It's 1914, and war has just begun. You have access to all the technology and battle tactics of the time period. Is there anything you can do better than what the allies actually did? Would it make sense to create a new battle rifle rather than the ones they went with?
>>65463313>Is there anything you can do better than what the allies actually did?if the limitation is tactics and technology: no. The trenches happened because no one could figure out tactics that beat tanks and massed fires. Eventually German sturm tactics, and allied advancements in squad-tactics, the tank, and combined-arms warfare ended it. There is no other way.
>>65463313New rifle? Not enough time to design and properly test it. Biggest threat in ww1 was the, if you exclude disease and whatnot, were MG nests. It's why tanks became a thing.
It is too late to stop the creation of the Federal Reserve Act. The current timeline has been locked in.
>>65463313You mean the battle rifle that went on to be in use for another 40-50 years after the war? No. I wouldn't change that.As for tactics, there was nothing available at the time. Perhaps I'd put much effort into sappers and tunnelling but you'd still end up with the war of attrition.
>>65463313put Arthur Currie in charge of all Anglo forces
>>65463313Hold frontline long enough to build some nice concrete defense lines behind them, then chill in those for two years while I build tanks.
>>65463313Have the French just license build Enfields and leave off trying to get radical new weapons into production in the middle of a war.
>>65463313>Is there anything you can do better than what the allies actually did?If I knew what the cost of the war would be for all sides and Europe as a continent? Negotiate. Immediately.
I will always take the opportunity to shill the War Room podcast by Usually Hapless, which had a series on the development of WWI infantry tactics. I'm drunk and am probably half-remembering it, but by 1918 both sides had developed the tactics needed to reliably overcome enemy trenches and fortifications, but neither of those translated into an ability to achieve strategic military goals on their own.
>>65463404>Hold frontline long enough to build some nice concrete defense lines behind them,Which is what artillery is ideal at crushing. The accuracy was lacking, which is why they responded with mass fire. They also have 4 years to destroy them.
>>65463313Set your artillery so you can stop the race to the sea trenchlines and get yours to take as much ground over them like an incredibly tedious envelopment.
>>65463313>Is there anything you can do better than what the allies actually did?so let's assume for a moment I am the supreme commander of the allied forces, like eisenhower was in world war 2step 1) you know the Hindenburg line? yeah we're doing that. no offensives. no retaking french territory. just concrete trenches in easily defensible areasstep 2) go big on developing wireless communication, since the bottleneck in all the offensives they did do were when communications broke down and they couldn't bring up reserves to consolidate gainsstep 3) figure out strategic bombers, mine the ever loving shit out of german ports to make them unusable.
>>65463587oh and once we have the strategic bombers, I already know how to combine naphtha, palm oil, and gasoline, and cluster bombs are pretty simple technology, so...for the bombers, I think we probably need to get Igor Sikorsky out of Russia and into England or Canada where he can actually do something with his ability.
>>65463419This. Doesn't matter who wins, just end it immediately. I surrender.
>>65463313Yes. Don't try bully the Turks into submission via ships.Don't sail back up there and expect there not to be coastal guns and fucktons of mines there.Don't change the landing beach location for the Galipoli offensive at the last minute without telling anyone, so the landing forces can navigate at night and get a fortified hilltop artillery position going before it's even light out, and the enemy can mount a defensive.That shuts down a whole front of the war, and takes a nation out of it, while freeing up so many allied forces and ships, making the Great War finish much sooner.
NEED WINCHESTER M1917 GF
>>65463601This but bully the Turks way more and assassinate Ataturk
>>65463313>Is there anything you can do better than what the allies actually did?Reform the French Army in 1915 instead of 1917. The tremendous wastage of manpower thrown away in those two years is what made their situation so precarious by 1918. Quash the cult of the offensive and maintain elastic defense-in-depth on land while the Royal Navy's blockade strangles Germany to death.
>>65463419>If I knew what the cost of the war would be for all sides and Europe as a continent? Negotiate. Immediately.Germany is an authoritarian state and won't back down. That's the problem. If Germany and France were both democratic, then the war doesn't spiral into a shit storm.Yes, the best strategy for Germany would be to ensure the war doesn't get out of hand, and to prevent it. But he was also a retard. Pretty soon too many people die for anyoen to just back down. Germans were starting to advance to the head of the pack in Europe just through economics, science, and engineering. Without WW1-WW2, Germany would naturally domiante the entire continent without firing a single shot.
>>65463313New & improved small arms have virtually no effect on a war based on artillery spam.
>>65463845I am wondering if new doctrines built around SMGs and shotguns for trench raiding, with bolt action rifles for marksmen. The rifles are long and awkward.
>>65463830Russia was the real authoritarian state, Germany was democratic and the war legitimized by the parliament.
>>65463830>Without WW1-WW2, Germany would naturally domiante the entire continent without firing a single shot.That is exactly why the br*t wanted war.
>>65463313In hindsight it’d be pretty easy to win the war in the first month or two, it only went on as long as it did due to the massive fuck ups on both sides at the start of the war (especially on the western front) and this led to a sunk cost fallacy where each side had expended so many lives that anything but total victory was unthinkable, as anything less would have meant it had all been a “waste”. From the French side, I would actually pay attention to all of my intelligence indicating that the Germans were massing the majority of their forces on their right, and prepare an actual defensive line on the Sambre, instead of throwing a million of my men into whatever the fuck plan 17 and the battle of the frontiers was. Joffre wasn’t an horrible field commander, but the French obsession with the offensive was understandable but retarded, and a result of them learning all the wrong lessons from Sedan. Also I’d mobilize my reservists.For the British it’s pretty shrimple as well, Just get rid of the human sized pussy that was John French and replace him with someone that won’t run at the first sight of the Germans and leave a hole in the French line
>>654633131914 is too late. you'd really need the benefit of hindsight and get control of the military several years before 1914.trying to prevent the war with your knowledge would be the better goal though.
>>65463313>Is there anything you can do better than what the allies actually did?Kill Hitler at the Berlin Olympics.
As Germany beginning in 1915 i exhaust my western foes using the tactics of the greatest General in human history before going on the offensive sometime in early 1935, assuming i've had enough time to build adequate logistic lines and reserves of course.
>>65463313I think that, if used in concentration and extremely carefully a paratroooer deployment could have provided a decisive advantage for one side or another. Particularly Germany in the early stages. Capturing the artillery and splitting the defense at say, Liège, would have opened a bridge head and perhaps the road to Paris. Its a really ling shot, but they had all the pieces to make it work in theory. Planes and Zeplins to get the troops over and parachutes, even if they were completely uncontrollable. The key, as with all airborne operations, is suprise and swiftness of action.
>>65463313Creating a new weapon isn't going to help unless you craft a new tactic to go along with it. But in that case you might as well do what they actually did (but quicker), which was to invent a whole bunch of new artillery tactics relying on surprise and tactical & operational suppression that enabled them to bust trenches with ease by 1917. The problem with early artillery tactics was that they thought massive long bombardments to cut wire and smash trench systems was the way forward. But this was exactly the wrong thing to do because it provided plenty of warning and churned up no man's land into difficult terrain. The innovation that allowed a switch from this was predicted fire, which allowed you to just suddenly open fire with good accuracy on the target.
>>65464423They could have gotten him in Somme
>>65463313Declare no more brother wars, unmask the true architects of the destruction of Europe, and seek out the top tier Trump genetic bloodline to secure a future ruler for the unified Europan empire that spans the stars.
>>65463313>have access to all the technology and battle tactics of the time periodBut do you have knowledge of future tactics and tech? If you're just a normie living in the time period then no.
>>65463313issue shotguns to every soldier
>>65464951Fuck yeahI wonder if a zeppelin could air drop a tank
Declare war on thirdies everywhere.
Declare war on Russia.
1. Stop European, American, Canadian, ANZAC brothers from killing each other.2. Invade Puccia, flatten it, kill ALL commies3. ???4. Profit
If you're cannon fodder then there's basically nothing you can really do. Now if you suddenly had a position of high authority then all the lessons learned from history can be negotiated with. You'd have to find out who to talk to and how to talk to them to try to convince them that a certain idea is bad. I guess one example would be trying to explain to Churchill that the shitty plans in Gallipoli we're not worthwhile but good luck with that shit. One interesting thing though is the concept of the technology at a certain time being able to support a specific invention, but the idea had just not been devised yet. So imagine something like what would otherwise be considered a cutting edge technology; It might still be possible to create that technology in a previous generation even if no one ever thought of doing it at that time. One of the strong limitations would be things like computational resources. You can't just have GPS because the infrastructure of launching satellites into orbit didn't exist, however a certain piece of metal that was cut and formed for a certain purpose may still have been possible even if nobody did it at the time.You probably could have invented a fidget spinner whenever Jesus was alive it's just nobody ever did it.So if the laws of physics and chemistry permeated throughout the eons then you probably could have introduced new types of munitions so long as you were able to keep the knowledge of today. All the chemicals to make shit like c4 existed back then but nobody knew how to do it. If you we're the only one who knew how to do it then you would be a valuable resource.
>>65463334This. Send me back to Jekyll Island
1. Maxim and Vickers guns are now a company level asset. Lewis guns are a platoon level asset.2. All allied shipping will be done with escorted convoys.3. I'm telling Churchill he's a retarded faggot, and that we're not doing Gallipoli at all.
I will reiterate my idea: Put George McClellan in charge of the Western front and wait a decade or two until he believes German infantry and artillery reserves are ready for an offensive.
>>65464442Reminder McClellan can't win shit.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Order_191
>>65465060>he fell for the trench gun meme
>>65463419Good answer honestly
I'm developing nukes then glassing russia and the middle east.
>>65463419Unfortunately for you, Tsar Nicholas has no ear for that at this point. This has become quite personal. Daddy issues.
>create a false salient>wait for the German push>close the pocket >saturation bomb
>>65463419You'd get your ass assassinated or coup'd by ultranationalists from your own country who would accuse you of being a "coward traitor"
>>65466075McClellan's strategy was not to win, his strategy was to make a force so strong that he could never lose and to keep that force intact. He had many flaws as a military leader but he was a genius when it came to logistics and support. He created the Army of the Potomac out of thin air and once it was in place there was no force on earth at the time that could moved it. McClellan never lost a major battle or suffered significant loses to his forces, whenever he moved (slowly) the Confederates got out of his way. When they tried to fight him they faced entrenched troops and (eventually) massive artillery support. They just avoided him and he let them. He was also very cautious and hesitant, basically he didn't like hurting people and would avoid it whenever possible. He was a strange combination of being the best defensive General in US history while at the same time being the worst General when it came to offensive action. That said God help you if he ever decided he had enough infantry reserves, artillery and support to attack for once.
>>65465043>top tier Trump genetic bloodlineLiterally borne out of a draft dodging emigrant, would be laughed out of Germany.
>>65463313invent FPV drones
>>65463313Don't go down the Dardanelles till they are ready to do the Gallipoli landingsMake Beatty have an accident so someone competent actually commands at Jutland.Tell the French to fucking cycle their troops and stop attacking needlessly so they don't mutiny and cause situations where allies have to order their attacks before they are prepared. Give Canadians full autonomy with their only order is to have fun.>>65463324This legit happened in real life. Bongs were testing a new rifle calibre and so were the Frogs. War meant they decided against further testing.>>65466602Not till 1915.
>>65463587>no offensives. no retaking french territory.You're sacked.>go big on developing wireless communicationHalfway sensible, but the big issue is that sending guys walking across No Man's Land will not beat the other side sending in reinforcements by rail.>figure out strategic bombersYou're another 20 years in engine development away from getting useable payloads.
>>65463830>If Germany and France were both democraticLol. LMAO, even. Lest we forget, it was democratic France that literally inveted the term revanchism.
>>65466542>McClellan's strategy was not to win, his strategy was to make a force so strong that he could never lose and to keep that force intact.So he plainly didn't understand the war he was fighting and how doing this was going to lose it.>whenever he moved (slowly) the Confederates got out of his wayOr fought him and made him retreat because that was literally his one and only reaction to being brought to battle.
Most obvious would be not to stop provoking the Americans into entering the war. No Zimmermann telegram, no unrestricted submarine warfare. Make concessions towards Wilson's 14 points to increase pressure on the Entente.
>>65466888>Make Beatty have an accidentHow is that going to fix the critical design failures in their battlecruisers?
>>65463313>Is there anything you can do betterToss money into tank and wireless r&d.Dig in and don't go on the offensive until the previous 2 are gtg.The value of tanks wasn't merely that they were impervious to machine guns and could carry small field pieces, but that they were big enough and made enough electrical power to run a wireless unit so your troops could stay in contact with each other, their artillery, and their generals behind the line, thus solving in one fell swoop the two big problems that caused the battle line to stagnate.
>>65463919>new doctrines built around SMGs and shotguns for trench raidingNope, not useful. The germans used the SMG and portable flame throwers in the initial attack at Verdun and it got them ~ 12 km before the advance ground to a halt due to the usual communication problems (and the inability of the artillery to advance quickly enough across the churned-up ground). Story of the war, really. The treads on tanks gave them low enough ground pressure that they could cross shelled-to-shit ground alongside the infantry.
>>65466542McClellan could build an army but was terrified to actually use it. he was an awful choice to put in command of an army.
>>65463418>Stop the French from making some of the kinoest small arms the world has ever seen.
double down on cavalry charges. we have more horses than they have machine guns.
I just put more time and effort into perfecting the Mondragon
>>65466934>>65467345>McClellan could build an army but was terrified to actually use itThis more or less. He let retreating forces escape several times because he couldn't see them as the enemy, they were just 'wayward Americans' in his mind. The same traits that made him good at caring for his troops made him horrible at any sort of offensive action. The really odd thing is he had the skills, during the Peninsula Campaign he pulled off an amphibious flanking maneuver that wasn't matched until the Inchon landing but just didn't want to engage in decisive battle because he didn't want to hurt anyone. The guy at his core was a railroad executive thrust into commanding an army. From everything we know he wasn't incompetent, it is clear that the fundamental issue was that he was too nice and good of a person to to be a effective military leader. In any other situation he would be 'promoted' out of direct command by being made Secretary of War (and then Lincoln's running mate) but Stanton was also a logistical genius and there was absolutely no reason to replace him especially since Stanton wasn't afraid to spend lives when needed.
>>65467368>>65463418Have the French build the Chauchat on the Carcano cartridge using an annular gas tube instead of a short recoil system.Also make it a bullpup.
>>65463313Impossible. By the time WW1 actually starts, anything that could potentially give you an advantage would have to be developed not only in real time, but inevitably along the path that was actually taken due to the simple economic and logistical constraints of the war.In a war where getting even the basic service rifle that was widespread to enough men was a chore, developing something entirely new mid-war was a pipe dream.The only REAL thing that could be done would be to exercise extreme caution with attacking and wasting men's lives. You might be able to avoid some of the costlier fuck ups and have a slightly easier time holding the line for those inevitable line-breaking developments.
Kill Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and any bolshevik leader.
