The Fortress, a modern day possibility?
- Thread starter Humanoid
- Start date
I have really been wondering about this topic for years now. I always wondered wether a true medieval era fort would be a viable form of defence in the modern era.
So i would like to share my opinion on this matter :
A successful fort in my opinion dosen't necessarily mean Huge, Thick Walls and a Heavy Metal Gate . At least in the modern era. In the modern era, a Fortress IMO simply means a certain area, or point of land/ground with or without any buildings on it, that can be held against any attack for a prolonged period of time ( not indefinetely, I don't think anything can ). Not due to having huge walls/gates and watchtowers, but simply because it's very defensible due to it's location on the terrain, the troops and weaponry/machinery within it and surrounding it.
For example, take any FOB/Firebase in Afghanistan, have it situated on elevated piece of land like a mountaintop with a clear view of the surrounding area, have an airfield in it along with a few heavy artiellery pieces and anti-air rockets in it's perimiter. The perimiter is heavily lined with sandbags/trenches and bunkers for infantry equipped with anti-tank rockets and Machine guns. The outside of the perimeter is lined with barbed wires, minefields, tank traps ( I dont know exactly what they're called ), and has a battalion of armored vehicles + helicopter/air support ready to exit the perimeter at any moment to defend against an assault.
That IMO, is quite a decent fortress in the modern era. Just my 2 cents though. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
So i would like to share my opinion on this matter :
A successful fort in my opinion dosen't necessarily mean Huge, Thick Walls and a Heavy Metal Gate . At least in the modern era. In the modern era, a Fortress IMO simply means a certain area, or point of land/ground with or without any buildings on it, that can be held against any attack for a prolonged period of time ( not indefinetely, I don't think anything can ). Not due to having huge walls/gates and watchtowers, but simply because it's very defensible due to it's location on the terrain, the troops and weaponry/machinery within it and surrounding it.
For example, take any FOB/Firebase in Afghanistan, have it situated on elevated piece of land like a mountaintop with a clear view of the surrounding area, have an airfield in it along with a few heavy artiellery pieces and anti-air rockets in it's perimiter. The perimiter is heavily lined with sandbags/trenches and bunkers for infantry equipped with anti-tank rockets and Machine guns. The outside of the perimeter is lined with barbed wires, minefields, tank traps ( I dont know exactly what they're called ), and has a battalion of armored vehicles + helicopter/air support ready to exit the perimeter at any moment to defend against an assault.
That IMO, is quite a decent fortress in the modern era. Just my 2 cents though. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Maybe the modern fortress is a City?
I guess one could build the houses in the city to some "build requirements" , with interconnected reinforced cellers, structures that when they fall down leaves the first floor more or less undamaged etc.
That doesn't have to that expensive.
I guess one could build the houses in the city to some "build requirements" , with interconnected reinforced cellers, structures that when they fall down leaves the first floor more or less undamaged etc.
That doesn't have to that expensive.
The medieval and ancient fortresses have been replaced by Field Camps. These in essence continue to have the same multiple defensive layers in the form of walls, gates and towers, as well as providing a central shelter against other attacks; and being a local security and administration strongpoint.
They're more related to the Roman idea of a fortress - a castellum - of course than the industrial-period fortress. Those didn't last long anyway.
They're more related to the Roman idea of a fortress - a castellum - of course than the industrial-period fortress. Those didn't last long anyway.
But you wouldn't call the Dein Bein Phu a successful fort?
Normally I am quite patient with new members and I don't want to play mod here.
But you really need to work on your posts. This is a serious forum. Your posts read more like disclaimers for Starcraft II than serious attempts to discuss a certain topic.
That destroys otherwise interesting threads.
But you really need to work on your posts. This is a serious forum. Your posts read more like disclaimers for Starcraft II than serious attempts to discuss a certain topic.
That destroys otherwise interesting threads.
Waylander is correct - Inventer, please reconsider the content of your posts, as they've essentially been science fiction up to this point. While I can understand your desire to discuss futuristic advances in technology, this really isn't the right forum for it, so my recommendation would be to find another place for such discussions, and try to keep your posts on this forum within the boundaries of realism and common sense.
Thanks mate.
Thanks mate.
THE INVENTER
Banned Member
Waylander are you familiar with the defence tactical laser. It has been proven to be able to destroy missiles, mortor, and artillery in the sky. In fack the laser has even been know to be able to shoot down multiple projectiles. If multiple defence systems were set up it could defend the valley from those threats.
France had more tanks than Germany, & planned a mobile war in Belgium, with their right flank anchored on the Maginot line. That was what it was for. They knew the Germans wouldn't launch their main attack against it, but try to go round. I don't know where you get the idea that the French hoped the Germans would bleed themselves dry asaulting the Maginot line. Why would they ignore the possibility of the Germans coming through Belgium - AGAIN?
Read up on their plans. They were caught wrong-footed partly because the Germans sent their main armoured force through the Ardennes, when the French expected it further north, deeper into Belgium, & the main French armoured forces therefore found Panzers breaking through in their rear. But more important were German tactics, & command & control, which were greatly superior.
As for tank divisions & fighter aircraft - well, go & look up the French stocks of armour in May 1940. Enough, if used properly, even allowing for the crappy one-man turrets on many of them, & the number of old light tanks. They had more tanks than the Wehrmacht. The problem wasn't numbers but (1) how they were used & (2) their design.
Much the same in aircraft. They were outnumbered, but not (factoring in the RAF) greatly, & the ineffectiveness of the AdlA was mostly organisational, not due to shortages of aircraft. The supply organisation was incapable of getting replacement aircraft from factories & depots to squadrons, for example, leaving units ineffective, despite having everything to hand to operate aircraft, & new aircraft being available in the rear.
None of this is due to the Maginot line.
I reckon supporting fire and aerial resupply matter more to a successful fort in modern times than actual fortifications. The ARVN and US Marines could call upon massive air-support, including carpet bombings from B-52s to hold back the NVA. The French did not have these advantages in Dein Bein Phu.
Actually, even though Khe Sanh was a great tactical victory for the ARVN and US Marines, it was really just a diversion by the North Vietnamese to draw thousands of US troops away from the cities into the countryside, and pin them down in fixed positions, so that North Vietnamese could safely mass for the main attacks of the Tet Offensive into the major cities. In this sense, the presence of a fort like Khe Sanh was really a strategic handicap in hindsight.
Control was the main failure. The French didn't get their army into gear to react to the southern incursion. If they had, they could probably have easily cut off the "spearhead", trapping a good amount of German troops in France.
... no it hasn't. For either sentence. Actually for all of it.
@Inventer
Nearly all of the technologies and ideas you invent here and in other threads are either not in service, are not employed the way you think they are or just don't exist.
It is pure fantasy. Have you read the thread? Do you know how and what I post on this forum?
What have you seen apart from videogames and future weapons on TV?
I have no problem with discussing new ways of skinning a cat. For example we have some interesting threads here about secondary armament for MBTs or about fire support vehicles featuring heavy 120mm mortar turrets.
But these are serious discussions. You just bring up some ideas which may sound cool to you but have nothing to do with reality whatsoever.
Nearly all of the technologies and ideas you invent here and in other threads are either not in service, are not employed the way you think they are or just don't exist.
It is pure fantasy. Have you read the thread? Do you know how and what I post on this forum?
What have you seen apart from videogames and future weapons on TV?
I have no problem with discussing new ways of skinning a cat. For example we have some interesting threads here about secondary armament for MBTs or about fire support vehicles featuring heavy 120mm mortar turrets.
But these are serious discussions. You just bring up some ideas which may sound cool to you but have nothing to do with reality whatsoever.
Neither unguided artillery rockets nor UAVs nor pseudo-IEDs* are "missiles, mortor, and artillery in the sky". There are only two systems proven to have intercepted such, and those are Phalanx C-RAM and Skyshield Mantis NBS.
And DES isn't a single program, it's the whole Directed Energy Systems branch of Boeing (projects are among others: ABL, ATL, HELTD, TRMS).
*- those explosives weren't even buried.
And DES isn't a single program, it's the whole Directed Energy Systems branch of Boeing (projects are among others: ABL, ATL, HELTD, TRMS).
*- those explosives weren't even buried.
Feros Ferio
New Member
First of all, great topic Humanoid. In an age where it seems that mobility is everything, it is interesting and important to look at static positions as well.
Previous posts have spoken of the downsides to using fixed defenses. One example was of the US "island hopping" in the Pacific, leaving the heavily fortified islands of the Japanese alone as it was not necessary to attack them at the time, but simply let them "wither on the vine" so to speak. This idea is as old as Hannibal's campaign in Italy, where he terrorized the countryside for quite sometime while the Romans sat behind their city walls.
With this, and the original question of the potential utility of a modern fortress in mind, I believe a modern static position or "fortress" could be extremely effective if enough thought was given to its assets and design. Imagine for a moment one could create a fortress that wouldn't "wither on the vine". With modern advances in UAV's, power generation, hydroponics, automation, etc... would it not be possible to build an incredibly hardened position, which included automated factories (and the necessary supplies) that could produce munitions and unmanned delivery systems, while supporting the human operators of said devices, for an extended period of time. If an opposing force attempted to bypass this position, it could continue to launch devastating strikes into the enemy's rear, and all the while the most precious resource, trained personnel, would be safely underground, ensuring the operation of the facility. If the opposing force chose to stay and deal with the position with the sort of strength required to take it, then the fortress would serve its main goal of tying down a large portion of the enemy's available man power. Given proper geographic placement, you would force the opposing side to deal with this facility at some point during its advance. In doing so, these would provide a defender with some of the initiative that can be so critical in any conflict.
What are your thoughts on this?
I realize that eventually even this facility would need resupply. However, given enough of a stockpile, I believe it would be far from obsolete.
Previous posts have spoken of the downsides to using fixed defenses. One example was of the US "island hopping" in the Pacific, leaving the heavily fortified islands of the Japanese alone as it was not necessary to attack them at the time, but simply let them "wither on the vine" so to speak. This idea is as old as Hannibal's campaign in Italy, where he terrorized the countryside for quite sometime while the Romans sat behind their city walls.
With this, and the original question of the potential utility of a modern fortress in mind, I believe a modern static position or "fortress" could be extremely effective if enough thought was given to its assets and design. Imagine for a moment one could create a fortress that wouldn't "wither on the vine". With modern advances in UAV's, power generation, hydroponics, automation, etc... would it not be possible to build an incredibly hardened position, which included automated factories (and the necessary supplies) that could produce munitions and unmanned delivery systems, while supporting the human operators of said devices, for an extended period of time. If an opposing force attempted to bypass this position, it could continue to launch devastating strikes into the enemy's rear, and all the while the most precious resource, trained personnel, would be safely underground, ensuring the operation of the facility. If the opposing force chose to stay and deal with the position with the sort of strength required to take it, then the fortress would serve its main goal of tying down a large portion of the enemy's available man power. Given proper geographic placement, you would force the opposing side to deal with this facility at some point during its advance. In doing so, these would provide a defender with some of the initiative that can be so critical in any conflict.
What are your thoughts on this?
I realize that eventually even this facility would need resupply. However, given enough of a stockpile, I believe it would be far from obsolete.
The Tunguska, Pantsyr, and Tor systems all have the capability. Upgraded Shilka and Osa variants could do so under a limited set of circumstances.
Sure, but have they proven it under battlefield conditions against live targets?
(Phalanx did so in Iraq, Mantis pulled live intercepts in Putlos and Turkey in preparation for its deployment to Afghanistan)
Regarding Tor - in theory you could probably bring down an artillery rocket with a good old I-Hawk if you're really desperate.
(Phalanx did so in Iraq, Mantis pulled live intercepts in Putlos and Turkey in preparation for its deployment to Afghanistan)
Regarding Tor - in theory you could probably bring down an artillery rocket with a good old I-Hawk if you're really desperate.
I wasn't arguing with you, just providing a minor correction. In the sense of the capability, what he's talking about is not new and has been around for a long time. Lasers might not be a viable means of doing it, but point-SAM/SPAAG units are.
EDIT: I'm not talking about bringing down a single round, I'm talking about effectively countering the fire of say an artillery battery. Tor wouldn't be a great choice, but in conjunction with the other systems it may be necessary.
Do you think an argument could be made for secured information networks being a modern-day "fortress" analogue, even if primarily in a non-physical sense?
From my perspective the digital fortress is becoming increasingly important considering the growing scope of cyberwarfare and importance of information control in modern warfare... or maybe I'm just rambling. Don't really know enough to know if the analogy is accurate, just throwing it out there.
From my perspective the digital fortress is becoming increasingly important considering the growing scope of cyberwarfare and importance of information control in modern warfare... or maybe I'm just rambling. Don't really know enough to know if the analogy is accurate, just throwing it out there.
Feros Ferio
New Member
I think the analogy is accurate Bonza. A fortress is simply a position which has been heavily fortified to aid in its defense. One of the reasons for such a thing would be to defend what was inside. While the discussion here is definitely focused on the physical, your thought is an interesting one. Many aspects of war have changed so much in recent history, perhaps a new conception of what a "fortress" is, or could be, should be explored.Do you think an argument could be made for secured information networks being a modern-day "fortress" analogue, even if primarily in a non-physical sense?
From my perspective the digital fortress is becoming increasingly important considering the growing scope of cyberwarfare and importance of information control in modern warfare... or maybe I'm just rambling. Don't really know enough to know if the analogy is accurate, just throwing it out there.