A7X

I have a pretty good idea of why the offensives failed but I still want to discuss them, and wrap my head around the specifics. WW1 has for me, become quite fascinating. Especially the end of the war, and the chaos in Germany.

The Schlieffen plan underestimated the French military, and also underestimated how long it would take for the Russians to mobilize. The advance was a bit slow, and then the German right flank become compromised and created a gap. Still, the French, and later the British were taken by surprise and it's difficult for me to see how this one could have been messed up.

In the Kaiserschlacht, the Germans had to rush British defenses which were quite strong, even if the heavy bombardment destroyed a lot of the fortifications. Some of the troops got drunk off the English beer, not to mention the tobacco and large stores of good food. This was heaven for the Germans soldiers that got bread and meat paste for dinner. By the time they took the British positions, the advance slowed down. The French managed themselves very well, and gave their support and did everything they could to stop a split between their forces. The British also managed their withdrawal skillfully. The Stoßtruppen were all dead, and the German artillery was hitting their own troops. For some reason, I still feel that they could have done it. I guess, since the main point of the offensive was not to gain ground, or take the enemy position, but to destroy the enemy army, and since they failed to do this before the Americans arrived, the plan was doomed.

Belisarius

You're forgetting Belgian resistance. the Sieges of Liege and Namur threw the planned time table off by 2 weeks, allowing the BEF time to deploy. The other thing that went wrong for the Germans that tends to get overlooked, is their insistance on holding on to Alsace-Lorraine rather than drawing the French further in, something which would have made it far more difficult for the French to re-deploy to the Marne.

Astonishingly for an army with such a professional reputation, they had no integral logistics officers which meant the supply situation deteriorated the further they advanced and poor communications made it difficult to co-ordinate the complex manouvres required by the plan.

A7X

Now I'm starting to remember. But I've never heard anything about drawing the French in, or anything about Alsace-Lorraine.

Fourteen

More importantly, in my opinion - and one need not hold a stance like Mr Ritter's to see this - it was already destined to fail due to its precision. Calculations can only ever go so far, and it barely allowed any flexibility that potential differences may have arisen - say, from any of the factors it was dependent on not happening, or turning out in a different way. Nothing was left to chance, which was a mistake. As mentioned, Russia mobilisation was far, far quicker than expected, and British entry also was of key note (the BEF). Note too the fact that the soldiers would have to walk the entire right wing (think fatigue, due to the fast pace of action), whereas internally the French were able to cut across the German arch via the advancements in technology - and they used these, from trains, to trucks, to taxis. At the same time, you can't blame the plan, since it was the only choice the Germans had. Schlieffen, Moltke and the majority of the German Staff knew this, and all they were doing was hoping, at least, for a victory.

Pavel

I cannot take in this two sentences.You implies that the Allies were more supplied or the Germans more motivation.

A7X

Yea, I mean to say the allied troops were much better supplied. Running into that much beer and food slowed down the advance, because they just started grabbing it and having there way. Germans troops on the front line didn't get that much to drink.

At least they were able to grab onto a better position. But the German army was geared toward aggressiveness and mobility. They didn't have that for the most of the war.

irishcrusader95

the schlieffen plan was flawed in that it didn't account for variables such as broken down equipment, the Belgians offering resistance and anything else that can slow down a march. the whole plan relied on everything going like clockwork which in war never happens.

the st. michael offensive i think didn't have any real objective other then to just breach the allied defences, the very heavy losses the storm troopers took slowed down the advance and the german army effectively ran out of steam. yet in the face of the increasing amounts of american troops arriving they had to try something

A7X

But taking the trenches was only important in that it would dislodge the British, and from there they could take out the British. Since the advance petered out with exhaustion or drunkenness, and the Americans came in, well.

I haz a question, is it possible Germany could have won if there was no American involvement? Maybe they could have regained their strength and go out to meet the French. How many casualties did the French suffer in the offensive? I got the impression that both the French and British were exhausted after this.

Inflames

Its possible that if there was no threat of American intervention the Germans would not have needed to focus all their might into a final push. Although its not impossible to see the Germans try and force this ambitious plan anyways, the war to them was in their hands. The Eastern Front was over with a German victory and it was time to focus all of Germany's remaining strength into one final push.

irishcrusader95

all sides were completely exhausted by this stage, america entering the war tipped the balance in the allies favor. the navel blockade on germany was leaving it at the end of its tether and they knew that unless they could win in 1918 there was no chance of them holding out longer.