Which is more a effective defense? shoving all your forces inside

>>32443057
Depends on the size of your army and the enemy army, whether or not you know where the enemy is coming from, how good enemy intelligence is, how the enemy approaches your fortified location and how fortified your fortified location is.

File: Capture.png (114KB, 232x197px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 232x197px

>>32443064
i don't think mortars and arty gives a shit how fortified you are

if you get arty'd + attacked by enemy at the same time you're dead.

that's why hidden ambushes are better, you can't bomb what you can't see

>>32443057
Well considering if one ambush failed, the important location is left unfortified. That's a lot to put on a small ambush force. The best defence of the two is probably the fortified location.

Best defence overall is probably a mix of both.

>>32443057
You don't fight inside a fortified location like a pillbox. You fight around it.

>>32443057
attack and destroy the enemy force before it can even threaten the important location

>>32443074
This comes into knowing your enemy and adapting to that. Maybe your enemy's artillery is not enough for your defences.

>>32443057
It depends, but typically ambushes; a good defense is a good offense. You also want the capability to fall back without letting the enemy directly into the important location.

>>32443057

The concepts of maneuver warfare dictate that you always want the enemy reacting to what you're doing as opposed to you reacting to what they're doing. I guess, to maintain tactical flexibility, maintaining a single fortified position is just too predictable.

do what they do in chechnya. mine the absolute shit out of the fields surrounding the area you want to defend and leave the roads as ambush kill zones.

File: 1467538876891.jpg (56KB, 900x900px)

56KB, 900x900px

>>32443057
Why not both?

>>32443113
What about drones?

pros
>Too far for infantry AA (unless you have a SAM)
>will fuck your base up
cons
>can barely see people under trees/heavy vegetation

>>32443555
Zero sum game

File: 1462629861487.png (209KB, 510x346px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 510x346px

>put mines on everything that isn't a road or an ambush nest
>make extremely concealed ambush zones targeting the roads
>make secondary ambush nests so our teams can retreat
>fortify the main base with snipers and SAW gunners

find a flaw

bumpin'

>>32443709
>my armed recon runs into ambush along road
>pull back

ARTILLERY

>drive ahead again
>hit second ambush nests
>pull back

ARTILLERY

>drive forward again
>come upon fortified positions in a town
>HQ says we're not allowed to flatten the town because of some local cultural significance
>Fug

Release the Panzerhunds!

File: panzerhund_1960_highpoly_by_panick-d7l68sj.jpg (105KB, 1053x759px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1053x759px

>>32444185
>>32443709
Fug, forgot image.

you can always fall back to your fortified positions if you get bored of your screening / ambush positions. possibly while laying traps to delay and disorder their advance. and hell, if they're busy trying to mess with IED's and claymores, who's to say your fortified position doesn't have it's own light artillery that can give them a hard time while they're messing with the traps?

of course haajis wouldn't be smart enough to mess with the traps, they'd just drive right through to attack.

>>32443709
>find a flaw
One Attack helicopter

File: 1480186661623.jpg (108KB, 424x584px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 424x584px

>>32444289
>hurr durr AA doesn't exist

>>32444185
>armed recon get snip'd from 400-500 meters away by entrenched concealed snipers without knowning what he fuck happened to them

File: fc0abbf2d520fdc2d79977e586f63b85.jpg (122KB, 750x600px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 750x600px

>>32443709
>>32444332

>>32443057
Depends on the people you're facing. A static defence against a conventional opponent in modern warfare is a great way to end up dead and has been since WW2 at the least. The only exception to this are cases where you know you only need to hold out for a short time or keep a specific objective safe.

>>32444392
Should add: it also depends on your goal. If pure casualties are the objective ambushing is probably a better idea unless you know they can't afford to use/don't have heavy weapons.

>>32443057
Without any conditions It is a meaningless question.
Insurgency? Full out invasion? Zombie attacks? Cross Dimensional Brony attack? So a big one.. Enemies forces composition and number. What are your resources? and so forth...

>>32443064
More of this....

>>32443074
That's why knowing your enemy is important.

>>32443709
Only to find out enemy has decided to circumvent your area and pound the hell out of it with air assets and arty. The reliance on placing forces on roads allow recon scouts to infiltrate and spot for long range assets. Your ADA and Arty gets waxed first and then aviation or arty assets go to town on your defense. Scout snipers start picking off your valuable troops/assets. Flaw(s) Found

>>32444459
>circumvent your area
how? i said everything that isn't roads/ambush sites should be mined

>air
what are SAMs

>arty
you can't hit what you can't see

>The reliance on placing forces on roads allow recon scouts to infiltrate and spot for long range assets.
where did i say that you should place your forces on the roads? i said you should put them in concealed places (vegetation) TARGETING (facing) the roads

also, how the hell would recon scouts (or any other team really) infiltrate when 99% of places are landmines and guarded by snipers?

>>32444563
Minefields are not impassable

File: 1465329648798.jpg (6KB, 237x200px)

6KB, 237x200px

>>32444583
it fends off recon teams and sniper team and forces them to retreat
it fends off enemies who use human wave tactics
it also disables tanks and other armor

sure as hell won't fend them off forever, but it'll cost them valuable time and some casualties

>>32444627
Small teams have been able to navigate through minefields in the past, a modern recon team will be able to slip your unguarded minefield no problem

>>32444645
>Small teams have been able to navigate through minefields in the past
how would they know about minefields in a heavy vegetation area pre-deployment?
as soon as one of them gets ripped by a mine, i don't think they'd complete the mission and instead they'd retreat and call medevac.

>unguarded minefield
could very well be guarded by the ambush sites

>>32443074
>i don't think mortars and arty gives a shit how fortified you are
>The Iron Triangle
Despite their massive attack with B-52 bombers and Rome plows[1] and efforts to destroy the tunnel system with explosives, flooding, and "tunnel rats" (specially trained soldiers who would infiltrate the tunnels armed only with a flashlight and a handgun), the Americans failed to totally destroy the Viet Cong support system that had been built for over two decades.
All you need is twenty years of preparation.

>>32444563
>you can't hit what you can't see
Yes you can. Life isn't a video game anon, if you suspect the enemy are in a rough area and aren't bound by RoE you can just saturate it and see what happens.

>>32444723
>All you need is twenty years of preparation.
And the perfect soil conditions + political conditions tying your opponent's hands behind his back. Fanatical soldiers helps too.

>>32444563
And you apparently have unlimited assets...

>>how? i said everything that isn't roads/ambush sites should be mined

You are like the kid who is playing cowboys and indians. ( My gun is better!)

You have no concentration of forces.
You don't have SAMs because you apparently can't be seen. Shoulder fired won't cut it. If you have small enough forces to hide you don't have enough to stop.

>>The reliance on placing forces on roads allow recon scouts to infiltrate and spot for long range assets.
>where did i say that you should place your forces on the roads? i said you should put them in concealed places (vegetation) TARGETING (facing) the roads

So you are on or by roads... or do you have massive lines of guys up and down roads over hill, over dale and to grandma's house you will guard?!? O I forgot you have infinite troops, mines, snipers, magic invisible SAMs etc. That apparently get placed instantly without being seen and not needing resupply... You have troops that when they get engaged they hold regardless of what is hitting them.


Also assuming enemies will do what you want. One thing you have done is tie down your resources. A pinning force and circumvention sounds good to me assuming I am a theater commander.

With a lot of resources and and assuming your enemy actually chooses to engage you It's a good plan. But your description is weak. Do you have a local population you are protecting? Is it a break thru situation?

File: 1469830976539.jpg (30KB, 281x248px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 281x248px

>>32444759
> if you suspect the enemy are in a rough area and aren't bound by RoE you can just saturate it and see what happens.
how can you saturate an area that's about 5km wide without wasting a lifetime worth of ordonance and make you CO pissed?

the ruskies did your maginificent technique yet ended with little to effect (and they only hit civilian buildings as well)

shit plan

>>32444828
>how can you saturate an area that's about 5km wide without wasting a lifetime worth of ordonance and make you CO pissed?
You can narrow it down from 5km pretty easily if you know they're defending a static point, as was the claim here. And we've not even talking about drones, planes or ground reconnaissance. If you intend to shoot people trying to probe your lines they can locate you from that.

>the ruskies did your maginificent technique yet ended with little to effect (and they only hit civilian buildings as well)
Russian incompetence is not really an effective argument.

>shit plan
Your idea of sitting still on a modern battlefield is a shit plan anon. It might work against kebab or perhaps against peacekeeping/occupation forces who have their hands tied by RoE but an all-out conventional war between two proper powers would see you dead in a few hours.

>>32444828
For the same reason PFM-1 would good thing to use on your defence forces.

Possible contact....Saturating the area is valid, Random scatters of bomblets and WP would very helpful to a invader. You are defending static points you have to be somewhere tactically valid.

File: 1462365931511.jpg (56KB, 552x510px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 552x510px

>>32444822
>And you apparently have unlimited assets...
So a sniper team and a FIM92 stinger at every ambush site and some landmines, is considered unlimited assets?

>shoulder fired won't cut it
Why?

>or do you have massive lines of guys up and down roads over hill
just a sniper should be able to throw off an enemy team or slow down an incoming infantry force

>You have troops that when they get engaged they hold regardless of what is hitting them.
that's why the secondary ambush sites i mentioned exist to house the retreating soldiers.

>>32444861
>You can narrow it down from 5km pretty easily if you know they're defending a static point,
how can you do that without any drones, recon planes or ground troops?

>If you intend to shoot people trying to probe your lines they can locate you from that.
well it's gonna take alot of time because you can't easily find a sniper team that's nested down,heavily concealed and shooting at you from +600 meters
effective counter sniping is a meme

>>32444861
>Russian incompetence is not really an effective argument.
senpai if you actually read about some russian arty campaigns you'd know that there isn't any 'incompetence' since there's no skill in vaporising 10 kiloms wide area

>>32444871
>For the same reason PFM-1 would good thing to use on your defence forces.
What makes them so special?

>>32444946
>how can you do that without any drones, recon planes or ground troops?
Why do I have none of these available? If you claim you shoot any that I bring then hey, guess who I just found? It's the fucker shooting at me. Also you must have a fucking large force sitting around if you've got capabilities to defeat any and all recon at a moment's notice.

>well it's gonna take alot of time because you can't easily find a sniper team that's nested down,heavily concealed and shooting at you from +600 meters
I thought I had a 5km zone to bombard? Also a sniper team isn't that large of an issue to a modern conventional force. And good luck using it to defeat armoured recon.
On that note are you talking about actual snipers or simply marksmen in a concealed position? In either case they've got to move quite quickly after firing if they don't want to be very dead very quickly and that entails a fuckton of pre-prepared positions.

>>32444963
>senpai if you actually read about some russian arty campaigns you'd know that there isn't any 'incompetence' since there's no skill in vaporising 10 kiloms wide area
Russian strategic incompetence anon. The decision to take such action, regardless of tactical effectiveness, isn't a smart one.

>>32445040
>>32444946
And to add to all of this: if I really want that position the best the sniper team is going to manage is a slight delay and reasonably light casualties. Continue to rush their position and that's that. It's more demoralising than anything else because, frankly, infantry on either side are a disposeable side-show at best. Real life isn't Battlefield.

>>32443057
Dont have an "important location" to begin with.

Be fluid like water, capable of flowing everywhere, around every obstacle and under the right conditions become as hard as concrete.

>>32445040
not that guy

>Why do I have none of these available?
assuming that anon's super duper defense forces exist
then
your drones/aircraft would get shot down by their stinger
your ground recon would get killed by snipers/landmines

> And good luck using it to defeat armoured recon
if armor goes off road, it gets fucked by landmines, if it sticks to roads, it gets fucked by AT

i'm also sure anon's talking about marksmen since they use stingers

>>32445088
>Continue to rush their position and that's that
are we fighting USSR human wave troops?

any team would stop or bail out at any sighting of a sniper or landmines (let alone both)

>>32445116
>your drones/aircraft would get shot down by their stinger
Drones perhaps, though that lets you locate the rough location they're firing from. Modern recon planes would need something more significant than a MANPAD to take down reliably and anything that chunky is going to have problems with SEAD not to mention being fucking obvious for miles around when it fires.
>your ground recon would get killed by snipers/landmines
Mines perhaps, snipers I don't think so.

>if armor goes off road, it gets fucked by landmines, if it sticks to roads, it gets fucked by AT
AT isn't a sniper team. I thought that anon was proposing a small two-man team moving around concealed, pre-prepared positions. Make it more than that and we've located some targets (i.e. the fuckers shooting AT missiles at us).

>i'm also sure anon's talking about marksmen since they use stingers
That's somewhat the point I was getting at. Snipers =/= marksmen.

>>32445137
>are we fighting USSR human wave troops?
You just keep on driving/running between cover anon, ideally while suppressing any likely positions the sniper is sitting in. If they sit still they die eventually, if they move then problem solved. A few casualties and you're held up for at most an hour, likely less. Delaying the inevitable is not the same as holding a position, as I said your tactic might be viable if you know you only have to hold for a few hours but you're dead if the other side wants the location and you can't/won't manoeuvre.

>any team would stop or bail out at any sighting of a sniper or landmines (let alone both)
You overestimate the the threat of a single shooter to a conventional force in an actual fucking war. During COIN operations where the political cost of each solider killed is massive sure you stop and do shit slowly. In all out war a handful of dead infantrymen is nothing for an objective captured.

>>32443682
Yes, but you could argue that there is a diminishing return for both the fortified units and the roving ambush units.

Besides, think of the flanking tactics if the ambush units are able to stay down long enough for any attacking forces to pass them as they go to engage the fortification.

>>32443057

In historical warfare, number 1. In modern warfare, number 2. The shifting point is probably WWII.

>>32444723
the reason the US didn't destroy the Viet Cong was because they were constantly being resupplied by Hanoi. If Johnson or Nixon had let the Air Force bomb targets in Hanoi, and shipping coming into their ports, the US would have won by 1966. As it was, Nixon only released the USAF in 72', and brought Hanoi back to the negotiating table within weeks. Of course, that rat bastard then decided to promptly not take advantage of his enemies weakness, and lose the war.

>>32444563
Air Forces have legit tactics and units for dealing with SAMs, they're not the boogeymen they were in Vietnam.

File: 1464003568691.jpg (31KB, 720x954px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 720x954px

>>32445187
then how do we improve anon's super duper defense plan?

add SAW gunners in the ambush positions?

split the marksman-AA-AT teams?

>>32445368
>then how do we improve anon's super duper defense plan?
Don't defend static points for longer than a few hours. In the exceptional cases where a point MUST be held near-indefinitely dedicated fucktons of resources to it and defend a line miles away from it so we've got room to manoeuvre.

>add SAW gunners in the ambush positions?
Well if we're going to go for a full ambush sure. If we're defending miles away as planned then do this and fall back quickly since we've got miles to play around in. For more tactical shit ask someone with more experience or read some literature on modern ambush tactics.

File: 1482760051374.png (17KB, 381x553px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 381x553px

>>32443057

What is the scale of the map? I'll go full retard and write down doctrinal graphics for how a platoon sized cavalry organization (2 tank/4 brad) could defend it.

>>32445455
scale of the base is 150-200 meters square

go nuts anon

>>32443057
Have men in those ambush locations and in the fortified place. Don't have the men in the ambush spots actually ambush them, and once they close on the fortified point and then attack from both sides.

>static defense (THAT YOU WANT TO SURVIVE)
>against mobile warfare with air support

JUST

>>32446027
>Manpads don't exist

I would start about 10ish km away from the fort and do small hit and run - ambushes taking down a vehicle or two every time. Mines and recoilless rifles. You need decent recon though and flank protection by both mines and eyes on the flanks. How much you need flankprotection depends on the terrain and enemy doctrine. Like a mortar platoon and some antitank missile teams would be super nice. From there on it would be a case of how fleet footed your troops are and how hard your enemy is going to push. Loads of pressure on platoon and squad leaders.

If they have strong artillery that will saturate the area well hold on to your helmet and shuffle positions like hell. Hopefully you have at least some heavy mortars to call on if thongs get rough.

Airpower/recon can be bitch to deal with, but seeing humansized camoed up soldier is decently hard from air. Hopefully you have some antiair for any helis that show up. Honestly would rather evade than defend unless absolutely necessary.

Generally be the annoying bitch who throws a punch and runs away. Redeploying your farthest ambushing troops with some all terrain vehicles or trucks if smaller paths exist would be dope, but has the risk of being spotted from air. Hope that you have achieved enough losses in time, vehicles, morale and men that you can rout or mop up the survivors.

Defending/planning one for single point like this is hard, since its a scenario without context. And being forced to situation like the op against anything else than some enraged militia attacking a military base would suck big time. But hey im just spitballing these out there.

>>32444332
>be armed recon
>hiding in bush 1500 meters form target city
>some faggot snipes you from 500 meters because the enemy put 6 armies inside to defend it and they have snipers on every second tree
>survivors tell this to command
>destroy entire country while keeping town encircled
>town armies decide to attack our guys when they run out of food
>run into their own mines
>win battle because some faggot poured all their resources into defending one city

>>32444896
>So a sniper team and a FIM92 stinger at every ambush site and some landmines, is considered unlimited assets?

You want to set up ambush position on every road and mine every other possible terrain. You would need a week and infinite mines.

>>shoulder fired won't cut it
>Why?

Because the planes can just go up high enough so they can not be targeted?

>just a sniper should be able to throw off an enemy team or slow down an incoming infantry force

You mean a sniper who will stop being a problem when his general position gets spotted and he will be destroyed by artillery?

>>32443057
METT-TC dependent.

Ambushes if:
>you have too many people and would overcrowd the defenses at the intersection
>there are few roads
>you have specialized ambushing gear (ie. land mines)

Centralized if:
>there is key terrain at the centralization point
>you have relatively few personnel
>there are many roads
>you don't have enough AT and other specialized weapons to spread them out over many defensive strongpoints
>you are expecting to be attacked form multiple directions and that you will need to reorient your forces quickly

those, among other considerations will tell you what the best approach will be.

Generally, though, it's best to try to have (at least) a two tiered defensive perimeter to make use of the resources you have which are well suited to both approaches.

>>32444563
you seem to believe you have an inexhaustable supply of mines. How far out do you mine from the location, at what density? If you want to mine 100 yards out you might have enough mines but the radius is so small it doesn't counter any meaningful enemy strategies but retard rushing and if you want to mine the whole fucking world there aren't enough explosives to make it happen and you have turned a relatively reasonable scenario into a fucking absurdity.

TL;DR, you don't have enough mines and even if you did you'd be tried for war crimes because international agreements about passive mines lmao

>>32445450
For a platoon or company sized important area, absolutely.

For anything smaller or larger a different strategy needs to be adopted.

>>32446124
>MANPADS
>defending against JDAMS or other cheap standoff level munitions

>>32446644
If the enemy has the ability to toss PGMs then you already lost when they gained intelligence of the important location

>>32446675
Exactly.

Static warfare is fucking stupid in the modern era unless you're an insurgent force willing to stand and die for every piece of ground.

>>32446704
Or if you're in a third world shithole where nobody can muster armored brigades or a meaningful air campaign.

>this is where 90% of wars happen now

>>32443057
Outside of any further context, I'd divide my forces into two roughly equally sized groups - one inside the firtification, equipped with whatever MGs and mortars I have, and the other with horses (preferred because they're quiet) or quads and at least a few RPGs, somewhere off to the side in a hidden area.
If the enemy commits to attacking the fortifications, they'll be slowed down and probably want to call in for artillery. The rocket cavalry is lying in wait, with a few scouts sent out here and there, so they can ambush the artillery as it's deploying. They can also strike at any other supply chain that's coming in. If the arty is captured/destroyed/driven off, then they'll be a hammer to combine with the anvil of the fortification.