Metaxas-line

[Red]

Could someone tell me a bit about the Metaxas-line?

Was it a continous heavy fortified line or was it shattered fortresses one strartegic places...

[LOK]

To the best of my knowledge it consisted of a few "strongpoints" (fortresses) along the border. It was not a continuous line of fortifications. Certainly nothing like the Maginot line.

[Ben Turner]

All I can say about it is that the Greeks didn't really try to use it. I would think if it was a really strong line then they would have made some effort to garrison it.

Btw, the Maginot line was made up of strongpoints too. Just BIG ones... with Fortress divisions to back them up.

[Red]

Originally posted by Ben Turner
All I can say about it is that the Greeks didn't really try to use it. I would think if it was a really strong line then they would have made some effort to garrison it.

Btw, the Maginot line was made up of strongpoints too. Just BIG ones... with Fortress divisions to back them up.

Do you know anything about the German attack on Greece at all? The Greek DID garrison the Metaxa line, but the Germans outflanked it by going through Yugoslavia.

The few units garrisoning the Metaxas line put up a sturdy defence, but surrendered when the Germans entered Saloniki after outflanking the line through Macedonia. The German XVIII and XXX Korps had failed to make any impression frontally on the Greek positions (other than overruning Eastern Thrace), and commented that "they had not experienced such effective resistance in either Poland or France".

According to your logic, even the Maginot line shouldnt be considered strong, since that also was outflanked... :rolleyes:

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by Red
Do you know anything about the German attack on Greece at all? The Greek DID garrison the Metaxa line, but the Germans outflanked it by going through Yugoslavia.

Yeah- with about a brigade.

The few units garrisoning the Metaxas line put up a sturdy defence, but surrendered when the Germans entered Saloniki after outflanking the line through Macedonia.

On the 9th of April- three days after the campaign started. I wouldn't call that a "Sturdy Defence".

The German XVIII and XXX Korps had failed to make any impression frontally on the Greek positions (other than overruning Eastern Thrace),

This latter was the main task of XXX Korps (plus occupying the Agean Islands). XVIII Korps was partially assigned to guard the Metaxas line- partially to support the advance to the West of the line. In maybe three German divisions were facing the Metaxas line- hardly suprising they didn't breach it as they only had three days to try before the Greeks facing them surrendered.

and commented that "they had not experienced such effective resistance in either Poland or France".

I doubt that in the case of Poland. The French didn't really resist terribly strongly- though I would say surrendering three days after the campaign began would definitely be their style.

According to your logic, even the Maginot line shouldnt be considered strong, since that also was outflanked... :rolleyes:

The French did garrison the Maginot line- for six weeks, not three days. That's the point I'm making. The REAL problem with the Metaxas line is that it was really built in the wrong place. Shift the thing 50 miles West and it covers Thessalonika nicely.

... checking my source again, it IS worth noting that XVIII Korps had 6 battalions of medium and 3 of heavy Artillery- far more than an ordinary Korps. The Germans obviously intended this to be used against the Metaxas line- just they didn't get the chance.

[Red]

Why should they keep one defending the Metaxas when the Germans allready was in Saloniki?

I thought it was more than a brigade that defended it, but if it was just that it is even better to keep the Germans at bay. A brigade strung out allong the Metaxas doesent give many companies in each fortress...

And why didnt the Greek have more troops in the area? Well they were quite occupied with the Italians in Albania.

Anyway this isnt the point, I just think it is wrong to judge the quality of the Metaxas based on the German outflanking of it.

I think it is counterproductive to discuss the placing of the Metaxas. It was a defence against Bulgarians, not the Serbs (ie Yugoslavia). And if I'm designing a scenario with Greece vs. Bulgaria I dont build my impression of Metaxas one the German outflanking of it...

[Ben Turner]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Red
Why should they keep one defending the Metaxas when the Germans allready was in Saloniki?

They didn't just abandon the line- they surrendered. The Germans had taken Greece's second biggest city in three days and they didn't even try to do anything about it, just gave up. They could hardly have been out of supplies.

I thought it was more than a brigade that defended it, but if it was just that it is even better to keep the Germans at bay. A brigade strung out allong the Metaxas doesent give many companies in each fortress...

OK, I checked my source and as far as I can tell it was two divisions or thereabouts in the Greek Forces in that area. Fortress companies is another matter.

And why didnt the Greek have more troops in the area? Well they were quite occupied with the Italians in Albania.

The Greeks acquitted themselves pretty well against the Italians- but that's not saying much. So did the French.

Anyway this isnt the point, I just think it is wrong to judge the quality of the Metaxas based on the German outflanking of it.

Well my thinking was about how much the fortress was used. Look at the Maginot line example- even when that WAS outflanked it still held out. Without any direct sources, how heavily the French relied on the line indicates that it was strong. The Metaxas line I suppose never really got tested in this way. As I said before, the Germans comitted a fair bit of artillery to the Korps facing it- and if anyone knows what's what it's generally the Germans.

I think it is counterproductive to discuss the placing of the Metaxas. It was a defence against Bulgarians, not the Serbs (ie Yugoslavia).

Putting it 50 miles West would still cover against the Bulgarians. You lose a few hundred square miles of Thracian hill country- but not Thessalonika.

A Bulgarian invasion btw is an uneven match unless you're assuming Greece is already comitted against the Italians. The Greek problem was with strategy so fighting on two fronts might be difficult for them.

[Red]

Originally posted by Ben Turner
Putting it 50 miles West would still cover against the Bulgarians. You lose a few hundred square miles of Thracian hill country- but not Thessalonika.

The equivalent to a greek extention of the Metaxas to cover the Serbian (ie. Yugoslav) border would be an extension of the Maginot line to cover the Belgian border. The political cost would be to high.

Grece and Serbia was and is quite friendly towards eatch other.

Im just going to repeat myself: :rolleyes:

To judge the Metaxas line by how the germans outflanked it is IMHO plain stupid. It should be viewed with a Bulgarian attack in mind.

[Red]

Originally posted by Ben Turner
A Bulgarian invasion btw is an uneven match unless you're assuming Greece is already comitted against the Italians. The Greek problem was with strategy so fighting on two fronts might be difficult for them.

Oh hail ye wise man, obviousley keeper of all geopolitical and military truth. After that statement I better roll over dead and berry all my scenario designing ideas...

Because obviousley you know everything better than me... :rolleyes:

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by Red
The equivalent to a greek extention of the Metaxas to cover the Serbian (ie. Yugoslav) border would be an extension of the Maginot line to cover the Belgian border. The political cost would be to high.

The thing is quite obviously designed to guard Thessalonika- who cares whether the Serbs are friendly? It would have been quite possible to build the thing in a more logical position in the first place- it would be the same length and still pointed at Bulgaria. This would also guard against the possibility of someone going through what is now Macedonia.

To judge the Metaxas line by how the germans outflanked it is IMHO plain stupid. It should be viewed with a Bulgarian attack in mind.

Once outflanked the line surrendered immediately. That indicates that the thing really was a line- not just isolated fortresses. Individual fortresses would be prepared to be cut off and have major stockpiles of supplies. Said stockpiles- and presumably the higher HQ- must have instead been at Thessalonika.

Fixed defences weren't generally very effective in wwii- especially when attacked by the Germans. If a strong force with modern arms can't overwhelm the line in whatever scenario you've written, then you've made it too strong.

[Red]

Originally posted by Ben Turner


The thing is quite obviously designed to guard Thessalonika- who cares whether the Serbs are friendly? It would have been quite possible to build the thing in a more logical position in the first place- it would be the same length and still pointed at Bulgaria. This would also guard against the possibility of someone going through what is now Macedonia.


IMHO your wrong.

First: Metaxas was designed to defend the whole of Greek Macedonia from the Bulgarians. Quite contrary from your wiev, I think the Greek at that time found the placement of the Metaxas quite logical.

Second: Youre not listening are yo? The political cost of building a defensive line along the border of one of your most reliabel friends would be too high.

Fixed defences weren't generally very effective in wwii- especially when attacked by the Germans. If a strong force with modern arms can't overwhelm the line in whatever scenario you've written, then you've made it too strong.

Suprisingly I disagree with you :D

First: According too you, if the germans had hurled all ther might against the Maginot in 1940, they would have sliced right through...

Second: You should atleast modify your statement according too the terrain the defensive line is place in. If the terrain effectively denies your modern equipment access, well what happens then?

[Red]

Hey, I need some Greek asistance here... :)

Preferably someone with a "punch"... :D

[LOK]

Originally posted by Red
Hey, I need some Greek asistance here... :)

Preferably someone with a "punch"... :D

The Metaxas line was indeed built to counter the threat from Bulgaria (see attacked map).
Bulgarian troops did occupy northern Greece during WWII.

Whether the Greeks put up a stiff resistance:
Did the English put up a stiff resistance in 1940 France? Did the Norwegians up a stiff resistance against the Germans? Did XYZ up a stiff resistance against ABC? Was the strategy A,B, or C correct? Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
My opinion is, that given the military situation, disposition of forces, resources of each country, is yes they did and I would say most historians would agree with me....but I am biased (read on):

I am Greek and during my national service (hence the Greek Special Forces symbol) had the chance to visit one of the forts on the Metaxas line (Rupel). It was interesting to say the least.

[Red]

Originally posted by LOK
...visit one of the forts on the Metaxas line (Rupel). It was interesting to say the least.

Could you elaborate please?

About the map, its the first time I'v seen the Metaxas line divided in two... :confused:

Does the line west of the Struma count as the Metaxas?

[LOK]

Originally posted by Red


Could you elaborate please?

About the map, its the first time I'v seen the Metaxas line divided in two... :confused:

Does the line west of the Struma count as the Metaxas?

I don't know if you want to call the second line part of the "Metaxas" line but the fact is the Nestos and Struma rivers provide natural defense lines for Greece against Turkey and at the time, Bulgaria. There were no forts that I know of on the river (but I am no expert...may be others have more info). It is your choice as the scenario designer as far as I am concerned.

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by Red


Oh hail ye wise man, obviousley keeper of all geopolitical and military truth. After that statement I better roll over dead and berry all my scenario designing ideas...

Well it's not exactly rocket science. Bulgarian and Greek forces offhand I would assume are roughly similar in quality. In 1940 Bulgaria has fifteen divisions and Greece sixteen (albeit dimunitive ones). The Bulgarians are attacking in the bloody balkans onto a prepared position- not easy for anyone, unless they happen to be German. Figure the Bulgarians won't be able to break the Metaxas line (however strong it is)- so long as the Greeks are focussing essentially all the strength on holding it. Introduce an Italian incursion from Albania however and we have a major distraction for the Greeks- perhaps enough for the Bulgarians to barge their way through to Thessalonika, presumably bringing Greece to the conference table and losing them Thrace.

[Red]

Maybe I'm envissioning a more limited aproach. Ex an Bulgarian attack on eastern Thrace, and then an Greek counteroffensive?

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by LOK
Whether the Greeks put up a stiff resistance:
Did the English put up a stiff resistance in 1940 France?

We sure did compared to Greek 2nd Army- in fact we never surrendered at all. 2nd Army became cut off and surrendered immediately, three days after the start of the German invasion. The BEF kept fighting until it could be evacuated. Compared to Greek 2nd Army, even the French and Belgians fought bravely. The Greeks of course had fought pretty well against the Italians, especially when you consider how short the Greek army was on heavy equipment of even the most basic sort.

Did the Norwegians up a stiff resistance against the Germans?

They would have- if their army had been mobilised when the invasion began.

I am Greek and during my national service (hence the Greek Special Forces symbol) had the chance to visit one of the forts on the Metaxas line (Rupel). It was interesting to say the least.

Well could you let us know what the place was like in more detail? Well it's for poor Red's benefit- presumably he has some specific questions.

[Red]

Originally posted by LOK


I don't know if you want to call the second line part of the "Metaxas" line but the fact is the Nestos and Struma rivers provide natural defense lines for Greece against Turkey and at the time, Bulgaria. There were no forts that I know of on the river (but I am no expert...may be others have more info). It is your choice as the scenario designer as far as I am concerned.

Ehum, the elaboration part was about fort Rupel... :o

I agree with you about Nestos and Struma and no forts

[Red]

Originally posted by Ben Turner


We sure did compared to Greek 2nd Army- in fact we never surrendered at all. 2nd Army became cut off and surrendered immediately, three days after the start of the German invasion. The BEF kept fighting until it could be evacuated. Compared to Greek 2nd Army, even the French and Belgians fought bravely. The Greeks of course had fought pretty well against the Italians, especially when you consider how short the Greek army was on heavy equipment of even the most basic sort.



They would have- if their army had been mobilised when the invasion began.



Well could you let us know what the place was like in more detail? Well it's for poor Red's benefit- presumably he has some specific questions.

Why the hell am I "poor"?????????? :mad:

Btw I think you are wrong about the Norwegians.
We had no backbone to mobilise, the army was shitty poor and I'm not so sure it would have fought even if mobilised. (Piss poor officer corps).

Edit: lots of spelling. My four month old twins demanded attention so I had to finish in a hurry...:)

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by Red
Why the hell am I "poor"?????????? :mad:

Well you've been asking for this information for some time. Poor is an expression of sympathy- not an insult. At least it's that way over here.

Btw I think you are wrong about the Norwegians.
We had no backbone to mobilise,

I'm not debating that- just saying if you had been able to...

the army was shitty poor and I'm not so sure it would have fought even if mobilised. (Piss poor officer corps).

What few Norwegians did mobilise seemed to be motivated- certainly they seemed adamant about not throwing in the towel and it was the reverse situation to France, with the official government fleeing and an upstart one taking power in Oslo. Figure that anything would be better than letting the Germans land unopposed- even if all the Norwegian army can do is delay for a few days that still gives the Allies more time to get their forces ashore without worrying about the Luftwaffe attacking them from bases around Oslo etc.

[Red]

Originally posted by Ben Turner
Well you've been asking for this information for some time. Poor is an expression of sympathy- not an insult. At least it's that way over here

I guess that would depend on the context??? ;)

If you would like to discuss the Norwegian army I'd be happy too, but in another thread. Anyway I think you have far to positive view of it, and Im an Norwegian... :)

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by Red
If you would like to discuss the Norwegian army I'd be happy too, but in another thread. Anyway I think you have far to positive view of it, and Im an Norwegian... :)

Yeah I noticed it said "Western Norway" by your posts- and IIRC there aren't a huge number of foriegners in Scandinavia.

Anyway, I don't have any particular interest in the Norwegians in wwii (other than with regard to the reason you folks send us a Christmas tree every year). You might like to have your say over in the Europe Aflame forum, though. There's some contention over how the Norwegians are modelled there.

[General Staff]

I think we may be being a little unfair to the Greek 2nd Army here.

Outnumbered, outclassed (by the Germans anyway), outflanked, with Salonika gone and nowhere to go, there was little point in continuing resistance. Besides their raison d'etre (Salonica) had been taken by 2nd Panzer.

Add to this the unexpected and pretty much total collapse of Yugoslavian (&*!?) resistance with the Germans heading south through the Monastir Gap- the Greeks had counted on Yugoslavia to hold at least for a while- resulting in a huge gap in their fortified line (this is why their defences have a western and eastern piece).

All in all I reckon I'd surrender as CO too. Balkans 41 by Todd Klemme I think nicely illustrates the dilemma.

Balkans 12 and 13 (same author) also illustrates how the geography influences strategy in this benighted part of the world, and in some respects Balkans 41 after one or the other of these is very much a deja vu deal. I'd recommend all as studies in these somewhat 'forgotten' campaigns.

[Red]

Originally posted by General Staff
I think we may be being a little unfair to the Greek 2nd Army here.

Outnumbered, outclassed (by the Germans anyway), outflanked, with Salonika gone and nowhere to go, there was little point in continuing resistance. Besides their raison d'etre (Salonica) had been taken by 2nd Panzer.

Add to this the unexpected and pretty much total collapse of Yugoslavian (&*!?) resistance with the Germans heading south through the Monastir Gap- the Greeks had counted on Yugoslavia to hold at least for a while- resulting in a huge gap in their fortified line (this is why their defences have a western and eastern piece).

All in all I reckon I'd surrender as CO too. Balkans 41 by Todd Klemme I think nicely illustrates the dilemma.

Balkans 12 and 13 (same author) also illustrates how the geography influences strategy in this benighted part of the world, and in some respects Balkans 41 after one or the other of these is very much a deja vu deal. I'd recommend all as studies in these somewhat 'forgotten' campaigns.

I agree 100%

[Red]

Originally posted by Ben Turner


Yeah I noticed it said "Western Norway" by your posts- and IIRC there aren't a huge number of foriegners in Scandinavia.

Outch, I'm REALY sorry :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Jeez I was trying to calm things dow a bit...

I just changed my mind... :angry:

[LOK]

Originally posted by General Staff
I think we may be being a little unfair to the Greek 2nd Army here.

Outnumbered, outclassed (by the Germans anyway), outflanked, with Salonika gone and nowhere to go, there was little point in continuing resistance. Besides their raison d'etre (Salonica) had been taken by 2nd Panzer.

Add to this the unexpected and pretty much total collapse of Yugoslavian (&*!?) resistance with the Germans heading south through the Monastir Gap- the Greeks had counted on Yugoslavia to hold at least for a while- resulting in a huge gap in their fortified line (this is why their defences have a western and eastern piece).

All in all I reckon I'd surrender as CO too. Balkans 41 by Todd Klemme I think nicely illustrates the dilemma.

Balkans 12 and 13 (same author) also illustrates how the geography influences strategy in this benighted part of the world, and in some respects Balkans 41 after one or the other of these is very much a deja vu deal. I'd recommend all as studies in these somewhat 'forgotten' campaigns.

I agree with that assesment and so did most military history books I've seen (greek and non-greek)

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by General Staff
[B]Outnumbered, outclassed (by the Germans anyway), outflanked, with Salonika gone and nowhere to go, there was little point in continuing resistance. Besides their raison d'etre (Salonica) had been taken by 2nd Panzer.

Didn't stop various other armies fighting on. Keeping fighting for another few days would have delayed the German advance further on in Greece by a few days- suppose an extra regiment of Greek troops is able to escape- suppose they get to Crete- suppose they're deployed at the Maleme airfield- suppose they're enough to turn the tide against the German paratroopers. The RAF can now bomb Ploesti at leisure.

Add to this the unexpected and pretty much total collapse of Yugoslavian (&*!?) resistance with the Germans heading south through the Monastir Gap-

Yeah- that was the biggest problem. Of course, the Germans would be quite capable of driving through here even if the Yugoslavs were resisting. So the Metaxas line should have been built with that in mind.

All in all I reckon I'd surrender as CO too. Balkans 41 by Todd Klemme I think nicely illustrates the dilemma.

I took a look at that thing- I recall not liking it for several reasons. Small scale and bad TO&Es are the two that spring immediately to mind. I was personally thinking of making a Marita scenario- with the hypothetical premise that Yugoslavia doesn't collapse. Otherwise it's not a very interesting game for the Allies. I think I ran up against problems getting information for the scenario.

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by Red


Outch, I'm REALY sorry :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Why? That's the second time you reacted badly when I said something complete innocent.

[Red]

Originally posted by Ben Turner


Why? That's the second time you reacted badly when I said something complete innocent.

Like I said before: it depends on the context...:angry:

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by Red


Like I said before: it depends on the context...:angry:

Well really it depends on the tone of voice- something that's impossible to determine in a written media like this. It would be completely possible forme to say "Yeah, I noticed" in an aggravated, belittleing voice. That, however, was not my intention. I intended it in a matter-of-fact voice: explaining that I already knew. Figure LOK's intention in taking the examples he did to compare to Greek 2nd Army was to take one that pertained to each of us.