WI: Maginot Line to the Channel

The Swiss Air Force...

...I recall reading on their website that they went up against Bf109s with their own earlier-model Bf109s and beat the Luftwaffe hollow. This was in a demonstration by Goering to show the Swiss how helpless they were. It took diplomatic threats of a ground invasion to make the Swiss back down enough to allow sealed trains through the Alpine tunnels.
 
Also that the Swiss tend to make serious efforts to appease potential invaders, including Nazi Germany in WWII.

One possible problem with the Maginot Line is that a defense intended to hold the Germans with steel and concrete somehow became a massive cost in manpower with something like 40 divisions required to hold it. Extending it to the sea in similar strength would offer many benefits but how many French divisions can be committed to this line before problems arise?

Not to mention that Belgium, a French ally until 1936, might see something wrong with any defense line formed up behind Belgium's border with France.;)


Beedok, at least 90% of what BlairWitch749 posted about the Western Wall in 1939 is pure fiction as is his analysis of attacks on fortifications in WWII. The French army was unprepared and ponderous in movement, that part was correct.
 
Also that the Swiss tend to make serious efforts to appease potential invaders, including Nazi Germany in WWII.

One possible problem with the Maginot Line is that a defense intended to hold the Germans with steel and concrete somehow became a massive cost in manpower with something like 40 divisions required to hold it. Extending it to the sea in similar strength would offer many benefits but how many French divisions can be committed to this line before problems arise?

Not to mention that Belgium, a French ally until 1936, might see something wrong with any defense line formed up behind Belgium's border with France.;)

Beedok, at least 90% of what BlairWitch749 posted about the Western Wall in 1939 is pure fiction as is his analysis of attacks on fortifications in WWII. The French army was unprepared and ponderous in movement, that part was correct.

Grimm, what part of my description of the west wall was incorrect?

also please tell me which frontal fortress assault didn't involve heavy casualties to the attacker because i can give you 10 examples from ww2 that did

also the northernmost section of the maginot line actually had guns that had the range to shoot into western belgium
 

The Dude

Banned
Not to mention that Belgium, a French ally until 1936, might see something wrong with any defense line formed up behind Belgium's border with France.;)
That was the point of the WI, that France just says "screw Belgium, we've never liked them anyway" and proceed to build it. Also, I think that the French could staff this extended Maginot Line if they have to. I mean, who else are they going to worry about? They can just put a couple of guys with BB guns on the Italian border and still come out ahead.
 

Markus

Banned
That was the point of the WI, that France just says "screw Belgium, we've never liked them anyway" and proceed to build it. Also, I think that the French could staff this extended Maginot Line if they have to. I mean, who else are they going to worry about?

They would not get that attitude before 1936 and after that there is not much left to do fortification-wise. The southern part of the border is already secure and the rest is covered by Belgium and the Netherlands who will defend themselfs once attacked by Germany. The only thing France needs to do is being ready to reinforce them ASAP after a german attack.
 

The Dude

Banned
They would not get that attitude before 1936 and after that there is not much left to do fortification-wise. The southern part of the border is already secure and the rest is covered by Belgium and the Netherlands who will defend themselfs once attacked by Germany. The only thing France needs to do is being ready to reinforce them ASAP after a german attack.
I think the French are paranoid enough to consider this. After all, they were really, really paranoid.
 
They would not get that attitude before 1936 and after that there is not much left to do fortification-wise. The southern part of the border is already secure and the rest is covered by Belgium and the Netherlands who will defend themselfs once attacked by Germany. The only thing France needs to do is being ready to reinforce them ASAP after a german attack.
Which leads to major encirclement. I think changing the attitude of before 1936 is a valid POD.

I think the French are paranoid enough to consider this. After all, they were really, really paranoid.

Um no not really, scared or worried maybe but not particularly paranoid imo. Unless you have some examples.
 

The Dude

Banned
Which leads to major encirclement. I think changing the attitude of 1936 is a valid POD.



Um no not really imo, scared maybe but not particularly paranoid. Unless you have some examples.
I do have an example: the building (or should I say overbuilding) of the Maginot Line.:rolleyes:
Seriously, you don't build fortifications like that unless you are extremely afraid of something. It's like the Great Wall of China. China was extremely frightened of the Mongols, so they built a huge wall. Replace Mongolia with the Nazis and China with France and you have the story of the Maginot Line.
 
I do have an example: the building (or should I say overbuilding) of the Maginot Line.:rolleyes:
Seriously, you don't build fortifications like that unless you are extremely afraid of something. It's like the Great Wall of China. China was extremely frightened of the Mongols, so they built a huge wall. Replace Mongolia with the Nazis and China with France and you have the story of the Maginot Line.
So lets get this straight, because France wants to avoid trench warfare that makes them paranoid? You know who else wants to avoid trench warfare? Pretty much most of the world. :rolleyes:

Are you saying that anyone who wants to be prepared is paranoid? Because the people that DONT want to be prepared usually end up in the stupid pile.
 

The Dude

Banned
So lets get this straight, because France wants to avoid trench warfare that makes them paranoid? You know who else wants to avoid trench warfare? Pretty much most of the world. :rolleyes:

Are you saying that anyone who wants to be prepared is paranoid? Because the people that DONT want to be prepared usually end up in the stupid pile.
Not trench warfare, but any war at all. They not only wanted to be prepared, they wanted the Germans to come up to their walls and die by the thousands, just as happened to them.

They just weren't prepared enough. The point of this WI is to pretty much ask, what if they were prepared?
 

Markus

Banned
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markus
They would not get that attitude before 1936 and after that there is not much left to do fortification-wise. The southern part of the border is already secure and the rest is covered by Belgium and the Netherlands who will defend themselfs once attacked by Germany. The only thing France needs to do is being ready to reinforce them ASAP after a german attack.
Which leads to major encirclement. I think changing the attitude of before 1936 is a valid POD.

Only if one assumes that Germany launches it´s main attack through the least suitable terrain and that Belgium declines to defend this terrain and does so without telling France.

Anyway, more concrete pillboxes and very few additional units could still defend the area behind the Ardennes long enough for reinforcements to arrive. The are north of the Ardennes is covered by the field army, so there is still no need for the same level of fortifications like in the south. Especially not since their were more urgent problems to adress. Many weapons of the Army were obsolescent going obsolete, like rifles, light field guns, the AT-guns were a bit light, some FT-17 were still in use AND than there was the Air Force. :(
 
Not trench warfare, but any war at all. They not only wanted to be prepared, they wanted the Germans to come up to their walls and die by the thousands, just as happened to them.

They just weren't prepared enough. The point of this WI is to pretty much ask, what if they were prepared?
So your calling them paranoid cause they wanted to win the war? Using the Godwin formula that means the French we're indeed paranoid.

Along with all patriotic people in the world.
 
Many weapons of the Army were obsolescent going obsolete, like rifles, light field guns, the AT-guns were a bit light, some FT-17 were still in use AND than there was the Air Force. :(
To advocate for the French, considering their opponents, its not like the French and British AT-guns were that bad. And the FT tanks were in storage until it was decided to just throw the lot into combat in desperation.

As for the air force and firearms, i pretty much agree with you.

Assuming Douglas's statement is true:
The Maginot Line cost around five billion francs over eight years. Given that the annual French defense budget in these years averaged around 45 billion, and that Maginot Line spending was therefore less than 2% of that budget, and that this budget was cut by 25% from 1930-33, it's entirely feasible from a technical standpoint to see an Alps-to-Channel Maginot Line. You need to work out the diplomatic side of things, but it's quite plausible fiscally.
Shouldent France have enough money for new rifles and machineguns? Oh and radios, those are pretty important too.

Britain probably could have done a bit better too.
 

The Dude

Banned
So your calling them paranoid cause they wanted to win the war? Using the Godwin formula that means the French we're indeed paranoid.

Along with all patriotic people in the world.
Let us also not forget that the French would most likely trust their own defenses over those of the Belgians.
 
Only if one assumes that Germany launches it´s main attack through the least suitable terrain and that Belgium declines to defend this terrain and does so without telling France.

Anyway, more concrete pillboxes and very few additional units could still defend the area behind the Ardennes long enough for reinforcements to arrive. The are north of the Ardennes is covered by the field army, so there is still no need for the same level of fortifications like in the south. Especially not since their were more urgent problems to adress. Many weapons of the Army were obsolescent going obsolete, like rifles, light field guns, the AT-guns were a bit light, some FT-17 were still in use AND than there was the Air Force. :(

France had better and more powerful AT guns than Germany... their 25mm piece had a super high velocity that gave it better balistic qualities than the german 37mm piece that was their mainstay at the time. The French 47mm piece could knock out any German tank from 500 meters no problem. The FT-17s where not for front line use (even though they could engage a Panzer MK 1 or 2 and have a reasonable chance of destroying them) they where for infantry support... the french had a larger tank park than germany and be it the H39 or the B-1 or the Suoma their designs where at least competitive.

Their airforce was also very large, certainly capable of being competitive with the luftwaffe, especially with British support... their problem was doctrine... the germans where willing to fly 5 fighter sorties and 8-10 bomber sorties a day which in effect acted as a huge force multiplier
 
To advocate for the French, considering their opponents, its not like the French and British AT-guns were that bad. And the FT tanks were in storage until it was decided to just throw the lot into combat in desperation.

As for the air force and firearms, i pretty much agree with you.

Assuming Douglas's statement is true:

Shouldent France have enough money for new rifles and machineguns? Oh and radios, those are pretty important too.

Britain probably could have done a bit better too.


AA guns would have been a good investment... their most numerous model was a really crappy 8mm machine gun on a high angle mount...

AA defense fail
 
So let´s see,

the Germans simply wouldn´t launch an offensive against the Maginot line, if the makers of Operation Sea Lion didn´t even consider it, then you also know it isn´t because they where gutless wretches.
So what does Germany do in 1939? Will the extended Maginot line make Hitler more carefull in 1939, knowing France cannot be vanquished?

In the case things are little changed compared to IOTL, what does Germany do in August-October 1939? (butterfly effect resultin in either slower or faster pace of events)

Knowing Germany may face a two front war, Hitler decide to mobilise from day 1, instead of day +1170 of the war.
This greater mobilization goes into the construction of a massive reinforced line along the Franco-German border. When would that reinforcement be scheduled for completion? I mean, when did the Germans estimate that the French would launch an all-out assault against the west line?
The Phony War continues up to summer of 1941, the Anglo-French have constructed a massive force to breakthrough the west wall, helas for them the west wall haven´t been static in the last 18 or even 9 months. Their tactics remaines awfull, they fail to breakthrough the west wall and suffer massive casualties in the process, sustained massive casualties against fortified zones will not stand´with their public opinions. If the French governement insist on a even worst version of the trench wars, soldiers will mutinie, the people of France will rise up and overthrow it!


Big question is, what happen with the Soviet-Union?

At some point, even with less movement warfare, the Ploesti oilfields won´t be enough to sustain the German war effor, especially if it is fully mobilised.

Does Germany launch an offensive in summer 1940 against the Soviet-Union, hoping the Soviet regime will collapse in a few weeks? Or does Hitler cancel the operation until the Anglo-French launch and fail their offensive?
 
Top