Does anyone happen to know what the defences were like at Calais during the fall of France in 1940? I have part of post from the old soc.history.what-if list that was mostly talking about the Great War which said,
but unfortunately I'm unable to find the thread again as the search function doesn't seem to want to co-operate. So first off does anyone know how accurate this is, and secondly what the defences were like in 1940? The bit about the citadel being able to withstand dive bombing certainly suggest it might have been a tough nut to crack. I was half wondering how hard it might of been to take in our timeline, but also if it had had a little bit of money spent on it during the interwar years. Thanks.
Airey Neave in 'The Flames of Calais', which is an account of its capture by the Germans in 1940, goes into more details on the fortifications. The centre of these was the Citadel, begun in 1560 and enlarged by Vauban in 1680. In 1940, it proved stout enough to withstand dive bombers. There was a fortified line of twelve bastions linked by ramparts and earthworks, all of which were built between 1880 and 1900. This line was surrounded by a deep ditch, and enclosed all the urban and suburban areas of Calais. It measured just over three miles (about five km).
The seafront defences had been rebuilt at the same time as the bastions were built. There was Fort Risban (known in Tudor times as Fort Rysbank) which dominated the harbour, and other batteries at Fort Lapin to the west and the Bastion de l'Estran to the east. Unfortunately, I don't know what guns were mounted in these forts in 1914. In 1940, there were only four obsolete heavy (8-inch ??) and four medium (6-inch ??) guns, but this was after a long period of neglect of the defences. I suspect that in 1914, the forts would have at least mounted something capable of worrying a battleship.
There were also some outlying defence works. Fort Nieulay was a smaller version of the Citadel, and lay less than a mile from the western perimeter. Fort Vert was over two miles away to the east. In 1914 there may have been other works to the south, and outposts on the high ground around Coquelles, three miles to the south-west.
Again, I don't know the details of the garrison in 1914, but the seafront defences and batteries would have been manned by naval personnel, the perimeter defences by Territorials and reservists.
The important point is that this port would not have been easily captured from the sea, provided that the defenders stood firm. The batteries were stout enough to require heavy bombardment by battleships to silence them. Landing troops in small boats inside or near the harbour would be suicidal unless the batteries were silenced or abandoned. Landing on safe beaches to the west or east would certainly be possible, but the attackers would then face an intact line of permanent fortifications. They would need to land medium or heavy artillery to breach these (or achieve unheard-of standards of liaison between the ground troops and bombarding vessels).
but unfortunately I'm unable to find the thread again as the search function doesn't seem to want to co-operate. So first off does anyone know how accurate this is, and secondly what the defences were like in 1940? The bit about the citadel being able to withstand dive bombing certainly suggest it might have been a tough nut to crack. I was half wondering how hard it might of been to take in our timeline, but also if it had had a little bit of money spent on it during the interwar years. Thanks.