WI: Longer Maginot Line

maxs

Denied a free ride into France at the Ardennes

that had been there otl, and is blocked ittl by the extended Maginot Line, the Wehrmacht armour is forced to try to enter France via either air drops, an amphibious landing on the southern French coast, or through an amphibious infiltration along the Swiss frontier using the Rheim River.

Undoubtedly, the heer uses all three methods, but all are fraught with pitfalls that weren't present otl in the Ardennes attacks. :)
 

maxs

What gave the Wehrmacht the edge in Belgium

in ittl and otl, and in France otl only, was that spearheading Panzer-based armor, accompanied by the ever-present Stukas and other air support.

ITTL, while the Panzers continue to spearhead in Belgium, they are precluded from that without some other maneuver to get them into France past our extended Maginot Line.

It definitely can be done, but there are going to be wrinkles in the fabric of the attack, and the spearhead will be less pointed due to the finicky nature of air-dropped and amphibious landed tanks versus otl tanks that come through, already on the ground, through the Ardennes forests.

The French and British fleets can get a real shot in at a German amphibious attack in the south of France. The German infiltration via the Rheim River on the Swiss frontier is subject to Maginot Line artillery on either side of the valley.

Air drops take time, and, with the infantry on the ground in some areas not yet covered by armor, the French have a shot at inflicting higher infantry casualties on the Wehrmacht for periods of time.

Meanwhile the Italians may or may not have borrowed a note from the
Wehrmacht and therefore may or may not have an airborne component to their assault into France ittl.

These wrinkles and twists and turns each have potential to disrupt the German invasion of France, slow it down, and render it less effective against the French army after Dunkirk, and less impressive to French pols and negotiators already contemplating Armistice.

Since German infantry are less likely to be covered by armor for periods and in some areas, the French airfields are less threatened by immediate German seizure. Meanwhile, the French government completes its move into the Maginot Line. The German infantry, intermittently awaiting air drops of tanks and the promised amphibious component from the southern French coast, begins to move toward Paris.

As the tanks do finally get landed, the infantry puts together its assault, having taken some casualties in the meantime ittl that didn't happen otl.
French air strikes have been heavier and more extensive ittl. French armor, though overall still the same and still less effective than German in a tank on tank match, is nevertheless also able ittl to inflict heavier infantry casualties on the heer since German armor is more intermittent, and is later coming online in even those instances where it does arrive.

Yet, overall, the German offensive can probably roll, just more slowly.

As that slower moving offensive draws nearer to Paris and begins artillery attacks on the outskirts, and as the Luftwaffe gets freed up to begin terror attacks on French civilian targets...the French government announces it is now residing in the Maginot Line.
 

maxs

The answers to this static defense

are still to be found in the new weaponry of mobile warfare, especially when employed by an obsessive foe run by a dictatorial police state.

Parachutists, gliders, airborne assaults, heavy air attacks, fast moving infantry...all these are going to take their toll on the more static French defenses, especially with the British evacuated, and all European allies now surrendered, (except the Balkans, which have not yet entered the conflict).

France, though, has bought herself some time, perhaps...time to prepare for a better negotiating position, to prepare a long-term defense for Paris against terror attacks from the air, and time to get the French fleet to Allied waters.

Questions about control of North Africa are unanswerable at this stage, since we only know that the heer has taken more casualties, and has lost more time, here, than, otl.

So now we come to the question of how much detail to try to extrapolate into this. Will Hitler refuse to negotiate without first attempting to use terror air attacks against French civilians as a lever? Will he be tempted to prove Germany's might against Maginot Line by trying to bust in?

What casualties will this "trapped" and parachute/glider-landed German force in France take? How fast can they still advance against French forces? How long will they suffer the situation of the French heavy tanks engaging in attacks immune to air strikes via withdrawal into Maginot?

Will Hitler use paratroopers, or instead pull huge guns in from the East to try to bust the newer, longer Maginot? Will he be more inclined, with a more slow moving offensive, to go back to his original goal of merely capturing the northern French provinces, and letting it go at that, so that he can focus on the conquest of Britain?

Some of these could be answered various ways.

Could the southern France amphibious landing be a success? Can an amphibious infiltration successfully occur on the Swiss frontier at the Rheim River? How much damage could the Heer inflict on French forces via the latter? How many more, or fewer, forces will France invest in Norway ittl? How drawn will Germany be to the idea of defeating France first, then Norway ittl versus otl?

Will North Africa be better able to retain independence from the French armistice government, the "new" Vichy ittl?
 

maxs

The thing I'm having a hard time doing, the most,

is trying to realize that, with the Maginot Line extending across the entire Belgian border, and including blocking the Ardennes, the Germany of this time line, may have an entirely different approach to the invasion of France!

I mean, they have the option of ignoring Belgium, since it has said it is neutral going into the German invasion. It presents little help, and apparently wouldn't act to defend France from a German invasion if it, itself, is not invaded by Germany.

Therefore, indeed--as I have made brief note of earlier here--we may have a situation where Germany doesn't even attack Belgium. Since the invasion of France is probably going to require either an amphibious landing on the southern coast or an airborne attack going over Maginot--or both--the Germans may keep it simple, and focus almost exclusively on France, at least France first.

In that scenario, the airborne flies into France and lands in central France out of range of Maginot.

In that scenario, too, my tactical maneuver of French and British AA into Belgium in greater numbers than otl, would be unavailable.

The British would never land in Belgium, but instead the full BEF would be in France itself.

And, I have to confess, all bets would be off, as to whether that type of a campaign would then take longer--at least, in the sense of defeating France itself--than in the otl.

If I were taking odds, I'd say the Germans would be more likely to focus more on the airborne assault than on an amphibious approach, just based on their behavior and orientation early in the War otl.

Dreadfully, look what we're talking about then: a huge German airborne assault group has been created, that didn't exist otl.

Once the new Battle of France was over, the new Battle of Britain would begin.

Hmmm...and there you are! Britain's worst nightmare would be in place: an airborne German army, ready to be flown across the Channel, and dropped on a bombed-out Britain!

OMG.

Now, the Germans were used to invading France by way of Belgium, and there's still a strong argument, therefore, that they'd still want to use Belgium as the attack point into France even with the airborne approach, and would thus use Belgian airfields.

That would be the prayer here, because we have some kind of a shot at slowing things down, at least, here, and maybe getting all the things out the longer campaign and the Armistice negotiations as speculated.

But it is, as I think about it, still the case that the Wehrmacht is now going to have an even larger airborne capacity--much larger--than in otl.

And, with France out of the way--even if a few days later and with more AA in place with which to defend Paris and with virtually the entire French fleet somehow in Allied hands--Britain is still Lone Ranger, even in this scenario, against the Axis. They have more help from Free France, which might or might not be based in North Africa, but when it comes to facing the Germans, they're facing the very real threat of a massive paratrooper operation after a terrific pummeling as in otl.

There might be something that could be done to offset that here, though.

Got to think this out...lots of German parachutists, thousands more, in France. Germany having learned prowess in air transporting and air dropping and glider landing heavy tanks, etc., as well as infantry.

The most ominous thing about this longer Maginot Line, is that Hitler is going to have known about it, probably years before the War even starts, and can draw up plans factoring it in. I keep pointing that out, because that, more than anything else, is what is going to do us in, in the end. It's what's going to sink France, however much more slowly.

What is just so...spooky here, is that, with all that airborne on the ground already in France at the time of the new Armistice ittl, Germany has some options for an actual invasion of Britain that it didn't have otl.:eek:
 

maxs

In the otl, Hitler was trying to put together

an amphib assault on Britain, and it fizzled, partly due to heavier than expected air losses over Britain.

In this new situation, there may very well be a sizable Free France navy, and therefore, this only adds to the likelihood that Hitler would be less interested than otl in an amphibious op, and would opt for the airborne against Britain, as he has successfully used in in France--after all, they were able to bring it off on Crete.

Now, airborne does have vulnerability to the RAF, which has done a good job so far and did well enough otl.

How much of a pummeling Hitler takes in the air, both before and during the new Battle of Britain, may help determine how much he stays with the airborne invasion idea, versus how long he stayed with the Amphib idea otl.

He'd have taken a little more of a pummeling if we've moved some AA into Belgium last minute, tactically, as I've proposed. And the BEF MIGHT be able to withdraw more successfully and in greater numbers directly from France ittl, and thus be back home in greater numbers.

But it's also genuinely possible, here, that the BEF in France itself, is not able to get out as successfully at all. However, it does appear that, with a bigger Free France fleet helping, an amphibious withdrawal across the Channel could be achieved, even if a much larger British withdrawal is happening.

Even so, having said that, and with, hopefully, a somewhat larger British army on the ground in Britain itself, after an aerial component to the Battle of Britain that might somewhat resemble otl, Hitler MIGHT be put off at the idea of such an airborne assault, just as he was an amphibious assault.

HOWEVER, if the Germans leave Belgium out of the campaign altogether--at least at first--they'd have fewer casualties starting out, going into France, and thus both their air losses and their ground losses could very well be...lower than otl at the point of the new French armistice.

So, it begins to look like that, here, it may depend entirely on whether Germany goes into France via Belgium, or attacks airborne ignoring Belgium, directly into France. If the latter, Britain could be sunk, too.
 

maxs

Staying within otl fund limits for all but Maginot--

which is what I'm working with here--there might be one other option the French could have:
if we assume the heer comes into Belgium as otl, the French might send a more limited component into Belgium.
Suppose they sent in only forces equipped with AA--but more of those--ittl?

This wouldn't require additional funds or personnel, just a tactical shift of some of those.

Then, the only sizable ground forces facing Hitler in Belgium would be the BEF and the Belgian army, with just this small AA French component.

The Luftwaffe might still take heavier casualties than they'd anticipated, since they MIGHT have assumed France would not enter Belgium, being as how they've extended the Maginot Line to include the whole length of the Franco-Belgian border.

Thus, the move of French AA would have a last-minute, surprise quality to it, that might still produce higher Luftwaffe casualties in Belgium than otl.

We might also, that way, still have the option of a Belgian and even Belgian/British, withdrawal, into the Maginot Line--instead of, say, Dunkirk.

Then, the later British withdrawal would come straight out of France.

But, we're still facing a huge airborne Wehrmacht component we didn't face otl at this point in the War.

Now...If it gets cut up enough by the BEF and some kinds of French maneuvers--such as the hits on armor via the Maginot-housed Char B "Shadow" heavy tanks that were equipped with the 75 mm guns--we might get some additional hits on the Wehrmacht, just as we've already shaken up the Stukas. We could extend Maginot's effective range quite a bit that way.

If the French could then, say, dig in and begin some new trench warfare scenario--for which they were still excellently equipped and for which the Germans have little more patience than they do--they may be able to develop a new psych warfare option against the frenzied heer, which wants to get this over with so it can focus more East.

Against these paratroopers, a lot might hinge on how effectively the French air arm and the RAF can take down Luftwaffe transport planes, parachutists and gliders. If they can do enough damage at that point to the ability of the heer to land Panzers, etc., to back up the admittedly more numerous Wehrmacht air airborne infantry, and can do a little more, as well, via the attacks outward from the line by the Char B heavy tanks, at least at a few points (the French only had about a dozen of those, and I have no money to add any more to the French arsenal), we could produce a somewhat more successful campaign in France.

It's even possible that the "real" aerial Battle of Britain might be fought over France, with that wrinkle.

However, insofar as a successful air cover against the Luftwaffe, the French are still, on balance, unlikely to retain their air bases. Germany has more materiel it can get into France by air. We may come darned close, however, to keeping the Char B heavy tanks operational for the duration of the Battle of France. It's just that, to avoid air attacks, they'll have to range only a certain distance from the Line.

Once the Wehrmacht has captured or destroyed the French airfields, the only effective air in France will be via the RAF. However, it's slightly possible the French air force might consider using British airfields to extend their active life somewhat.

As for the Italians, assuming they still come in as otl, they'll be more inclined to be using airborne forces, as well, though perhaps, as noted earlier, not as extensively as the heer because they don't have the additional financial resources.

We've got, I hope, the Free France fleet in more sizable numbers this time around, so that can help cope better with Mussolini.

Anyway, the Brits are also somewhat still geared to WWI here, too. So, with a bogged down quality setting in for the (hopefully) less well-armored Wehrmacht, Hitler may decide to get antsy and go for terror air attacks on French civilian targets.

It might depend on how that fell, where that fell, and how it is registering with the "wavering" among the French, when coupled with the "defeatists" or "fatalists" among the French, as to where that puts us on the scale of a more successful armistice negotiation.

If I'm putting things together right at this point, there's a real potential that we have less readily-available Luftwaffe on hand in western Germany, Belgium (if Hitler is there) and over France, than otl. To get much more Luftwaffe resources, he's got to pull some west from east--at least, for a shot shot military usage of the Luftwaffe.

If he decides to commit the Luftwaffe to hitting largely civilian targets, I can see how that would have a real potential to weaken French will here.
It's then going to be a psychological thing: who would crack first, in a bogged down trench warfare scenario with limited armor, after all?

Well, I can't say the French can actually win, militarily, here, but the key is to get on Hitler's nerves enough about the clock for Barbarossa and the repositioning of forces from it, to be able to get a more favorable Armistice.:cool:
 

maxs

With a smaller French force in Belgium, the BEF

that ends up being sent into Belgium MIGHT, of necessity, also be smaller than otl, with a more sizable component of it going directly into France instead.

Without French support, the Dunkirk operation would have been disastrous.

Well, in the French AA-only scenario, a smaller BEF is also a relatively more mobile BEF and hopefully also more easily withdrawn--or able to withdraw into the Maginot Line.

After all, with plans for the longer Maginot already being known, pre-War, not only the Germans, but the Belgians and British would also have factored that into their own thinking as to how and where :rolleyes:to withdraw, dispose and re-position various forces.
 

maxs

The key thing seems to be whether the Wehrmacht

invades France via Belgium, using the Belgian airfields as its base for the airborne invasion of France (which, it would seem, would almost be required here), or goes directly into France from the area of Alsace and Lorraine.

While the French haven't spent anything here on anything that they didn't before, except for the Maginot Line, the Germans would have have to spend differently to cope with the longer Line.

They would have to invest more in airborne, and, also, on training in the airborne operations. But it's also true that Britain and Belgium will be factoring this longer Maginot Line into their own thinking.

Prior to the invasion of France, as we have noted here, Germany had invaded Norway. French forces were in Norway.

However, in this new scenario, there is a strong possibility that Germany would have discarded the whole idea of invading either Norway or Belgium before defeating France.

Since they have the option with airborne--and having been forced to look at it due to the longer Maginot Line--of dropping straight into France, jumping over the Maginot Line, the Germans must consider how much more effective it would be to simply go straight for France, and come back to these other nations after France is defeated.

They would still have exposed flanks and/or resources, in some sense.

The British could still, possibly, cajole the Belgians into letting them station aircraft and even and expeditionary force on their soil.

But, given that France is now out of the fighting, how likely would that be?

After all, the Belgians had decided to be neutral, and their ruler Leopold has a family connection with the Italian Fascists and the Papacy, which at that point isn't exactly a font of opposition to Mussolini and Hitler.

Meanwhile, there's Norway, whose resources Hitler must still look to to sustain his longer war. With the French already out of the War before he even invades, and the BEF as the only military force to contend with--and, furthermore, with Britain now having to face the very real prospect of a massive air invasion by the Germans via French territory--how threatened would Hitler's flank actually be?

So, just in being objective here, we have to face the reality of these possibilities that aren't that pleasant to contemplate.

So much depends, then, on whether Hitler chooses to stay with the standard German methodology of invading France via Belgium.

In WWI, Holland remained neutral and un-invaded by the Germans, too.
There is no real reason to assume that couldn't have been the case, in this scenario, since Germany is actually after France. But the Nazis are into machismo and goose-stepping and showing off, so I couldn't say that rational thinking would prevail.

But I think it's reasonable to notice that they are being force to use airborne invasion as a way of coping with our extended Maginot Line.

In the process of evaluating all options, they would have to notice that an airborne assault wouldn't require Belgian territory as a starting point.

But as far as deeming it unnecessary to invade Holland, the irrational nature of the Germany of 1939 makes it hard to call that one.

The invasion of Denmark would probably have happened, to protect the flank for the invasion of Norway--which would, indeed, have to happen, because the resources there are still needed.

But, again, WHEN would Hitler have done these things: BEFORE the invasion of France...or AFTER the French surrender?

Also, once you've got airborne capability and gotten it pretty well down, there are other options not even considered otl, such as:

1. Going straight into Paris and environs;

2. Going straight into Copenhagen and environs;

3. Going straight into French air bases...

and capturing all of the above with these new airborne forces.

However, all these things do require a rational kind of thinking that the Germany of 1939 was not necessarily into. They weren't always guided, number one, by what would have been just militarily feasible. They were sometimes guided by arrogance, pride, defensiveness--call it what you will. They were guided, as well, by an impatience to not have trench warfare or bogged-down warfare again, as well as an impatience to tolerate that horrid communist state to their East another minute.

So, because of those various rabid, irrational traits of the Germany of 1939, we have some kind of faint hope that the Germans would do something...stupid.

Even in otl, among the stupidest things they did was heavy terror bombing of civilian targets. Using aircraft that were incredibly effective against an armed enemy, they wasted valuable ordnance on helpless and non-threatening targets.

It was ordnance they were to desperately need a little while later.

OK: so a lot rides on whether Germany still invades via Belgium, because this gives us an opportunity to engage in a few tactical maneuvers this time around during that phase of the campaign that weren't available otl.

I just wanted to point out, that the whole thing of Germany even invading France via Belgium, is much more iffy in this scenario that more or less would require an airborne invasion of France.

If that is the situation, we have few options. Peeping out from Maginot, we watch a sky full of aircraft and parachutes and gliders, flying right over and past us, straight for Paris!

Belgium is still neutral, so the BEF is nowhere around, unless they have some people on French soil.

Holland is also still untouched, in at least one possible scenario here, and all the forces Germany used against it, otl, are now, instead flying over France at this hour, headed for Paris and the French airfields.

So, could this be a disaster? It COULD. I can't do much with this one change only, (of a longer Maginot Line), but point out how it could go, I can't guarantee any one outcome.

The same massive paratrooper operation could be landing near Copenhagen, too.

But this all requires a kind of fully rational thinking that may not be present in Germany 1939.
 

maxs

Taking odds, Belgium is probably still invaded by

Germany, which CAN'T STAND THE THOUGHT that the world thinks it can't successfully invade Belgium and France and win the war.

But the Netherlands? Hmmmm...what if, instead of taking on that neutral, Hitler focuses more on the Swiss frontier near France--specifically, the use of the Rheim River for an amphibious infiltration, probably not really touching Swiss soil, only using a Swiss waterway?

You might get some really heavy weaponry into France that way, with somewhat less exposure to Maginot Line's guns, which did, admittedly, straddle the Rheim River valley there, though.

The Swiss might not confront Germany too much about this, since it might be done under cover of darkness to avoid Maginot guns in the Rheim Valley, and also might not last that long. It might even be over before the Swiss mentioned it...you never know.

Suppose you got some heavy artillery and a number of armored mobile weapons into France that way? That would be less you'd have to have aboard gliders during the airborne assault.

If you stretched that operation out further, you have an option of getting a sizable amount of weaponry, ammunition and supplies, as well as some troops, into France. This could be used to create a pincers effect, if the paratroopers can be landed effectively enough.

Even so, you're still going to be struggling with Belgium, and the BEF in Belgium, as well as some components of the French army.

Since you're obsessed with Belgium, you're not going to tolerate some defiant act by the Belgian army, such as a withdrawal into the Maginot line, followed by counter-attacks supported by Char B French heavy tanks against the Panzers--followed, in turn, by another impudent withdrawal that renders the Belgians immune to air attacks.

NO, you're not going to tolerate that impudence, that defiance by this little nation that has been a thorn in the side of your pride--a nation you know you actually defeated before, but which you're not sure the world is aware that you can beat.

So, when they come out of there and hit you, and withdraw, and you can't get at them right away...you become...determined to get at them.

Interesting can of worms-like development, there!

You're already landing people in France from Alsace-Lorraine area via huge air drops and gliders. But you're not going to let the blooming Belgians get away with stinging you this way.
 

maxs

So how do you get at them: by reprisal or big gun?

Do you bomb civilian targets and attempt to terrorize Leopold for his people--that vacillating Leopold, whose government attempted to bolt on his too-early surrender, even in otl?

Or, do you do more? You are the superior Aryans, you want to show the world that no weapon, no fortress, can defeat you. Especially not one of such allied with such a tiny nation.

So, maybe you goose step more, pull more Stukas from back East--and then, while you're at it, pull those big guns from the plans for back East, just for now...

Wow, now we've got a new potential target for Wellingtons, etc., as these big guns are drawn along, slowly, relentlessly, to get into positions to bombard this impudent Maginot Line.

So, does this mean that, early in the War, Hitler loses some of those big guns we've seen were so pivotal later, when he's in Russia at places like Sevastopol? That he decides to batter at the Maginot Line where the Belgians are now, after that stinging counter-attack(s)? That, as he positions those guns for that battering operation, the RAF is able to hit them with heavy bombers?

Now, it's just still May, 1940, and these big siege guns are already being disabled, at the very least. Maybe even, some get destroyed.

It may be bad news, in a way, too, for the Belgians, since this may ensure they cannot succeed and must seek a separate Armistice with Germany. As we cannot assume the guns aren't able to eventually achieve the desired effect, and gradually crack the Maginot Line.

But the French are still in the War, and the British. Not sure exactly where the BEF is going to be at this point ittl, either. Would there be some in Belgium? No doubt.

But they, too, may have utilized the withdrawal route of the Maginot Line to get into France upon the Belgian surrender--rather than the option of a Dunkirk withdrawal. Or, perhaps, given that it's a smaller force, they are able to do some of both.

If they've already gone through into France before the Belgians surrender and before the siege guns have cracked Maginot, they are on the ground in France in greater numbers than otl.

It's a different ball game, but whether it's a more successful ball game, is a good question. There are a lot of ins and outs here.

We have to assume the same "crazy" Germany, and the same World War I-reliving, low budget and boondoggle-like French and other Allied war spending, and the same isolationist Congress in the US.

We seem to be able to take out more Stukas over Belgium, and sting the Wehrmacht with Char B's operating out of Maginot for periods of time, and Holland MAY remain untouched, although Switzerland is slightly compromised here.

I'm thinking the German decision to move the siege guns will be last-minute in nature, because they will be unaware that the Belgians are capable of these annoying counter-attack ops. So they won't have prepared rails, roads, etc. and a plan of conveyance for these big guns.

But once Hitler has committed to this, he won't take no for an answer from his military. And so, the siege guns could move--and the Wellingtons could fuel up.

Now, we have this airborne operation landing in France. Would they opt to try to drive straight for Paris, and surround and lay siege to it, and probably capture it, earlier on than otl? Or, will Germany not be able to resist the temptation of yet another demonstration of German military might, by engaging the BEF and French army on the ground before attempting Paris?

They want to "demonstrate" that blitzkrieg is here to stay. So, they set up a scenario via maneuvers that tempts the French to dig in, for trench warfare. Now, we are set to see that series of futile battles the French military, in this limited-change scenario, seems doomed to repeat.

One army, the German, is on one planet. Another army, the French mostly, is on another one. At least, in terms of the mindsets of the top military commanders.

So, tactically, militarily, the Allies are going to experience a series of disastrous failures, just as they did otl, in terms of the fighting that begins now to go on in France. French armor is blown away, French airfields are wiped out, French aircraft are blown out of the skies (except DV 520s, which are holding their own here, too) and gradually losing bases from which to operate.

Should France opt to do so, it could move its DV-520s to British bases, or somewhere less vulnerable, such as Sardinia. IF younger, clearer heads are allowed to prevail, it will be seen to be a waste of lives to commit French pilots in any other aircraft the French are flying--at least, in terms of daytime activity.

However, we can't assume that. So disaster in the air seems to be inevitable here.

The only thing we have, is the ability to move the French government to the Maginot Line, and to operate Char B heavy tanks outward from there--and to have, earlier, used Maginot as a line of withdrawal, first of Belgians, who then surrender after a series of stinging counter attacks against the Wehrmacht; then part of the smaller British force, some of whom go via Maginot on into France to join the French army to continue the fight, while others, probably a lesser number than otl, withdraw across the Channel at Dunkirk.

If the Maginot becomes cracked after a time by the German siege guns, if the Germans decide to bring them in and they are not too damaged by RAF heavy bombers, then the option of the French government in the Maginot Line becomes less of an option.

Meanwhile, you have this potential pincers developing toward the south of France, with an amphib force working to meet up with the airborne that has been dropped toward central and south-central France.

No one in the French highest command is thinking about much, right, but some variation on trench warfare, even now. Air warfare is starting to register with them, but it's coming slowly. We can't imagine we can succeed in any way due to anything but the irrational forces now at play in Germany.

If the French government withdraws to Maginot, and if the Germans do successfully breech Maginot by using the huge siege guns originally committed to the Eastern Front...well, we'll have to surrender.

If the Germans choose to ignore Maginot for now, and focus on defeating the French, after beating Belgium/Leopold by a combination of tactical successes and terror bombing of Belgian civilian targets such that the counter-attacking Belgians in Maginot are forced to surrender, they will probably still opt for a full-blown battlefield scenario to ensure they have defeated the enemy's capacity to thwart their seizure of Paris.

And this may mean they don't bring in the big guns from the East.
Meanwhile, the Italians are about to come in.

So here, we have this pincers by the German forces, in south and south-central France. And we have an attack by the Italians in the south.
 

maxs

One could argue that the Germans would already

have planned for having to use the huge siege guns here, before the War, since they already know about the longer Maginot.

That argument would be based on the fact that no one had ever done a massive airborne invasion before--and France had the largest standing army on earth, or darn near it. Just the sheer numbers were somewhat daunting.

So, Hitler might want to do several things simultaneously:

1. The big siege guns to bust some section of Maginot, probably nearest the Belgian border--though not necessarily there. He might, for example, opt to try to bust it from Alsace-Lorraine area.

2. The two amphib ops, one in the Swiss frontier area on the Rheim River, the other, apparently, on the southern coast of France. Again, the most recent experiences with amphib landings were from WWI, specifically mainly the Dardanelles experience of the British, and those hadn't gone well, so there would be a tendency not to put all of one's eggs into that/those basket(s) at all.

3. Plans to use the blitzkrieg and Luftwaffe in a terrorizing manner at times, to intimidate enemy governments into surrender.

So, there could be a certain argument made that the big siege guns would already be in the West, and more or less able to get into position to hit Maginot--providing less potential target for British heavy bombers.


So we have a potential back and forth as to whether the heer would have had big siege guns in place in the West ittl.

But it seems logical the Wehrmacht would have been inclined, in the face of foreknowledge of this more extensive Maginot complex, to have:

1. Gotten more geared toward massive, massive airborne ops
2. Planned and built more siege guns to crack Maginot
3. Planned and perfected more in the way of at least limited amphib ops.

--more so than otl.

HOWEVER, my perception of the heer in the real world back then, is that they would not necessarily think they couldn't defeat the Belgians without the need for siege guns at the Belgian area of Maginot.

That DOES suggest that, if the big guns were in the West pre-War, they'd have been in the Alsace-Lorraine frontier/border area.

That being the case, it further suggests that, if the Belgians did engage in the above-described counter-attacks out of and back into Maginot, the Germans would still need to make AN ADDITIONAL MOVE of these siege guns to get them to the area of the Maginot Line where the sting came from.

So, guns that might originally have been very effective early on in cracking Maginot near the Alsace-Lorraine area, allowing a German breakthrough there-- after a time--will end up being MOVED from what could have been a relatively secure area, more protected from RAF bombers, into a situation where they are vulnerable, after all, to the Wellingtons, Halifaxes, etc.

I think we could assume things like that. This is also still Hitler's Germany.
 

Undeadmuffin

Hmmm...and there you are! Britain's worst nightmare would be in place: an airborne German army, ready to be flown across the Channel, and dropped on a bombed-out Britain!
Click to expand...

Sorry but even the bigger plane germany had could only carry 2 tonne of payload. Even the light tank are too heavy and the artillery will be limited to mortar (event the 88 weight 7 tonnes).

Using airborn as main invading forces is suicidal and would only kill the cream of the german forces. Britain had a home guard to prevent surprise attack from air and with the better aa you gave them it will cripple even more the german.

However, you could use them as a decoy for a sea-based invasion, ship being able to carrie way more weapons and material than planes.
 

Undeadmuffin

before the siege guns have cracked Maginot
Click to expand...

What kind of siege gun ? Because the maginot line had cannon that could reach over 4 kilometer of range and they were protected by a turret of steel hardened concrete.
 

Reader347

Undeadmuffin said:
What kind of siege gun ? Because the maginot line had cannon that could reach over 4 kilometer of range and they were protected by a turret of steel hardened concrete.
Click to expand...
>
>
>
If they had them in 1940. Like the one used in Russian Crimea, probably. The rounds borrowed into the ground dozens of meters.
 

Undeadmuffin

Reader347 said:
>
>
>
If they had them in 1940. Like the one used in Russian Crimea, probably. The rounds borrowed into the ground dozens of meters.
Click to expand...

My concern was more about the range than the explosion strengh, if they can hit you back, it will negate the effect of the siege gun.
 

Reader347

Undeadmuffin said:
My concern was more about the range than the explosion strengh, if they can hit you back, it will negate the effect of the siege gun.
Click to expand...
>
>
>
Whoever has the attacking guns needs air control. There were railguns that far outranged the Maginot guns. Pinpoint accuracy might be questionable, though. And shelling would give defenders time to bring up troops/guns. Just smashing a fort wouldn't be enough for a breakthrough. WW1 showed a gap had to be wide enough to be out of range of defending guns.
 

Undeadmuffin

You surely think about the gustav gun :D of course it outrange mostly every cannon (42 kilometer of max range !) but it take around 5 to 6 week to prepare the ground and more than 2 days (54 hours) to mount it completly with 250 mens. Of course, due to its static position, the gun is Very vulnerable to air attack.

Again static construction this gun is unmatched but useless again mobile units, so for breaching the forts its perfect but some units could protect the breach.
 

maxs

Tnanks for input regarding siege guns, which

would have to be factored in as a possibility given that Hitler is going to know about the longer Maginot Line.

The thing that is hard to wrap one's head around, is that this kind of a line absolutely rules out going around it. You either jump over it, somehow, or you have to blast your way in.

What is being put together here, as I see it, is if the Luftwaffe can be used to destroy the Maginot Line, not so much by confronting it, as by flying forces past it, on into the heartland of France.

The big siege guns are going to be a major change to the German methodology so I'm trying to put together how much a factor the irrational nature of 1939-40 Germany is going to be here.

The Germans were capable of genius at this point in time, but there was an irrational aspect at times. By simply ignoring Belgium and the Low Countries, and focusing on France via an airborne assault, the Germans could still outmaneuver the Maginot Line and bring the war into the French heartland.

It's going to be a new ball game. It's going to be a massive airborne operation, far bigger than anything ever put together at that point in history.

And, if it's going to have some adjunct--or even alternative--in the form of the big siege guns, I would think the military would predominate in the early stages of the thinking. That's why I'm thinking they would start out thinking in terms of the siege guns operating from the northern French provinces, rather than against the Belgians.

At the same time, the crazy side of Germany would demand that the invasion of Belgium still take place.

Simultaneously, wouldn't it be likely that the airborne operation would go on? The Germans, even in otl, were focused a good bit on air ops.

I can't say how successful the German air invasion of Britain would be, or if it would even be attempted. But France would be a handy jumping off point. If you think in terms of gliders--which the heer did end up putting together--that were of massive size, you could probably bring in some pretty heavy gear and tanks.

But, yeah, Britain was no Crete. I think Hitler really was so taken by air that he would have opted for more of an air op, or perhaps the combined op someone just mentioned.

What I hope I've been able to do, is to clarify how much of a difference there really is, in having a full-length Maginot Line than not having it.

The air assault can put the Wehrmacht into central France, past the Maginot Line--even on the road to Paris. IF...if all the components the infantry needs to press its attack, blitzkrieg-style, can be air dropped in to it in a sufficiently fast time-frame.

Massive gliders would need to be used--and, they have both the French air force and the RAF to contend with in doing so.

Unlike Crete, where air support for the defenders was almost non-existent, there will be this air component attacking the planes--and gliders.

On the other hand, the French cities are full of civilian targets, easily subjected to terror bombing as a partial alternative to the siege gun and airborne.

What could happen on the ground in France, is a mix of the heer getting bogged down into a forced-ww1 scenario, in some areas, where the armor isn't getting landed successfully due to Allied air resistance; and, in other areas, the French being pretty effectively decimated by German attacks against their armor and infantry.

Since I only have the one change to the French equipment of the longer Maginot Line and whatever tactical maneuvers of equipment can be made with no funding changes or decisions, the French, though somewhat more mobile than WWI, are still slower moving than the Germans, and their aircraft are, on balance, going to lose versus the Germans. (DV 520s notwithstanding).

I am assuming the Germans will be able to bring pressure to bear, after a time, in France, to be able to win. They have a massive amount of material and I have nothing to indicate they don't have plenty of time to adjust their planning for the knowledge of the longer Maginot Line.

But I do believe France can delay their success, and that the campaign could be very expensive to the Germans.

Trying to picture this "surrounded" German army, in the heartland of France, able to move against Paris, even, and with solid air cover, it's difficult to see how they don't eventually win. But I think a case can be made that it will take them awhile.

Especially if they allow themselves to get distracted with all this...macho pride business, trying to prove themselves as capable of busting the Maginot Line, as opposed to going around it; of trying to go ahead and invade Belgium again, even though the airborne assault could be done without an invasion of Belgium.

But, once France has sued for peace, even assuming they get considerably more at the table--as I believe they could here--is Hitler not still going to have to take action against Britain and--if hadn't already--action to secure the Norwegian resources?

Because he has big plans for moving East, and can't be doing that until he has some handle on Britain.

As far as the tactical maneuvers of the big siege guns, and their vulnerability to the RAF bombers, I think that is the very kind of thing the Germans would be doing to themselves.

I just...am not sure the Germans would opt to use the siege guns in France. They definitely used them against the USSR, however. If they see an option with terror bombing and airborne assault, they'll go for that.

The more wounded the Germans are before overcoming France, the less likely they'll be successful in the Battle of Britain, would be my take.

However, if they have developed a new generation of gliders, and are using them to jump over the Maginot Line, they are going to be tempted to use them against Britain, especially if they can be used to land Panzers.

Whether their attempt would be successful going across the Channel, may be a different question. I would only point out, the Germans are going to be dealing with relatively static defenses in both France and Britain.

What I think this is showing us, though, is that static defenses are not the useless thing that some blitzkrieg advocates might maintain! To actually have to take on the Maginot Line, would have been a major undertaking.

And, to attempt a massive airborne operation involving armor transported in by air, not just paratroopers, is also going to be tough. The French army is slow moving and the Allies are apparently still going to be downplaying the need to cope with attack from the air, so that is the opening the Germans would have: being able to fly over the French countryside, with planes that can fairly effectively protect the bombers and gliders and transports against most of the Allied planes.

These siege guns would be something hard to imagine, so different from the otl in the West. We saw them at Sevastopol otl. But that was against a different enemy, an enemy the 1939 Germany had a different ideology about than they had about the French.

Yet, it's hard to believe the Germans wouldn't have opted to use several different tactics together: siege guns, airborne, and whatever amphib ops they could bring into play.

The Allies have so many weak spots at this stage in the War. I mean, I think Britain could survive even better without France at this stage, because the Germans would have been more wounded before winning the Battle of France. But, if they haven't been wounded more--if another scenario in which they haven't tied down any resources in Denmark, Norway, Holland or Belgium yet, but only in France itself, they're going to have wind.

But I can't say they could bring off a successful air assault on Britain, by itself, unless they are in that good a shape. And, as someone noted, even then, they might need an amphib component or use the air assault as an diversion for the amphib assault. But if the Luftwaffe hasn't had the losses it had otl, and if the Germans focus first and only on France, they'd be more intimidating going into the Battle of Britain.

The Germans have to still get into Norway. They could ignore Holland and Belgium--at least short run--but not Denmark, to protect their flank going into Norway.

Would they choose to go after Britain, too, before Norway, as they could have France? That's unlikely, I would say, because they need more resources before proceeding with the assault on Great Britain.

So, it more or less depends on which scenario plays out, as to how quickly and badly France is defeated, and how long it takes.

But lugging these siege guns around, after the fighting has started, is the kind of thing that could only be triggered by something that stung the German pride. If they do try to do that, the RAF might have something to say about it.

I am not one who has illusions about how easy it would have been to crack the Maginot Line, if one had no alternative. But I do see that there is something of an alternative in the form of an airborne assault. There are ifs and maybes as to whether the airborne could succeed uniformly across the whole battle scenario. But against the really still inadequate French military forces, the odds are with the Germans.

It's not just the equipment, it's the whole...mentality. Farbeit for France to think in terms of attacking Germany. It was always, how best to hold a position against a German attack.

This always leaves the initiative with the Germans. If one thing doesn't work, they have the option of trying something else. So time is more or less on their side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top