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.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?
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?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.
How did the French plan on capturing these rail hubs in 1914?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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
I dont know how the French intended to capture these two cities.
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.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.