WI: Siegfried Line instead of Atlantic Wall?

longues_battery_nb.jpg


On March 23, '42 Hitler issued a directive ordering the construction of the famed Atlantic wall, which eventually grew to wrap around the entire coastline of France all the way up to Denmark and Norway.

600,000 french workers were designated for the task.

Barracks fortifications, barbed wire, land mines, etc were all part of the original construction which then went through another roud of refurbishment in '44

But...

********

What if instead, Hitler orders to the Siegfried Line to go through massive construction overhall with same amount of funds and manpower dedicated to it as OTLs Atlantic wall, wraping around the entire western and eastern borders of the expanded Reich. (A German Maginoit Line 2.0)

194438GE.jpg


How would this Uber-Siegfried Line effect the war?

Would the Allied Sherman tanks be able to pierce this massive land fortification? The Russian T-34?

How would no Atlantic Wall effect the war?
 

Andre27

Banned
It would make things a lot easier for the allies. Rommel had the right idea with trying to stop the western allies before they made landfall.

Logistics and siege warfare are a lot easier from land than from sea.

As for the Sherman and T34 tanks, those would not be the ones to tackle the fortifications. The Sherman and T34 (and cromwel) would come into play once the fortifications were breeched.

The breeching action would be done by Churchill AVRE, T26 Pershing, KV-1, KV-2, JS-1/2/3 depending on what time the allies reached the fortifications.

All of that is assuming the allies would use tanks instead of simply bombing them into oblivion with air power or ground based artillery.
 
We and the Americans developed concrete penetrating shells for our railway guns and howitzers. In the end we didn't deploy the weapons because the advance was too fast and they weren't needed. However in this sort of scenario I could see the Allies advancing across France and pausing before the Western Wall to allow logistics and super-heavy artillery to catch up.

Would also be a good work-out for Tallboy and Grand Slam bombs.

Of course should they delay the war in Europe into August 1945, or beyond then Little Boy and Fat Man get delivered to different targets from @.
 
Interesting.

Though I wonder, with such major installations most likely including a deep array of German AA Guns, would allied bombing be nearly as effective in the latter years of the war?
Could the German industries along the Ruhr Vally be preserved?
 

Andre27

Banned
Interesting.

Though I wonder, with such major installations most likely including a deep array of German AA Guns, would allied bombing be nearly as effective in the latter years of the war?
Could the German industries along the Ruhr Vally be preserved?

Allied bombing would be pretty much as effective and that's not even counting the potential arrival of B-29 at the European theatre.

A Siegfried Line would have pushed the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortoise_heavy_assault_tank and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank
into production which by itself would have been interesting to see.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank
 
I recall reading that differing US Division had differing methods of dealing with the 'German' Fortifications

One method involved expensive assaults using infantry and Assault Engineers

The other smacking the Bunkers with direct artillery fire until the occupants - now deaf and dazed surrendered

I prefer method 2

The British of course have AVRE and Crocs

Both have Lots of heavy Artillery, Bombers (including very large bombs and early guided bombs)

That being said the Atlantic wall didn't even slow the Allies - even on Omaha most of the Bunkers were bypassed or nutralised (many had run out of ammo) by mid morning - and of course the rest of the Atlantic wall was made useless the same day

I would suspect that the Siefreied line would take greater effort to crack
 
If the German enclosed it all, with few forts and checkpoints it could work, with the British and American armies pushing towards these weak points but they would be met by lots and lots of Germans
 
If the German enclosed it all, with few forts and checkpoints it could work, with the British and American armies pushing towards these weak points but they would be met by lots and lots of Germans

Would be like a meat grinder for the allies I think?

Though I wonder how the Soviet steam roller would work as they try to advance on east poland with such a defensive nightmare in their way.

A similar question would be like could Soviet manpower eventually overrun a defensive fortification like the Maginoit Line
 
Would be like a meat grinder for the allies I think?

Though I wonder how the Soviet steam roller would work as they try to advance on east poland with such a defensive nightmare in their way.

A similar question would be like could Soviet manpower eventually overrun a defensive fortification like the Maginoit Line
Why not? Soviet forces actually attacked former Czechoslovak fortifications on Czechoslovak German/Polish borders close to Ostrava. Czechoslovak Fortification were inspired by Maginot line. With firepower and heavy artillery they had available took them I believe something over day or two. It's long time I read the article.
 
We and the Americans developed concrete penetrating shells for our railway guns and howitzers. In the end we didn't deploy the weapons because the advance was too fast and they weren't needed. However in this sort of scenario I could see the Allies advancing across France and pausing before the Western Wall to allow logistics and super-heavy artillery to catch up.

Would also be a good work-out for Tallboy and Grand Slam bombs.

Of course should they delay the war in Europe into August 1945, or beyond then Little Boy and Fat Man get delivered to different targets from @.

A dozen of the 24cm heavy US cannon battalions were deployed to Europe in 1944. While hardly worth the effort in stratigic terms they did prove themselves tactically.

Interesting.

Though I wonder, with such major installations most likely including a deep array of German AA Guns, would allied bombing be nearly as effective in the latter years of the war?
Could the German industries along the Ruhr Vally be preserved?

Once airbases were stood up in France/Belgium in September 1942 the shorter ranged twin engine bombers were in range of Germany. That roughly doubled the weight dropping on targets east of the Rhine, and added the German transportation system to the target list. The USAAF medium bombers of the 9th AF attacked from a much lower altitude than the heavies. Below 15,000 feet vs above 20,000 & had a better accuracy due to this. Loss rates of the 9th AF to AA defense does not seem to have been notablly higher than the 8th AF despite the lower altitude operations.
 
In the West, the Atlantic Wall was a pretty sound idea: it presented an obstacle to invasion (both a physical obstacle and a psychological one - especially in the minds to invasion planners) and did slow down the immediate landings (although not the level intended by the designers). I can't see anyone convincing the Axis planners against it.

Now as far as the east goes, shifting large amounts to resources to the construction of a defensive line in the east in early/mid '42 (early enough to be ready in the late '43/early '44 timeframe) would be a stretch. In early/mid '42 all efforts were still going towards total victory in the east. The disaster of Stalingrad and failure of Kursk hadn't occurred yet. Imagine trying to convince Hitler to divert energies towards a defensive line in the east in '42 when the 6th Army was still driving on Stalingrad?

Now, plausibility aside (a POD that changes perceptions of the situation in the east) this Uber-Siegfried line would constitute a major a shift in strategy - Much more so in the east given the timing.

Keeping plausibility in-mind, imagine, in the EAST, instead of a pure fixed-fortifications approach (similar to OTL Atlantic Wall), that the "wall" is closer to a series of deep defensive lines in key areas intended to slow-down the enemy. Something that allows the defenders time to retreat while maintaining the capacity for a mobile defense with limited counter-attacks. I’m describing something along the lines of what Rommel proposed in hindsight in Aug/Sept '44 when he was recovering from wounds (see the quote at the top of this thread https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=257411). This would have major effects on the eastern front that could either lengthen or shorten the war in the east. As I said before, it would represent a major strategic shift and that in itself would have effects on the duration and course of the war. It would really be a titanic shift that early on though…


Aside from the east, in the west, An Uber-Siegfried line could lead to more small-medium raids early on - what effects would these have on Allied and Axis planning? Similarly, we might see an earlier attempt at a major invasion by the WAllies (an earlier Overlord).
 
Last edited:

Andre27

Banned
In the West, the Atlantic Wall was a pretty sound idea: it presented an obstacle to invasion (both a physical obstacle and a psychological one - especially in the minds to invasion planners) and did slow down the immediate landings (although not the level intended by the designers). I can't see anyone convincing the Axis planners against it.

Aside from the east, in the west, An Uber-Siegfried line could lead to more small-medium raids early on - what effects would these have on Allied and Axis planning? Similarly, we might see an earlier attempt at a major invasion by the WAllies (an earlier Overlord).

I'm not sure if a lack of an Atlantic wall would increase the number of raids.
What would have happened is that the Germans would have to divert far larger numbers of infantry to coastal defence.

One of the reasons why the wall was a good idea was that it allowed (relatively) small numbers low quality troops to mount a plausible deterrent. Without the heavy bunkers and obstacles more troops of better quality would have to be diverted to coastal defence in order to achieve the same result.
 
With enough artillery, heavy tanks and combat engineers almost any fixed fortification can be broken. This was true even in WWI; it's just that until 1918 exploitation forces and artillery couldn't move past the breach before reserve forces sealed it. This time, once the breach is made hordes of medium tanks and self-propelled artillery will be pouring through and wreaking havoc in the rear, making the unbroken parts of the line pointless.
 
A landing by sea is tricky and presented the greatest chance of being repelled under the right conditions compared to a Maginot Line 2.0. Plus, handing France over to the WAllies without a fight is a major problem as the German generals knew it was their biggest bargaining chip that they could hand the WAllies after a military victory as part of the armistice that could get their publics back home to think the armistice was worth it rather then trying again.
 
I'm not sure if a lack of an Atlantic wall would increase the number of raids.
What would have happened is that the Germans would have to divert far larger numbers of infantry to coastal defence.

One of the reasons why the wall was a good idea was that it allowed (relatively) small numbers low quality troops to mount a plausible deterrent. Without the heavy bunkers and obstacles more troops of better quality would have to be diverted to coastal defence in order to achieve the same result.

Agreed 100%.

I would think the most likely scenario is to keep the Atlantic Wall the same as OTL, but (with the correct POD) a strategy change in the east in mid '42 that leads to an earlier (and more prudent) switch to a defensive strategy (in the east). I belive this POD would be difficult to come up with, however.
 
What would have happened is that the Germans would have to divert far larger numbers of infantry to coastal defence.

One of the reasons why the wall was a good idea was that it allowed (relatively) small numbers low quality troops to mount a plausible deterrent. Without the heavy bunkers and obstacles more troops of better quality would have to be diverted to coastal defence in order to achieve the same result.

I would think the most likely scenario is to keep the Atlantic Wall the same as OTL, but (with the correct POD) a strategy change in the east in mid '42 that leads to an earlier (and more prudent) switch to a defensive strategy (in the east). I belive this POD would be difficult to come up with, however.

possible earlier withdrawal to Tunisia? no further reinforcement of North Africa?

maybe even a preemptive Case Anton with Italy occupying (former) Vichy areas as something of compensation for loss of Libya?

cannot think of POD to go on defensive in USSR in 1942.
 
Top