WesWorld

Clarify : IC it's a secret doc, OOC I'm curious as to other's thoughts on the problem/solution.

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. Given the populations and the economy, there is no hope should it come to that.

So then I wrote up the following piece, which I just went back to and finished.

The question is- if you're Belgium, you've seen WWI and Verdun's fortresses hold off the Germans, there's no smart weapons and hardened point targets are hard to hit...how do you make your nation unpalatable to attack, given the manpower disparity ?

Belgian Report

Defenses : We believe that there are measures that can be taken to defend Belgium in a politically effective manner.

This means that the defense of Belgium will require substative effort to militarily overcome, requiring mobilization and imposing significant casualties on the attacker. Further, efforts should be made to inflict damage on the invader's domestic targets of high economic or political value. Lastly, efforts should be made to minimize long term damage to Belgium's civilian population and infrastructure. These measures will decrease the attractiveness of an invasion as a solution to inter-state political problems, while increasing the willingness to negotiate a solution.

How do we achieve this ? In many ways the plan borrows the solutions the Netherlands utlized in planning their defenses in case of an AANM-FAR conflict.

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.

2.Focus the war plan: The entire country can not be defended, and fighting in each town would devastate the nation. Design the war plan to fight in the fields, only major crossings and road centers will be heavily contested, in additiion to 'Citadel Towns'. Plan for defensive lines overwatching canals, rivers, and other waterbarriers. In these defensive areas, housing with good fields of fire should be chosen for upgrade work on their basement areas, to allow hidden bunker construction.

3.Plan for unsupported warfare: Given the ability of modern transport to rapidly concentrate firepower, the opposition will break any defensive line where desired. Individual divisions must be able to function and advance the war plan while cut off from direct support. This will require organic anti-aircraft and anti-tank resources, pioneer capacity, and local depots rather than large centralized depots. The proposed citadel towns become the logical secondary depot locations.

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.

5.The current model of the Belgian-Dutch Corp must be replicated to allow counter attacks and destruction of any deep Franco-German saliant. This will be aided by the heavy artillery of the overlapping citadel towns.

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. 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. The Belgian Air Force should have a disproportionate number of Fighter-bombers and Interceptors, a limited number of tactical planes, and a small number of fast medium bombers for high profile raids on such choke points as bridges, power plants and refineries. Airbases should be designed to repel raiders, protect parked planes, and have alternate maintenance and barracks facilities to those expected. Road infrastructure should be examined to identify areas which can be rapidly transformed into secondary airbases. Lastly, a high level of AAA should be provided to attrit attacking aerial forces.

7.The United Kingdoms of the Netherlands : The loose alliance implicit in the United Kingdoms of the Netherlands must be strengthened. While numerically inferior in number, the Kingdom of the Netherlands fields divisions nearly 50% larger than our own, well equipped and consisting of two brigades each capable of independent actions. The Dutch Navy is decidedly not the equal of the Grande Alliance, but could inflict substantial economic damage, particularly in the Far East. The Netherlands is also sited on the throat of German commerce, and would severely impact commerce from the Rhineland. 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. Politically every effort should be made to strengthen the unity of United Kingdoms of the Netherlands and ensure that an attack on one is indeed seen as an attack on all is imperitive, and such that an assault on Belgium will lead to a overseas war long after Belgium has fallen.

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.

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. These routes will also be natural invasion corridors, and so can be planned to our advantage, to be severed when it will be most disruptive.

The Armanent of the Citadel Towns : What we are envisioning is drawing on naval weaponry of Belgium and the UKN. Individual reinforced concrete bunkers, with a armored apron, which would house single naval turrets with a small 37mm AAG coupula, fronted by a fixed plate of thicker armor. Turrets would be fitted with an exterior forward shield of thin face hardened armor spaced at least 1meter from the main armor. Armor and concrete would be used in three levels, with ¼ heavy, ¼ moderate, and ½ light armor used. This will force the attackers to rely on heavier munitions capable of defeating the heaviest armor, regardless of what the target bears. Armored masts would serve as platforms for direct observation, though radio calls to preplanned coordinates would be the primary method of indirect fire. Relatively small targets, these would be hard to nuetralize via air or artillery attack.

Heavy guns would consist of half Batteries of the FRC 240L35 siege howitzers and half batteries of the Cockerill 155mm M1924. Locations chosen allow for overlap, allowing fire support and interdiction of supply routes from adjacent Citadel towns.

Direct defense would consist of a mix of Naval 4.7 guns operating in both anti-tank and high explosive rolls. Given the limitations of rail gagues and bridges on potential assault tank sizes, it is expected the 4.7 high velocity round will be effective against all current and likely future tanks.

These would be covered against air assault by batteries of the FRC 90L50 with a primary anti-aircraft role, but a secondary Anti-tank role for rear area defenses, supplemented by Schneider 37mm AAMGs.

All told, three lines of citadel towns have been indentified, totally 56 installations. Additionally, there are seven locations where coastal batteries are advocated. Lastly, should the program be accepted, the potential for 14 independent bastions in the Ardennes has been identified.

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.

The coastal batteries would rely on a half battery of 9.2 and a full battery of 4.7 QF guns as found on the King Albert, with a battery of 90L50s and twin batteries of 37mm AAMGs. This would require 28 of the 9.2, 56 of the 4.7 and 90mm, and 112 of the 37mm AAMGs, a £10.223 million / project for the weaponry alone, and consuming an additional 1,903 tons of high quality steels.

Hm. It might be amusing to play the devil's advocate in this case and show where the Belgian thinking doesn't match up with the reality of where the French military is going. I'll have to give it some thought to percolate, first.

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.

I'm presuming this comment comes before the Franco-English Agreement which sells Chad to the British.

Oh I certainly encourage it.

The question becomes, what's a better route, given the constraints of perspective ?

Okay, for the response to this. All comments are OOC, of course.

I think so many things have changed in Europe since the end of 1917 that the "German threat" really holds about as much water (from the French point-of-view) as a cullender. IC, the French see Belgian attitude towards Germany as fanatical: they seem incapable of adjusting to the reality of changing circumstances. Belgium desires the French to spearhead a bulwark against the German threat - but the Belgians seem unable to identify what the true nature of that threat actually is. Perhaps even more irritating to France is that Belgium has many times taken stances which Paris feels undermined what the Belgians seemed to be asking France to do: for instance, forming the personal union with the Netherlands, which was busy in setting up a nice three-front situation vis-a-vis France in the form of AEGIS. It may not have been the Belgian intentions - the French are well aware Belgium was no signatory to that treaty - but the end result is the same. Amusingly, it seems ironic that the Belgians have taken such a shine to a monarch who the French perceived as pro-German and anti-Entente during the Great War.

The way I see it, the point of divergence in Wesworld comes not in the events of treaties and such, but rather in the way the national narratives of the Great War have been told by the major combatants. Germany's narrative is not of defeat through betrayal, as it was in OTL. In France, the war is seen as the disastrous designs of European absolutist monarchs who desired to extend power against "weak" democracies (and constitutional monarchies). That's probably shared in some way or another by Russia, Atlantis, and Germany - maybe even Italy - though I can't speak for them, of course.

The current French government would absolutely love to increase their ties with Belgium, but they don't like the idea of Belgium trying to get them into fights with Germany - and that's what it felt like through the 1930s. And the closer Belgium gets to the Dutch, the further they'll get from France. (Full unification with the Dutch, as I recall being mentioned once or twice, would be very unpalatable indeed in Paris.)

As long as it's OOC, I'll explain my out-of-character reasoning for the last five to eight years of French policies. First, I took up France shortly after Bruce took up Germany, and part of my objective - which I stated to Bruce beforehand - was to challenge the German economic powerhouse which was showing up. Second, once I'd had a few months running France, I started to get a bit irritated at the concept that France and Germany *had* to be enemies. Why should that be? This is a naval sim, and a war against Germany holds very little hope of naval action that would feel unique and fresh to me. I have to look outside Europe before I see things interesting enough to focus on. Working that into my first point, I'm trying to bank French power and prestige into building up the Empire - and using the Empire to keep France competitive with Germany and Britain in the continent. As France and Germany are the two hardiest republics of Europe, it's only appropriate IMHO that they develop both a closer partnership and a bit of a keener rivalry.

Now, as to the military aspects of a theoretical tussle between France and Belgium (with, or without friends)...

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.

Even though both France and Germany have spent the last two years drawing down their military forces in Europe, a move being shared by the UK, I believe...

Quoted

Given the populations and the economy, there is no hope should it come to that.

Pretty much, yes...

Quoted

if you're Belgium, you've seen WWI and Verdun's fortresses hold off the Germans

Well, that's not really what happened in Wesworld. Unlike OTL, more than half of the war was fought with maneuver by the Army of the Orient. When the French, British, and Canadians started to apply the Russian and Atlantean tactics to the Western Front, they saw the Hundred Days.

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.

From the point of view of the French Army, making "Citadel towns" would border on the tactic of using civilian human shields: it's intentionally putting fortifications in civilian areas in order to force fighting in built-up areas. The most likely French response would be to give civilians a week to evacuate, then firebomb the town to expose bunkers and fortified buildings. If a few non-citadel towns get wiped out along the way, well...

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.

Seems logical to group your armour. Seems futile against the numbers France alone could bring to bear, let alone Germany.

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.

More daunting than you might think. The Armee de l'Aire currently fields around eight hundred single-engine fighters and four hundred bombers in Zone Nord-Est, all capable of a combat radius covering parts or all of Belgium. There are grass scatter-fields, a radar network, and several thousand troops whose job it is to build new airfields.

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.

Fortunately, France and Germany have many times the manpower, maintenance, and production base.

Doesn't stop France from fielding over five thousand single-engine aircraft. Granted, not all in the Metropole, but...

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.

The German tourism board seems to be covering German history quite adequately.

If Belgium wants to increase Franco-Belgian links and fraternity, they could start by not aiming a divide-and-conquer message at them...

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.

At the present time no plans have been made in France to expand the French autoroute system, but Paris would be open to discussions.

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.

A bit of a steep price to pay when the countries its supposedly aimed at protecting from are downsizing their armies. When will the Belgian citizens start wondering why their government seems so out of step with the situation in the rest of Europe?

I wanted to contribute something intelligent and meaningful here but really this analysis is outdated. If anything it shows the Belgian's are still thinking in terms of previous European geopolitics. Spending that much on fortifications is probably not politically feasible. Generally the UK is moving forces overseas and cutting home defence, I expect to mothball some coastal batteries and AA positions.

The UK would accept that Belgium is free to associate with the Netherlands if they wish. The Flemish/ Walloon spilt makes things difficult and generally France has to accept Belgium has that freedom.

I was interested in Brock's comment about the concept that France and Germany had to be enemies. Perhaps not exactly true, but ever since Europe was inhabited by formal nations the fear of one party dominating Europe and the desire to dominate has driven European history, even to the formation of the EEC. As industrial strength grew Germany became the automatic worry because of its potential power (briefly the USSR was that dominant threat). While Germany and France might be buddies now and have built up a web of safeguards in WW its not to say this will always remain so. Even today OTL in a 'unified' free-market Europe, Germany holds the balance of power and many European nations dislike that. It's a fact of European politics. In WW the GA and PETA could be said to be earlier than OTL attempts to shackle ANY power from dominating the continent. Britain would agree fully with that in WW and its a very sound aim but we shouldn't make out Europe is entirely friendly. If it was we wouldn't need so many non-aggression pacts for a start!

Interesting stuff,
reason I floated the idea here was I wasn't sure on my take on things, so wanted feedback.

Started a reply, don't have time to finish until Saturday at best.

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 ?

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 ?

Ships are usually kept far away and look impressive on the high seas. To the denizens of the 'Citadel Towns', the guns, armor, concrete etc. might be taking up their local football pitch, or their homes. That could make a difference.