advocate | 08 Aug 2018 7:23 a.m. PST |
In January 1940 German plans were captured which made it clear that the Germans intended to attack through Belgium. What would have been the consequences if Belgium had joined the Allies wholeheartedly, and invited the British and French into Belgium? I think this already assumes the King and general staff in Belgium would have been more committed to the Allies than they proved to be (under admittedly severe pressure). Presumably Eben Emael would have been at full alert and much less likely to fall to glider attack. Would the Germans have had more difficulty attacking through the Ardennes? Or would the Allied armies just have been further forward and less able to respond to the armoured breakthrough? |
deephorse | 08 Aug 2018 8:36 a.m. PST |
The Eben-Emael garrison was on alert some three hours before the German assault force even took to the air. The fort was not designed to resist a glider attack and no-one was expecting a glider attack. |
Tired Mammal | 08 Aug 2018 8:50 a.m. PST |
Having had the tour of Eben Emael there wasn't much it could have done even if left intact. the 2 main guns were deliberately had very short barrel's just in case it upset the Germans. Most of the rest of its fire power was just a 75mm battery. It would have been a nuisance but no Verdun. I suspect that the Allies would have been encouraged to deploy even further forward as Belgium would not want a repetition of the previous war. There is also the possibility that many Belgians would not agree with their government and would have objected to being called up or finding themselves in the front line. The end result would have been pretty similar |
Winston Smith | 08 Aug 2018 12:14 p.m. PST |
The end result would have had even more British and French north of where the Germans broke through in the Ardennes. |
Daniel S | 08 Aug 2018 12:32 p.m. PST |
Eben Emael's 120mm guns still had a range of 17km, more than enough for it's intended mission. As far as not upsetting the Germans the fort is on the border with the Netherlands, not Germany. And Eben Emael had four 75mm batteries and two 75mm twin gun cupolas, rate of fire was considered more important than weight of shell as aim was to prevent crossing of the bridges near Maastricht. |
Lion in the Stars | 08 Aug 2018 12:42 p.m. PST |
With the defenses at Eben Emael not set up to deal with an aerial assault, I can't see any major changes to the timeline. |
deephorse | 08 Aug 2018 1:14 p.m. PST |
As far as not upsetting the Germans the fort is on the border with the Netherlands, not Germany. Which is irrelevant really. What matters is whose territory the guns could hit. The fort's planners wanted to install guns that could hit German territory but the Belgian government refused to allow that so as not to provoke Germany. |
Legion 4 | 08 Aug 2018 3:15 p.m. PST |
The Belgium forces were so small and "antiquated" they would hardly be a game changer in the long run. |
William Ulsterman | 08 Aug 2018 4:40 p.m. PST |
Eben Emael was not the be all and end all of the Belgium defence, so I wonder why people assume it has some sort of priority? Surely the strength of Belgium joining the allies in January 1940 would have been that a coordinated plan of defence could have been created. As for the Belgium army being a minor military asset, it numbered 20 divisions and was therefore twice the size of the BEF. The French certainly didn't feel the Belgium army to be a unworthy of assistance, given their plan to march into Belgium and link up with it. If the Belgians had joined the allies and had the BEF and the French 1st and 2nd Armies been deployed on Belgian soil, then the need to protect their flank in the Ardennes may have been better recognised. This could have led to either the commitment of more forces to fight defensively in the Ardennes, as opposed to the weak cavalry screen that was used to conduct a fighting withdrawal and more or better forces used along the Meuse. It would also have enabled the allies to provide more support to the Dutch. It's an interesting question. Maybe a further question is why did the Belgians cling so strongly to their belief that strict neutrality would protect them when they had hard evidence to the contrary? |
donlowry | 08 Aug 2018 6:55 p.m. PST |
I agree with Winston Smith. |
Martin Rapier | 09 Aug 2018 3:40 a.m. PST |
AHGCs 'France 1940' offered various variant orders of battle and strategic situations. Off the top of my head I can't recall if there was a 'friendly Belgium' option, but the Belgian Army was nothing to sniff at with 20 divisions. The real problem is that with the historical OBs the Allies are completely outclassed at every level and deployed really badly, so parking the BEF and French in Belgium doesn't really help much although it produces more of a meatgrinder for the Germans in Belgium. It doesn't change the basic Allied deployment much, although it does raise the question of whether Gamelin would still prematurely commit his only strategic reserve to the so-called 'Breda Variant', one of the main contributors to the catastrophe on 1940. As with all these what-ifs, set it up and game it out. In Third Reich it certainly wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to the eventual fate of France or Belgium as Germany is just so strong in comparison, although it would save Germany 10 BRP from making a declaration of war against Belgium! |
ScottWashburn | 09 Aug 2018 4:23 a.m. PST |
It is hard to see how it would NOT have helped the Allies. Instead of having the bulk of their mobile forces caught on the move, the British and French would have been well dug-in alongside the Belgians, alert and ready with supply dumps and communications lines set up. The big question is still whether after three or four months to look things over they would recognize the vulnerability of the Ardennes and do something to shore up the defenses. And if it did still all go to hell then the BEF could have fallen back on Antwerp and been evacuated from a nice big port instead of over the beaches at Dunkirk, |
Legion 4 | 09 Aug 2018 6:13 a.m. PST |
AHGCs 'France 1940' offered various variant orders of battle and strategic situations. Great game we played it often in my youth ! The real problem is that with the historical OBs the Allies are completely outclassed at every level and deployed really badly, so parking the BEF and French in Belgium doesn't really help much although it produces more of a meatgrinder for the Germans in Belgium. Very true … but again those @ 20 Belgium Divs were not up to the "standards" of modern mobile combined arms warfare as the Germans were[but neither were the French or UK]. And they had very little armor and few "mobile" units. And as has been mentioned place like Eben Emael [and the Maginot Line] were still "fighting the last war, so to speak … |