The Fortress, a modern day possibility?

My2Cents

Active Member
Not even taking into account the feasibility of NBC's? (Or Area Denial Weapon Systems)?
A properly located fortress is an Area Denial Weapon Systems.
Did you review ANY of Americas FB's in Vietnam? They were simply bypassed and harassed
Which meant that the firebases were too tough to take, therefore satisfying the classical definition of an effective fortification, but not really a fortress. A firebase is the next step down from a Forward Operating Base, a fortified encampment with 1 or more artillery batteries, between a company and a battalion of infantry to patrol the zone covered by the artillery, and logistical and support elements. :coffee
 

rip

New Member
That idea was as about as feasible as your reply. Check a map to understand what your postulating.
Any static defense if relied upon too heavily, can be circumvented, all that it requires is a new idea. Just think of the Trojan horse as one example. The flaw is always in the static part of the concept and the defenders belief in it. Even if it was perfect at the time of its conception, adequacy manned and properly led; a flaw will develop in time that can be exploited. It might be it in space, time, technology or in doctrine.

Nothing of this kind of thinking works forever. The fortress when defined as deliberate physical barrier built to meet the capacities of war as it is understood at the time and undertaken often with very great expense so as to solve a security concern once and for all, is a tactic of the weak, the cowardly, the unimaginative or even more foolishly as an effort to save expense. Then new ideas, technology, or even new things come up that need to be protected, quickly makes those very expensive investment obsolete.

The French Maginot Line, even if it had successfully be able to stop any land invasion of France could not have in its self, stopped Frances’ cities from being bombed from the air. If the aim of the Maginot Line was to protect the lives and industry of France it would have stilled failed.

But that does not mean that defense is not worthwhile. For one it ups the costs of any aggression in a way that can be understood, two it buys you time to mobilize so that tactics of deception lose their luster and three it then gives your offensive forces the flexibility to take the fight to their homeland of which they must then defend. But without an offensive capacity you will lose.

For those of you who are not old enough, when you talk about the use of medieval castles the primary defensive weapon of the castle was not its walls or weapons. They would set alight the fields burning the crops all around and as the large foreign army waited outside. The army faced starvation and diseases they had no resistance to as they took their toll upon the attackers. That was the tactics that worked when armies had to live off the land and there was no transport to supply them.

The railroad was the creator of large armies. Before them they could not be supported in the field.
 

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
That idea was as about as feasible as your reply. Check a map to understand what your postulating.
He probably does understand what he's postulating, as he's ex-military and has served in the Bundeswehr. As such it might behoove you to exercise a little more courtesy in your responses, because there's people on here with all kinds of knowledge and reasons for holding the opinions they do, and because it's far more constructive to explain your line of reasoning rather than simply telling someone to "check a map". Keeps the discussion civil and productive. Not a bad idea, eh? :)
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Check a map to understand what your postulating.
Lengthening the Maginot line by another 80%? It was planned, you know, and the initial fortification all the way to the Atlantic was there in 1940. They just shied away from the cost, in particular regarding manpower. And the political significance.

The French Maginot Line, even if it had successfully be able to stop any land invasion of France could not have in its self, stopped Frances’ cities from being bombed from the air. If the aim of the Maginot Line was to protect the lives and industry of France it would have stilled failed.
It would have required a rather large investment on the German side to modify the Luftwaffe in such a way that it would have been able to bomb anything in France in 1939/40. There was no strategic bombardment during the battle of France, and the Luftwaffe concentrated on tactical close air support.
France and the UK had a significantly higher military-industrial output at the time, and any sort of stalling at the time would have worked in favour of France. And that was exactly what the Maginot line was intended for.
 

SQDLDR

New Member
He probably does understand what he's postulating, as he's ex-military and has served in the Bundeswehr. As such it might behoove you to exercise a little more courtesy in your responses, because there's people on here with all kinds of knowledge and reasons for holding the opinions they do, and because it's far more constructive to explain your line of reasoning rather than simply telling someone to "check a map". Keeps the discussion civil and productive. Not a bad idea, eh? :)
Granted the IDEA of the Maginot line was going to prevent the direct assault of an enemy against France, it was born out of the ideas of a different war. Germany studied the Maginot line and used a "technological" advantage to overcome it. Mobile warfare. In respect to a map, I doubt if Belgium would have allowed that to happen-even if it were in her Best interest. As other posters have pointed out, the Maginot Line was attacked-by an Air Assault, by paratroopers, landing ON TOP of the Forts. Germany simply drove around them, thru Belgium and the Ardennes.
However, the idea was still born out of the Trench Warfare seen thru out WW1. France wanted to prevent, again, what had happened to them in 1914-1915. Yet again, as I mention that Sun-Tzu's principles were ignored by France. Whereas the idea of attacking France thru the Ardennes was actually an original idea of WW1-the
Schlieffen Plan.
In respect to the idea of Medieval Castles; the general idea was to retreat inside and wait an enemy out. Razing the battle field in front or around was only a portion of the strategy employed by the "defender". However old that idea is, the concepts were constantly evolving. Newer "technological" advancements made "holding" your castle a more riskier option, until a time when "static" fortifications were becoming a liability. Nowadays, in "Modern" warfare, as I think the original poster is suggesting, the idea of a Fortification (or as another poster suggests-an area denial weapon system) has come and gone. *on a side note-I had suggested Area Denial as a means to DENY the enemy the ability to maintain, or supply/re-supply an advanced Fortification; NOT as a method of denying the enemy use of the surrounding terrain-although that is the benefit if it occupies strategic ground.
As with both examples above-both Modern and Medieval-a static defense was attacked by area denial weapons-Germ Warfare, Poisoned Wells, Scorched Earth, etc. If not for Americas control of the air above Vietnam, would those Firebases (Fortifications) have been able to survive against the VC, and NVA's, attacks? Would Khe Sanh have become abandoned as it had?
 

SQDLDR

New Member
I would also like to add that in today's world, the expense of launching repetitive missile strikes vs. a static defense is much cheaper in manpower then in earlier times. If you goal is simply the elimination of an enemies "forts", then obviously missile, and air strikes (if air space is incontestable) will eventually achieve that goal. However, today Battles still have that same smell-Political Ends to the Military's Means. Which still translates to Boots on the Ground. Otherwise the "enemy" will just keep shifting his forces and building more "forts" for an attacker to destroy. As another poster suggests, the idea of a fortification is to slow the enemy down, which is true on both strategic and tactical levels. However, in todays' more fluid battles these fortifications, in my opinion, become a static liability. Which has nothing to do with a Strategic Underground Installation like NORAD. Plainly, any enemy of the USAs' realizes that that particular installation is of vital National importance; and would choose the Best Means available to limit its ability to effect the outcome of the Battle. In other words, Nuke it repeatedly until it is minimized as an effective tool of the USAs. However even that may be a waste of resources which could better be used elsewheres. Unfortunately for the United States, any Battle which includes an assault vs mainland America would NEED to include the Battle for NORAD/Cheyenne Mountain. In my opinion this is where it becomes a liability. If it were me attacking, I would understand its importance and use whatever means necessary to limit its ability to affect the (my) desired outcome.
Therefore, a Modern Day Fortress such as Cheyenne Mountain (as an example only) still reflects the Sun-Tzu principle of bypassing an enemies strengths and attacking him where he is weakest; granted that it is buried underground, and Nuclear hardened, it is still a "castle" and there are Modern Methods for defeating it.
 

rip

New Member
I would also like to add that in today's world, the expense of launching repetitive missile strikes vs. a static defense is much cheaper in manpower then in earlier times. If you goal is simply the elimination of an enemies "forts", then obviously missile, and air strikes (if air space is incontestable) will eventually achieve that goal. However, today Battles still have that same smell-Political Ends to the Military's Means. Which still translates to Boots on the Ground. Otherwise the "enemy" will just keep shifting his forces and building more "forts" for an attacker to destroy. As another poster suggests, the idea of a fortification is to slow the enemy down, which is true on both strategic and tactical levels. However, in todays' more fluid battles these fortifications, in my opinion, become a static liability. Which has nothing to do with a Strategic Underground Installation like NORAD. Plainly, any enemy of the USAs' realizes that that particular installation is of vital National importance; and would choose the Best Means available to limit its ability to effect the outcome of the Battle. In other words, Nuke it repeatedly until it is minimized as an effective tool of the USAs. However even that may be a waste of resources which could better be used elsewheres. Unfortunately for the United States, any Battle which includes an assault vs mainland America would NEED to include the Battle for NORAD/Cheyenne Mountain. In my opinion this is where it becomes a liability. If it were me attacking, I would understand its importance and use whatever means necessary to limit its ability to affect the (my) desired outcome.
Therefore, a Modern Day Fortress such as Cheyenne Mountain (as an example only) still reflects the Sun-Tzu principle of bypassing an enemies strengths and attacking him where he is weakest; granted that it is buried underground, and Nuclear hardened, it is still a "castle" and there are Modern Methods for defeating it.
There is a great deal to address in your excellent post. To take on the last part first, the part about NORAD and its fixed installations like the one in Cheyenne Mountain command center. First there is a backup in Canadian but more importantly there is a flying command post in the air at all times ready to prosecute the pre-prepared battle plains of nuclear war, if called upon. Nobody thinks that any fixed fortification can be made invincible to nuclear weapons. The function of in Cheyenne Mountain is not to conduct a nuclear war, after once being started, nuclear war is mostly automatic and has all been pre-planned in dozens of sets pieces. Just pick one and then execute it. The function of Cheyenne Mountain is to keep nuclear war from starting if it can be avoided by not over reacting to possible threats, like accidents or miss evaluated natural events like a meteor impact. If nuclear war started Cheyenne Mountain usefulness is already over.

As to your reliance on the use of precision strike weapons, I think you are over selling them. The reason that they are so popular at the moment is not their overall effectiveness in combat. They are effective but they are also very very expensive for the amount of damage they produce. The USA developed the first laser gild bomb not because they couldn’t hit a target but because of the political costs of collateral damage. The classic case was when the North Vietnamese ran the press core through the ruins of a bombed hospital. The fact that the hospital once had Anti Aircraft guns on its roof, which ha, against all international law fired upon US warplanes didn’t matter. After the bombing they just removed the guns and brought in the press and the idiotic fools just bought the story of US war plans bombing a civilian hospital.

The modern form of war it seems, is for the soldiers to hide behind and within the helpless civilians. At least they do in the bad places.

As to the Maginot line, You perfectly correct as to the capacities of the German air force at the time but you must remember they built their air force the way that they did, as a reaction to the defensive capacities that existed around them. They had years to plane their war in advance, if France had extended their fortifications completely around their border they would have just exploited a different weakness or the same weakness in a different way, that is all.
 

SQDLDR

New Member
Understanding that most if not all of the posters here have as much knowledge of these things as both you and I, we seem to agree on the "theories" of this topic. In example, the Cheyenne Mountain Complex-or "static fortification". Some may not have been aware of the Airborne Command Post, (which incidentally was only removed from the 24/7 role it traditionally held throughout the 50's. 60's, 70's and 80's for cost reasons) amongst other "secret" activities that our Gov't feels/felt were/are necessary to protect America. Therefore I choose not to elaborate to extremes the vastness of the conversation. However, there was a time when some within the JCS or National Command structure felt that they were "nuke proof" or in essence "nuclear hardened"-as is the case for Cheyenne Mountain. Which can only be assumed to be the case in other countries like Russia or China. Entire systems were devoted to "cracking" the "nuclear hardened" sites. Massive resources were devoted to rendering these fortifications useless, or next to useless in the event of a Major Conflict-ones that included Nuclear weapons. As other posters and I are aware that our national policy was based on a "launch upon detection" stance, or more pointedly ie. a "use them or lose them" policy. Which incorporated the doctrine of MAD and protected America and her allies, and the free world for that matter, for close to 40+ years. However, the mission at Cheyenne Mountain has evolved into that of a Space Command and Control. I agree 100% with you, as others will, that, "The function of Cheyenne Mountain is to keep nuclear war from starting" as their role (traditionally) was that of detection, communication, and control. I may be sounding a bit long-winded here to make my point-which is that of the static fortification being rendered useless in a conflict; contrary to the original posters argument about the viability of a static fortification in Modern conflict.
To address your statement about the reliance upon precision-guided munitions, and being "oversold", perhaps as I had stated above, I was trying to be brief. To expand upon what we are discussing for the layman, or novice, I would incorporate what you have outlined (ie.-the Political Cost) as one reason for the move to Laser-Guided or GPS guided munitions. One of other reasons is a financial cost. If we were to go back and look at the tonnage dropped on Germany by the 8th AF in WW2, we learned that the number of tonnes dropped as compared to the percentage of tonnes dropped that actually HIT THE TARGET was miniscule. The CEP was in the 1/2 mile range. With advances in targeting computational power (Norden Bombsight) the allies were able in increase the accuracy of hitting their targets to within a few hundred yards. However, there was still the cost of the men, and planes which had to deal with the German AA defenses and the rapidly disappearing Luftwaffe. There was an enormous cost involved in producing those planes, training those men, moving the assets to England, building bases, etc., etc. As time and the industry advanced, and as computer power and technology advanced the idea moved to the rudimentary forms of precision munitions as seen in Vietnam-(which oddly saw a number of tonnes dropped which EXCEEDED that of all WW2). The bombers flew higher, the sorties vs. targets decreased (excluding vs Hanoi-please no arguments there) as the CEP shrank and shrank. Still dangerous tho. The idea of Stand-Off Weapons on a tactical level were just around the corner, as advances in rocketry, computing power, etc., were coming on-line. I would delve deeper into the theory as we approach Desert Shield/Storm, but that is moving this point away from the central argument of "static fortifications" and Modern Warfare.
Unfortunately, I need to disagree with you on some level, about the "They are effective but they are also very very expensive for the amount of damage they produce". It is true they are expensive for the amount of damage they may cause, but when weighed against the number of planes/pilots used/lost, or number of sorties flown vs. target destruction, etc., they are very cheap, highly accurate, (CEP of inches) minimize the political cost (Civilian casualties), improve battlefield strategy/tactics, yadda, yadda, yadda. I think why this is why our movement or reliance upon this munitions is at an all-time high-because of their cost-effectiveness. Therefore vs. static fortifications it is clear that no matter how "hardened" your fort is, there are weapons and or means of destroying them from the air/ground. Barring the complete deep burial needed in complexes such as Cheyenne Mountain, or Irans Nuclear sites. But I'm again, losing my point.
As for the last part, of the German Luftwaffes' adapting to to their enemies deterrents (a principle of Sun-Tzu), they built their Air Force to effectively deal with what they encountered which is why the relied upon the Junkers Ju-87/88 and the idea of Close Air Support (which was borne out of their adaptation of the new "technology" of air combat. They learned their lessons well, and soon succumbed to the students learning.
Lastly, it is still my contention that Modern Battlefields holding anything beyond basic fortifications-which were nicely outlined above by another poster-that include wire, trenches, berms, minefields, dragon teeth, or other anti-vehicle obstacles, natural and man-made geographical obstacles, etc., are just targets of opportunity waiting to be attacked. For every obstacle encountered-whether it is an "old" one, or one yet to be invented some MIC is working on destroying it even as I write this. Every Castle wall was breached or tunneled, rivers crossed, forests driven thru, mountains climbed or bypassed-WITHIN THE STRATEGIC GOALS of the overall Battle Plan.
Short of burrowing deep within the earth, which limits the offensive capability of that fortification, a fluid, mobile strike force of combined arms will overcome it like Joshua allegedly overcame the walls of Jericho.
 

SQDLDR

New Member
Nah, the mistake was in not extending it all the way through the Ardennes to the Atlantic. And in not backing it up with maneuver forces to then react to pressure on the line.
Point well taken, and well stated!
 

SQDLDR

New Member
"The modern form of war it seems, is for the soldiers to hide behind and within the helpless civilians. At least they do in the bad places".
Freakin' scumbags is what I say.....
 

SQDLDR

New Member
To clarify, 75K was a general figure, what I am proposing, is a 'super-base' of sorts. One that could be strategically placed somewhere on the opposite side of the world that could not only act as a military base, but also as the secondary command center for military brass. Also serving as an airbase to effectively be able to project a large number of troops over an even larger area in a much reduced time compared to that of having troops shipped across oceans. So I am referring to a fortress in the literal sense, walls, air defence, bunkered ground defence, etc. I'm wondering how such a base could be constructed, and if it could be, how would you breach such a stronghold?
Perhaps an island such as Diego Garcia, which could fit the bill, and acts as our "Aircraft Carrier" in the Indian Ocean and is placed on the opposite side of the world would suffice to be your Modern Day Fortress. It has the things you stipulate that your "super-base" needs in order to survive, and has the bonus of: Airfield and Strategic Location, as well as another posters idea of re-supply by sea? Thoughts?
 

My2Cents

Active Member
Perhaps an island such as Diego Garcia, which could fit the bill, and acts as our "Aircraft Carrier" in the Indian Ocean and is placed on the opposite side of the world would suffice to be your Modern Day Fortress. It has the things you stipulate that your "super-base" needs in order to survive, and has the bonus of: Airfield and Strategic Location, as well as another posters idea of re-supply by sea? Thoughts?
You need good rock for the underground bunkers, preferably granite, so atolls should be ruled out. Natural drainage should be another requirement, so a bunker on an island fortress cannot be below the mean sea level, need some good elevation. That’s 2 strikes against Diego Garcia.

I think what is needed is the classic ‘B’ movie uber-badguy volcanic island fortress, but with an inactive volcano (we do not want the traditional eruption to destroy it). :rolling

How about the Auckland Island in New Zealand? :type
 

rip

New Member
Understanding that most if not all of the posters here have as much knowledge of these things as both you and I, we seem to agree on the "theories" of this topic. In example, the Cheyenne Mountain Complex-or "static fortification". Some may not have been aware of the Airborne Command Post, (which incidentally was only removed from the 24/7 role it traditionally held throughout the 50's. 60's, 70's and 80's for cost reasons) amongst other "secret" activities that our Gov't feels/felt were/are necessary to protect America. Therefore I choose not to elaborate to extremes the vastness of the conversation. However, there was a time when some within the JCS or National Command structure felt that they were "nuke proof" or in essence "nuclear hardened"-as is the case for Cheyenne Mountain. Which can only be assumed to be the case in other countries like Russia or China. Entire systems were devoted to "cracking" the "nuclear hardened" sites. Massive resources were devoted to rendering these fortifications useless, or next to useless in the event of a Major Conflict-ones that included Nuclear weapons. As other posters and I are aware that our national policy was based on a "launch upon detection" stance, or more pointedly ie. a "use them or lose them" policy. Which incorporated the doctrine of MAD and protected America and her allies, and the free world for that matter, for close to 40+ years. However, the mission at Cheyenne Mountain has evolved into that of a Space Command and Control. I agree 100% with you, as others will, that, "The function of Cheyenne Mountain is to keep nuclear war from starting" as their role (traditionally) was that of detection, communication, and control. I may be sounding a bit long-winded here to make my point-which is that of the static fortification being rendered useless in a conflict; contrary to the original posters argument about the viability of a static fortification in Modern conflict.
To address your statement about the reliance upon precision-guided munitions, and being "oversold", perhaps as I had stated above, I was trying to be brief. To expand upon what we are discussing for the layman, or novice, I would incorporate what you have outlined (ie.-the Political Cost) as one reason for the move to Laser-Guided or GPS guided munitions. One of other reasons is a financial cost. If we were to go back and look at the tonnage dropped on Germany by the 8th AF in WW2, we learned that the number of tonnes dropped as compared to the percentage of tonnes dropped that actually HIT THE TARGET was miniscule. The CEP was in the 1/2 mile range. With advances in targeting computational power (Norden Bombsight) the allies were able in increase the accuracy of hitting their targets to within a few hundred yards. However, there was still the cost of the men, and planes which had to deal with the German AA defenses and the rapidly disappearing Luftwaffe. There was an enormous cost involved in producing those planes, training those men, moving the assets to England, building bases, etc., etc. As time and the industry advanced, and as computer power and technology advanced the idea moved to the rudimentary forms of precision munitions as seen in Vietnam-(which oddly saw a number of tonnes dropped which EXCEEDED that of all WW2). The bombers flew higher, the sorties vs. targets decreased (excluding vs Hanoi-please no arguments there) as the CEP shrank and shrank. Still dangerous tho. The idea of Stand-Off Weapons on a tactical level were just around the corner, as advances in rocketry, computing power, etc., were coming on-line. I would delve deeper into the theory as we approach Desert Shield/Storm, but that is moving this point away from the central argument of "static fortifications" and Modern Warfare.
Unfortunately, I need to disagree with you on some level, about the "They are effective but they are also very very expensive for the amount of damage they produce". It is true they are expensive for the amount of damage they may cause, but when weighed against the number of planes/pilots used/lost, or number of sorties flown vs. target destruction, etc., they are very cheap, highly accurate, (CEP of inches) minimize the political cost (Civilian casualties), improve battlefield strategy/tactics, yadda, yadda, yadda. I think why this is why our movement or reliance upon this munitions is at an all-time high-because of their cost-effectiveness. Therefore vs. static fortifications it is clear that no matter how "hardened" your fort is, there are weapons and or means of destroying them from the air/ground. Barring the complete deep burial needed in complexes such as Cheyenne Mountain, or Irans Nuclear sites. But I'm again, losing my point.
As for the last part, of the German Luftwaffes' adapting to to their enemies deterrents (a principle of Sun-Tzu), they built their Air Force to effectively deal with what they encountered which is why the relied upon the Junkers Ju-87/88 and the idea of Close Air Support (which was borne out of their adaptation of the new "technology" of air combat. They learned their lessons well, and soon succumbed to the students learning.
Lastly, it is still my contention that Modern Battlefields holding anything beyond basic fortifications-which were nicely outlined above by another poster-that include wire, trenches, berms, minefields, dragon teeth, or other anti-vehicle obstacles, natural and man-made geographical obstacles, etc., are just targets of opportunity waiting to be attacked. For every obstacle encountered-whether it is an "old" one, or one yet to be invented some MIC is working on destroying it even as I write this. Every Castle wall was breached or tunneled, rivers crossed, forests driven thru, mountains climbed or bypassed-WITHIN THE STRATEGIC GOALS of the overall Battle Plan.
Short of burrowing deep within the earth, which limits the offensive capability of that fortification, a fluid, mobile strike force of combined arms will overcome it like Joshua allegedly overcame the walls of Jericho.
I think we are in agreement on the big issues and as to the rest, who will be proved to be the most right or the most wrong on the little things, are dependent upon what the other side chooses to do.

Everything that you said about the accuracy of bombing in WW II was completely correct. Most of the bombs did miss what they were aiming at and that is one of the reasons much of the air campaign by the USA and just about all of it conducted by the UK was area bombing, targeting entire civilian or industrial districts. WW II was total war and as time went by it got less discriminate as wars tend to do.

But as a practical matter, non-smart and other standoff weapons, have gotten in a lot better since WWII with very little increases in costs because the smarts in the targeting are in the reusable platforms not in the disposable weapons. While at the same time there is and will always be all kinds of widely dispersed targets that need a great deal of firepower to destroy but require far less accuracy. Using a $100,000 missile to kill two running insurgents caring their AK-47’s after setting off their IID from a three-million dollar drone might make great video but if you have 10,000 such targets you will soon run out of money, missiles, or both. This strategy might be barley sustainable in a low intensity conflict but in a major conflict it will not work.

This is not to say that high value targets and critical defense nodes are not worth the high price and I certainly agree that our fighting men should get any advantage we can give them but using smart weapons as a general solution lends eventually to failure. Another factor to remember is they are very complicated and difficult to produce weapons which have never been truly massed produced in the modern since. And which would take much more time than you would expect to ramp up high production rates. The production of these weapons is more like a cottage industry than modern production process. There is probably more I-phone II’s in the world than all the smart weapons which have ever produced and most of the smart weapons are not as smart as the I-phones.

As to fortifications, as you correctly pointed out, many of the simplest things are often the best. But when fortifications are elaborate and above all static they quickly lose their utility. The best fortifications are the ones that take more resources to destroy than they take to build and can be reconfigured or relocated easier than the attacking force can adapt but that is a very tuff requirement to meet.
 

Knjaz

New Member
Yeah, I didn't read all the posts in the discussion so someone already could mention this before.

Well, of course Fortress IS a modern day possibility!
Just like MRAPs and other stuff developed to fight a mujaheddin-type of enemy. It wont be.. lets call it, cost-effective in a "normal", all-out war between first tier military powers, especially when tactical nukes come into play. Not saying completely useless, because well, MRAPs for example still can be used as normal, although more expensive and less mobile, APCs.

Same goes for the fortresses. Question is, who are you going to fight? Someone from "Tier 1" militaries? Not going to work, unless the specific conditions are made - like, it's an isolated position on an island and enemy does not posses enough capabilities to turn your "fortress" into Moon landscape.
Against some African tribesmen, for an area control? I'd say a great option. Just be ready to do something when they'll bring in mortars, or better prevent em from doing this.
 

carlgoon

New Member
As to fortifications, as you correctly pointed out, many of the simplest things are often the best. But when fortifications are elaborate and above all static they quickly lose their utility. The best fortifications are the ones that take more resources to destroy than they take to build and can be reconfigured or relocated easier than the attacking force can adapt but that is a very tuff requirement to meet.
Relocatable fortress that can't be blown up? All the modern fortresses are built underground so they can't be blown up. Pretty hard to move. The whole point of a fort is to provide protection. From a foxhole to an underground airbase its all the same thing. The cost effectiveness of it depends on the threat and how much you want to be protected from it.
 

SQDLDR

New Member
Yeah, I didn't read all the posts in the discussion so someone already could mention this before.

Well, of course Fortress IS a modern day possibility!
Just like MRAPs and other stuff developed to fight a mujaheddin-type of enemy. It wont be.. lets call it, cost-effective in a "normal", all-out war between first tier military powers, especially when tactical nukes come into play. Not saying completely useless, because well, MRAPs for example still can be used as normal, although more expensive and less mobile, APCs.

Same goes for the fortresses. Question is, who are you going to fight? Someone from "Tier 1" military? Not going to work, unless the specific conditions are made - like, it's an isolated position on an island and enemy does not posses enough capabilities to turn your "fortress" into Moon landscape.
Against some African tribesmen, for an area control? I'd say a great option. Just be ready to do something when they'll bring in mortars, or better prevent em from doing this.
I have to disagree with your hypothesis. Perhaps in some more limited conflicts whereas a "tier 1" military power has to use a "fort" to deny/hold an area-yes-that I can agree with; as well as most of the posters here. For obvious reasons, your spears won't dent my reinforced "fort" built with concrete, re-bar and sandbags.
However, I believe the general sense of his question was in regards to a Superpower vs superpower or superpower vs. level 1 Military power. I will throw Air Supremacy out the window-for I believe that no modern Army would attempt to even think about tackling any "forts" without establishing that. (Desert Storm)
If you build it, it can be destroyed. No matter what. As other posters postulate, it all depends on the resources you willing to expend in the "forts" destruction. As other posters stipulate, if the "fort" is of sufficient hi-value, and key to your overall battle plan, then you will spare NO expense in its eradication. However, as witnessed in many conflicts, in accordance with the principles established eons ago by Sun-Tzu, then the General of Intelligence dictates that you bypass the "fort" to render it useless, thereby saving your resources, and forcing the enemy to use his in an otherwise futile attempt to staff/supply/support the fort.
If your fort is so isolated to enhance its survival-was it worth putting there in the first place? Probably not. And at what expense to YOU was erecting that fort? Both in finances, and men/material/logistics etc.
I think it another poster who also suggests that the "static" nature of your fort in and of itself was an area denial weapon system-which I can understand. However, I postulate that even that is a marginal reason to erect the fort-but again-it can't be that isolated that it is there "just to be there".
While pondering some of what was posted, the thought came to me of a "fortress" that may--to some readers--defy the idea of a "fort" as we may understand it.
This particular "fort" broke the back of the Werhmacht in 1943, and cost the Attackers an entire Army Group, momentum,time, and some OKW lives. If there ever was a "fortress city" then Stalingrad was it. It couldn't be bypassed, as it controlled vital roads, rail, and river hubs. Now, in a Modern Warfare scenario, if some "Stalingrad" presented itself as an obstacle to a Military Goal; then there are modern weapon systems to eliminate, reduce, eradicate that obstacle, no matter how "large" it is.
The only "forts" that are generally recognized as being safe from MOST weapon systems are underground, however, how effective are they as an "area" denial weapon system if the ground above them is rendered inhabitable.
 

carlgoon

New Member
However, as witnessed in many conflicts, in accordance with the principles established eons ago by Sun-Tzu, then the General of Intelligence dictates that you bypass the "fort" to render it useless, thereby saving your resources, and forcing the enemy to use his in an otherwise futile attempt to staff/supply/support the fort.
Anyone who builds a fortification to defend a place knows it can be bypassed and that is part of the objective. The maginot line covered the central front area for france so the germans had to attack through Belgium which would make it much harder for the germans. The French knew this and planned to fight the germans in Belgium they just didn’t think they would lose.

Also in some areas there is no way to bypass the fort. How do you bypass the swiss valley forts? There is no other way into the swiss valleys than through the forts. So to bypass the fort is not to attack.

The objective of a fortification is to improve you protection for defensive forces. If it is too tough of a nut to crack then you force the enemy to attack somewhere else which is less advantageous to them.
 

SQDLDR

New Member
Anyone who builds a fortification to defend a place knows it can be bypassed and that is part of the objective. The maginot line covered the central front area for france so the germans had to attack through Belgium which would make it much harder for the germans. The French knew this and planned to fight the germans in Belgium they just didn’t think they would lose.

Also in some areas there is no way to bypass the fort. How do you bypass the swiss valley forts? There is no other way into the swiss valleys than through the forts. So to bypass the fort is not to attack.

The objective of a fortification is to improve you protection for defensive forces. If it is too tough of a nut to crack then you force the enemy to attack somewhere else which is less advantageous to them.
That is all well and good. However, again, I want to emphasize that the conversation can only truly be had if we *allow* the notion that Air Supremacy is taken out of the equation.
If it ever came to it then the idea of a SP or a Tier 1/2 military action vs. a Switzerland or other "minor" power seems pointless. I don't think that (using Switz as an example) they plan on "defending" Switz. from a foreign invader is rational in this Modern World. Their defensive strategy lies in the fact that they remain Neutral, and are willing to buy time (in their Forts) until some SP comes to there rescue. It's not like NATO has a battle plan that includes an Offensive First Strike vs. Switz--tho I'm reasonably confident that there are contingency plans for a *battle* IN Switz. if it was necessary.
The original poster was querying the forum on the idea of a "Modern Day Fortress", and how reasonable that idea may be in the light of Modern Warfare Tactics (which includes the Concepts of Air Dominance/Supremacy).
As I, and a few, others postulate, the -quote-Super Fortress-end quote cannot exist on a Modern Battlefield that involves war between 2 SP's. Even between 2 tier 1 or 2 powers. Versus that "African tribe", then yes there is room for a fort.
If we go back to a Major conflict like Desert Storm, where massive quantities of fortifications were erected, and which were known, mapped, and planned for-they were quickly destroyed (and uselessly erected at a great expense to Saddam). Even his trashing of the 700+ oil wells didn't give him the results he was looking for. Asides from the idea that it told the attackers (GO Army!) exactly where to look for Saddams' Army!
The fortifications that matter most are the Battlefield forts that can be quickly erected at minimal cost to the defender; those which impede the rapid movement across terrain, or try to force the attacker into a defenders "kill zones". No Commander is going to allow an enemy to construct a Superfortress on his battlefield without attacking it while it was being built.And if that DID happen then that attacking Commander can alter his tactics to deal with that, and change his Battle Plan accordingly.
Again, only a secret, underground "fortress"- IMO- has any real chance of survival. And even then, if the ground above it is still habitable. You can't build one of those overnite, and you can't build one of those in your enemy's territory.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
The Swiss plan on being just too hard a nut to crack to bother with them.
In a cold war context they needed to make sure that for none of the blocks it is worth the losses to use them as a highway around the flanks of their adversaties.
Add to that the fact that they are not easily impressed by the military might of their neighbours which makes neutrality much easier.

As for air supremacy. Saying that fortresses are relatively useless because the opposition may bomb it to rubble is a little bit one sided. In a halfway even conflict no side would gain air supremacy so easily.
And mobile forces are also having a tough time when the enemy rules the sky.
 

My2Cents

Active Member
If it ever came to it then the idea of a SP or a Tier 1/2 military action vs. a Switzerland or other "minor" power seems pointless. I don't think that (using Switz as an example) they plan on "defending" Switz. from a foreign invader is rational in this Modern World. Their defensive strategy lies in the fact that they remain Neutral, and are willing to buy time (in their Forts) until some SP comes to there rescue. It's not like NATO has a battle plan that includes an Offensive First Strike vs. Switz--tho I'm reasonably confident that there are contingency plans for a *battle* IN Switz. if it was necessary.
The purpose of the Swiss fortifications is delay. There are only a couple routes into the country. By the time you battle past the forts those routes will be demolished. And some of those forts are situated so that if you take them out with airpower you have just demolished the road/track/tunnel yourself.

At that point your only alternatives are going in with airborne infantry, paratroops, or mountain troops on foot. They will be in a country where everyone between 16 and 60 is in the reserves, trains regularly, and by law keeps a full auto capable battle rifle in the house, with ammo.

Geography make the whole country a fortress. The fortifications mentioned previously are only the outworks, the Alps are the castle walls surrounding the keep of the Central Plateau. And do not even think of using nukes, or the fallout will poison the headwaters of most the major rivers of central Europe.
 
Top