Railways, railways, railways.. and logistics

[575]

In this thread miletus12 posted a map of Chinese railways which opened my eyes regarding Japanese expansion there in the 1930's and WWII.

However we should begin with Helmuth v. Moltke who in December 1839 returned from Turk service to Prussia and reentered service.
This was the time when railways was being proposed in German lands and in Denmark just to mention some. V. Moltke took an interest in German Railway building and was party to the planning and building of the Berlin - Hamburg railway line - building initiated 6 May 1844.
At the same time King Frederick VII of Denmark had rejected a proposed railway linking Hamburg to Lübeck though his successor Christian VIII agreed to a line running on Danish Territory only from eventually Kiel to Altona. Construction would begin 1843.

If You look up railway maps from the early time of building its clear that somebody had either a financial issue such as the Danish Kings who didn't like to spend money on building a railway that would add to the economic prospering of a German city when they had their own important trading port of Altona just neighboring Hamburg and thus wanting to continued funnel trade to the German market through that.

V. Moltke may have had another objective - come 1848 the Prussian Army used the Railway to quickly move troops into Holstein.

Come 1861 the Americans had catched up and by 1914 - well mobilizing troops would be done by Railway. Even water obstacles didn't necessary be obstacles - at least not during mobilization pre hostilities - as Denmark proved 11 September 1913 when a mobilizing at 6AM of 50,000 troops for the defences of Copenhagen was carried out within 8 hours by regular train and ferries from all over the country. Denmark of course made certain that Germany would know of this.

So pre mass numbers of Trucks would be available and later as German Barbarossa showed railways was still hugely important to military logistics.

In this thread one question is the actions of Italy does it join Germany against France - well looking up Italian railways even today only two lines cross the border (there my be some local lines too doing so) on the Med Coast and up Savoy in the Alpes. Generally not many railway lines cross through the Alpes or other mountain ranges but did this actually decide Italy's choice 1914? Perhaps neighter a slaughter of its Army in Alsace-Lorraine nor the southern Alpes looked inviting.

Thoughts?

[575]

So what preceded the Railway - the Horse and Carriage and the Ship.

I personally find that the Danish prior to the Railway was able to maintain a large/huge Northern European Empire for a short while because of the Ship - which scholars also utter - and only when they decided to venture in land getting the need of Horse and Carriage went beyond their range i.e. North Germany and hence why they didn't try conquering France. England being the obvious - connections since the Neolithic close to common language and culture. And Catholic in the orthodox sense Church not too embedded (Celtics anybody) as on the shores of the Southern Baltic and along the major Russian rivers.
So as I used to argue some years ago at AHcom it was a case of the Ship and the Horse party - once the Horse had its way it spelled doom for Denmarks aspirations.

[Max Sinister]

Jul 18, 2023 9:32:55 GMT 575 said:

1914 - well mobilizing troops would be done by Railway. Even water obstacles didn't necessary be obstacles - at least not during mobilization pre hostilities - as Denmark proved 11 September 1913 when a mobilizing at 6AM of 50,000 troops for the defences of Copenhagen was carried out within 8 hours by regular train and ferries from all over the country. Denmark of course made certain that Germany would know of this.

Is this the reason Germany didn't occupy its neighbor in 1914? Denmark had a good food surplus. Or did Germany need Denmark for doing trade? I've never dug deeper into it.

[miletus12]

Circa 1880. You will note that the ease of access and logistics of transport dictated where the Italians would fight?



1. If the Italians had lost Mailand, they would have lost the war.
2. Notice the German situation? They almost have to come through Belgium    

Now as to BELGIUM...


 

3. Northeast of Lilly in France and just in the vicinity of Menin and Berchan, what do you notice? `14 of them coming together in two wagon wheel spokes. THIS is why 200,000 English and French soldiers DIED there. 

[575]

Jul 19, 2023 21:28:32 GMT Max Sinister said:

Jul 18, 2023 9:32:55 GMT 575 said:

1914 - well mobilizing troops would be done by Railway. Even water obstacles didn't necessary be obstacles - at least not during mobilization pre hostilities - as Denmark proved 11 September 1913 when a mobilizing at 6AM of 50,000 troops for the defences of Copenhagen was carried out within 8 hours by regular train and ferries from all over the country. Denmark of course made certain that Germany would know of this.

Is this the reason Germany didn't occupy its neighbor in 1914? Denmark had a good food surplus. Or did Germany need Denmark for doing trade? I've never dug deeper into it.

Don't if it was only reason - Germany did consider 1917 occupying Jutland and Norwegian coastal areas. However Denmark did 5 August 1914 mine Danish Straits on German request to deter RN from entering the Baltic.

I think the combination of mining the Straits and mobilizing the Army and Navy as well as Neutrals increase in agricultural produce as seen here - link to pdf Norwegian Military Academy.

[stevep]

Jul 19, 2023 21:28:32 GMT Max Sinister said:

Jul 18, 2023 9:32:55 GMT 575 said:

1914 - well mobilizing troops would be done by Railway. Even water obstacles didn't necessary be obstacles - at least not during mobilization pre hostilities - as Denmark proved 11 September 1913 when a mobilizing at 6AM of 50,000 troops for the defences of Copenhagen was carried out within 8 hours by regular train and ferries from all over the country. Denmark of course made certain that Germany would know of this.

Is this the reason Germany didn't occupy its neighbor in 1914? Denmark had a good food surplus. Or did Germany need Denmark for doing trade? I've never dug deeper into it.

  Well from what I've read Germany had plans to occupy both Denmark - to secure control of the Baltic entrance and the Netherlands.  One source suggested that this was because Germany didn't have spare forces for those operation given their plans for invading Belgium and France but how accurate it is I don't know.  I suspect that Denmark's food surplus wouldn't have been a massive factor because the entire plan was for a quick war because they didn't think they could survive one lasting more than a few months.  Also if they had concerns about food supplies then some would probably have thought they would be able to import from Denmark anyway and that attacking Denmark might upset the other Nordic nations.

[stevep]

Jul 20, 2023 10:26:48 GMT 575 said:

Jul 19, 2023 21:28:32 GMT Max Sinister said:

Is this the reason Germany didn't occupy its neighbor in 1914? Denmark had a good food surplus. Or did Germany need Denmark for doing trade? I've never dug deeper into it.

Don't if it was only reason - Germany did consider 1917 occupying Jutland and Norwegian coastal areas. However Denmark did 5 August 1914 mine Danish Straits on German request to deter RN from entering the Baltic.

I think the combination of mining the Straits and mobilizing the Army and Navy as well as Neutrals increase in agricultural produce as seen here - link to pdf Norwegian Military Academy.

  Good point I had forgotten about that.  Definitely another factor that could come into play.

  A bit surprised they were thinking of occupying Jutland that late as by then they should have realised the small neutrals they could trade with were more useful in creating leaks in the allied blockade, as well as the diplomatic fall out.  Although if this was after the US joined the war they may have thought this was worthwhile.

[575]

Jul 20, 2023 14:56:59 GMT stevep said:

Jul 19, 2023 21:28:32 GMT Max Sinister said:

Is this the reason Germany didn't occupy its neighbor in 1914? Denmark had a good food surplus. Or did Germany need Denmark for doing trade? I've never dug deeper into it.

  Well from what I've read Germany had plans to occupy both Denmark - to secure control of the Baltic entrance and the Netherlands.  One source suggested that this was because Germany didn't have spare forces for those operation given their plans for invading Belgium and France but how accurate it is I don't know.  I suspect that Denmark's food surplus wouldn't have been a massive factor because the entire plan was for a quick war because they didn't think they could survive one lasting more than a few months.  Also if they had concerns about food supplies then some would probably have thought they would be able to import from Denmark anyway and that attacking Denmark might upset the other Nordic nations.

According the General Clemmesen 1905 Schlieffen had decided not to incur Denmark in his operational plans though there were a fear in Denmark among the Officers - not the Social Liberal Government - that an occupation of Denmark might be effected. The Commanding Admiral Kofoed-Hansen expected a German occupation of at least Jutland following a German Naval defeat in the North Sea with a RN pursuit into Danish waters.

[575]

Jul 20, 2023 15:01:38 GMT stevep said:

Jul 20, 2023 10:26:48 GMT 575 said:

Don't if it was only reason - Germany did consider 1917 occupying Jutland and Norwegian coastal areas. However Denmark did 5 August 1914 mine Danish Straits on German request to deter RN from entering the Baltic.

I think the combination of mining the Straits and mobilizing the Army and Navy as well as Neutrals increase in agricultural produce as seen here - link to pdf Norwegian Military Academy.

  Good point I had forgotten about that.  Definitely another factor that could come into play.

  A bit surprised they were thinking of occupying Jutland that late as by then they should have realised the small neutrals they could trade with were more useful in creating leaks in the allied blockade, as well as the diplomatic fall out.  Although if this was after the US joined the war they may have thought this was worthwhile.

I found a Norwegian study which concluded that a German occupation of key ports on the Norwegian coast was to be followed by an occupation of Jutland.

Denmarks stance to fight the British IF they tried landing in Jutland should have been the deciding factor to the Germans.

[miletus12]

Jul 20, 2023 17:28:30 GMT 575 said:

Jul 20, 2023 15:01:38 GMT stevep said:

  Good point I had forgotten about that.  Definitely another factor that could come into play.

  A bit surprised they were thinking of occupying Jutland that late as by then they should have realised the small neutrals they could trade with were more useful in creating leaks in the allied blockade, as well as the diplomatic fall out.  Although if this was after the US joined the war they may have thought this was worthwhile.

I found a Norwegian study which concluded that a German occupation of key ports on the Norwegian coast was to be followed by an occupation of Jutland.

Denmarks stance to fight the British IF they tried landing in Jutland should have been the deciding factor to the Germans.

That stupid Baltic Project again. 




The British admirals never could read a soundings or currents chart.


.