Could Germany have overcome the Franco-Belgian Alliance?

[Sunforged General]

So lets assume in 1936, after Germany Remilitarizes the Rhineland, Belgium doesnt leave the French Alliance, seeing Neutrality as an absurd notion that Germany would never honor, and clinging to the French for protection. Now this probably doesnt change much in 1936-1939. But when Germany invades Poland, France and Britain Declare war, and Belgium honors their alliance and joins the Entente. The Phony war probably still happens, as the Germans need time after conquering Poland to build up their expended ammunition stocks. This means the French and British have 8 months to dig in and prepare in Belgium for the expected German attack. (I dont believe Germany could have been ready any sooner than May 1940 to invade France.)

One Major factor, is the Belgian K-W Line. Unlike the Maginot line, the Belgian K-W line had no permanent garrisons, and thus had to be manned when a war starts. But now, the British, French, and Belgians have 8 months to dig in on the line, and add more fortifications to it.

Is this a battle Germany can win? 8 months is plenty of time to make several strong defensive lines, and reinforce the Belgian ones that already existed. Presumably since the Entente forces now have time on their hands to focus on their defenses, they could possibly have fortified the Ardennes area as well, so that there are no holes in their defenses. Perhaps with French and British Reinforcements Fort Eben-Emael could have been held as well.

But what do you think, how does this battle play out?

 

[Kovax]

I would assume it would lead to some kind of confrontation between Hitler and his general staff, the former pushing to knock France out of the war ASAP so he can pursue his plans in the East, while the latter insist that it's not possible. How that ends is anyone's guess.

 

[mccarty.geoff]

May have saved France from defeat if the French and British were in Belgium on 10May. Doubtful if Belgium would have been so lucky. Belgium was historically totally mobilized with 600k in the armed forces. The Dyle Line was a great fortification and it was fully manned.
Knowing this the Germans would have concentrated their forces for an echeloned flanking maneuver through Brabant, Holland. Still with say 500k French and British already in country it wouldn't have been much of a speed bump. Germans would still have had air superiority which is just as powerful as armored spearheads so, the front probably would have been pushed back to Lille before stabilizing.

 

[Avernite]

May have saved France from defeat if the French and British were in Belgium on 10May. Doubtful if Belgium would have been so lucky. Belgium was historically totally mobilized with 600k in the armed forces. The Dyle Line was a great fortification and it was fully manned.
Knowing this the Germans would have concentrated their forces for an echeloned flanking maneuver through Brabant, Holland. Still with say 500k French and British already in country it wouldn't have been much of a speed bump. Germans would still have had air superiority which is just as powerful as armored spearheads so, the front probably would have been pushed back to Lille before stabilizing.

The Belgian fortifications were anchored all the way to Antwerp; pretty hard to outflank those through Brabant (and completely impossible through Holland, really).

So I see two options; A, the Germans try approximately the historical plan, and the question is if the historically strung-out Allied troops, being firmly in place, can respond more quickly to the trouble at Sedan (which I consider quite likely). B, the Germans do try your plan of striking through Dutch Brabant, and smash headfirst against the Belgian lines... at which point they possibly can still punch a hole, but not encircle and destroy the allied forces.

In either case the Germans probably lose, but if they win in case A they at least capture all of Belgium (but if they lose, of course, they get a useless stretch of Ardennes only, while in case B most results give at least half of Belgium).

 

[mccarty.geoff]

You over estimate fortifications. They would be crushed by aerial bombardment and artillery. Germans could have ploughed through Metz as well. It would have just cost them more men. Brabant is open plain lands even 3 trench lines and a concrete bunker every 100 meters can't stop the JU-87 doing what it does best.

 

[Sunforged General]

You over estimate fortifications. They would be crushed by aerial bombardment and artillery. Germans could have ploughed through Metz as well. It would have just cost them more men. Brabant is open plain lands even 3 trench lines and a concrete bunker every 100 meters can't stop the JU-87 doing what it does best.

Some pillboxes can withstand Arial bombardment. The Germans may punch through, but they dont encircle half the allied armies in Belgium as they did in OTL, and thus it becomes a slightly faster paced version of Trench Warfare.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

In pretend history, anything is possible.

But the answer you want is that Belgium immediately passes a massive bond measure to pay for a static string of fortifications to prevent the Germans from entering their country and cripples their own economy paying for them. These forts will protect a series of rail guns which can be hidden in a complex series of tunnels to prevent counter-battery operations like the American MX missle complex envisioned by Reagan and paid for by a Coalition of the Willing. And these guns will be so powerful they will be able to land shells in the Ruhr Valley. France will enthusiastically forestall domestic spending to dramatically increase defense spending and mandatory military service to boost her reserves.

An unbroken chain of forts now extends from Switzerland to the Atlantic bordering Germany. If Germany twitches, the British will immediately send troops to man these fortifications in a new French-British-Belgian alliance against Germany at all costs. Mobile units will immediately be positioned behind the chain of forts as a reaction force. Airbases and AAA will be layered to provide strong tactical air responses to German movement. And more importantly, British fighters will provide Air Supremacy operations over the forts to prevent recon and counter-attack bombing operations while British Strategic bombers immediately begin pounding the German coastline to degrade Germany's fleet and drydock facilities. The British fleet will shut down the German coastline, and worldwide sanctions will ensue. IF Germany attacks, we will be ready this time.

In pretend history, using a Hearts of Iron map editor, I can defend France indefinitely against German incursions using this tactic. It's brilliant. But this isn't Hearts of Iron, and it isn't pretend history.

 

[Sunforged General]

In pretend history, anything is possible.

But the answer you want is that Belgium immediately passes a massive bond measure to pay for a static string of fortifications to prevent the Germans from entering their country and cripples their own economy paying for them. These forts will protect a series of rail guns which can be hidden in a complex series of tunnels to prevent counter-battery operations like the American MX missle complex envisioned by Reagan and paid for by a Coalition of the Willing. And these guns will be so powerful they will be able to land shells in the Ruhr Valley. France will enthusiastically forestall domestic spending to dramatically increase defense spending and mandatory military service to boost her reserves.

An unbroken chain of forts now extends from Switzerland to the Atlantic bordering Germany. If Germany twitches, the British will immediately send troops to man these fortifications in a new French-British-Belgian alliance against Germany at all costs. Mobile units will immediately be positioned behind the chain of forts as a reaction force. Airbases and AAA will be layered to provide strong tactical air responses to German movement. And more importantly, British fighters will provide Air Supremacy operations over the forts to prevent recon and counter-attack bombing operations while British Strategic bombers immediately begin pounding the German coastline to degrade Germany's fleet and drydock facilities. The British fleet will shut down the German coastline, and worldwide sanctions will ensue. IF Germany attacks, we will be ready this time.

In pretend history, using a Hearts of Iron map editor, I can defend France indefinitely against German incursions using this tactic. It's brilliant. But this isn't Hearts of Iron, and it isn't pretend history.

Contrary to your belief, I don't care about being right, but rather that the most logical estimation be reached. Germany was in a tight spot in the late 1930. Their victories were the unlikely scenario, if even small details change they lose in 1940-1942.

 

[mccarty.geoff]

You are being disingenuous if that is your statement. I replied with a realistic compromise of superior German warfare capabilities to a allied army on forward defense. Somehow, a string of pillboxes which were historically manned by a comparatively massive Belgian army would be the deciding factor in German combined arms tactics. The BEF could have stabilized the front historically if they didn't just retreat after the Germans crossed the Meuse.
The usage of armored regiments with halftrack and motorised battalions. Machineguns per squad instead of company. Dive bombers capable of precision attacks on armored brigades and fortifications. Tactics won the battle of France not some unreasonable global strategy of attacking at the same place as 25 years ago.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

'If small details changes', Adolph Hitler will live out his days in the Berghof and Europe will enter a golden age of understanding.

Got it, thanks.

When you figure out that time machine aspect of this argument, please let me know.

 

[Sunforged General]

You are being disingenuous if that is your statement. I replied with a realistic compromise of superior German warfare capabilities to a allied army on forward defense. Somehow, a string of pillboxes which were historically manned by a comparatively massive Belgian army would be the deciding factor in German combined arms tactics. The BEF could have stabilized the front historically if they didn't just retreat after the Germans crossed the Meuse.
The usage of armored regiments with halftrack and motorised battalions. Machineguns per squad instead of company. Dive bombers capable of precision attacks on armored brigades and fortifications. Tactics won the battle of France not some unreasonable global strategy of attacking at the same place as 25 years ago.

Since Germany had to attack in May 1940, for various reasons, this literally gives the Allies 8 months to dig in and fortify Belgium. Thats more time than the Soviets had to fortify the Kursk region, which is comparable in size to Belgium. Presumably with excess time on their hands the allies would even fortify the Ardennes region.

Blitzkrieg mostly only works on enemies who aren't ready for your attack in the area you are attacking. Trying to use Blitzkrieg on an enemy who has had ample time to prepare for your attack shows that it wont work. We saw this at the battles of Moscow and Kursk. There is also the matter that the British outproduced Germany in Aircraft in 1940. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_aircraft_production

15,049 British Aircraft vs 7,829 Germany aircraft in 1940. Which means if the Germans dont take Belgium and France quickly in a 6 week campaign, then in the later half of 1940 the British will contest German air superiority over France and Belgium.

 

[Avernite]

'If small details changes', Adolph Hitler will live out his days in the Berghof and Europe will enter a golden age of understanding.

Got it, thanks.

When you figure out that time machine aspect of this argument, please let me know.

You seem to have a fundamental issue with the concept of alternate history, and I don't see why.

'If X had changed, then Y won't happen' is a way to analyze real history, showing that X contributed to Y - and if, instead, it can be argued easily that is X doesn't happen, Y still does, it is not a cause.

Now, obviously, it is also an excellent excuse to create nice stories in a historical context, but the genre tends to stick a bit closer to historical context than whatever you made up to sneer at it; but then, you called it pretend history, which I suppose is a different genre.

 

[bz249]

You seem to have a fundamental issue with the concept of alternate history, and I don't see why.

'If X had changed, then Y won't happen' is a way to analyze real history, showing that X contributed to Y - and if, instead, it can be argued easily that is X doesn't happen, Y still does, it is not a cause.

Now, obviously, it is also an excellent excuse to create nice stories in a historical context, but the genre tends to stick a bit closer to historical context than whatever you made up to sneer at it; but then, you called it pretend history, which I suppose is a different genre.

Alternate history really works if you think about short term stuff in order to analyze whether what supposed to be a historical chokepoint really was a historical chokepoint. While some really strange stuff happened in the history which would regarded as impossible wanking in a rigorous analysis (e.g. Hannibal should have lost in six month against Rome not defeat armies after armies) typically the events unfolded the way they are because they were the likely outcome and the actors had a limited room to do the things other than they did. Really dumb people are not supposed end up leading massive armies (usually there is someone behind the throne who runs the shop in case of dumb monarch).

 

[Henry IX]

. Really dumb people are not supposed end up leading massive armies

Luigi Cardona would like to thank you for the excessive kindness towards his abilities.

Alternate history really works if you think about short term stuff in order to analyze whether what supposed to be a historical chokepoint really was a historical chokepoint.

I agree. The real question, I feel from this discussion, is what would have happened if the French army had been invited into Belgium at the beginning of the war. As such they would have been able to march in good order into their defensive position along the Dyle-Breda line and dig in during the 'Phony War'. Does a French army in this situation actually perform sufficiently better than in OTL to stop the German offensive?

The new situation gives the French 3 significant advantages:
1. They are much better integrated with the Belgian army, and so significantly stronger than they were historically
2. Without needing to use the mechanised forces in a race to the Dyle-Breda line against potential German spearheads these units are more likely to be available to form an actual reserve force capable of counter-attacking the German spearheads
3. The forces in Belgium should be quicker to redeploy, as they are no longer marching away rom the threat and are easier to turn about to defend their rear.

Nothing about the new situation would change the French misapprehensions about the Ardennes region or its defensibility, although with greater cooperation and understanding the delaying action in the Ardennes may have functioned better and slowed the Germans down. However, assuming the delaying operation continued as it did in OTL the Germans would still have smashed through at Sedan. The painful slowness of the French counter attack, (which took more than 48hrs to organise and even the only involved a few attacks at the company level and a single action at the battalion level against an operational breakthrough at the Army Group level), would likely be the same, with the same result.

Hence the question becomes 'could the French organise a counter-attack sufficient to stop or significantly delay the German spearheads if they had a couple of mechanised divisions in reserve?'

My guess for this question is that there is a good chance that an attack into the wide open flanks of the Panzer divisions could cause a panic amongst the more conservative German generals, particularly von Rundstedt, and result in the halting of the spearheads while the threats to the flank are eliminated. This could give the Allies time to retreat and save a much larger proportion of their manpower, although such a retreat would likely result in the loss of most of their heavy equipment. This would make the second phase of the German attack, Fall Rot, much harder and would likely leave the Wehrmacht weaker at the end. However, with the shock of the defeat in at Sedan and the loss of significant portions of their heavy equipment, the French would likely still fail to stop the German attack. Given the slowness of French command & control, its tendency to collapse in the face of rapid movements by the Wehrmacht and the extremely poor allied reconnaissance, it seems unlikely that the French could mount a counter-attack sufficient to permanently halt the German attack, even if provided with the resources.

There is also a possibility that having firmly dug in forces throughout Belgium could have simply reinforced the French linear thinking and resulted in them remaining in their defensive positions for even longer, while the extra mechanised forces get frittered away in meaningless local actions, such as happened to the mechanised reserves the French possessed in OTL. This could actually result in worse defeat, without the 350k men saved during the naval evacuations in OTL.

Whatever happens, the German forces committed to the attack through the Low Countries would likely have suffered significantly heavier casualties, and the Wehrmacht would be noticeably weaker for 1941.

 

[bz249]

Luigi Cardona would like to thank you for the excessive kindness towards his abilities.

While was not an exact genius (lucky that he have to fight against the other titanic intellect Conrad), I do not think that Italian Army had highly capable generals, lower officers and NCOs only to be led by an idiot Cardona.

Furthermore
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_cruiser_Luigi_Cadorna
So it looks like the Italians themselves find his leadership abilities acceptable

I agree. The real question, I feel from this discussion, is what would have happened if the French army had been invited into Belgium at the beginning of the war. As such they would have been able to march in good order into their defensive position along the Dyle-Breda line and dig in during the 'Phony War'. Does a French army in this situation actually perform sufficiently better than in OTL to stop the German offensive?

Wouldn't the Belgians request a more forward deployement in that case? The Dyle-Breda line was chosen because
a.) it was the shortest possible defensive line, which
b.) allowed the collection of the Belgian and part of the Dutch armies

My guess for this question is that there is a good chance that an attack into the wide open flanks of the Panzer divisions could cause a panic amongst the more conservative German generals, particularly von Rundstedt, and result in the halting of the spearheads while the threats to the flank are eliminated. This could give the Allies time to retreat and save a much larger proportion of their manpower, although such a retreat would likely result in the loss of most of their heavy equipment. This would make the second phase of the German attack, Fall Rot, much harder and would likely leave the Wehrmacht weaker at the end. However, with the shock of the defeat in at Sedan and the loss of significant portions of their heavy equipment, the French would likely still fail to stop the German attack. Given the slowness of French command & control, its tendency to collapse in the face of rapid movements by the Wehrmacht and the extremely poor allied reconnaissance, it seems unlikely that the French could mount a counter-attack sufficient to permanently halt the German attack, even if provided with the resources.

I agree with that

There is also a possibility that having firmly dug in forces throughout Belgium could have simply reinforced the French linear thinking and resulted in them remaining in their defensive positions for even longer, while the extra mechanised forces get frittered away in meaningless local actions, such as happened to the mechanised reserves the French possessed in OTL. This could actually result in worse defeat, without the 350k men saved during the naval evacuations in OTL.

Whatever happens, the German forces committed to the attack through the Low Countries would likely have suffered significantly heavier casualties, and the Wehrmacht would be noticeably weaker for 1941.

And this where alternate history ends and speculation begins.
Would ~200k PoW be enough for the Britons to seek peace? (in a completely rational analysis: No, they knew well that in a long-drawn conflict against Germany they likely emerge as the winners)
If there is a peace between the UK and Germany would Barbarossa takes place at all? (again fully rationally: No, a good part of the motivation for Barbarossa was that they were on borrowed time because of the war against the UK and possibly the US... if there is peace in the West than it is better to digest the conquest and Hitler is anyway an unparalelled conqueror so why seek more glory?)