You give many examples where it was hard to take fortifications, but all of them were taken, most actually without casualties much higher than defenders. It is difficult to speak much about Maginot since it was not tested much. Several smaller forts were taken without much trouble, but all large fortresses simply surrendered. I have already mentioned Kaunas, large fortress that was taken without much trouble in WW1. If you don't have active integrated units that can attack enemy artillery, your huge fortress will be bombarded into surrender without any significant casualties on attackers side. Kaunas forts were smashed by railroad guns using 1 ton shells. There is just one defensive line that I know of that really payed of it is Mannerheim Line in Finland. Even this line worked well only because Fins were very actively attacking Soviets Outside fortifications and geographical location favored such installations. If they have tried simply sit inside those forts attacker would simply concentrate artillery and aviation on one fort, bombard it into surrender, choose next and repeat.
The forts you're describing were built largely in the 1880s. If you think for a second they're comparable to the forts designed and built in the 20-30s, then I have a bridge to sell you. You do realize that the engineers who designed the Maginot Line fortresses actually had something called WW1 to use as a template? Had access to building materials and methods that weren't used in some middle of nowhere fort in Lithuania.
Sad fact is that you need active cooperation with tanks, airforce etc to have real use of these fortresses. Low quality conscripts are not very good at that.
This post is absolutely ridiculous.
First, tanks have no place nearby to a fort on the defense, they would be used as a separate element in the rear as reserve, to deal with any breakthroughs (forts are obstacles, not designed to be impossible to penetrate, designed to slow the attack, bleed him, to deter him). Air force are completely separate.
Second, it doesn't matter if volunteer or conscripts. Most of the Germans of WW2 were conscripts in 1939-45, and nearly all the US military enlisted personnel from 1943 onwards were conscripted. Conscription =/= bad. The difference is active duty and reserve. Active duty, prewar, have time to spend training and preparing. Their officers are better, NCOs are better, their lower enlisted are better, all because they do training more often. Reservists, not so much. They have limited time to train them, and they are not even called up in large numbers until a national emergency, then their is limited time and resources to train them. The French system didn't allow for a giant standing army, that would not have been possible, financially, socially, politically. They relied entirely on calling a large number of the population, to include many who were a bit "over the hill" in terms of age and health, in order to defend their country. So they would be stuck with hundreds of thousands of soldiers of very questionable skill. Why you would make them pilots of form them into divisions tasked to fight in open ground, the best place for those people is in a position where they can do the least harm to their side and the most harm to the enemy. Which means being in a defended position with a good weapon system pointed at the enemy. Ergo, fixed fortification.s
What does a soldier need to know to man anyone of these positions? (I'll actually post the picture since you didn't open it last time)
They need to be able to 1) Obey orders and take to army discipline 2) Operate the weapon system in question or perform whatever support function they're assigned
That's it.
They don't need to know how to conduct an attack. They don't need to know how to assault a bunker. They don't need to be able to work with tanks in combined arms. They don't need to know how to detect and clear a minefield. They don't need to know how to react to indirect fire. They don't need to know how to react to sniper fire. They don't need to know how to react to machine gun fire. They don't need to know how to clear buildings. They don't need to know how to use improvised weapons to kill a tank. They don't need to know how to conduct a bayonet charge. They don't need to know how to consolidate on the objective to repel a counterattack. They don't need to know how to dig in properly and form a solid hasty defensive position. They don't need to know how to patrol. They don't need to know land navigation. They don't need to be able to conduct 50 km marches with packs or 10 km runs on a regular basis. They don't need to be good soldiers. Nor do their officers. Nor their NCOs.
All of those skills are needed to be a good soldier OUTSIDE of fixed fortifications. Its a different story INSIDE fixed fortifications. Its been proven a thousand times over time, especially in WW2, that fighting from fixed and properly constructed defenses allows for a lower quality soldier. Which is why even in late war when the quality of German troops dropped significantly, when hundreds of thousands of 16 year olds, sailors and airmen were made into infantrymen without advanced training, when most divisions were largely incapable of offensive effectiveness as graded by their own commanders, the Heer could still perform well on the defensive, especially while fighting from fixed fortifications.
The Western Allies were at their strongest in Sept '44-Mar '45, in terms of equipment in theater, size of their forces, combat experience, etc. Why did it take six months to break through across the Rhine?
LOOK AT THIS MAP
Notice where the Allies were at September? Notice the thick red line which is the Rhine? It took six months to cross that distance and to cross the Rhine. And hundreds of thousands of casualties, to the point the US Army replacement system was pushed to the near breaking point.
Why?
You should know the answer at this point. You do, you just wont admit it, because this is an online argument and now your ego is at stake.
