What was WW1 most important battle ?

[char]

I thought after the debate on WW2 most important battle it only made sense to consider the 1St War.

I say Verdun.

[Azog 150]

Vudrun was certainly important and kept the German greatly tied down- but they lost more men at the Somme. But the Germans never really recovered from either of those battles.

[Mangalore]

Vudrun was certainly important and kept the German greatly tied down- but they lost more men at the Somme. But the Germans never really recovered from either of those battles.

In context of ww1 those two battles only declared the stalemate established after 1914 because they were a brute force attempt by either side to break through the lines. In the end both sides ended up in the same places and the loss ratio was slightly in Germany's favour while Germany having a slightly lower manpower pool in the conflict, thus not being able to afford this waste of life. Overall the oftencited idea that these battles exhausted the Germans more than the French and British who equally threw tens of thousands of soldiers in the meat grinder and lost more of them seems a bit strange because this disadvantage was present with or without these battles and an inherent strategic weakness the German army had to deal with at any rate whereever they offered battle. The battle of the Somme also ended with a comparatively appalling casualty rate for the British for this kind of battle (650 000 to 450 000, compared to other battles were slight advantages were a difference of just a few thousand/ten thousand men lost between the belligerents).

However in the year of these battles the German army mauled the Russians and conquered Romania, overall establishing a firm hold over the eastern front lines so these battles did not weaken germany's war capabilities, yet, and overall germany ended 1916 in a better position than she was before. 1917 would bring germany into the strongest strategic position until the offifical entry of the US in the war with France and Italy racing with Austria Hungary for a total breakdown and England fearing the submarine blockade to succeed. The entry of the USA gave them the Allies the extra wind to stay in the war and not turn to the peace table.

The 1918 offensive was the take it or break it battle of ww1. The German generals knew it and saw it as the last possibility of reaching an advantageous peace before the US troops would join en masse. Thus it
qualifies as the most important battle of the conflict very well. The 100 day counteroffensive was "just" the result of that as the Allies counterattacked an out of positioned, weakened and exhausted German salient created by this offensive.

[Farnan]

First and Second Battles of the Marne.

For long term consequences: Gallipoli

[Dr. Croccer]

First Battle of the Marne, or the entire Spring Offensives. The failure of the latter meant that the German positions were extremely weakened, which allowed the subsequent Allied offensives and counterattacks to destroy the German lines. If the Germans stayed put, the war would've went differently and taken longer.

[hellheaven1987]

100 days Offensive; no other battles on Western Front are more important than this one, especially consider most battles on Western Front are not battle but just butchering each others (save 1914 campaign).

[Azog 150]

100 days Offensive; no other battles on Western Front are more important than this one, especially consider most battles on Western Front are not battle but just butchering each others (save 1914 campaign).

1914 campaign was probably even worse. They were still using modern weapons and old tactics and hadn't learned any lessons on modern warfare. Consequently, rather then having trenches to hide in, everyone was in the open massacring each other with not many places to hide.

[hellheaven1987]

1914 campaign was probably even worse. They were still using modern weapons and old tactics and hadn't learned any lessons on modern warfare. Consequently, rather then having trenches to hide in, everyone was in the open massacring each other with not many places to hide.

Na, 1914 campaign at least still follows the basic of military theory - pin the center, outflank the left wing, unlike later campaigns, with disgusting objectives such as "bleed eachother white".

If they wanted to bleed eachother white why not just asked everyone gathering in one place and fought a final battle??

[Dr. Croccer]

Na, 1914 campaign at least still follows the basic of military theory - pin the center, outflank the left wing

Except that this was outdated by 1914. Most armies still planned strategies comparable to those Napoleon or Von Moltke would use. But in 1914 armies were so incredibly vast that these were bunk. A defender could also, thanks to railroads, bring up reinforcements far faster than the offender could advance. Another crucial factor was the weaponry. All soldiers were armed with fast-firing repeating bolt-action rifles, which were also very accurate, and of course machineguns, not to mention modern artillry. Azog is quite right in saying that casualties were very high in the opening stages of the war, as troops were not entrenched and fought with outdated tactics. German troops at the Battle of Mons were mowed down by accurate fire by British riflemen. The same happened later at the Battle of Langemarck, in which numerically superior German attacks (I believe 5:1 in some sectors) were repelled by rapid fire from British troops. The massacre was so bad that the Germans thought they were being shot at by machineguns, and the battle was called the ''Kindermord'', murder of the children, due to fact that a great many of the German troops were young volunteers, who were completely inexperienced.

Paradoxically, since the American Civil War, it has been intelligent for infantry to dig themselves in. As it reduces casualties. The worst casualties weren't suffered in the trenches, but when the soldiers left them to attack enemy positions. When one side digs in, it has an advantage but when two sides dig in, to the point that repelling the other side is almost impossible, we get an odd situation which the industrialist Ivan Bloch highlighted in his book ''War in the Future'', written about 16 years before the war began. He realized that, as I already said, that advances in industry and warfare would make offensive actions extremely hard, as the defender has a clear advantage, and that a soldier ''will need a shuvel as much as a rifle'' and concluded that both sides would dig in, causing a stalemate, which could not be solved by military means, but rather, through a socio-economic tug-of-war, a duel between the nations and the one with the biggest manpower reserves, the most stable society and best economy and industry would reign supreme, after years of attrition and bloodshed.

unlike later campaigns, with disgusting objectives such as "bleed eachother white".

This was realism. ''bleeding the other side white'' meant that the other side would be forced to send more soldiers and guns, which means a greater strain on the economy and society, and that's one step closer to victory.

[Dr. Oza]

gallipoli

the turks beat the brits, and because of that the russian revolution happened

and people didnt take churchil seriously after that, until ww2 that is... which was a lil too late

[Pious Agnost]

gallipoli

the turks beat the brits, and because of that the russian revolution happened

and people didnt take churchil seriously after that, until ww2 that is... which was a lil too late

The Russian Revolution actually happened as a result of pent up rage and discontent at the Russian Royal Family.

What in God's name does Gallipoli have to do with it?

[Tiberios]

gallipoli

the turks beat the brits, and because of that the russian revolution happened

The Russian revolution has nothing to do with Gallipoli. The Russian revolution was triggered by social unrest, poverty, a autocratic monarhc and several other factoers including the war itself.

Gallipoli, in my mind, wasn't that important. It really had no effect on the outcome except for maybe prolonging the war with the Ottomans, and the Ottoman Empire collapsed anyway.

Personally I would say Verdun.

[SonOfAlexander]

Verdun - has to be.

[Belisaire_]

The two battles of Marne, 1914 and 1918, but the second was more decisive.

[Sher Khan]

Certainly, the cork was ready to pop in Russia, but I think he means that the economic strain that Russia had to face by fighting the entire Central Power alliance on multiple fronts all hundreds or thousands of miles wide without any ready help from the other Entente allies. As the new form of warfare stated above was now a game of strategic and economic power, the Russians having to keep up with the production power of Germany while also facing the substantial forces of both Austria-Hungary and Turkey sent anger at the tsar skyrocketing with all the conscription and forced factory work demanded of Russia's recently emancipated serfs already discontent with their leader.

Gallipoli, had it succeeded, would have not only knocked the Ottoman Empire out of the war and thereby denying the Germans much needed manpower in shoring up the eastern front after the cataclysmic fall of the A-H army near Galicia, but most importantly would have opened the Dardanelles to safe Allied passage. From the Crimea, the Russians could be well supplied and its strain on its own populace lessened with British and French surpluses thrown their way, perhaps delaying if not actually preventing a revolution.

With the allied failure to take Istanbul, the Black Sea route stayed closed while the Kriegsmarine kept a tight watch on the entrance to the Baltic Sea. The Entente had to make due with a Balkan invasion through Salonika and pushing up north to knock out Austria Hungary, cutting off German supply lines to Turkey, and forcing the Turks out of the war (though too late to keep Russia in the war).

[Pious Agnost]

Certainly, the cork was ready to pop in Russia, but I think he means that the economic strain that Russia had to face by fighting the entire Central Power alliance on multiple fronts all hundreds or thousands of miles wide without any ready help from the other Entente allies. As the new form of warfare stated above was now a game of strategic and economic power, the Russians having to keep up with the production power of Germany while also facing the substantial forces of both Austria-Hungary and Turkey sent anger at the tsar skyrocketing with all the conscription and forced factory work demanded of Russia's recently emancipated serfs already discontent with their leader.

Gallipoli, had it succeeded, would have not only knocked the Ottoman Empire out of the war and thereby denying the Germans much needed manpower in shoring up the eastern front after the cataclysmic fall of the A-H army near Galicia, but most importantly would have opened the Dardanelles to safe Allied passage. From the Crimea, the Russians could be well supplied and its strain on its own populace lessened with British and French surpluses thrown their way, perhaps delaying if not actually preventing a revolution.

With the allied failure to take Istanbul, the Black Sea route stayed closed while the Kriegsmarine kept a tight watch on the entrance to the Baltic Sea. The Entente had to make due with a Balkan invasion through Salonika and pushing up north to knock out Austria Hungary, cutting off German supply lines to Turkey, and forcing the Turks out of the war (though too late to keep Russia in the war).

You make a good point.

But I believe it would've happened anyway.

[Sher Khan]

You make a good point.

But I believe it would've happened anyway.

I wonder, however, how the revolution would go if the Russian military, having ample access to supplies and munitions, did not become politicized due to logistical issues that could have been lessened.

[Pious Agnost]

I wonder, however, how the revolution would go if the Russian military, having ample access to supplies and munitions, did not become politicized due to logistical issues that could have been lessened.

Well that itself depends on who is in charge.

If it's the Tsar, then they might as well not have any supplies anyway.

[hellheaven1987]

I wonder, however, how the revolution would go if the Russian military, having ample access to supplies and munitions, did not become politicized due to logistical issues that could have been lessened.

Did Russian even run out of supply?? I know it was the case from 1914, but after that Russia's industry was able to meet the demand.

[Dr. Croccer]

Did Russian even run out of supply?? I know it was the case from 1914, but after that Russia's industry was able to meet the demand.

I think so. The Russians lost great deals of men and weaponry, which meant that they needed vast amounts of weaponry. Production increased during 1915 and '16 but it still was nowhere near enough. Average monthly rifle production in the fall of 1916 was 110.000, whilst the Russian army estimated it needed around 200.000 rifles a month.