Belgian Maignot Line?

Belgium under Leopold III had a very self-destructive foreign and military policy, in my opinion. One of the least explored, but most potent PODs for World War II is delaying Leopold's succession. (His predecessor died in a quite avoidable accident and could easily have lived well into World War II).

Leopold did an awful lot of things wrong, including the dumb defensive deployments. Two of the worst things he did though, were:

(1) Ordering Belgian forces out of Belgian portion of the Ardennes when the German attack started. Worse than that: they blew bridges and created obstacles, but didn't try to do any kind of rear-guard defenses behind them. The demolitions delayed the French coming in to defend the Ardennes more than they did the Germans. The impact of the Belgian withdrawal was huge. In one case where German bombing destroyed communications and a trivial-sized (one company I think) Belgian force didn't get the order to withdraw, they held up an entire Panzer division for around a day at one of the choke-points. The French were counting on it taking the Germans around ten days to fight their way across the Ardennes. But that assumed Belgian resistance, which for the most part didn't happen.

If it had taken the Germans even six days to get to the Meuse river instead of three, the battle for France would have had a very different complexion. Give the French time to stabilize their line in Belgium, get Ninth Army set up along the Meuse River, and give the French time to start getting the mobile units that had screened the infantry advance into Belgium back into reserve, and I don't know if the Germans win. It certainly leads to a much more hard-fought battle.

(2) Surrendering Belgian forces while giving the French and British very little notice. That turned a very bad military situation into a hopeless one. If you look at the battle lines before and after Belgian surrender it is pretty obvious that the surrender cost the Allies dearly--left them in a militarily hopeless situation and lucky to get anybody out.
 
the Belgium defensive fortress line was planned as Northern extention of Margnot line
but lack of money, lack of interest in Military, and Goverment belief in Belgium neutrality
and Leopold III sympathy for fascism doom the project from beginn.

next to that had The Duke of Windsor (also sympathy for fascism) gave information to Third Reich
In February 1940, the German Minister in The Hague, Count Julius von Zech-Burkersroda, claimed that the Duke had leaked the Allied war plans for the defence of Belgium.[67] When Germany invaded the north of France in May 1940,
Source: Wiki

I wonder wat happen if Albert I. was not a accident victim in 1934
IMHO he never give the order to build the defensive fortress line and put the money in modern Infantry, Tanks and strong Airforce.
Give the Wehrmacht and Hitler allot of Problems in 1940
 
the Belgium defensive fortress line was planned as Northern extention of Margnot line
but lack of money, lack of interest in Military, and Goverment belief in Belgium neutrality
and Leopold III sympathy for fascism doom the project from beginn.

next to that had The Duke of Windsor (also sympathy for fascism) gave information to Third Reich

Source: Wiki

I wonder wat happen if Albert I. was not a accident victim in 1934
IMHO he never give the order to build the defensive fortress line and put the money in modern Infantry, Tanks and strong Airforce.
Give the Wehrmacht and Hitler allot of Problems in 1940
We had no way to know but I have the feeling that yes the invasion would have been really differend.
 
If their the Germans could have been stopped in Belgium, that would have meant a very different World War II. There would have been a World War I like stalemate but with tanks not trenches. I wonder if the makes the Japanese more cautious. this makes it more difficult for the US to enter the war. Although German submarine attacks could have moved American public opinion like they did in 1917. Although I think Hitler would have known not send a Zimmerman telegram. If the US does get into the war, the yanks lead their allies in a 1918 style advance but Hitler does not give up until they take Berlin. Speaking of VE day, Hitler is too distracted to invade the Soviet Union. So we would have a very different Post War World.
OF course, ITTL the plots against Hitler would have a better chance of succeeding.
 
there OTL way how Leopold III Belgium had Fight the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe in 1940
command chaos in Fortresses, Refusal to cooperate with the Western Alliance in sake of Belgium neutrality
the Belgium Airforce had to wait on purchase orders shipment (no Joke)
of 250 antiquated aircraft only 50 double decker were fighters
while antiquated Infantry went out on ...bicycles !
and had 9 (NINE) "Renault AMC 35" tanks, 35 "Renault FT-17/18" mini tanks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC_35#Belgium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_FT
and 200 armoured fighting vehicles
most of Carden Loyd tankette http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carden_Loyd_tankette
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Belgium#Belgian_forces
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Army_1940

Under King Albert I of Belgium
close cooperation with the Western Alliance (NOT neutrality)
already strong Airforce build up, purchase of Spitfires or even build under licences?
a modern Infantry who move in trucks or tankette
equipped with FN Mle D Model DA1bar (M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle)
and a Anti-tank rifle build by FN
100 Renault ACG-2 tank (tank destroyer with 75 mmø gun) build under licences
100 Renault FT-18

had This made the invasion would have been really differend?
yes and No
first the Wehrmacht Luftwaffe and Hitler got nasty suprise by Belgium
while Army Group B & A (Sixth, ninth, fourth army) got heavy loses
the Twelfth Second, Sixteenh Army have to go reinforcement
while the French Army and British has time to organize a conter attack
but in time the Eighteenth Army under general Küchler invade Netherlands
and move from north in back of Belgium forces fighting the Wehrmacht.
while the sixth Army try to move back and around Maastricht

here comes POD: France take defensiv attitude
in that case the Wehrmacht can encirclement the Belgium forces in Ardennen
I have doubt that the British Expeditionary Force has power to rescue the Belgians
here the Wehrmacht wins, but the nimbus of invincibility of Wehrmacht is lost.

in POD: France attack the Wehrmach in Belgium Ardennen
the Twelfth, Second, Sixteenh Army get under two front attack and have to retreat
also the Eighteenth and Sixth armys got BEF and french First Army in Back
get under two front attack and have to retreat
Ninth, fourth army have to support the retreat 5 armys and get heavy loses
BEF, Belgiums and French forces followed them toward the Third Reich
and capture the Wehrmacht Ninth, fourth army

mean time in Wolfsschanze Bunker, Hitler rampages
Fall Gelb is a disaster, His greath War ends with France, Belgium, British Forces at the Reichs borders
Fall Rot (invasion of France) is in actual fact impossible
Hitler vociferates his general staff "How do get ME out this mess ?!"
Otto Wilhelm von Menges answered back the Fürher
"if we attack true Switzerland and open a second front in south France they have recall the french force at the Reichs borders..."
 
We had a promising airplane and car industry that the gov of that time never judged good to support...
 
DaleCoz, actually the Belgian surrender came as no surprise to Lord Gort and the BEF whose preparations for that event were probably the best that could be hoped for given the situation.

The French claim that this was a complete shock to them was Weygand and other French officers showing that they were already more interested in finding scapegoats than in turning the battle around.


The German drive was well on the way to cutting the Belgians off from their allies at the time of the surrender and the ability of the Belgian army to withdraw towards the British and French was very doubtful.

In addition to lacking the motor pool to withdraw they were running low on ammunition and other basic needs while defending a line substantially longer than they were supposed to under terms with the French and such a move, even if possible, would have meant abandoning Belgium and the estimated two million Belgian civilians pinned on the coast with only days of food left.

Likewise those conditions rendered a final stand on the coast of Belgium unlikely to last for long or enjoy much success.


At the time the Belgians had several issues to consider and their estimate of them all was negative:

No hope of a Belgian evacuation.

No point in a Belgian evacuation.

No hope of resisting for long without such an evacuation.

No faith in the ability of the French to carry on.

No faith in the will of the French to carry on.

No faith in the ability of the English to carry on.

No faith in the will of the English to carry on.


In the case of English will the Belgians were wrong. In every other category they were correct but they fought until their own lines were broken beyond hope of recovering. That they should have taken further losses, particularly among the civilian refugees, for the BEF(already evacuating) or the French(moving from one inept commander to the next) is questionable.



Michael Van, no, no evidence of the Duke of Windsor doing such a thing has ever been found. Neither can Leopold III be blamed for the decisions of the entire Belgian government not to spend more on armaments for an extended period of time, particularly on Spitfires which would absolutely not have been available to Belgium as the British had only produced a few hundred for themselves by the time the Battle of Britain had begun.
 
In fact Belgium did have a very effective anti-tank gun available in force, the 47mm FRC model 31, with 32 for each regular division and 24 for each reserve division.

In addition 150 tank destroyers with the same 47mm gun were in service.

Lastly 75 modern AMC-35 light tanks to be requipped with the 47mm gun had been ordered from Renault. Of that order placed in 1937(!) 12 had arrived.
 
thx for comment Grimm Reaper

about 150 "47mm gun" they were pulled by Carden Loyd tankette
that mean cumbersome unhandily use on Battlefield, lethal under Blitzkrieg attack

of the 12 AMC 35 were 9 operational in 1940
it sad that the Renault "AMC 35" was not build under licences in Belgium
150 AMC 35 with "47mm gun" had much better survivability as Carden Loyd tankette...
 
Yeah, the AMC-35s that were supposed to go to Belgium were a major failure of French industry/design. On paper the AMC-35 design looks considerably more useful than the light tanks like the H35/R35/FMC-35 that the French actually got in sort of mass production. Two-man turret, and either gun variant would have been more useful than the low-velocity World War I relics on most of the Rxx and H3x series of tanks.

I've never seen a definitive answer as to what went wrong with AC-35 design, though several sources mentioned mechanical issues and one source mentioned in passing that though the tank had an adequate theoretical cross-country range, in the real world it was a bad enough fuel hog that it ran out of gas within a matter of minutes traveling across country. Can't vouch for that last bit. My understanding is that it had a cut-down version of the engine that went into the B1-series tanks, which would go along with the gas-hog idea.
 
Top