Except it does. In a world with constrained resources and limited stockpiles of pricey weapons, firing several missiles just to take out a section of the wall is a huge cost for a very small and easily defendable hole.
the point is that if you want your wall to be effective it has to cover most of the frontline, while to achieve a breakthrough your enemy only has to breach it at a single point
And concrete is free in this world? Not to mention walls have the annoying habit of restricting movement in peacetime as well as war, and you can't build a wall this scale last minute.
>And concrete is free in this world?
It would be very expensive, yes. >walls have the annoying habit of restricting movement in peacetime
That's acceptable.
If you punch through a long defensive line your enemy is outflanked and will be forced to retreat across its length
The biggest weakness of static defenses is that all your investments into them become worthless as soon as the enemy creates a breach
That isn't what was said though. What was said was that it would take a large number of missiles and explosives to crumble a portion of the wall, and the debris would continue to act as a defensive structure. And further still, that one hole you invested all your offensive missiles into isn't going to be enough to punch through because the defenders can concentrate on the breach.
Never was it said that the wall is invincible, and can be defeated by overwhelming firepower and air superiority, but considering only one military on earth has that, it's a moot point.
GBU 28s proved themselves capable of penetrating nearly 7m of concrete and then turning everything after into a thick paste. If your plan is to have so much concrete that it is thicker than 7m and even the rubble forms a barrier then you are living in a fantasy land because a wall of these dimensions would bankrupt any nation (except the US but considering only one military on earth is capable of that, it's a moot point :))
not him but 7m oc concrete is nothing, have you heard of verdun? you could pour 20m of concrete for the price of one sky warden
11 months ago
Anonymous
>verdun
a mix of 1890s quality concrete, bricks, stones and dirt. It was effective against weapons of its era but that was near 100 years ago. >20m of concrete for the price of one sky warden
If you wanted to cover a single bunker or maybe a fort? sure. But we're talking about fortifying a frontline against 100-1000+km. Not to mention the GBU-28 is over 30 years old. Keep in mind that a single gbu-57 can penetrate around 60m of reinforced concrete, so if you'd want to future proof your enourmous concrete structure youd have to build it that much larger
11 months ago
Anonymous
>but that was near 100 years ago
Anon...
11 months ago
Anonymous
referring to it withstanding attacks during ww2, sorry if that wasn't clear
All your picture is is a big wall with a minefield in front of it and conventional weapons behind it. Remove the wall from your picture and the defense cabality of the minefield and the conventional weapons is exactly the same. If mobile army wanted to breach a big concrete wall it would not take much to blow a hole big enough to drive through. All you are creating is minor logistical issue, which given the cost of such a wall is a bad investment. A frick huge trench would be both more cost effective and a more difficult obstacle to cross.
>Remove the wall from your picture and the defense cabality of the minefield and the conventional weapons is exactly the same.
moron >If mobile army wanted to breach a big concrete wall it would not take much to blow a hole big enough to drive through
It would take a lot, actually. And one hole is not sufficient to create a massive breach.
A frick huge trench would be both more cost effective and a more difficult obstacle to cross
Wrong
I'm sorry your idea of a giant concrete wall is so stupid, Anon. If it makes you feel better it might be a good way to guarantee jobs by building it while being a way to funnel construction money into politicians pockets. I guess that is something.
Because the enemy can go around it
And if the enemy makes a breach at any point in the line it compromises the whole network
Instead of building a giant massive line, it's better to employ a defense in depth, relying on highly mobile units capable of giving ground
This allows a more flexible line of defense that will focus on drawing out and over extending the enemy advance instead of trying to hold them at the front
>And if the enemy makes a breach at any point in the line it compromises the whole network
If the enemy makes a breach then they are forced to send their men into a narrow and hard-to-traverse killing field that will be well-covered by artillery and drones.
The enemy would have to spend an extreme amount of missiles and explosives to bring down sections of the wall and then overwhelm each breaching point to reduce the effectiveness of the defending artillery. It's an extremely lop-sided attritional nightmare for any attacker.
>If the enemy makes a breach then they are forced to send their men into a narrow and hard-to-traverse killing field that will be well-covered by artillery and drones.
you keep saying this, but its not going to happen
a large static defensive line needs to spread its forces equally along the entire length to keep it secured
its only good at resisting a broad front push when the enemy is pressuring the entire line equally along multiple points
it fails utterly against concentrated forces because any breach can quickly be exploited
to actually punish the attack requires redeploying men away from their secure defensive works to contain any breakthrough
but this quickly leaves the rest of the wall vulnerable to additional attacks
>It's an extremely lop-sided attritional nightmare for any attacker.
only if the attacker is not very mobile and has no choice but to try and grind your forces down attritionally
it makes it possible to roll up the entire line by a concentrated attack that quickly fans out and exploits operational depths, leaving defenders in a no-win situation
more realistic defensive plans rely on your own mobility and utilizing terrain instead of defensive works
the above-mentioned defense in depth is far more efficient than a static line like the maginot line at drawing out the enemies advance and determining their potential objectives
or a forward defense that relies on highly mobile force that can quickly move up and down the line of defense to achieve local numerical superiority and defeat enemy forces in detail
or the most successful one, airland battle which is to abandon the concept of a front line entirely and and focus entirely on aggressive counter-attacks to prevent the enemy from ever figuring out where the weakpoints in the line are at all
>If the enemy makes a breach then they are forced to send their men into a narrow and hard-to-traverse killing field that will be well-covered by artillery and drones.
no because the enemy killed those artillery and drones previously to breaching
>defense in depth
Very good strategy that applies to everything from war, preventing burglaries and even computer security. There is no “magic bullet” for anything in life.
>And if the enemy makes a breach at any point in the line it compromises the whole network
If the enemy makes a breach then they are forced to send their men into a narrow and hard-to-traverse killing field that will be well-covered by artillery and drones.
The enemy would have to spend an extreme amount of missiles and explosives to bring down sections of the wall and then overwhelm each breaching point to reduce the effectiveness of the defending artillery. It's an extremely lop-sided attritional nightmare for any attacker.
>what is local fire superiority?
If the attackers breached, it’s almost certain because they had way more force dedicated to that area than the defenders. At that point the defenders would be relying on a qrf type force to contain the breech.
defense in depth is a very specific way to conduct defensive war, it isnt a vague Confucian saying
you only use temporary defensive works, or even none at all and solely the terrain, and retreat as the enemy advances
this draws out their advance and stretches their supply line while you relocate to shorter and shorter defensive positions
this gives you time to figure out their intended goal without giving up any units to be easily encircled
the only advantage a static defensive has over it is that it works better with untrained, low-initiative peasants who cant easily relocate
but then in that case, you should be spending your time and effort training and equipping them for maneuver war, not building castles >There is no “magic bullet” for anything in life.
in the context of defending a given area, it is far better at stopping the enemy if they decide to commit their forces in one area
the only reason you wouldnt want to do it is if there is something you really cannot afford to give up to the enemy, but in that case you can conduct a hedgehog defense or a forward defense instead
anything but a static fortress
What's OP literally talking about? We're seeing static fortifications working RIGHT NOW in Ukraine. The less capable the opponent is, the more useful such fortifications are.
>The less capable the opponent is, the more useful such fortifications are.
We could, right now, box Russia in with fortifications, and not a single Russian would ever get out again.
>The less capable the opponent is, the more useful such fortifications are.
This is part of the real answer to OP's question. The other part is that focusing on static defenses requires extremely tight planning and commitment of literally all national resources. Countries that fail are punished, though often more soldiers survive/escape for every km lost, so that's a trade (think WWII Poland).
The more static defenses you make, the more mixed defenses you need (MANPADs, AA guns, ATGM, mortars, counterbattery fire), the more money + public space must be designed around land war and taken from the public. Only relatively wealthy mid-sized nations can even try it as a strategy, so why not spend that money on keeping the war off your land instead?
Even North Vietnam dodged US efforts by dragging the war to Laos. If not for ignoring the norms of war and using grey-zone tactics, Vietnam would be a bloody crater alone, instead Laos and Vietnam split the pain, a kind of prelude to terrorist tactics today.
You can see from that tragedy how fatalistic the idea of static defense is against a "capable opponent," no matter how well it may work long term there will be catastrophic losses of you and/or your neighbors.
yes, and Viet Cong died by the tens of thousands for it, all despite getting modern military aid from Russia (and to a lesser extent China) that caused most of the damage advanced foreign adversaries suffered, like spam 9K32s
the Tet Offensive was a catastrophic failure and revealed that outside of these fortifications not only were the North Vietnamese ineffectual, but self-sabotaging
to make matters worse: the best and only static defense they ever found to work against the US was the paperwork of national borders, as Taliban ISIS etc. have since learned
I think a wealthier fort country like Switzerland would perform much better, but it would be a very miserable way for Swiss civilians to endure a war, compared to having a solid border and offensive capability that prevents encroachment
>Give me one reason why wouldn't static fortifications work in a modern war
You go behind them and cut the road delivering food, fuel, men and ammunition to them. A closed fortification such as the one you depiect is ironically MORe vunerable in some ways than an open one as there are many men in there consuming O2 and if that id disrupted by fire or the ventilation shafts or system being disturbed they all die or surrender. Bunker buster thermobaric munitions and HE will do this. Static warfare died in ww2 for a reason
Is this thread underage zigger fantasies about how their family members will be OK in Ukraine because fantasy Siegfried line maybe? Just asking because they won't they will all die there if they don't retreat.
They did work well. They forced their enemies to overcommit to massive attacks and multiply the amount of resources required to attack. Just because they ultimately failed in the end does not mean they did not serve their purpose.
>They forced their enemies to overcommit to massive attacks and multiply the amount of resources required to attack.
their enemies just walked around them homosexual
That is certainly an effective defense in a 2-dimensional world.
Our world, however, unfortunately has 3 spatial dimensions.
The amount of raw materials it takes to establish a defense you're suggesting here for any amount of land is simply completely impractical. In fact I think it's legitimately impossible in practice for anything larger than a football field.
See the problem with this thread is everyone thinks OP is basing his assumptions in some kind of reality. Instead he has built a wall out of moronium which can’t be destroyed by anything frick you billy even your nukes can’t penetrate the wall also you have to attack my super duper wall instead of going around it because you just have to ok?
Disregarding and the accurate assertion that OP operates on Timmy-logic
https://i.imgur.com/aauuCdn.png
Give me one reason why wouldn't static fortifications work in a modern war
Because there's a long list of issues.
Most importantly: You've put yourself into a reactive position. You don't have the Initiative. The Initiative wins wars.
furthermore: >static
easy to find, observe, engage, avoid >large concentration in one place
significant logistical effort is required to supply this location, making it susceptible to attacks on the logistics train and bottlenecking incoming supplies
+ a good portion of your military is in one spot, leaving other areas lacking, making it easier to just avoid your superduper fort
+ the enemy just deployed a massive belt of mines around your superduper fort and WILL whack anyone attempting to break through
+ the enemy has started bombarding your fort with bunkerbreaking munitions, any exits are also under fire, trying to leave will get you killed
+ the enemy has just blinded your position with a barrage of white phosphorus shells, do you have the necessary measures to avoid massive casualties from it?
To be fair the germans did attack the maginot line and got nowhere near the strategic objectives it protected reaching only the third line of defense before their offensive pettered out.
Of course it didn't help that most of the german army was in belgium and that belgium (not France, french frick ups were caused by rushing to assist belgium with the most mobile french forces) was moronic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Eben-Emael
Let alone the fortifications on the italian border where basically one fort held the italian army.
They went around it because the French never finished constructing the line. Saying that all defensive lines can be simply be "walked around" because of the Maginot line example is clearly wrong and stupid.
Making Germany go around it was the entire point. The area just behind the Maginot line held a huge chunk of the French arms industry, and was thus of extreme strategical importance to France. So the Maginot line was built to make Germany attack through the French buffer region instead (aka the low countries).
not him but > then what happened
the Germans avoided the fortification and it worked as intended regardless of the result of the war
11 months ago
Anonymous
The problem here is the result of the war kind of is the most important aspect isn't it.... Maybe you have some more insight into the positive benefits the maginot line gave the french in the defense of France? Keep in mind that the very expensive and undamaged maginot line was completely useless the second a column of tanks drove just a little too far through belgium. Maybe they could figure out a way to move a wall so all the investment and benefits it provides dont get shattered the moment a single breakthrough happens anywhere over 1000+ km? Ah well maybe you simply know more
11 months ago
Anonymous
> Germany lost > throw all intermediate cartridge automatic weapons in the trash
> Confederacy lost > clearly there is no future for submarines
> Eastern Han Dynasty is no more > gunpowder is pointless...
> French lost French and Indian war > throw away shovels... digging holes in the ground is obsolete...
11 months ago
Anonymous
this thread is about discussing the benefits of HIGH INVESTMENT static defences. Absolutely no one is disputing the benefits of mines, trenches, barbed wire or dragons teeth. This is because they can easily be mass manufactured and quickly deployed and setup, allowing for resiliency in breakthroughs just like the one in France. This absolutely does not apply to the maginot line, and considering nobody has been inclined to copy the concept after the fact for this very reason feel free to come back with an actual argument instead of pedantically hyper-focusing on some trivial detail
11 months ago
Anonymous
> feel free to come back with an actual argument instead of pedantically hyper-focusing on some trivial detail
no thanks.
I get what youre saying, putting all eggs into a fortification basket is not worth it but burying expensive/important stuff under earth and concrete seems relatively "timeless" so I guess its just a spectrum of what is worth it/not worth it
11 months ago
Anonymous
God these kinds of arguments piss me off > Germany lost > throw all intermediate cartridge automatic weapons in the trash
Correct, the intermediate cartridge automatic weapon the german's invented was trash(expensive) that's why the concept had to change into a different (cheaper, more effective) rifle to survive into the future.
> Confederacy lost > clearly there is no future for submarines
Yep, the submarines as the confederates had built them were deathtraps that accomplished nothing. What you're thinking of is a completely different ship design that just keeps the name submarine.
> Eastern Han Dynasty is no more > gunpowder is pointless...
Their gunpowder was pointless, the formula changed over time into blackpowder and then eventually smokeless powder.
> French lost French and Indian war > throw away shovels... digging holes in the ground is obsolete...
This is a lesson in applying the correct defensive strategy to the correct threat, something you can't grasp in your refusal to admit that hard wall fortifications as you imagine them have evolved into the better defense in depth concept.
11 months ago
Anonymous
> typing all that out just to agree with me because you misunderstood the context of the thread
no hard feelings, that literally happens to me every day on here
11 months ago
Anonymous
the Maginot Line was intended to force the Germans to go through Belgium, which it did successfully.
most static fortifications defend a point and cannot be moved - if enemy ignores them and goes around it you just wasted lots of work and material,
secondly - attacker needs to breach your defence in one point (if there is no way around) - and defender must build said fortifications so large that going around is not possible and so tough on whole length that breakthrough is costly. larger the fortification cost of building and maintaining it goes up while cost of breaching them remains the same,
minefields are pita because its easy to conceal mines and hard to retrieve them - if you have big static target prepare for it to be destroyed before attack starts
They kinda work as a speed bump but ultimately air power will just ignore the wall, the drones, and the dragons teeth and attack the anti-air directly. Once the air defense is down the rest of the fortifications can be slowly bombed into oblivion.
You need hundreds of kilometers of wall or the enemy will just go around it, while the enemy just needs to breach the wall at one point. This is not cost efficient.
well since the artillery and anti-air have been vaporized you can
1) drop cheap bunker buster bombs on the wall or
2) drop soldiers and equipment on the other side
And before you make any moronic argument about m-m-m-m-muh expensive precision bullets !!!1! It'll cost 2 much to blow up! !!! you should know that the wall as proposed and drawn by you would cost several billions IF you could even get enough materials to build it (you can't)
They work, look at the quantity of munitions Russia dropped on azovstal plant. It consume their whole logistics supply for months sending shells and air into its concrete mass.
Despite being surrounded and isolated it's critical to having saved Ukraine in the initial invasion when Russia was at peak strength
obviously nothing is invincible, but history, and even current events demonstrate that fortifications and entrenchments can delay/bleed advancing forces for weeks and months. if theyre not prohibitively expensive, why not build a couple bunkers?
Don't listen to the morons in this thread.
It's completely subjective depending on who's fighting and with what.
Ukraine held on for 3 months in a run steel mill down fortress from the soviet union. It held up the Russian army and inflicted huge losses.
It has to be used right.
The amount of people who think that American military tactics can apply to any other war is insane. Desert Storm was EXTRAordinary, if you are any other nation theres no point in even studying it you cant do it or replicate it
Why were they literally invincible, in direct violation of 500+ years of fortification common knowledge?
Every American and Soviet aerial bomb and artillery piece failed to breach them, not a single one was destroyed even as entire cities were leveled around them
you will bankrupt your country and have no money left for actual weapons lol. That said, I support this idea - especially the moat in front of it. Fund it
>Hurr Durr I built a giant castle!!! >it's IMPOSSIBLE to attack!!!
That's nice dear.
Excuse me while I wipe out the vital industry and infrastructure around said castle, pull up and lawn chair, and watch you starve to death.
Static fortifications buy time and beat being out in the open.Trenches and bunkers are effective static fortifications. Effective need not mean impregnable.
Agreed, I don't like how people believe just because bunker busters exist, bunkers are completely obsolete. How many bunker busters are there and how quickly can they be deployed and thrown on all the targets? Good static fortification is still good, even if it's not the most effective method in all circumstances.
There’s tons of examples in the Syrian Civil War, a lot areas were so heavily defended that they ended up getting besieged and becoming pockets. Kuweires Air Force Base is a notable example, also pic related was used as a government military base and helped keep the city of Aleppo from falling.
because if the enemy punches trough on piece of the line or goes around it you are fricked and your 10 gorillion dollar line becomes worthless. >see maginot line
It becomes an easier target for long range strike missiles and artillery.
The point of the giant invincible wall is to absorb missiles
Yeah, that’s not how it works dawg
Except it does. In a world with constrained resources and limited stockpiles of pricey weapons, firing several missiles just to take out a section of the wall is a huge cost for a very small and easily defendable hole.
the point is that if you want your wall to be effective it has to cover most of the frontline, while to achieve a breakthrough your enemy only has to breach it at a single point
I'll just grab a scope and snipe you in the head
there, defeated
And concrete is free in this world? Not to mention walls have the annoying habit of restricting movement in peacetime as well as war, and you can't build a wall this scale last minute.
not him but Verdun was built pre WW1 and had meters of concrete
>And concrete is free in this world?
It would be very expensive, yes.
>walls have the annoying habit of restricting movement in peacetime
That's acceptable.
>reinforced concrete
>invincible
lol
lmao even
Shield is currently way behind spear, im afraid.
Stop, my invincible wall
You do realize missiles can just go over the wall and hit whatever is behind it, right?
What is a bunker buster?
Some shit you overestimate the effectiveness of
Also, even if you manage to cut a hole in a long defensive line, you're still bottlenecked
If you punch through a long defensive line your enemy is outflanked and will be forced to retreat across its length
The biggest weakness of static defenses is that all your investments into them become worthless as soon as the enemy creates a breach
>if i pretend that modern munitions don't work (they do) i can prove my kindergarten tier opinion is correct!
That isn't what was said though. What was said was that it would take a large number of missiles and explosives to crumble a portion of the wall, and the debris would continue to act as a defensive structure. And further still, that one hole you invested all your offensive missiles into isn't going to be enough to punch through because the defenders can concentrate on the breach.
Never was it said that the wall is invincible, and can be defeated by overwhelming firepower and air superiority, but considering only one military on earth has that, it's a moot point.
GBU 28s proved themselves capable of penetrating nearly 7m of concrete and then turning everything after into a thick paste. If your plan is to have so much concrete that it is thicker than 7m and even the rubble forms a barrier then you are living in a fantasy land because a wall of these dimensions would bankrupt any nation (except the US but considering only one military on earth is capable of that, it's a moot point :))
not him but 7m oc concrete is nothing, have you heard of verdun? you could pour 20m of concrete for the price of one sky warden
>verdun
a mix of 1890s quality concrete, bricks, stones and dirt. It was effective against weapons of its era but that was near 100 years ago.
>20m of concrete for the price of one sky warden
If you wanted to cover a single bunker or maybe a fort? sure. But we're talking about fortifying a frontline against 100-1000+km. Not to mention the GBU-28 is over 30 years old. Keep in mind that a single gbu-57 can penetrate around 60m of reinforced concrete, so if you'd want to future proof your enourmous concrete structure youd have to build it that much larger
>but that was near 100 years ago
Anon...
referring to it withstanding attacks during ww2, sorry if that wasn't clear
Missiles exist moron
Invent flawless anti missile tech and they might come back. Until then...
see
All your picture is is a big wall with a minefield in front of it and conventional weapons behind it. Remove the wall from your picture and the defense cabality of the minefield and the conventional weapons is exactly the same. If mobile army wanted to breach a big concrete wall it would not take much to blow a hole big enough to drive through. All you are creating is minor logistical issue, which given the cost of such a wall is a bad investment. A frick huge trench would be both more cost effective and a more difficult obstacle to cross.
>Remove the wall from your picture and the defense cabality of the minefield and the conventional weapons is exactly the same.
moron
>If mobile army wanted to breach a big concrete wall it would not take much to blow a hole big enough to drive through
It would take a lot, actually. And one hole is not sufficient to create a massive breach.
A frick huge trench would be both more cost effective and a more difficult obstacle to cross
Wrong
I'm sorry your idea of a giant concrete wall is so stupid, Anon. If it makes you feel better it might be a good way to guarantee jobs by building it while being a way to funnel construction money into politicians pockets. I guess that is something.
Because the enemy can go around it
And if the enemy makes a breach at any point in the line it compromises the whole network
Instead of building a giant massive line, it's better to employ a defense in depth, relying on highly mobile units capable of giving ground
This allows a more flexible line of defense that will focus on drawing out and over extending the enemy advance instead of trying to hold them at the front
>And if the enemy makes a breach at any point in the line it compromises the whole network
If the enemy makes a breach then they are forced to send their men into a narrow and hard-to-traverse killing field that will be well-covered by artillery and drones.
The enemy would have to spend an extreme amount of missiles and explosives to bring down sections of the wall and then overwhelm each breaching point to reduce the effectiveness of the defending artillery. It's an extremely lop-sided attritional nightmare for any attacker.
>If the enemy makes a breach then they are forced to send their men into a narrow and hard-to-traverse killing field that will be well-covered by artillery and drones.
you keep saying this, but its not going to happen
a large static defensive line needs to spread its forces equally along the entire length to keep it secured
its only good at resisting a broad front push when the enemy is pressuring the entire line equally along multiple points
it fails utterly against concentrated forces because any breach can quickly be exploited
to actually punish the attack requires redeploying men away from their secure defensive works to contain any breakthrough
but this quickly leaves the rest of the wall vulnerable to additional attacks
>It's an extremely lop-sided attritional nightmare for any attacker.
only if the attacker is not very mobile and has no choice but to try and grind your forces down attritionally
it makes it possible to roll up the entire line by a concentrated attack that quickly fans out and exploits operational depths, leaving defenders in a no-win situation
more realistic defensive plans rely on your own mobility and utilizing terrain instead of defensive works
the above-mentioned defense in depth is far more efficient than a static line like the maginot line at drawing out the enemies advance and determining their potential objectives
or a forward defense that relies on highly mobile force that can quickly move up and down the line of defense to achieve local numerical superiority and defeat enemy forces in detail
or the most successful one, airland battle which is to abandon the concept of a front line entirely and and focus entirely on aggressive counter-attacks to prevent the enemy from ever figuring out where the weakpoints in the line are at all
>If the enemy makes a breach then they are forced to send their men into a narrow and hard-to-traverse killing field that will be well-covered by artillery and drones.
no because the enemy killed those artillery and drones previously to breaching
>defense in depth
Very good strategy that applies to everything from war, preventing burglaries and even computer security. There is no “magic bullet” for anything in life.
>what is local fire superiority?
If the attackers breached, it’s almost certain because they had way more force dedicated to that area than the defenders. At that point the defenders would be relying on a qrf type force to contain the breech.
defense in depth is a very specific way to conduct defensive war, it isnt a vague Confucian saying
you only use temporary defensive works, or even none at all and solely the terrain, and retreat as the enemy advances
this draws out their advance and stretches their supply line while you relocate to shorter and shorter defensive positions
this gives you time to figure out their intended goal without giving up any units to be easily encircled
the only advantage a static defensive has over it is that it works better with untrained, low-initiative peasants who cant easily relocate
but then in that case, you should be spending your time and effort training and equipping them for maneuver war, not building castles
>There is no “magic bullet” for anything in life.
in the context of defending a given area, it is far better at stopping the enemy if they decide to commit their forces in one area
the only reason you wouldnt want to do it is if there is something you really cannot afford to give up to the enemy, but in that case you can conduct a hedgehog defense or a forward defense instead
anything but a static fortress
What's OP literally talking about? We're seeing static fortifications working RIGHT NOW in Ukraine. The less capable the opponent is, the more useful such fortifications are.
>The less capable the opponent is, the more useful such fortifications are.
We could, right now, box Russia in with fortifications, and not a single Russian would ever get out again.
they have airplanes and submarines
>The less capable the opponent is, the more useful such fortifications are.
This is part of the real answer to OP's question. The other part is that focusing on static defenses requires extremely tight planning and commitment of literally all national resources. Countries that fail are punished, though often more soldiers survive/escape for every km lost, so that's a trade (think WWII Poland).
The more static defenses you make, the more mixed defenses you need (MANPADs, AA guns, ATGM, mortars, counterbattery fire), the more money + public space must be designed around land war and taken from the public. Only relatively wealthy mid-sized nations can even try it as a strategy, so why not spend that money on keeping the war off your land instead?
Even North Vietnam dodged US efforts by dragging the war to Laos. If not for ignoring the norms of war and using grey-zone tactics, Vietnam would be a bloody crater alone, instead Laos and Vietnam split the pain, a kind of prelude to terrorist tactics today.
You can see from that tragedy how fatalistic the idea of static defense is against a "capable opponent," no matter how well it may work long term there will be catastrophic losses of you and/or your neighbors.
true but arguably the viet cong built extensive tunnel fortifications
yes, and Viet Cong died by the tens of thousands for it, all despite getting modern military aid from Russia (and to a lesser extent China) that caused most of the damage advanced foreign adversaries suffered, like spam 9K32s
the Tet Offensive was a catastrophic failure and revealed that outside of these fortifications not only were the North Vietnamese ineffectual, but self-sabotaging
to make matters worse: the best and only static defense they ever found to work against the US was the paperwork of national borders, as Taliban ISIS etc. have since learned
I think a wealthier fort country like Switzerland would perform much better, but it would be a very miserable way for Swiss civilians to endure a war, compared to having a solid border and offensive capability that prevents encroachment
>Give me one reason why wouldn't static fortifications work in a modern war
You go behind them and cut the road delivering food, fuel, men and ammunition to them. A closed fortification such as the one you depiect is ironically MORe vunerable in some ways than an open one as there are many men in there consuming O2 and if that id disrupted by fire or the ventilation shafts or system being disturbed they all die or surrender. Bunker buster thermobaric munitions and HE will do this. Static warfare died in ww2 for a reason
>Static warfare died in ww2 for a reason
Iran-Iraq conflict: am I a joke to you?
Is this thread underage zigger fantasies about how their family members will be OK in Ukraine because fantasy Siegfried line maybe? Just asking because they won't they will all die there if they don't retreat.
They do work which is why people build them?
>Give me one reason why wouldn't static fortifications work in a modern war
because they worked so well for germans and french?
They did work well. They forced their enemies to overcommit to massive attacks and multiply the amount of resources required to attack. Just because they ultimately failed in the end does not mean they did not serve their purpose.
>They forced their enemies to overcommit to massive attacks and multiply the amount of resources required to attack.
their enemies just walked around them homosexual
>outing yourself as a tourist
moron doesn't know about atlantic wall and maginot line
That is certainly an effective defense in a 2-dimensional world.
Our world, however, unfortunately has 3 spatial dimensions.
The amount of raw materials it takes to establish a defense you're suggesting here for any amount of land is simply completely impractical. In fact I think it's legitimately impossible in practice for anything larger than a football field.
See the problem with this thread is everyone thinks OP is basing his assumptions in some kind of reality. Instead he has built a wall out of moronium which can’t be destroyed by anything frick you billy even your nukes can’t penetrate the wall also you have to attack my super duper wall instead of going around it because you just have to ok?
Disregarding and the accurate assertion that OP operates on Timmy-logic
Because there's a long list of issues.
Most importantly: You've put yourself into a reactive position. You don't have the Initiative. The Initiative wins wars.
furthermore:
>static
easy to find, observe, engage, avoid
>large concentration in one place
significant logistical effort is required to supply this location, making it susceptible to attacks on the logistics train and bottlenecking incoming supplies
+ a good portion of your military is in one spot, leaving other areas lacking, making it easier to just avoid your superduper fort
+ the enemy just deployed a massive belt of mines around your superduper fort and WILL whack anyone attempting to break through
+ the enemy has started bombarding your fort with bunkerbreaking munitions, any exits are also under fire, trying to leave will get you killed
+ the enemy has just blinded your position with a barrage of white phosphorus shells, do you have the necessary measures to avoid massive casualties from it?
surely no army made use of those tactics in early summer of 1940, somewhere around central europe?
To be fair the germans did attack the maginot line and got nowhere near the strategic objectives it protected reaching only the third line of defense before their offensive pettered out.
Of course it didn't help that most of the german army was in belgium and that belgium (not France, french frick ups were caused by rushing to assist belgium with the most mobile french forces) was moronic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Eben-Emael
Let alone the fortifications on the italian border where basically one fort held the italian army.
nukes
You are trying to re invent the maginot line at an age where cruise missiles and bunker buster are available.
maginot line was never defeated
It didn't need to be defeated. The Germans simply went around it. Fixed fortifications are monuments to man's stupidity.
They went around it because the French never finished constructing the line. Saying that all defensive lines can be simply be "walked around" because of the Maginot line example is clearly wrong and stupid.
Making Germany go around it was the entire point. The area just behind the Maginot line held a huge chunk of the French arms industry, and was thus of extreme strategical importance to France. So the Maginot line was built to make Germany attack through the French buffer region instead (aka the low countries).
And then what happened?
not him but
> then what happened
the Germans avoided the fortification and it worked as intended regardless of the result of the war
The problem here is the result of the war kind of is the most important aspect isn't it.... Maybe you have some more insight into the positive benefits the maginot line gave the french in the defense of France? Keep in mind that the very expensive and undamaged maginot line was completely useless the second a column of tanks drove just a little too far through belgium. Maybe they could figure out a way to move a wall so all the investment and benefits it provides dont get shattered the moment a single breakthrough happens anywhere over 1000+ km? Ah well maybe you simply know more
> Germany lost
> throw all intermediate cartridge automatic weapons in the trash
> Confederacy lost
> clearly there is no future for submarines
> Eastern Han Dynasty is no more
> gunpowder is pointless...
> French lost French and Indian war
> throw away shovels... digging holes in the ground is obsolete...
this thread is about discussing the benefits of HIGH INVESTMENT static defences. Absolutely no one is disputing the benefits of mines, trenches, barbed wire or dragons teeth. This is because they can easily be mass manufactured and quickly deployed and setup, allowing for resiliency in breakthroughs just like the one in France. This absolutely does not apply to the maginot line, and considering nobody has been inclined to copy the concept after the fact for this very reason feel free to come back with an actual argument instead of pedantically hyper-focusing on some trivial detail
> feel free to come back with an actual argument instead of pedantically hyper-focusing on some trivial detail
no thanks.
I get what youre saying, putting all eggs into a fortification basket is not worth it but burying expensive/important stuff under earth and concrete seems relatively "timeless" so I guess its just a spectrum of what is worth it/not worth it
God these kinds of arguments piss me off
> Germany lost
> throw all intermediate cartridge automatic weapons in the trash
Correct, the intermediate cartridge automatic weapon the german's invented was trash(expensive) that's why the concept had to change into a different (cheaper, more effective) rifle to survive into the future.
> Confederacy lost
> clearly there is no future for submarines
Yep, the submarines as the confederates had built them were deathtraps that accomplished nothing. What you're thinking of is a completely different ship design that just keeps the name submarine.
> Eastern Han Dynasty is no more
> gunpowder is pointless...
Their gunpowder was pointless, the formula changed over time into blackpowder and then eventually smokeless powder.
> French lost French and Indian war
> throw away shovels... digging holes in the ground is obsolete...
This is a lesson in applying the correct defensive strategy to the correct threat, something you can't grasp in your refusal to admit that hard wall fortifications as you imagine them have evolved into the better defense in depth concept.
> typing all that out just to agree with me because you misunderstood the context of the thread
no hard feelings, that literally happens to me every day on here
the Maginot Line was intended to force the Germans to go through Belgium, which it did successfully.
Just nuke behind the wall, and then the wall can keep the mutants contained.
most static fortifications defend a point and cannot be moved - if enemy ignores them and goes around it you just wasted lots of work and material,
secondly - attacker needs to breach your defence in one point (if there is no way around) - and defender must build said fortifications so large that going around is not possible and so tough on whole length that breakthrough is costly. larger the fortification cost of building and maintaining it goes up while cost of breaching them remains the same,
minefields are pita because its easy to conceal mines and hard to retrieve them - if you have big static target prepare for it to be destroyed before attack starts
They kinda work as a speed bump but ultimately air power will just ignore the wall, the drones, and the dragons teeth and attack the anti-air directly. Once the air defense is down the rest of the fortifications can be slowly bombed into oblivion.
You need hundreds of kilometers of wall or the enemy will just go around it, while the enemy just needs to breach the wall at one point. This is not cost efficient.
airplanes exist
most of us learned this lesson 80 years ago, you're a little behind
>*blocks your path*
This is the point. Absorb multiple hits from enemy missiles so that they aren't fired elsewhere. The rubble continues to act as a defensive structure.
Have you perhaps considered that missiles and artillery can go OVER the wall? This might take some real brain power to fully understand
That doesn't allow you to occupy across the wall, just blow up random shit until you run out of bullets.
well since the artillery and anti-air have been vaporized you can
1) drop cheap bunker buster bombs on the wall or
2) drop soldiers and equipment on the other side
And before you make any moronic argument about m-m-m-m-muh expensive precision bullets !!!1! It'll cost 2 much to blow up! !!! you should know that the wall as proposed and drawn by you would cost several billions IF you could even get enough materials to build it (you can't)
They work, look at the quantity of munitions Russia dropped on azovstal plant. It consume their whole logistics supply for months sending shells and air into its concrete mass.
Despite being surrounded and isolated it's critical to having saved Ukraine in the initial invasion when Russia was at peak strength
>Giant extremely expensive steel and concrete fortress
>just go around it lmao
obviously nothing is invincible, but history, and even current events demonstrate that fortifications and entrenchments can delay/bleed advancing forces for weeks and months. if theyre not prohibitively expensive, why not build a couple bunkers?
They seem to work pretty well in ukraine
why not instead of huge wall instead put a lava lake
Don't listen to the morons in this thread.
It's completely subjective depending on who's fighting and with what.
Ukraine held on for 3 months in a run steel mill down fortress from the soviet union. It held up the Russian army and inflicted huge losses.
It has to be used right.
Surely if you want a missile sponge better to build it of something that will absorb the explosion
Spend entire gdp to build a 5 story 80ft wide wall round entire nation.
>ctrl+F "SEAD"
>0 results
The amount of people who think that American military tactics can apply to any other war is insane. Desert Storm was EXTRAordinary, if you are any other nation theres no point in even studying it you cant do it or replicate it
Why were they literally invincible, in direct violation of 500+ years of fortification common knowledge?
Every American and Soviet aerial bomb and artillery piece failed to breach them, not a single one was destroyed even as entire cities were leveled around them
because they were built to withstand a direct hit
it's just reinforced concrete
So you agree then that if you were to make a wall out of WWII German Flaktowers then you would have an undefeatable defensive line?
is your wall protecting an area that encompasses like 2 square kilometers? Building those things is expensive
No, it protects a 1000km border. Just like this.
you will bankrupt your country and have no money left for actual weapons lol. That said, I support this idea - especially the moat in front of it. Fund it
fixed the background for you cause im autistic
because you can destroy your enemy's ability to fight by hitting soft targets and starving out the hard ones of material and manpower.
>Hurr Durr I built a giant castle!!!
>it's IMPOSSIBLE to attack!!!
That's nice dear.
Excuse me while I wipe out the vital industry and infrastructure around said castle, pull up and lawn chair, and watch you starve to death.
it doesn't even slow down kaiju
Dude, check out the Battle of Fort Eben-Emael.
A few clever and well trained paratroopers can defeat a mountain fortress filled with 1000+ troops
https://www.historynet.com/hitlers-secret-attack-on-the-worlds-largest-fort/
The wall blocks the radar horizon effectively making you blind.
there's nothing wrong with static fortifications as long as you are not fighting the United States directly.
Static fortifications buy time and beat being out in the open.Trenches and bunkers are effective static fortifications. Effective need not mean impregnable.
Agreed, I don't like how people believe just because bunker busters exist, bunkers are completely obsolete. How many bunker busters are there and how quickly can they be deployed and thrown on all the targets? Good static fortification is still good, even if it's not the most effective method in all circumstances.
because they don't make much money for the arms dealers
There’s tons of examples in the Syrian Civil War, a lot areas were so heavily defended that they ended up getting besieged and becoming pockets. Kuweires Air Force Base is a notable example, also pic related was used as a government military base and helped keep the city of Aleppo from falling.
because if the enemy punches trough on piece of the line or goes around it you are fricked and your 10 gorillion dollar line becomes worthless.
>see maginot line