Is pure defence still possible?

[PeterCrisp]

With most weapon systems now being about offensive capabilities is it still possible for a country to have a purely defensive military or would they just get rolled over? I realise that static positions would most likely be obliterated within days (if not hours) but could an Air force with sufficient AWACS support hold the line and help control ground units to counter and ground offensives.

Is it now true that the only good defence is to have massive offensive capabilities?

Sorry if this is in the wrong folder.

 

[Beatmaster]

With most weapon systems now being about offensive capabilities is it still possible for a country to have a purely defensive military or would they just get rolled over? I realise that static positions would most likely be obliterated within days (if not hours) but could an Air force with sufficient AWACS support hold the line and help control ground units to counter and ground offensives.

Is it now true that the only good defence is to have massive offensive capabilities?

Sorry if this is in the wrong folder.

Some would say that the best defence is always to attck.
Personally i would say having a solid defence with enough support and room to be changed to a versatile or multiroll concept would do in most cases just fine.

A army needs a good and solid defence to secure its intrests and its positions, but just defence will be not enough to holdback a full scale attack.

Having a solid defence with multiroll options ( defence that can be adapted to attack situations ) would still not be enough to holdback a fullscale attack, but it will make the enemy think again because a static defence will be just cannon meat but a multiroll or versatile defence structure that is capable to go after the invader will give massive options to "return the favor" to the enemy and with a solid airforce, you can control a certain period of time on any given area.
The Awac's will give you a little view into the close future because you can monitor enemy movement and respond in a properway to meet a situation.
Rule number one is in my option Information is one of the most important features a modern army must have, so having a few AWACS and mobile radar bases around is always a good thing offcorse you need to have a very solid data comminucation network to make this work.

Having a solid airforce with A2A, A2G and A2A/G planes is always a big plus.
Add a few Tank/recon battalions with enough infantery support will also boost your defence and attack options.

But iam not a army guy perhaps i explain this in a wrong way or to simple for a reply in detail ask Kato and some others who has so mutch intel on this kind of questions.

But the again any army can be defeated and any defence will fall sooner or later, but in most cases the cost of lives will be massive on both sides.

To return to your main question: Is it now true that the only good defence is to have massive offensive capabilities?

Only Defence will not do the job so having a proper amount of offensive capabilities will give you at least way more room to move and making your enemy rethinking his plans, ( But this is just theorie, think for a second you are Belguim and Germany or France is attacking you? the war will be over before you know that you are in one for examplenfloorl: then having defence/offensive capabilities is just not enough and will buy you only a few minutes extra time.

But iam no expert i leave this to Kato and some other members they can explain this way better than i could.

 

[Beatmaster]

Sorry double post.

 

[nevidimka]

The real Iron Dome? Not possible.

 

[Wall83]

As a Swed I know that the Swedish defence, that was on of the biggest in Europe during the cold war, only had plans for making a stand against the Soviets for a couple of weeks. After that all missiles used by the fighters would have been used. The plans was always to wait for help from the US and Nato. The Armed forces was pretty much just for showing muscles for the Soviets and hope to god that they wouldnt attack.

 

[John Sansom]

No matter how "pure", a defensive stance must involve offensive weaponry. From time to time, this weaponry must displayed through manoeuvres, parades, exhibitions, etc. while the body politic continually states and demonstrates its defensive intentions.

Easy to say, right?

 

[Marc 1]

There are some defence forces that have deliberately ordered weaponry designed with defense in mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-tank

 

[John Sansom]

Let's get back to the purely defensive nature of weaponry. Mines, for instance, can be seen as an important part of the defensive mix--unless they are sown to help protect a flank during an offensive manoeuvre.

Recent history gives us the famous German 88, an ack-ack (triple "A") defensive weapon which proved to be an excellent offensive piece of artillery. Which brings us to almost any piece of artillery...HE against advancing enemy troops..or to support one's own advancing troops. And AP against advancing armour...or to support one's own advancing armour.

A little simplistic? You bet...but it still serves to underline the near impossible nature of the "purely" defensive concept.

Barbed and/or razor wire is probably as close to purely defensive as one can get....unless one intends to throw it at the enemy during an offensive manoeuvre.

True, one can waste a lot of time being silly with this question, but it would be interesting to hear some more thoughts on it, no matter how potentially outrageous.

 

[A.Mookerjee]

An offensive military doctrine, is basically a defensive one, too. An aggressor, is basically defense oriented, because he does not want a mishap to take place in his disfavour.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Is pure defence still possible?

Was it ever?

Even a rifle has an offensive capability.

Even Earthern-works, pits or bunkers can have an offensive purpose, depending on the tactical situation.

 

[Freeman]

In my opinion, pure defense is possible for a limited time. This might not count for much, but my personal experience comes from flying a detailed combat simulator (F4AF for those who are interested). In one scenario in particular, I've found that the only way to win is to begin with a purely defensive strategy (running BARCAPS, CAS, TARCAPS, etc.) and slowly rachet up other operations as the initiative turns in my favor.

The key is to distinguish between static defense and defense-oriented maneuver warfare. The thing is, that if you assume a 1:1 combat power ratio, the enemy is going to have to mass their forces in a specific location in order to effectively mount an attack (preferably 3:1 or higher). The trick is to spot the attack and disperse your forces as the opponent attacks and allow them to form a bulge. You can then use the forces you preserved by dispersing to encircle the enemy and cut off their logistical/reinforcement supply lines. We'd come in with the jets and bomb the bridges behind them. I like to think of it as "digesting" the enemy.

Another key consideration is being able to spot the enemy attack BEFORE it occurs. That way you can work pro-actively instead of reactively. This entails a significant investment in C3 and intelligence, as you alluded to with your mention of AWACS.

Eventually, however, in order to actually WIN the war you're going to need to go on the offensive once you've secured the initiative. "Pure" defense as you refer to it would invariably stagnate and turn into a war of attrition.

Just my two cents.... Keep in mind I'm none-too-bright

 

[bruceedwards]

All military systems that lend themselves well to defence also lend themselves well to *offense*, because to survive in a combat environment they have to be armoured, mobile and deadly.

Is a tank brigade defensive, or offensive? A squadron of F/A-18's?

Thus, it is the strategy and tactics that defines whether or not you are defending or attacking.

A defender loses the initiative simply because they are the defender, but the essence of any good defence is a solid counterattack. Simply attacking the tip of the enemies spear with your own combat troops will generally achieve little unless you already have an overwhelming superiority (in which case the attacker is an idiot). In most circumstances the defenders goal will therefore be to outmaneuver and strangle the attackers.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that even when you are defending yourself, at a tactical level you would always be attacking.

I guess you could mean 'pure' defence in that a defender has in place static units that destroy all forces that sneak within their range of power. In this case you would need overwhelming superiority (granted by numbers, technology, terrain or tactics).