The Fortress, a modern day possibility?

[StingrayOZ]

Oh no theres flaws in the moonbase concept? Certainly in returning fire from it..

While we haven't made huge gains in earth to orbit propulsion technology, we have made huge gains in space propulsion. Chemical rockets are history in that relm.

We can make a pretty effective orbit to moon hauller. Using nuclear/solar power and something like a VASIMIR propulsion system. Costs would be 100's of times lower, particularly if we could resupply from the moon.

Really fusion isn't the big problem, its getting off earths surface and into an orbit. From there we can easily move around the entire solar system for extremely low costs.

It would be cheaper if you were building a moon base to build a space elevator and a space tug than to just launch everything up with expensive rockets. If not a space elevator then a really low cost launcher, which will soon be avalible.

 

[Humming Drone]

Oh no theres flaws in the moonbase concept? Certainly in returning fire from it..

Naturally, moon base is just too primitive and limited. A much better alternative is to build a powerful space station. It can maneuver, position itself for an attack, avoid attacks on itself or of necessary destroy attackers with an array of advanced weaponry. It should house a number of squadrons of interceptors as well as elite troopers for assaults on enemies and territory protection. State of the art direct energy weapons should be employed and the entire station can be powered centrally by a powerful energy source core. With a little fine tuning the main weapon of the station will be able to destroy entire planets. Psychological aspects will be covered by the name itself - Death Star.

Clearly, this will be an impregnable space fortress able to fulfill a wide range of missions.

Wait a second...

 

[StingrayOZ]

Clearly, this will be an impregnable space fortress able to fulfill a wide range of missions

Just check your vents... More CIWS around them.

Well if your going to build something for space you might as well make it manourvable. So any decent platform is going to be a space ship.Where does it end.... apparently with a deathstar.

 

[Sampanviking]

I think Sampanviking is thinking too fanciful

Go back a hundred years and tell people that within fifty years time the world will be dominated by large floating Airfields fielding aeroplanes that fire rockets and powered by Jet Engines.

All I will say is that look at where the technology and the budgets are going in all the worlds leading militaries, and you will have to concede that the logic is unimpeachable.
Space is becoming the new theatre and we all know how quickly one thing can lead to another.

Also I'll quote a favourite american adage if you can see it you can shoot at it, if you can shoot at it you can kill it.

As a long term astronomy enthusiast, I can assure you that such an theory is very seriously flawed!

 

[Bozoo]

If I may, I would like to return to the original question. I did, some years ago, consider constructing a large underground base along the lines Humanoid is talking about for the Midtguardian Defence Forces. The idea being ultimate protection of top echelon citizens if all else failed. The base population stipulated to 1500 people.

I encountered the following problems:

First and foremost, energy. The base design took into account possible lockdown for two years following nuclear contamination. This could, of course, be handled with diesel generators. Using generators necessitate fresh air supply as well as exhaust extraction, both of which present a major problem if you want to close up the base from enemy action. Air vents and exhaust pipes are penetration points which would expose the base to outside attack. The only solution I could find, was nuclear power plant.

Next, water. This is simpler. You drill a well downwards until you hit the ground water plane, and voila, u have fresh water.

Foodstuffs. No big deal. 2 kg of food pr. capita pr. day equals three metric tons a day equals 2.200 tons. Not quite 280 truckloads, something a transport squadron would handle in three runs. With the fresh water supply, there will be no problem stockpiling the necessary foodstuffs, although the fare would be somewhat bland.

Waste disposal is a problem. You can rinse water and compress other garbage and to some extent human waste, but you would need major waste allocation areas.

Base defence would not be strong. Mainly entry point control with armoured sluices trapping intruders in closed confines exposed to poison gas/gunfire/eltrocution. Coupled with multiple false entry points on higher levels with CCTV surveillance gives the security troops time to blow the only elevator shaft leading down to the main levels, effectively burying the base under tons of collapsed rock, Final extraction from the base by occupants to be done by computer controlled tunneling equipment, digging themselves out.

At some point in time I imagined a series of such bases interconnected by underground electric trains, each base with it's own mission. The necessary number of habitats, control and communication base, storage facilities, power station and so on. Just multiply the numbers. As it turnes out I ended up with a much reduced facility Intelligence Processing unit, the CIPS, able to support 120 people and functioning as a joint intelligence operations centre.

To operate a habitat unit with 1500 people over some time, you would need to pay close attention to morale. You need sports facilities, cinema, libraries, prefereably a swimming pool, and as an absolute necessity, a central hall featuring at least a two story ceiling with some sort of communal cafe or something, giving the inhabitants at least a semblance of normality.

You need a laundry, a sickbay, a security area with holding cells. I also included a TV recording station for CCTV transmissions. You also need to give the people something meaningful to do.

A major problem would be living quarters as it would be prohibitive to supply private quarters for everyone. I solve this by rotating people into spacious luxury quarters, thus facilitating a holiday feeling.

 

[Bozoo]

Now, of coarse, the reason for the fortress to exist. The main problem with fortress type bases, whether it be the Maginot line, in Vietnam, or other places, is that you loose the initiative.

In stead of acting you wait passively. You may be able to protect your troops and you may be able to deny the enemy that particular piece of ground that you're sitting on, but the enemy will be free to act as he chooses. Sooner or later, without outside relief your fortress will fall, either from enemy action or simply by running out of supplies, be they food, water, fuel or ammo. All this waiting also has an effect on troop morale.

This means that a fortress is a folly, unless you use the fortress as a safe haven and a base for mobile troops. Such bases make sense, and protecting assets as subs, aircraft or even ground troops in well protected, preferably underground facilities is well advised as long as these assets can sortie from time to time to undertake offensive actions.

 

[Waylander]

And again it seems to be an all or nothing approach. Nothing prevents one from having an armoured/mechanized (or light infantry for heavy terrain) force in addition to some fortresses in crucial positions.
In order to stop/delay and/or channel an enemy force fortresses/ffortifications are usefull and may lead to some nice counterattacks once the main effort is located.

An example would be the Golan of '67. The Syrians fortified the whole western part of it. With just an inch of tactical ability they could have counterattacked the Israeli main effort which was in shambles due to the terrain alone. This could have led to extensive losses on the Israeli side. They even had forces available for this but decided to stay in place...

 

[ngatimozart]

Go back a hundred years and tell people that within fifty years time the world will be dominated by large floating Airfields fielding aeroplanes that fire rockets and powered by Jet Engines.

All I will say is that look at where the technology and the budgets are going in all the worlds leading militaries, and you will have to concede that the logic is unimpeachable.
Space is becoming the new theatre and we all know how quickly one thing can lead to another.



As a long term astronomy enthusiast, I can assure you that such an theory is very seriously flawed!

Ok point taken, because you cannot shoot an object x number of light years away in a reasonable time frame. However when we are talking distances of less than 300,000km then the american adage can apply. Yes I agree that space is the new theatre of operations and technology is heading that way. The US Navy is working on an operational rail gun and I think a functional laser as well. Of course missiles can be used in space as well. But it is one thing building an aircraft carrier and another a space based battle station. I still argue no single nation has the resources and the capabilities.

Stingray Oz is quite correct in stating that the biggest problem at present is getting people and materials off the earths surface and into orbit. There is also the issue of militarising earth orbit beyond reconnaissance, remote sensing, navigation and communications satellites. If one nation inserts a combat capable system into earth orbit it will be seen by friends and non friends as a direct threat to their own security and by extension sovereignty. But regardless of that it will happen because a nation will decide the perceived and /or actual benefits will out weigh the detrimental effects.

 

[ngatimozart]

And again it seems to be an all or nothing approach. Nothing prevents one from having an armoured/mechanized (or light infantry for heavy terrain) force in addition to some fortresses in crucial positions.
In order to stop/delay and/or channel an enemy force fortresses/ffortifications are usefull and may lead to some nice counterattacks once the main effort is located.

An example would be the Golan of '67. The Syrians fortified the whole western part of it. With just an inch of tactical ability they could have counterattacked the Israeli main effort which was in shambles due to the terrain alone. This could have led to extensive losses on the Israeli side. They even had forces available for this but decided to stay in place...

If I remember correctly the Syrian high command didn't follow through on their training and launch a counter offensive. They were trained in the Soviet system and that would have been how the Soviet commanders would have responded especially from a position of strength.

 

[Waylander]

They made the right preparations. They had extensive and well laid out fortifications out on the frontline as well as a big force ready for a counterattack and extensive artillery support.

And just as they hoped the Israelis had no chance of flanking their positions. But neither where their units in the trenches able to perform a local counterattack nor did their main reserve force move for a big counterattack. Their artillery was in shambles, too without being able to shift their fire onto the are of the breakthrough.

And all this while the Israelis were in disarray due to the terrain and the Syrian positions they had to break.

The fortifications worked just as the sovjet advisers hoped they would but the Syrians were completely useless when it came to exploiting this.

 

[rip]

I think the first question you must ask about a fortress is not how impregnable it is and then how to defeat it or even where it is located but exactly what is it intended to protect? Is it meant to only to protect itself? If so that doesn’t seem to make much since.

Is it meant like in the days of old when fortress were at their height, to only protect the king and his horde of gold or perhaps protect his assets like a valuable trade rout, a water supply, a useful slave population?

The more advanced a society is, the more interdependent it is, the more there is to protect?


Maybe you need to answer these questions first?

What can or cannot be protected? What is worth the effort to protect? And in the end will it make any difference?

 

[ngatimozart]

They made the right preparations. They had extensive and well laid out fortifications out on the frontline as well as a big force ready for a counterattack and extensive artillery support.

And just as they hoped the Israelis had no chance of flanking their positions. But neither where their units in the trenches able to perform a local counterattack nor did their main reserve force move for a big counterattack. Their artillery was in shambles, too without being able to shift their fire onto the are of the breakthrough.

And all this while the Israelis were in disarray due to the terrain and the Syrian positions they had to break.

The fortifications worked just as the sovjet advisers hoped they would but the Syrians were completely useless when it came to exploiting this.

The methinks the soviet advisors would have been puling their hair out and having thoughts about shooting a few Syrian generals. It was the perfect opportunity.

 

[Sampanviking]

I think the first question you must ask about a fortress is not how impregnable it is and then how to defeat it or even where it is located but exactly what is it intended to protect? Is it meant to only to protect itself? If so that doesn’t seem to make much since.

Is it meant like in the days of old when fortress were at their height, to only protect the king and his horde of gold or perhaps protect his assets like a valuable trade rout, a water supply, a useful slave population?

The more advanced a society is, the more interdependent it is, the more there is to protect?


Maybe you need to answer these questions first?

What can or cannot be protected? What is worth the effort to protect? And in the end will it make any difference?

You are looking at it from the completely wrong direction rip. A fortress is not there to protect, it is their to project. A fortress is a strong point and a nerve centre to control the surrounding area. It depends not so much on its walls (which are as much to do with building an impressive edifice as they are to do with effective defences) but on the garrison it contains. The Medieaval fortress was a physical manifestation of secular rule, government and power, just as the Cathedrals were manifestations of the spiritual.

In the present day, too much of what is described as a fortress, more properly describes a refuge or sanctuary, which is completely different. Currently I do not think that a true fortress, in the classic sense, is viable unless you redefine walls with active weapon systems and Battlefield Management systems which act to block and neutralise any inbound threat.

Today distances are too small and targeting too precise for something in the classic mould of a fortress to exist, although the opportunity may exist later this century as/if humanity becomes a more space faring species, which is the point I was trying to make earlier.

However when we are talking distances of less than 300,000km then the american adage can apply.

It can indeed, although I hope that you would also concede that there is a big difference between an attack due to arrive in eight minutes and one which will arrive next week!

 

[rip]

You are looking at it from the completely wrong direction rip. A fortress is not there to protect, it is their to project. A fortress is a strong point and a nerve centre to control the surrounding area. It depends not so much on its walls (which are as much to do with building an impressive edifice as they are to do with effective defences) but on the garrison it contains. The Medieaval fortress was a physical manifestation of secular rule, government and power, just as the Cathedrals were manifestations of the spiritual.

In the present day, too much of what is described as a fortress, more properly describes a refuge or sanctuary, which is completely different. Currently I do not think that a true fortress, in the classic sense, is viable unless you redefine walls with active weapon systems and Battlefield Management systems which act to block and neutralise any inbound threat.

Today distances are too small and targeting too precise for something in the classic mould of a fortress to exist, although the opportunity may exist later this century as/if humanity becomes a more space faring species, which is the point I was trying to make earlier.



It can indeed, although I hope that you would also concede that there is a big difference between an attack due to arrive in eight minutes and one which will arrive next week!

You have an interesting point. A fortress as defined as an instrument of pure force projection of military power. But exactly how that varies from any other kind of base of operations I cannot see. Though I guess it could be both at the same time.

I guess in my and in most people’s minds the idea of a fortress, if not the fact of a fortress, is something more than a operational base, no matter however it is manned or defended but of course maybe that idea is obsolete.

There is a line in the movie Patton which is said to be based upon a true conversation. Patton wants to go on into Germany in 1944 after his successful brake out from Normandy but he is not given the fuel and supplies he needs, even though he has scattered all the German forces before him. He wants to go on and cross the Siegfried Line and end the war but Eisenhower wants to take Paris instead.

I cannot find the exact quote but it goes something like this “If man can overcome mountains and rivers and other natural obstacles what is the Siegfried Line but a line on a map at general headquarters, it has been stripped of its equipment and is poorly manned with only reserve troupes. Seldom in history has an opportunity such as this existed and only to be lost because of the lack of a few gallons of gas.

The idea of a fortress was powerful enough in the minds of Eisenhower’s staff to change history when the reality on the ground did not justify the caution. So much more powerful was the idea than was the fact.

 

[My2Cents]

There is a line in the movie Patton which is said to be based upon a true conversation. Patton wants to go on into Germany in 1944 after his successful brake out from Normandy but he is not given the fuel and supplies he needs, even though he has scattered all the German forces before him. He wants to go on and cross the Siegfried Line and end the war but Eisenhower wants to take Paris instead.

I cannot find the exact quote but it goes something like this “If man can overcome mountains and rivers and other natural obstacles what is the Siegfried Line but a line on a map at general headquarters, it has been stripped of its equipment and is poorly manned with only reserve troupes. Seldom in history has an opportunity such as this existed and only to be lost because of the lack of a few gallons of gas.

The Allies had 2 major constraints on their war in Europe – supplies and politics. For most the war they could not get enough supplies to the lines to keep more than one front going at a time, so they had to choose between Patton, Monty, deGaulle, and the other armies all the time. Monty won the argument for Market Garden because of a need to get the V-2 launch sites out of range of England. Then deGaulle won the argument to retake on Paris by pointing out that the Allies had promised to liberate France at the earliest opportunity, and threatening to go it alone and if not supported would as the defacto leader of the French to withdraw French support for the continued war effort, which , which would have complicated their logistics problem even more and delayed the end of the war.

The general opinion among the other Allied leaders of deGaulle, even before the Normandy landings, appears to have been that he was an asshole. So they believed that he actually could try to do exactly as he claimed, and hoped that with Paris liberated he would concentrate on French politics and stay out of their way. They were mostly right.

 

[Sampanviking]

You have an interesting point. A fortress as defined as an instrument of pure force projection of military power. But exactly how that varies from any other kind of base of operations I cannot see. Though I guess it could be both at the same time.

I guess in my and in most people’s minds the idea of a fortress, if not the fact of a fortress, is something more than a operational base, no matter however it is manned or defended but of course maybe that idea is obsolete.

There is a line in the movie Patton which is said to be based upon a true conversation. Patton wants to go on into Germany in 1944 after his successful brake out from Normandy but he is not given the fuel and supplies he needs, even though he has scattered all the German forces before him. He wants to go on and cross the Siegfried Line and end the war but Eisenhower wants to take Paris instead.

I cannot find the exact quote but it goes something like this “If man can overcome mountains and rivers and other natural obstacles what is the Siegfried Line but a line on a map at general headquarters, it has been stripped of its equipment and is poorly manned with only reserve troupes. Seldom in history has an opportunity such as this existed and only to be lost because of the lack of a few gallons of gas.

The idea of a fortress was powerful enough in the minds of Eisenhower’s staff to change history when the reality on the ground did not justify the caution. So much more powerful was the idea than was the fact.

The difference between a Fortress and a Base or a Bunker is its high visibility and overt strength. The land fortress became obsolete during the 19th Century, but at Sea they still held their own. The Battleship was no doubt a Floating Fortress and up until today, the role has been continued by the Strike Carrier. ( I certainly do not dispute the effect of a Nimitz Class Carrier making a Port Visit). These ships do all the functions of a Fortress, they look impressive and intimidating and can dominate the area about which they operate. They out lasted their land based predecessors because they were mobile, which not only meant that an Enemy could not build up sufficient force to overpower at his leisure, but that a few floating fortresses positioned at need could do the job which otherwise would have required hundreds of land based equivalents.

Even these however are now at the end of their days, as a new generation of Global Precision Strike weapons are neutralising the benefits of mobility and other defences, thus bringing us full circle once again.

 

[ngatimozart]

The difference between a Fortress and a Base or a Bunker is its high visibility and overt strength. The land fortress became obsolete during the 19th Century, but at Sea they still held their own. The Battleship was no doubt a Floating Fortress and up until today, the role has been continued by the Strike Carrier. ( I certainly do not dispute the effect of a Nimitz Class Carrier making a Port Visit). These ships do all the functions of a Fortress, they look impressive and intimidating and can dominate the area about which they operate. They out lasted their land based predecessors because they were mobile, which not only meant that an Enemy could not build up sufficient force to overpower at his leisure, but that a few floating fortresses positioned at need could do the job which otherwise would have required hundreds of land based equivalents.

Even these however are now at the end of their days, as a new generation of Global Precision Strike weapons are neutralising the benefits of mobility and other defences, thus bringing us full circle once again.

I would think you would have to include SSBN's into the category of fortresses as well. Most certainly they are rarely visible, but their intimidation factor is immense. Deterrence alone is a huge factor because of their stealth and ability to deal out huge punishment.

 

[rip]

The Allies had 2 major constraints on their war in Europe – supplies and politics. For most the war they could not get enough supplies to the lines to keep more than one front going at a time, so they had to choose between Patton, Monty, deGaulle, and the other armies all the time. Monty won the argument for Market Garden because of a need to get the V-2 launch sites out of range of England. Then deGaulle won the argument to retake on Paris by pointing out that the Allies had promised to liberate France at the earliest opportunity, and threatening to go it alone and if not supported would as the defacto leader of the French to withdraw French support for the continued war effort, which , which would have complicated their logistics problem even more and delayed the end of the war.

The general opinion among the other Allied leaders of deGaulle, even before the Normandy landings, appears to have been that he was an asshole. So they believed that he actually could try to do exactly as he claimed, and hoped that with Paris liberated he would concentrate on French politics and stay out of their way. They were mostly right.

Your political evaluation is correct as to why the allied military leaders said they went north when they could have gone east and then ended the war much earlier.

I was giving Patton’s reasoning on the subject which is not necessarily the same as mine. The point I was trying to make was that the Siegfried Line, had by this time assumed such proportions within the allied command structure, which were in fact all out of proportion to the reality of its military value, if they realized it or not. The Idea of a fortress and how it impinges upon the decision making process had great effects in the world than the reality would justify.

And this was not the only example. At the end of the war the allies were desperately looking for a final fortress in southern Germany that in fact did not exist but it played heavily on their minds and affected their plains.

 

[kato]

At the end of the war the allies were desperately looking for a final fortress

That was mostly Eisenhower though. And the commanders of the 7th Army. Not so much the other Allies, although the sorta funny part about that is that ultimately France got the supposed planned Alpenfestung area...

 

[rip]

That was mostly Eisenhower though. And the commanders of the 7th Army. Not so much the other Allies, although the sorta funny part about that is that ultimately France got the supposed planned Alpenfestung area...

So where does the idea of a fortress go from here? I think we have shown that all the earlier ideas of physical concepts of what a fortress has been in the past no longer seem to be creatable. But that does not mean that some reinvention of the concept is not still possible. It has been reinvented many times before. But I cannot think what it could now be.

However, if you can convince your potential opponents, through whatever methods, even though the dark arts of deception and bluster that a fortress can and does exist. And if that believe then causes your oponate to make decisions different from the ones he would made otherwise and if those decisions are then inferior to the ones he would have made without that belief then the idea of a fortress is still a valid tactic in the art of war. Though I think we have entered the area of psychological warfare and not the physical.