Maginot.

This is coolbert:

"Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man." - - G.S Patton.

Here from the book by Dupuy, "understanding War" another of those timeless verities of war:

# 6 "Defenders' chances of success are directly proportional to fortification strength."

"To some modern military things this is a truism needing no explanation or justification. others have asserted that prepared defenses are attractive traps to be avoid at all costs. Such assertions, however either ignore or misread historical examples. History is so fickle that it is dangerous for historians to use such words as 'always' or 'never'."

"One can cite as historical examples the overcoming of the Maginot Line, the Mannerheim Line, the Siegfried Line and the Bar Lev Line, and from these examples conclude that these fortifications FAILED. SUCH A CONCLUSION IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG." [my emphasis!!]

In the modern era - - fortifications are considered an anachronism without merit. NOT ONLY without merit, but a strong negative. This is the prevailing wisdom and perception, both among the astute military mind and the lay public both?!

And I think we have an intuitive sense of what we are speaking about when we talk of "fortifications". Defensive barriers, often arrayed in depth, consisting of anti-tank obstacles, belts of barbed wire, minefields, concrete reinforced pillboxes, bunkers, gun emplacements, strong-points, all connected together as part of a comprehensive defensive "line".

Fortifications should NEVER be considered to be totally impervious to attack. Rather, should be thought of as a barrier the intent of which is to slow down, retard the forward-motion of, cause casualties and make your enemy [the attacker] deploy and disperse!!

A barrier while not totally impenetrable, nonetheless presenting a formidable challenge to the attacker, offensive action being negated - - the cost of a frontal assault being so cost prohibitive!!

This too from Dupuy regarding the effectiveness of the Maginot Line in 1940:

"The French were defeated mainly because they did not put enough faith in the strength of that line."

"They deployed their forces equally along the frontier, leaving four armies behind the fortifications, when one - - at most - - would have been required."

"If the French had had available . . . one, or two, or three of the armies that were sitting idly useless in and behind the Maginot Line, they could at least have stopped The German [in 1940]."

We have to be clear about this! The German in 1940 HAD recognized the Maginot Line was an effective barrier - - too formidable for a frontal assault to succeed.

The French - - however - - had deployed four armies BEHIND THE LINE - - a terrible waste of manpower and material that could have been used better elsewhere. The German attack and the Battle of France - - 1940 could have gone the way of the allies, if those armies had been redeployed!

And this from the wiki is most germane:

"Part of the rationale for the Maginot line stemmed from the massive French losses during the First World War, and their effects on French demographics . . . Faced with inadequate personnel resources, French planners had to rely more on older and less fit reservists"

"Defense is the stronger form of combat!" - - Clausewitz.

A demographic shortfall for the French meant that not enough fit young men were available to man mobile, rapid moving units the technology of the era demanded. The French had to go with what they had. Older, out-of-shape reservists fighting a defensive battle, manning the fighting positions of the Maginot Line could have given a good account of themselves.

There is a role even in modern warfare for modern fortifications? If the limitations of fortifications are understood by military planners and politicians both, I would have to think so. For a military strapped of funding and personnel, fortifications offer an alternative to an intractable situation?

coolbert.