Urban warfare-Paris WW1

It is often assumed if the Germans reached Paris towards the end of 1914 the war would end in a fairly quick German victory. This is a reasonable assumption as the French would not want to sacrifice their city.

But assume they did? What if they decided to fight the Germans in the streets and alleys? In the high rises and down in the gutters?

Could the French have given the Germans a Stalingrad 28 years early?

And as a further add on what if there was more urban combat in WW1 especially in the western front?
 
The Germans wouldn't give them that fight: not with the sheer static firepower at their disposal. I expect them to set up an artillery park outside the city, bring in as many super-heavy and heavy artillery pieces as they can, and subject Paris to a brutal bombardment. Mass Artillery attack was just too closely associated as a solution to the "Men on foot with guns in a highly-defendable, but fairly static, position" problem to be forgotten about for long.
 
The Germans wouldn't give them that fight: not with the sheer static firepower at their disposal. I expect them to set up an artillery park outside the city, bring in as many super-heavy and heavy artillery pieces as they can, and subject Paris to a brutal bombardment. Mass Artillery attack was just too closely associated as a solution to the "Men on foot with guns in a highly-defendable, but fairly static, position" problem to be forgotten about for long.
Is there any place in France where urban combat of WW2 intensity could have taken place?
 

trajen777

Banned
It depends if they can surround Paris (1870 style ) or have to fight into the city. I think a fight into the city would be brutal, and i see them leveling it with HA. However this would not play well into the international press.
 

Deleted member 1487

Why not? Hand guns and rifles exist? Same with gas masks, and rudimentary tanks.
Bolt action rifles. Unless you want a lot of hand to hand combat and occasionally some MGs its just hard to really have a serious fight in a city. Better to encircle it and shell it into submission. As it was artillery was the arm of the day and wrecked all the cities in the path of the war.
 
It depends if they can surround Paris (1870 style ) or have to fight into the city. I think a fight into the city would be brutal, and i see them leveling it with HA. However this would not play well into the international press.

... considering the lion's share (pun intended) of the international press was run or at least had its information supplied by the British (Who controlled the trans-Atlantic cables), nothing Germany did played well in that arena. If the men got a taste of the nightmares that might face them if they had to storm the city on foot, I think there would be ALOT of pressure to just bombard Paris into rubble. Hell, judging from the logic he laid down for the Verdun operation (and justify it post-war) Falkenhayn might see the destruction of Paris as a good thing as a way to shatter the French people's moral exactly so they DON'T get a repeat of 1870,

Is there any place in France where urban combat of WW2 intensity could have taken place?

Not really, considering the answer to urban combat is probably going to be "Use the Artillery", since it was a pretty effective tool for dealing with static fortifications (Trench networks were a slightly different story... but try digging one of those in an urban center). Unless you have an interest in keeping the city intact, there's just not a good reason to use it.

I can only think of one way: Paris is evacuated by the French following a more successful Race to the Sea by the Germans and is occupied by German troops. Supplies are stockpiled in hopes of using the city as a forward base.. During the Entente counter-offensive, however, the forces in the abandoned city are cut-off by French armies from the rest of the German lines. The French, though they want to dislodge the Germans, also don't want to shell their own capital for practical and morale/national pride reasons, and so insist on retaking it street by street with infantry, while the cut-off Germans dig in/barricade up the place in a desperate effort to survive long enough for the rest of the German army to stage a "break-in". While in all likelihood the surronded Germans would surrender and become prisoners without a REALLY good reason, its possible.
 
Bolt action rifles. Unless you want a lot of hand to hand combat and occasionally some MGs its just hard to really have a serious fight in a city. Better to encircle it and shell it into submission. As it was artillery was the arm of the day and wrecked all the cities in the path of the war.

Curiously illogical.
If artillery in WWI was more than enough to deal with cities, and given that artillery was still available in WWII, how is it that in WWII did have urban fighting? Why didn't they just use their artillery, and bombers too?

Additionally, I don't feel you have really replied to the question: what was the weapon system that was unavailable in WWI and that made urban combat possible in WWII?

... (Trench networks were a slightly different story... but try digging one of those in an urban center)

170px-62._armata_a_Stalingrado.jpg

This is one countless photos of trenches in Stalingrad. Actually, some say that after the enemy has reduced buildings to rubble, that's a good place where to entrench.
 

Deleted member 1487

Curiously illogical.
If artillery in WWI was more than enough to deal with cities, and given that artillery was still available in WWII, how is it that in WWII did have urban fighting? Why didn't they just use their artillery, and bombers too?
They largely did use artillery, aircraft, and AFVs to try and brute force enemy held cities in WW2. Stalingrad was a special case in which it was somewhat more difficult to pull off a 'surround the city and explode it into submission' due to the depth in Russia it was and the Volga supply line. I think in WW2 since they had more tool to really fight through cities attackers were more willing to make a go of it. I haven't read as much personal memoirs about WW1 as WW2, but I have yet to encounter much about city fight. The most of it is fighting over entirely destroyed cities toward the end of the war, which is little different then than fighting over trench lines, or during the early days of the war when the cities were intact and there was some rifle shoot outs and setting fire to buildings.

Additionally, I don't feel you have really replied to the question: what was the weapon system that was unavailable in WWI and that made urban combat possible in WWII?
First of all I didn't say it was impossible, just that avoiding it and using artillery and poison gas to drive out the enemy (I have read about that being used repeated in that role) was a more viable option. Early on during the pre-Trench Warfare days there were some street fights, which often led to the town/city being set on fire and artillery being called in.
 
Top