The Entente launches another amphibious attack on Constantinople in 1917

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,936
SoCal
#12
The winter of 1916-17 was especially harsh in the Caucasus, and Russia collapsed by September,
What indicates this collapse?

so it would have to be between april and September. The rough terrain would significantly slow things and limit the size of the army.
Why not pair land attacks in eastern Anatolia with amphibious assaults there, though?

Also Russia was losing big on the European front, pulling troops from there (as the germans advanced on the capital)
The Germans only captured Riga in 1917.

and moving them to a secondary front would be foolish. To make a difference against the otttomans would take months they didn't have, while ignoring the main enemy.
Riga only fell in September 1917, though.

No, Russian troops were already beginning to refuse to fight, sitting around while the germans have the initiative would only make it worse.
Then focus on A-H instead? Or did Russia already do that?

IMHO, Russian troops should've have had to go on the offensive--just be willing to remain on the defensive until the Western Allies won the war in the West. Such a move would still draw away some German troops.

The US navy could only spare so many ships for Europe, they would have to split them to do both.
What else did the US Navy need ships for during this time?

Using battleships (the most powerful and expensive weapon in existence at the time) for shore bombardment of an already failed strategy is a waste of resources.
So, the odds of success would be close to zero?

The western front was always where the war would be won or lost from day one. Ignoring it for other fronts is a mistake for both sides. This strategy is doomed to failure and even if successful would take too much time to matter. In this time Germany would fair better in a critical time.
How long would it take if it would have actually been successful?
 
Apr 2017
1,387
U.S.A.
#13
What indicates this collapse?

Why not pair land attacks in eastern Anatolia with amphibious assaults there, though?

The Germans only captured Riga in 1917.

Riga only fell in September 1917, though.

Then focus on A-H instead? Or did Russia already do that?

IMHO, Russian troops should've have had to go on the offensive--just be willing to remain on the defensive until the Western Allies won the war in the West. Such a move would still draw away some German troops.

What else did the US Navy need ships for during this time?

So, the odds of success would be close to zero?

How long would it take if it would have actually been successful?
History, as in September 1917 the Russian military began to collapse.
Russia lacked the ability to make amphibious assaults and again diverting troops here would weaken the European front for little gain.
Yes and imagine how much farther they would have advance if they withdrew hundreds of thousands of needed troops to the Caucasus.
That's pretty much what the Brusilov offensive was.
If Russia just sat around doing nothing, then Germany would just ignore them. In 1914 when Germany was invading france as part of the von Schlieffen plan they transferred some troops east to defend east Prussia, fearing the faster than expected mobilization. Some argue those troops could have made the difference and allowed Germany to seize paris and win the war. If Russia had did nothing and sat on the defensive this wouldn't have happened. Additionally, the prewar plan was france sit on the defensive and Russia do the attacking. Finally Russia suffered the entire war waiting for the allies to win the war, many of the offensive were in support of the west. This clearly wasn't working for them. If they sat around slowly losing territory to the germans, Russia would look weak and morale would suffer.
Defending the homeland and the far flung territories.
The strategy yes. Using battleships for artillery support is fine but hardly a war winning concept, especially when they are desperately needed in the role they were built for. It would be like using nukes to kill insurgents. You can do it but its not really worth it.
Months at best. The rough terrain and difficult logistics (especially for the time) would slow things to a crawl.
 
Likes: Futurist

Similar History Discussions