Maginot line

The 1940s French had alot of buried everything at their disposal. They also appeared to have a "deep and deeper bunkers mentality" where the defending army loses the will to fight offensively or to even defend in fluid situations.

Very true, but there is more to combat than size, especially after 1940 and the rise of mobile warfare. Numbers were not nearly as important as how the assets are used and how well trained the users are.

June 1941: German and Soviet forces are numerically equal. Soviets may have actually out numered the Germans in tanks and aircraft. Some Sovet tanks were actually superior.

1967 and 1973: Israelis are heavily out numbered and do not have a technological advantage

1973: Israelis place alot of confidence in their mini maginot line on the Suez. Purported "incompetents" quickly make breaches. Some Israeli fortifications are destroyed, others are simply bypassed.

Very true, but the defenders need to be strong everywhere, the attackers can concentrate. Tactically, the bunker army may feel it is winning, until breaches develop that they cant plug and the strategica battle goes mobile.

True, the by 1945 very experienced Soviets usually recommended 7-1 local advantages for break through attacks against fortified opponents.


Go check the statics on the late war and the soviets were only loseing 3 to 1 in battle loses by that time and the were on the offensive in 44 and 45 .
 

Cook

Banned
Go check the statics on the late war and the soviets were only loseing 3 to 1...

Cryptic was referring to the attacker/defender ratio preferred, not loss rations Ward.

For a comparison Allied (Anglo-American) Armies operated on a ratio of at least 3:1 when attacking where possible.
 
Possible plan for braching maginot line: Break through sectors are carefully selected, strongest parts of line are avoided, breaching troops and stuka squadrons train for years on similar terrain in Germany, tactics are developed, special equipment is developed etc etc


The day....

Massive feint bombardments on entire front to disquise breach setors for as long as possible etc etc.


-No WWI style bombardment, Squadrons of stukas protected by fighters and directed from ground and by special observation planes attack selected bunkers with ap bombs. Stukas have rapid turn around time, each squadron is assigned a specific bunker, strikes are continous. Relatively small, but accurate bombardments with heavy shells only crater ground immediatly around select bunkers

-No WWI style mass infantry charge. Only the bunkers directly preventing the passage of tanks are attacked. Special engineering batalions supported by the needed number of infantry batalions use flame throwers, developed armoured bull dozers, satchel charges etc. Smoke, phosperous shells locally blind bunkers, when possible, 88mm guns hit firing ports.

-ASAP armoured division goes through (maybe even at night). Manuver has been rehearsed for months, ground guides move tank columns around "active bunkers". Ground is not cratered like WWI. Some tank loses are accepted.

-Airborne division siezes carefully slected town ahead of breach. Lots of gas is landed ASAP. Special units converts grass fields into landing strips for more supply landings. Anti tank guns flown in. Armoured divison defeats French tanks operating in small groups. Reinforcing French infantry find themselves facing massed armour and scatters. Armoured divison links up with airborne division. Captured gas is used when possible

Back at the Breach...

-Initial assault batalions are replaced by duplicate units. Passing of armour, stuka strikes continue. Bunkers directly preveting the passage of motorized troops are assaulted. Motorized troops pass ASAP (at at night if feasible), losses are accepted.

-Fresh engineering units continue assault, breach gets bigger, but only as big as absolutely necessarry. Truck moubnted infantyr passes, losses are accepted, Bunkers are contained and bypassed whenever possible. Stukas strikes continue
 
Last edited:
Several ideas:

1) By attaining aerial superiority, Luftwaffe could prevent the french army concentrating forces for a counterattack using interdiction strikes on roads, rail, etc.

2) German assault teams can be supported by assault guns like Sturmgeschütz that are able to withstand french 47mm anti-tank guns if up-armoured to 80mm. Maybe could be developedStuH 42 variant with a 105mm gun earlier

3) Germany produced heavy armor piercing bombs (PC 500, PC 1000, PC 1600) that maybe could destroy Maginot bunkers. I have not exact information about this.

.
 

Cook

Banned
3) Germany produced heavy armor piercing bombs (PC 500, PC 1000, PC 1600) that maybe could destroy Maginot bunkers. I have not exact information about this.

.

Rest assured Tursiops, had they needed bombs powerful enough to breach the Maginot Line they would have had them; it’s not as though the French were going to throw it up overnight.

Instead of course, they just drove around it.
 
Top