defensive lines

Discussion in 'General' started by raf, Dec 31, 2007.

  1. raf

    raf Senior Member

    we have spoken about strategic defensive lines before and how they dont work ????

    the maginot line...did work as it caused the germans to attack elsewhere and the parts were the germans/italians did attack the defence was a success.

    i know there are plenty examples of failed strategic lines but


    wasnt the stategic defensive lines built around stalingrad and mosscow a success

    thanks
     
  2. Paul Reed

    Paul Reed Ubique

    Hitler and Gothic Lines in Italy also come to mind... but airpower is one weapon that largely makes these static lines redundant, plus the ability to drop airborne forces behind them.
     
  3. 4th wilts

    4th wilts Discharged

    i believe the kursk and to a point moscow and leningrad were used to break up and blunt attacks.and then give jerry a good counterattack,so in a sense imo the fixed defences did indeed work.but at heavy cost,yours,lee.
     
  4. Harry Ree

    Harry Ree Very Senior Member

    The Maginot Line as a static defence line was totally inflexible.Garrison manpower were holed up in them and the Germans bypassed them.They were "picked off the vine" at a time to suit the invader.They were safely encircled and when they finally fell, were taken from behind at little cost to the invader from the very rear areas which they were designed to secure.They were not equipped to to deal with an enemy to the rear.

    The other blunder was to install a permanent line against what was thought to be the main thrust of the enemy and depend on a flank to be covered by an understanding of neutrality.Such was the case in relying on the neutrality status of Belgium.

    France would have been better to invest in the funding of the Maginot Line in more quality tanks but when the line was envisaged the concept of Blitzkrieg type warfare was not tried and tested. Abeit some students of warfare were convinced that the method of warfare would change through tank utilisation after ideas were gleaned from an element of tank operations that were experienced in the Great War.

    Apparently De Gaulle and Patton shared this view when they met on a tank course in 1923 at the Saumur Cavalry Barracks.

    The best static defence line is the "tank trap", and an extended one at that.The best example being the 20 mile tank trap of the English Channel.Had Germany had this type of defence line on the Eastern Front, then the Red Army would have found it very hard to roll in to Germany as they did.Britain was fortunate to have this natural defence line.

    The defence lines thrown up by the Russians in the early part of the war were defended courageously but it was a courage that could have been utilised with a better strategy.At this time the Red Army stood fast as much as it could in line with the policy of the military leadership and the direction of Stalin.In many cases this stategy resulted in encirclement which saw hugh Red Army losses in dead,wounded and captured (3.9 million to the end of 1941 )

    I think from this point,the Red Army conducted their field operations in such a manner to ensure that their units were never encircled and that requires mobile flexible defences.On the other hand, Hitler never agreed to a withdrawal in any circumstance (perhaps Mortain in the end) to prevent encirclement which the leadership in the field clearly recognised.Hence the Germans tended themselves to lose men and materiel due to encirclement when following strict orders to holdfast.When the Russians were defending Stalingrad they used the defence line of the Volga to ensure they could supply and hold on to the west bank but when the Germans were encircled at Stalingrad, they only had the promises of Goering to maintain their existence as fighting units from the air.

    History records that the Moscow front did not fall to the Germans due to the timely presence of 250.000 troops that were released from the Russian /Japanese border.Stalin after receiving the assurance that Japan was not interested in Russian territory from his master spy, Richard Sorge in Tokio was able to deploy these trained winter troops against German units who were devoid of winter clothing.
     
  5. 4th wilts

    4th wilts Discharged

    rommel got a bloody nose at medenine,so did his 3 panzer divs.that was fixed defences was it not.yours,lee.
     
  6. 4th wilts

    4th wilts Discharged

    in fact ,first alamain was fixed defences as well.yours,lee.
     
  7. raf

    raf Senior Member

    theres examples on both sides if fixed lines work or not, kev has good knowledge on this.

    but if the germans didnt attack the maginot line, then how can it be classed as a failure, it did its job to me as the germans cleverly went through belgium which the french/british antisipated
     
  8. 4th wilts

    4th wilts Discharged

    you would have thought the allies would have known better.ignoring belgian neutrallity again,never.yours,lee.
     
  9. Ramiles

    Ramiles Researching 9th Lancers, 24th L and SRY

    "Gothic Line? No chum, this ain't "The Gothic Line" anymore... it's Baroque !"

    FB_IMG_1673189225826.jpg
     
    TTH and 4jonboy like this.
  10. Domobran7

    Domobran7 Member

    IIRC, they actually did know better. I believe plan was to use the Maginot Line to redirect the thrust of the German attack into the Low countries, where French and British armor would engage the attackers.

    Germans were simply too fast.
     
  11. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake All over the place....

    Defensive lines work far better than is generally given credit.

    Bomb proof dug outs protect troops under bombardment and weapons in fortified positions are harder to hit and knock out. They are a force multiplier for the troops that occupy them.

    The French and Germans learned to appreciate their value in the tough fighting on the western front in 1915-1918. The French failure in 1940 was not the trust placed in the Maginot line, but the lack of modern doctrine and training for the field force deployed behind and north of the line.

    The Germans made good use of field and pre-prepared fortifications in North Africa, Italy, the Atlantic Wall and the Siegfried line on the German Border. Japanese bunkers were one reason why even after huge amounts of firepower some infantryman still needed to get close and personal.

    Fortifications Jonathan Bailey, sometime Director Royal Artillery, & Director of Doctrine and author "Artillery and firepower" wrote a paper for the RUSI Journal on the value of permanent fortifications. For a decade or so BAOR and other NATO troops planned and rehearsed how we would fight the Warsaw Pact Hordes in roughly the same places every year. This was as far east as possible. However, there was to be no pre dug or fortified positions. The mantra we were taught was that it was enough to have 18 inches of overhead cover, protecting the occupants of a slit trench from shell splinters. Bailey argued that this may be true for modest artillery fire, but did not apply to the concentrations that the Warsaw Pact regarded as the norm for an assault. Bailey referenced the regulations published at the end of WW1 which defined bomb proof as being 30 foot below a hardened surface. He put forward and argument that NATO may as well dug and reinforce bunkers behind the Inner German Border.
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2023
    Domobran7 likes this.

Share This Page