The Maginot Line was not meant to be unbreakable. Just to corral German offensives into a narrower frontage and to buy time for French mobilization so they wouldn't get ganked in the middle of that process like they were in 1870.
does the Atlantic Wall stand a chance?
- Thread starter Orko
- Start date
The simple answer to your question is that to defeat to USSR they need to be a lot stronger (on a variety of fields). If they're that much stronger they probably don't even need the Atlantikwall.
Or the Axis not going to war with USSR at all, but keeping the non aggression pact and associated economic relationship including the oil supplies going
How long would it have taken the WAllies to defeat the Axis in such a scenario?
Does the Atlantic Wall stand a chance?
What are the the effectiveness of either 'Tall Boy' or 'Grand Slam' bombs on these Atlantic Wall positions if they're used? If they are effective then the wall is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard
What are the the effectiveness of either 'Tall Boy' or 'Grand Slam' bombs on these Atlantic Wall positions if they're used? If they are effective then the wall is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard
The Atlantic Wall would work if the Germans had won on the Eastern Front and could devote proper manpower and Air forces in the West to man the wall.
Yeah I reckon this would probably be true. They'd have the majority of their army in and around France to respond to allied incursions and at least aerial parity. But yeah short of somehow defeating the USSR the Atlantic Wall was always going to crack
If Italy stays neutral and there's no African or Italian campaign, but the Eastern Front goes more or less otl, do the Germans have the resources to man the Atlantic Wall, or do the Allies just do D-Day a year earlier since there's no Mediterranean Campaign?
Nobody mentioned Rommel's strategy of putting the reserves right behind the beach? Or Hitler not falling for fake/decoy intelligence about the invasion being near Calais instead of Normandy?
As discussed in other threads with the USSR knocked out of the war OTL’s Overlord would be postponed by several years and the WAllies would likely end up using nuclear weapons in a tactical role. Operation Olympic would pale in comparison.
The trouble there is that unless protected from naval gunfire and aerial attacks, then there won't be much to respond with.
The deception was telling Hitler what he wanted to believe which is very hard to be sceptical of. Even then the mobile reserves probably wouldn't have stopped the invasion - likely got stuck in traffic jams, run out of resources. And at some point there will be nothing left to counter an allied breakout. So broadly as OTL [1] but slower with higher casualties earlier on and faster and with lower casualties later.
[1] OTL Caen wasn't taken on schedule but managed to chew up and occupy German reserves. ITTL this would more likely than not be a bigger and slower mess, but one that still pins then ultimately destroys the German reserves.
Could the wall be sort of a success if it was a lot shorter? Don't waste anything on the Channel Islands, no Festung Norway, have the 400k men from Norway as the reaction force behind the Normandy to Calais section, that sort of thing.
Germany is still losing regardless, but could you say an Atlantic wall technically worked in that scenario? A Maginot Line style success were it achieves its limited aim even if the building side still loses. "The purpose of the wall was to stop the Allies landing in Northern France and it did that. They went via Norway and Denmark instead."
Germany is still losing regardless, but could you say an Atlantic wall technically worked in that scenario? A Maginot Line style success were it achieves its limited aim even if the building side still loses. "The purpose of the wall was to stop the Allies landing in Northern France and it did that. They went via Norway and Denmark instead."
I believe he wanted to put them closer forward because, unlike most german generals, he had first hand experience of western air power. Most german COs had only experienced soviet air power; up to that point, annoying but not strategy-breaking. Not so Rommel, so he had a clearer idea of the problems of trying to move entire divisions hundreds of kms.
It's a simple question but:
1) It needs a "how" and "when" to clarify the scenario
2) Without them it's impossible to answer
3) The probable solution for the WAllies is to obtain air supremacy (which will take longer than OTL) and use nukes.
That is Germany giving up its iron ore supply and as you pointed out yourself giving up on a forward position on the approach to Germany itself. It's a no go in any scenario, Germany is still trying to conduct the war to its best abilities, not just hand over the win to the Western Allies
I didn't say it was a good option, just a 'make the Atlantic Wall do a job successfully' option.
That said, I wonder how much Norway could have been weakened compared to OTL. 400k and all the forts were excessive, so there has to be a point between that and abandonment which frees up troops but doesn't make Norway temptingly empty. All those men and resources could have been more useful almost anywhere else, even if the final result wouldn't change.
Tallboy Medium could seriously damage many of the structures, Tallboy Large (Slam) would render them unusable. That was Harris' greatest folly; not that he focussed on cities instead of industry, but that he didn't support Wallis until he was shown the Upkeep trials footage. That meant that Slams weren't used until March 1945, by which time many of the intended targets had been overrun by ground troops.
Just one of the objectives destroyed was the Valentin U-boat complex. Photographs in the article show typical damage when dropped onto concrete. More effective was often to drop the bomb onto the earth adjacent to the structure, causing a crater up to 125' in diameter and 30' deep into which the attacked structure would drop or topple.
If I recall concepts for 10 to bombs even existed as early as 1940 but Wallis was ignored for a while.
Last edited:
400K from Norway is not 400K decent troops, by 1944 a lot of the formations are quite immobile, only good as static garrison. Add in giving up Norway means letting the allies have another front to hit Germany from the air, which means more Luftwaffe in Denmark/Northern Germany, not good for the defence of France.