Jump to content


Remembered Today:

0

Russian 1917 Spring Offensive


61 replies to this topic

#1 James A Pratt III

James A Pratt III

    Major

  • Old Sweats
  • 379 posts

Posted 01 September 2011 - 08:30 PM

I understand the Russian Army was planning to launch a big offensive in the Spring of 1917. However the February/March Revolution broke out, the Czar abdicated, and the Empire and Army disintagrated into chaos. Does anyone know when and where it was going to take place? Also does anyone know the forces involved and what might have happened if the Revolution had not happened or been crushed? I do know at the start of 1917 the Russian generals were confident of victory and where well supplied ect.

#2 John Gilinsky

John Gilinsky

    Brigadier-General

  • Old Sweats
  • 2,077 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto,Ontario Canada

Posted 01 September 2011 - 08:50 PM

Various offensives regional even in fact local in nature were launched and several were in fact fairly successful the first day or so of the 1917 "summer offensives."  However, many of the soldiers refused to advance further when especially German resistance stiffened and simply staged a massive sit down strike in the midst of the attacks!  One of the ironies was that the offensives were very carefully planned and to some extent even co-ordinated with the Russian correct recognition that poor morale and poor food were also fundamentally affecting the Central Powers' forces facing the Russians. The poor attitudes of the Central Powers in considering the Russians finished for the war greatly underestimated the POTENTAL military strength of the Russians to the former's detriment since the years had seen the Russians like everyone else learn new tactics and adapt to the technologies of the battlefield (eg. the new shock battalions of infantry introduced and promoted in the previous year under Brusilov).  Huge stockpiles of ammunition and other supplies had reached some of the attacking units and the actual stalemated inaction caused directly by the war weariness actually had a more detrimental affect on the defending Central Power's forces at least initially.  However the great infected epidemic of "Bolshevik" propaganda and indeed peace, land and bread promises by most Russian politicians immediately preceding the offensives sapped whatever substantial long term benefits such Central Powers poor morale existed.  In essence BOTH sides quit fighting during these offensives.
Some recent books do NOT do justice though to the localized successes that the Russians did achieve.  Further Russian and other archival research is necessary in this respect.
John

#3 PJA

PJA

    Brigadier-General

  • Old Sweats
  • 2,723 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 01 September 2011 - 09:19 PM

There was in fact a remarkably successful Russian offensive in the Baltic sector in very early 1917.  I think it was in the Courland Peninsula ( ?) and the srtiking thing was that it was directed against the Germans, instead of the much less formidable Austrians.  The attack was contained, and German counter attacks recovered lost ground...  there were also episodes of collective indiscipline in the Russian ranks, resulting in the execution of a large number of soldiers.  But this should not obscure the tactical achievement, which must have given the Germans a nasty surprise : I think that ten thousand were captured by the Russians. Evidence here, indeed, of what John is emphasising : the Russian potential was considerable, even just before the Czar abdicated.

Phil (PJA)

#4 John Gilinsky

John Gilinsky

    Brigadier-General

  • Old Sweats
  • 2,077 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto,Ontario Canada

Posted 01 September 2011 - 10:02 PM

The Czar had abdicated MONTHS previously - it was the provisional government (aka really the old Imperial army) that launched and ordered the attacks for a variety of reasons: military, political and even economical. Remember that Kerensky wanted a successfull offensive to convince the Allies that all that money, munitions etc...sent and being sent to him was worth it and would not be squandered or wasted. Surprise in warfare part of morale of course is huge and may even be decisive at least initially and these summer 1917 offensives are an excellent example of the down but NOT out opponent who is fundamentally erroneously underrated as an opponent.  Poor co-ordination AND poorer co-operation contributed as well to the quick muddying down of the initial elan of the offensive spirit of the Russians.  Piecemeal nibbling at very weak sectors could and did achieve intiially dramatic successes with POW and captured ordnance counts but effective German counter-attacks were not so much effective as simply defensively containing the self-dissolving military unit cohesion alone due to the political circumstances of Russia which effectively finished the Russian forces.  What is fascinating though to remember is that hardly any Provisional Government units en masse in entirety simply went over to the Bolsheviks - one significant indicator of the morale and moral grip of a) unit officers and commanders; B) the traditional beliefs of Tsar, God and the army on the masses of war weary military unit personnel which meant that the Bolsheviks were hardly an appetizing alternative.
John

#5 PJA

PJA

    Brigadier-General

  • Old Sweats
  • 2,723 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 02 September 2011 - 05:41 AM

View PostJohn Gilinsky, on 01 September 2011 - 10:02 PM, said:

The Czar had abdicated MONTHS previously

Not in the case of the action I have refered to, John.  This occurred a couple of months before the abdication : January, 1917, I think.

Phil (PJA)

#6 marsyao

marsyao

    Sergeant-Major

  • Members2
  • 60 posts

Posted 02 September 2011 - 01:43 PM

View PostPJA, on 02 September 2011 - 05:41 AM, said:

Not in the case of the action I have refered to, John.  This occurred a couple of months before the abdication : January, 1917, I think.

Phil (PJA)

It is interesting, Phil, could you give us more detail information about this Russia offensive?

#7 PJA

PJA

    Brigadier-General

  • Old Sweats
  • 2,723 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 05 September 2011 - 08:39 AM

Here you are, marsyao :

Battle of the Aa, 5 January to 3 February 1917, surprise attack by Russian Twelfth Army under command of Radko, without preliminary bombardment, between Lake Babit and Tirul Marsh.  It gained 4 miles, 8,000 prisoners and 36 guns in the first week, despite  counter attacks by the German Eigth Army.

Three Russian regiments refused to attack, and 94 of their soldiers were executed.

The Russians had attacked skillfuly, using sand dunes for cover and not attacking in "waves" of infantry.  They also profited from a German withdrawal that was taking place.

Significantly, German losses in killed and missing in January 1917 were heavier on the Russian Front than they were that month on the Western Front : a rare occurrence in the Great War, and an indication of how much Russian tactics had improved.

Phil (PJA)

#8 marsyao

marsyao

    Sergeant-Major

  • Members2
  • 60 posts

Posted 05 September 2011 - 06:52 PM

Thanks, Phil, as always you are very helpful

#9 PJA

PJA

    Brigadier-General

  • Old Sweats
  • 2,723 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 05 September 2011 - 07:05 PM

That's a pleasure !

It's quite an interesting thing to contemplate, isn't it.....a huge imperial state goes into the throws of revolution, just as it begins to get its act together on the battlefield ?

That might be a grotesquely erroneous depiction, but it invites reflection.

Phil (PJA)

#10 Tom W.

Tom W.

    Lieut-Colonel

  • Old Sweats
  • 1,426 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 07:45 AM

View PostJames A Pratt III, on 01 September 2011 - 08:30 PM, said:

I understand the Russian Army was planning to launch a big offensive in the Spring of 1917. However the February/March Revolution broke out, the Czar abdicated, and the Empire and Army disintagrated into chaos. Does anyone know when and where it was going to take place? Also does anyone know the forces involved and what might have happened if the Revolution had not happened or been crushed? I do know at the start of 1917 the Russian generals were confident of victory and where well supplied ect.
According to Nik Cornish, The Russian Army and the First World War (Spellmount, 2006), pp. 132-134, the offensive was to be carried out by the Russian Army's Southwestern Front. The Seventh and Eleventh Armies would attack Lemberg (Lvov) in Galicia; the Special Army and Third Army would attack Vladimir Volyinsk and Kovel. The Eighth Army would assist the right wing of the Romanian Army, which would advance out of the Carpathians.

The offensive was supposed to be launched in April. In preparation the Russian army was reorganized by increasing the number of infantry divisions. To do this battalions were taken from existing infantry divisions. The 16 battalions in a division were reduced to 12; the four leftover battalions were combined with eight other battalions taken from other divisions, thus forming a new division. As rifles were supplemented with machine guns, the theoretical firepower of the new 12-battalion divisions was the same as the firepower of the old 16-battalion divisions. Sixty new divisions were created, attached to existing army corps so that each corps now had three divisions instead of two. This solved the problem of finding staff for the new divisions.

To provide artillery for the new divisions, modern field guns were taken from quiet areas and replaced with obsolete models. Cavalry was increased from one battalion per division to one three-battalion regiment per division. The cavalrymen were dismounted and their horses given to the artillery.

The reorganization wasn't successful, because the new divisions became dumping grounds for older, physically unfit, or incompetent soldiers. It's likely that even if the revolution hadn't happened, the offensive wouldn't have succeeded. The Kerensky Offensive of July 1917 failed spectacularly, even though the Russian army had developed shock battalions and used new weapons such as trench guns, gas, and flamethrowers. By 1917 the Russian army was very dysfunctional. According to Cornish, the surprise attack of January 5, mentioned above, was carried out by the Twelfth Army without permission from Stavka, Russian Supreme Headquarters. The staff of the Twelfth Army and VI Siberian Corps launched the attack on their own initiative and informed Stavka later.

#11 marsyao

marsyao

    Sergeant-Major

  • Members2
  • 60 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 11:42 AM

That is shocking, never heard of that an army level offensive could be launched without approve, what is Cornish's source?

#12 Tom W.

Tom W.

    Lieut-Colonel

  • Old Sweats
  • 1,426 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 07:24 PM

View Postmarsyao, on 07 September 2011 - 11:42 AM, said:

That is shocking, never heard of that an army level offensive could be launched without approve, what is Cornish's source?
Unfortunately the book has no footnotes. He has a bibliography that includes several Russian-language books, but it's impossible to know where this specific information originated.  According to Cornish, "The attack surprised Stavka as much as the Germans."

#13 jwsleser

jwsleser

    Second Lieutenant

  • Old Sweats
  • 102 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Leavenworth, KS USA

Posted 07 September 2011 - 08:59 PM

Marsyo

I do not know Cornish’s source, but there is a misconception working here. The operation on the Aa was raid, not an army-level offensive. It involved three Russian divisions and it lacked a clear understanding of intent and purpose. Neither Gourko, Brusilov, nor Danilov mention this operation in their post-war writings. That should provide some indication of the level at which the operation was planned and executed. Knox mentions the attack in passing after the fact (volume 2 pages 517-18):

Quote

At Riga we learned something of the fighting that had taken place southwest of the town in the month of January. The operations were in three phases:

( a ) A Russian offensive, January 5th-10th.

( b ) A German counter-offensive, January 22nd-25th.

( c ) A further German counter-offensive January 30th-31st.

On the night of January 4th-5th, the 2nd and 1st Lett Brigades, eight battalions strong, broke through the enemy lines without artillery preparation, the bomb throwers moving in advance to cut the enemy’s wire. The 3rd Siberian Division on the right of the Letts failed in its surprise attack, and further right the 4th Special Division refused to leave its trenches. The Letts were not properly supported, but the fighting up to the10th resulted in the Germans being forced back a few kilometers.

On the 22nd the enemy, by a severe bombardment, drove the Russians back to a line slightly in advance of that occupied previous to the original Russian attack. On January 31st, after some days’ rest, he launched strong infantry attacks, which were repulsed with the bayonet. On the 31st he subjected the Russian line to a severe bombardment.

Radko, who had been everywhere in the thickest of the fighting, encouraging his men, waxed enthusiastic at dinner on February 10th over the “success” of his surprise tactics. He said that if he had had three or four corps in reserve he would have gone far. He issued a triumphant order, with elaborate instructions for the carrying out of further surprise attacks by night without artillery preparation, the enemy’s wire to be cut by hand.

Some members of Radko’s staff were less enthusiastic. On the active front from the Gulf to the village of Sarkanaiz the Russians had never less than ninety-two battalions, while the enemy had only twenty-two to twenty-five battalions on January 5th, and his strength never increased beyond sixty-four to seventy-one battalions. There is no doubt that the enemy was completely surprised, but the reason for undertaking the operation was not clear, for the Russians had insufficient troops of good quality on the spot to develop a real success. As it was, the attempt was only a raid, and it failed in the primary object of a raid--the improvement of the raiders’ morale--for it cost in Russian life and morale before the end of the month at least six times the damage it caused the enemy.

Operations of this nature are completely in line with the authority of an army commander. Gourko (page 272), speaking of plans for 1917 (as acting Chief of Staff at STAVKA), states “…we should prepare earlier for, and undertake, active operations on every front on a comparatively small sector of fifteen to twenty kilometers, not intending to penetrate the enemy’s position very deeply. The idea of such operations was to hold the Austro-German troops whose positions were on their east front.”

Radko’s operation fits this description. It failed as a pinning effort as shortly afterwards the Germans transferred two divisions from this area to the Western Front (Der Weltkrieg band 11 pages 404-405).

I feel this action highlights the current problems of the Russian Army and doesn’t indicate a resurgence of capability. Of the three Russian divisions involved, one succeeded, one failed, and one didn’t every try. The likely reason behind these results is personal leadership (though I can’t prove it at this time). The ability to create a professional force by means of discipline and training was, for now, lost and individual leadership/example was the only way to motive troops to follow orders. The highpoint for the army was the Brusilov Offensive; with the consistent criticism of that operation being the excessive Russian causalities after the initial period of success had ended.    

Phil

RE: Plans for 1917. I have not found anything to indicate that Southwest Front was the planned Spring offensive; it was certainly one part of a larger plan. Danilov (page 528-529) states the plan under discussion at the December 1916 meeting (held at Mohilev) had the main effort with the North and West Fronts. The planned line of operations was Mouraviovo-Kovno (the book is in French, so I need to check to see where Mouraviovo is as the name isn’t familiar). The Southwest Front was never seen as decisive (for good geographical reasons) and never figured as the main effort during the war. The Southwest Front attacks were likely supporting attacks; the same role assign to it in 1916 before Verdun.

Jeff

#14 marsyao

marsyao

    Sergeant-Major

  • Members2
  • 60 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 10:23 PM

According to Phil, this raid "It gained 4 miles, 8,000 prisoners and 36 guns in the first week", it would be an excellent result if only 3 Russian divisions involved, and 1 of the division refused to fight, But Cornish still would be wrong, since this was just a raid in an army's authority, how could "The attack surprised Stavka as much as the Germans." ?

#15 Tom W.

Tom W.

    Lieut-Colonel

  • Old Sweats
  • 1,426 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 11:56 PM

View Postmarsyao, on 07 September 2011 - 10:23 PM, said:

According to Phil, this raid "It gained 4 miles, 8,000 prisoners and 36 guns in the first week", it would be an excellent result if only 3 Russian divisions involved, and 1 of the division refused to fight, But Cornish still would be wrong, since this was just a raid in an army's authority, how could "The attack surprised Stavka as much as the Germans."?
I wish I could answer you. This is why I prefer books with footnotes.

#16 jwsleser

jwsleser

    Second Lieutenant

  • Old Sweats
  • 102 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Leavenworth, KS USA

Posted 08 September 2011 - 01:32 AM

After digging a little deeper, I found what Cornish was likely using as his source. Gourko does discuss the operation later in his book. His narrative tends to jump around a bit, so I needed to go further into the next chapter. Gourko discusses this event in pages 284-287.

Quote

Soon after returning to to Mohileff I received a telegram from General Russky, that he had authorized General Radko-Dmitrieff, the commander of the 12th Army, to begin a local advance to the south of Lake Babith. Such a telegram very much astonished me. Generals Kembovsky and Loukomsky and I examined the protocols made at the conference of Commanders-in-Chief. They came to this, that local advances on our various fronts would only be undertaken in the event our Allies on their side opening up active war operations during January or February; and that such operations should be held back by us as much as possible.


The telegram was received a day before before the operation was to commence. Gourko then goes on to explain why STAVKA didn’t cancel the operation (which they could have done) and then discusses the operation itself.

Two bits of information are offered here. While STAVKA was astonished, the operation was approved by the front commander, but the latter delayed informing STAVKA until shortly before the advance. Secrecy possibly played a part in this. Second, that the operation was planned as a local operation with no long term planning/effects.

Jeff

#17 jwsleser

jwsleser

    Second Lieutenant

  • Old Sweats
  • 102 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Leavenworth, KS USA

Posted 08 September 2011 - 02:16 AM

In terms of the planned 1917 Spring Offensive, I now have three different versions of the decision (or lack of) made the Commanders-in-Chief meeting held at Mohilev.

I have cited Danilov thoughts above that North and West Fronts were the main effort.

Brusilov states the Southwest Front was the main effort (Brusilov page 279).

Gourko states that no decison was made (page 267) "At the conference all the reasons for and against the advance on this or that front were discussed; but for the final decision as to which front would be chosen for the main operations and which would be secondary, it was decided that the Commanders-in-Chief of the army groups should be given special orders not later than towards the end of January from the Generalissimo when he should have all the details, in hand, and would be in  a position to make his final decision on the various alternatives placed before him.

I haven't found any comments that the Emperor made a decision in January.

Jeff

#18 PJA

PJA

    Brigadier-General

  • Old Sweats
  • 2,723 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 08 September 2011 - 08:24 AM

View Postjwsleser, on 07 September 2011 - 08:59 PM, said:

The operation on the Aa was raid, not an army-level offensive. Jeff

Thank you, Jeff.  This is an eye opener for me.

I must confess that when I read of eight thousand German prisoners being captured in a few days, I was taken back. : the Germans did not readily yield such numbers of prisoners, and least of all to the Russians.  This is more than the number claimed by the British at Messines five months later, which was regarded as a mighty achievement.

With the Austrians it was a different matter : they were captured by the Russians at ten times the rate of their German counterparts.

I cited the German casualty figures for the Western and Eastern Fronts in January 1917, and so I have decided to revisit them and check for evidence of thousands of PoWs.  The sanitatsbericht  tabulate  battle casualties on the Eastern Front in January 1917 : a figure of 30,214, of whom 1,177 were posted as missing or prisoners.
My suspicions have been aroused. Eight thousand Germans captured in the Baltic sector alone in a few days ?   Might that have been eight hundred ?

What do we have here : wishful thinking, outrageous propaganda, a genuine arithmetical error of an added zero, or a case of lost in translation ?

Phil (PJA)

#19 marsyao

marsyao

    Sergeant-Major

  • Members2
  • 60 posts

Posted 08 September 2011 - 11:47 AM

Thank you jwsleser, that makes much more sense.

#20 jwsleser

jwsleser

    Second Lieutenant

  • Old Sweats
  • 102 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Leavenworth, KS USA

Posted 08 September 2011 - 01:05 PM

RE: Size of the Russian attack. Both the Russian and German sources agree that only VI Siberian Corps was involved in the initial attack (5-7 January). DWK (band 11) has a two sketches of the attack (24 and 25)  

RE: Losses. As I  am not sure where the number 8000 prisoners came from, so I can’t comment.

Der Welkrieg gives the total German losses as 9,500 (DWK pages 401, 403, and 404). The losses in the initial fight (5-7 JAN) were 3,500 German to 23,000 Russians.  The second period (25-26 JAN) had 2,000 Germans to 2,000 Russians prisoners and 20 machineguns captured (no Russian losses given).  The final phase (30-31 JAN) had 4,000 German losses (again no Russian losses provided). Losses from the extreme cold are mentioned, but no numbers provided. As the cold is commented upon after the losses are provided, I am assuming they are not included in the above totals.

RE: Stavka surprise. From reading Gourko, I beleive the surprise wasn't the fact of a front launching an attack. Instead the issue was whether Russky had violated the guidance given at the December Commanders-in-Chief conference. Gourko's discussion of the issue centers on that element. Gourko understood why North Front delayed notification, so the issue is only whether Russky overstepped the plan.

Jeff

#21 marsyao

marsyao

    Sergeant-Major

  • Members2
  • 60 posts

Posted 08 September 2011 - 01:52 PM

The losses in the initial fight (5-7 JAN) were 3,500 German to 23,000
Do you mean 2,300 ? if a single amry Corp (actually 2 divisions) lost 20 thousands men in 2 days, it would hardly be counted as a fighting force.

#22 jwsleser

jwsleser

    Second Lieutenant

  • Old Sweats
  • 102 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Leavenworth, KS USA

Posted 08 September 2011 - 02:28 PM

marsyo

Remeber it is the German official account  ;)

Yes, 23,00 is correct (page 401). The VI Siberians had three divisions, plus a brigade from the II Siberians (this last was more a demostration than an active attack). These divisions still have four-battalion regiments, so you are looking at 36-48K troops available.

Gourko discusses the frozen ground, making is nearly impossible for the Russian soldiers to quickly dig-in. While the Russians had the catpured trenches, these were facing the wrong direction and the frozen ground limited imporvements. The Russians, not planning this to be anything big, didn't reinforcement the corps to any extent. The Germans did reinforce, especially in artillery, making the fight one-sided after the first day or two. Fighting did continue on the 8th, but it appears that is was more consolidation than heavy fighting. The losses provided are as the 9th.

Knox confirms the inbalance (see above "for it cost in Russian life and morale before the end of the month at least six times the damage it caused the enemy"). Six times the initial German loss places the Russian losses at 24K. Using 9,500 German losses, the final Russian losses could be near 50k.

Jeff

#23 John Gilinsky

John Gilinsky

    Brigadier-General

  • Old Sweats
  • 2,077 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto,Ontario Canada

Posted 08 September 2011 - 05:07 PM

Again the relevant larger formation such as divisional and up archives held in Russia should be the first and foremost primary source for settling this.  Perhaps a grad student in Russia could take a quick peak to see what casualty figures were reported as German casualties due to these 1917 Russian offensives officially!
John

#24 marsyao

marsyao

    Sergeant-Major

  • Members2
  • 60 posts

Posted 08 September 2011 - 05:16 PM

We do not have to accept Knox’s word literally, II Siberians Corps with 36 thousands to 48 thousands men originally, and without receiving large amount of reinforcement in the battle, to loss 50 thousands men would mean the II Siberians Corps was destroyed to the last man, that was unlikely, I guess maybe half of the estimation (25 thousands) would be more reasonable, I would ask Art at Axis history form, he may have the statics from Russian archive.



#25 PJA

PJA

    Brigadier-General

  • Old Sweats
  • 2,723 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 08 September 2011 - 05:39 PM

Casualties in the order of twenty five thousand ?  Maybe fifty thousand ?   For a raid ?

Wow !

Phil (PJA)



Reply to this topic