Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Kaiser Kirk" (Jun 25th 2013, 12:26am)
Quoted
Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
The Kingdom of the Kongo lacks a large offensive army and currently would be disinclined to assist just Belgium. Would this change, the French possession of Chad in Afrika would be extremely vulnerable, albeit of little value.
Quoted
So, earlier this year I started on this project, trying to discern how Belgium would try to protect itself when Germany corrupts France and they invade.
Quoted
Given the populations and the economy, there is no hope should it come to that.
Quoted
if you're Belgium, you've seen WWI and Verdun's fortresses hold off the Germans
Quoted
1.Unlike the Netherlands pill-box belt on the border, the proposal in this case is more modest. Static defensive emplacements in the interior of the nation, forming 'Citadel Towns'. allowing the Active Army to fall back, and reserve elements to form on these locations. These location will shield Brussels and Antwerp, while interdicting major supply corridors. These Citadels should combine predesignated defensive works, current and potential airfields, a battery or more of the longest reaching indirect artillery for fire support, several batteries of anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns, and machine guns. Large fortifications would likely be targetable by mass air attack, so these should be sited in individual emplacements. The possibility of naval gun turrets in reinforced concrete emplacements is being explored. Any individual emplacements should be designed somewhat larger than currently needed, to allow for future upgrading at minimal cost.
Quoted
4.Plan for manuever warfare : An armored reserve force, capable of quickly counterstriking on interior lines can lead to local firepower superiority. The current tank destroyers are excellent defensive assets and dispersed companies should be amalgamated into larger formations, more capable of countering Franco-German armored formations.
Quoted
6.Plan to contest air superiority. While the numbers of the French and German Air Forces are overwhelming, the infrastruture to project those forces is less daunting.
Quoted
Further, a large number of the French and German airforce is multi-engine planes which require many times the manpower, maintenance and production base that a simple fighter does.
Quoted
8.Propaganda : There must be every effort to increase Franco-Belgian links and fraternity, as well as to highlight the German history. Tourism, commerce, history, exchange students, all things we should highlight via a Cultural Ministry.
Quoted
9.Economics : The Franco-German automobile transport system should not avoid Belgium. Routing it through the low countries will link it to the great ports, and increase mutual trade and understanding.
Quoted
The three defensive lines would require the construction and emplacement of 224 FRC 240L35 siege howitzers, 224 Cockerill 155mm M1924, 448 Australian-style 4.7/50 AT guns, a further 448 FRC 90L50 AA/AT guns, and about 896 Schneider 37mm AAMGs, a £103.686 million project for the weaponry alone, consuming 19,317 tons of high quality steels.
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Kaiser Kirk" (Jun 27th 2013, 10:26pm)
Quoted
Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
One note on Hoods' comment on expenses - I had put together the tonnage from the idea of funding it like coastal defenses- from the Belgian naval budget. It's about 1 year of material, more if I add in the armored mounts. Nobody would blink twice if I spent 2 years building ships for the Belgian navy, so why would that expense in fortifications matter ?
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH