You think if you had been in charge of either side in WWI (and

No because for all the things written about the general staff during that war, they were (in regard to Germany, the UK and France) competent, experienced and intelligent commanders who fully understood and appreciate the limitations of their assets.

>>33554919

The bottleneck for WWI was not really strategy or tactics (after the first few months, that is), but technology. A modern general wouldn't be able to do any better because the technology required for infantry at the time to function as non-trench dependent squads had yet to be perfected until the tail-end of the conflict, such as radios portable at the squad level needed to properly coordinate artillery.

File: Untitled.png (226KB, 771x597px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 771x597px

>>33554919

Not so hard

>>33554934
Who also seriously lacked an appreciation for the changes in warfare since the 1800's. They took HOW LONG to discontinue use of cavalry charges? HOW LONG to appreciate air power?

If a commander at the start of the war appreciated the lessons learned by the historical generals via bloody trial and error, they could clean up rapidly.

>Tanks as mobile units of maneuver (however slow) instead of infantry ze
>Air power as an integrated as component of a regiment/brigade level force to support movements on the ground
>submarines as wolf packs
>Wireless telegraphy as your best friend
>using civilian refugees to gum up enemy troop movements as your own movements displace civvies
>the power of bombers used against enemy logistics
>how the horses, aside from a very few scouting uses, should be relegated to logistics units instead of proper cavalry

These things could give one side enough of an adavntage over the others to triumph relatively quickly. The other sides will learn lessons eventually, but hopefully not quickly enough.

>>33554919
yes because im a retard and i would be defeated quickly

I'd let it all play out the same with the exception of America getting cucked by the British.

File: 1480440999278.png (163KB, 425x338px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 425x338px

>>33555042
>Tanks as mobile units of maneuver (however slow) instead of infantry ze

first proper tanks fielded didn't come about until '16, there was a LOT of blood spilled before the first suffocating, lumbering British rhombuses came out; don't think that the tanks of the day could be used as units of maneuver very well- poor logistics and reliability, etc.

>Air power as an integrated as component of a regiment/brigade level force to support movements on the ground

>submarines as wolf packs

sure can support both of those, shit, organic flying observation in 1914 coulda been great

Easily.

Assuming I'd had no prep-time, starting off, I'd tell my scientists about shaped charges, although the science was known beforehand it wasn't applied until the 30s. Bang, my guys now have EFPs. Radium production facilities produce huge amounts of uranium as a byproduct, you bet your ass that shit's going into armor piercing rounds once I tell them how it's both self-sharpening and flammable.

Assuming I had a little more time, I'd explain the concept of base bleed on artillery and tell them to get busy but keep damn quiet about it if they like their families remaining alive. While they're busy I'll explain the concept of bacterial culture and inhibition to my biologists so they can start hunting for molds that generate antibiotics, those who aren't terribly apt at microbiology will get a primer on how separating blood prolongs its shelf life, increases the life saving capacity of the given supply and can be used to more effectively preserve life and control bleeding.

Allow me to take 3 books back with me and they'd have RADAR, jet engines and all-metal fighters/bombers within 5 years.

>>33555137
While I admire your spirit, I'd set my technological base into tanks, aircraft, radio before all else. The goal is exploiting your advantage in doctrine and using the tech that exists to its fullest.

AFTER you win the war, then you set about making your side super advanced.

>>33555250
I agree those would be preferable but I was going on stuff I could, if not design directly using the technology available at the time, push people of the correct scientific/engineering bent in enough of the right direction to make faster progress.

File: battleofbritaincontrolroom.jpg (24KB, 397x300px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 397x300px

>>33555384
Ah. I get your intent.

>prioritize finding/developing reliable and high power engines for tanks/armored cars and get them produced in numbers to outfit at least a couple companies ASAP
>prioritize development of at least 3 aircraft types to adequately fulfill the following roles:
Fighter/Escort
CAS/Observation
Heavy Bomber
>Get units not yet fighting trained in simulations of the new weapons and doctrines so they're comfortable with it or at least understand it academically
>Order a crash program to implement wireless telegraphy in everything possible. I want every platoon, every heavy vehicle, every ship, every sub, every plane with a wireless if possible
>Begin assigning personnel to operate communication centers using wireless to its fullest advantage- think Brigadier generals on up with HQ's using boards and models akin to the boards seen in pic related
>Get to work on a next-generation logistics system. Standardize as much as possible with things like Jerry Cans, ammo boxes/can, containerized shipping, etc.
>Get to work on sealed rations. Waxed canvas or aluminum foil backed by wax exist at this time and will make an excellent package for protecting rations from gas. Introduce a varied menu and consult with nutritionists to ensure the ration is superior to anything fielded at this time.
>Maybe get to work with mechanical computing- something relatively compact to be used by mortar teams and field artillery with more complex systems reserved for heavy Arty and ships
>Begin work on man-portable rockets. We already know how to make solid rocket fuel and man-portable thermobaric weapons will be excellent for clearing out bunkers and trenches
>Napalm- super simple stuff if you understand it. Distilled sweet gum tree "storax" needs to be left alone to polymerize and be mixed with gasoline, naptha, and viscous petroleum byproducts.

Those are your immediate concerns.

>>33555842
Breakthroughs with armored units, however slow, will focus on enemy command and logistics. Supporting forces will provide cover as best they can to keep the enemy in the trenches. From there...
>Observation aircraft will coordinate with artillery (both traditional and rocket) to lay down normal arty fire and napalm-bearing rockets onto the trenches
>CAS aircraft will attempt to use napalm on enemy trenches directly

If you can just hit them hard and fast enough, even their generals will be left REELING. Use air-dropped propaganda leaflets to encourage mass surrender and follow through with humane treatment. The enemy is unprepared for modern warfare, is stuck in a 19th century mode of thinking, and will be caught drastically off-guard by modern tactics- much less the improved equipment you'll soon roll out. Exploit the hell out of this to cause surrender and use the POW's as a bargaining chip to end the war ASAP on your own terms before the enemy learns to imitate you.

File: German battleship SMS Lothringen photographed passing under the Levensau Bridge of the Kiel Canal before World War I.jpg (790KB, 3500x2773px) Image search: [Google]

790KB, 3500x2773px

>>33555037

What about the Kriegsmarine?

>>33555037
Literally impossible to land troops along the Saxon shore. Germans mined the shit out of the area, plus the Kaiserliche Marine has the advantage in home waters and is the second-best navy on earth at the time.

>>33555086

And this accomplishes... what?

>>33557913
>Germans mined the shit out of the area

Just do what was done at Gallipoli, which was even more heavily mined than the European waters.

>second-best navy on earth at the time

A very, VERY distant second to the Royal Navy

They were a "Fleet-in-Being" which doesn't work if the enemy actually calls your bluff.

>>33554919
Yeah, kept Tsar Nicholas at home handling civil affairs and kept Grand Duke Nikolai in command of the Army, And put General Brusilov in command in 1914 to avoid the grand screw up at Tannenberg

File: 1432235079194.jpg (69KB, 468x361px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 468x361px

>>33554919
Probably would have used my foresight to press the attack in the Second Battle of Ypres after gas attack opened a kilometer wide gap in the line and broke the stalemate that way. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Brits had too much in the way of defenses behind the Ypres Salient.

>>33556784
Germany's Navy in WW2 was the Kriegsmarine, the Kaiserlich Marine was the German Navy of WW1

>>33560007

One battle wasn't going to change the course of the war, anon

>>33555037
The sand, the sannnnnnnd

>>33557955
>Just do what was done at Gallipoli, which was even more heavily mined than the European waters.
Yes, and how did that one turn out?

>>33563667

The lack of support for a "secondary front" killed the campaign. A direct attack on Germany wouldn't have that problem

>ITT: people with hindsight
It's almost guaranteed the next big war (should it happen) will include fuckups of similar or greater scale as the first world war.

>>33554919
1914, December 25th

The opposing side would have laid down their arms and been utterly defenceless. The war could have ended 4(!) years earlier!

>>33563692

They tried that, Christmas 1915. French troops came out, Germans shot them up.

Didn't win the war.

>>33555037
Who is Winston Churchill

>>33563180
My idea was to break the stalemate in the West at Ypres, open up the gap more by enveloping the Brits around the salient, then push hard to Paris before France and Britain can redeploy their troops. After peace is achieved in the West, I would move my forces East to take on the Russians and Serbs.

>>33554934
Thata wrong though. The First World War was plagued by incompetant commanders who though throwing millions of men at the enemy would solve the problem. If someone competant from the future replaced Luigi Cadorna the Italian Front would of been a bigger threat to the Central Powers

>>33554919
Send all the war profiteers and politicians to the front, and keep em there,till they decide peace is worth more than profit for their lives.

>>33554919
I would have invested in tanks earlier in the war to break the lines. Plus with my modern knowledge I'd probably have better tank ideas that were still workable for the technology like some sort of proto t34 or Sherman. Could probably win in 1916

>>33567002

If you have the power to do that, you have the power to end the war on the spot, why continue the suffering and bloodshed?

>>33555042

The problem wasn't the cavalry themselves; on the eastern front cavalry were an absolutely inseparable component to the combined arms strategy of the region, and had played a non-insignificant part later still during the Second World War. The issue was that cavalry units were being sent to charge at hardened, fortified targets that simply cut them down: the situation would have been near identical if those charging were infantry or armour. What was really needed was 1: aircraft observation to accurately record where opposing units were positioned as well as their composition and 2: artillery working in concert with both the aircraft and cavalry in order to properly soften their target for the cavalry to break through.

Artillery, or more specifically its effectiveness is what made or broke the field of battle.

File: FCM.jpg (10KB, 233x216px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 233x216px

>>33567057

A major problem with investing in a "modernish" tank during that period is that those designs cropped up in the first place in response to contemporary problems. You know how the majority of tanks during the 20s and 30s had seemingly disproportionately thin armor for their medium and heavy classes? Their designs were made to protect against contemporary weapons, the thinness used both as a measure to shave weight to prevent them from overtaxing their engines and because manufacturing quality armoured plate was expensive during that era, the lionshare of it used to manufacture and maintain warships.

This is the FCM 1A. It is an attempt at mounting a 75mm gun on a fully rotating turret using 1918 technology it weights 41 tons, has 35 mm of frontial armour, a 200 hp engine, powered turret traverse, integrated radio, and was slightly faster than the British mark series; it was the state of the art and turned down in favor of constructing the Char 2C, but the French were barely able to build it in the first place: their factories were not actually equipped to assemble armoured plates of its size, forcing them to export the plates from the UK, and of course the tank was not operational before WWI ended.