1916/1918, maybe even 1920-ish, which could be a way of evolving some military equipment & tactics before the outbreak of the Great War. Thus, the mindset of military commanders could have changed to thinking about mobile warfare, rather than static artillery-duel warfare, by the time the Europen war starts.

:cheers:

Guy

I like your thinking Guy my only thought is that in 1914 all army commanders were thinking of a fast mobile war. It was the realities of the technology that changed it. I know come 1939 most were still in that static mind set but in 14 they wern't.

Apologies if I've misunderstood your point

Ah, yes, but armour (specifically armoured cars, rather than tanks - which were a product of the trenches) & aircraft had not really been tested or developed in combat. Perhaps I should have said "motorised mobile warfare".

I was thinking that the colonial wars would (could?) have seen these evolve into effective fighting machines before the start of the Big One, &, along with trucks, their use would lend itself to a more rapid form of mobile war which may have bypassed the static war brought about by the use of machineguns & artillery against slow-moving infantry on foot.

Actually, their use may have made horse-drawn artillery too vulnerable to field in battle. In which case SPG's may have evolved before tanks! While, if the war went on for any length of time, tanks may have evolved from armoured cars being constantly up-gunned to defeat more heavily armed enemy armoured cars. Heavier armoured cars would, eventually, become armoured trucks. Then the increased need for cross-country performance may have led to tracked trucks, which would have become tanks.

In the post-WW1 era aircraft were often used in the internal colonial conflicts as a surrogate for artillery, the same could have happened here. With bombers or fighter-bombers being developed once some enterprising young scout plane observer had tossed a few hand grenades out of the cockpit one day. Armoured cars would have been developed as mobile machinegun posts & evolved from there, while trucks would make moving troops faster & less tiring, so the troops arrived at the battle ground fresher & less tired from marching.

:cheers:

Guy

Right understand now sir  :thumbsup: Also follow your thinking

A few thoughts- The colonial war idea COULD be possible- Think along the proxy wars of the cold war era.  Imagine a LRDG type group equipped with Model Ts and the like.  I would expect a breakup of Austria-Hungary coming, but no velvet divorce.  Imagine the Yugoslavian wars of the 90s writ large.

Quote from: royabulgaf on December 07, 2013, 04:23:21 PM
A few thoughts- The colonial war idea COULD be possible- Think along the proxy wars of the cold war era.  Imagine a LRDG type group equipped with Model Ts and the like.  I would expect a breakup of Austria-Hungary coming, but no velvet divorce.  Imagine the Yugoslavian wars of the 90s writ large.

You mean like Lawrence in the Arabian Peninsular or Dunstable Force in Persia?

Quote from: perttime on November 30, 2013, 08:00:48 AM
So, it is 1914 World Map

- If WW1 was avoided, what did Germany accomplish by 1930s - 1940s?
- Was there a Russian Revolution? WW1 gave some opportunities, so the revolution might not have been in 1917. Whoever was in charge in Russia had a border with Sweden. A little tension there wouldn't come as a surprise.

Hi wiffers .... I'm an appreciative lurker trying to get into all this fantastic ingenuity and creative imagination .....

I'm a fan of architecture and fantasise about what London and other cities would look like if either or both of the world wars had never happened - so much built beauty lost, clever people killed - but also without the technological pushes of warfare. What if Hitler had not survived his wounds ..... or not been wounded and thus mentally affected ...... or been accepted by the art institute (I don't think he was so bad, just not posh enough) ...... so what would equipment of all kinds have looked like (and be thought necessary) without the wars? Radar? Satellites? Computers?. I imagine class arrangements, fashions, society in general, would be a lot different as well.

...... one of those parallel existences maybe.

Hi Aston

It's an interesting concept and definitely one you can't answer quickly.

However without the impetus of WWI and WWII we'd be lagging today's reality technologically in my view. Not in all fields but in many.

Architecturally then in my view Europe would be a more elegant place but alas might still have large slum areas that the area bombing cleared ?

As I said an interesting question

Quote from: NARSES2 on November 26, 2013, 08:06:16 AM
Right lets be clear on one thing. The build is not restricted to WWI indeed given this scenario WWI as we know it probably wouldn't have happened.

So can I do a Handley Page 0/400 with a bouncing bomb then?   ;D  ;)

Quote from: NARSES2 on December 16, 2013, 02:51:13 AM
However without the impetus of WWI and WWII we'd be lagging today's reality technologically in my view. Not in all fields but in many.

No tanks, aircraft development in the doldrums, the Government of Ireland Act 1914 actually implemented, Rupert Brooke becomes Poet Laureate, the Russian Revolution sooner or later (which?), the League of Nations never exists and Edmund Blackadder becomes Minister for War under Ramsay MacDonald.

Russia a little later I think

Sweden invades Norway 10 years after independence?

Now who's going to invade Poland in the '20s - assuming we have a Poland that is.

Austro- Hungary v The Ottomans?

Sorry

Quote from: kitbasher on December 17, 2013, 12:30:28 PM

Quote from: NARSES2 on December 16, 2013, 02:51:13 AM
However without the impetus of WWI and WWII we'd be lagging today's reality technologically in my view. Not in all fields but in many.

No tanks, aircraft development in the doldrums, the Government of Ireland Act 1914 actually implemented, Rupert Brooke becomes Poet Laureate, the Russian Revolution sooner or later (which?), the League of Nations never exists and Edmund Blackadder becomes Minister for War under Ramsay MacDonald.

..... to return in 1940 to replace Chamberlain, with his famous V sign ... ???

What if the sequence of powers entering WW1 did not go quite the same in various ways and/or Britain is not drawn in. The Schlieffen Plan works and the Germans are all along the N. French coast (or Britain is and there is a Dunkirk in late September 1914) ...... or someone didn't invent the machine-gun and so WW1 is a war of movement across France (and even Spain!!!).

..... but I'm thinking of the German High Command thinking laterally in its desperation to reduce British dreadnought superiority and Anthony Fokker thinks up a Zeppelin + Fokker DV11 Mistel combination .... ???

(There is this bit of wiffery from 1871 ...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_of_Dorking)

Quote from: Aircav on December 17, 2013, 11:16:53 AM

Quote from: NARSES2 on November 26, 2013, 08:06:16 AM
Right lets be clear on one thing. The build is not restricted to WWI indeed given this scenario WWI as we know it probably wouldn't have happened.

So can I do a Handley Page 0/400 with a bouncing bomb then?   ;D  ;)

Of course you can, it could probably use it as a giant wheel for moving down the motorway  :wacko:

Quote from: kitbasher on December 17, 2013, 12:30:28 PM

Quote from: NARSES2 on December 16, 2013, 02:51:13 AM
However without the impetus of WWI and WWII we'd be lagging today's reality technologically in my view. Not in all fields but in many.

No tanks, aircraft development in the doldrums, the Government of Ireland Act 1914 actually implemented, Rupert Brooke becomes Poet Laureate, the Russian Revolution sooner or later (which?), the League of Nations never exists and Edmund Blackadder becomes Minister for War under Ramsay MacDonald.

In my view ? Yes, yes, yes (with all the problems that would lead to), dunno, later, yes and don't be silly  ;D

Quote from: Geoff on December 17, 2013, 02:24:26 PM
Russia a little later I think

Sweden invades Norway 10 years after independence?

Now who's going to invade Poland in the '20s - assuming we have a Poland that is.

Austro- Hungary v The Ottomans?

Sorry

Agree re Russian Revolution. Sweden v Norway ? Don't know anything about Scandanavian History other then Finland in WWII and the Winter War so would have to check it out, but why not ? Poland wouldn't exist as such but you could have a Polish revolution perhaps aided in someway by one of the occupying powers trying to set up a satellite state or the Russian part winning independence after your Russian Revolution ?  Austro-Hungary v The Ottoman's ? Brilliant  :bow:

The Austro-Hungarian & Ottoman Empires were both on the verge of collapse even before WW1.

Therefore, we could see numerous small wars of independence in Moravia-Bohemia(-Slovakia?), Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia, etc. (plus associated equipment & personnel), in the late-1920's & early-1930's.

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"?

:cheers:

Guy

I agree re the A-H and O Empires Guy but you never know they might have managed to pull things together, possibly by Federalisation on the A-H side.

The small wars of independence idea is a good one. You could also have a third or even fourth Balkan War ? The Middle East seceding from the Ottoman's on it's own could get interesting ?

As for Mustafa Kemal. Maybe he comes to prominence in the Third Balkan War. Greece invades Anatolia and he rises to the situation as he did in reality. Maybe if the Sultan's are still in power he keeps them as a titular heads of state ?

I am presently considering the options.  I think I shall be making my first biplane.  I have always been drawn towards the "Bloody Paralyser".  ;)

Quote from: NARSES2 on December 18, 2013, 08:15:02 AM
Sweden v Norway ? Don't know anything about Scandanavian History

In real life, Sweden was a poor agricultural country in the 19th century - and didn't get into industrialization quite as fast as many other European countries. The population was increasing rapidly due to "the peace, the smallpox vaccine, and the potatoes". People were moving to America for opportunities.

On a different front, historical factors (no history in slavery or serfdom) and grassroots movements (trade unions, temperance, religious groups) laid foundations for democracy where the farmers' party was quite prominent.

So, drastic actions from the Swedish side would probably require at least a much faster move towards an industrial economy. If they got big and bold enough, they might start thinking about regaining the old superpower status ... if the peace-like domestic politics allowed.

... But which way could they go? Take back Norway? Take back Finland (could be tricky because Finns were thinking about independence)? Go South for Denmark or Poland?

I really don't see Sweden going for offensive action. Defensive certainly.

How about a  Nordic League.....a group of independent states with a mutual defence treaty.  Norway, Sweden, Denmark  (includung the Faroes,  Iceland and Greenland), Finland and liberation movements for  Estonia , Latvia and Lithuania.

Railway based infantry, small boat based marines and a fair contingent of Arctic ski troops.  Any or all of those fiords might   have Brennan torpedo emplacements or thundering great shore batteries

This scenario gives you several flashpoints........  in the Denmark/Sweden narrows,  a Northern Patrol in the Demark Strait and even a revisiting of the Schleswig- Holstein  question. Germany, Imperial Russia and any of the maritime trading nations might  have interests to defend........

Quote from: Rheged on December 20, 2013, 09:33:13 AM
How about a  Nordic League.....a group of independent states with a mutual defence treaty.  Norway, Sweden, Denmark  (includung the Faroes,  Iceland and Greenland), Finland and liberation movements for  Estonia , Latvia and Lithuania.

Railway based infantry, small boat based marines and a fair contingent of Arctic ski troops.  Any or all of those fiords might   have Brennan torpedo emplacements or thundering great shore batteries

This scenario gives you several flashpoints........  in the Denmark/Sweden narrows,  a Northern Patrol in the Demark Strait and even a revisiting of the Schleswig- Holstein  question. Germany, Imperial Russia and any of the maritime trading nations might  have interests to defend........

This is an idea I like and could gey behind. Also, looking at the history of our country and it's connections with Scandanavian/Nordic countries there is a good argument for the UK to be included in that alliance too. Well, at least the Northern part of the country.
Which brings up another idea - A N orth/South split with the northern part going the Nordic route and the southern half going the way the whole of the UK went post 1066...

Quote from: perttime on December 20, 2013, 08:30:30 AM

Quote from: NARSES2 on December 18, 2013, 08:15:02 AM
Sweden v Norway ? Don't know anything about Scandanavian History

In real life, Sweden was a poor agricultural country in the 19th century - and didn't get into industrialization quite as fast as many other European countries. The population was increasing rapidly due to "the peace, the smallpox vaccine, and the potatoes". People were moving to America for opportunities.

And yet had an advanced steel industry in terms of quality anyway. My Swedish history is limited to the late 17th early 18th Centuries I'm afraid, and even then is only of a military nature and not of any great depth

Quote from: Rheged on December 20, 2013, 09:33:13 AM
How about a  Nordic League.....a group of independent states with a mutual defence treaty.  Norway, Sweden, Denmark  (includung the Faroes,  Iceland and Greenland), Finland and liberation movements for  Estonia , Latvia and Lithuania.

Great idea  :thumbsup:

Quote from: NARSES2 on December 21, 2013, 06:13:09 AM

Quote from: perttime on December 20, 2013, 08:30:30 AM
In real life, Sweden was a poor agricultural country in the 19th century - and didn't get into industrialization quite as fast as many other European countries.

And yet had an advanced steel industry in terms of quality anyway.

True. But. During the 19th century, there were some English innovations for producing more steel for cheaper. Swedish iron and steel production couldn't keep up, and declined for a few decades in late 1800s and early 1900s.

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

Quote from: Old Wombat on December 18, 2013, 10:59:41 PM
...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"?

:cheers:

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...

Quote from: perttime on December 21, 2013, 07:24:05 AM

Quote from: NARSES2 on December 21, 2013, 06:13:09 AM

Quote from: perttime on December 20, 2013, 08:30:30 AM
In real life, Sweden was a poor agricultural country in the 19th century - and didn't get into industrialization quite as fast as many other European countries.

And yet had an advanced steel industry in terms of quality anyway.

True. But. During the 19th century, there were some English innovations for producing more steel for cheaper. Swedish iron and steel production couldn't keep up, and declined for a few decades in late 1800s and early 1900s.

Yup. On a IISI (International Iron & Steel Institute) conference in Stockholm we were taken to a couple of the preserved/museum sites and they are fascinating for someone like me who had a love of the industry I worked in. Rather like a Swedish Ironbridge. The UK's inovations enabled the production of lots of cheap steel, the Swedes could still produce some of the real quality stuff competitively however. It's amazing how expensive some of that can be even for non military applications.

Quote from: Geoff on December 21, 2013, 10:13:21 AM
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

Quote from: zenrat on December 22, 2013, 02:48:13 AM

Quote from: Old Wombat on December 18, 2013, 10:59:41 PM
...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"?

:cheers:

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

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

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

Quote from: NARSES2 on December 22, 2013, 07:18:19 AM

Quote from: zenrat on December 22, 2013, 02:48:13 AM

Quote from: Old Wombat on December 18, 2013, 10:59:41 PM
...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"?

:cheers:

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.

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.

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. 

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?

Quote from: zenrat on December 28, 2013, 02:51:53 AM
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.

Quote from: rickshaw on December 28, 2013, 04:10:43 AM
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  :bow:) 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.

Quote from: NARSES2 on December 28, 2013, 05:56:23 AM

Quote from: rickshaw on December 28, 2013, 04:10:43 AM
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  :bow:) 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.

Quote from: rickshaw on December 28, 2013, 06:25:04 PM


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.

Quote from: rickshaw on December 28, 2013, 06:25:04 PM
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.

Quote from: RLBH on December 30, 2013, 10:05:39 AM

Quote from: rickshaw on December 28, 2013, 06:25:04 PM
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.

Quote from: rickshaw on December 30, 2013, 05:50:04 PM

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

Quote from: NARSES2 on December 31, 2013, 06:22:05 AM

Quote from: rickshaw on December 30, 2013, 05:50:04 PM

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

The  Kiwis built the model battlefield,  on Cannock Chase.  Here's a link to a Grauniad  article   http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/01/first-world-war-model-battlefield (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/01/first-world-war-model-battlefield)

That's the one  :thumbsup:

Quote from: rickshaw on December 28, 2013, 04:10:43 AM

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've read an account by a historian who researched all the pre-1914 writing he could find about "the coming war". Almost all of it is well wide of the mark, except for one writer who correctly predicted the paralysing effects of barbed wire, machine-guns and massed artillery with great foresight. Unfortunately, since he was a Swiss banker by profession, not a military man of any sort, nobody paid a blind bit of attention to him..... :banghead:

Oh, all the signs were there and if you weren't blinded by an unwillingness to see them, they'd have realised them.  The 2nd Boer War, the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, both pointed to how the new bolt-action, rapid-fire full bore, smokeless rifles were going to dominate the battlefield, while the only defence was to dig and dig deeper again.  Interestingly, the British Army wasn't blind to what it had learn in South Africa, the problem was that they'd come away with both good and bad lessons.   

They'd learnt about how infantry were now largely invulnerable to cavalry (and contradictorily still believed that nothing could stand the arme blanche' of the cavalry charge) and that field fortifications (trenches) were the only thing against rifle and artillery fire.   Sir John French had commanded the last British cavalry charge in the Boer War during the Relief of Kimberley in 1900 and come away with the impression that horse cavalry were still the thing.  Douglas Haig had been IIRC one of his regimental commanders during the charge at Kimberley in 1900.

The war arriving in 1914 was exactly the wrong year though.  They were just trying to put into place the reforms from the 2nd Boer War - adoption of a new rifle cartridge, a new rifle to fire it and even were looking seriously at semi-automatic rifles to increase firepower.  They were also adopting new cavalry sabres and lances!  Training in small unit tactics were improving and even things such as battlefield navigation was assuming new importance for all ranks.  When 1914 arrived, they had to abandon all that, go with what they had and just make do initially.

This thread is turning into a fascinating seminar on the 1914-18 war.  Thank you everyone for your work in the diffusion of this  data.........and keep it going, please!

I will do my best to avoid starting any kind of ugly arguments that Narses2 has been specifically warning people about, but the Armenian issue is not discussed due to Turkish Goverment pressure but the "slight" chance the methodology of research, the overall numbers and integrity of a "limited" amount of people and states can be exposed; nobody likes to give a precedent to Holocaust deniers. The current darlings of the West, the Kurds, for starters were very interested in removing all the Armenians who would have done the exact same had there been any spine in the Russians and the British and the French to come and do it. Which means they should have been there to give that state they promised to give to the Armenians, something which even Istanbul offered to give them as an autonomous state just like the Bulgarians had once been. Even then the  removal of the Armenians were done under German control and not many of them actually opposed. Apart from Missionaries who hoped to convert the lot, you know, by giving them a "glimmer of hope", something that involved daily conversions in deciding who would be given less food and no protection from the Turkish Army on their way to Syria.

The promise is of course there will be nothing left to oppose the discussion, the real discussion, in 2015.

As for the signs of stagnation they were actually well known, extremely well known and that's the whole rationale for war in 1914. Because the power of Defense would increase ever more, Germans felt it was their last chance before the Russians fully modernized. France was hoping Germany was bluffing once again and the BEF was moved from place to place with the hopes that the Germans and the French would have wiped out each other before the British Cavalry began the assault that would have carried them to Berlin by Christmas.  

Right we have the Turkish view now lads of what is still a very, very contentious issue.

So we will leave the discussion at that. I've no problems with what you want to model and in what variant of your own history you want to place it in, but the site is not the place for discussing what are still extremely sensitive and contentious historical issues. If you want to do that then there are more appropriate places.

History as they say is written by the winners.

Quote from: tahsin on January 02, 2014, 01:15:22 AM
Germans felt it was their last chance before the Russians fully modernized.

Very true and a point I don't fully understand. If it had been 1920 then I might have understood it but the German view that the Russians would have finished their modernisation by 1916 is a very strange one. But then I'm not looking at it with the eyes of a nation that saw it'self possibly surrounded by enemies and with a major ally that was gradually disintergrating.

I have long believed the 1916 date was based on the delivery schedule of Putilov field guns to the Russian Army. An equal to the famed French 75 it would make mobile operations against the Russians somewhat risky with modern firepower available to Tsar's armies. The Parade's End, this TV Show where ı took this "pity" on the hero and the two heroines, mention railroads to be completed by 1916 which were to carry multitudes of Russian hordes to the borders of Prussia which was to kept lightly to enable a concentration against the French. The Austrians might not survive by '16 and it was distinctly possible that we would not, considering the debacles in the Balkans in 1912-13. When we are no more and the Allies have already occupied what's valuable of us, what's left to fight a World War for? As such the final mission of the Ottoman Army would be to die for the Kaiser.

Quote from: tahsin on January 02, 2014, 11:52:11 PM
I have long believed the 1916 date was based on the delivery schedule of Putilov field guns to the Russian Army. An equal to the famed French 75 it would make mobile operations against the Russians somewhat risky with modern firepower available to Tsar's armies.

I knew the railway expansion was due for completion by 1916 but didn't think it possible. I did not know about the Pulitov field gun, so I need to look that up. Thanks

I feel people, these days, also tend to forget just how slow communications channels were in the 1914 era.

We, who are used to "on the spot" instantaneous reports via satellite link or mobile phone from anywhere in the world, forget that telegraph was the fastest means of communication, back then, & even that could take a day or more to get to its destination. It was, also, expensive, easily intercepted &, often, there were maximum limits on the number of words which could be sent.

Reporters of the era, when faced with a major event, often sent a brief telegram & followed it up with a letter or communique by post or courier, which, generally, had to travel by ship & could take weeks - even months - to reach its destination.

It, also, made it easier for governments to hide anything even mildly illegal, immoral or shameful, especially if conducted in regions with poor standards of communications (even) for the time. It, further, allowed them a greater opportunity to disseminate disinformation regarding these activities & others, including military procurements, preparations, etc.

One of the great improvements of WW1 was communications. Obviously not to current standards but, by the standards of the time, telegraph, radio-telegraph, voice-radio & aircraft all made communications much faster than they had been prior to the war.

:cheers:

Guy

I've got a little bit of insight into this reading up on WWI tank warfare.  It was proposed to fit each tank with a wireless set, although the lack of reliabilty and problems with interference meant this was abandoned.  Instead, they used to coloured flags to signal each other, eventually apdopting a semaphore rig.  These attempts where far from ideal and the commander often had to stop and leave the tank to talk to others in the group, sometimes in the heat of battle.

Recce aeroplanes had no radio, so they either had to land or drop a message.  Of course, dropping a meassage was fraught with problems and when signalling tanks that meant they had to leave the vehicle to retrieve it, extremely dangerous.

They still used signal flags in WWII. When my Dad was in the Habbaniya siege they had a small force of Rolls-Royce armoured cars to patrol the desert areas near the airfield and they had their signal flags clipped to the top of the turret. When the enemy was spotted they signalled back to base, often over quite a distance, to let them know wh what was happening. Apparently the vehicles never were fitted woth radio as there wasn't enough room on board!

The Soviets were still using semaphore (signalling with flags) up till the 1980s at least (wouldn't be surprised that the Russians still use them).  It is a silent and sure means of communications with line-of-sight.

Yup, like tanks with a radio telephone on the back. Tank commander stays nice and relatively "safe" in his turret while PBI stands outside and makes a call  :blink: Wonder if they got local rates ? One has to jest about these things at times (this old  Brit does anyway) in order to make these things seem a little more human.

First build is under way and it's scenario is just about constructed. Just got to work out how many Balkan Wars I'm having. Think it will be on patrol during the fourth. AH not involved but keeping a watching brief.

Quote from: PR19_Kit on January 10, 2014, 01:47:48 AM
They still used signal flags in WWII. When my Dad was in the Habbaniya siege they had a small force of Rolls-Royce armoured cars to patrol the desert areas near the airfield and they had their signal flags clipped to the top of the turret. When the enemy was spotted they signalled back to base, often over quite a distance, to let them know wh what was happening. Apparently the vehicles never were fitted woth radio as there wasn't enough room on board!

Habbaniya .... that's fascinating - a pretty what-if real-life episode ??? My father was guarding oil wells in northern Iraq around then.

(It has always seemed imo the American Civil War was an indication of what the First World War would then be like. Industrial warfare creating open-cast factories of slaughter.)

On possibilities of what might have been in WW1 ....... among the discussions of how much a danger to Europe Germany truly was, there was a detail about the Kaiser having a stone, perhaps marble seat or throne set up on a high place in Eastern Turkey looking toward central Asia. I don't know if he actually sat in it but with the personal instability of himself/German commanders, it's possible to imagine him having fantasies about following in the steps of Alexander and heading for India, entering the Great Game in Afghanistan .... an Asia Korps ? ..... Lawrence of Kandahar ? Biplanes at Bhagram ? Desert-colour lozenge camouflage? Zeppelins over the Swat Valley ?

Quote from: aston on January 10, 2014, 08:14:06 PM

Quote from: PR19_Kit on January 10, 2014, 01:47:48 AM
They still used signal flags in WWII. When my Dad was in the Habbaniya siege they had a small force of Rolls-Royce armoured cars to patrol the desert areas near the airfield and they had their signal flags clipped to the top of the turret. When the enemy was spotted they signalled back to base, often over quite a distance, to let them know wh what was happening. Apparently the vehicles never were fitted woth radio as there wasn't enough room on board!

Habbaniya .... that's fascinating - a pretty what-if real-life episode ??? My father was guarding oil wells in northern Iraq around then.

(It has always seemed imo the American Civil War was an indication of what the First World War would then be like. Industrial warfare creating open-cast factories of slaughter.)

On possibilities of what might have been in WW1 ....... among the discussions of how much a danger to Europe Germany truly was, there was a detail about the Kaiser having a stone, perhaps marble seat or throne set up on a high place in Eastern Turkey looking toward central Asia. I don't know if he actually sat in it but with the personal instability of himself/German commanders, it's possible to imagine him having fantasies about following in the steps of Alexander and heading for India, entering the Great Game in Afghanistan .... an Asia Korps ? ..... Lawrence of Kandahar ? Biplanes at Bhagram ? Desert-colour lozenge camouflage? Zeppelins over the Swat Valley ?

This I am liking!!!!!!!!!!

I'm bidding for pre-WW1 vehicles on ebay, doodling Ned Kelly-styled armoured cars and looking at Strelets cavalry (is this a good idea??).  ;)

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Flyhawk-1-700-1300-German-Battlecruiser-Derfflinger-1916-/171214401306?pt=UK_ToysGames_ModelKits_ModelKits_JN&hash=item27dd2c6f1a (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Flyhawk-1-700-1300-German-Battlecruiser-Derfflinger-1916-/171214401306?pt=UK_ToysGames_ModelKits_ModelKits_JN&hash=item27dd2c6f1a)

New 1/700 plastic kit of the Imperial German Battlecruiser Deffflinger has just been released, that might be handy for WWI naval builds or the post 1919 imperial Navies, basis for an Imperial German Aircraft Carrier along the lines of the UK, Japan or US conversions perhaps ?

Quote from: aston on January 11, 2014, 07:58:08 AM
I'm bidding for pre-WW1 vehicles on ebay, doodling Ned Kelly-styled armoured cars and looking at Strelets cavalry (is this a good idea??).  ;)

Yes  ;D

 :lol: ..... it was the Strelets cavalry I was wondering about - how useable they are. They look a bit trollish .... but I suppose it's what you do with them. Figures seem a very tricky area and rarely look entirely successful imo .... ??

Ebay - got one, lost four  :-\

There's a review of both sets on Plastic Soldier Review.  They get good overall reviews, but it seems to agree with you that the poses and moulding could be better.

http://www.plasticsoldierreview.com/Review.aspx?id=1566
http://www.plasticsoldierreview.com/Review.aspx?id=1884

Thanks .... starting points + a fine file I guess .......

Quote from: aston on January 13, 2014, 04:26:46 PM
Thanks .... starting points + a fine file I guess .......

If they are soft plastic then a sharp knife rather then a file. Not sure if the old trick of putting them in a freezer would work anymore. Worked in the 60's with the old Airfix stuff until my mum found them in our tiny little freezer compartment on top of the fridge  :banghead:

My first project is at the painting stage

Just as a general info - for those who take part in the GB, there's the option for (more) fame & glory at starshipmodelers.com with the current model/diorama contest:

http://www.starshipmodeler.com/contest/contest.htm

:thumbsup:

looks like Balkans will become United States of Bulgaria to me  ;D so well i can take a part with something  we will see

Ah Greater Bulgaria ? A return to the Dark Ages and the Bulgar/Byzantine Wars

well no  ;D i mean something like first air force in Europe total dominance over the Balkans etc

Right  ;D

One of Michael Moorcock's Oswald Bastable books (probably Warlord of the Air) has secret airship bases somewhere in the Himalyas IIRC.
Just the sort of thing that could be woven into an alternate timeline where the Kaiser turns his eyes East.

I keep thinking about this
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cybermodeler.com%2Fhobby%2Fkits%2Frm%2Fimages%2Frg_4802_title.jpg&hash=ebc1b65eee209c74322260899d333a10dee37684)
scaleorama-ed with something like the airfix 1/72 HP 0/400 to provide nacelles and an open armed gondola and bombs.
However, I think the gasbag would be too small so i'm toying with the idea of scratchbuilding one.

The modelling world needs a SERIOUSLY scaled airship, even if it does cause a world styrene shortage.....

Quote from: PR19_Kit on May 04, 2014, 09:24:19 AM
The modelling world needs a SERIOUSLY scaled airship, even if it does cause a world styrene shortage.....

Could they just give us the structure underneath the fabric and we can cover it our selves with something suitable, similar to the old balsa wood flying models? We could all get high on the dope coating again ;D

Quote from: Leading Observer on May 04, 2014, 10:20:48 AM

Quote from: PR19_Kit on May 04, 2014, 09:24:19 AM
The modelling world needs a SERIOUSLY scaled airship, even if it does cause a world styrene shortage.....

Could they just give us the structure underneath the fabric and we can cover it our selves with something suitable, similar to the old balsa wood flying models? We could all get high on the dope coating again ;D

Depends on the dope coating it!

Gondor

I like that idea, yes. Imagine it all in PE? That would be a MONSTER fret!

They used to have a 1/72 model of the R100 at the Elvington museum. As the real thing was 720 ft long the model was TEN feet long!  :o

Quote from: zenrat on May 04, 2014, 04:22:32 AM
One of Michael Moorcock's Oswald Bastable books (probably Warlord of the Air) has secret airship bases somewhere in the Himalyas IIRC.
Just the sort of thing that could be woven into an alternate timeline where the Kaiser turns his eyes East.

I keep thinking about this
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cybermodeler.com%2Fhobby%2Fkits%2Frm%2Fimages%2Frg_4802_title.jpg&hash=ebc1b65eee209c74322260899d333a10dee37684)
scaleorama-ed with something like the airfix 1/72 HP 0/400 to provide nacelles and an open armed gondola and bombs.
However, I think the gasbag would be too small so i'm toying with the idea of scratchbuilding one.

Aargh! I have it in program myself!  :banghead:
But I have an advantage, have already the aircraft to use as nacelle. And the "thing" will be in perfect 1/100 scale!
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi235.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee209%2Floupgarousocialclub%2Fwhif%2Fth_IMG_6288.jpg&hash=bdececab6eca222a8639d3cb18df7349fba0ece6) (http://s235.photobucket.com/user/loupgarousocialclub/media/whif/IMG_6288.jpg.html)

IIRC, the HP 0/400 had some pretty bombs, hope I still have them.

Quote from: loupgarou on May 06, 2014, 07:58:23 AM
IIRC, the HP 0/400 had some pretty bombs, hope I still have them.

With RIVETS even!  :o

What is that little bagged a/c ?

:tornado:

Oh i'll probably never actually build one of these.  It would break my "will it fit on the shelf?" rule for a start!

Quote from: Captain Canada on May 06, 2014, 05:21:05 PM
What is that little bagged a/c ?

:tornado:

Hard to see.  Looks a bit like a Bristol Fighter.

Yes, it's a Brisfit, in around 1/100, very crude.   :thumbsup:
From "Plastiques Dermatt", a french brand that used to mould small and simple kits given away as gift with various products.

That'll make a good gondola.

I know this thread is for the 2014SMW Group Build but I thought it would be a little early to open a thread for 2015.
Why not with the publication later this year of the Electronic Reconnaissance book, I cant remember the link, have the theme for the 2015SMW display Reconnaissance Aircraft which would tie in nicely with the PR19 becoming 21years old?

Gondor

Operation Hush, a planned amphibious landing on the Belgian coast between Nieuwepoort and Oostenede.  There would have been three landing sites, with 500 ft pontoons carrying up to 4500 men pushed by a pair of monitors each.  Mark IV tanks would have been modified with track fittings and carrying special ramps to scale the sea walls.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Hush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Hush)
http://www.1914-1918.net/hush.htm (http://www.1914-1918.net/hush.htm)