Question? Has a static defense ever worked

[Ash]

See above, everyone knows about the failures of the Atlantice wall and Maginot line but has a static defense ever worked.

------------------

The names Ash, Housewares

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ash:

See above, everyone knows about the failures of the Atlantice wall and Maginot line but has a static defense ever worked.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe that depends on what you mean by ever worked? Never broken through - or held a long time. Gallipolli comes to mind, there one could probably say it had worked. Also WW I western front, where it worked for the better part of three years. Any other opinions? If you talk about fortifications, the Chinese wall held for some time, methinks, but I could be wrong.

------------------

Andreas

[CRourke]

WWI is one of the more obvious examples when the scales were once againt tilted in favor of defense....

The late medeival period would be another good example of such a time, just before the developement and widespread use of artillery. But combat didn't really become linear (battle 'lines') until WWI, so its not exactly the same as a static defense.

Chris

[Guest Mirage2k]

I'm not sure an entire front could technically be called a "static defense," but after it stabilized in 1951, the Korean War front stayed pretty much around the 38th parallel.

A good example of where it DIDN'T work: The Iraqi line near the Kuwait-Iraq-Saudi Arabia border in the Gulf War...the Big Red One got through it pretty well (with only one casualty, too!)

-Andrew

[Guest Mirage2k]

Just thought of one (do semi-mythological battles count?) How about the siege of Troy?

[Lee]

The paratroops at Monte Cassino did a pretty amazing job. Cost us

much time and casualties.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Yeah, it really depends on what you mean by "worked". The way I define it, "worked" would mean tying up your enemy and causing him a lot of blood in exchange for some other benefit (time and better casualty ratio usually). I personally don't think that if the line got breached or abandoned for other reasons it can necessarily be called a failure. Well, except for medeval castle type things, because when you lose you definately lose

One example of fixed defenses that worked was Lenningrad. Germans never got into the city. Of course, like all battles, you can toss enough "what ifs" in there to "defeat" them in theory. Which makes me think that no defensive line is unbreakable in theory, and generally only gets held because the attacker did something wrong instead of just being inhrently incapable.

Steve

[Mark IV]

Rorke's Drift is one that worked.

Most sieges that fail are examples of static defenses that worked (barring the arrival of a relieving force). Thucidydes is full of them. The ending is usually not as dramatic as those of successful attacks; one morning, the horizon is free of invaders, who simply left.

The Alamo and Thermopylae are examples of static defenses that worked according to Steve's definition; the defenders were wiped out but accomplished their mission, and at a disproportionate cost to the attackers.

The master of maneuver warfare, Robert E. Lee, chose a static defense at Fredericksburg and destroyed the Union offensive.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

One example of fixed defenses that worked was Lenningrad. Germans never got into the city. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I read somewhere that was because they actually did not want to get in. Too much of a hassle to deal with the civilians, and the street-fighting would have been nasty. And by putting it under siege, valuable Russian assets were tied up supplying the city and its population. Can't remember now where I read it, and I might be way off here.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crourke:

The late medeival period would be another good example of such a time, just before the developement and widespread use of artillery.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, medieval times even before the introduction of artillery were characterised by either extremely fluid or completely static warfare. Remember Henry V's campaign in France, where the siege of Harfleur was followed by route marches to Calais that ended when he was trapped between the Seine and the French army at Agincourt. Much of the 100 year war is characterised by long marches interrupted by vicious pitched battles. Also many of the crusades consisted of long-range marches and battles in the open.

Good reads on the topic are Froissart's 'Chronicles', written in the late14th or early 15th century and based on interviews with veterans on different levels. Sort of an early Marshall Also Barbara Tuchman's 'The distant mirror', although that is largely based on Froissart.

Froissart, Jean, 1338?-1410?. - Chronicles / selected, translated (from the Old French) and edited by Geoffr. - Harmondsworth (etc.) : Penguin, 1978. - (The Penguin classics).

Tuchman, Barbara W., - A distant mirror : the calamitous 14th century / - Harmondsworth : Penguin, 1980.

------------------

Andreas

edited for inept dealing with UBB code

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 05-06-2000).]

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

I don't know about you all, but when I come upon a static or stubborn defense, or even the unknown, my moto is: "When in doubt, shell." As in--Bring in the Artillery.

------------------

"Why don't we say that we took this one chance, and fought!"

"Stupid humans. Hahahahahahaha!"

--from the film Battlefield Earth

[Artmann]

Ok,

if static defense is a term that could apply both to large scale front (WWI) and more tactical battle (siege castle), then Waterloo can be considered a static defense that worked. Wellington hold the line against the french assault, until reinforcement change the history.

ARn

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ol' Blood & Guts:

"When in doubt, shell." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is so... American!

------------------

Andreas

[PanzerLeader]

Here is one great example of static defence that worked, PLUS it was all done by Hitler, the great military moron himself!

The Soviet winter offensive of 41-42 was in the first weeks a great success, but then, by clinging on to their positions, German "hedgehogs" such as Rzhev, Kharkov, Taganrog, Kursk, Vyazma or Bryansk withstood the Red Army's onslaught even when these locations had been bypassed by dozens of miles on the flanks. The soldiers could find shelter in these fortified points as opposed to the Red Army's troops exposed to the cold on the open steppe. For once General Winter worked in favour of the invadors!

Hitler tried his luck again two and half years later on the central front but the Red Army had learnt from its mistakes!

[Major Tom]

The Metz defences in 1944, even Patton could not succeed in taking these through direct assault. He had to starve them out.

The Maginot Line did not fail, indeed, when it was engaged by the Germans it did more than its job. However, the French were defeated well before the line was attacked.

[Ron]

From Mellenthin's 'Panzer Battles':

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Maginot Line was widely believed to impregnable, and for all I know there may still be those who think that the fortifications could have resisted any attack. It may be of interest to point out that the Maginot defenses were breached in a few hours by a normal infantry attack, without any tank support whatever.....In modern war it is in any case unsound to rely on static defense, but as far as the Maginot Line was concerned the fortifications had only a moderate local value.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the purpose intended for building the Maginot Line, I would say it failed in that goal.

Ron

[Moon]

To add a different line of thought here: when would a dynamic line of defense NOT work? What I mean is: in a static defense, failure or success can be measured easily (enemy is on this or that side of it), but in a dynamic one you simply withdraw when the enemy "breaks through". How do you define if your defense "worked"? Did Germany's dynamic defense work of withdrawing from France work?

I guess what I am trying to say is that in a static defense situation it might be easier to evaluate when it didn't work...

[Major Tom]

From what I have read of the Maginot Line, is that the Vietanmese Garrison troops put up heavy resistance. Also, you have to remember that the French strategic reserve for the forts had been mostly drained off to make up the new armies out West. So, if the fortress had been directly attacked at the beginning of the war the French would have the reserve divisions and tank forces to aid in repelling an attack. ANY totally unsupported defence is doomed to eventual failure. The judgements on the breeching of the Maginot Line should be acknowledged as under special circumstances, which by June 1940 was what the series of Fortresses were experiencing. They weren't designed to stop an attack solely by themselves, which they were forced to do when eventually attacked.

[Guest Germanboy]

On the Maginot line, while it no doubt performed admirably considering the circumstances, the fact is that it did not stop my Grandfather and his comrades - I guess that must count as failure. It was supposed to keep them out. A bit like a car that does not run, but has a great stereo

For evaluating dynamic vs. static defense and the success of either, I guess if you keep your forces intact and the enemy away from where he wants to get, that should be counted a success. In that sense, the withdrawal from France probably was a success, because the Germans managed to withdraw a large part of their army, and had them at hand to keep the allies out of Germany for the next few months.

As usual, just talking about things I have no clue about

------------------

Andreas

[Major Tom]

I agree that the withdraw from Normandy was a success, but, it could have been WAY more successful if Hitler would have allowed a retreat sooner. The German Armoured formations were wiped out after the attack on the American bridgehead and at Falise. Imagine after the Americans broke through the Germans decided to withdraw to a line on the Somme. The war could have been extended by a few more months, indeed possibly longer due to the lack of the Allies caputing Antwerp. The Germans did have a plan to form a line at the Somme, but, too many formations were destroyed as effective units that it was impossible when the troops reached it.

[Black Sabot]

IMO, i don't think the German retreat from Normandy could be characterized as a Dynamic defense, at least not as i understand the term.

[Guest Bobb]

The US Marine defense of Henderson field. General Vandergrif knowingly put up a perimeter defense that went against all the tenents of the "book" That tactic, the Guadalcanal jungle, and Japanese command and control with their tactics assisted both on the island and in their rear echelons.

As it was some attackers got through. It appears to me had the Japanese managed inspite of all their mistakes and difficulties with the jungle, delayed the attack until they had gained at least some better control over the preattack disposition of their troops the story would have been much closer. As it was there were a piece or two of bad luck, which made things much safer for the defenders.

[Guest Mirage2k]

One static defense that held out for a while:

The U.S. Marine defense of Kae Sahn (spelling?). Actually, I'm not even sure if that is the right name. But you guys know what I'm talking about, right? The Marine base was completely surrounded, the only supply/evac route was via helicopter, etc., etc. IIRC, they held out for some time before abandoning the base.

[Guest Mirage2k]

And if you're just talking about casualty ratios, then the Battle of Bunker Hill on June 17, 1775 is a good example (it was fought on Breed's Hill, actually). IIRC, the British suffered far more casualties than the Americans, even though they managed to take the hill. In fact, the casualties endured in that battle, as well as their experience during the withdrawal from Concord, led the British to abandon Boston, and Massachusetts in general, as a smart place to wage war. Evacuation Day was March 17, 1776, when the British departed Boston for Halifax, Nova Scotia.

-Andrew

[Guest Big Time Software]

Seems that most people agree, for the most part, with my own definition of "successful static defense". The Maginot Line certainly doesn't fit that definition though.

It was designed to keep the Hun out, or at the very least delay and bloody him up. In reality it did none of those things. And since the whole mentality and spending that went into the line since WWI came at the expense of a defense that MIGHT have worked against the Germans, it can be seen as nothing but the worst military planning disaster of the 20th Century IMHO.

Contrast this with the West Wall (Siegfried Line). Although the Allies drove through it in places because it wasn't manned, for the most part the line did what it had set out to do. It greatly slowed the Allied advance and certainly made them pay a high price in blood for getting through it. Yet the cost and impact of that line on German military operations was miniscule compared to the Maginot Line. Kinda like a sales slogan, "ten times the success for 1/10th the cost!"

steve

[tss]

I would think that the best static defences are those that are not even fought over because the enemy thought that it would be counterproductive to attack them.

Because of this, I'd nominate the Salpa- ("bolt") line as one successful static defence. Salpa-line was built in Eastern Finland in 1940 and it was pretty well-done. It was just after the Winter War and Finns had a pretty good idea what worked and what didn't. The bunkers could withstand direct hits from super-heavy shells (200mm) and had no openings facing directly to the enemy but formed a network of interlocking fire lanes, instead. In short, it was the kind of defence line that Soviets claimed Mannerheim-line was.

The line was never fought over as the Soviet attack in 1944 was stopped at VKT-line that was a little over 100 km to the East of the line. However, I think that the line was one of the reasons why Soviets finally pulled of their attack. Their attack against VKT-line had culminated and they would have to bring more troops (and strategic artillery units) before they could realistically hope to break the defence. Also, it was not realistical to hope that the initial momentus of the breakthrough would be enough to break through Salpa-line at the same time.

Thus, if the Soviets wanted to crush Finland militarily, they would have to break through two fortified lines and both attacks would need heavy artillery support. As the Red Army was (arguably) the strongest military force in 1944, it certainly could have crushed Finland but, this is the crucial point, not without committing more resources to the task. The next major attack couldn't have begun before August '44 and it probably would have taken until September before Salpa-line could be breached.

Stalin decided against continuing attacks against Finland because he correctly realized that crushing Finland would not help him reach his primary goal, the defeat of Germany and he decided to make an armistice with Finland, with more lenient conditions than he had offered before.

- Tommi