Maginot Line and the Warsaw Pact

[Marcello]

As for modernizing the Ligne Maginot IMHO there is no other option than to add new casemates/turrets with bigger AT guns and long range artillery, a 47mm AT gun won't do much good post WWII and the 10km range of the 75 is quite short as well and I don't think you'd even get a 105 in those turrets, which wouldn't add much range anyway. At least Eben had 2 120mm guns with 18km range.

 

If someone decided to build some modern fortress/defensive line able to resist against a first world army, how difficult would that actually be? Defence versus 155mm is one thing, but what about things like Maverick, BLU-109, SDB, ...? Could AAG/VSHORAD/THEL defend the entire complex with each blockhouse/turret having it's own APS in addition be a solution?

 

The problem with getting decent antitank guns and long range artillery within the fortresses is: where do you put them in ?

If you mount them in turrets you will have to let the barrels stick out. This was done sometimes (in some french and swiss turrets IIRC) but the risk is that they will be knocked out by enemy artillery. From what I have seen of the effets of the german heavy artillery bombardment on Fermont I would guess such fear was not unfounded. If you mount them on casemates you can make them retractable (as in the Bison) but then you will have limited fire arcs. Maybe good enough for Switzerland but not so much on plains.

As for resistance against modern weapons, the GBU-28 for example can penetrate six meters of reinforced concrete.

Edited May 1, 2008 by Marcello

[Ken Estes]

The problem with getting decent antitank guns and long range artillery within the fortresses is: where do you put them in ?

If you mount them in turrets you will have to let the barrels stick out. This was done sometimes (in some french and swiss turrets IIRC) but the risk is that they will be knocked out by enemy artillery. From what I have seen of the effets of the german heavy artillery bombardment on Fermont I would guess such fear was not unfounded. If you mount them on casemates you can make them retractable (as in the Bison) but then you will have limited fire arcs. Maybe good enough for Switzerland but not so much on plains.

As for resistance against modern weapons, the GBU-28 for example can penetrate six meters of reinforced concrete.

Don't forget that Fermont works became the subject of considerable testing by the Wehrmacht post Jun40, adding no small amount to the damage one sees. Its gallery casemates also strike me as more exposed than in the normal grand ouvrage. As to the advertised effects of BLU- type weapons vs. concrete, these also could be accomplished as well by the German superheavy mortars, but all these effects fall initially upon a lot of earth before one encounters the fortification itself. If we are to consider such fortifications in the modern sense, I think we'd have to give credit to modern AA weapons and how they could be integrated into the defense scheme, such that the 'free shot' one sees in tracker cameras from present wars ought not to be easily executed. One can imagine effective camouflage schemes, AA weapons of various types, including naval applications, plus the incorporation of MLRS [in VLS?] for longer range applications could change the odds quite a bit. However, only a country with fairly narrow frontiers or avenues of approach would find such massive works remotely cost-effective today. Much better would be to have good allies....

[Xavier]

The problem with getting decent antitank guns and long range artillery within the fortresses is: where do you put them in ?

If you want decent guns your only choice is a turret or lots of casemates, you could make the turret semi-retractable with the barrel resting in a concrete sleeve in the ground with an armored cover for protection during heavy bombardments, expensive, but better than pop guns.

 

You'd need a multi-layered AD/CRAM system to survive GBU-28&co, 35mm Skyshield, LFK NG, VL-MICA and each casemate or turret it's own APS, like the one from Diehl(?) or IDB-Diesenroth or using MetalStorm technology with lots of barrels as you'd need redundancy if some get damaged and to survive repeated attacks.

As Ken said though, it would probably cost a gargantuan amount of money to defend your entire frontline that way

[Ken Estes]

If you want decent guns your only choice is a turret or lots of casemates, you could make the turret semi-retractable with the barrel resting in a concrete sleeve in the ground with an armored cover for protection during heavy bombardments, expensive, but better than pop guns.

....

Indeed, you will also use unmanned systems, as that slick Swiss 155 fortress weapon is [i.e. no operators, just people feeding in the munitions]. Therefore, such an automated installation could fully retract and continue much deeper underground, such that the barrels could raise to 90 degrees and maybe go out of battery for the descent, making the surface aperature no larger than the Maginot turret. Think of the massive sliding slabs that covered the first generation ICBM launchers that had to be brought above ground to fire. In the 1930s there were no machines, automation capable of doing much more than covered disappearing mounts. Todays robotics offer a quantum leap. The nucs have changed all these measures, of course, and even the mountain redoubts such as the US NORAD subterranean city must have doubtful survivability. Still, makes you wonder what the North Koreans may have invented, they having the incentive and terrain [but not the funds or high tech] to continue the traditions.

[Archie Pellagio]

Didn't the W Germans build lots of little hill embankments designed to provide AT troops with cover to fire and withdraw from?

 

Also the key with fortifications is they are designed to make it to hard to bother (Og go take other towns food), or to costly in time / materiel to take.

 

So long as you don't expect them to be indefinate or impregnable you'll be sweet...

[Marcello]

As to the advertised effects of BLU- type weapons vs. concrete, these also could be accomplished as well by the German superheavy mortars, but all these effects fall initially upon a lot of earth before one encounters the fortification itself. If we are to consider such fortifications in the modern sense, I think we'd have to give credit to modern AA weapons and how they could be integrated into the defense scheme, such that the 'free shot' one sees in tracker cameras from present wars ought not to be easily executed. One can imagine effective camouflage schemes, AA weapons of various types, including naval applications, plus the incorporation of MLRS [in VLS?] for longer range applications could change the odds quite a bit. However, only a country with fairly narrow frontiers or avenues of approach would find such massive works remotely cost-effective today. Much better would be to have good allies....

 

The difference between the german heavies and the BLU weapons is that the latter are guided and can be targeted against the the most vulnerable parts of the fortifications. Of course you can bury your ammo depots and others facilities as deep as you want but the fighting positions will have to be exposed at the surface, protected by relatively thin armor plates and concrete.

Incorporating CIWS into a fortress would be problematic at best as such things will be inherently vulnerable to even a 155mm bombardment. Any effort towards hardening them will be at risk of reducing their effectiveness: for example they will need to be put in relatively exposed positions to have decent firing arcs, the radars will have to expose themseves to transmit even if there are armor covers for them etc.

[cbo]

What I read of the american attack on bloc 8 at Hackenberg made no mention of employment of AP rounds, whose availability to an M12 unit would have been unusual to say the least. The descriptions made it sound like cumulative HE fire, although I admit my french is rather rusty. Did the tour guides tell something specifically to you (then again it possible that they just made some ass-umptions)?

 

Given the fact that the the Americans knew that they would be up against the German Westwall, having some large caliber AP rounds available as anti-concrete rounds would seem quite logical and I'd be surprised if they hadn't some stored in the ETO for that purpose?

 

cbo

[Marcello]

Given the fact that the the Americans knew that they would be up against the German Westwall, having some large caliber AP rounds available as anti-concrete rounds would seem quite logical and I'd be surprised if they hadn't some stored in the ETO for that purpose?

cbo

 

Basically an american battalion in the advance was showered by the fortress fire coming from the bloc 8. The first thing that was used to try to neutralize it were some nearby M10 TDs which attacked the bunker at long range. Needless to say that did not cut it. Next the local commander made an emergency call for heavy artillery. 240mm howitzers and 8 inchers answered, with little effect. Some M12s were also at hand, so once a suitable spot in a dead angle was found one of them was driven there to beat the front walls with direct fire at 1800 meters of distance.

As it was discussed in these forums a 155mm HE shell, properly fuzed, can easily penetrate more than one meter of reinforced concrete. The exposed walls facing that direction could be as thin as 120 cm IIRC. No real need for AP which may or may not have been available in Europe (and even if it was, it would have taken space from more commonly needed HE).

Edited May 2, 2008 by Marcello

[Ken Estes]

The difference between the german heavies and the BLU weapons is that the latter are guided and can be targeted against the the most vulnerable parts of the fortifications. Of course you can bury your ammo depots and others facilities as deep as you want but the fighting positions will have to be exposed at the surface, protected by relatively thin armor plates and concrete.

Incorporating CIWS into a fortress would be problematic at best as such things will be inherently vulnerable to even a 155mm bombardment. Any effort towards hardening them will be at risk of reducing their effectiveness: for example they will need to be put in relatively exposed positions to have decent firing arcs, the radars will have to expose themseves to transmit even if there are armor covers for them etc.

 

Sticking a CIWS or radars [these don't have to be close to the fort] on top of a hill is not what I had in mind as a modern method of fortress AAW. As for "guided" weapons, the purpose of modern missile defenses might be to make the liesurely use of laser designation unhealthy. Also aircrew are not very effective at finding things in forests; they do well now in desertscapes with terminal guidance from ground troops. That leaves JDAMs programmed to GPS coordinates, and one would have to have precise target coordinates and tight CPA in order to strike an embrasure or turret roof, which need not be just plating as in 1930. In fact, air defenses do not have to be a part of fortress arrays at all, but could be the modern equivalent of interval troops.

[Marcello]

Also aircrew are not very effective at finding things in forests; they do well now in desertscapes with terminal guidance from ground troops.

 

The construction of significant size permanent fortresses (as opposite lighter field fortifications, tunnelling etc.) would hardly escape satellite and others means of intelligence gathering, certainly in the aerial pictures of Hackenberg taken during the construction the bunkers and especially the turrets pits stick out like sore thumbs. And in any case the methods used to identify installations during the Cold War should still be useful, it is not like you can build border fortresses in places chosen arbitrarily anyway. So it is pretty a safe bet that nowadays the layout of the fortresses and the targeting coordinates will be available to any competent enemy.

 

 

To protect them against modern weapons you will have to give them a level of hardening not far from (very expensive) ICBM silos and be prepared to further reinforce them as more accurate and lethal bombs come out.

I can certainly see why the swiss have been relying increasingly on mobile defenses and things like small mortar turrets, which make less lucrative targets than Bison style installations.

 

 

Still, makes you wonder what the North Koreans may have invented, they having the incentive and terrain [but not the funds or high tech]to continue the traditions.

 

As far it is known the North koreans build things like reinforced shelters for artillery/aircrafts/etc., tunnels, various underground facilities and so on. Defensive fortresses are not in their agenda, for various reasons. The swiss were probably the last ones left building this sort of stuff and they too gave up.

Edited May 2, 2008 by Marcello

[sunday]

Seems the Chinese are at it:

 

http://maps.google.es/maps?ll=18.201534,10...p;t=h&hl=es

 

Chinese nuclear submarines prompt 'new Cold War' warning

 

 

Looks like a big naval base.

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 20, 2024 by Junior FO

[Tomas Hoting]

Just out of curiosity:

 

Were there any known attempts to sell the Bison 155mm howitzer bunker and Bighorn 120mm mortar bunker technology on the international market?

IIRC I saw a drawing somewhere which envisaged the use of the Bison as a costal artillery system.

[Xavier]

Just out of curiosity:

 

Were there any known attempts to sell the Bison 155mm howitzer bunker and Bighorn 120mm mortar bunker technology on the international market?

IIRC I saw a drawing somewhere which envisaged the use of the Bison as a costal artillery system.

isn't Bighorn the mortar with load assist for vehicles?

Anyway, RUAG used to have both the Bison(with said drawing) and the twin underground 120mm mortar on its website until a year or two ago

[Tomas Hoting]

isn't Bighorn the mortar with load assist for vehicles?

Anyway, RUAG used to have both the Bison(with said drawing) and the twin underground 120mm mortar on its website until a year or two ago

 

My mistake, I mistook this twin 120mm "Festungsmörser" with the vehicle-mounted Bighorn.

 

So, if they really did market the system for a while, was there any serious foreign interest in it?

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 20, 2024 by Junior FO

[Marcello]

However I don't think that one can conclude that in Switzerland Artillery forts were seen as useless in general. The mere fact that the 155mm Bison was developed and forts armed with them built, shows that Art forts in general were seen as a necessary complement to the shorter ranged alternatives. The CW ended just when the WWII forts were reaching the end of their useful lives anyway, thus they didn't need to be replaced, but that more forts weren't built is due to a changed threat level, not because the concept itself was deemed useless. If the threat level were to go up again, I don't doubt we'll start digging once more.

 

I certainly would not argue that swiss artillery forts were useless in their time or that the end of the Cold War did not have a significant impact. What I have a lot of reservations about is the usefulness of large artillery forts in the presence of satellite reconnaissance and increasingly capable PGMs. When the Bison was developed all that was available were some laser and TV guided bombs, which were rare and expensive. The concept itself may have predated the deployment of specialized bunker busters during GW1 (I don't have the exact development timeline though, so correct me if I am wrong), although apparently an effort was made to counter laser guided weapons by disrupting guidance.

Edited May 3, 2008 by Marcello