The Fortress, a modern day possibility?

[Todjaeger]

I think the analogy is accurate Bonza. A fortress is simply a position which has been heavily fortified to aid in its defense. One of the reasons for such a thing would be to defend what was inside. While the discussion here is definitely focused on the physical, your thought is an interesting one. Many aspects of war have changed so much in recent history, perhaps a new conception of what a "fortress" is, or could be, should be explored.

The description of a fortress is not entirely accurate. A fortress is indeed some form of prepared defensive position, however, very often is was not done to protect something specific inside, but to control areas or lines of transit and communication. Take a look at some of the coastal fortifications built to defend England by Henry VIII, or the various harbour defences built to protect US ports. While such facilities are obsolete now, when they constructed, the various fortresses and batteries were to provide access denial options for the defenders.

In terms of cyberwarfare, the notion of a 'fortress' in anything resembling the classical sort of definition becomes much more difficult. For one thing, what is the purpose of the 'cyberfortress'? Is it an access control/denial mechanism to determine the ability to send/receive information? Is it a data storage and retention system, with restricted access to said data? This then moves onto the scope of the 'cyberfortress' does it cover a single terminal/workstation? A small LAN or workgroup? Or perhaps a WAN or national/international network? Moving on further still, what sort of interaction does the 'cyberfortress' allow or prevent? Given that this is an internet forum, the notion of computers connecting via a network should be obviously understood, along with the potential for malacious software. What about other forms of SIGINT and EA? Is a 'cyberfortress' going to be Tempest shielded? Or perhaps protected by a Faraday cage to guard against EA and/or RF interference?

It is a complex question (and therefore a complex and expensive problem) with a myriad of different potential requirements and solutions. Which naturally often conflict with each other.

-Cheers

 

[Bonza]

Ah yes, I see the problems with using the definition in the traditional sense with online systems. I know just enough to know I wouldn't be able to answer the question thoroughly. Ah well, just a thought.

 

[Todjaeger]

Ah yes, I see the problems with using the definition in the traditional sense with online systems. I know just enough to know I wouldn't be able to answer the question thoroughly. Ah well, just a thought.

Part of the problem with attempting a fortress defintion within cyberspace is that 'sites' in cyberspace do have a corresponding location within realspace, but distances within cyberspace have little to no correlation with distances in realspace, and the route to a site often has little to do with a realspace location.

At a very basic level, cybersecurity still begins control of a physical location. In this case, controlling/restricting access to the physical components of a computer or network.

A prime case in point nowadays, is the ability to prevent (or disable) the use of USB ports on computers, as that is an easy way to spike a computer or network...

From there, is moves to controlling user access permissions to a computer/server/network, as well as load balancing and... Well, I think you get the picture.

It is an interesting topic, but quite a bit can go into it.

-Cheers

 

[Feros Ferio]

Todjaeger,

If you'll note, I said that ONE of the purposes of a "fortress" would be to protect that which is inside. It is obvious that it serves other functions as well, such as to defend supply lines, etc... Even if a position were fortified only to protect that which is within, it would make it no less of a fortress, would it not?

Also, building off your last post, while the nature of cyberspace is again obviously different from that of real space, if we take into account the connection between an area in cyberspace and its realspace access points, and such a site(s) were fortified in real space and cyberspace, to protect certain systems and information, could it not be then said to be a "fortress" as it would be a position fortified to protect that which is within? What I'm thinking of here is a system which has extremely limited access do to the sensitive nature of the information contained therein.

The reason I ask, is that I believe the definition of a "fortress" is being taken too narrowly here. I mentioned in a previous post that as so much has changed in modern warfare, the definition should perhaps be expanded upon.

 

[John Sansom]

Fortresses are ancient history. They were in world War II. The French had the Maginot Line and all the Germans did was go around it. I don't care how tough you make it, it will still be defeated.

The continuous line of concrete emplacements with connecting tunnels and trenches which met the June 6, 1944, arrival in Europe of allied invaders could well have qualified as "a" fortress....but it failed.

Moving right along, thanks to the Luftwaffe, Stalingrad became a fortress of rubble whose defensive potential was exploited by Soviet Lieutenant General Chuikov.

Berlin might have fallen into the same category but the paucity of materiel and the declining morale of the ever decreasing number of defenders disqualified that site.

Then we move to Hue and....well, that didn't really work either.

It seems that nowadays a moden fortress must first be carefully constructed and then blown apart to qualify as a potentially productive defensive strongpoint.

Just musin', fellows. Just musin'.

 

[1805]

The continuous line of concrete emplacements with connecting tunnels and trenches which met the June 6, 1944, arrival in Europe of allied invaders could well have qualified as "a" fortress....but it failed.

Moving right along, thanks to the Luftwaffe, Stalingrad became a fortress of rubble whose defensive potential was exploited by Soviet Lieutenant General Chuikov.

Berlin might have fallen into the same category but the paucity of materiel and the declining morale of the ever decreasing number of defenders disqualified that site.

Then we move to Hue and....well, that didn't really work either.

It seems that nowadays a moden fortress must first be carefully constructed and then blown apart to qualify as a potentially productive defensive strongpoint.

Just musin', fellows. Just musin'.

You could argue fortifications are just another force multiplier. If the right resources are put in then they can be of use. Kursk was an example where the Red Army’s extensive defences cost the Germans valuable resources they could not replace later.

 

[Jhom]

If you want to see a big fortress then you should have a look on Ceuta and Melilla, these are two fortified cities/ports under spanish rule on the north african coast, garrisoned by thousands of Regulares and the Spanish Legion, another good example would Gibraltar and in a lower scale you have the Peñon de Velez de la Gomera wich is like Gibrarlar but way smaller and the fortress/island called Peñon de Alhucemas, you can check Ceuta, Melilla and the other spanish fortress in North Africa in the wiki for some spectacular picks specially of Velez and Alhucemas...

BTW all those fortress are under spanish sovereignty thus they are EU territory even being in North Africa, plus Ceuta and Melilla can be easily taken as the most safe cities in Africa!!

 

[kato]

BTW all those fortress are under spanish sovereignty thus they are EU territory even being in North Africa

Ceuta and Melilla are not part of certain key EU treaties, including the customs union. Same goes for Gibraltar on the other side of the straits, and a couple other special cases - mostly islands and a few exclaves such as Büsingen or Campione d'Italia.
With the transfer of the WEU charter, Ceuta and Melilla are also not covered by ESDP, being located outside of Europe.

 

[Jhom]

Ceuta and Melilla are not part of certain key EU treaties, including the customs union. Same goes for Gibraltar on the other side of the straits, and a couple other special cases - mostly islands and a few exclaves such as Büsingen or Campione d'Italia.
With the transfer of the WEU charter, Ceuta and Melilla are also not covered by ESDP, being located outside of Europe.

True, they are not part of "certain key treaties" but i think we are talking about fortress, have you even tried to have a look on the defenses there? that is the point of this thread and not the little remark about the EU, in trully encourage you to make use of the wikitrollpedia and have a look on the multiple spanish defense outposts in north africa...

Did you know that between the Peñon de Velez and Morrocco there is the smallest border in the world?

 

[John Sansom]

True, they are not part of "certain key treaties" but i think we are talking about fortress, have you even tried to have a look on the defenses there? that is the point of this thread and not the little remark about the EU, in trully encourage you to make use of the wikitrollpedia and have a look on the multiple spanish defense outposts in north africa...

Did you know that between the Peñon de Velez and Morrocco there is the smallest border in the world?

There is a certain academic and, yes, even irrelevant ring to all of this. I, for one, am a great fan of fortresses (and battleships). Sadly, I have often been reminded (and quite correctly) that my enthusiasm doesn't count for much in the face of modern technology.:flame

 

[Jhom]

There is a certain academic and, yes, even irrelevant ring to all of this. I, for one, am a great fan of fortresses (and battleships). Sadly, I have often been reminded (and quite correctly) that my enthusiasm doesn't count for much in the face of modern technology.:flame

Well that depends who are you defending against, in the north african outposts the only enemy that you can imagine is Morrocco, and todays morroccan military doesnt mix well with modern tecnology

But you are rigth otherwise, as I was teached in the academy, the best defense is a well trained, well equiped, battle hardened infantry unit

 

[Beatmaster]

A fortress these days would be pretty much useless as todays technology allows the attacker to penetrate even underground structures, so eventually if a attacker really wants they will overcome a fortress.
However as WWII pointed out cities specially large ones can be prefect fortresses as each house can be a little fortress and even with air raids they are very hard to overcome and they claim many victims.
So regardless if a fortress can be taken or not it might make the attacker lose its taste for battle if enough people die in the process of taking that fortress.
Theoretical speaking imaging that NY would be occupied by the US army and being turned into a "fortress" then its going to be a really slow and really painful road to capture the city, as every door and window might be loaded with a machine gun or RPG

 

[John Sansom]

A fortress these days would be pretty much useless as todays technology allows the attacker to penetrate even underground structures, so eventually if a attacker really wants they will overcome a fortress.
However as WWII pointed out cities specially large ones can be prefect fortresses as each house can be a little fortress and even with air raids they are very hard to overcome and they claim many victims.
So regardless if a fortress can be taken or not it might make the attacker lose its taste for battle if enough people die in the process of taking that fortress.
Theoretical speaking imaging that NY would be occupied by the US army and being turned into a "fortress" then its going to be a really slow and really painful road to capture the city, as every door and window might be loaded with a machine gun or RPG

Interestingly, claims of "impossibilities" over the years have often proved wrong...or at least damn' near so. Beatmaster is prettty well on the money in his references to the traditional fortress concept and the ability to "convert" a cityscape into a fortress. Where the latter his concerned Stalingrad, Metz, Hue, and even Berlin come to mind (with only Stalingrad able to lay claim to complete "success".

As a side bar, though, the German stand at Metz was anchored in the concrete-and-heavy- weapons-emplacement mentality demanded by post-WWI thinking. In other words, the fortress concept....a concept which brought George S. Patton to a halt at a desperately high cost in dead and wounded US soldiers.Still, the battered German troops were eventually forced to leave their sophisitcated bunker complexes and we all know the longer term outcome.

 

[StevoJH]

Could a base like Camp Bastion in Afghanistan be considered to be a modern day fortress?

Edit: I know its only one line, but I was trying to think of a modern fortress thats actually still used for military purposes. And this is a base, in a combat zone, that is fortified and has been occupied for quite a few years now. It has a large garrison, an airport, air defenses and artillery.

Not sure what else a modern fortress would require.

 

[John Sansom]

Could a base like Camp Bastion in Afghanistan be considered to be a modern day fortress?

Edit: I know its only one line, but I was trying to think of a modern fortress thats actually still used for military purposes. And this is a base, in a combat zone, that is fortified and has been occupied for quite a few years now. It has a large garrison, an airport, air defenses and artillery.

Not sure what else a modern fortress would require.

I guess, StevoJH, what would be needed is active "testing"; that is, it would have to withstand a serious assault by air, artillery, and, of course, up-close "other" ground forces.

Let's hope that said test is not in the offing. Currently, given the nature of the war in Afghanistan, such a test would seem unlikely. I guess Bastion could reasonably be called a "strongpoint" without citing it as a fortress.

 

[My2Cents]

Could a base like Camp Bastion in Afghanistan be considered to be a modern day fortress?

Edit: I know its only one line, but I was trying to think of a modern fortress thats actually still used for military purposes. And this is a base, in a combat zone, that is fortified and has been occupied for quite a few years now. It has a large garrison, an airport, air defenses and artillery.

Not sure what else a modern fortress would require.

A range of anti-aircraft defenses
Anti-ballistic missile defenses
Antitank weapons
Outworks to keep the enemy away from the main fort (Camp Bastion itself), and extend sensor reach.
Deep anti-tank ditches to protect the walls.

If the following are not already present:
Artillery to control the general area and prevent the enemy from grouping in preparation for assaults, and aid in defense
Covered communications tunnels to permit personnel to deploy in safety while the camp is under attack.
Active anti-artillery defenses when available.
(more) Razor wire and minefields

I am sure I missed a few, any suggestions? :jump

 

[John Sansom]

A range of anti-aircraft defenses
Anti-ballistic missile defenses
Antitank weapons
Outworks to keep the enemy away from the main fort (Camp Bastion itself), and extend sensor reach.
Deep anti-tank ditches to protect the walls.

If the following are not already present:
Artillery to control the general area and prevent the enemy from grouping in preparation for assaults, and aid in defense
Covered communications tunnels to permit personnel to deploy in safety while the camp is under attack.
Active anti-artillery defenses when available.
(more) Razor wire and minefields

I am sure I missed a few, any suggestions? :jump

Hi, my 2Cents. You pretty well described the German installation at Metz (which I brought up in my last post). One thing you and I both missed is the ability to call in air.

Bastion, of course has that in spades and, in this day of the carrier, only the most egregiously remote installation may be at a disadvantage in that respect. However, BUFs and other super-far reaching hammerheads along with in-air refuelin capabilities and, of course, remotely operated aerial vehicles can be important disadvantage offsetters. (Yes, I thought about Cruise and Cruise-like missiles, but they may be a last resort in the mix.):fly

 

[Beatmaster]

Iam not sure as i do not know the average death rate in a normal gunfire exchange between a attacker and defender, but iam pretty sure that if a city is being turned into a fortress that the death rate will rise in favor of the defender like 1Defenders VS 5 Attackers or more, just theoretical as i honestly do not know.
Still my general point is clear a city fortress could work.
Because if you take my theoretical idea of 1Defenders VS 5 Attackers then it would mean if you station 100k troops into a city with proper support then the attacker will need at least 3 to 4 times bigger army then the defender.
At least i think not sure here.

Also todays metro systems can provide a vital role in switching from city A to city B making a whole region on massive fortress by connecting the other cities in the direct region to the whole defense structure of the main city in this idea NY.
Even if one of the smaller cities fall against the attacker then the rubble and destroyed structures will make a nearly impassible obstacle for the attacker forcing him to divert his armor and heavier stuff to move around the fallen city.
Wich is again in favor of the defender.
Attacking the city is a pain thats a fact however ones a city is nearly fallen then the pain really starts as the whole infrastructure is destroyed and will make a speedy progress impossible wich gives the defender time to prep and move around.
So given the fact that if the war stays conventional then fighting a city fight block by block house by house will stop even the most powerfull armies in their tracks as this kind of fighting is actually a form of hit and run guerrilla warfare and we all know that this kind of warfare is very dynamic and claims many victims.
And because its so dynamic its also very hard to adapt to it given the fact that armored brigades cannot do much as this kind of fighting will be done by ground forces (with limited amount of light armor support) airpower and artillery.
The biggest problem for the attacker is that the attacker will suffer horrible losses as the defender can be static and just wait while the attacker will be slowed down each block they take as the destroyed houses will stop their progress.
Wich will give the defender the options to snipe the attacker or booby trap them.
Add some mine fields and proper longrange firesupport to the defender and you will have a bloodbath making WWII biggest battles look like a comic story (with all respect :roll)
At least that is what i think.

However a fortress does not need walls or big structures exploiting the landscape can be a fortress as well. Vietnam pops into my mind where the people did build tunnel network with small bases making the whole nation one big inter connected fortress.

 

[kwaigonegin]

To clarify, 75K was a general figure, what I am proposing, is a 'super-base' of sorts. One that could be strategically placed somewhere on the opposite side of the world that could not only act as a military base, but also as the secondary command center for military brass. Also serving as an airbase to effectively be able to project a large number of troops over an even larger area in a much reduced time compared to that of having troops shipped across oceans. So I am referring to a fortress in the literal sense, walls, air defence, bunkered ground defence, etc. I'm wondering how such a base could be constructed, and if it could be, how would you breach such a stronghold?

hhmmmm yeah it's call a firebase! and no it's not practical to built a fortress nowadays so why would you? there are these inventions called missiles and planes which makes a fortress like you describe obsolete.

 

[My2Cents]

Hi, my 2Cents. You pretty well described the German installation at Metz (which I brought up in my last post). One thing you and I both missed is the ability to call in air.

Bastion, of course has that in spades and, in this day of the carrier, only the most egregiously remote installation may be at a disadvantage in that respect. However, BUFs and other super-far reaching hammerheads along with in-air refuelin capabilities and, of course, remotely operated aerial vehicles can be important disadvantage offsetters. (Yes, I thought about Cruise and Cruise-like missiles, but they may be a last resort in the mix.):fly

I was concentrating on the structures and equipment requirements that would have to be added, Bastion already has an airstrip. You are correct that an airstrip for supplies, reinforcements, and casualty evacuation is a requirement for a modern fortress.

Effective air power is essential to a successful defense (air power at Dien Bien Phu was not effective) just as denying it is essential to a successful attack. Establishing air superiority before attacking, the fortresses air defense should be able to prevent air control or it will quickly fall, is almost an absolute requirement for success. But defensive air power should not be based in the fortified area because it would make it too vulnerable to artillery and the aircraft to SAMs after the siege commences, unless the area encompassed by the fortress system is huge, say a minimum 30 mile radius.:wave