I came across a great book by Ian Ousby "The Road To Verdun." It is thought provoking in that you gain a perspective on why the French constructed the Maginot Line. German prior to 1940, invaded France in 1870 and again in 1914. I have my own thoughts on the wall and french military doctrine between the wars, however, what I trust we can develop is a series of points on the effectivenessand benefits of this construction marvel. So, what do you think when someone mentions the Maginot Line and why?
Look forward to the discussion.
DJ
History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
Maginot Line
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Monday, August 05, 2002 - 11:32 AM UTC
penpen
Member Since: April 11, 2002
entire network: 1,757 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, August 05, 2002 - 05:05 PM UTC
I have the feeling that the french attitude of that time was : "we beat them last time, we'll beat them
next time".
That means that there was a lack of fortification, preparation, organisation, training...
Many bunkers were not operational. Many had flaws bacause that made them easier to build... or to
man, but only in time of peace. For exemple, some had barracks built on their side, restricting
field of view, and even field of fire !
Some of the arty units meant as support for them didn't shoot a single round (not even in training)
during the complete "drole de guerre"...
The bunkers built along rivers were far too spaced. They couldn't support each other.
On the other side, the germans had much better built defencive lines...
OK, that will be all for now !
next time".
That means that there was a lack of fortification, preparation, organisation, training...
Many bunkers were not operational. Many had flaws bacause that made them easier to build... or to
man, but only in time of peace. For exemple, some had barracks built on their side, restricting
field of view, and even field of fire !
Some of the arty units meant as support for them didn't shoot a single round (not even in training)
during the complete "drole de guerre"...
The bunkers built along rivers were far too spaced. They couldn't support each other.
On the other side, the germans had much better built defencive lines...
OK, that will be all for now !
SS-74
Member Since: May 13, 2002
entire network: 3,271 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, August 05, 2002 - 05:18 PM UTC
My thought every time I heard of the Maginot Line is that Walls never stop an invader, no matter how elaborated it was built. The Great Wall that was a continuous built wall that at some place as tall as 30 to 40 feet, and is built on top of the mountain ridge cannot even stop horse mounted, arrow shooting Chin warriors, how can Maginot line stop a mechanized army that also had airpower.
Everyone whom tried to put up a wall between themselves and their enemy is kinda stupid, you go out and strike first before your enemy can land the blow. My 2 cents.
Everyone whom tried to put up a wall between themselves and their enemy is kinda stupid, you go out and strike first before your enemy can land the blow. My 2 cents.
penpen
Member Since: April 11, 2002
entire network: 1,757 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, August 05, 2002 - 05:42 PM UTC
Well Dave, I don't think that ideas were that modern back then,
most of all dealing with mechanised forces.
WWI was a foot infantry kind of war. There were very few tanks and they were there to support
the infantry. The french (as well es many other countries) had stuck to that vision. The number of
french tanks in 1940 was small.
Blitzkrieg was an unheard of concept !
most of all dealing with mechanised forces.
WWI was a foot infantry kind of war. There were very few tanks and they were there to support
the infantry. The french (as well es many other countries) had stuck to that vision. The number of
french tanks in 1940 was small.
Blitzkrieg was an unheard of concept !
Sabot
Member Since: December 18, 2001
entire network: 12,596 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,557 Posts
entire network: 12,596 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,557 Posts
Posted: Monday, August 05, 2002 - 08:21 PM UTC
Problem with the Maginot Line was that each gun turret was designed to cover a frontal arc. The guns did not have the ability to provide 360° coverage. Additionally, the line was basically a direct fire pillbox and not conducive to localized counter attack support (no indirect capability). Soldiers stayed inside the fortifications to fight, and did not deploy forward of the line. Lastly, they left their flanks open.
French doctrine was very WWI. They initially had better tanks than Germany; however, they used the tanks as piecemeal infantry support instead of as armored spearheads like the Germans did. Germany's armor commanders were some forward thinkers whose basic armor tactics still hold true today.
When I hear Maginot Line, I think "France's Folly". It gives the population a false sense of security. Much like when the US has nukes and long range bombers and even now that the missile umbrella is in the talks. Then the people think that a formidable standing army is unnecessary because they are protected by this elaborate shield/wall/fort. It is a deterrent to attack, but a stronger counter attacking force than the enemy attacking force is required to hold the ground.
French doctrine was very WWI. They initially had better tanks than Germany; however, they used the tanks as piecemeal infantry support instead of as armored spearheads like the Germans did. Germany's armor commanders were some forward thinkers whose basic armor tactics still hold true today.
When I hear Maginot Line, I think "France's Folly". It gives the population a false sense of security. Much like when the US has nukes and long range bombers and even now that the missile umbrella is in the talks. Then the people think that a formidable standing army is unnecessary because they are protected by this elaborate shield/wall/fort. It is a deterrent to attack, but a stronger counter attacking force than the enemy attacking force is required to hold the ground.
sniper
Member Since: May 07, 2002
entire network: 1,065 Posts
KitMaker Network: 497 Posts
Posted: Monday, August 05, 2002 - 11:38 PM UTC
Well, no one really expected an entire army with armor to come throught the Ardennes, did they?
shiryon
Member Since: April 26, 2002
entire network: 876 Posts
KitMaker Network: 256 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 12:18 AM UTC
While with hindsight it's clear it didn't work The wall was made to defend France from an infantry and artillery attack. While this may or maynot have been wrong Most countries ignored armour during the intervening years. I think the biggestr mistake was not protecting the Belgian Frontier in a similar fashion. Just because your enemy is here today doesn't mean he won't be there tommorow.I can't compare our knowledge and use of mobile tactics or small unit tactics to what was the norm then. I think there biggest mistake was complacency and Europe's sad belief in appeasement then and now.Overall I think its an engineering marvel and a lesson that wasn't even learned 30 yrs later on the suez.
Josh Weingarten
aKa shiryon
Josh Weingarten
aKa shiryon
Ranger74
Member Since: April 04, 2002
entire network: 1,290 Posts
KitMaker Network: 480 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 12:49 AM UTC
Well, I have to disagree with some of the points layed out above. I can not disagree with anything PenPen says as I was not able to get to the Maginot Line while stationed in Germany. I do not doubt the problems - any large GOVERNMENT PROJECT is bound to have problems!!!! But, from what I understand, the "wall" did its job. The problem was that it was not tied in with any effective plan to counter a move around the north end of the line. The Allies had one response to a German move thru the low countries, and ignored the threat in the Ardenne - defending only with some horse-mounted cavalry. The wall was a successful "economy of force" plan, but French organization and tactics were based on lessons of the Great War, as stated by several above.
The Germans, as most losers of previous conflicts, and after terrible manpower losses, learned the necessary lessons to not repeat the last war's defeat. The French learned the wrong lessons - how to replicate the last year of WW1 when tank-suppported infantry won the day, plus they were short of manpower after their horrendous loses in the first part of the war, and compensated with the Maginot Line. The French had as good and in many cases better equipment than the Germans, but poor tactics, and the British weren't in large enough numbers to impact the actions, they did have one armor division that could and did counter the 7th Panzer at Arras.
Jeff
The Germans, as most losers of previous conflicts, and after terrible manpower losses, learned the necessary lessons to not repeat the last war's defeat. The French learned the wrong lessons - how to replicate the last year of WW1 when tank-suppported infantry won the day, plus they were short of manpower after their horrendous loses in the first part of the war, and compensated with the Maginot Line. The French had as good and in many cases better equipment than the Germans, but poor tactics, and the British weren't in large enough numbers to impact the actions, they did have one armor division that could and did counter the 7th Panzer at Arras.
Jeff
Awall
Member Since: July 23, 2002
entire network: 63 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 12:54 AM UTC
When I hear Maginot line, I think of a great French effort that didn't work well. The ideas were all there, but the execution wasn't. The French must have thought that having a front firing arc was enough. They were hoping to stop the Germans before the reached the line. Also, the Germans kinda skirted right by as mentioned earlier by mechanized infantry. Easily out done. But nonetheless, a fantastic effort for the time.
sniper
Member Since: May 07, 2002
entire network: 1,065 Posts
KitMaker Network: 497 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 01:13 AM UTC
Look, most military men are preparing to fight the last war that has occured, not the next one. This is true throughout all of WWII and even true today.
This is not to say that these folks are dumb. The fact is, WE can look back and say 'gee, they should have done a, b, and c to prevent d, e, and f.'
Look at our' war on terror.' We are already saying ' gee, why didn't the airlines do a, b, and c to prevent d, e, and f?' No one planned on razor blade equipped hijackers slamming planes full of fuel into buildings. (I doubt that such a scenario would even have made it into a Hollywood script!) Aircrews were always tought to comply with the hijackers, get the plane on the ground and then there are options. Not true anymore.
Why should anyone who had been through WWI have thought that another war with Germany would be different? In truth, the Nazis were just as surprised over the defeat of France in a few weeks as the rest of the world. Hitler never imagined it would be so easy!
I don't think the Maginot line was a failure because of its construction. That's why the Germans bypassed it!
Someone mentioned the Belgian Frontier. You need to remember, these are self-ruled contries we're talking about. Do you think the French could have said 'hey Belgium, France is going to put up a barrier between you and germany.'? As I mentioned, no one thought an advance could come through the Ardennes like it did.
How would Canada feel about several thousands of miles of guns along it's border with the U.S because the U.S. fears an attack by a hostile invader through Canada? Kinda tough on trade don't ya think?
Once again, do you think the French, who didn't have the benefit of hindsight, could envision German armor going right through Belgium overnight?
Steve
This is not to say that these folks are dumb. The fact is, WE can look back and say 'gee, they should have done a, b, and c to prevent d, e, and f.'
Look at our' war on terror.' We are already saying ' gee, why didn't the airlines do a, b, and c to prevent d, e, and f?' No one planned on razor blade equipped hijackers slamming planes full of fuel into buildings. (I doubt that such a scenario would even have made it into a Hollywood script!) Aircrews were always tought to comply with the hijackers, get the plane on the ground and then there are options. Not true anymore.
Why should anyone who had been through WWI have thought that another war with Germany would be different? In truth, the Nazis were just as surprised over the defeat of France in a few weeks as the rest of the world. Hitler never imagined it would be so easy!
I don't think the Maginot line was a failure because of its construction. That's why the Germans bypassed it!
Someone mentioned the Belgian Frontier. You need to remember, these are self-ruled contries we're talking about. Do you think the French could have said 'hey Belgium, France is going to put up a barrier between you and germany.'? As I mentioned, no one thought an advance could come through the Ardennes like it did.
How would Canada feel about several thousands of miles of guns along it's border with the U.S because the U.S. fears an attack by a hostile invader through Canada? Kinda tough on trade don't ya think?
Once again, do you think the French, who didn't have the benefit of hindsight, could envision German armor going right through Belgium overnight?
Steve
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 02:13 AM UTC
Let me pile on here with a point to ponder. Almost every reply states something to the effect that "the Maginot Line did not work." The point I now place to you is that the Maginot Line did exactly what it was suppose to do. It was designed and built to deny an enemy movement along an avenue of approach into France. Did the Germans penetrate the Maginot Line in 1940? Let's see where we go with that thought.
DJ
DJ
Bodeen
#026
Member Since: June 08, 2002
entire network: 1,744 Posts
KitMaker Network: 283 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 02:31 AM UTC
#:-) 
I was lucky enough to visit one of the working forts on the Maginot Line in Bitsche, France, several times. I can see how the French could get a false sense of security. These forts are awesome. They just didn't expect the Germans to do an end around through the Ardennes . It seems that everyone,except the Germans planned on a WWI type of defensive warfare. Unfortunately for the Germans..the Allies learned quickly how to use the Blitzkrieg...more effectively because of the superiority of men and materiel. If you ever have the chance to visit this great piece of history...do it! Bitsche is not far from Pirmasens, Germany. There is also a great little hobby shop in town that sells French manufactured models at great prices.
I was lucky enough to visit one of the working forts on the Maginot Line in Bitsche, France, several times. I can see how the French could get a false sense of security. These forts are awesome. They just didn't expect the Germans to do an end around through the Ardennes . It seems that everyone,except the Germans planned on a WWI type of defensive warfare. Unfortunately for the Germans..the Allies learned quickly how to use the Blitzkrieg...more effectively because of the superiority of men and materiel. If you ever have the chance to visit this great piece of history...do it! Bitsche is not far from Pirmasens, Germany. There is also a great little hobby shop in town that sells French manufactured models at great prices. 
sniper
Member Since: May 07, 2002
entire network: 1,065 Posts
KitMaker Network: 497 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 03:05 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Let me pile on here with a point to ponder. Almost every reply states something to the effect that "the Maginot Line did not work." The point I now place to you is that the Maginot Line did exactly what it was suppose to do. It was designed and built to deny an enemy movement along an avenue of approach into France. Did the Germans penetrate the Maginot Line in 1940? Let's see where we go with that thought.
DJ
No, the line itself was not a failure. That's why, as I mentioned before, it was avoided.
That's why von Manstein, von Rundstedt, and Guderian came up with Sichelschnitt. It was a way to deal with Maginot.
Quoted Text
Unfortunately for the Germans..the Allies learned quickly how to use the Blitzkrieg...more effectively because of the superiority of men and materiel.
Actually, historians will argue that true 'Blitzkrieg' was only used a few times;
Poland in 1939
France in 1940
and by Pattons 3rd Army breakout from Normandy.
I think the term has been overused and applied to any major offensive that involves armor.
Steve
sniper
Member Since: May 07, 2002
entire network: 1,065 Posts
KitMaker Network: 497 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 03:16 AM UTC
Remember this; the invasion of France was not expected to be a push-over. The Germans were as suprised as everyone else in the world by the success and the speed.
If you look on paper at just the numbers, you will see that the French had considerable forces. The French had 3,200 tanks compared to Germany's 2,700. So, it wasn't like France relied on Maginot alone. It was one part of their defensive strategy.
How about three big reasons for the French defeat;
new government in England (May 8 )
new government in France (March 20)
General Gamelin's decision to commit his reserve forces in Belgium.
Steve
If you look on paper at just the numbers, you will see that the French had considerable forces. The French had 3,200 tanks compared to Germany's 2,700. So, it wasn't like France relied on Maginot alone. It was one part of their defensive strategy.
How about three big reasons for the French defeat;
new government in England (May 8 )
new government in France (March 20)
General Gamelin's decision to commit his reserve forces in Belgium.
Steve
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 06:27 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Remember this; the invasion of France was not expected to be a push-over. The Germans were as suprised as everyone else in the world by the success and the speed.
If you look on paper at just the numbers, you will see that the French had considerable forces. The French had 3,200 tanks compared to Germany's 2,700. So, it wasn't like France relied on Maginot alone. It was one part of their defensive strategy.
How about three big reasons for the French defeat;
new government in England (May 8 )
new government in France (March 20)
General Gamelin's decision to commit his reserve forces in Belgium.
Steve
Steve--Nice. Here's my reasons:
-French Doctrine of "Methodical Warfare"
-Gamelin's failure to be in communications with his commanders
-French Assumption that "they would never" come through the Ardennes
What do you think?
DJ
Bodeen
#026
Member Since: June 08, 2002
entire network: 1,744 Posts
KitMaker Network: 283 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 08:02 AM UTC
I guess if you want to get technical about it the Germans, sorry I know this isn't about the Maginot Line, did pretty much use blitzkrieg tactics during Barbarossa..the very beginning anyway and they tried to use the same tactics in the Ardennes in 1944. Just because one was successful and the other failed doesn't mean that the tactics weren't used. I agree the term is way overused...but it's a term that is universally understood for rapidly moving tank warfare...it's a term like..."you go girl" 'Nuff said........Jeff 210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 11:29 AM UTC
The German tactical movements of 1939-41 were largely the result of an effective command and control system backed up by an impressive decentralized execution. They fail in the later stages of the war because the very effective command and control mechanism is utilized to micromanage tactical movement )see Beevor's "Stalingrad" and "Berlin" for numerous examples). The political corruption of the German government effected everything. I am thanking for it and for the US Army's ability to execute it better than the originators....need I say Patton, Woods, Grow, etc
DJ
DJ
sniper
Member Since: May 07, 2002
entire network: 1,065 Posts
KitMaker Network: 497 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 10:57 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Steve--Nice. Here's my reasons:
-French Doctrine of "Methodical Warfare"
-Gamelin's failure to be in communications with his commanders
-French Assumption that "they would never" come through the Ardennes
What do you think?
DJ
DJ,
Absolutely. And it wasn't just the French that followed that doctrine. No one thought the Germans could launch the offensive from the Ardennes, even while it was happening!
Again, the point is not to say the Frech were stupid and weak. They had an excellent army. Unfortunately, they didn't have the benefit of hindsight like we do!
It wasn't just that the German forces were so superior (though they were good!
) but that many things happened in their favor, as both DJ and I have mentioned.And, these amazing victories (the world was in shock!) started to get Hitler thinking 'hey, we're pretty damn good.' Certainly this has a huge effect on war planning at that point on...
Steve
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 - 08:06 AM UTC
Steve=== to follow on your point. I can not agree with you too much that Germany suffered from Imperial Over Reach after whipping on Western Europe. But, where did they want to go from there? The total absence of a flexible strategic plan gave rise to an opportunistic strategy that wasted resources and over extended their every move. John Ellis has a series of fine books on the economic shortfalls of Germany 1936-45. Amazing to see the way a misguided leader destroyed with no end state in mind save total world domination.
DJ
DJ
sniper
Member Since: May 07, 2002
entire network: 1,065 Posts
KitMaker Network: 497 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 - 08:39 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Steve=== to follow on your point. I can not agree with you too much that Germany suffered from Imperial Over Reach after whipping on Western Europe. But, where did they want to go from there? The total absence of a flexible strategic plan gave rise to an opportunistic strategy that wasted resources and over extended their every move. John Ellis has a series of fine books on the economic shortfalls of Germany 1936-45. Amazing to see the way a misguided leader destroyed with no end state in mind save total world domination.
DJ
DJ,
I think Hitler wanted more than anything else to reach a peace agreement at that point with Great Britian. They wanted to sit right where they were. They would have been happy to sit after they had invaded Poland.
Hitler wanted to negotiate. Churchill would have had no problem agreeing to this as long as Hitler surrendered and the Nazis were taken out of power!
What did Hitler really want? France? No. Great Britian? No. Hitler wanted Lebensraum, living space for the Germanic People in the East. He wanted western Russia.
I disagree that Hitler wanted to rule the world., though he certainly wanted a good part of Europe. It was communism that Hitler really hated. It was the war with Russia that he saw as inevitable.
I don't think Germany wanted to be a colonial power the way that Great Britian and, to a lesser extent, France was.
Steve
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Thursday, August 08, 2002 - 01:43 AM UTC
Steve---I see your point. I withdraw my comment about physical world domination by the Germans. I am going to start another topic line and see if we can some folks to pour their thoughts about the invasion of Russia which as far back as "Mein Kampf" spoke of subjugation of the East.
DJ
DJ
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 KitMaker Network and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.