Historical Accuracy of the Maginot Line Please
- Thread starter Ibn_Solmyr
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Well, we may be talking at cross purposes.
To wit, let us ask the question: what is the purpose of a particular set of fixed fortifications? There can be several answers to this question.
1) To channel attackers into more desirable locations for fighting: In this case, you want the attacker to go around the fortifications. The goal is for the attacker to go into a different direction where your defensive forces can hand them a decisive defeat. While it was not really used in this way, the Maginot Line would have been an excellent tool for this kind of warfare had key leaders bothered to do their jobs. The Germans did, in fact, spend their time bypassing the damn thing.
2) To delay the attacker: Sometimes, you need to buy time. If you need time to mobilize or time for allies to get into the fight, then fixed fortifications might be a good answer. The Czech fortifications in the Sudetenland were an excellent example of this kind of fortification. Leaving aside the political aspects, those fortifications should have bought the Czechs all kinds of time in a shooting war to both mobilize her own forces and for France to honor its obligations and either tie down Germany in the west or launch an actual attack.
3) To multiply the fighting strength defensive forces in a region: At its most basic level, impressive fortifications should amplify the power of defending forces. We see it over and over again throughout the 20th Century. This doesn't make them magically immune to defeat, but giving 1000 troops the effective fighting strength of 1300 troops has some benefits.
The fatal flaw in thinking about defensive fortifications is in assuming that their are impregnable or that they are meant to fight on their own with no support or relief. That's not the job of large networks of fortifications. Even in WWI, the trench networks could be overrun without reserve forces assisting or counter-attacks in other areas. It's even worse when other situations preclude an effective defense. The best examples are some of the islands in the Pacific. The Japanese held fortifications (concrete pillboxes and the like) on crappy terrain, but they were defeated in every single amphibious invasion during the war. Lack of supplies, reinforcements, air superiority, and naval support meant that the islands were, in most cases, fighting alone without support. In which case, their defeat was inevitable provided the attacker continued to press. Had the IJN been on equal footing with the USN, invading those islands would have been suicide, not because the fortifications themselves were magical, but because it becomes untenable to waste time attacking those fortifications when the invasion fleet can be threatened by sea and air, and when the defenders can be reinforced and resupplied.
So, in that sense, no fixed fortifications ever worked in the "long run." But to me, the flaw is in how your utilize them, not in the idea that fortifications are useless. You don't count on them to win the war by themselves; you use them to attain very specific tactical ends.
This is why I always thought the Maginot Line worked. It did not save France, it did encourage the Germans to go round it.
SM, I agree with what you say. And also with your other post that HOI3 basically got it right. In many ways a fortification is just like a river. It increases the defensive output if it has men and if it can be resupplied and reinforced. Otherwise it's just a speed bump in the road.
What I didn't like about HOI3 fortifications is that the AI was scared to death in attacking them after a certain level.
What I didn't like about HOI3 fortifications is that the AI was scared to death in attacking them after a certain level.
In one game as an Axis minor, I sent one lone division to attack the Maginot Line. That prompted the AI to contribute around 5-6 German divisions to supporting the attack. They broke through in a matter of days, with fairly light casualties. Without that initial "prompt", the AI would have sat there for 5-6 months.
This timidness on the part of the AI was programmed in deliberately I am sure. The AI had a bad habit in some versions of attacking at unacceptably low odds. Playing it safe in regards to battles where high casualties were likely helped the AI avoid some situations where it would blow manpower too easily.
Strategic bombing was the same way regarding province AA. Yet again, I see it as playing the game "safe."
I don't know how to make the AI less timid without it getting suckered too easily into disadvantageous combats. Hell, human players were easy enough to sucker into bad combats both historically and in MP sometimes, never mind a computer.
Ironically, the AI in HOI3 seemed to prefer French "methodological warfare" even when playing Germany.
This timidness on the part of the AI was programmed in deliberately I am sure. The AI had a bad habit in some versions of attacking at unacceptably low odds. Playing it safe in regards to battles where high casualties were likely helped the AI avoid some situations where it would blow manpower too easily.
Strategic bombing was the same way regarding province AA. Yet again, I see it as playing the game "safe."
I don't know how to make the AI less timid without it getting suckered too easily into disadvantageous combats. Hell, human players were easy enough to sucker into bad combats both historically and in MP sometimes, never mind a computer.
Ironically, the AI in HOI3 seemed to prefer French "methodological warfare" even when playing Germany.
The odd thing is that despite this programming nothing seemed to stop the AI attacking across straits and suffering massive casualties in the process.
In a class about WW2 I took a few years ago, I saw that the initial German plan to attack France was to go for trench warfare. It was the most probable outcome and most nation planned accordingly. A few young generals convinced Hilter to go for a riskier plan and the rest is history.
While seeing the western front always stagnate would not be a great thing for the game, opening up the possibility to see it turn out this way would introduce some variation into the game. It would make playing France more interesting and give an incentive for Britain to actually fight in France/Belgium rather than not getting involve at all.
While seeing the western front always stagnate would not be a great thing for the game, opening up the possibility to see it turn out this way would introduce some variation into the game. It would make playing France more interesting and give an incentive for Britain to actually fight in France/Belgium rather than not getting involve at all.
I suspect that it has something to do with the AI not "seeing" straits properly.
In TFH, that's the only kind of suicidal frontal attack into ridiculous modifiers I recall the AI making. 4 divisions of whatever in ports, islands, mountains, and fortifications would deter practically all AI attacks. Even Japan's super-eager-to-invade-everything AI would leave islands with substantial garrisons alone.
.png){kind=avatar}
Exactly. There were in Germany, exactly like in France, the old school and the new school. France didn't hear De Gaulle, Hitler eventually placed his confidence into Guderian way of thinking, who had read De Gaulle books. And when Hitler was still keeping a bit of reserves into the breakthrough point attack choice (Belgium Ardennes, then French ones towards Sedan), "best spy" of Hitler, recently abdicated Edouard VIII, very german lover and speaker, sent a french traitor Bedo (where at he was living with his fresh wife) at Berlin to give the fürher in his own hands a letter in which the king of England explained that the defensive presence in Ardennes was the weak point. (Edouard VIII had been missioned himself, unhopefully, by the Brit government to examine the french defensive presence north of the Maginot line).
The worse in this story is that it caused the "rescue" of Hitler who was about to explode in the Munich assassination attempt, but left the failed putch anniversary ceremony because he just had been let know that Bedo had arrived at Berlin... The bomb exploded just after. The informations provided by Bedo finished to convince Hitler to attack at Sedan, at the weaker point of the french defense.
Yes, that was ridiculous. I remember several games, where playing France, I managed to early invade Copenhagen island, and the German forces to continuesly spend hundreds of thousands soldiers trying to attack it. As my air interception power was growing, I was able to hold the island, even if it was very hot for years ! But air battle there was very intensive and rather realistic, apart from my logistic should have been targeted since the beginning of the operation, what the AI wasn't enough clever to manage to.