Forts are back in style

[Kirkhill]

Along with Armour it seems that Forts are making a comeback - complete with turrets and ramparts.

Now about that mobile force concept you were discussing.......tactical, operational or strategic?

Securing Northern Borders
 
 
(Source: US Army Corps of Engineers; issued April 11, 2006)
 
 
SULAYMANIYAH, Iraq --- As in placing dominos for the exciting “push over,” each completed border fort along the Iraq /Iran border brings the security of Iraq closer to its goal of self governance. There are centuries old histories of conflict between the people occupying the lands along Iraq’s north-eastern mountains. The placement for each of the 45 planned border forts was determined by identifying the ancient crossing routes through the mountains that the border guards would need to patrol. Of those planned, 39 have been completed. 

The latest two are at Ashkana and Hero. These two forts are mirror images of each other. They are built on a British design reflecting gothic era turrets and ramparts. Each has billeting space for guards and leadership. The forts also include shower and bath facilities; office and administration areas; a kitchen; an armory; and built-in force protection and observation posts. To keep everything running in the remote locations, each border fort has its own 50 kV generator with another 50 kV generator as a backup. 

“It’s exciting to complete any of the reconstruction projects I’m involved with, but it is especially exciting to complete border forts,” said David Crumpton, the resident engineer for the Sulaymaniyah office of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “Iraq’s self-governing is dependent on its ability to manage its boundaries,” he said. “These border forts provide facilities which will allow them to do just that.” 

These posts will allow increased security along the Iranian border as well as to provide a place to train the border police. From these positions, border guards will be able to provide over-watch of specific routes as well as be a logistical base from which guards may extend out and patrol along the border. 

-ends- 

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16882086.1133972074.Q5cKasOa9dUAAFC2ZcA&modele=jdc_34
Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act.

 

[Pikache]

Interesting.
Castles and forts were used as method of projecting permanent presence in an area. Could be more effective than using choppers to bring in troops whenever a presence is required.
Only works because the insurgents don't have anything to hurt these forts...

 

[Kirkhill]

I think you can argue that that is what "Cavalry" and "Artillery" (including flying artillery) are for.  They are to destroy the things that can destroy the Forts. 

As you say, the Fort represents permanence, a government presence, a refuge and a secure sally port from which to launch patrols and dominate the area.

 

[Centurian1985]

I thought the PPCLI built a series of forts in Bosnia during their 93-94 deployment?

 

[Tebo]

Better polish off the old defensive ops.

 

[geo]

forts being buit in places where they were built before..... makes sense. Outposts in the mountain passes where your neighbours have been a infiltratin for ages....

 

[Kirkhill]

Fort Henry/Halifax/Citadel.

New training sites?

Here's an exercise it would be interesting to do.  See how few people it would require to defend Fort Henry in the face of a modern force.  What size of force would be required to eliminate it?  What would be necessary to harden it?  How many people could it shelter and for how long?

Assume a "typical" third-world force.  Also assume that the old limestone is replaced by modern reinforced concrete.

Anybody done this?

 

[3rd Horseman]

The vandoos built citadels (as they called them) in Croatia in 95 building on the hardend OPs that were built before. It proved to be a good place to hide as the Croatian army ran over them and on to victory. I some how don't think that is a good thing. Hardened forward areas may not be a good thing as they are a symptom of a lack of control of the area. It may just be a disaster waiting to happen. Remember Dien-bin-fu ( i probably got the spelling wrong)

 

[geo]

you don't need forts the size of Ft Henry or either Citadelle.... these were built to accomodate the weapons of the day and to look after the battalions you'd need to garrison the place. Platoon sized forts with a little bit of "grow" room makes plenty of sense.

With respect to 3rd's comments about the R22Rs fort or citadelle........ what of it?
the Troops in Bosnia in 95 had ROEs that were untenable - hiding?.... don't appreceate the insinuation...............

 

[3rd Horseman]

geo,

    Yes I was probably too abrupt with that....to the one platoon that stood and did start to fight and were ordered to retreat to the citadel hats off to them. An apology to them is fitting and I do apologize for my flippant comment and broad brush paint job of all, it was not deserved. 

 

[pbi]

I thought the PPCLI built a series of forts in Bosnia during their 93-94 deployment?

On 1 PP's OP HARMONY deployment in 94, we moved into the Zone of Separation between the HV and the SVK (the previous R22eR bn was located to the rear of the Serb line). Because our mandate at that time was to prevent a military "incursion" into the ZOS (and by this measure secure the UNPA against the HV), we built our OPs as strongly as we could, and deployed our support weapons forward. I put a section in each OP, with the APC in a run-up slot dug in (or bermed in) alongside the OP, and anti RPG screens along the top of the run-up. Each OP was to have as much ammo, water and rations as we could stuff in. We also fortified our company camp.

When the RCR relieved us in the fall of 94, they continued to improve the positions, and the R22eR went even further, building massive sandbag fortresses on some of the OPs.

However, we didn't think that those OPs actually "dominated" anything by themselves. We tried to achieve control by constant patrolling, day and night, foot and mounted. Forts can provide an "anchor" for operations to control an area, but they will never (IMHO) replace constant aggressive patrolling, HUMINT work, aerial surveillance, and getting to know the country and the people. Hunkerimg down in forts won't achieve much. When the enemy can blend in amongst the civvies and move about easily, a fort won't stop them.

Unless he is stupid, (or maybe desperate) an asymmetric enemy won't bother assaulting forts. I can't see what he would gain by presenting himself to be shot up by the fort's integral firepower and whatever supporting fires it can call in. When I was in Afgh (2004/2005) AFAIK the baddies rarely assaulted fortified positions, and when they did they usually got waxed. Their recent assault on the firebase that cost the life of Pte Costall also resulted in the baddies getting a thumping.

If the enemy has graduated to deploying the firepower that can actually reduce a fort, I suggest that they have moved beyond the asymmetric stage and are entering a more conventional stage of things.

Cheers

 

[Kirkhill]

From pbi:

Forts can provide an "anchor" for operations to control an area, but they will never (IMHO) replace constant aggressive patrolling, HUMINT work, aerial surveillance, and getting to know the country and the people. Hunkerimg down in forts won't achieve much.

That would seem to be the opinion of the engineers building the forts in Iraq as well.

From these positions, border guards will be able to provide over-watch of specific routes as well as be a logistical base from which guards may extend out and patrol along the border. 

As far as building Fort Henrys, what I was getting at was that Fort Henry was built as a gun platform to dominate the approaches to Kingston. It required a battalion, perhaps two, of troops armed with single shot musket and muzzle loading carronades to defend those guns and the Fort to accomodate and defend them. 

From what I can gather you have concentrations of troops out there that act as logistical bases for operations where you have 1000 or more personnel as well as the platoon houses.  It seems to me that it would be beneficial to have a secure base that doesn't require a lot of your combat, or for that matter your support strength to defend.  One group is working and the other group is resting up before going back out again.

Given that and knowing Fort Henry a bit I started to wonder how many bodies it would take to defend a facility like Fort Henry, especially if it could be wired in with Remote Weapons Stations and Mini guns, perhaps even auto turrets and heavy guns such as the Swedes used to use for Coastal Artillery.  It makes no sense to build OPs like Fort Henry but does it make sense to build your logistics facilities, command and control and rest facilities like modern Fort Henries if you are going to be in the area for as long as you were in Cyprus.

The other side of that question would be how much overkill would it be?

Cheers.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I was thinking the other day of a FOB design along the lines of the castles designed at the close of the middle ages just as cannons were really coming into their own.  Earthen ramparts with projections at each corner to house an MGS.  In theory, at least two and maybe three MGS could fire at the same point.  A couple mortars in the middle.  Crocodiles with lasers for the moat are in short supply, but I guess concertina wire, cameras and C19 defensive weapon systems can do the trick.

The reason that forts became obsolete do not necessarily apply to counter-insurgency.  If the enemy wishes to concentrate and actually lay seige then we have the means to deal with that, as long as you select defendable terrain (one of the big problems at Den Bien Phu).  You also need to make sure that you are facing a counter-insurgency and not a regular army disguised as insurgents...

There is always the danger, however, of investing too much into the defence of your forts in terms of troops.  Seige or bunker mentality hands the initiative to enemy. 

On the other hand, "Forts" can become part of the local governance as well.

 

[pbi]

Kirkhill: IMHO building a fort such as you described would be a waste of money today, with the array of stand off and precision strike weapons systems that are available to a conventional force. A sub-launched cruise misile can easily take out a coastal gun battery long before the defender can even acquire the sub as a target. That's why the Swedes also deploy their own sub fleet and coastal aviation. Using such a fort against an unconventional enemy doesn't really hold out much hope of success by itself: remember Dien Bien Phu and the French blockhouse system in Indochina. I think it can lead to a "fortress mentality" as well.

But, I think the French success in Algeria (until the DeGaulle government decided to back down in the face of the FNLA) and the British blockhouse program in South Africa do show that if you combine forts with an agressive approach, it can achieve results. Just don't put all your chips on them, like the French did with the Maginot Line or the Belgians did with Eben Emael.

Cheers

 

[Kirkhill]

Just don't put all your chips on them, like the French did with the Maginot Line or the Belgians did with Eben Emael.

I can see that. Thanks pbi.

I was thinking the other day of a FOB design along the lines of the castles designed at the close of the middle ages just as cannons were really coming into their own.  Earthen ramparts with projections at each corner to house an MGS.  In theory, at least two and maybe three MGS could fire at the same point.  A couple mortars in the middle.  Crocodiles with lasers for the moat are in short supply, but I guess concertina wire, cameras and C19 defensive weapon systems can do the trick.

2B:

I think that is what drew me to consider our Canadian Forts as training sites.  Their Vauban influenced layouts (minus the "Star Quality") seemed to me to be an interesting starting point for creating a defensive perimeter and trying to man it economically.  I was thinking allowing the lines of the progression from musket & cannon, to musket and carronade, to WWI era manned MG posts to current generation Remote Weapons Systems and Observation Systems.  However, to be sure, you could build the MGS (Or CV-CT Arthur) into a similar layout for a less permanent and cheaper solution. 

For both of you: Fit and Finish need not be up to Ft Henry's luxurious standards. Perhaps something more "Ticonderoga-esque" might be appropriate.

Cheers.

 

[Old Guy]

"Forts" were used extensively in Vietnam by the US Army and Marines.  When used in combination with aggressive patrol tactics and backed with other forces, like artillery and air power, the concept worked well.  Remember, your own troops need a safe place to sleep and rest, if nothing else.  When your enemy lacks effective artillery and has no air power of his own, a simple bunker complex is useful.

US Special Forces camps were an extension of the concept, allowing fairly good-sized indigent forces to be stationed at a main fortified base, usually with smaller bunker positions in tactically appropriate positions in the local area.  The fact that these "forts" were effective is proven by the NVA's massing of overpowering conventional forces to overrun them.  The SF forts were often located in blocking positions along major infiltration routes.

Sadly, effective use of fortified positions and the type of patrolling that makes the tactic work don't lend themselves to large military formations, except for on-call backup forces.  Few generals would have been needed to run a war based on local control of villages, food-produciton areas, etc.  The Vietnam War was primarily a platoon and company war, especially in conjunction with fortified camps -- though too many generals and leading theorists persisted in seeing it as a conventional infantry war which could be won through attrition.

Fortified positions will always be with us, though they may not look much like our conception of a fort.  Cavalry is a tactical concept, not a mounted warrior, or a tank, or a heli-borne infantryman.  Likewise, a fort is both a strategic asset and a tactical concept, no matter what form it takes.


Jim

 

[Kirkhill]

Welcome back Jim.