The Fortress, a modern day possibility?

[My2Cents]

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.

I believe that 5:1 (attackers:defenders) is the ratio of equal quality troops needed to achieve a 1:1 ratio of casualties.

You also need an even bigger advantage in ammunition supplies, mostly small arms and especially grenades.

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.

Cities are seldom demolished unless subjected to prolonged air or artillery bombardment. This should be avoided because the resulting rubble usually provides better cover for the defenders than the builders it came from. Classic examples here are Stalingrad and Monte Cassino.

Engineers are vital in urban combat to breach walls, demolish strong points and blockages, and clear rubble to permit passage of troops, wounded, and supplies. By the time you clear the enemy out of the city there will generally be an several open routes through it that can be enlarged by just shoving the rubble farther aside. Otherwise you will have to supply all your units using runners.

Modern high rise buildings will pose some new problems of course. I used to work in San Francisco and the earthquake supplies included 3 days of food to give rescuers time to clear paths through the 3 ft to 5 ft deep broken glass that was expected to fill the streets. :kar

The real problem with a demolished city are dealing with the refugees and the need to prevent the outbreak of disease, which will easily spread to your troops. :sick

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.

You cannot have the defenders being both dynamic and static. The correct approach is a dynamic defense. The defender needs to use concealment and movement to avoid having his positions fixed by the attacker which would allow him to exploit his artillery and air power advantage. Covered access routes are critical (Short tunnels from basements to sewers and storm drains are a classic, as well as subways) to permit defending troops to displace anytime the attacker moves out of close engagement in preparation to do so.

Heavy armor works better than light armor, or at least according to the recent experience of Israel and Russia. The self-propelled AAA are prized, because they can fire at higher elevation, but typically lack sufficient armor to survive.

This is also where the attacker’s advantage in total numbers comes into play, permitting him to strip personnel out of non-essential units to form more infantry.

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.

Defending artillery needs to shoot-and-scoot. The big long range stuff is too hard to conceal and too slow to scoot to a new place of concealment. Mortars are the preferred weapon because they can be transported on foot and assembled by 2 to 6 men, setup almost anywhere, fire a quick salvo, and be disassembled again quickly and displaced on by the crew on foot if necessary. Truck mounted rocket and missile batteries have also been used, but only survive until spotted, except when parked in areas that cannot be attacked, like next to a hospital.

It is possible with the new GPS guided rounds that trough launchers for single rockets may finally achieve success.

Urban combat is something that good generals always try to avoid if possible. The usual approach is to bypass the city while leaving sufficient troops to encircle it and starve them out. Only if the city is strategically located so that it has to be taken (like Metz) is the direct approach taken.

 

[John Sansom]

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.

Welcome aboard, Kwaigonegin.

I think the essssential difference between a fortress and a firebase is the question of planned "permanence".

A fortress requires a helluva lot of concrete, rebar and the like, all along with subterranean living and functions management centres. Atmosphere control systems would be mandatory, most especially when one's artillery would be completely ensconced in heavyweight armoured anmd rotatable cupolas with muzzles only barely protruding.
Internal transport might well consist of electric "carts" not unlike airport and train concourse baggage transports. Frankly, I would be looking for a sense of damn' near absolute permanence in a fortress as opposed to the somewhat more flexible implications inherent in a firepoint.

Hey....One man's etc......:wave

 

[Beatmaster]

I believe that 5:1 (attackers:defenders) is the ratio of equal quality troops needed to achieve a 1:1 ratio of casualties.

You also need an even bigger advantage in ammunition supplies, mostly small arms and especially grenades.
Engineers are vital in urban combat to breach walls, demolish strong points and blockages, and clear rubble to permit passage of troops, wounded, and supplies. By the time you clear the enemy out of the city there will generally be an several open routes through it that can be enlarged by just shoving the rubble farther aside. Otherwise you will have to supply all your units using runners.

Modern high rise buildings will pose some new problems of course. I used to work in San Francisco and the earthquake supplies included 3 days of food to give rescuers time to clear paths through the 3 ft to 5 ft deep broken glass that was expected to fill the streets. :kar

The real problem with a demolished city are dealing with the refugees and the need to prevent the outbreak of disease, which will easily spread to your troops. :sick

You cannot have the defenders being both dynamic and static. The correct approach is a dynamic defense. The defender needs to use concealment and movement to avoid having his positions fixed by the attacker which would allow him to exploit his artillery and air power advantage. Covered access routes are critical (Short tunnels from basements to sewers and storm drains are a classic, as well as subways) to permit defending troops to displace anytime the attacker moves out of close engagement in preparation to do so.

I agree but what i mean with dynamic is that the moment a attacker is being exposed which eventually will happen the defender can suddenly unleash a mortar barrage or even call in close air support (If available) let me explain,
The characteristics of an average city include tall buildings, narrow alleys, sewage tunnels and possibly a subway system. Defenders may have the advantage of detailed local knowledge of the area, right down to the layout inside of buildings and means of travel not shown on maps.
The buildings can provide excellent sniping posts while alleys and rubble-filled streets are ideal for planting booby traps. Defenders can move from one part of the city to another undetected using underground tunnels and spring ambushes.
Meanwhile, the attackers tend to become more exposed than the defender as they must use the open streets more often, unfamiliar with the defenders' secret and hidden routes. During a house to house search the attacker is often also exposed on the streets, which will make them perfect targets for snipers and machine guns.

You mentioned heavy armor as a key element to conduct a assault to the city or to a specific city block, here lies a problem that the defender can basically make perfect roadblocks out of those tanks as has been shown during the first Chechen war where small groups of 10 up to 20 guy where dynamically fighting trough out the city by using hit and run tactic specially aimed at the Russian armor.
This also applies in a modern scenario as heavy armor does bring a adequate amount of protection and firepower needed to effectively clean out street by street while normal ground forces do their doorbell sweep.
However small pockets of rpg or anti-armor squads will make short work of that armor.
Because every street crossing every corner will be a bottle neck situation where the defender remains static waiting to spring their trap and the defender is brought to a halt making them perfect targets.
However it needs to be noted that if the attack manages to control a few blocks then it becomes a true city fight where the original defender will have to face the attacker in very close contact thus losing the benefit of being protected by tall buildings and structures.
Because obviously like the defender did digg in so will the attacker do the same.
Long range artillery is hard to conceal and leaves those positions very open to air strikes as i assume that the attacker will probably own the skies.
The only real nasty trick the defender will have is the crucial knowledge and Intel to exploit each situation wich will make the static defender dynamic in a counter attack to stop any progress from the attacker.

I agree about the supply thing in a event of a saturation siege aimed at the long run any defender will have a real hard time and eventually they will run out of the basic's.
On the other hand in the scenario i pictured at my previous post i was assuming that the defender would have proper supplies to sustain a long time siege.

Anyway as history does show us a city under siege is nearly impossible to capture if the enemy is determined to keep it and accepts a serious body count knowing that the attacker will lose at least 3 times as much.

Another thing that should be noted is that medieval times have shown that very heavy fortified cities or castles could be captured with minor losses and minor collateral damage as some famous battles have shown that a vastly superior defender still got beaten by the far more smaller attacker who just did cut down supply lines and effective just wait it out.
This tactic has been used hundreds of years ago and still applies today.

But to get back at what you where saying is i personally believe that urban warfare should be avoided as you said however you have to take into account that IF the city must be taken that the best way to do so is to go in and face the enemy at very close range thus giving the defender the advantage of setting the terms of the fight and take the initiative.

 

[mctarmac]

The french maginot line was not a failure in itself. We talked about this before in this thread. It achieved it's aim in preventing the Germans from entering france from the Elsass. That the mobile forces of France were not up to the task (Or better to say their doctrine and C&C) has nothing to do with the maginot line.

With the right doctrine, mindset and command the french troops could have defeated the risky german thrusts in the north. It was not their equipment that prevented them from doing that. Had they done so the Maginot line would have been praised for channeling the Germans into a terrain where the french army could beat them in the field.

Is it really possible to say that the Maginot line succeeded when France failed? You seem to be asking too much of the French, that they are both going to employ static turtling defense, while maintaining the esprit de corps and doctrinal attitude for mobile modernized tactics? The "risky" German thrusts were nothing of the sort. "Risky" would be assaulting the Maginot line head on, instead they took the "commonsense" approach and simply flanked the giant white elephant.

To prevent the Germans entering the Elsass is a tactical objective, not a strategic objective. Frances strategic objective should have been to defeat the German army, period. Such a strategic outlook would have called for (among other things) defense in depth, mobile formations and a probing line of defense to gauge the exact point of "Blitzkrieg." Its not as if the Maginot line even tied up any formations, every last German came through the North, quite frankly, every last Frenchman should have been there to meet them.

Not sitting in the Maginot line.

To sit back and say that the Maginot line served its purpose while France burned is seriously confused, if merely just from the point of view of 'opportunity cost.' How many tanks/aircraft could be bought for the price of all that brick and mortar?

 

[Waylander]

Sure it is not easy to have the right mindset but that was their plan.
Close the easy route by constructing the maginot line and have a vast and capable field army to deal with any attempt to go through Belgium/the Netherlands again.

One part of this plan worked. The Wehrmacht had to take the bad route.
What killed the French was a lack of leadership and the failure of their command and control.

Sure one could have bought nice numbers of shiny equipment with the money which went into the maginot line but one would need boatloads of equipment and men to plug the easy route in the same way the maginot line did. And I doubt they would have reacted any better. The units located closer to or in the north were not able to react properly to the german thrust so I doubt that more units of which most would be located further south to seal the elsass gap would make much of a difference.

The neck of the german thrust was by no means secure but the french were just too confused and slow to react to take any advantage of this.

And keeping the germans out of France was indeed a strategic objective as the French very well remembered the cost to their country which was caused by WWI in the west being mainly fought on their turf.

 

[John Sansom]

Sure it is not easy to have the right mindset but that was their plan.
Close the easy route by constructing the maginot line and have a vast and capable field army to deal with any attempt to go through Belgium/the Netherlands again.

One part of this plan worked. The Wehrmacht had to take the bad route.
What killed the French was a lack of leadership and the failure of their command and control.

Sure one could have bought nice numbers of shiny equipment with the money which went into the maginot line but one would need boatloads of equipment and men to plug the easy route in the same way the maginot line did. And I doubt they would have reacted any better. The units located closer to or in the north were not able to react properly to the german thrust so I doubt that more units of which most would be located further south to seal the elsass gap would make much of a difference.

The neck of the german thrust was by no means secure but the french were just too confused and slow to react to take any advantage of this.

And keeping the germans out of France was indeed a strategic objective as the French very well remembered the cost to their country which was caused by WWI in the west being mainly fought on their turf.

The term "mindset" brings to the critical fore the prevailing attitude of the thirties. The French had built the Maginot Line, had convinced themselves it's very presence was absolutely the perfect guarantee against war and, although still very mindful of the bitter lessons of WWI, closd their eyes.

In Britain, in an exercise of determined wimpery, the government dreamed of "peace in our time" and whispered to each other that, just in case, the Channel would save them. Winston Churchill and a few other contrary thinkers sought total baldness by pulling their hair out in rage and despair.

The immediate consequence was Dunkirk, leavened by the deaths of so many young and very young men in Southern England;s summer skies (and then years of horror).

Sliding just a wee bit off topic.....perhaps that's the eye-opening lesson that needs to be forcefully promulgated today.:flame

 

[Waylander]

Well, I don't think they build the maginot line and called it a day.

Their military expenditures as well as the equipment and formations they bought and created showed that they were still planning to fight a war.
And their equipment wasn't bad either.
Mindset is maybe leading into a wrong direction.

They planned to meet the enemy with their troops north of the maginot line.
Where they failed is to see what kind of tactics were possible by all the new technologies which emerged during the interwar years.

And this broke their back.

 

[John Sansom]

Well, I don't think they build the maginot line and called it a day.

Their military expenditures as well as the equipment and formations they bought and created showed that they were still planning to fight a war.
And their equipment wasn't bad either.
Mindset is maybe leading into a wrong direction.

They planned to meet the enemy with their troops north of the maginot line.
Where they failed is to see what kind of tactics were possible by all the new technologies which emerged during the interwar years.

And this broke their back.

I take your point. However, I guess mine was the willfulness with which France and the UK refused to see (with a few notable personable exceptions) what could happen, regardless of where their troops would meet an invader from the east. The Maginot was pretty much a "blinder" in this respect.

Hitler and the Wermacht worked hard to ensure that France and Britain got firsthand views of German might, then "demonstrated" that might in Austria, a muscle-flexing showpiece, as well as through other territorial recoveries and with something of an increasing bang in Czechoslovakia and , as a final wakeup call, in Poland.

The Maginot succumbed to the imaginative tactics of the blitzkrieg....which came as a big surprise to both the UK and France, both probably lulled into an even deeper stupor by the inactivity of the so-called "phoney" war.

I guess my contention is that the Maginot by its very existence,
and the praise heaped on it by the French themselves, was a major mental contributor to the back-breaking in your reference.

Cheers:duel

 

[Feros Ferio]

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.

I agree with you that at this point in time, modern missile tech and aircraft make a hardened location like a permanent fortress seem like a foolish idea. However, in order for that to be the case, the militaries in question have to all have such technology. If a vastly superior military such as the US decides to set up a permanent position in lets say Afghanistan, the Taliban do not really have the wherewithal to defeat it. Sure they can take the occasional pot shot at it but they have yet to mount a serious threat to any main base (as far as I know anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong here people). For example, most of the casualties they inflict on coalition forces are when those forces leave their bases through the use of IED's and ambushing patrols.

Now, in a different scenario, where both militaries have such advanced weaponry it is a different story. However, the day is coming when missiles and planes will not be these untouchable weapon systems that deal death with impunity. The Trophy system Israel is mounting on its Merkervas is evidence of whats to come. Point defense! I've even read that there are a few different types of laser point defense that are in testing. Check out this link to DARPA which talk about a new program that incorporates aspects of the High-Energy Liquid Laser Air Defense System

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

Though a projectile based system, Raytheons "Phalanx" can already take down mortar rounds. Im sure there are more examples of different up and coming point defense tech out there too. As this sort of tech advances, fortresses may not be a thing of the past anymore. I'm not saying for sure, I'm just saying it seems like it may again be possible. Trade the high stone walls for a group of systems that would make a fighter pilot cringe to fly within 50km of such a sight, and viola! :duel

 

[Firn]

Anyway as history does show us a city under siege is nearly impossible to capture if the enemy is determined to keep it and accepts a serious body count knowing that the attacker will lose at least 3 times as much.

I hardly think you can come up with conclusive proof of such a ratio. There are simply too many variables. Even at Stalingrad, before Uranus the casualities of the Soviet defender in the "war of rats" in the city were arguably superior to the German attacker and certainly very far away from a 1:3 exchange. And Stalingrad is just at the very end of a the scale for the early years of Barbarossa...

And of course the side which is on the strategic defensive can attack and counter-attack more wildly then the opponent. The Soviet example of 1941 and 1942 is pretty good and terrible one.

 

[Waylander]

I take your point. However, I guess mine was the willfulness with which France and the UK refused to see (with a few notable personable exceptions) what could happen, regardless of where their troops would meet an invader from the east. The Maginot was pretty much a "blinder" in this respect.

Hitler and the Wermacht worked hard to ensure that France and Britain got firsthand views of German might, then "demonstrated" that might in Austria, a muscle-flexing showpiece, as well as through other territorial recoveries and with something of an increasing bang in Czechoslovakia and , as a final wakeup call, in Poland.

The Maginot succumbed to the imaginative tactics of the blitzkrieg....which came as a big surprise to both the UK and France, both probably lulled into an even deeper stupor by the inactivity of the so-called "phoney" war.

I guess my contention is that the Maginot by its very existence,
and the praise heaped on it by the French themselves, was a major mental contributor to the back-breaking in your reference.

Cheers:duel

I see were you are coming from.

Maybe we can agree on the French and Brits being relatively blind to the advances in tactics which were implemented in the Wehrmacht despite many warning signs prior to the attack on France.

If they would have improved their command and control capabilities as well as their ability to maneuver fast with their armor and mot forces the Maginot Line would have been helpfull in channelling the Wehrmacht and forcing them to the north were the bulk of the French and Brit forces could have threatened any fast but risky german advance.

 

[kwaigonegin]

I agree with you that at this point in time, modern missile tech and aircraft make a hardened location like a permanent fortress seem like a foolish idea. However, in order for that to be the case, the militaries in question have to all have such technology. If a vastly superior military such as the US decides to set up a permanent position in lets say Afghanistan, the Taliban do not really have the wherewithal to defeat it. Sure they can take the occasional pot shot at it but they have yet to mount a serious threat to any main base (as far as I know anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong here people). For example, most of the casualties they inflict on coalition forces are when those forces leave their bases through the use of IED's and ambushing patrols.

Now, in a different scenario, where both militaries have such advanced weaponry it is a different story. However, the day is coming when missiles and planes will not be these untouchable weapon systems that deal death with impunity. The Trophy system Israel is mounting on its Merkervas is evidence of whats to come. Point defense! I've even read that there are a few different types of laser point defense that are in testing. Check out this link to DARPA which talk about a new program that incorporates aspects of the High-Energy Liquid Laser Air Defense System


Though a projectile based system, Raytheons "Phalanx" can already take down mortar rounds. Im sure there are more examples of different up and coming point defense tech out there too. As this sort of tech advances, fortresses may not be a thing of the past anymore. I'm not saying for sure, I'm just saying it seems like it may again be possible. Trade the high stone walls for a group of systems that would make a fighter pilot cringe to fly within 50km of such a sight, and viola! :duel

yes I agree that a super fortress can hold it's own against a relatively weak and technologically inferior army for a while. Keep in mind also that the fundamental laws of warfare is still the same whether it's 1000 yrs ago or today. A numerically superior force could easily wait it out while the inhabitants of the fortress starve to death

A fortress could only work if the logistics are there for constant resupply by air and the opposing force is technologically inferior. i.e fighting mindless hoards of zombies!!

 

[Waylander]

And we are back to the beginning of the threat.
A Fortress or better to say a network of modern fortifications is not about holding out forever until the enemy hordes have bled themselves dry on it.

It is about channeling and slowing an enemy. Time and speed are essential in war and modern fortifications can buy some of it.
It's not like one puts a megafortress into the middle of nowhere and shouts "Come and get it!".

If for example your border fortifications buy you the time to mobilize they have done what they were build for. If Taiwanese coastal fortifications slow down and channel a Chinese invasion force so that heavy mobile forces can be moved into a position to crush the beachhead they have fullfilled their purpose.

Another factor is cost. I brought up the Swiss before. They have extensive and impressive fortifications. Sure it won't stop a powerfull military forever but it would inflict massive casualties to the attacker. Makes anybody think twice before actually invading them. Defenitely much better than dying gloriously in the lowlands within days while an enemy Corps stomps you into the mud.

I don't really get this all or nothing approach which tends to emerge in this thread from time to time. As if even in the old times most fortresses and castles were immune to a powerfull and determined foe...

 

[My2Cents]

yes I agree that a super fortress can hold it's own against a relatively weak and technologically inferior army for a while. Keep in mind also that the fundamental laws of warfare is still the same whether it's 1000 yrs ago or today. A numerically superior force could easily wait it out while the inhabitants of the fortress starve to death

A fortress could only work if the logistics are there for constant resupply by air and the opposing force is technologically inferior. i.e fighting mindless hoards of zombies!!

Supply by air is good, but if you can manage it supply by sea infinitely better.

 

[My2Cents]

I don't really get this all or nothing approach which tends to emerge in this thread from time to time. As if even in the old times most fortresses and castles were immune to a powerfull and determined foe...

The original question was:

I was paging through some old sites that I used to visit regularly, and the thought came to me, is it still a viable tactic to build a fortress? One that could be deemed impregnable to today's technology just as castles of the dark ages were to the siege weapons of the day?

So the ‘all or nothings’ are the ones staying on the original subject.

 

[Waylander]

Well, for a start the castles and fortresses of the past were not impregnable to the siege weapons of the past so that point is rather meaningless.

A serious discussion about fortresses and fortifications in our time and age has to incorporate the aim one wants to achieve with building extensive fortifications.

Just talking about having a damn big place and putting all the mighty technologies of the modern world into it is just like these awfull threats about having a billion dollars and building ones dream army...

 

[SQDLDR]

The Maginot Line was never defeated.

Not in the sense that it was destroyed physically-however the strategy of having a Maginot Line was. Clearly.

 

[SQDLDR]

Hello all,
I was paging through some old sites that I used to visit regularly, and the thought came to me, is it still a viable tactic to build a fortress? One that could be deemed impregnable to today's technology just as castles of the dark ages were to the siege weapons of the day?

If it were possible, what would it need for a supply cache(food, water, arms) Would the presence of airfields be viable? What would it need for structures to maintain a garrison, especially of large proportions, i.e. 75,000.

Just looking for some imput, apologies if this isn't the right thread...though I would be curious if we were able to design one, just how would an opponent go about breaching the compound and destroying it?

None of the Principles on Sun-Tzu seem to be understood by this poster.
A modern Day Fortress in the mold of a Feudal Age Castle?
Versus Modern Technology, and Modern Weaponry?
Not even taking into account the feasibility of NBC's? (Or Area Denial Weapon Systems)?
Did you review ANY of Americas FB's in Vietnam? They were simply bypassed and harassed.
How effective would your Modern Day Fortress be even if it were a mile underground?

 

[kato]

Not in the sense that it was destroyed physically-however the strategy of having a Maginot Line was. Clearly.

Nah, the mistake was in not extending it all the way through the Ardennes to the Atlantic. And in not backing it up with maneuver forces to then react to pressure on the line.

 

[SQDLDR]

Nah, the mistake was in not extending it all the way through the Ardennes to the Atlantic. And in not backing it up with maneuver forces to then react to pressure on the line.

That idea was as about as feasible as your reply. Check a map to understand what your postulating.