Maginot Line and the Warsaw Pact

[Cromwell]

Although the Maginot line and the Atlantic Wall (bits of which are all around me as I write) did show that over-reliance on fixed defenses is folly; some limited defenses to stop the Soviet hordes from crossing the inner German border must have been contemplated by NATO. Perhaps anti-tank bar mines. Was this considered and why was it never implemented? Israelis successfully used tank ramps and boulder defenses on the Golan did they not?

[BansheeOne]

There was in fact a rather elaborate system of prepared defenses in West Germany, though no fixed obstacles in the classical sense. Mostly shafts for the emplacement of explosives or mines in roads, tunnels and bridges (possibly including atomic demolition munitions), but also some beam, ramp and falling block obstacles. My favorite plans were lubing the banks of the Elbe Sidecanal and the Rhein-Main-Donau Canal to prevent crossing operations.

 

There were 5,787 obstacles in 1990, most of which have since been removed. They were maintained by the Wallmeister groups of the Defense District Commands, though arming and triggering them would have been done by engineers. Many pictures on this (German) site.

[Marcello]

The Maginot line itself was partially repaired after the war for defense against a soviet invasion (I don't mean the conversion of some forts to underground command posts etc., which happened later), although the various french commitments in those years limited the funding for repair and killed the upgrades planned for it.

[Xavier]

wasn't another reason that no-one expected fixed fortifications to survive the nukes that would probably open the war?

 

BTW the Dutch had the IJssel line during the fifties

[Grapple]

The problem was that the accuracy and firepower of artillery and aircraft was reaching the point that if you know where something is, you can destroy it. And I doubt if any fixed defenses built in the west would not soon become known to the Soviets.

 

Plus the general rule of fixed defenses whether land or shore these days is “Build it and they will not come” but instead go where you did not build fixed defenses and go around you. That’s what happened in WW2 to most of those defenses. Even Normandy was chosen because it had some of the least fixed defenses of the available landing zones. The major ports with major defenses were avoided

[Special-K]

My understanding is that the Swiss built a number of bunkers and areas (choke points, tunnels, bridges, etc) that were prepped for demolition. South Korea also IIRC.

 

 

 

 

-K

[DemolitionMan]

The non-existence of visible prepared border fortifications in West Germany had alot to do with the political unwillingness of accepting the fact that there are two German states being seperated for a non-seeable timeframe. I read several remarks that there was quite some unease why there were no such things as (extremely spoken) a gigantic large anti-tank ditch along the IGB. The West German government didn´t intend to emphasize the fact of seperation of the German nation, and such measures would certainly have lead to that. There was already the wall...however build by the evil side. IIRC there was reasonable talk in the late 80s when things didn´t look as if they would go total nuclear right from the start to build prepared defense positions like hull-down tank positions and forward artillery sites at the Fulda Gap, the crumbling of the East bloc put an end to that...thank god.

Edited April 30, 2008 by DemolitionMan

[Olof Larsson]

The problem was that the accuracy and firepower of artillery and aircraft was reaching the point that if you know where something is, you can destroy it. And I doubt if any fixed defenses built in the west would not soon become known to the Soviets.

 

Well swedish cold war coastal artillery gunturrets,

was supposed to be able to survive close misses by tactical nukes

and AFAIK there was plenty of fairly simple concreat fortifications prior to the world war II,

that could survive direct hits from 14,9-15,5cm guns,

so I very much doubt that making fortifications that could survive close misses from aerial bombs

and individual hits from 15.2cm artillery would be unfeasable.

 

And even if the enemy could take out the fortifications, it will require lots of sorties and lots of artillery fire,

which meant fewer groundattack sorties and fewer artillerymissions against non-fortification targets.

 

And if the fortifications will by you time, it might just be worth it.

 

Plus the general rule of fixed defenses whether land or shore these days is “Build it and they will not come” but instead go where you did not build fixed defenses and go around you. That’s what happened in WW2 to most of those defenses. Even Normandy was chosen because it had some of the least fixed defenses of the available landing zones. The major ports with major defenses were avoided

 

So the western allies had to avoid the prefered route over Calais,

and take a detour over Normadie and not being able to take those ports quickly and intact

hampered their logistics for what?

 

Half a year?

 

So to me it seems that the atlantic wall was worth it's cost.

[Marcello]

Permanent fortifications were built in several places in Europe during the Cold war.

The swiss kept building "Maginot" style fortifications untill the 90's.

See this as an example http://www.dtig.org/docs/Bison.pdf

http://www.armedforces-int.com/categories/...ling-system.asp

The one above for example, if the descriptions I read elsewhere were correct, has retractable

guns, embrasures reinforced with composite armor and/or ERA blocks, chains to detonate ATGMs before impact and water nozzles

to spread a mist of water to hopefully disrupt LGBs guidance.

Defensive permanent fortifications were built in Italy and in Austria, although nowhere nearly as powerful as swiss ones.

Still concrete bunkers with tank turrets and the likes were built.

Edited April 30, 2008 by Marcello

[Junior FO]

 

...

 

 

Edited September 20, 2024 by Junior FO

[Colin]

Belgium had dug in Sherman Fireflys and other tanks along it’s borders back in the 50’s-60’s

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 20, 2024 by Junior FO

[cheese possessed]

This gives a good oversight on what prepared defences actually were in place.

 

http://www.lostplaces.de/cms/content/view/135/33/

 

I gather the British army actually had pre surveyed fire positions for its tanks planned. I will be interesting to see if any of the plans

actually ever surface.

 

There were war deployment sites pre-planned and surveyed for all major weapons systems in BAOR AOR, and I imagine all the other NATO forces did the same. The recces for specific types of weapon system were usually carried out by vetted individuals (they had so be shown part of the deployment plan, in order to fulfil their task) who had demonstrated the most expertise in siting that system. Certain methods were used to mask the nature of recce mission, so that the ground would not be identified to an interested observer....

 

I haven't seen GDP material surface anywhere, and expect it would/ should remain secret for some time to come - even an "obsolete" plan gives a wealth of useful intel.

[Ken Estes]

One should never underestimate the value of fixed fortifications. The Maginot Line actually proved a success , not the usually asserted failure, in that it performed at or above all design and strategic parameters. The defeat of the French Army in the field was not a result of any failure of the Line, which was designed to prevent a coup de main or surprise attack from overwhelming the army before it could be mobilized. In the end, the Line continued to hold even after the interval troops had been withdrawn for the final battles of June40. The Swiss continue today to operate some of the works of the national redoubt, but the forts on the Jura frontier with France [no longer a threat?] are open as museums. I find them very similar to Maginot type works, as was the Belg. Ft Eban Emael, opened to the public in the last decade, and more spacious than the average major work of the earlier Maginot system.

 

After the Second World War ended, the French Army engineers renovated and restored the Maginot Line and it later became one of the components of NATO defenses. Studies were made for a new generation of armament, and the prospect of nuclear warfare seemed to give the Line even more relevance. French defense strategy changed drastically in 1964, however, when the nuclear-deterrent Force de Frappe was unveiled. With such an alteration of priorities, the Maginot Line was decommissioned rapidly and many of the interval works and lesser forts were put up for public sale, beginning in 1970. Many were bought by military collectors and mushroom farmers, and not a few became leisure houses for weekending in the countryside.

 

I found one work still active, in the Maritime Alps sector, on Mt. Barbonnet: A pyramidal rock peak overlooking Sospel is topped by Ft. Suchet, a large 19th century Riviera fort, featuring two impressive 200 ton turrets of the Mougin System with 155mm guns, a large semi-buried barracks and surrounding rampart walls. The single Maginot block, one of the last built in the entire system, remains active and not open to visits: 2 75mm guns and 2 81mm mortars in a casement on the south face (ready to face unruly tourist hoards from the Riviera, no doubt). Three more planned blocks were never built. Ft. Suchet opens June through September.

[Marcello]

Actually not Maginot style. AFAIK the Maginot line tended to be big, interconnected defensive complexes. Post WWII, Switzerland went over to building Monobloc weapons bunkers like the below which would be dedicated to supporting a particular obstacle or obstacle system.

 

That's correct. Neverthless I used the term "Maginot" because that Bison gun seemed, to me, the ultimate evolution of an artillery position I saw while visiting the fortress of Fermont. Of course the evolution of doctrine and different terrain means that modern swiss fortifications are significant different in their overall layout.

 

In regards to the Maginot I would however have some doubts about its usefulness past the early 60's anyway. Some limited modernization was certainly feasible. The 75mm guns in the flanking casemates (the ones meant to cover the gaps between fortresses) were planned to be replaced with 105mm (at Hackenberg, but I guess it could have been done in all the positions built following that pattern). The 135mm bomb throwers could be replaced with something else. The auxiliary entrances could be rebuilt to be more defensible etc. But anything beyond that and things would get awfully expensive really fast.

I would have to crunch some numbers but I suspect that the tank guns entering in service from the 60's onwards would easily penetrate all the bunkers which were exposed to direct fire, something that could not be changed without huge expenses as I noted.

The turrets and some covered positions migth still be safe but the system of overlapping fires would be unhinged.It would still be a nuisance to deal with but given the money and specialized manpower you would have to throw at it to keep it at an useful level of readiness one might balk at it.

[Redbeard]

Hoping for a mobilisation order 24-48 hours before an actual invasion, the Royal Danish Army on Zealand prepared to dig in at the SE coast in rather elaborate field fortifications and with a central mechanised counterattack force, and supplemented by permanent coastal forts manned by the navy. The biggest at Stevns had miles of tunnels in the underground rock and included 4 150mm guns taken from the German Gneisenau (in original turrets) and left by the Germans after WWII. AFAIK the fort opens as a museum this summer, and another fort at Langeland already is open as a museum (IIRC having 150mm singles taken from pocket battleships).

 

At sea a capacity existed to establish extensive minefields with very short notice.

 

Concerning central Europe I recall being very impressed by the various anti-tank methods implemented by the Bundeswehr in the 1980s, incl. minefields laid by artillery or by dispensers carried below F4s or Tornados. I was especially impressed by the very short notice with which they could create massive killing fields at any place. In this context permanent fortications and barriers of course could be nice as a supplement, but even the Magiont line would only be a garden fence compared to the killing fields 1980s NATO could put anywhere on a battlefield with very short notice.

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

[Marek Tucan]

Czechoslovakian army used many pre-WW2 forts after 1945, most notably fortification line on the SOuthern Moravia and along Morava/March river in Slovakia was repaired and in many cases refitted ( 85mm tank guns instead of 47mm fort guns). On the Western border, light OP's and MG nests were built. There were thoughts on building objects with PzIV/Panther/T-34 turrets but they were deemed too costly WRT their effect and use.

[Ariete!]

The Italian Army during the cold war had a fairly extensive system of simple fortifications with interlocking fields of fire near the border. This went from anything like turrets from old tanks to concrete casemates. They were manned by and received close protection by specialized infantry units (10 battalions of “Fanteria d’Arresto” – translatable roughly as ‘holding infantry’). The positions were meant to overlook mien fields (to be laid on the approach of war, IIRC)

 

This Italian site has a wealth of info (in Italian).

 

The idea was to deny/strongly oppose some secondary border crossing points and therefore channel an advance to an area where it could be handled by an armoured counter-attack.

 

While they were not a particularly high-profile branch of the infantry (partly because during the CW information on these units was considered confidential), they were quite operational from a warning time and time on duty standpoint. They were also assumed to suffer heavy casualties.

[Xavier]

Belgium had dug in Sherman Fireflys and other tanks along it’s borders back in the 50’s-60’s

we did? I thought it was the Dutch who did that

[Ken Estes]

That's correct. Neverthless I used the term "Maginot" because that Bison gun seemed, to me, the ultimate evolution of an artillery position I saw while visiting the fortress of Fermont. Of course the evolution of doctrine and different terrain means that modern swiss fortifications are significant different in their overall layout.

 

In regards to the Maginot I would however have some doubts about its usefulness past the early 60's anyway. Some limited modernization was certainly feasible. The 75mm guns in the flanking casemates (the ones meant to cover the gaps between fortresses) were planned to be replaced with 105mm (at Hackenberg, but I guess it could have been done in all the positions built following that pattern). The 135mm bomb throwers could be replaced with something else. The auxiliary entrances could be rebuilt to be more defensible etc. But anything beyond that and things would get awfully expensive really fast.

I would have to crunch some numbers but I suspect that the tank guns entering in service from the 60's onwards would easily penetrate all the bunkers which were exposed to direct fire, something that could not be changed without huge expenses as I noted.

The turrets and some covered positions migth still be safe but the system of overlapping fires would be unhinged.It would still be a nuisance to deal with but given the money and specialized manpower you would have to throw at it to keep it at an useful level of readiness one might balk at it.

You are correct in your use of the Maginot term, as the M Line consisted of not only the major forts [essentially underground concrete battleships] but also numerous lesser works [petite ouvrage] not connected to the underground fortresses, but also consisting of multiple fighting blocks, and then there are more numerous blockhouses and other fighting works, some permanently manned others designed for use by interval troops.

 

The main problem with rearming the Maginot works, I suppose, would have been the terribly cramped internal volume of the turrets and some of the gallery positions, and many of these proved unsatisfactory for the time, and the short barrels [135mm especially] required to fit the rotating/disappearing turrets limited the range, such that the system was easily outranged. I would not underestimate the resistance of the lesser and major works to modern tank fire, however. An embrasure shot with HEAT can knock out almost any system, fortified or not, but the US Army had to use 155mm long barrel SP guns, for which they had naval type AP ammo, to penetrate the reinf concrete to take out the one gallery block at Hackenburg they found that had a vulnerable approach, or "blind spot.".

 

One sees the difference in the cramped but huge Maginot fort design right away when touring Eban Emael or the Swiss works, all considerably newer in construction and more importantly, design.

[Colin]

we did? I thought it was the Dutch who did that

 

I am pretty sure that you guys did also, I remeber a link here last year.

[seahawk]

It is also a question of terrain. In Switzerland such fortifications make sense, in Northern Germany they do not make sense. Their position would be known and the WarpAc would have spent years developing weapons that would at least make them operational useless, while every larger fortification along the expected lines of advance would stick out very clearly, as the terrain was open.

 

So if you can get 20 Leo I or 5 bunkter fortifications with 105mm, the 20 Leos were seen as a better buy, especially as Germany knew that fortifications would be bypassed anyway and the troops stationed there would be lost (either killed or cut of behind the lines) anyway. There however was a very well organised plan to built adhoc fighting positions and equipment was listed or readily available. be it to the engineers, the THW (technical ssistence organisation) or local construction firms, which would have been asked to turn over bulldozer and trucks when mobilisation started.

[Xavier]

You are correct in your use of the Maginot term, as the M Line consisted of not only the major forts [essentially underground concrete battleships] but also numerous lesser works [petite ouvrage] not connected to the underground fortresses, but also consisting of multiple fighting blocks, and then there are more numerous blockhouses and other fighting works, some permanently manned others designed for use by interval troops.

 

The main problem with rearming the Maginot works, I suppose, would have been the terribly cramped internal volume of the turrets and some of the gallery positions, and many of these proved unsatisfactory for the time, and the short barrels [135mm especially] required to fit the rotating/disappearing turrets limited the range, such that the system was easily outranged. I would not underestimate the resistance of the lesser and major works to modern tank fire, however. An embrasure shot with HEAT can knock out almost any system, fortified or not, but the US Army had to use 155mm long barrel SP guns, for which they had naval type AP ammo, to penetrate the reinf concrete to take out the one gallery block at Hackenburg they found that had a vulnerable approach, or "blind spot.".

 

One sees the difference in the cramped but huge Maginot fort design right away when touring Eban Emael or the Swiss works, all considerably newer in construction and more importantly, design.

 

Too bad we only put 4 HMG(IIRC, in trenches) as AA on Eben Emael, some 40mm Bofors and some AP mines on top would have done wonders against the gliders.

 

As for modernizing the Ligne Maginot IMHO there is no other option than to add new casemates/turrets with bigger AT guns and long range artillery, a 47mm AT gun won't do much good post WWII and the 10km range of the 75 is quite short as well and I don't think you'd even get a 105 in those turrets, which wouldn't add much range anyway. At least Eben had 2 120mm guns with 18km range.

 

If someone decided to build some modern fortress/defensive line able to resist against a first world army, how difficult would that actually be? Defence versus 155mm is one thing, but what about things like Maverick, BLU-109, SDB, ...? Could AAG/VSHORAD/THEL defend the entire complex with each blockhouse/turret having it's own APS in addition be a solution?

[Marcello]

The main problem with rearming the Maginot works, I suppose, would have been the terribly cramped internal volume of the turrets and some of the gallery positions, and many of these proved unsatisfactory for the time, and the short barrels [135mm especially] required to fit the rotating/disappearing turrets limited the range, such that the system was easily outranged. I would not underestimate the resistance of the lesser and major works to modern tank fire, however. An embrasure shot with HEAT can knock out almost any system, fortified or not, but the US Army had to use 155mm long barrel SP guns, for which they had naval type AP ammo, to penetrate the reinf concrete to take out the one gallery block at Hackenburg they found that had a vulnerable approach, or "blind spot.".

 

What I read of the american attack on bloc 8 at Hackenberg made no mention of employment of AP rounds, whose availability to an M12 unit would have been unusual to say the least. The descriptions made it sound like cumulative HE fire, although I admit my french is rather rusty. Did the tour guides tell something specifically to you (then again it possible that they just made some ass-umptions)?

In regards to antitank resistance the early 125mm APFSDS introduced in the 60's and early 70's could penetrate roughly 300mm of RHA at 2000 meters, give or take. Some time ago I did enquire here about reinforced concrete resistance against sabots. Really accurate values would be hard to calculate but 300mm of RHA could be the equivalent of nearly three meters of reinforced concrete. From the drawings I have the walls with the firing positions don't seem to get anywhere close to that.

Edited May 1, 2008 by Marcello

[Alter Schwede]

Some links to Swedish fortifications

 

Musko underground Naval yard

 

Former F9 underground hangars

 

Battery OX1