>London is the bad city that tries to eat all the other cities
I dunno if that is just a commentary on the fact London has expanded so much it has consumed other places or just terrible anti-colonialism shit.
>what if cities could drive around but they had to eat other cities for fuel
Just a retarded concept, I was like 10 when I read the books and even then I thought it was stupid.
London wasn't the only or biggest city, but it was much more "cities absorbing/draining resources from surrounding areas" than anything else.
Also just it was kind of a cool idea, there wasn't really anti-colonilism in there, despite the definite bong-left attitudes - the villains for the last half were the Anti-City "Green Storm" (who, to bring this thread full circle, operated out of a massive "shield-Bastion" in the Himalayas, where with air power (well, an abundance of airships comapred to the mobile cities) and static defences they mostly had the upper hand...
>London is the bad city that tries to eat all the other cities
I dunno if that is just a commentary on the fact London has expanded so much it has consumed other places or just terrible anti-colonialism shit.
>London is the bad city that tries to eat all the other cities
I dunno if that is just a commentary on the fact London has expanded so much it has consumed other places or just terrible anti-colonialism shit.
>Is your fortification vulnerable to [munition]? >Is it cost-effecient to deploy [munition] against your fortification?
If both answers are Yes, then your fortification is obsolete. Otherwise, no.
fortifications to protect your command and logistic facilities in the rear: based
fortifications to protect your frontline: only useful to slow down enemies so you better have mobile forces go respond
Underground silos, hangars, communication hub and even maintenance and manufacturing space are becoming even more useful nowadays with cheap suicide drones just flying into your rear elements tbh
>Great Wall bulldozed
Away from the tourist sites, large lengths of the Great Wall are just earth embankments, it had bricks once but they've been stolen over thousands of years by locals building their houses and garden/field walls.
I assume that's what got bulldozed, someone wanted a shortcut through the wall instead of driving to the next valley pass or something.
No but I have to wonder how effective Mark 77,78,79s would be effective on them.
Napalm seems tailor made for them but it only got used on jungles for some reason.
Seems like a burning liquid flowing downhill would make a good trench cleanser.
We missed the margiont line PrepHoleino that could of been from ww2 with railway guns and ClF3.
they are still tactically relevant
they provide a degree of protection from bullets and fragmentation from artillery
even a plain foxhole will act as a greater force multiplier than standing out in the open
but they are strategically useless, the presence or absence of sandbags will make zero difference at the campaign level
static defenses are weak to the basic tactic of simply walking around them, and by concentrating all your forces on a single point it makes the defenses too inflexible
so modern defensive strategy relies more on a mobile defense from reserve units to draw out an axis of advance
static defenses existing solely as a temporary measure to stall the advance with the real defense handled by mobile units, the ultimate goal being to counter-attack enemy forces after their goal has been identified
It's much harder to breach static fortifications when they're manned and people are shooting at you while you try to breach them or get through a breach. Bugmen doing bugmen things to part of an undefended monument should not be confused with breaching active military fortifications.
>It's much harder to breach static fortifications when they're manned and people are shooting at you while you try to breach them or get through a breach.
otherway around
a fortification is extremely vulnerable to being breached at a singe point
defenders are spread out across the entire defensive line, attackers can concentrate at any given point along the line
so once a breach is made, the defenders need to abandon their posts to try and plug the breach, creating weakpoints along other parts of the line that can be taken advantage of
once defenders fan out behind the line, they can quickly cut off the entire line, causing a total breakdown
more realistic defensive lines like at kursk rely on multiple sparsely defended lines, with defenders falling back as each line is breached
this allows them to sap the enemy attack of momentum before committing the bulk of your forces
You can't just drive an excavator up and tear it down then spend a day trying to make a little roadway, you have to commit lots of resources to a notable offensive action. That's the point. If the GWoC was still an active military fortification those two bugmen would've likely had to contend with mines, ATGMs, and rifles (that somehow keyhole at 10 feet) aimed at them.
>he doesnt get it
defenders to spread out and must commit to their fortifaction
attackers can concentrate on any point
the all forward defence means that attackers can negate a vast majority of the defensive line by pushing forward into the operation depths instead of attacking the line itself
concentrating all your forces into a single line of defensive fortifications is only better if you have an incredibly immobile force that cant plausibly retreat or attack easily and are fighting an equally immobile enemy who cant concentrate forces
No, you're not getting what I'm saying. You can't just casually waltz up to a fortification that is manned and active then tear it down at your leisure.
You have to fight to get there. You have to get past any mines or other traps that may be waiting for you. You have to dedicate lots of men and equipment to it. You have to not get blasted by air and artillery even when you get to the wall. These days at least one QRF would be associated with any large static fortification, probably multiple for something as big as the GWoC. That means you do have SOME time to overwhelm it but you can't just casually punch through and reinforcements will arrive fairly quickly. It's also a safe bet artillery behind the line has the fortification ready to be fired on. Air power is unrestricted in it's ability to bomb whatever it wants. If it's JUST a wall with some riflemen, yeah, it's not going to hold out for long. If it's a properly done fortification with rear lines and the whole 9 yards it's going to be a motherfucker.
In medieval times yeah, it's easier to breach because of spread out defenders and no real quick response being available, the defender's army may be days away. But even then if beacons are lit and/or messengers get away the enemy is going to know and react.
static fortifications were only useful in pre-industrial times because no one could move faster than a horse
so it was not possible to exploit gaps in a wall faster than the enemy can reinforce them
but modern warfare has all but invalidated the use of fortifications other than as a temporary measure to stall for more mobile forces to arise
a static fortification makes the line too vulnerable to any kind of concentrated force
any collapse at any point along the line destroys the entire defense
the idea of simply holding a fast, concentrated force at a single point because your static defenses are simply that powerful is a pure fantasy
most modern real world defenses instead defend in depth using only temporary defenses or just forgo dedicated defenses entirely and rely on the terrain with
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Have you not been paying attention to Ukraine or something? The Ukrainians have had to dedicate significant forces to breach the Russian lines and the Russians were just outright unable to breach Ukrainian static defenses for nearly a year. This war is now ENTIRELY static fortifications and heavyweight offensives trying to breach them, often at high cost. Russia is unable to stop Ukraine because they cannot reinforce their lines sufficiently and the Ukrainians are using massive amounts of force to breach them. It's not 2 guys, a mine detector, and bolt cutters, and a backhoe.
Static fortifications are primarily to slow, stop, or otherwise contain an enemy assault. Even if they're eventually breached if you slowed the enemy down enough to allow reinforcements to counterattack while at the same time killing lots of enemy troops they've done their job. The enemy will be worn out while reinforcements are fresh and ready to fuck some faces. If the enemy wasn't even able to get to the lines or otherwise wasn't able to breach that's great! Part of your problem is you're acting like if it can be breached it's worthless. EVERYTHING can be breached, the question is can YOU and your forces breach it?
You've got so much of this backwards. In pre-industrial times that was an explicit benefit of the attackers which is why fortresses and castles are a better move. You can march up a bunch of catapults and trebuchets, get through, and surge into the lands beyond while the defender's main army, again, may be days away. A messenger has to ride hard to spread the word of an attack which can also take days and warning beacons being lit still takes time and the army can't just helicopter in. Their fasted forces, cavalry, can still hours to days. Now you do not have the luxury of that time because artillery shells take seconds, aircraft take 15-20 minutes, and trucks/tanks can be there in an hour.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
russians are forced on the defensive against a smaller foe and are slowly losing to them
static defenses are useless at a strategic level
>Part of your problem is you're acting like if it can be breached it's worthless. EVERYTHING can be breached, the question is can YOU and your forces breach it?
and relying on static defenses means a forward defense centered around those immobile fortresses that means any breach totally compromises the whole defensive line
actual defensive formations do not rely on static defenses except for field expedient ones like trenches that are intentionally expendable
the real defense comes from mobile forces
instead of creating vast networks of concrete and earthernworks, just build a highly mobile force
and instead of trying to hold them at a forward line centered around static fortifications, you instead just counter-attack the enemy force
defensive networks composed of mobile forces intended to fall back and give ground to enemy maneuvers before committing a reserve mobile force to encircle the attacking enemy force is simply a far better solution to enemy force concentration
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Static defenses are a big part of what allowed the Ukrainians to flip the table on the Russians. Russia couldn't effectively breach Ukraine's lines and lost piles of men trying but Ukraine can breach Russia's.
>any breach totally compromises the whole defensive line
That's what the QRFs, air forces, and artillery having cheat sheets with targeting coordinates are for. Oh boy, you sure breached the line, looks like heavy rain in the forecast though. (You just triggered my trap card.) >actual defensive formations do not rely on static defenses
They absolutely do when there is time to build them and improve already built fortifications. >just build a highly mobile force
Like a QRF? You can have both and if your front lines are your "highly mobile force" it's helpful to have a static defense they can fall back to if necessary to help break routs and reduce or stop enemy momentum.
Personally I'd rather plan for a delaying battle slowly falling back to a heavily fortified line with plenty of fresh troops and a meatgrinder behind it. Plan out a large region that we can lose if it comes to it and a line where we kill enemy momentum, bombard the piss out of them, and counterattack with fresh troops and equipment. Goal is for the forces ahead of the line to be able to hold them making it unnecessary in the first place but if it comes down to it it should be a tough nut to crack and even tougher to get into and can also work as a resupply line and house SAM batteries and other important goodies. Unless you want only earthworks you have to build it before a battle can happen though, like the GWoC was. Kinda pointless if it's not there when you need it.
Your strategy is legitimately just flat out better for most RTS games and can work IRL with militaries that can actually pull it off. I'd prefer to have a more diverse battle plan for defensive operations with backup plans, like a big nasty well fortified line behind my more mobile forces for example.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Personally I'd rather plan for a delaying battle slowly falling back to a heavily fortified line with plenty of fresh troops and a meatgrinder behind it.
this is better done without the use of extensive fortifications
the defense in depth at kursk was fought almost entirely with simple trenches and foxholes that were abandoned, with the main defense being their armored forces counter-attacking once the germans had committed to an advance
> Plan out a large region that we can lose if it comes to it and a line where we kill enemy momentum, bombard the piss out of them, and counterattack with fresh troops and equipment.
see above: a defense in depth does not rely on its static defenses for anything, often times even simple earthen works are omitted and terrain exclusively used because anything set up is planned to be abandoned as the defensive ring falls back
>
Your strategy is legitimately just flat out better for most RTS games and can work IRL with militaries that can actually pull it off. I'd prefer to have a more diverse battle plan for defensive operations with backup plans, like a big nasty well fortified line behind my more mobile forces for example.
it was literally used by all forces from WW2 to today
the germans planned on a flexible defense in WW2 that relied on the defending forces, their best showing at hurtgen forest not relying on any kind of permanent static defense, whereas the dedicated atlantic wall failed miserably
on their part, the US used a hedgehog defense that relied on counter-attacks to divert german forces
the funnel did not come from pre-prepared static defenses but from simply counter-attacking german forces
active defense in the early cold war, likewise, did not utilize any kind of static fortification outside of the tactical level, because the main defense would come from rapidly moving reserves
and its replacement, airland, would use even fewer static defenses as it entirely forgoes the concept of a frontline
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Static fortifications are rendered obsolete by air power, which neither side in Ukraine has. Using Ukraine as an example of anything other than russian incompetence is folly
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Air power is somewhat to completely countered by use of SAMs and any well prepared modern defensive line is going to have lots of that or it was designed by an idiot.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Air power is somewhat to completely countered by use of SAMs
History shows otherwise. Simply because russia is incompetent at an aspect of warfare doesn't mean the aspect is obsolete.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
The US, which I'm sure you're thinking of, isn't a good example because it has the capacity to steamroll anything in it's way. The US can spam so many HARMs you basically have to shut off your radar or die. Pretty much nobody else can do that. The vast majority of nations on earth are going to have trouble or even be completely cockblocked in the air when up against competently manned SAM batteries with overlapping coverage.
I never said air power is obsolete, simply that it can be mitigated in part or in whole with a sufficiently well laid out SAM network. That obviously depends on who you're fighting as to how effective it is.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
not that anon but tunnels and caves (static forts) are the only counter that exists to fully controlled airspace
Canals are great deffences. River crossings are extremely hard. If you have a flat coastal plain that you are trying to defend, just build a canal and have machine gun nests and ATGMs on the other side.
No, if they are camoflaged, can employ mobility (tunnels) and good at soaking up damage it's pretty useful. Tho nothing lasts forever, you gonna need to retreat or bailed out by reinforcements.
Heavy fortifications are technologically underdeveloped because they are almost as geopolitically expensive as nuclear weapons.
Imagine Fort Drum but instead of mirroring a battleship it instead copied an aircraft carrier, Add in the modern equivalent of WW2 flack towers and you have a small peak at what a future heavy fortification looks like.
Obsolete bomb for obsolete concrete.
Even the MOP struggles against the new stuff from 10 years ago that wasn't even designed for military use, Imagine concrete with laced with the ceramic found in tanks armor and plated with RHA.
wouldn't a few craters on the run way render the whole air element useless?
The stronger the runway material the smaller the crater which could be patched with all sorts of stuff. An extra large CATOBAR runway would still be a significantly smaller target than conventional runway.
Only silo launched aircraft that land vertically could be more physically secure, Which is a significantly more specialized system than even CATOBAR.
A lot of these hypotheticals are best adjusted to add an addendum of >excluding the United States Military
As at present the US is able to flip the table and do bullshit that bypasses existing conventions. So consider a in the context of the Ukraine War, or China-Taiwan, or Iraq-Iran, or Turkey-Syria, and so on.
Any hypotheticals about modern war need to exclude the US from the equation because the US can just break the rules for how advanced it is.
Static reinforced defenses only makes sense if you already have control over the air and at least some kind of presence on the ground. You're not there to be impossible to defeat you're there to be a big enough shitfest to even try to do it that it's not worth it and by the time anyone was successful if they did try they'd be getting turned into a concussion wave in about half a second after they finished.
Yes
The rabbis have spoken
no
maybe
I don't know.
Yes, as are static cities. Municipal Darwinism is the future.
>London is the bad city that tries to eat all the other cities
I dunno if that is just a commentary on the fact London has expanded so much it has consumed other places or just terrible anti-colonialism shit.
London is a poverty riddled pile of shit. It’s 2023, read a book. Things change
>what if cities could drive around but they had to eat other cities for fuel
Just a retarded concept, I was like 10 when I read the books and even then I thought it was stupid.
London wasn't the only or biggest city, but it was much more "cities absorbing/draining resources from surrounding areas" than anything else.
Also just it was kind of a cool idea, there wasn't really anti-colonilism in there, despite the definite bong-left attitudes - the villains for the last half were the Anti-City "Green Storm" (who, to bring this thread full circle, operated out of a massive "shield-Bastion" in the Himalayas, where with air power (well, an abundance of airships comapred to the mobile cities) and static defences they mostly had the upper hand...
is the bad city that tries to eat all the other cities
That just describes modern london
London is evil because it’s full of brits
>London
>brits
>London is the bad city that tries to eat all the other cities
Yeah, that is stupid. It should be Toronto in that role.
>He doesn't think of it as a sprawling big city problem instead.
What do they eat?
Cities
God that was such a fucking cringefest
theyre fine just dont waste to many resources attacking or defending one, but as a concept they serve as a good obstacle/storage
>Is your fortification vulnerable to [munition]?
>Is it cost-effecient to deploy [munition] against your fortification?
If both answers are Yes, then your fortification is obsolete. Otherwise, no.
I don't know
Can you repeat the question?
What would the alternatives be? Any area denial system works better if the attackers are bogged down.
fortifications to protect your command and logistic facilities in the rear: based
fortifications to protect your frontline: only useful to slow down enemies so you better have mobile forces go respond
Underground silos, hangars, communication hub and even maintenance and manufacturing space are becoming even more useful nowadays with cheap suicide drones just flying into your rear elements tbh
If they were, cities wouldn't be such a pain in the ass to capture.
>apologists
There is nothing to apologize for. Sorry for building schools, roads, rails, and hospitals in your nations before granting you self rule?
>Great Wall bulldozed
Away from the tourist sites, large lengths of the Great Wall are just earth embankments, it had bricks once but they've been stolen over thousands of years by locals building their houses and garden/field walls.
I assume that's what got bulldozed, someone wanted a shortcut through the wall instead of driving to the next valley pass or something.
No but I have to wonder how effective Mark 77,78,79s would be effective on them.
Napalm seems tailor made for them but it only got used on jungles for some reason.
Seems like a burning liquid flowing downhill would make a good trench cleanser.
We missed the margiont line PrepHoleino that could of been from ww2 with railway guns and ClF3.
they are still tactically relevant
they provide a degree of protection from bullets and fragmentation from artillery
even a plain foxhole will act as a greater force multiplier than standing out in the open
but they are strategically useless, the presence or absence of sandbags will make zero difference at the campaign level
static defenses are weak to the basic tactic of simply walking around them, and by concentrating all your forces on a single point it makes the defenses too inflexible
so modern defensive strategy relies more on a mobile defense from reserve units to draw out an axis of advance
static defenses existing solely as a temporary measure to stall the advance with the real defense handled by mobile units, the ultimate goal being to counter-attack enemy forces after their goal has been identified
Kek, the very fact that you obviously have some sort of shit covered axe to grind disproves your own claims.
Can you repeat the question?
It's much harder to breach static fortifications when they're manned and people are shooting at you while you try to breach them or get through a breach. Bugmen doing bugmen things to part of an undefended monument should not be confused with breaching active military fortifications.
>It's much harder to breach static fortifications when they're manned and people are shooting at you while you try to breach them or get through a breach.
otherway around
a fortification is extremely vulnerable to being breached at a singe point
defenders are spread out across the entire defensive line, attackers can concentrate at any given point along the line
so once a breach is made, the defenders need to abandon their posts to try and plug the breach, creating weakpoints along other parts of the line that can be taken advantage of
once defenders fan out behind the line, they can quickly cut off the entire line, causing a total breakdown
more realistic defensive lines like at kursk rely on multiple sparsely defended lines, with defenders falling back as each line is breached
this allows them to sap the enemy attack of momentum before committing the bulk of your forces
You can't just drive an excavator up and tear it down then spend a day trying to make a little roadway, you have to commit lots of resources to a notable offensive action. That's the point. If the GWoC was still an active military fortification those two bugmen would've likely had to contend with mines, ATGMs, and rifles (that somehow keyhole at 10 feet) aimed at them.
>he doesnt get it
defenders to spread out and must commit to their fortifaction
attackers can concentrate on any point
the all forward defence means that attackers can negate a vast majority of the defensive line by pushing forward into the operation depths instead of attacking the line itself
concentrating all your forces into a single line of defensive fortifications is only better if you have an incredibly immobile force that cant plausibly retreat or attack easily and are fighting an equally immobile enemy who cant concentrate forces
No, you're not getting what I'm saying. You can't just casually waltz up to a fortification that is manned and active then tear it down at your leisure.
You have to fight to get there. You have to get past any mines or other traps that may be waiting for you. You have to dedicate lots of men and equipment to it. You have to not get blasted by air and artillery even when you get to the wall. These days at least one QRF would be associated with any large static fortification, probably multiple for something as big as the GWoC. That means you do have SOME time to overwhelm it but you can't just casually punch through and reinforcements will arrive fairly quickly. It's also a safe bet artillery behind the line has the fortification ready to be fired on. Air power is unrestricted in it's ability to bomb whatever it wants. If it's JUST a wall with some riflemen, yeah, it's not going to hold out for long. If it's a properly done fortification with rear lines and the whole 9 yards it's going to be a motherfucker.
In medieval times yeah, it's easier to breach because of spread out defenders and no real quick response being available, the defender's army may be days away. But even then if beacons are lit and/or messengers get away the enemy is going to know and react.
static fortifications were only useful in pre-industrial times because no one could move faster than a horse
so it was not possible to exploit gaps in a wall faster than the enemy can reinforce them
but modern warfare has all but invalidated the use of fortifications other than as a temporary measure to stall for more mobile forces to arise
a static fortification makes the line too vulnerable to any kind of concentrated force
any collapse at any point along the line destroys the entire defense
the idea of simply holding a fast, concentrated force at a single point because your static defenses are simply that powerful is a pure fantasy
most modern real world defenses instead defend in depth using only temporary defenses or just forgo dedicated defenses entirely and rely on the terrain with
Have you not been paying attention to Ukraine or something? The Ukrainians have had to dedicate significant forces to breach the Russian lines and the Russians were just outright unable to breach Ukrainian static defenses for nearly a year. This war is now ENTIRELY static fortifications and heavyweight offensives trying to breach them, often at high cost. Russia is unable to stop Ukraine because they cannot reinforce their lines sufficiently and the Ukrainians are using massive amounts of force to breach them. It's not 2 guys, a mine detector, and bolt cutters, and a backhoe.
Static fortifications are primarily to slow, stop, or otherwise contain an enemy assault. Even if they're eventually breached if you slowed the enemy down enough to allow reinforcements to counterattack while at the same time killing lots of enemy troops they've done their job. The enemy will be worn out while reinforcements are fresh and ready to fuck some faces. If the enemy wasn't even able to get to the lines or otherwise wasn't able to breach that's great! Part of your problem is you're acting like if it can be breached it's worthless. EVERYTHING can be breached, the question is can YOU and your forces breach it?
You've got so much of this backwards. In pre-industrial times that was an explicit benefit of the attackers which is why fortresses and castles are a better move. You can march up a bunch of catapults and trebuchets, get through, and surge into the lands beyond while the defender's main army, again, may be days away. A messenger has to ride hard to spread the word of an attack which can also take days and warning beacons being lit still takes time and the army can't just helicopter in. Their fasted forces, cavalry, can still hours to days. Now you do not have the luxury of that time because artillery shells take seconds, aircraft take 15-20 minutes, and trucks/tanks can be there in an hour.
russians are forced on the defensive against a smaller foe and are slowly losing to them
static defenses are useless at a strategic level
>Part of your problem is you're acting like if it can be breached it's worthless. EVERYTHING can be breached, the question is can YOU and your forces breach it?
and relying on static defenses means a forward defense centered around those immobile fortresses that means any breach totally compromises the whole defensive line
actual defensive formations do not rely on static defenses except for field expedient ones like trenches that are intentionally expendable
the real defense comes from mobile forces
instead of creating vast networks of concrete and earthernworks, just build a highly mobile force
and instead of trying to hold them at a forward line centered around static fortifications, you instead just counter-attack the enemy force
defensive networks composed of mobile forces intended to fall back and give ground to enemy maneuvers before committing a reserve mobile force to encircle the attacking enemy force is simply a far better solution to enemy force concentration
Static defenses are a big part of what allowed the Ukrainians to flip the table on the Russians. Russia couldn't effectively breach Ukraine's lines and lost piles of men trying but Ukraine can breach Russia's.
>any breach totally compromises the whole defensive line
That's what the QRFs, air forces, and artillery having cheat sheets with targeting coordinates are for. Oh boy, you sure breached the line, looks like heavy rain in the forecast though. (You just triggered my trap card.)
>actual defensive formations do not rely on static defenses
They absolutely do when there is time to build them and improve already built fortifications.
>just build a highly mobile force
Like a QRF? You can have both and if your front lines are your "highly mobile force" it's helpful to have a static defense they can fall back to if necessary to help break routs and reduce or stop enemy momentum.
Personally I'd rather plan for a delaying battle slowly falling back to a heavily fortified line with plenty of fresh troops and a meatgrinder behind it. Plan out a large region that we can lose if it comes to it and a line where we kill enemy momentum, bombard the piss out of them, and counterattack with fresh troops and equipment. Goal is for the forces ahead of the line to be able to hold them making it unnecessary in the first place but if it comes down to it it should be a tough nut to crack and even tougher to get into and can also work as a resupply line and house SAM batteries and other important goodies. Unless you want only earthworks you have to build it before a battle can happen though, like the GWoC was. Kinda pointless if it's not there when you need it.
Your strategy is legitimately just flat out better for most RTS games and can work IRL with militaries that can actually pull it off. I'd prefer to have a more diverse battle plan for defensive operations with backup plans, like a big nasty well fortified line behind my more mobile forces for example.
>Personally I'd rather plan for a delaying battle slowly falling back to a heavily fortified line with plenty of fresh troops and a meatgrinder behind it.
this is better done without the use of extensive fortifications
the defense in depth at kursk was fought almost entirely with simple trenches and foxholes that were abandoned, with the main defense being their armored forces counter-attacking once the germans had committed to an advance
> Plan out a large region that we can lose if it comes to it and a line where we kill enemy momentum, bombard the piss out of them, and counterattack with fresh troops and equipment.
see above: a defense in depth does not rely on its static defenses for anything, often times even simple earthen works are omitted and terrain exclusively used because anything set up is planned to be abandoned as the defensive ring falls back
>
Your strategy is legitimately just flat out better for most RTS games and can work IRL with militaries that can actually pull it off. I'd prefer to have a more diverse battle plan for defensive operations with backup plans, like a big nasty well fortified line behind my more mobile forces for example.
it was literally used by all forces from WW2 to today
the germans planned on a flexible defense in WW2 that relied on the defending forces, their best showing at hurtgen forest not relying on any kind of permanent static defense, whereas the dedicated atlantic wall failed miserably
on their part, the US used a hedgehog defense that relied on counter-attacks to divert german forces
the funnel did not come from pre-prepared static defenses but from simply counter-attacking german forces
active defense in the early cold war, likewise, did not utilize any kind of static fortification outside of the tactical level, because the main defense would come from rapidly moving reserves
and its replacement, airland, would use even fewer static defenses as it entirely forgoes the concept of a frontline
Static fortifications are rendered obsolete by air power, which neither side in Ukraine has. Using Ukraine as an example of anything other than russian incompetence is folly
Air power is somewhat to completely countered by use of SAMs and any well prepared modern defensive line is going to have lots of that or it was designed by an idiot.
>Air power is somewhat to completely countered by use of SAMs
History shows otherwise. Simply because russia is incompetent at an aspect of warfare doesn't mean the aspect is obsolete.
The US, which I'm sure you're thinking of, isn't a good example because it has the capacity to steamroll anything in it's way. The US can spam so many HARMs you basically have to shut off your radar or die. Pretty much nobody else can do that. The vast majority of nations on earth are going to have trouble or even be completely cockblocked in the air when up against competently manned SAM batteries with overlapping coverage.
I never said air power is obsolete, simply that it can be mitigated in part or in whole with a sufficiently well laid out SAM network. That obviously depends on who you're fighting as to how effective it is.
not that anon but tunnels and caves (static forts) are the only counter that exists to fully controlled airspace
It's hilarious how many people repeated this myth before the latest war broke out and clearly demonstrated they are as important as ever.
The US isn't directly involved so there's no air superiority doctrine
Canals are great deffences. River crossings are extremely hard. If you have a flat coastal plain that you are trying to defend, just build a canal and have machine gun nests and ATGMs on the other side.
Yeah. Everyone knows where they are and they can either be bypassed or targeted.
No, if they are camoflaged, can employ mobility (tunnels) and good at soaking up damage it's pretty useful. Tho nothing lasts forever, you gonna need to retreat or bailed out by reinforcements.
Heavy fortifications are technologically underdeveloped because they are almost as geopolitically expensive as nuclear weapons.
Imagine Fort Drum but instead of mirroring a battleship it instead copied an aircraft carrier, Add in the modern equivalent of WW2 flack towers and you have a small peak at what a future heavy fortification looks like.
>Yeets an old Howitzer Barrel at your pile of concrete
Obsolete bomb for obsolete concrete.
Even the MOP struggles against the new stuff from 10 years ago that wasn't even designed for military use, Imagine concrete with laced with the ceramic found in tanks armor and plated with RHA.
The stronger the runway material the smaller the crater which could be patched with all sorts of stuff. An extra large CATOBAR runway would still be a significantly smaller target than conventional runway.
Only silo launched aircraft that land vertically could be more physically secure, Which is a significantly more specialized system than even CATOBAR.
A lot of these hypotheticals are best adjusted to add an addendum of
>excluding the United States Military
As at present the US is able to flip the table and do bullshit that bypasses existing conventions. So consider a in the context of the Ukraine War, or China-Taiwan, or Iraq-Iran, or Turkey-Syria, and so on.
Any hypotheticals about modern war need to exclude the US from the equation because the US can just break the rules for how advanced it is.
wouldn't a few craters on the run way render the whole air element useless?
Which is why you have air defense.
Which is why you have stand-off weapons
Static reinforced defenses only makes sense if you already have control over the air and at least some kind of presence on the ground. You're not there to be impossible to defeat you're there to be a big enough shitfest to even try to do it that it's not worth it and by the time anyone was successful if they did try they'd be getting turned into a concussion wave in about half a second after they finished.