Talk:Maginot Line

WikiProject Military history

(Rated C-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Fortifications task force Military science and technology task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): French military history task force German military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

Initial post

You sure about the Germans punching through the line, Tim? If I recall correctly, the second prong of the German attack was through the Ardennes forest, and I think the rough terrain was considered to be its own defense. I remember reading a very detailed article about the construction of the line and it said that it did not fall but rather surrendered after the rest of France did, and it mentioned nothing about the Germans breaking through.

What I wrote is what I recall from reading General Bradley's memoirs and Liddell Hart's history. The attack was through the Ardennes, and researching it just now, apparently the Maginot Line was to the south of the Ardennes. So I will restore the old version of this page - Tim

Error in the opening

I know nothing about the maginot line, so not confident to edit it myself. However, the opening reads: "which France constructed along its borders with Germany and with Italy in the wake of World War II."

Now, "wake of World War II" means AFTER WWII, right? Isn't it meant to say wake of WWI? It seems to have been built between WWI and WWII best I can tell.

A greater account of the Maginot Line can be found in Alistair Horne's book To Lose A Battle France 1940,as well as an in depth look at the events surrounding it

Cheers- David P Shirk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.135.172 (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Schizophrenic article

On the one hand this article acknowledge that the line actually did the job it was intended to do: entice an attack trough Belgium, and on the other hand it tries to explain us how, though successfully fulling its objectives, it was still a failure. I removed the unsupported failure claims, especially the claim that French strategy did not use the Line correctly. If someone can provide a source how the French authorities believed to be invincible thanks to the line, we could put that back.

Cost of construction

The current text says: "The main construction was largely completed by 1935 at a cost of around 3 billion francs."

Where does this figure come from?

In The Second World War John Keegan writes (p.61): "The original vote for the Maginot Line was for 3000 million francs; by 1935, 7000 million had been spent, one-fifth of the year-on-year military budget, but only 87 miles of fortification had been completed."

Alistair Horne in "To Lose a Battle" quotes those figures as well, i suspect the person who originally wrote 3 billion was using the amount approved, and not the final cost (3000 million is the same as 3 billion) Nyenyec 18:38, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note that there are two main uses of the number "1 billion":

1,000,000,000 is the most common usage of one billion (often referred to as the "American billion"); 1,000,000,000,000 is an alternative usage of 1 billion (often referred to as the "United Kingdom billion") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.228.229 (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

John Keegan would have been used to the long scale billion until age ~40, and even in 1990 would probably have avoided the term billion for a 1000 million. I still dislike the British Government's 1974 unilateral change to my language and would prefer to use the proper term milliard, which was never so common as it still is in both France and Germany. I'll check WP:MOSNUM before altering it to 3,000 or 7,000 million.

But, over 6 years on, this hasn't been addressed, one way or another. Tim PF (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Mary gives a cost of 5,000,000,000 francs through 1935 for the northeastern fortifications (Tome 1) and 362,000,000 for the southeastern positions (Tome 5) in 1931. According to Kauffmann, about 3,650,000,000 was appropriated in 1930, 95% for the northeast and 5% for the southeast. Obviously, the numbers are somewhat nebulous, and there was more money spent in the late 1930s on the New Frontiers and various STG and MOM projects after CORF was disbanded. 7,000,000,000 seems like a realistic total cost. I'll keep looking for a better estimate that can be referenced. Acroterion _(talk) 03:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Magniot Line metaphor...

I'm not sure the description of the Magniot Line metaphor in the article is appropriate. In most cases, the context where it is used is for something like missile defence, where it might defend against the specific threat it was intended for but is easily evaded by a more flexible attacker. --Robert Merkel 07:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure that the Line was constructed in the wake of WW I?

Name

Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but why was it called the Maginot Line? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:20, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

...named after French minister of defense André Maginot)... It was Andre Maginot who finally convinced the government to invest in the scheme. Maginot was another veteran of WW I who became France's Minister of Veteran Affairs and then Minister of War (1928–1931).--216.174.135.50 15:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Error on the Map

The Maginot Line was essentially from the Swiss border ot the Luxembourg border. It is described as such in the article. However, the diagram provided shows in extending right to the English Channel.

"When Belgium abrogated the treaty in 1936 and declared neutrality, the Maginot Line was quickly extended along the Franco-Belgian border, but not to the standard of the rest of the Line."Thmars10 00:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Book reference

I vote to remove the section titled "Referenced in A Separate Peace". It should be in the article for that book, if anywhere. A5 17:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

French Version?

Anyone know what the WP process and/or policy is for adding cross-references within the text to another WP language version? A much more comprehensive entry for Ligne Maginot is being developed in the French version of WP, with additional illustrations, etc. It seems silly to just copy all their images here. JXM 02:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC) (PS Yes, I know it's already linked in the sidebar!]

German invasion

Text from "german invasion": the German 1st Army went over to the offensive in "Operation Tiger” and attacked the Maginot Line between St. Avoid and Saarbrücken achieving penetrations in several locations

Except for the "Ouvrage of Ferté", germans have never penetrated the Maginot Line with normals conditions of combat. The north of the Maginot Line had been taken by germans when it was desert by the french army. Martial BACQUET 10:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Organization of the line

I'm editing a new section about the organization of the line. If you see errors or anything else, please tell me here, but do not remove directly, except for spelling or grammar errors. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martial75 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Grammar in "Purpose of the Line"

Is it just me, or does the grammar in the section entitled "Purpose of the Line" seem incorrect? As I don't really known how it should be, so I am not going to change it. Specifically this "To push the enemy to circumvent it while passing by Switzerland or Belgium." and this "To save the forces (France counted 39,000,000 inhabitants, Germany 70,000,000)." -Wil101 —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|67.101.127.167 00:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)]] comment was added by 67.101.127.167 (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

I really hate when historians debate the necessity of the line

From my prespective the line was not a waste in any sense. The French had limited amount of troops and as such had to decide where to place them. A fortified line like the Maginot reduces the number of troops needed to defend an area. By sealing off your direct border with germany it reduces their options for planned attacks. As such the french did what any country did mass their mobile forces together in 2 massive armies with a 3rd one organized during the phony war. The 1st and 2nd Armies were to advance through belguim as fast as possible in preset defensive lines. The 7th Army was to advance to cover southern Netherlands with the BEF providing imediate support to the belgiums. As such a gap existed in the ardennese area. Since that area was deemed to be difficult to traverse with mobile forces it was given the 3rd Army which was a predomintaly cavalary army. That happened to be in the center of the line. The germans knew what was going to happen when they invaded when the french and bef setup to meet the germans in the fall of 39. It ended up getting post ponned and both forces settled down and as such gave the germans perfect intellangence. The key thing about the whole invasion was both sides knew what each side was going to do so it came down to who could exploit each other the best. Thats what the Maginot line did. It made sure France knew exactly where the Germans were going to attack. --Mihsfbstadium 17:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, except that it didn't, and thus the french did not know, and their plan played into German hands. Your entire line of reasoning is invalid. DMorpheus 21:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually you didnt understand what I said. The French knew they would be forced to go through Belguim. Hence they put their best troops to meet them. They did not put any armor of any major size behind the Magiot and hence they were able to mass a nice force. I think the only problem was trying to save the Dutch with the 7th Army but alas they probally did not think paratroopers would have played a part. --Mihsfbstadium 19:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all I want to apologize about my English, I'm French. I completly agree with Mihsfbstadium. I work in a French association called AALMA. We restore ouvrages (works) of the Maginot Line and we organize visits to the people. I wrote a great part of this article and I've never said that the line was useless or ineffective, I just didn't want to erase other edits about this subject.

If you are able to read French, I invite you to read our website over this question: www.lignemaginot.com you will see historical proofs.

Cordialy Martial BACQUET 14:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"Both sides knew what each side was going to do" ???? I'm sorry, I see little evidence that the French Army knew the Germans would attempt to pass through the Ardennes and fight on the other side. I will look at the French site, I can read a little, but looking at the French dispositions I don't see how they match any foreknowledge of German intentions.

I agree that the line made a lot of sense as an economy-of-force measure; that is, it allowed the French Army to place mininal forces in secondary or well-fortified sectors so that the best assets could be concentrated where they were most needed. But they did not in fact concentrate them where they were most needed. DMorpheus 15:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay this is a little project you can do. Take a map of the present border of Germany, France, and the Low Countries. Now rotate it 90 degrees so the North Sea and Switzerland is on the left and right sides of the map. Now the fortified line pretty much ran from Luxembourg to Switzerland. That means you are limited to just the Belgium Border to go through. As such if you were to base any force where would you place it at. There is one more thing you should also remember is that the ardennese forest area is really hilly and military commanders felt that with a poor road network and the such it would be pointless to cover it with tons of tanks and felt that time would be on their side if anybody would invade that region. So the French did what any intellegant commander would do put thier force in a position to stop the most likely invasion route. Its was not the Strategic operations of the french that doomed them but rather the fact that the germans were operating on a very fast response time versus the french. Thats because the commanders were using encrypted radios to broadcast notes back and forth along with just using radios in the majority of the tanks. The french were still using older technology like the telegraph and the like that is slow and as a result could not adapt fast enough for the changing enviroment. --Mihsfbstadium 00:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's what I wrote on this article:

The Maginot Line was built to fulfill several purposes:

-To avoid a surprise attack and to give alarm.

-To cover the mobilization of the French Army (which took between 2 and 3 weeks).

-To save the forces (France counted 39,000,000 inhabitants, Germany 70,000,000).

-To protect Alsace and Lorraine (returned to France in 1918) and their industrial basin.

-To be used as a basis for a counter-offensive.

-To push the enemy to circumvent it while passing by Switzerland or Belgium.

Martial BACQUET 22:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

France did what any unimaginative commander would do. They chose the obvious position which was forseen by the germans (by one very imaginative general). It's not an intelligent decision, as it is so obvious a kid can see through it. And then the Germans can as well. Regarding the speed of communications etc. it's difficult to find a defence for the French actions. However they did make strategical errors besides the disasterous dicision to ignore the Ardennes. For instance their operations of armor. IIRC, France had very good armored capabilities but squandered it away piecemeal (as did any army except the German - but that's not a defence).--Nwinther (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Maginot Line doesn't seem like like it was a waste at all. It allowed the French to concentrate resources where they were most needed: on the border of the Low Countries. The Germans never managed to break the Maginot Line in force; indeed, it seems they really didn't even try. It forced them, as Mr. Bacquet said, to go through Belgium. Unfortunately, Belgium remained neutral until they were invaded, they were unprepared but put up a valiant fight, but the Belgian army was stabbed in the back by their king who surrendered them to the Germans, without their government's approval. Then the French were alone--only a few UK divisions to help them--and those UK divisions were quickly encircled by Rommel's armor at Dunkirk and had to be evacuated or face annihilation. The Low Country border was teeming with German armor--and, on top of that, some Germans managed to sneak through the Ardennes, which was thought to impassable. The French were outnumbered and outflanked by a massive concentration of overwhelming force...they were a country of 40 million to the German 80 million...and compared to Germany, they weren't bent on building an army of world conquest. Their military did all they could, they gave a good account of themselves...and then the French got stabbed in the back by Petain and Darlan. The Maginot Line was successful because if it wasn't there, the Germans would have gone through Belgium AND through Alsace-Lorraine and the Ardennes...the French would have been attacked all along their entire northeastern border. They would have had to spread their resources, thin as they were, even thinner, which would have certainly doomed them. In retrospect, perhaps, if the Maginot Line was longer, if the Belgians hadn't capitulated, and the UK had a few more divisions to spare, they might have had something of a chance. As it was, they were doomed by a combination of bad luck, the Belgian king, Rommel's drive to the sea, and lack of manpower on a scale compared to Germany.Katana0182 05:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The belgians didn't surrender until 28 May. By that time the BEF was already back in England. I can't see how the Belgians could keep fighting and expecting to win. The French was outnumbered, that's an undisputable fact. But they had more armor and more guns than the Germans. And while they were a country of only 40 million, they had a huge empire of colonies to draw upon (and also to maintain of course). To say that the French did "all they could" or even "gave a good account of themselves" seems like wishful thinking. Rommel simply scared away french forces. I respect the french fighting man, though morale seems a bit low. But looking at the general staff and supreme command, more inept men is hard to come across. IMO, the French lost fair and square. The Maginot Line served a purpose - funnelling the germans into what the french thought would be a trap. The funnel was leaky though and the French themselves got caught. Had the Magiont Line never been built, I actually think the French would've come across better. By building it, they forced the Germans to be innovative, while remaining ignorant themselves. NOT building it would force the French themselves to be innovative - so much so that they could better stand up against the Germans. (There would be no reason for the Germans to go through Belgium so the french could meet them head on). I doubt that the French would've been victorious anyway, because german Blitzkrieg-tactics were simply too awestriking. It just goes to show that you shouldn't start a war you can't win (as is the case with the British DoW on Germany over the Danzig-matter). And what do you expect from Petain and Darlan? Would France have been able to fight on? No. They were destroyed and demoralized and did, at the time, the only reasonable thing. Vichy France was a certainty - if not by the hand of Petain, then in some other form by someone else, just as Norway, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands came to terms with the nazis.--Nwinther (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Maginot line was not a bad idea, as has already been said. It limited the opportunties in where germany could attack. There is one point that no one mentioned: it actually turned out to be too good. The French thinking was that "Oh, the Maginot line is impenetrable," which it was, "so we can deploy our best units in the north. The problem with that thinking, coupled with the thinking that the Ardennes was too difficult for tank divisions to transverse, and it is indeed difficult, but not impossible, was that to the French there seemed no need for strategic reserve in the south. Had there been a substantial strategic reserve in the south a large counter attack against German armoured could have been carried out. Additionally, the strength in the Maginot line gave the French a false confidence in their abiltiy to set defensive positions deep into Belgium. Even in the Dyle plan had been carried out perfectly (one could argue that would play into Germany's hand), there was to be a large salient in the Ardennes. Had the French not had the Maginot line they would not have been as agressive and then would have been forced to have a larger strategic reserve becasue no one knew where the attack was going to come from. In summary, the maginot line gave the French the wrong idea that a large strategic reserve was unecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.59.42 (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a couple of things missing here. Firstly the BEF wasn't "safe in England" when Belgium surrendered, most of the evacuation took place in the 4 days after that, although it is true that it started before the surrender. The French command wasn't as inept as is sometimes seen. Gamelin deduced the correct counter strategy when the blow came. The problem was that he couldn’t react fast enough. The Germans moved faster than he believed they could. Weygand devised his “hedgehog” strategy to counter the blitzkrieg. That, again, was a good strategy, but he lacked the time, and by that period, the numbers to make it work. The French weren’t inept. Von Manstein was brilliant, and the Germans performed brilliantly and had luck go their way. Another factor on the selection of the Maginot line is French politics. France was deeply divided between the wars, and there was a very strong pacifist sentiment as well. Tanks and aircraft can be used for offensive purposes. The Maginot line, by contrast, is purely defensive, as the fortifications cannot advance across the frontier. So, politically, it was the safest option for military spending as it was, for a pacifist, the least objectionable project. I think the article needs to include some more of inter-war French political realities, which must have played a significant part in swinging the decision in favour of the Maginot line. The failure wasn't the Maginot line itself, but broader French Strategy, including the use of armoured formations (and to an extent Britain not adopting conscription until 1938). The plan was not to rely upon the Maginot line forever, but to go on the offensive once the Allies had superiority in numbers, which was supposed to be in 1941 when Britain was finally fully mobilised. The Maginot Line was only part of French Strategy, and hence the fact that it was largely successful in its intended role doesn’t alter the fact that the strategy as a whole was a disastrous failure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.84 (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's often stated that the Maginot Line was created to 'save forces'; However, if you look up the strength of the French defenders (third, fourth, fifth and eighth army) and compare it to its opposing force (army group C with first and seventh army) or calculate the numbers down to individual men, you will find that there were many more men deployed in the maginot line then necessary, tying down more than half a million soldiers. In respect of 'saving forces', the maginot line was a failure. Xiaozhouzhou (talk) 08:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

France LOST!

Any interpretation of the Maginot Line has to take account of the catastrophic French loss. The Maginot Line was a component of a French strategy, which failed.

This is a poor analysis. During WWI, the Germans, utilizing a modified Schlieffen Plan attacked France through Belgium where four years of war ravaged Northeastern France. Between WWI and WWII France builds the Maginot line to defend the shared border with Germany knowing full well that Germany had attacked in the first war through Belgium. The French strategy was to secure the French Army's right flank with fewest number of soldiers and to actually fight the war in Belgium. The flaw in the French strategy wasn't the Maginot line, the line achieved its purpose, it compelled the Germans to flank it. Problem with the strategy was they didn't think the Germans were coming through the Ardennes.

France never lost, Otherwise we would be Germans. The French strategy has completed is 5 missions. (cf. article) Martial BACQUET 20:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a ridiculous bias to defend the Maginot Line as a qualified success, just because you have an antiquarian interest in it.

What's my interest? To spend a lot of money to restore historical true?

The Maginot Line was not "designed" to channel a German invasion thru the Ardennes. That was a surprise.

If you read more documents over this subjet you will see that it was completely scheduled. Martial BACQUET 20:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The German invasion of France in the first World War had come through Belgium, precisely because that's where the necessary rail network was. The Low Countries are a highway to France, offering no natural obstacles, and a good highway and rail network. The Germans would prefer Belgium and the Netherlands in all circumstances, to move very large armies; to think otherwise is silly.

Maginot Line was conceived after the first World War. Belgium was a neutral country witch will become an Allied in case of Germany prefer Belgium. Martial BACQUET 20:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, the Maginot Line could have been an element in a rational and successful French strategy for World War II, but this is history, not counterfactual fantasy.

The Maginot Line is rational, it anchored the French right flank. The French wanted the decisive battle to occur in Belgium, NOT France. The French KNEW the Germans came through Belgium in WWI; they knew the Maginot Line didn't defend the Franco-Belgian border; they KNEW the Germans would come through Belgium again and at the end of the day the Anglo-French army amassed against the Germans IN Belgium outnumbered the Germans. The blunder is in not covering the Ardennes; not in the Maginot Line.

It is perfectly sensible to point out that the Maginot Line could economize on the forces needed to defend France. To say that the Maginot Line made anything whatsoever "impossible" with regard to a German conquest of France, is unsupported. BruceW07 23:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If France knew that Germany would attack through Belgium again, then why did they even bother to build the Maginot Line? Why would they need to funnel the Germans into the Low Countries if they were going to attack there anyway? The idea that the Maginot Line was a success is wishful thinking at best and historical revisionism at worst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.141.176.99 (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the last comment. The article even backs this up with a cited statement saying 'The fortification system successfully dissuaded a direct attack. However, it was strategically ineffective, as the Germans did indeed invade Belgium, flanked the Maginot Line, and proceeded relatively unobstructed.' If the French wanted to funnel the Germans through the Belgium border than how did the Germans pass 'relatively unobstructed.' This whole idea of the Maginot Line being successful is total bias and unfounded. This article should talk more about the weakness of it since it was unsuccessful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.141.137.122 (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources back up the cited statement. The France defense strategy failed. The Maginot Line (the parts that were built) worked as advertised, even after the supporting infantry formations were withdrawn. The overall French strategy is universally acknowledged as a disaster in any case. Whether or not the Maginot Line was a good investment is debatable, but its performance in combat is a documented success. No gros ouvrage fell to direct German attack.. Several poorly-supported or sited petits ouvrages fell, but had litlte effect on the overall performance of the Line. The Germans attacked where the Line wasn't, and French combat forces were not able to deal with the concentrated attack. Please cite sources for your opinions. Acroterion _(talk) 16:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The sources? The article is my source, that quote was from the article. Besides your basically agreeing with me anyway, it failed because there was a hole in the line. No one is arguing that the parts built were a failure, the whole fact that they didn't bother to build in that one section makes the line a failure. Since you just said that the line worked everywhere else why wouldn't they just make it through Belgium border as well? People on this discussion claim that it was not built there so the French could fight the Germans where they wanted them, but since that also failed the whole defense system is proved inadequate. I don't believe anyone has ever doubted that the line was successful where it was built, but merely that the line shouldn't have had a gap in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.141.137.134 (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

By sources, I mean reliable published works on the subject apart from Wikipedia (which isn't a reliable source, being user-generated). Again, the French war strategy, taken as a whole, was a disaster. The decision not to build the Maginot Line to the sea (based on political, technical, military and economic grounds), not to fortify the area around Sedan, where the frontier was pierced, and the decision to rely on inundations in the Saar, were bad ideas. There wasn't enough money in the 1930s to go around, so work came to a halt by 1935 or so. The construction of the part of the Line that was actually finished led to the "Maginot Mentality." However, the line that was built performed as advertised. The Germans just went around the western end and defeated the French field army that was supposed to have stopped them in Belgium. By far the greatest fault for the French defeat may be laid at the feat of the numerous and well-equipped French army, which mounted a passive, conservative, slow-moving defense against a blitzkrieg. This is what is reflected in published works, which is what Wikipedia goes by for article substance.

The consensus of published works is that the French Army expected to defeat the Germans in Belgium, having made a direct attack across the French-German frontier impracticable by means of the Maginot Line, and that they did not expect that a mechanized army could move through the Ardennes. Both assumptions were wrong, but the assumption that the Germans would not directly confront the line was correct - I haven't seen any modern commentary from the past decade or so that suggests that the line was planned to "channel" an attack farther west - there was a lot of new scholarship starting about 1999, when the movement to preserve parts of the Line became active. The Maginot Line was a component of the defense of France, not the entire defense. The French Army was larger than the German Army. The French preferred to fight the Germans in a location that would be easy to supply, preferably by rail, and preferably not in France. That was Belgium. Unfortunately, things didn't work according to plan. Acroterion _(talk) 03:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Co-ordinates

It would be very helpful if someone could add the map co-ordinates to the articles about the individual installations to place them in context. Cheers Bikeroo (talk) 06:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

External link

I would like to propose this link as I find it interesting and useful.

It includes a well-done map of the maginot line in its Alsacion and Lorraine part with a path for a travel by bike. As well geneeral information about the Maginot Line and pictures worth to see.

Hope you approve it and enjoy:

http://www.europebybike.org/travels_by_bike_in_europe/maginot-line/maginot-line.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.39.3 (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Resistance of Line to Schwere Gustav?

Hello guys. I am a fortifications enthusist from the U.S. AS the maginot line was probably the most powerful line of fortifications ever built, at least on a large scale, I have always been fascinated by it. However, I have recently come to the conclusion that it's resistance capabilites became obscelescent upon the introduction of the German 80 cm "Schwere Gustav", which was able to fire a 7.1 tonn shell which could penetrate at least 7 meters of concrete. I imagine that one hit would have been enough to destroy any maginot line block. Even given the fact that the block's dispersion would have made them fairly difficult targets, I can't imagine that it would take more than a day or two to demolish an entire ourage, and this could be done from a range of 32 km, outside the range of most retaliatory artillery. If anyone has any objections to my opinions, I want to hear them! I want to be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbmclean (talk • contribs) 22:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

They wouldn't have had enough of them to have a decisive impact. In WWI the artillery got bigger and bigger in the hope of breaking the stalement. Didn't happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.31.248 (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that the Gustav would make a terrible impact on the Maginot Line. I don't know if it was made for entirely destroying the line or just punch a hole in it for the divisions to pass through. However, if it was used extensively, I'm sure RAF and the french airforce would've prioritized its destruction. But the "Sichelschnitt" plan rendered it obsolete. Had it been ready in time, I'm sure that it could've been used for drawing large french forces from the north in order to contain any breakthrough by convincing the french that the main assault would come from due east rather than north and northeast. --Nwinther (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the 800 mm guns weren't ready until 1941 at best (actual firing batteries never deployed until early 1942), so they are a bit irrelevant. Had even one or two been available I would think they'd have been able to destroy a short section of line fairly easily, but if that effort took even a couple days, it would have been enough time for the French to identify the attack zone and begin the movement of reserve units to the threatened sector. I don't think the allied air forces could have seriously threatened these guns in 1940 though. It took them a while to become effective at actually destroying or interdicting anything. All in all I think these super-guns must be considered real white elephants. DMorpheus (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted paragraphs on the significance of the line

I see that someone deleted the two paragraphs on the significance of the Line, and the perhaps unfair bad press it has received through the years. I didn't write the deleted paragraphs, but I recognize the idea as coming from the Osprey Publishing book written by William Allcorn titled The Maginot Line 1928-45 (Paperback). If I can find my copy of the book I'll restore the deleted paragraphs, but I may not be able to put my hands on my copy. Perhaps another editor has the book and wants to put the paragraphs back with proper attribution. pmcyclist (talk) 13:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Armoured cloches section should be expanded

The content from all the individual main article links to stub articles in the Maginot Line#Armoured cloches section really should be merged into this section to expand it. -- œ^™ 05:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Maginot Line (Armoured Cloches)

Copied from Acroterion's talkpage so it can be seen here

I note that you amended the Armoured Cloches section of Maginot Line. The previous edit, however, was rather problematical; whilst it may have been in good faith, it was no improvement and certain changes were bordering on vandalism, including persistently changing "In [year]" to "during [year]". Other established editors have been reverting these edits, and I was going though similar edits.

I had a long thought about what to do to your edits to the Armoured Cloches section, since you may not have noticed all the disruptive changes just made to it. I also checked WP:EMBED to see what the problem was with the bulletted list you changed to prose. I agree that it looked messy, but I think that was in great part due to the use of {{main}} tags; I see no reason why they should not be as emboldened links as in the New York City example of "Appropriate use".

I also note that the last unanswered comment on the Talk:Maginot Line was that the four stubby individual Cloches articles should be merged into the Armoured cloches section, in which case neither bullet pointed lists nor a single prose paragraph would be appropriate.

So, following that example, and wishing to revert that previous edit, I have undone the whole block, but within the Armoured Cloches section, I:

• Changed the {{main}} tags for emboldened links,
• Retained your corrections of Guettor fusil-mitrailleur, armes mixtes and the LG cloche's small hole,

I also changed the few text instances of "Maginot line" to "Maginot Line", but didn't tackle the WP:ENGVAR inconsistencies (defence / defense and armoured / armored). That's for another night.

I won't be upset if you reapply the prose status, but I'd also be interested on your views about incorporating the individual cloche articles. Yes, I'm watching this page now. Tim PF (talk) 05:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, I thought I'd take a stab at starting an overhaul of the article, which sorely needs it, but I wasn't very satisfied with how it looked after I'd edited it. It was late and I wasn't at my best. I'd like to move it farther into the prose direction and get it better organized and referenced. I've written most of the articles on individual Maginot positions and fortified sectors and have the appropriate reference materials. While the individual cloche articles are pretty stubby, I can expand them with what I have on hand, and I'd rather all the links in the articles on individual positions went to articles than to subsections in the main article. That said, there's a good argument for consolidating the cloches into one daughter article and adding in material on the retractable turret types, using the format you describe above. The main article rambles a bit, and needs a haircut in my opinion, so it can focus on the big picture and leave the details to subsidiary articles. There's a lot that should be added that simply isn't there or is glanced over: comparisons with foreign systems, French politics, a greater examination of pre-war French defense strategy, incorporation of lessons learned in WWI, garrison life, units, organization ... Acroterion _(talk) 05:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I'm not sure what you mean by "using the format you describe above", but I don't really want to get too involved with this article. It's not that I'm disinterested in the history of the World War (and especially some of the things like this that occurred between parts I and II), but my priority is with Railways and countering vandalism, so I've now used the {{RailGauge}} template for the narrow-gauge railway bit in the article.

All this talk on your talk page, but shouldn't much of this be either on the Talk:Maginot Line or somewhere within Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history? Tim PF (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

English variety

This article does not conform to WP:ENGVAR, as it has a particularly notable mixture of British and American spellings, words and (if I looked hard enough), usages, eg defence / defense, armoured / armored, Gasoline-powered narrow-gauge locomotives (I precis).

I cannot easily work out which variety should be used, but I suggest that if someone cares to overhaul the article, they may as well flag it to their own variety of English, and make it consistent with that. Tim PF (talk) 06:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Acroterion has recently suggested on his talk page that it should use British English (WP:BrE), since it is more European. He is American, but I am British, and would be happy to go along with that and make the necessary changes (and proof read future amendments), so long as there is concensus here. Tim PF (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've now put this into a single dialect of British English, seeing as there appeared to be no dissent (yes, I know that I only left it a few hours, but my original post to start this section was over a fortnight ago). Tim PF (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I was invited to join the discussion on this article. Based on WP:ENGVAR, national ties to a topic are pretty narrowly defined, and this being a European topic doesn't meet that criteria. However, ENGVAR states that in the absence of strong national ties, the first major editor of an article essentially gets to decide. Looking at the earliest versions of this article, it looks as though British English is favored (see here, the first version of the article with a clear preference - the older revisions were stubs without words that vary between AE and BE), so that's what we should keep. Parsecboy (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Parsecboy, though as long as a consistent spelling style is used I'm not really fussed either way. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The first version actually included defenses twice, but the edit Parsecboy cited includes mobilise, which had not been corrected to mobilize after several further edits, so it is unclear if the first major contributor rule applies either way. An attempt was then made later on which changed three occurrences of "defense" to "defence", but missed one, and then used "Kilometer" twice. I haven't checked to see if any further attempt was made to use a single dialect, but it wasn't flagged until I did so yesterday.

Other than that, I agree both Parsecboy and Nick-D. There are no strong national ties (the British Expeditionary Force reinforced the Belgian sector, but then again the Americans were heavily involved in retaking those areas a few years later).

It shouldn't be too difficult to revert my Britishing edits, but some American speaker would still have to do a similar job to remove all the Britishisms. I don't really care either way, so long as the inconsistencies are ironed out in line with WP:ENGVAR (as originally stated). Tim PF (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

In dealing with French topics I find many cases of direct translation from French by French-speaking editors in enwiki articles, so spelling and usage can vary quite a bit depending on the proficiency of the translator in English. I'd also caution that I've seen a lot of copyright violations in the original and translated articles, and although sometimes it turns out that Wikipedia is the source of material turned up in search engine results, many times I've seen cut-and-paste into frwiki from external sources. We should be scrupulous in checking our sources, referencing them, and looking for close phrasing. Simple translation doesn't make something less of a copyright violation. Acroterion _(talk) 13:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Just on ENGVAR, since I was invited to comment, I too see no strong argument against either version but since BritEng seems to be in use, let's stick with that and keep it consistent. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

...and since in my experience the French have as much contempt for the Yanks as the Poms, I doubt they'd care either way... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (¼ British,⅛ French, and American relatives!) (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Maginot Line Article

Copied from Acroterion's talkpage so it can be seen here

Acroterion,

Article: Maginot Line

I did minor fixing of the article, like there were some double spacing, converted measurements from one measurement to another. Did the Infobox again. I think it's not far from "B-Class" just needs more information and sources/references. I left the WikiProject France unassessed because the WikiProject Military History assessment may change in the future. Adamdaley (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi both, this is on my watchlist due to reasons explained in the "Maginot Line (Armoured Cloches)" section above, so I assume, Adam, that you approve of the way we left it.

There's one minor problem with your {{convert}}s which I haven't time to deal with tonight (but could do so in the next few days). Changing "20 to 25 kilometers" to "{{convert|20|km|mi}} to {{convert|25|km|mi}}" gives "20 kilometres (12 mi) to 25 kilometres (16 mi)", whilst "{{convert|20|to|25|km|mi|sp=us}}" gives "20 to 25 kilometers (12 to 16 mi)".

Which brings me to another outstanding problem, as I already commented at Talk:Maginot Line#English variety. I see both WP:AmE and WP:BrE, but no WP:AuE (or even WP:OzE). Tim PF (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Good job, the article needs some attention. An article that size should have 75-100 references, and to my mind it's unfocused. My plan is to do a major overhaul and tighten it up, splitting off daughter articles on equipment and history where appropriate. I've been sneaking up on it by writing articles on the individual ouvrages (107 articles), then the sectors (19 so far) [1], and I'm putting together a notion of how it might be reorganized. It really should be a featured article, which is my long-term goal. I've got enough sources, particularly the five-volume compendium by Mary, Hohnandiel and Sicard, but given its size - 1200 pages - (and my command of French) I keep discovering new things as I write.

Feel free to offer a critique of the article and your ideas on improvement on the article's talkpage. To my mind it fails B1 badly, is so-so on B2, passes B3 but isn't really structured well, fails B4 (too "listy", needs to be prosified and to root out some translation boo-boos from French) and is fine on B5. The big thing is B1, which is a long slog through sources. Any help you care to give would be welcome. I was considering reworking some sections in userspace to have some freedom to try things out without goofing up the article in the meantime; you (both) and any other interested editors would be welcome to work on those drafts, as I don't want this to become some sort of personal walled garden. I figure I'll start once I get all the sectors done, which will take a few more weeks. The SFs Savoie and Alpes-Maritimes will take a while, since they are so scattered in geography.

As for ENGVAR, it should be in British English. However, being American, writing that way doesn't come naturally to me, so corrections will always be welcome. And I always have trouble with our ridiculously complex convert templates. Acroterion _(talk) 02:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about your logic for being in British English, but I'm happy to go along with that. Being a native speaker, I'll try and work through it at some time in the next few weeks, and I can also sort out the complex convert templates if Adam doesn't do it first.

Just checking one of the ouvrage sub-articles at random, Ouvrage Ferme Chappy has "June 21", "25 June" and "27 June", so should we also go for British and French DMY style dates throughout? Tim PF (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

My logic is no more than the arbitrary idea that American, Canadian, or Australian usage seems incongruous, and that we should use a "European" style of speech. Yes, I've tried to do DMY, but occasionally fail. Acroterion _(talk) 03:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for being late to the discussion to the changes I made on the above named article. I can and do understand the points User:Tim PF and User:Acroterion have pointed out. By all means if you or anyone knows a better way to do something for example with what User:Tim PF brought up was the conversion thing in one particular area of the article. You can see that my "conversion" of certain distances (in the article) is limited to that one "conversion" command by wikipedia. I do not know many other commands only one's that I've picked up along the way, like simple ones. The distance conversion I wanted to make it more than just one format of distance, hence why I put kilometres and miles. If both of you came across in another form of tone in your messages, I would not be replying, and I get a sense of trying to be polite and helpfulness from both of you. On the WikiProject Military History, I have already made a couple of relations on wikipedia (english version), are two co-ordinators User:Ian Rose and User:AustralianRupert. They will also be willing to give advice on any article within the WikiProject Military History. I am sure they would be friendly and be helpful if asked on their talkpages. Anything you both have or willing to need to have another person look at an article, feel free to ask me on my talkpage with the article link. I do appreciate the feedback I have received be to me it is also constructive and positive. Adamdaley (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to the party. I've revised all the {{convert}} tags within the "Organization" [sic] section, but left spellings as US for now. I think that some of this discussion should move to the article's talk page (and possibly the Military History's talk page), as there are a few other watchers there, and perhaps Ian and Rupert might want to join in too. Tim PF (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind if this conversation is put onto Maginot Line Discussion page under its own heading. Another two people I just thought of after reading User:Tim PF's last comment here is User:Nick-D he is an administrator and has helped me in the past with the WikiProject Military History articles. He is approachable and would give you his honest opinion if asked. I've had little contact with User:Parsecboy who is an administrator and "Lead Coordinator" of the WikiProject Miliary History. He seems to be also approachable if asked for his opinion. So there is four other users besides the three of us in this conversation, can make a bigger discussion if they wish to do so. Adamdaley (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Conversions from metric

This article is clearly sourced in metric units, so its units of measurement should be metric first with non-metric conversions according to WP:UNITS. Adamdaley and I have been working on using the {{convert}} tag, but I have a query.

In the Organization section, we currently have: "Infantry Reserve Shelters (9): These were found between 500 and 1,000 meters (1,600 and 3,300 feet) Template error: {{Convert}} no longer supports abbr=none. Use abbr=off instead. behind of the principal line of resistance." The original had "between 500 and 1000 meters (~.3-.6 miles)", but I wonder if "yards" would be better (ie "between 500 and 1,000 meters (550 and 1,100 yards) Template error: {{Convert}} no longer supports abbr=none. Use abbr=off instead.")?

What would British or American military have used back then? Is there any guidance in the Military History project about this or other such measurements? Tim PF (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Basically, I do understand what User:Tim PF is saying. To me this is a hard decision to make, since there are so many articles which have distances in them besides the Maginot Line article. I feel that only in certain types of areas "yards" maybe used for example the NFL playing field. As for kilometres and miles, North America uses miles, as for alot of other countries like England (or Britain), Australia, possibly New Zealand etc. would use kilometres now. We need to find out from somewhere reliable what the distances were used during World War II. Yes it is frustrating when someone is trying to complete an article and there is something they really don't know they become frustrated. It does take alot of time to find the right information and reference it. As for your query User:Tim PF, I feel inclined to use metres and miles. Adamdaley (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure old WW2 films use yards for artillery range, which is the sort of thing I was thinking about. Tim PF (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I'd say that in cases where the distance was below a mile, that yards would have been used for large distances (e.g like the distance of a cricket pitch, a running race, or an artillery shot), but that feet would have been used for medium distances (e.g. like a person's height, or the length of a ship), and finally inches for small distances (e.g. like the length of a ruler, the size of a recruit's chest, the size of an artillery round, etc.). This is just my opinion, though, so if possible it would be best to take a look at contemporary sources relating to the subject, to see how they deal with this issue. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Artillery: Anti-tank guns Section

Tim PF,

I would like to go to the library to search for information on the "Artillery and Anti-tank guns" section. I've to do a couple of things before I go to the local library which is only a few minutes away from my place, then on the way home, go to the library to see if I can find any information. I'll be taking the laptop, but I won't be connected to the internet while I'm there. If you're still on Wikipedia, you may receive this message and I will check before I leave to see if you have replied. Your help is appreciated with this article as well as Acroterion's participation. Also, I am unaware if the other user's that I mention are aware of them being mentioned on the this talkpage. Adamdaley (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the empty section. I presume that is pretty terminal on the article quality scale.

That's fine, you can go out to the library, but they're all shut around here at this time of night. The local town library in Scotland has WiFi access for members (use your library number +PIN). Anyway, I'm in Wales at the moment awaiting the movers on Friday, so I thought I'd just tackle the English and conversions before the move. I'll continue to keep an eye open for Americanisms (or Australianisms) and things to convert if and when I can. I also still need to check with Acroterion about the sub-pages, but that will have to wait.

Since you mentioned those other users, I think that you ought to poke them, as I don't know them from Adam (sorry, bad pun). Tim PF (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Haven't been able to go to the library yet. Had an incident Thursday where rain got inside the house. Therefore no library. Last night I tried to look on the library website for any books or information they would have, but I have looked on their website for any information about the Maginot Line not much came up. So I've decided to leave that section to see if it would be appropriate to leave it blank or get rid of it totally. Maybe someone can find information about it and would be willing to do a couple of paragraphs. Adamdaley (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Other Users for Feedback

Tim PF,

Article: Maginot Line

I have let the following users, administrators and/or coordinators know about our conversation. Just waiting for their reply. Adamdaley (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ian Rose
• AustralianRupert
• Parsecboy
• Nick-D

Comments on the 26 August edit

I'm not very happy with the two paragraphs that were added to the Introduction on 26 August - in my opinion, while they are factually OK, they are not written in an appropriately professional style.

Language like "The French have always been big on concrete" is both too opinionated and too colloquial for an encyclopedia entry, and "But the Germans simply outflanked it with fast-moving armoured formations the Maginot Line, in the which the French had put so much faith was largely irrelevant to the battle" is simply ungrammatical.

I'd like to see if others agree with me before I go in and edit these paragraphs.

Don Radlauer (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I've boldly removed both paragraphs, the first as excessively informal and the second as ungrammatical. The whole lead could be tightened up and rewritten. Acroterion (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Well all you had to do was message me instead of complaining on here, anyway ive removed the second paragraph and rewritten the first. Goldblooded (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)