PC: A German Maginot Line?

CaliGuy

Banned
Had WWI been completely avoided, would it have been possible for Germany to eventually build a Maginot Line-style defensive line on its eastern and/or western borders?

Also, what would the effects of this have been?
 

Deleted member 1487

Had WWI been completely avoided, would it have been possible for Germany to eventually build a Maginot Line-style defensive line on its eastern and/or western borders?

Also, what would the effects of this have been?
Probably wouldn't need to make one that crazy strong, but they did have an 'East Wall' already built in 1914 and had a less intense one in the west; they were supposed to build one in 1901, but the Kaiser's advisor (von Einem?) talked him out of it. By WW1 they could have had a East and West Wall if they wanted.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Probably wouldn't need to make one that crazy strong, but they did have an 'East Wall' already built in 1914 and had a less intense one in the west; they were supposed to build one in 1901, but the Kaiser's advisor (von Einem?) talked him out of it. By WW1 they could have had a East and West Wall if they wanted.
Wouldn't the change in the balance of power (due to Russia's growing strength--even if Britain has a rapprochement with Germany) necessitate the building of stronger German defensive lines in this TL, though?

Also, was the proposed German Westwall going to extend up to the Atlantic Ocean or only up to the Belgian border?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
For the record, the logic behind extremely strong German defenses in this TL is this--if Germany has extremely strong fortifications, then France and Russia would be unlikely to quickly win a war against Germany. In turn, if France and Russia can't quickly win a war against Germany, they would be unlikely to win a war against Germany at all due to the fact that, the longer the war lasts, the more troops Britain and its empire would be able to send to Germany (I'm assuming an Anglo-German alliance occurs after 1917 in this TL due to growing Russian military power). Meanwhile, if France and Russia can't win a war against Germany, they would be disinclined to start a war against Germany in the first place.

In other words, having extremely strong defenses is a huge win for Germany because it discourages the French and Russians from going to war with Germany.
 
The cities of Metz & Straussberg were ringed in a thick belt of fortresses. In 1914 By coincidence the high capacity railways between Germany and France were concentrated through these two hubs. Any army that advanced north to the Ruhr, or east across the Rhine had to possess both these rail hubs.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
The cities of Metz & Straussberg were ringed in a thick belt of fortresses. In 1914 By coincidence the high capacity railways between Germany and France were concentrated through these two hubs. Any army that advanced north to the Ruhr, or east across the Rhine had to possess both these rail hubs.
How did the French plan on capturing these rail hubs in 1914?
 
I dont know how the French intended to capture these two cities.

They had approximately four brigades of heavy artillery, designed back in the 1870s that were 'adaquate' for old brick and mortar forts, but proved incapable vs reinforced concrete. All the modern artillery on hand were the light 75mm gun. The pioneer regiments dont seem to have training or equipment for attacking fortresses at the necessary level of effect.

Looking at the blue arrows on the maps in the books it appears two of the French armies were to envelop Metz & somehow capture it with their corps of light infantry and artillery.
 
The 'wall' would have to cover the entire western border. With the Maginot line, Belgium and the Netherlands were ostensibly allies, so building defenses along those borders was unacceptable. For Germany, the whole western border is a potential invasion route. It might offend neutral powers, but I think the Reich would assert that it has a right to fortify its borders even with neutral countries, to act as a deterrent to war and hopefully keep the peace. (Or, however else it could be managed diplomatically.)

If it came to war between Germany and France, then France would have to try to hold the Germans at a line similar to OTL (in the less desirable case) or some kilometers west of the 'wall' (ideally). They don't have to occupy German territory to win the war, unless they win quickly, which with a defensive line in place they will not do. In other words, the line would guarantee a war of attrition.
 

Deleted member 1487

I dont know how the French intended to capture these two cities.

They had approximately four brigades of heavy artillery, designed back in the 1870s that were 'adaquate' for old brick and mortar forts, but proved incapable vs reinforced concrete. All the modern artillery on hand were the light 75mm gun. The pioneer regiments dont seem to have training or equipment for attacking fortresses at the necessary level of effect.

Looking at the blue arrows on the maps in the books it appears two of the French armies were to envelop Metz & somehow capture it with their corps of light infantry and artillery.
They had developed a bunch of modern Schneider 105/155mm howitzers, but had only managed to buy and field a little over 100 by the time the war started; they had just started an artillery modernization program and IIRC had mounted some unused 350mm naval cannons on rail carriages as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_de_105_mle_1913_Schneider
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obusier_de_155_mm_CTR_modèle_1904
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_de_305_mm_modèle_1893/96
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_de_340_mm/45_modèle_1912
 
Unfortunatly for the French all those were to few, and mostly to light. Arguments for production of medium & heavy artillery had been dismissed until 1913. In 1914 they did not have the mass of 21cm, 30cm, & 42cm siege cannon the Germans fielded. Neither were the French cognizant of which ammunition designs were the more appropriate, or had the techniques for combined infantry artillery assaults of fortified positions.
 

Deleted member 1487

Unfortunatly for the French all those were to few, and mostly to light. Arguments for production of medium & heavy artillery had been dismissed until 1913. In 1914 they did not have the mass of 21cm, 30cm, & 42cm siege cannon the Germans fielded. Neither were the French cognizant of which ammunition designs were the more appropriate, or had the techniques for combined infantry artillery assaults of fortified positions.
No, it hadn't been dismissed, it just was starting with increased spending on howitzers and the like starting in 1913. Procurement plans were meant to take several years. Their big problem was the flawed idea that 105mm/155mm guns were only army level weapons, while the Germans had 105mm howitzers down to the division level.
I'd say the heavy rail guns of the 300mm and above variety were plenty to tackle a fort. Not sure what their shell design situation was.
As it was the German 42cm guns were pretty crap in practice and it was only their luck that they had the 35cm Austrian guns on loan to help them in Belgium.
 

Redbeard

Banned
Fortifications doesn't have to cover the entire potential front to be effective but they can channel an enemy offensive to a place where you then can focus your mobile forces. But you of course still have to win the battle outside the fortifications and not have your mobile forces cut off like the French 1st army and the BEF in 1940.

In that context I agree that a "no WWI Germany" probably would build fortifications and for exactly the reasons CaliGuy explain in post # 4.

Without the WWI experience I do wonder however how these fortifications would look. I guess not quite as massive as the OTL Maginot line but perhaps more like modernised Verdun forts?
 
There was active opposition from General Micheal during his tenure as vice chairman of the CSG. He prefered the existing Rimailho heavy cannon. There was bureaucratic opposition within the ordnance dept & procurement depts. & the artillery was dominated by those who thought the 75mm gun was all that was needed. At that the Obusier de 155mm CTR modele 1904 was relatively immobile, was shorter range than contemporaries in that caliber & was insignificant in production. Between its acceptance date in 1904 & the end of 1912 84 had been accepted in another 19 months the total had only reached 104. Beyond that cannon of 155mm caliber are of marginal use vs the modern steel reinforced concrete fortress carpace.

Neither the Canon de 305 mm modèle 1893/96 or the Canon de 340 mm/45 modèle 1912 were available to the Army for field use in 1914. Their conversion onto railway carriages was not complete until much later. The elderly 24cm howitzers from the DeBange era were too inaccurate, slow in RoF, and lacked modern ammunition. I'm unsure if any were even assigned to any artillery regiments in 1914. They may have all been in storage with the rest of the discarded DeBange weapons.
 
For the record, the logic behind extremely strong German defenses in this TL is this--if Germany has extremely strong fortifications, then France and Russia would be unlikely to quickly win a war against Germany. In turn, if France and Russia can't quickly win a war against Germany, they would be unlikely to win a war against Germany at all due to the fact that, the longer the war lasts, the more troops Britain and its empire would be able to send to Germany (I'm assuming an Anglo-German alliance occurs after 1917 in this TL due to growing Russian military power). Meanwhile, if France and Russia can't win a war against Germany, they would be disinclined to start a war against Germany in the first place.

In other words, having extremely strong defenses is a huge win for Germany because it discourages the French and Russians from going to war with Germany.

Funny thing, if the British didn't hate the Kaiser, without WW1, as Russia grows stronger they look more menacing to the British and this alliance sems plausible. It's an earlier POD, but some people discusse it in my thread

http://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/fashoda-and-an-anglo-german-alliance.423542/
 
Its odd. the French had conducted extensive tests proving the brick & mortar forts were obsolete, and they had built some well designed defenses, resistant to 15 & 17cm caliber projectiles. Even 20cm projectiles would not guarantee destruction against the best French designs. But on mobilization they had nothing fielded that could swiftly defeat the Metz fortresses. Neither is there any solid evidence their infantry had trained in effective combined arms tactics for operating with any heavy artillery.
 
Its odd. the French had conducted extensive tests proving the brick & mortar forts were obsolete, and they had built some well designed defenses, resistant to 15 & 17cm caliber projectiles. Even 20cm projectiles would not guarantee destruction against the best French designs. But on mobilization they had nothing fielded that could swiftly defeat the Metz fortresses. Neither is there any solid evidence their infantry had trained in effective combined arms tactics for operating with any heavy artillery.
It's probably for political reason. The politicians wanted wage a war against Germany but they were very reluctant to give to the french army the tool she neede for it.
 
It's probably for political reason. The politicians wanted wage a war against Germany but they were very reluctant to give to the french army the tool she neede for it.

They had the tools, 'Fighting Spirit' 'Fierce face' and snappy Red Trousers. What more was needed than the simple Will to Win?

The French Army was exactly what was thought to be needed for Plan XVII to work, byt the French General Staff
They were even more blind to reality than the IJA
 
Top