A bit of a random question...lets assume the Germans tried to assault a Maginot line fort. The forts themselves were packed with hardened artillery positions, but my understanding is that they didn't have a great number of machine gun posts and the staffing was relatively light. For example, one of the largest forts, Hackenberg, had 10km of underground railroad track to support the various batteries and was fully electrified with a self contained generator, but the whole thing only had 1200 men. Some of the batteries didn't have any machine gun posts at all. Were they going to get infantry support from an external source, or was the firepower and minefield/barbed wire combination considered sufficient?
Also, I understand there weren't many guns in the line larger than 155mm. There were naval guns in the period far larger than that. Why weren't larger guns incorporated into these forts?
The top of Hackenberg is nice. :)
Quote from: alfred russel on September 14, 2012, 03:32:18 PM
A bit of a random question...lets assume the Germans tried to assault a Maginot line fort. The forts themselves were packed with hardened artillery positions, but my understanding is that they didn't have a great number of machine gun posts and the staffing was relatively light. For example, one of the largest forts, Hackenberg, had 10km of underground railroad track to support the various batteries and was fully electrified with a self contained generator, but the whole thing only had 1200 men. Some of the batteries didn't have any machine gun posts at all. Were they going to get infantry support from an external source, or was the firepower and minefield/barbed wire combination considered sufficient?
Also, I understand there weren't many guns in the line larger than 155mm. There were naval guns in the period far larger than that. Why weren't larger guns incorporated into these forts?
What were very large guns used for ?
Anti-shipping, seige, attacking hardened enemy forts ?
Not many of those involved in any potential attack on the line, so large howitzers are enough to defend the forts from most threats.
iirc that was the gist of the defensive plans, so over all the system required quite a few divisions. I vaguely recall the Germans did attack some of the forts, once France was in the process of folding, and made quite a lot of progress, but in large part because most of the supporting troops needed for active defence of the frontier regions had been withdrawn.
IIRC, Rommel stated that he was able to get the section of the line his 7th Panzer faced to surrender by having his tanks fire on the move. They couldn't hit jack squat, but apparently that demoralized the French defenders significantly enough. Plus I think they were attacking from the rear-- I imagine that helped a little :P
Quote from: mongers on September 14, 2012, 04:00:36 PM
What were very large guns used for ?
Anti-shipping, seige, attacking hardened enemy forts ?
Not many of those involved in any potential attack on the line, so large howitzers are enough to defend the forts from most threats.
iirc that was the gist of the defensive plans, so over all the system required quite a few divisions. I vaguely recall the Germans did attack some of the forts, once France was in the process of folding, and made quite a lot of progress, but in large part because most of the supporting troops needed for active defence of the frontier regions had been withdrawn.
Mongers, I understand the WW1 forts got blasted to hell when they ended up under artillery barrage. If the Germans wanted to assault the forts, what was keeping them from using much larger guns to assault the forts in places the forts would not be able to return fire? I would have thought you would want some larger guns just for counterbattery fire.
Quote from: mongers on September 14, 2012, 04:00:36 PM
iirc that was the gist of the defensive plans, so over all the system required quite a few divisions. I vaguely recall the Germans did attack some of the forts, once France was in the process of folding, and made quite a lot of progress, but in large part because most of the supporting troops needed for active defence of the frontier regions had been withdrawn.
Where would these divisions deploy? In front of the forts' batteries, or among them?
Sounds like it would have worked against zombies.
Not sure bigger guns would have made much of a difference. If it was a coastal fort I'm sure it would have had bigger guns.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 14, 2012, 04:16:59 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 14, 2012, 04:00:36 PM
What were very large guns used for ?
Anti-shipping, seige, attacking hardened enemy forts ?
Not many of those involved in any potential attack on the line, so large howitzers are enough to defend the forts from most threats.
iirc that was the gist of the defensive plans, so over all the system required quite a few divisions. I vaguely recall the Germans did attack some of the forts, once France was in the process of folding, and made quite a lot of progress, but in large part because most of the supporting troops needed for active defence of the frontier regions had been withdrawn.
Mongers, I understand the WW1 forts got blasted to hell when they ended up under artillery barrage. If the Germans wanted to assault the forts, what was keeping them from using much larger guns to assault the forts in places the forts would not be able to return fire? I would have thought you would want some larger guns just for counterbattery fire.
This site give quite a good overview of the Forts and the assaults on them:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzev1mpx/maginotlineatwar/index.html (http://mysite.verizon.net/vzev1mpx/maginotlineatwar/index.html)
My guess is concrete is relatively cheap compared with the effort and
time involved in accurately lobbing large shells at fortification.
Quote from: mongers on September 14, 2012, 04:34:22 PM
My guess is concrete is relatively cheap compared with the effort and time involved in accurately lobbing large shells at fortification.
Mongers, the time part was my assessment too. It would take a long time to saturation bombard the batteries into rubble (with a static line in WW1 that is something they had time for). But the forts weren't impregnable.
I'd question the cost angle just because the fortified the entire border. That is a lot of concrete.
IIRC*, the upkeep costs of Maginot Line were enormous and cut into France's military budget, so I don't think you can claim the Line as success from the POV of imposing disproportional costs on the enemy.
* The item being recalled is the Wiki article I read 10 minutes ago.
I believe the gaps between the forts were covered by trenches Fredo.
I didn't think 155mm was considered "a really big gun" even in the 1930's. I thought that was pretty much the standard for heavy artillery at the time. And one of things learned in WWI was that you really needed something bigger then a 75 to destroy enemy trenches. Maybe they intended to move larger artillery batteries around behind the line as needed.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 14, 2012, 04:48:19 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 14, 2012, 04:34:22 PM
My guess is concrete is relatively cheap compared with the effort and time involved in accurately lobbing large shells at fortification.
Mongers, the time part was my assessment too. It would take a long time to saturation bombard the batteries into rubble (with a static line in WW1 that is something they had time for). But the forts weren't impregnable.
I'd question the cost angle just because the fortified the entire border. That is a lot of concrete.
My understanding is that the original plan called for the line to extend all the way to the sea, but it was eventually decided not to fortify the Franco-Belgian border partly because of political considerations, but mostly because of the cost.
And yeah, the cost of the Maginot Line was part of why the French Navy and Air Force were so starved for funds in the 1930s.
Quote from: dps on September 14, 2012, 06:39:23 PM
My understanding is that the original plan called for the line to extend all the way to the sea, but it was eventually decided not to fortify the Franco-Belgian border partly because of political considerations, but mostly because of the cost.
And by the time they decided to go ahead with the fortifications anyway, they were facing a winter so cold that the concrete could not set, so France abandoned the 1939-1940 project.
QuoteAnd yeah, the cost of the Maginot Line was part of why the French Navy and Air Force were so starved for funds in the 1930s.
True. It was also why the French could not imagine a strategy for fighting the war that didn't assume the Maginot Line was impregnable.
I thought the idea with the Maginot line was to force the Germans to attack through the Low Countries and keep all the fighting there?
Did the Germans actually employ super-long range weapons against the Maginot line?
Quote from: Neil on September 15, 2012, 08:16:31 AM
Did the Germans actually employ super-long range weapons against the Maginot line?
Yes, they sent the 7th Pz. Division to Paris to turn off the Maginot line.
Quote from: DGuller on September 14, 2012, 05:09:17 PM
IIRC*, the upkeep costs of Maginot Line were enormous and cut into France's military budget, so I don't think you can claim the Line as success from the POV of imposing disproportional costs on the enemy.
And the associated defensive strategy really hurt French attempts to find allies in Central Europe and encircle Germany.
Hey, Shelf. Hadn't seen you in a bit. Glad you haven't left us.
So here is my evolved thinking on this. Many of you know far more about the military stuff than I do, so feel free to poke holes in it.
The Maginot Line was developed with a WWI type conflict in mind. What was decisive in a WWI battle was being able to quickly move men and material into a sector and keeping effective command and control. The real strength of the Maginot Line was that you would have front line troops directly connected and supported by the french rail network--all the way to the firing line. Unlike the guns that obviously needed some exposure to fire, the rail network was deep underground and essentially immune from attack. If the Germans managed to take one of the forts, they would then have an isolated position having to be supported over exposed ground by truck or animals (as the forts had interlocking fire, this supply chain could also come under fire).
I think this is what made the line "impregnable", not the batteries built into the forts.