Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:44 pmlol B-52
thank god we don't have thinktanks like you in the military...ohwait
NationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Trench Warfare
Page 3 of 3
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:44 pmPosted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:45 pmlol B-52
thank god we don't have thinktanks like you in the military...ohwait
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:47 pmGreat Pongo wrote:Wamitoria wrote:However, if the enemy employs infiltration tactics, many of the advantages that trenches provide can be avoided.
And depth doesn't mean shit when JDAMs are raining on your fortifications.
olol
obvsly bombers are not going to be shot down faster then Mexican policeman
And infiltration assault leads to heavy damage and... do you even know how the shit even works?The Bleeding Roses wrote:
Maginot line.
Siegfried line.
French Coastal defenses.
Yep... the cost of all that infrastructure certainly paid off.
Please, do some research before you are condescending. Mobility is the bread and butter of a modern army.
To think i usually agree wholesomely with your opinion in NSG...
The Maginot line did what it was intended to do. make the Germans attack through Belgium. It's French incompetence not the Maginot lines fault that they failed in that regard. The Maginot fucked over the Germans that did try to break through it.
the Siegfriend line helf back Patton for 6 fucking months.
All for minimal cost in infratructure. The Maginot cost 1% of the French defensive budget over twenty years.
lolmobility is something modern armchairgenerals felate each other over without understanding how the fuck they are going to survive tac nukes exploding all over their precious armoured columns
How is that static defense of yours going to hold up to tac nukes? At least the armor has the chance to move out of the kill zone.
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:49 pmThe Bleeding Roses wrote:Great Pongo wrote:olol
obvsly bombers are not going to be shot down faster then Mexican policeman
And infiltration assault leads to heavy damage and... do you even know how the shit even works?
To think i usually agree wholesomely with your opinion in NSG...
The Maginot line did what it was intended to do. make the Germans attack through Belgium. It's French incompetence not the Maginot lines fault that they failed in that regard. The Maginot fucked over the Germans that did try to break through it.
the Siegfriend line helf back Patton for 6 fucking months.
All for minimal cost in infratructure. The Maginot cost 1% of the French defensive budget over twenty years.
lolmobility is something modern armchairgenerals felate each other over without understanding how the fuck they are going to survive tac nukes exploding all over their precious armoured columns
How is that static defense of yours going to hold up to tac nukes? At least the armor has the chance to move out of the kill zone.
It has depth, all 4 foot of it.
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:49 pmThe Bleeding Roses wrote:How is that static defense of yours going to hold up to tac nukes? At least the armor has the chance to move out of the kill zone.
What is the likelihood of a tactical nuke being used in this situation?
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:49 pmGreat Pongo wrote:obvsly bombers are not going to be shot down faster then Mexican policeman
And infiltration assault leads to heavy damage and... do you even know how the shit even works?
Alright, cruise missiles then.
And infiltration lead to heavy casualties in WWI, but with air support and IFV's, casualties could be minimized in modern use of infiltration tactics.
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:50 pmWell, the OP was looking for advice for an IC war in II, so I suppose that they would be used almost immediately.
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:51 pmThe Bleeding Roses wrote:Great Pongo wrote:olol
obvsly bombers are not going to be shot down faster then Mexican policeman
And infiltration assault leads to heavy damage and... do you even know how the shit even works?
To think i usually agree wholesomely with your opinion in NSG...
The Maginot line did what it was intended to do. make the Germans attack through Belgium. It's French incompetence not the Maginot lines fault that they failed in that regard. The Maginot fucked over the Germans that did try to break through it.
the Siegfriend line helf back Patton for 6 fucking months.
All for minimal cost in infratructure. The Maginot cost 1% of the French defensive budget over twenty years.
lolmobility is something modern armchairgenerals felate each other over without understanding how the fuck they are going to survive tac nukes exploding all over their precious armoured columns
How is that static defense of yours going to hold up to tac nukes? At least the armor has the chance to move out of the kill zone.
Cold war doctrine centred around the utilisation of trenches and earthenworks to survive nuclear blasts and radiation. Tanks were largely radiation shields crashing through the radioactive gaps in the enemy trenchline to do suicide runs on logistics
Armour cannot travel faster then a 155mm shell. Hell it doesn't even have to be nuclear to tear apart tanks.
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:52 pmTrench warfare can be effective, though I think elastic defense is ultimately a better strategy, though I suppose that even elastic defense can use trenches in a limited manner. But counter-attacking is generally a good strategy; best not to get bogged down in trench warfare for too long.
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:52 pmWe have agreed that Nuclear weapons are not an option at all neither are chemical weapons.
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:53 pmAltamirus wrote:The Bleeding Roses wrote:A BLU-113 Super Penetrator can go through over 20 feet of reinforced concrete... everything you stated is useless.
I bet it can't go through mountain ranges and obviously no one would just rely on passive defense measures, surely for each level of lighter passive defense then more active defensive measures should be used to compensate. Nothing is unpenetratable but on the same token there is nothing that can taking out anything. Sun Tzu once said that you need a 3 to 1 advance to take a fortified position. Also obviously, it would be better if you could mount a viable offense against your enemy but that luxury isn't always there and given good terrain setting viable defensive position can be very cheap, with the biggest being time. You can't with any engagement against a competent opponents blindly running blindly at someone with and axe like you can't with a someone that is competent with a shield. It takes many waves of water to erode a boulder.
They certainly can go through mountains... that's why they are employed in Afghanistan. Furthermore, a nation like the US has a majority of it's population centers in areas that are flat. Unless you plan on defending Salt Lake City the benefit of mountains is marginal.
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:54 pmGreat Pongo wrote:To think i usually agree wholesomely with your opinion in NSG...
The Maginot line did what it was intended to do. make the Germans attack through Belgium. It's French incompetence not the Maginot lines fault that they failed in that regard. The Maginot fucked over the Germans that did try to break through it.
the Siegfriend line helf back Patton for 6 fucking months.
All for minimal cost in infratructure. The Maginot cost 1% of the French defensive budget over twenty years.
lolmobility is something modern armchairgenerals felate each other over without understanding how the fuck they are going to survive tac nukes exploding all over their precious armoured columns
That wasn't the Siegfried line, that was Market Garden. The fuel that would have gotten Patton through, coupled later with the Ardennes Offensive, is what delayed Patton's push into Germany, not the West Wall.
The Eastern Front proved that static defense doesn't work in the modern age. First with the Russians getting the crapped kicked out them, then Germans trying to cling to everything they could as they were pushed back. The only way to defend against a mobile force is with mobile forces.
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:55 pmGreat Pongo wrote:The Bleeding Roses wrote:How is that static defense of yours going to hold up to tac nukes? At least the armor has the chance to move out of the kill zone.
Cold war doctrine centred around the utilisation of trenches and earthenworks to survive nuclear blasts and radiation. Tanks were largely radiation shields crashing through the radioactive gaps in the enemy trenchline to do suicide runs on logistics
Armour cannot travel faster then a 155mm shell. Hell it doesn't even have to be nuclear to tear apart tanks.
Cold war doctrine is also 30 years outdated tech wise and based on the premise that tens of millions is an acceptable casualty rate in the initial offensive...
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:55 pmWamitoria wrote:Great Pongo wrote:obvsly bombers are not going to be shot down faster then Mexican policeman
And infiltration assault leads to heavy damage and... do you even know how the shit even works?
Alright, cruise missiles then.
And infiltration lead to heavy casualties in WWI, but with air support and IFV's, casualties could be minimized in modern use of infiltration tactics.
Yes, because firing off a 5 million dollar missile to slam against a empty piece of dirt is economically sound. Protip: trenches don't need to be occupied to make retardo generals fire off vast amounts of precious, expensive ordnance into it.
lol IFVs, their very concept in design them makes them shit for assaulting fortified positions.
Infiltration tactics are utilised by people who have good light infantry, or no heavy support. Like the Chinese, japs, and pre-coldwar Germany.
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:55 pmPosted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:55 pmOf course it is, on a small scale. Using trenches to defend important objectives will most likely always be effective.
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:57 pmGreat Pongo wrote:Wamitoria wrote:Alright, cruise missiles then.
And infiltration lead to heavy casualties in WWI, but with air support and IFV's, casualties could be minimized in modern use of infiltration tactics.
Yes, because firing off a 5 million dollar missile to slam against a empty piece of dirt is economically sound. Protip: trenches don't need to be occupied to make retardo generals fire off vast amounts of precious, expensive ordnance into it.
lol IFVs, their very concept in design them makes them shit for assaulting fortified positions.
Infiltration tactics are utilised by people who have good light infantry, or no heavy support. Like the Chinese, japs, and pre-coldwar Germany.
Do you know nothing of infiltration tactics? IFV's with light infantry would go around and isolate heavily fortified positions for them to be reduced by heavily armed forces. And seriously, if a fortification becomes enough of a problem, anything will be used to destroy it.
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:58 pmFacing anyone with a USSR-style doctrine....
Absolutely, positively, 100% yes.
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:00 pmOh soviet's in here, now we should have a party.
Also will be sigging (probably) this selection:
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:01 pmAltamirus wrote:The Bleeding Roses wrote:
They certainly can go through mountains... that's why they are employed in Afghanistan. Furthermore, a nation like the US has a majority of it's population centers in areas that are flat. Unless you plan on defending Salt Lake City the benefit of mountains is marginal.
Those are precision guided missiles, they don't kill insurgent with brute force, they kill with aim. If mountain are so useless then why is Norad built under a Mountain?
Cheyenne mountain is no longer NORADs main operations center... Peterson AFB is. This change was made because... the mountain was relatively worthless.
Furthermore, its location in the middle of Colorado was a bigger benefit than the mountain. Oceans and hundreds of miles of land, mountains, rivers, forests, etc... on all sides.
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:02 pmWamitoria wrote:Great Pongo wrote:
Yes, because firing off a 5 million dollar missile to slam against a empty piece of dirt is economically sound. Protip: trenches don't need to be occupied to make retardo generals fire off vast amounts of precious, expensive ordnance into it.
lol IFVs, their very concept in design them makes them shit for assaulting fortified positions.
Infiltration tactics are utilised by people who have good light infantry, or no heavy support. Like the Chinese, japs, and pre-coldwar Germany.
Do you know nothing of infiltration tactics? IFV's with light infantry would go around and isolate heavily fortified positions for them to be reduced by heavily armed forces. And seriously, if a fortification becomes enough of a problem, anything will be used to destroy it.
Infiltration tactics needs something called infiltration it's in the name, that is moving into the the enemy defences undetected, not going around like faggots to be shot up by artillery while riding in IFVs with shitty aluminum armor. I believe what you are looking for is the falisified form of Blitzkrieg which is complete nonsense in anycase.
And seriously a trench can be dug in a couple hours by a infantryman, and look how much of a fucking headache it's giving you