>build the (at the time) worlds most advanced and impregnable

>>2332796

They meant that should an invasion from Germany happen, they'd defend at Belgium's line of fortifications, as well as rivers like the Dyle instead of going through the expense and effort of fortifying the entire way to the sea.

File: WW2 Sponge.jpg (84KB, 640x930px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 640x930px

>high command live in a caste in the middle of nowhere with no wired communications in or out
>communist riots and serious threat of revolution
>retained the gold standard well into the 1930s because of pride and ruined the economy
>high command full of senile old men
>65 year old generals were considered "young blood" and "inexperienced"
>have more men, tanks, and planes than the Germans
>invade Germany
>stop for no reason
>retreat
>sit around and let their soldiers starve perish from the cold
>Germans counter where they don't have defenses
>high command is informed where and when the attack will happen
>does nothing
>gets invaded
>"huh better start building defenses there.."
>brits say "fuck this" and leave
>"muh perfidious albion.. hon hon we don't need you anyway"
>capitulate in a matter of weeks

was there a more pathetic excuse for a government/military command in WW2 than the French from 1930-1940?

They didn't have much of a choice due to diplomatic requirements. Continuing along the Belgian border would have basically been saying to Belgium "fuck you guys, you're on your own."

>>2332849
This was a better option than trust in Belgium.

>>2333122
>>2332849
What's a belgium?

Continuing the line would have been tantamount to abandoning Belgium to Germany and would have been considered unchivalrous in France.

Instead the Maginot line was meant to make sure France wouldn't have to worry about that section of the border, and could concentrate its troops on defending the North.

File: image.png (765KB, 2466x1920px) Image search: [Google]

765KB, 2466x1920px

>>2333249
idk lol

File: happening bunker.gif (189KB, 670x473px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 670x473px

>>2332796

Maginot probably wouldn't have helped to be honest.

It was a line of static defense in the age of mobile warfare. All the Germans had to do was tear one good hole in it and the entire network would collapse in short order.

The Germans could've dropped paratroopers behind the Line's main defense wreaked havoc on their interior defenses, which weren't built with repelling an airborne assault in mind (the Allies did this to the far-more-difficult-to-penetrate Atlantic Wall on D-Day). Their tanks could've just zerg rushed their way past the bunkers, eventually overcoming them with sheer brute force. Engineers could've dynamited the forts (they actually did this to several Maginot installations during the Battle of France), or even improvised by flooding the tunnel entrances with water or even gasoline and drown/burn the entire garrison alive (the US Military used this to devastating effect during the Vietnam War, albeit against a far more crude defensive network).

>>2332796
the ardennes you fucking nonce

File: tragedy battle of the crater.jpg (589KB, 805x1094px) Image search: [Google]

589KB, 805x1094px

>>2334704

Alternatively, if the Germans weren't able to crush the Maginot line by bombing the shit out of it/draining the Rhine into it, they could always just resort to the classic Civil War/WW1 technique of just digging underneath the forts and blowing up them.

And unlike the Union Army, the Germans wouldn't blow their chance with the whole "we're gonna replace the elite troops we spent training for this mission with untrained drunkards" meme

>>2334704
No, that wouldn't have worked, you're just thinking of the Maginot line as the fortifications. The Maginot line was supposed to be backed up by mobile divisions which supported the fortifications too, the French probably deployed far too many of these mobile fortifications there during the actual Battle of France. But, in the event of a German attack as you describe, the Germans would have had to face not just the main fortifications, but also those mobile formations.

German paratroopers dropped into the rear couldn't have inflicted enough damage to cripple them, since they would have had to face mobile troops who would have defeated them. The example is not the Atlantic Wall, but instead the German effort to use paratroopers against the Netherlands, where their transports got shot up and they were saved by the conventional forces showing up.

Utilizing tanks in such a fashion would not have worked either, as the Maginot line was equipped with a lot of anti-tank weapons, which were substantially more powerful than the regular divisional anti-tank weapons, such as the AC 47 which had substantially greater muzzle velocity than the standard 47mm in divisions, not to mention compared to the 25mm guns that composed the majority of anti-tank weapons. They would also have to face the large number of anti-tank traps and defenses, plus the mobile troops and French tank forces.

Trying to dig under it would just convert it into a siege battle, and would remove any German advantages in regards to mobility or command, which were the reasons they won originally.

Trying these tactics would either be a massacre, or would make it a long and prolonged battle where every advantage is on the French side as additional reinforcements and troops arrive both from France and the UK, and as the Anglo-French blockade wears down the Germans. The Germans won because they were able to move quickly and get inside decision loop of the French, when they couldn't do that they lost.

>>2332796
What wrong? This plan was cheaper than fortifications of full border.

>>2334736
With tactical genius like this it is amazing that static fortifications ever existed.

>>2334766
This being said extending the Maginot line would be a bad idea since it would be extremely expensive, harm relations with Belgium, and would probably weaken conventional forces to an excessive extent. The Maginot line was probably overly strong, it would have been better if less money was put into it on a kilometer by kilometer basis, and if it was extended mildly further north to cover the Ardennes. A reduced number of reserve divisions and the fortification divisions would still have been capable of preventing any surprise German attacks, and monetary resources saved could have been invested in mobile forces, training, the air force, and anti-aircraft artillery.

File: battle of crete.jpg (67KB, 720x465px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 720x465px

>>2334766

Except you're not the fact the French air force was severely under-strength at the start of the war (in part because France blew all its money on the Maginot Line). With Luftwaffe airfields just across the border, the mobile French divisions along with the forts themselves would've been the target of near continuous bombing. Even if the bombing itself failed to inflict massive losses, the fatigue and paranoia of the constant game of cat and mouse would have severely hindered their ability to counter a German advance that managed to overwhelm one or several forts.

Same with paratroopers, they wouldn't necessarily need to kill thousands of French soldiers in order to hinder their operations. A pair of Fallschirmjägers in a well concealed position knocking out the lead tank of an advancing French armored column with a simple anti-tank rifle could result in a delay of hours or even a day.

>>2334932
Aerial bombing is rarely as effective as its proponents proclaim. At Sedan the Luftwaffe bombardment neutralized the French units, but these were division B formations with terrible morale in unfinished fortifications, and they suffered only marginally with a few dozen casualties. If it hadn't been for the follow-up attack the French would have repaired, reconsolidated, and defeated the German attack. At any position on the Maginot line, bombardment would have been far less effective since the French divisions wouldn't have been just the worst division B formations, and their fortifications were far better. A Luftwaffe attack on the Maginot line would have not succeeded in breaking the French troops in fortifications and would have exposed them to normal attrition for little results.

For examples of mobile forces, the Battle of the Gembloux Gap also showed French units in the field under intense Luftwaffe bombardment which the Germans failed to break and which managed to counter German opponents. Operating in the much better geography and from defensive positions in the Maginot line, rather than at Gembloux - a gap for a reason - the results would be further tilted against the Germans.

While the French air force was outmatched, such a long and sustained campaign would play to its strengths and it would rapidly improve as it gained combat experience.

With the paratroopers, the best example of paratroopers used in such a way in 1940 was in the Netherlands, which was a disaster. You also posted a picture of Crete, which also shows the terrible casualties paratroopers suffered against conventional enemies. Landing paratroopers like that into the French lines would just result in them getting cut off and destroyed fighting against conventional French forces, and the Maginot line wouldn't have been breached with its integral forces in a few hours or even days since the grand ouvrages stood without falling until the end of the 1940 campaign.

>>2332830
This, but with a larger emphasis on not pissing Belgium off by walking off their country.

>>2334766
>>2334877
>>2335032
Do you have a book to recommend on the fall of France? I think I have seen too many memes and need a good reading on the subject.

>>2334877
>This being said extending the Maginot line would be a bad idea since it would be extremely expensive

>>2334932
>(in part because France blew all its money on the Maginot Line)

No, please stop with that, the Maginot line was not a money sink.

French military budget between 1930 and 1939 amounted for a total of 132.9 billions Francs.
The January 1930 law alloted 2.9 billions for the construction of the Maginot line, add to this various additions, improvements, new constructions and the final cost for the line is around 6.8 billions.

So over the 1930-1939 period the Maginot line cost ~5.1% of the French military budget.

Heck, let's continue and add all the other fortifications build up to late 1938 (mostly smaller bunkers directly made by the army labour force), we end at 9 billions France, 6.8% of the total military budget.

Also, when taking in account the area covered, the Maginot line was cheaper than the previous fortifications made in the late 19th century (Verdun, Toul, Epinal, Belfort, ...).

File: faa3e219326a6e163122adad57b966f3.png (67KB, 710x507px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 710x507px

>>2335055
To Lose a Battle is good from my knowledge.

>>2335032
I uploaded a picture of the anti-aircraft guns, one can see that light anti-aircraft gun deliveries were improving greatly during the period, aircraft deliveries were also growing.

>>2335073
New anon here. Wasn't the cost of the Maginot line also partly covered by charity gathered in from rich business men and the like?

>>2335055
It wasnt fall. Britain refused to help, France decided to surrend without unnecessary losses. Excellent decision.

>>2335073
Generally only a small percentage of a military's funding is spent on procuring new weapons. For France, spending 7% on the Maginot line and fortifications represented much of that procurement. When you consider that the Belgian border region roughly doubles the length that has to be constructed, you start getting up to figures that suck up the majority of the French military's procurement budget. Furthermore, one has to take into account the fortification infantry units which were placed on the Maginot line; the French had 24 secteurs fortifies, and each was around a division of fortification troops iirc, so that drives up the price further.

It would have been better if the French spent maybe half of that amount, since the geography was bad for attacking there anyway, and invested the rest into building up military industries and communication equipment.

>>2335231
Petain pls.

>>2335231
Yeah, it's like the Bismarck of Graf Spee but with a nation. Instead of being destroyed by the enemy directly, they decided to 'scuttle' their nation by destroying its pride, honour and unity while pretending they had denied their opponent some kind of moral victory, even if they had given them the actual victory.

Totally not a fall.

File: _47377249_farage_pa226b.jpg (5KB, 226x170px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 226x170px

>>2333249
>What's a belgium?
Pretty much a non-country.

>>2335319
The funds for the line were not taken from the yearly procurement but were raised in addition.
The 1930 law alloted 2.9 billions in 5 years (so 580 millions/year) for the line in addition to the "regular" national defense budget of 10 billions/year. The law also allocated another 400 millions for AA defense.

The 1934 complementary law added 1.27 billions to line while also adding 865 millions to the navy and 980 millions to the airforce.
The following year the army received new funds for both modernization (800 m.) and rearmament (920 m./year for 4 years).

To paraphrase Pierre Martin and Pierre Grain, money was not what was lacking, order and continuity were.

The ouvrages d'artillerie (57 of them), made according to initial idea behind the line, proved their worth in 1940. They cost 3.8 billions.
The thousands (nearly 17000) of small bunkers made cost between 5 and 7 billions while being borderline useless.

IIRC were planned between La Ferté and Dunkirk around 12~20 ouvrages d'artillerie, logically costing less than haphazardly "sowing" little bunkers to make as if.

> Furthermore, one has to take into account the fortification infantry units which were placed on the Maginot line; the French had 24 secteurs fortifies, and each was around a division of fortification troops iirc, so that drives up the price further.

One of the main advantages of the line was that it cost less (in money as in men) to station troops in fortresses than to cover the same area with "regular" troops.

File: costanza.jpg (17KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 250x250px

>>2332796
>1940
>Believing Germans won't try to go through Belgium again

>>2335604
To be fair who would think the Germans would be stupid enough to declare war on the whole world a second time?

>>2334704
I doubt it would be that easy, but you're right, while great for WW1 it would just be a fall back point for WW2. By WW2 there's no such thing as effective permanent defence.

>>2335533

That chinless wonder doesn't seem to understand the concept of multiple nationalities co-existing in one state - like the UK.

>>2335604

>Implying that wasn't the point.
>Implying the French weren't counting on another war being a lot like WW1 and it taking the better part of a month to subdue Belgium, giving them ample time to move into the little country and dig in there, as opposed to doing so in France itself.

>>2335645
It really seemed to work out for a couple of years though.

File: B1_bis_-Flandres-.jpg (2MB, 3072x2304px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3072x2304px

>>2332796
the really retarded bit was french armoured doctrine. They had a tank force ranging from the acceptable (Renault R-35 etc) to some of the best tonks in the world at the time (Char B1) and wasted it all by deploying tanks one at a time, letting the Jerries win by zergrushing the Ardennes with Pz I and Pz IIs and the five actual decent tanks (Pz III) they had built at the time despite the bread and butter of German armoured forces being shit tier training tanks and stopgap models.

>>2334766
>falling for the OODA meme

John Boyd please go

>>2335231
>Britain refused to help,

>Dispatch BEF and RAF units
>Participate in dangerous daylight bombing raids against Germany
>Temporarily repel German forces at Mons before French forces bottle it and expose their flank

>Did nothing to help

sure

>>2335326
>>2335992
Dunkirk showed obvious British plan to enjoy German-French brawl. So capitulation was nice answer - to provide UK possibility to fight themselves later. Pro-British shit like De Gaulle ere just spoiling this plan and killed some Frenchmen .

>>2335032
How was the use of paratroopers in the Netherlands such a disaster?

>>2336136
The Germans tried an airborne assault to capture the Hague but the Dutch counterattacked and recaptured the airfields. The paratroopers took a lot of casualties and a lot of transport aircraft were lost.

>>2332839

top lel

[email protected] m8t

>>2334736

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Petersburg

DUDE

File: finewine.png (240KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 512x512px

>>2334650
>more space for Dutch harbors
I approve.

>>2332839
Why is Spongebob Japan?

>>2336578
It is the atomic mushroom cloud in the background, not necessarily Spongebob.

The French problem was that they believed that only a tightly controlled push from higher command could handle modern warfare. In reality without initiative it was impossible to take proper advantage of a breakthrough. The German military was built around low-level officers making spontaneous decisions and thereby pulling the army forward, instead of being pushed by generals.

On a side note this wasn't super revolutionary, and would have been recognizable to stormtroopers of the last war. The Soviets helped integrate armor into all this during joint drills in Ukraine for several years funnily enough. A good number of German and Soviet officers had actually trained together. My point is that the French, being French, just had to be different.

>>2336122
You need to read more

>>2335231
britain pulled out of a unsustainable pocket, left the remaining divisions in france and rushed re equipment of evacuated forces aiming to get them back across ASAP and were commited to sending troops until they were informed the french were seeing armistice

>>2335645
>be scared of commie revolts
>soviets are commies and not french allies
>nazis agree with soviets
>nazis invade belgium - france

>HOW COULD THEY INVADE WHORE WORDU

baguettes never learn

File: spurdooh.jpg (157KB, 1060x404px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1060x404px

>>2335231
>France decided to surrend without unnecessary losses. Excellent decision.

:DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDd

>>2332796
They didn't want to invade Belgium to build french fortresses there, who'd have to be manned by french soldiers.
If you were the leader of Belgium, would you let some foreign power do that? Oh, we know the answer, since Germany asked them in WWI and they declined.

>>2338556
They actually might have.

The only reason Belgium exists in the first place instead of being part of France is British meddling.

>>2338572
If France decided to put a french fortification in Belgium, and Belgium objected (of course they would), this would lead to a war between France and Britain, with Germany likely aiding Britain.
Especially after the French invaded and occupied parts of Germany without declaring war, to leech money that they weren't paid as reparations. Civilians were executed there, and there was much outrage. Newspapers declared it the end of the alliance.

>>2338593
>Brits bring bleeding heart Nazi enabling cucks as usual

>>2335678
"Scottish nationality" doesn't exist. It's a meme spawned by Braveheart.

>>2332849
Ironically enough, it'd probably have saved Belgium since it would render their invasion devoid of purpose

>>2338598
>Huns destroy their own economy on purpose with the aim of not paying the lawful reparations they got saddled with because they ravaged and looted Belgium and Northern France
>Belgian and French troops move into the Ruhr to make sure they don't break the Versailles Treaty (remember that German troops stayed in France after 1870 until the French fully paid their reparations)
>the eternal Anglo (remember that the UK didn't have to fight on its own soil) wants to trade with Germany and gets outraged on behalf of those who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Brits

>>2335957

didnt french tanks have to little crewmembers?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV2nIkqnGBI

>>2332796
We believed that Germans knew what honor mean


Sadly we we're wrong and we discovered too late that Gayrmans are cowardly subhumans who would rather rather take in hostage innocent civilians than battle.

>>2339993
Possibly, I believe the problem was their one man turret (effectively forces the commander to also do the work of the loader and gunner for the 37mm cannon)

>>2336578
He's yellow.

File: green lex luthor.png (199KB, 321x306px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 321x306px

>>2339993
>discussion about something french
>link lindybeige as a source