If they (the Germans) thought it was worth taking it (the Maginot Line) in a frontal assault then why choose to avoid it?

Paul's reference to Fermont & Villy in post #2 underlines that (even though the defences could perhaps have been eventually overcome) the result would likely be a bloodbath.

Villy was attacked because it became isolated due to certain weaknesses in the defensive design in that area, it was one of the weaker fortifications overall. According to Pallud in 'Blitzkrieg in the west' the Germans still needed 3 batteries of 210mm Mortars, seven of 150mm howitzers, nine of 105mm Howitzers, three of 100mm howitzers and a battery of Flak 88s firing directly at the cupolas and embrasures. And it still took days to batter the defences down to a point where the ventilators couldn't cope and the men inside were asphyxiated... (it took 3 more days to move and bury the bodies).
Fermont was a major fortress, it and it's defenders endured an 88 bashing away at the same spot for half a day, and patched the damage by the next morning. It's response to a 'massive bombardment' for 2 hours on June the 21st was to fire back with all weapons as soon as the barrage cleared. The Germans had to request a white flag cease-fire to recover their many dead and wounded from around the Fortress. They didn't ever take it by force, because they couldn't.

We must give the OKW some credit, they knew the Maginot line was best bypassed and a most impressive line of defence. In many ways the Blitzkrieg was a close run thing, the added risk of taking those fixed fortifications could easily have thrown the whole thing off kilter.

Cheers,
Adam.

__________________
"Wars cannot be fought with dream stuff" - Sir Percy Hobart.