German mega defense

[Destroyer500]

So what would you propose ? That i spread them thinner and make the line wider ? That i make multiple lines ?

As for the flak I propose what the Germans did OTL: concentrate flak around the objects they had to protect. (There weren't enough guns to cover this single line anyway.) This is a battle of attrition and not a single slash of a sword.

In what year are we? Because if it's late 1940 then I would:
- court martial half the Luftwaffe's leadership
- stop production on half of the lines,
- stop the r&d on half of the undergoing projects
- send out and receive liasion officers
- make peace with the navy, allocate more resources to naval aviation and place all units reasonably capable of anti-shipping operations under navy control
- make peace with the army, allocate more resources to develop a single-engine ground attack aircraft and phase out Ju 87
- cut commitments on the peripheries

etc etc etc

We are in the very beggining,1933.We want this defense to be ready by 1943.By then Germany will have Austria,Chechoslovakia (im also thinking of Switzerland) and Norway.If getting Denmark doesnt trigger the UK into war then get that too.Poland will be left alone.Building forts around Chechoslovakia that is bannana shapped aint gonna happen but in the part closer to Austria why not.The whole Mega Defense will contain all the countires i mentioned before.

[Destroyer500]

The US already beat Germany to the punch on that with the M2 90mm gun. The mount was powered and included not only automatic laying but a power rammer and fuze setter. Coupled to the Bell M3 predictor and an SCR 586 radar, this allowed the battery to be laid and directed remotely, like a battery of guns on a ship might be. It reduced the errors that could be injected into the fire control system from prediction to gun laying and at the same time when using time fuzes improved the setting of those giving the shortest delay between setting and firing the shell possible.

For the Germans, while they could certainly match most or all of that technology, they couldn't mass produce it. Their electronics industry was simply too small to handle making all those extra servos, motors, and such necessary.

The norm for AA guns in WW 2 was for a central predictor to calculate the elevation and traverse of the guns in the battery and transmit that data to them. A trainer and layer on the gun would then traverse and elevate the gun using a "follow the pointer" system mounted on the gun that received the data from the predictor. Fuze setting was based on data transmitted too. The loaders would be setting fuzes on shells as they were passed for firing. The fuze data would have a few seconds delay between setting and firing at a minimum meaning the prediction was slightly off when fired.

The classic problem of Germany having less.I guess they could have the system even at limited numbers available

[Peter89]

So what would you propose ? That i spread them thinner and make the line wider ? That i make multiple lines ?

As for the flak I propose what the Germans did OTL: concentrate flak around the objects they had to protect. (There weren't enough guns to cover this single line anyway.) This is a battle of attrition and not a single slash of a sword.

In what year are we? Because if it's late 1940 then I would:
- court martial half the Luftwaffe's leadership
- stop production on half of the lines,
- stop the r&d on half of the undergoing projects
- send out and receive liasion officers
- make peace with the navy, allocate more resources to naval aviation and place all units reasonably capable of anti-shipping operations under navy control
- make peace with the army, allocate more resources to develop a single-engine ground attack aircraft and phase out Ju 87
- cut commitments on the peripheries

etc etc etc

We are in the very beggining,1933.We want this defense to be ready by 1943.By then Germany will have Austria,Chechoslovakia (im also thinking of Switzerland) and Norway.If getting Denmark doesnt trigger the UK into war then get that too.Poland will be left alone.Building forts around Chechoslovakia that is bannana shapped aint gonna happen but in the part closer to Austria why not.The whole Mega Defense will contain all the countires i mentioned before.

Then my advice is to abandon the idea altogether.

[Destroyer500]

Then my advice is to abandon the idea altogether.

Lol why.They almost finished the Atlanic wall in a few years why cant they built something simmilar but on land withing 10 years ? Yes the resources will be less but they have more time.I also understand that at first the economical situation was bad but we dont have to have a steady construction rate,at first it will be slow but by 1938-1939 things will have gained momentum.

[Takao]

Sigh...Look what Germany accomplished with their Westwall & Ost wall in the pre-war years. Go from there. Don't focus on what Germany did during wartime, unless Germany is prepared to start a war in 1933.

How much slave labor was used on the Atlantic Wall?
How much captured equipment was used in the Atlantic Wall?

Pay no never mind that the Atlantic Wall was cracked in a day. Oooops!

[Destroyer500]

Sigh...Look what Germany accomplished with their Westwall & Ost wall in the pre-war years. Go from there. Don't focus on what Germany did during wartime, unless Germany is prepared to start a war in 1933.

I almost forgot these 2 existed.Ill have to do some more research on them.They didnt really have the size or complexity that i want though.Maginot Line was closer to what im thinking.

How much slave labor was used on the Atlantic Wall?
How much captured equipment was used in the Atlantic Wall?

Thats something i hopped someone would have already answered by now.I have somewhat searched the thing but i guess its time i do more

Pay no never mind that the Atlantic Wall was cracked in a day. Oooops!

Yea with all the generals and the high command doing something else and not carring and with a dead airforce.They reacted so slowly to the thing and the groundwork for the invasion had been layed well before.But with some things going sideways for the allies and the Germans not having their hands so full the whole operation could fail.
DDay no matter how well planned remained a gamble.

[Peter89]

Sigh...Look what Germany accomplished with their Westwall & Ost wall in the pre-war years. Go from there. Don't focus on what Germany did during wartime, unless Germany is prepared to start a war in 1933.

I almost forgot these 2 existed.Ill have to do some more research on them.They didnt really have the size or complexity that i want though.Maginot Line was closer to what im thinking.

How much slave labor was used on the Atlantic Wall?
How much captured equipment was used in the Atlantic Wall?

Thats something i hopped someone would have already answered by now.I have somewhat searched the thing but i guess its time i do more

Pay no never mind that the Atlantic Wall was cracked in a day. Oooops!

Yea with all the generals and the high command doing something else and not carring and with a dead airforce.They reacted so slowly to the thing and the groundwork for the invasion had been layed well before.But with some things going sideways for the allies and the Germans not having their hands so full the whole operation could fail.
DDay no matter how well planned remained a gamble.

That's an Anglo-Saxon misconception... D-Day was not a gamble. I mean it was a though fight for a short time, but nothing like the major campaigns in the East regarding cruelty, casualties and consequences. By the time the Wallies landed in Normandy the Germans were by and large defeated and the Axis was falling apart.

[Peter89]

Sigh...Look what Germany accomplished with their Westwall & Ost wall in the pre-war years. Go from there. Don't focus on what Germany did during wartime, unless Germany is prepared to start a war in 1933.

How much slave labor was used on the Atlantic Wall?
How much captured equipment was used in the Atlantic Wall?

Pay no never mind that the Atlantic Wall was cracked in a day. Oooops!

There was no "cracking of a wall". What actually happened was a grim battle of attrition that prevented Germany to use the strategic interior lines and the redeployment of forces from one theatre to another. The naval resistance was lost, the air battle was lost, so what happened - even at the Omaha beach - could have been a regular day in any major campaign in the east. Indeed, the Wallies attacked in Normandy when the Soviets practically broke the back of the Wehrmacht in the East and the MTO forces pinned down all otherwise available German resources.

[Destroyer500]

That's an Anglo-Saxon misconception... D-Day was not a gamble. I mean it was a though fight for a short time, but nothing like the major campaigns in the East regarding cruelty, casualties and consequences. By the time the Wallies landed in Normandy the Germans were by and large defeated and the Axis was falling apart.

There was no "cracking of a wall". What actually happened was a grim battle of attrition that prevented Germany to use the strategic interior lines and the redeployment of forces from one theatre to another. The naval resistance was lost, the air battle was lost, so what happened - even at the Omaha beach - could have been a regular day in any major campaign in the east. Indeed, the Wallies attacked in Normandy when the Soviets practically broke the back of the Wehrmacht in the East and the MTO forces pinned down all otherwise available German resources.

Yes of course thats how it was but my main point was that DDay although it had massive planning if the Germans had somehow gotten knowledge of the exact attack location someway or something similar happened then they could play with those forces behind the forts better when the battle would comence.Of course they would most probably be bombarded to death by ships and planes but who knows,maybe they could have held ? Again this is not an ideal scenario for comparison because this attack occurs on a severely weakened in all ways enemy that is completely disorganized not something like a fully functional bigger than the Maginot Line (and with no Ardennes shortcut) defensive position.If the allies attacked and tried to land on some of the most well defended French ports then we could make a proper comparison but they avoided that for a reason.

Now back again to the topic

Then my advice is to abandon the idea altogether.

Lol why.They almost finished the Atlanic wall in a few years why cant they built something simmilar but on land withing 10 years ? Yes the resources will be less but they have more time.I also understand that at first the economical situation was bad but we dont have to have a steady construction rate,at first it will be slow but by 1938-1939 things will have gained momentum.

This wasnt really answered.Why abandon it completely ?

[Peter89]

This wasnt really answered.Why abandon it completely ?

Long story short, because it is much more efficient and prudent to cause the same amount of attrition with fighters (which can attack all along the way) than with flak. Fighters can be maneuvered, redeployed very swiftly and whatnot; a mass of guns can not be redeployed. The key for success in my opinion, was to move the limited resources of the Reich from one theatre to another, always at the point/axis of penetration. It was possible for Germany to retract the Luftwaffe from the peripheries to the Reich's airspace and challenge the Wallies for a few months more. It is entirely plausible that the CBO would contribute practically nothing to the Allied victory in a scenario like that. By the way it is still very much debatable how much it did contribute. In my opinion, the whole concept made the war longer and the unnecessary suffering more serious.

[Destroyer500]

Long story short, because it is much more efficient and prudent to cause the same amount of attrition with fighters (which can attack all along the way) than with flak. Fighters can be maneuvered, redeployed very swiftly and whatnot; a mass of guns can not be redeployed. The key for success in my opinion, was to move the limited resources of the Reich from one theatre to another, always at the point/axis of penetration. It was possible for Germany to retract the Luftwaffe from the peripheries to the Reich's airspace and challenge the Wallies for a few months more. It is entirely plausible that the CBO would contribute practically nothing to the Allied victory in a scenario like that. By the way it is still very much debatable how much it did contribute. In my opinion, the whole concept made the war longer and the unnecessary suffering more serious.

I dont know what else apart from planes Germany could move around after a certain point because their airspace was full of the allies and every single transportation method was being obliterated like for example trains.Τhe planes could fly but the stuff needed to fly and maintain them not so much.If CBO means carpet bombing or something similar i have to agree that it is a totally unnecessary tactic that only brings misery.With half the tons of bombs used on civilians Germanys infrastructure would literally be removed entirely from the map and the war finish one and a half year earlier with minimal civilian losses.Again though were diverting

I didnt really think of it that way but i understand what youre getting at.This defensive "wall" is there to be an unpassable barrier for ground units and the different sizes in guns are there to serve a multi purpose role.The big guns i propose are there to stop any possible artillery from getting in range while the rest of the calibers for anti tank and anti infantry purposes.Almost all of them though,big or small,with proper shells and modifications,can definitely work as AA too.The mindset is,sacrifice the mobile aggressive doctrine for a fully defensive Maginot Like-French one.Make the defense so strong that an enemy wont even wont to engage it head on unless he wants to take massive losses.There will also be heavy tanks and a lot of infantry to support the forts and be the more agile part of the ground forces but no matter what the airforce MUST be as strong as it can be because it will play the role of the most mobile element of this defense and the main gap closer of any possible penetration of the lines.

[T. A. Gardner]

A stalemate where Germany is blockaded from importing critical resources is a losing one for Germany. All Germany's opponents in this scenario really need to do is form an impenetrable blockade and Germany slowly dies.

[Peter89]

A stalemate where Germany is blockaded from importing critical resources is a losing one for Germany. All Germany's opponents in this scenario really need to do is form an impenetrable blockade and Germany slowly dies.

In fact everyone else dies before the Germans, so it's not really a prudent strategy.

[Peter89]

Long story short, because it is much more efficient and prudent to cause the same amount of attrition with fighters (which can attack all along the way) than with flak. Fighters can be maneuvered, redeployed very swiftly and whatnot; a mass of guns can not be redeployed. The key for success in my opinion, was to move the limited resources of the Reich from one theatre to another, always at the point/axis of penetration. It was possible for Germany to retract the Luftwaffe from the peripheries to the Reich's airspace and challenge the Wallies for a few months more. It is entirely plausible that the CBO would contribute practically nothing to the Allied victory in a scenario like that. By the way it is still very much debatable how much it did contribute. In my opinion, the whole concept made the war longer and the unnecessary suffering more serious.

I dont know what else apart from planes Germany could move around after a certain point because their airspace was full of the allies and every single transportation method was being obliterated like for example trains.Τhe planes could fly but the stuff needed to fly and maintain them not so much.If CBO means carpet bombing or something similar i have to agree that it is a totally unnecessary tactic that only brings misery.With half the tons of bombs used on civilians Germanys infrastructure would literally be removed entirely from the map and the war finish one and a half year earlier with minimal civilian losses.Again though were diverting

I didnt really think of it that way but i understand what youre getting at.This defensive "wall" is there to be an unpassable barrier for ground units and the different sizes in guns are there to serve a multi purpose role.The big guns i propose are there to stop any possible artillery from getting in range while the rest of the calibers for anti tank and anti infantry purposes.Almost all of them though,big or small,with proper shells and modifications,can definitely work as AA too.The mindset is,sacrifice the mobile aggressive doctrine for a fully defensive Maginot Like-French one.Make the defense so strong that an enemy wont even wont to engage it head on unless he wants to take massive losses.There will also be heavy tanks and a lot of infantry to support the forts and be the more agile part of the ground forces but no matter what the airforce MUST be as strong as it can be because it will play the role of the most mobile element of this defense and the main gap closer of any possible penetration of the lines.

My point is this: the Germans have lost the air battle because they didn't draw the correct lessons from 1940 regarding production, and because they sent the air force to the peripheries in 1941. The only thing that they could do from that point on was to correct these mistakes. Which of course they couldn't do because they couldn't even keep pace with the British aircraft industry alone and their commitments in the east and south never really ceased.

The problem with your "wall" is the impossible nature of it. Given Germany's position - fighting against superior enemies that surrounded it - no wall would be unbreakable. It has been tried in WW1. Didn't work.

The best "wall" the Germans could build was occupying defensive positions which would be very hard to assault. Two things come into my mind: sea shores and mountains. Mountains were not really there so we are stuck with sea shores.

[Destroyer500]

My point is this: the Germans have lost the air battle because they didn't draw the correct lessons from 1940 regarding production, and because they sent the air force to the peripheries in 1941. The only thing that they could do from that point on was to correct these mistakes. Which of course they couldn't do because they couldn't even keep pace with the British aircraft industry alone and their commitments in the east and south never really ceased.

The problem with your "wall" is the impossible nature of it. Given Germany's position - fighting against superior enemies that surrounded it - no wall would be unbreakable. It has been tried in WW1. Didn't work.

The best "wall" the Germans could build was occupying defensive positions which would be very hard to assault. Two things come into my mind: sea shores and mountains. Mountains were not really there so we are stuck with sea shores.

If were gonna occupy just mountains and shores theres no point in doing anything but a mini Atlantic wall on the north.Mountains ? I see no reason for any kind of forts or proper defenses there.

I really fail to understand why you all believe such a defense that i propose would fail so easily to do its job.For starters whos gonna be stupid enough to attack them head on ? Artillery aint gonna do much to the forts and the big guns will far outrange anything so a land invasion will be almost impossible unless the gun handlers suddenly all have a heart attack.We are talking about a "wall" consisting of moats,trenches,small forts,bigger forts and flak towers and finally those giant guns i said.Of course radars,command post,observation points and all the goodies will be in and between all the things i mentioned.All that equally spread for weakpoints to be as few as possible.These weakpoints will be full of infantry and heavy tanks but noo matter the position of the line there will always be a strong airforce presence.How is something like this going to totally fail without the attackers having expended everything they got and more to do it ? Peter you mentioned a way that the British would approach such a defense but i there too fail to understand how would they not be spotted way before they got there and how the AAs are gonna be so ineffective at doing anything while the defenders airforce sits around doing plane spotting.If the Germans play deff i guess theyre gonna have an as advanced as the British one and an equally well trained crew.

A stalemate where Germany is blockaded from importing critical resources is a losing one for Germany. All Germany's opponents in this scenario really need to do is form an impenetrable blockade and Germany slowly dies.

The only ones that could pull that would be the RN.As i said we try to avoid a war with the UK for as long as possible.I guess by the time anything goes sideways and the UK is pulled in theyll have enough of what they need but if not theres no way a partial solution cant be found.