Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!amdahl!amdcad!military
From: jeffm@uokmax.uucp (Jeff Medcalf)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: The death of mobile war
Message-ID: <26784@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Date: 16 Aug 89 06:15:26 GMT
References: <8033@cbnews.ATT.COM> <8803@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: cdr@amdcad.AMD.COM
Lines: 28
Approved: military@amdcad.amd.com



From: Jeff Medcalf 

>From: bnr-di!borynec@watmath.waterloo.edu (James Borynec)
>
>With the advent of long range guns and rockets, tied together into
>an effective communications network, and equipped with weapons (ie.
>projectiles) which will destroy (or at least immobilize) armoured 
>fighting vehicles, warfare will once again, become a matter of
>siegework.

I disagree.  Any time that you limit your forces to a specific place, and say
that they cannot move, you have committed suicide.  The reasons are many: for
one thing, what about nuclear weapons?  If your enemy decided to employ them,
I daresay that you will not have any troops left.  At least with your forces
spread out, you have a chance of some troops surviving.  Second, a fixed defense
can be bypassed (can you say Maginot line?).  Third, there is no flexibility in
static warfare.  What happens if all of a sudden there is a breakthrough in some
place that you have no fortress, or if all that money that you sank into the
building of fortresses means that you have not enough troops and equipment to
stop even a localized breakthrough?

I do not think that artillery and rockets are a cure-all.  NATO certainly does
not have enough guns to make this true, and with modern artillery spotting
radar, I submit that ANY power facing a modern opponent will not have enough
artillery after the first few days of conflict.  After that time, even assuming
that you are correct on artillery 's power, fortresses will be useless.