The Fortress, a modern day possibility?

[SQDLDR]

The purpose of the Swiss fortifications is delay. There are only a couple routes into the country. By the time you battle past the forts those routes will be demolished. And some of those forts are situated so that if you take them out with airpower you have just demolished the road/track/tunnel yourself.

At that point your only alternatives are going in with airborne infantry, paratroops, or mountain troops on foot. They will be in a country where everyone between 16 and 60 is in the reserves, trains regularly, and by law keeps a full auto capable battle rifle in the house, with ammo.

Geography make the whole country a fortress. The fortifications mentioned previously are only the outworks, the Alps are the castle walls surrounding the keep of the Central Plateau. And do not even think of using nukes, or the fallout will poison the headwaters of most the major rivers of central Europe.

So what you are saying is that you agree with me?
Switzerland is a poor example of this topic. The idea is that a SP such as The USA, or China would be able to fabricate a "SuperFortress" on/in another part of the world, and have it withstand another country's attacks, or thwart significantly the attackers ability to overrun the terrain it is occupying. Anyone who chooses to invade Switz. obviously has little regard for the safety of the "headwaters", nor the picturesque vistas, nor realizes the value of bypassing the terrain.
The concept of a Superfortress, is rendered ancient by Modern Weapon Systems and Air Power. Unless you have the technological ability to build massive underground complexes in other parts of the world. I pointed out the importance of Diego Garcia to some of the respondants in this forum. It acts in part as an Advanced American "SuperFortress" as stipulated by the original poster; tho some other posters feel that it lacks one or two capabilities to qualify it as such. (Tho I would beg to differ-yet that seems to be a topic for another thread).
If you were a minor power, then perhaps it would be important- ie., Columbia vs. Ecuador-whereas they both could benefit from a SF in the jungle near the border of their respective frontiers'.
However if the conflict grew into a Unlimited Conventional Modern War by inducing those countries allies (which both happen to be allied with the USA and signatories to the OAS) their "war" would be a regional conflict that -IMO- be over in a matter of days, or weeks. If the USA had to go down there and battle either, would their "forts" prevent us from doing so? I think not.

 

[Knjaz]

The purpose of the Swiss fortifications is delay. There are only a couple routes into the country. By the time you battle past the forts those routes will be demolished. And some of those forts are situated so that if you take them out with airpower you have just demolished the road/track/tunnel yourself.

At that point your only alternatives are going in with airborne infantry, paratroops, or mountain troops on foot. They will be in a country where everyone between 16 and 60 is in the reserves, trains regularly, and by law keeps a full auto capable battle rifle in the house, with ammo.

Geography make the whole country a fortress. The fortifications mentioned previously are only the outworks, the Alps are the castle walls surrounding the keep of the Central Plateau. And do not even think of using nukes, or the fallout will poison the headwaters of most the major rivers of central Europe.

Well, actually, at times when those were built, their potential enemy had up to 12 (or was it 17?) nukes available to a Division on the direction of main assault per day. I doubt anyone was concerned about how it could affect the ecology of the region in that kind of war.
Although, in a local/regioal conventional conflict these things would no doubt work.
Question with fortresses is simple - against who are you going to use it, and in what circumstances? And then analyze if it can do it's worth it. Basically same as with any other type of equipment, be it a rifle or an SSBN.
So, IMO, kinda useless thing against a technologically developed enemy. Not so, in third world countries. (but even there, if enemy has significant amounts of artillery available, it's better to just create heavily fortified position (dunno to precisely translate "укрепрайон" to english), otherwise he'll give you hell)

 

[rip]

Well, actually, at times when those were built, their potential enemy had up to 12 (or was it 17?) nukes available to a Division on the direction of main assault per day. I doubt anyone was concerned about how it could affect the ecology of the region in that kind of war.
Although, in a local/regioal conventional conflict these things would no doubt work.
Question with fortresses is simple - against who are you going to use it, and in what circumstances? And then analyze if it can do it's worth it. Basically same as with any other type of equipment, be it a rifle or an SSBN.
So, IMO, kinda useless thing against a technologically developed enemy. Not so, in third world countries. (but even there, if enemy has significant amounts of artillery available, it's better to just create heavily fortified position (dunno to precisely translate "укрепрайон" to english), otherwise he'll give you hell)

Perhaps we are all looking at this in the wrong way. The primary obstacle to be overcome beyond the opponents’ military forces themselves are geographical. Be they mountains, rivers, oceans, deserts, islands, or even vast the uninterrupted grass covered plains without any cover to hide in with all the health and logistical problems that each geography creates.

Classically what is a fortress but a form of concentrated modified landscape? First you take whatever advantage you find on the ground, the ground which you must fight upon if you have the choice and then enhance that advantage to take the max advantage it gives you, while decreeing its deficiencies.

As we have debated this idea of a fortress among us, each of us has had in their own minds a different geography and so it is not surprising that we have come up with different ways to defend and attack that geography. Perhaps we have never been on the same page?

I am willing to bet that the greatest advantage that can be gained with the creation of a fortress is not a physical one at all. The greatest advantage is when you can create a barrier within your opponent’s mind of such seemingly insurmountable difficulty that its very presence defeats the imagination of you enemy, thus decreasing within his mind, his perceived options to act.

I say imagination simply because any physical barriers can be breached if you have the will, the resources, the time, and the belief you can do so. But there is no guarantee that you have what it takes, ether mentally or physically.

so to answer the question are fortress a modern day possibility? Since we human beings are creatures of the imagination as of anything else, fortress will always be possible but in the end they are as ephemeral as any human dream.

 

[Shock]

the only way that i can see a modern day "fortress" is a heavily fortified bunker system accompanied by an extensive anti-aircraft/anti-missile installations.

the air aspect needs to be dealt with otherwise a force can just drop bombs or launch missiles and completely demolish a surface or underground fortress.

 

[My2Cents]

Anyone who chooses to invade Switz. obviously has little regard for the safety of the "headwaters", nor the picturesque vistas, nor realizes the value of bypassing the terrain.

Subsurface detonation of nuclear weapons (we are talking about destroying deep fortresses) in Switzerland would contaminate the headwaters of the Rhine, Inn, Ticino and Rhone rivers with fallout. The fallout would spread downstream contaminating the rest of the river basin and rendering most of Germany, all of the Netherlands and Belgium, southeastern France, and northern Italy uninhabitable. Prevailing winds would most likely do the same for the rest of France and Spain. So you are making 2/3rds of Europe uninhabitable to destroy Switzerland. Presumably none of those countries were your allies and you had no plans relying on their economic viability.

So what you are saying is that you agree with me?
Switzerland is a poor example of this topic. The idea is that a SP such as The USA, or China would be able to fabricate a "SuperFortress" on/in another part of the world, and have it withstand another country's attacks, or thwart significantly the attackers ability to overrun the terrain it is occupying.
The concept of a Superfortress, is rendered ancient by Modern Weapon Systems and Air Power. Unless you have the technological ability to build massive underground complexes in other parts of the world. I pointed out the importance of Diego Garcia to some of the respondants in this forum. It acts in part as an Advanced American "SuperFortress" as stipulated by the original poster; tho some other posters feel that it lacks one or two capabilities to qualify it as such. (Tho I would beg to differ-yet that seems to be a topic for another thread).

I was the one that felt that Diego Garcia lacked the ability to support super hard bunkers.

You need good rock for the underground bunkers, preferably granite, so atolls should be ruled out. Natural drainage should be another requirement, so a bunker on an island fortress cannot be below the mean sea level, need some good elevation. That’s 2 strikes against Diego Garcia.

Did you check out Auckland Island?

 

[kato]

Well, actually, at times when those were built, their potential enemy had up to 12 (or was it 17?) nukes available to a Division on the direction of main assault per day.

When the Swiss fortifications were originally built there were no nukes. The postwar construction just expanded the Reduit; in 1953 the concept shifted to a deep defense doctrine also encompassing the area outside the Reduit.

 

[ngatimozart]

Did you check out Auckland Island?

Do you really want Auckland Island? First since its sovereign New Zealand territory no nukes allowed. I've read the Sun Tzu Ping Fa too and with regard to Auckland Island, it's not overly large and no real harbours and no shelter. It is in an area that is continually windswept. The westerly wind blows around the Great Southern Ocean with no land to break it up. The area between 50 degrees south and 60 degrees South is not called the Furious Fifties for nothing. The climate is cold and colder and wet and wetter. The Auckland Islands are one of the few very small lumps of rock between New Zealand and Antarctica.

Then there are the logistics issues. Everything would have to be shipped in by sea. The prevailing conditions would make that a hazardous operation on a good day. Again because of the long fetch (circumference of the planet at 50 degrees south) 10 metre seas are not uncommon.

Now if I was to build a fort it would be in Fiordland, the south west portion of the South Island New Zealand. The area is mountainous being part of the Southern Alps. Plenty of deep (300 metre) fiords for sheltered harbours. The rock is gneiss and grandordirite just about as hard as diamond. When the second tail race tunnel for the Manapouri was drilled in 2001 -2005 they used a drilling machine same as the one used in the Chunnel between France and England. The one used at Manapouri was most powerful in the world and they stalled it because the rock was to hard for it. Only time one of those machines has ever been stalled. They were replacing diamond drill bits three times faster than planned. Yes a command and control centre 200 metres or 300 metres beneath the lake there would be pretty close to impregnable. We have a powerhouse carved into the rock and that's 200 metres below the lake level.

 

[My2Cents]

Do you really want Auckland Island? First since its sovereign New Zealand territory no nukes allowed. I've read the Sun Tzu Ping Fa too and with regard to Auckland Island, it's not overly large and no real harbours and no shelter. It is in an area that is continually windswept. The westerly wind blows around the Great Southern Ocean with no land to break it up. The area between 50 degrees south and 60 degrees South is not called the Furious Fifties for nothing. The climate is cold and colder and wet and wetter. The Auckland Islands are one of the few very small lumps of rock between New Zealand and Antarctica.

Then there are the logistics issues. Everything would have to be shipped in by sea. The prevailing conditions would make that a hazardous operation on a good day. Again because of the long fetch (circumference of the planet at 50 degrees south) 10 metre seas are not uncommon.

I was suggested Auckland Island as a better choice than Diego Garcia for a super fortress.
-- Auckland Island is much larger than Diego Garcia
-- Auckland Island is solid granite with mountains to put deep bunkers under, not a low lying coral reef like Diego Garcia.
-- There are several spots that offer good anchorages, but there is no good access to the interior at Auckland Island. The problem is that the shore is nearly vertical. You would need to use tunnels from the pier side or build an underground harbor to bring in supplies. Plus another one for the submarines, of course. :idea2
-- If you based the defenses on a system of tunnels and remote firing positions this place would make Iwo Jima look like a picnic. They would need to reactivate a battleship to supply effective fire support capable of smashing that rock. Diego Garcia would be nearly impossible to defend.
-- The lousy weather is a defensive bonus. The ocean is my moat. If it were easy to get to it would be easy to crack.

Basically, I was looking for a site for ultimate-super-evil-uber-bad-guy style island fortress. That seems to be what the originator of this thread was looking for. :lol3

Fiordland is good for many of the same reasons, and the climate is much nicer, but it is vulnerable to overland attack. :wave

 

[ngatimozart]

I was suggested Auckland Island as a better choice than Diego Garcia for a super fortress.
-- Auckland Island is much larger than Diego Garcia
-- Auckland Island is solid granite with mountains to put deep bunkers under, not a low lying coral reef like Diego Garcia.
-- There are several spots that offer good anchorages, but there is no good access to the interior at Auckland Island. The problem is that the shore is nearly vertical. You would need to use tunnels from the pier side or build an underground harbor to bring in supplies. Plus another one for the submarines, of course. :idea2
-- If you based the defenses on a system of tunnels and remote firing positions this place would make Iwo Jima look like a picnic. They would need to reactivate a battleship to supply effective fire support capable of smashing that rock. Diego Garcia would be nearly impossible to defend.
-- The lousy weather is a defensive bonus. The ocean is my moat. If it were easy to get to it would be easy to crack.

Basically, I was looking for a site for ultimate-super-evil-uber-bad-guy style island fortress. That seems to be what the originator of this thread was looking for. :lol3

Fiordland is good for many of the same reasons, and the climate is much nicer, but it is vulnerable to overland attack. :wave

Fiordland is not that vulnerable to overland attack. You keep one range of mountains between you and the eastern approaches and there is only one road in if you are south of Milford Sound. There is no way an armoured force can get through. Block the Homer Tunnel and there is no other way around. Much like Switzerland except with a lot less passes. The advantage of very deep glacial cut valleys. Airborne infantry assault is another thing but they would not have artillery or armour back up. It's all thick bush. A temperate rain forest.

I was having a think last night and you could put airfield in plus port facilities for surface as well as sub surface vessels. Pretty good fishing & hunting there too.

 

[My2Cents]

Fiordland is not that vulnerable to overland attack. You keep one range of mountains between you and the eastern approaches and there is only one road in if you are south of Milford Sound. There is no way an armoured force can get through. Block the Homer Tunnel and there is no other way around. Much like Switzerland except with a lot less passes. The advantage of very deep glacial cut valleys. Airborne infantry assault is another thing but they would not have artillery or armour back up. It's all thick bush. A temperate rain forest.

I was having a think last night and you could put airfield in plus port facilities for surface as well as sub surface vessels. Pretty good fishing & hunting there too.

It is a collection of isthmus, so why not land the next fjord over and march overland?
Also armor is of limited use against a well designed fortress. :duel

 

[ngatimozart]

It is a collection of isthmus, so why not land the next fjord over and march overland?
Also armor is of limited use against a well designed fortress. :duel

Not really good for an overland march unless you like mountain climbing. Technically Fiordland is not a collection of isthmus but fjords with slopes of about 60 - 70 degrees going up for 2000 metres. Even the mountain goats think twice about it except the Thar. There are some passes but you have to carve your way through the bush then climb the passes before you can even think about an assault. There are no animals there that will kill you but the climate will kill you in 20 minutes or a day if it takes longer. It can go from a beautiful clear day to a white out in 20 minutes with no warning. That used to be my play ground and I treat it with immense respect especially after being weather bound more than once. You have a better chance of survival in the Australian outback than you do in the South Island mountainous bush. There are places in there where no human has ever set foot on.

I've also done survival training there and it's really hard going both physically and mentally. Our SAS train there as do others of our forces and you have to be top of your game to get through there, even as a recreational hunter. Speaking of which there are rumours that some moose are still in there some where and maybe a lost Maori tribe plus moa.

 

[Sampanviking]

Boy, are you guys so firmly rooted in the past.

A fortress is expected to have at least one of two main attributes and preferably have both:

1) An ability to dominate a large amount of territory which it surveys.

2) Be very difficult for an enemy to approach, assail or penetrate.

In the modern world, such a facility is best achieved in High Earth Orbit, not on or below the surface. Given a mixture of location, High Powered Sensors and Precision Strike, I think you have a fine working definition of a Fortress for today.

 

[My2Cents]

Boy, are you guys so firmly rooted in the past.

A fortress is expected to have at least one of two main attributes and preferably have both:

1) An ability to dominate a large amount of territory which it surveys.

2) Be very difficult for an enemy to approach, assail or penetrate.

In the modern world, such a facility is best achieved in High Earth Orbit, not on or below the surface. Given a mixture of location, High Powered Sensors and Precision Strike, I think you have a fine working definition of a Fortress for today.

Unless it has significant maneuver capability it can be easily overwhelmed by relatively cheap multiple KKVs (Kinetic Kill Vehicles) on converging orbits. But a better (i.e. cheaper) approach would be to shotgun it with a couple of tons of 10 gram (1/3 kg TNT equivalent) to 200 gram ( 7 kg TNT equivalent) projectiles on an opposing intercept orbit. These activities can also take place during the construction period, which will be extensive.

Most nations, including allies, would consider construction of an orbital fortress an open act of aggression and attempt to control access to space. The list of potential attackers will be very long and include anyone with the capability of reaching orbit, including private (non-national) groups. :flame

 

[ngatimozart]

Boy, are you guys so firmly rooted in the past.

A fortress is expected to have at least one of two main attributes and preferably have both:

1) An ability to dominate a large amount of territory which it surveys.

2) Be very difficult for an enemy to approach, assail or penetrate.

In the modern world, such a facility is best achieved in High Earth Orbit, not on or below the surface. Given a mixture of location, High Powered Sensors and Precision Strike, I think you have a fine working definition of a Fortress for today.

Just because it is hi tech and modern doesn't make it an better. As My2Cents has said an orbital weapons platform would be an overt act of aggression against both friend and potential foe. Also an orbital platform can be taken out. Secondly the US for example no longer has the capability to support any orbital weapons platform. The only country with an operation manned spaceflight program now is Russia. Thirdly an orbital platform can be seen from the ground so it can be then out. Fourthly if one was put in orbit what would be the orbit dynamics. Would it be geosynchronous or not? Would it be a high earth orbit or a low earth orbit? Considering the amount of technology cost resources and effort that went into building the International Space Station do you honestly think the US or Russia have the wherewithal to build, maintain and operate such a platform? China might but even then they would probably think at least three times about it. They have only just started a space program. What My2Cents and I are discussing is hypothetical but within the bounds of current technology and ability. One last thing. The US is an economy overly laden with debt. One day that will have to be paid and at the moment China owns a lot of that debt. It is like a ship. You can load a ship only so far eventually if you keep loading it the centre of gravity migrates above the water line to a point where the ship is so top heavy that it topples over and sinks. A lot of the western economic system is like that ship. The economics dictate what we can spend on defence. Eventually it all has to be paid for.

 

[Sampanviking]

I did say HIGH EARTH ORBIT and the higher the better. Simply being able to get a payload into orbit is just the start and no country has a antisat capability for High Earth Orbit.

Manoeuvrability is good, Defensibility is just as good but unreachable is better. A key role of a fortress has always been C&C, it is simply that in the old days everything was far more compact and head had to be in immediate proximity to the hands. Not any more, as long as the facility is too remote to be reached by most space capable systems and able to defend against the few that can reach it, the fortress would be able to dominate the entire planet, through assault assets both in orbit and below.
If you want an ideal location, look at the moon, quarter of a million miles away but can target the entire surface of the earth within a day.

Obviously it will be expensive, but fortresses never came cheap. Give it mid century and I think you will see such things starting to appear. Hope I can last long enough to see it.

 

[rip]

I did say HIGH EARTH ORBIT and the higher the better. Simply being able to get a payload into orbit is just the start and no country has a antisat capability for High Earth Orbit.

Manoeuvrability is good, Defensibility is just as good but unreachable is better. A key role of a fortress has always been C&C, it is simply that in the old days everything was far more compact and head had to be in immediate proximity to the hands. Not any more, as long as the facility is too remote to be reached by most space capable systems and able to defend against the few that can reach it, the fortress would be able to dominate the entire planet, through assault assets both in orbit and below.
If you want an ideal location, look at the moon, quarter of a million miles away but can target the entire surface of the earth within a day.

Obviously it will be expensive, but fortresses never came cheap. Give it mid century and I think you will see such things starting to appear. Hope I can last long enough to see it.

If you get high enough you can reach the moon and in more ways than one.

Don’t you guys think that this is getting just a little bit silly?

The primary problem with the idea of a fortress and how it differs from just holding an advantageous defensive position of some temporary value is that the builder wants and hopes that when it achieves of the status of a fortress it will then solve his security problems, once and for all. This is an idea that cannot ever be sustained.

It is no more possible to make a physical fortress of any kind that will last in spite any conceivable kind of attack, as it is possible to make a Cyber fortress on the internet that can never be hacked.

But that does not mean you cannot defend yourself from attack. It only means that you must continually adapt and redesign you defenses. It has been found over and over again that usually the resources necessary to make a fortress to be reasonably impregnable to today’s threats cannot be justified in the long term because new and completely unanticipated threats will always appear and the resources to meet those threats have already been consumed in the how useless fortress.

The adage that attack is the best form of defense is based primarily upon this dynamic.

 

[My2Cents]

I did say HIGH EARTH ORBIT and the higher the better. Simply being able to get a payload into orbit is just the start and no country has a antisat capability for High Earth Orbit.
. . .
Defensibility is just as good but unreachable is better.

All that is needed is more delta-V, so stick bigger booster stage on a low orbit asat, everything else is the same. Hardly a major engineering challenge.

Manoeuvrability is good, Defensibility is just as good but unreachable is better.

Really? Just how maneuverable do you think that orbital fortress can be?
What are you assuming for :
- maximum acceleration in meters/second2?
- Total delta-V in meters/second?
- least dimension in meters?

A key role of a fortress has always been C&C, it is simply that in the old days everything was far more compact and head had to be in immediate proximity to the hands. Not any more, as long as the facility is too remote to be reached by most space capable systems and able to defend against the few that can reach it, the fortress would be able to dominate the entire planet, through assault assets both in orbit and below.
If you want an ideal location, look at the moon, quarter of a million miles away but can target the entire surface of the earth within a day..

Think about how much material you need to lift to HEO for an orbital fortress? Let’s use 10,000 tons as a nice round number, and ignore logistics requirements (crew, supplies, etc.).

The mass needed to be lifted to HEO to kill it? Probably around 10 tons, maybe less.

Moon base? Tougher and harder to kill, but also harder to build, defend, and attack from. It is a better choice if you can make it big enough for self-sufficiency in food, water, and air, but has a massive logistics cost if not.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Don’t you guys think that this is getting just a little bit silly?

What do you mean, whats unrealistic about a moon base fortress?

There were proberly designs for one back in the star wars years....

 

[ngatimozart]

If you get high enough you can reach the moon and in more ways than one.

Don’t you guys think that this is getting just a little bit silly?

The primary problem with the idea of a fortress and how it differs from just holding an advantageous defensive position of some temporary value is that the builder wants and hopes that when it achieves of the status of a fortress it will then solve his security problems, once and for all. This is an idea that cannot ever be sustained.

It is no more possible to make a physical fortress of any kind that will last in spite any conceivable kind of attack, as it is possible to make a Cyber fortress on the internet that can never be hacked.

But that does not mean you cannot defend yourself from attack. It only means that you must continually adapt and redesign you defenses. It has been found over and over again that usually the resources necessary to make a fortress to be reasonably impregnable to today’s threats cannot be justified in the long term because new and completely unanticipated threats will always appear and the resources to meet those threats have already been consumed in the how useless fortress.

The adage that attack is the best form of defense is based primarily upon this dynamic.

Ah Rip your taking all the fun out of it, but yes it is getting to the silly stage. Your point about the best defence being a good offence is noted. I think Sampanviking is thinking too fanciful. Anything in orbit has to follow Keplers Laws of Planetary Motion. 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. To take Rips point further at present there is only 1 nation that may have the economic ability to launch such a station and that is China. However it does not have the experience in manned space flight that the US and Russia have because it is only starting out on that venture. You just have to look at the history of and the resources and that went into the International Space Station to see that.

Another point is that all this is rather moot because technology is at present outstripping the ways of us finding out all the ways of using it. The US in particular is going to have to bite a very distasteful bullet soon on its spending and defence spending like the UK and other european nations (and my own country) have had to. It all comes down to cash or the lack of it and the US is very heavily indebted because at the moment its economy is run on debt. Eventually you have to pay the piper so something along the lines of what Sampanviking has envisaged is way beyond their resources in the foreseeable future.

 

[ngatimozart]

What do you mean, whats unrealistic about a moon base fortress?

There were proberly designs for one back in the star wars years....

Present technology takes 3 days minimum for a space vehicle to transit between the earth and the moon or vice versa. Thats if you launch during the most advantageous launch window so that means you cannot launch on immediate response. This has to do with gravity and Keplers Laws of Planetary Motion. Secondly the resources required would be astronomical (excuse the pun) and even in the 1980's the US could not have funded such an enterprise. Think about why the last Apollo mission was Apollo 17 when more missions had been planned. The moon missions cost the US an extraordinary amount of money. The Atlantis shuttle mission in June is the final shuttle mission and there endeth the US manned space flight program for who knows how long. Now NASA has to rely upon Russia to put its astronauts in space.

Until we can solve the fusion problem we cannot have the energy required to travel faster than rocket propulsion alone allows. Fusion will allow us unlimited energy at negligible cost. It means that energy in is far less than energy out. It is the same process that powers the sun. Basically it's fusing 2 hydrogen atoms together releasing untold energy, the byproduct of this being helium. It is the most efficient form of energy conversion known. Nuclear power as we know it is fission, which is inefficient in comparison, and has a highly toxic byproduct. Fusion is what is achieved in two stage nuclear weapons i.e., thermonuclear weapons. Why we haven't achieved controlled fusion yet is because it requires extremely high pressures and temperatures. We just don't have the knowledge, expertise or technology.