What if the Russians focused their offensives in 1916 against Turkey & Bulgaria instead of Austria & Germany?

[raharris1973]

What if the Russians in 1916 reinforced their already successful offensives in Asia Minor against the Ottomans under Yudenich, keeping them going longer with more men, supplies, and ammunition until winter absolutely halts operations, and stayed on the defensive on the fronts ]opposite the Germans and Austro-Hungarians?
(see the western limits of the Russian advance in eastern Turkey in
1916: http://www.conflicts.rem33.com/images/The Caucasus/Cauco_Mesopotamia_WWI/Nr2_May_Jun_1916.jpg
and 1917: http://www.conflicts.rem33.com/images/The Caucasus/Cauco_Mesopotamia_WWI/Nr3_Jan_Mar_1917.jpg)

Yudenich outclassed his Ottoman opponents as a commander, and the Russians were of higher morale on the Ottoman front than the other fronts because they were winning. The Armenians in the ranks and Armenian volunteers were especially motivated in fighting the Turks. With more resources poured in in 1916, a year in which the Ottomans were also busy in Mesopotamia and Gallipolli, how much further could the Russians occupy, and could the Ottomans take the strain and keep on fighting into 1917, or collapse before then? Could the Russians, who made it to Trebizond and Bitlis in OTL, make it further to Sinope, or Ankara or the Mediterranean coast around Alexandretta or Cilicia, cutting off western Turkey from the Fertile Crescent to the south.

Also, with a more defensive posture towards Germany and Austria, the butcher's bill for the Russian forces should be less. The Brusilov offensive, and the German-led counterattacks afterward, were very costly for the Russian Army. Without the Brusilov offensive, and its costs, is the likehihood of Russia's February revolution decreased a great deal?

This does not mean Russia yields all the initiative to the enemy in the 1916 campaign. There could be an offensive target in Europe, but against the weakest Central Powers' link, Bulgaria. This only becomes possible once Romania joins the war in August 1916.
The Russian forces not devoted to manning the defenses against the Germans and Austrians are sent southwest to focus on reinforcing Romanian frontiers to hold the passes against the Austro-Hungarians once the Romanians declare war on the CP, while deploying the Russian offensive reserve, and encouraging the initial Romanian offensive focus, to be all into knocking out Bulgaria from the war. Hit the weakest of the CPs on their flank, and protect the most productive parts of Romania.

Between combined heavy Russian and Romanian pressures from the north, and lesser pressures from the western allies from Salonika in the south, Bulgaria should be beatable in 1916, and once Bulgaria is bested, the way is opened for threatening Turkish Thrace/Constantinople and for reviving Serbia.

That's the potential upside for Russia and the Entente.

However, the Brusilov offensive of OTL did alot of damage to the Austro-Hungarians before it was over, and made it highly dependent on the Germans for the rest of the war. It also encouraged the Romanians to join the war on the Entente side. The French and Italians were very happy to see the Russians doing an offensive push in Europe in 1916 and thought it vital.

Without the Russians going on the offensive in Galicia in 1916, do the Austro-Hungarians have a serious chance of breaking the Italians? Could they inflict a Caporetto like defeat, or worse, knock the Italians out of the war? Would the Germans, lacking a need to save the Austrians, be able to damage the French more critically at Verdun?

What shape would all these changes in 1916 leave the combatants in for 1917 and 1918?

 

[raharris1973]

Russian efforts against Bulgaria are just as important as against the Ottomans here. But, Russia, lacking a common border with Bulgaria, can't do much to it without Romania in the war, which didn't happen in OTL until late August 1916.

However, maybe if Russia intended to go after Bulgaria and could get over itself, it could have persuaded Romania to enter the war earlier?

In the spirit of the OP, I would propose that at some point shortly after Bulgaria enters the war (October 1915) that Russia become an enthusiastic champion of early Romanian entry into the war, to get at that rascally upstart traitorous new Central Power, Bulgaria, and support Entente agreement to Romanian territorial demands against Austria-Hungary, while also pressing the Romanians to enter the war using their "Hypothesis B" operational plan for taking out Bulgaria first instead of Hypothesis Z, Hypothesis Z - Wikipedia, which they finally adopted over spring/summer 1916 which focused on Transylvania first and defending versus Bulgaria. The Romanians wanted Russian troop help in Dobruja for "Hypothesis B" and they should get it ASAP. I wonder if with enough concentration, diplomacy, and planning, the Russians could have convinced the Romanians to join them for a winter 1915-1916 campaign across the Danube against the Bulgarians, counting on the Hungarians not being able to cross the Transylvanian alps that season. That could give a nasty shock to the Bulgarians occupying the part of their country north of the Balkan or Rhodope mountains, and pose a threat to the exhausted Ottomans again, barely a moment after the final evacuation of the Gallipoli force (9 January, 1916), or even a little before it.

Romanian odds of surviving the 1916 campaign are better with attacking v. Bulgaria, defending v. Transylvania first rather than the other way around (as in OTL), because it better protects their capital and economic heartland on more level ground. An offensive sweep into northern Bulgaria while doing no more in Transylvania than trying to seize and hold the Transylvanian alpine passes is a better first phase operation for the operation for the Romanians and Entente as a whole, claiming the Transylvanian loot, the objective Romania really desires most, can come in a subsequent campaign after the south is secured.

 

[PsihoKekec]

You would need to have someone intelligent enough convince Nicky to cancel the offensive operations against Germany and focus on Turks and and AH (problem is that French military mission would be against it).
This way troops and material earmarked for these offensive go to Brusilov and Yudenich, especially after Yudenich captured Trabazon. With Turkish forces in disarray after these defeats, how would Yudenich proceed? Advancing towards Mesopotamia to eventually link up with the British is probably a folly, I reckon the best course of action would be for the main force to advance along the Black sea coast for easier logistics, with secondary forces covering the flanks, they could also launch a limited offensive during the winter, to prevent Ottomans from consolidating.

Meanwhile the Brusilov offensive would smash up the AH frontline, drawing in the German forces to bail them out and getting Romania into war, with reserve Russian forces being at hand to bolster them, so Bulgarians are more pressed there, thus battle of Kajmakčalan on Salonika front perhaps turns into breakthrough, that puts Bulgarians into in even worse state. This means Bulgaria could be knocked out of the war in 1917, followed by Turkey, which would mean that AH would have it's Southern flank wide open, necessitating considerable German involvement.

Without the Russians going on the offensive in Galicia in 1916, do the Austro-Hungarians have a serious chance of breaking the Italians?

Not really, the Strafexpedition was running out of steam due to strained logistics, before it was called off due to Brusilov offensive, so it was very unlikely they could breach the new Italian defensive positions if the carried on, it would be just a waste of men and material.

 

[ATP]

Victory over Turkey,and free Dardanele in 1917.No revolution.In 1918 we have still tsarist Russia with small puppet Poland,just like after 1945.
And puppet slavic nations in Balkans,Czech ,too/althought they would love that/

WW2 end quickly under russian boots.Puppet Poland get some more german land.Germany probable divided again.
And we live in world where first economy is Russia,not China.And speak russian,not english on internet.

 

[Buba]

Interesting. I did not know about the Southern Plan.
Logistics - there are exactly two single track RR's between Russia and Romania. With break of gauge.
There is a third, with transhipment via ferry.
Then, between Romania and Bulgaria, there is one ferry link. Plus I think there is a narrow gauge line from Constanza into Bulgaria, fed by the port and single-track bridge over the Danube.
This, plus the general tempo of WWI offensives, leads me to expect the best case scenario for the all-conquering Russo-Romanian armies to be stuck in the Balkan Mountains (see war of 1877-78).
Still this draws off Bulgarian forces from the "self inflicted POW camp" of the Salonika front, maybe allowing for their breakout and link up with the unstoppable Romanian steamroller. But I'd not get my hopes up.
I agree that the French would cry bloody murder over lack of offensive on the Eastern Front and use their influence and bribes in the Russian establishment to torpedo the Go South Young Man Plan.
But if among the British the pushers of the ankle biting strategy aka "Easterners" (Churchill et al) such a plan might gain support from the London-Paris Axis. Did the French have their "Easterners" too?

@ATP makes some good points - not in 1916, but indeed in 1917 The Straits might be threatened. Besides this attracting Turkish forces from the ME there would be no trickle of German/A-H weaponry and specialist troops, maybe leading to earlier fallbacks from Mesopotamia, Palestine and Armenia?

With the Russian Govt' having something to show for 1916 maybe there is no February 1917 Revolution? However, I'm not sure if the inflow of war materiel and other supplies through the now open Straits saves the regime.
Would availability of Oddessa and Rostov add much to what in OTL had come in through Archangielsk, Vladivostok/Dalien and the newly available Murmansk? Anybody have any figures?
From what I've read Russia's main problem (A-H's too) was the misuse and abuse of the transport system, ultimately leading their societal collapse in 1917 and 1918. Hence having more ports open might not automatically translate into better military or economic fortunes.

With Turkey cut off and/or Bulgaria partly overrun, a new front along the southern Carpathians, maybe some dickheads in Berlin and/or Vienna are more amenable to a White Peace?
Then again the dickheads in Paris, London and Sankt Peterburg would be high on victory disease and present impossible demands.
Gib Alsace-Lorraine - yeah, so plausible with the Germans in Laon ...