Perimeter defences plan for a military base for the GWOT

[Peter Dow]

In Afghanistan, the enemy Taliban forces have attacked supposedly well-defended bases such as Bagram and Bastion bases.

Afghanistan Attacks: Insurgents Attack Bagram Air Base

KABUL, Afghanistan -- Afghan insurgents bombarded a U.S. base and destroyed a NATO helicopter, killing three Afghan intelligence employees, officials said Tuesday. There were also NATO personnel aboard and wounded, the coalition said without providing further details.

Camp Bastion assault: Two US marines die in 'Taliban revenge'
Aircraft and buildings were damaged but Nato said its forces killed 18 of the insurgents and captured one.
...
Nato officials say insurgents used small arms, rockets and mortars in the attack on Camp Bastion which took place at about 22:00 on Friday (17:30 GMT), under cover of darkness.

So I am working on a plan for better perimeter defences for our military bases where there is a terrorist threat.

Here's the basic plan for a small base, with no runways, tell me what you think.

Perimeter defences plan for a military base


Click for LARGER image

This diagram shows my suggested layout for the perimeter defences for a military base.

Explanation of the diagram features.

Central Base - the green disc in the diagram represents the central well-defended area of the military base, or "Green Zone" where various buildings, vehicles and personnel of the base are normally situated.

Autocannon, machine gun & missile towers - the red and pink dots represent static, armoured fortifications or towers for one autocannon, machine gun and anti-tank missiles and its 3-man team of gunners which encircle the base at a distance of about 6 miles or 10 kilometres from the edge of the central Base. The spacing between adjacent gun towers is about 333 metres or 333 yards.

The Pyramid of Cestius, Rome, photoshopped into a gun tower

The idea of gun towers is to give the gunner a good view of the desert terrain which is unlikely to be completely flat and dips in the ground could otherwise provide cover for attacking mortar teams. Gun towers also enable the gunners easily to see over and beyond any obstacles in the vehicle barrier into the Threat Zone. The gun towers should be robust enough so that they could take a number of artillery shells without collapsing.

The plan calls for one team of gunners per tower serving on base. The gunners are organised into 3 duty shifts of at least 8 hours and so normally only 1 in 3 of the towers will be manned at any one time. The gunners spend their off-duty time in the central Base where their quarters are situated.

If, when and where the perimeter defences are attacked by the enemy, the off-duty gunners can be called back on emergency duty as required by their officers.

There would be a minimum of about 200 gun towers required and for each tower I propose -

• a 25mm cannon, which typically have a range out to 2.5 km / 1.5 miles with
• a 12.7mm (0.5") or 7.62mm machine gun back-up.
• anti-tank missiles, such as TOW (Tube-launched, Optically-tracked, Wire command data-link) guided missiles

The tower's weapons are mounted into some kind of swivelling gun turret, with working parts like the gun turret on top of an infantry fighting vehicle maybe.

A cost-effective option might be to buy off-the-shelf turrets which are already in mass production for vehicles like the Bradley IFV with some additional armour capped on top of it because it doesn't need to be light, just very strong against incoming mortar or artillery fire.

The one issue there might be with IVF turrets is that it really needs lower gun elevation than is standard for an IFV turret. IFV guns often don't dip below -10 degrees below the horizontal.

That's not ideal because the gun turrets are going to be much higher off the ground than they would be in an IVF and ideally the gunners ought to be able to target the ground beneath them as well as the ground hundreds of metres away.

Naval ship mounted cannons tend to dip lower, down to -20 degrees and that would be better, but naval cannons are not usually well armoured for the gunner's protection.

They do come in remotely operated versions which is an interesting option to consider.

Infantry barriers - barbed wire and anti-personnel mines to stop enemy infantry from advancing into the centre of the base.

Vehicle barriers - obstacles and anti-tank mines which prevent enemy vehicles from advancing into the centre of the base.

Reaction Force Zone - Quick reaction forces deploy in armoured vehicles from the central base into the Reaction Force Zone to fire at enemy attacking forces.

Threat Zone - A circumferential military zone around the perimeter defences where the base defenders may assume a hostile intent on the part of uninvited intruders into the Threat Zone and from where locals are forbidden and variously warned off from intruding upon. This land is occupied or leased to the military base and is closely watched using surveillance technology. Warning shots or sub-lethal rounds may be fired upon suspected innocent intruders and identified enemy forces can be fired upon to kill without warning.

The diagram represents a Threat Zone which extends to 10 miles / 16 kilometres from the edge of the central Base. The plan therefore recommends that it is inappropriate to site a well-defended base within 10 miles of an urban area or a public highway which would cause local people and local traffic to enter into the defined Threat Zone routinely making the early detection of real threats difficult to distinguish.

A large Threat Zone is desirable for security purposes because it makes for a safer perimeter defence but does add significantly to the land requirements of the base therefore the availability of a wide area of undeveloped land is ideal when choosing a location for the construction of a new military base.

Some existing military bases are located close to urban areas where a large Threat Zone cannot be defined and this is likely to make such bases much less secure.

Access road Road to access the base from the surrounding road network.

STOP police control barrier Military police stop traffic wishing to enter the base and perform final checks that visitors and loads are authorised to proceed. The control barriers prevent terrorists driving off the road and prevent vehicles proceeding without permission.

The control barrier fortifications need to be very robust so as to survive an enemy truck bomb.

Trust Zone People, vehicles or buildings in the Trust Zone which is everywhere outside of the Threat Zone are assumed to be trustworthy and non-threatening in so far as the base defenders are concerned.

People in the Trust Zone are assumed to be respecting the base's security and the base defenders treat people in the Trust Zone with the same mutual respect for their own security.

Protestors
Protestors who wish to demonstrate for whatever reason their political viewpoints are allowed to approach the base as far as the Warning Line which surrounds the Threat Zone but it is the responsibility of the local authorities to ensure that protestors do not intrude into the Threat Zone without invitation otherwise a hostile intent may be assumed and defensive actions taken.

Defence force For the smallest bases, this plan calls for a defence force of three serving companies of gunners - one company for each of the 3 shifts.

One company needs at least 200 gunners and their officers so 3 companies total at least 600 gunners and their officers. In addition, military and support personnel are needed for other duties such as policing visitors, cooking, vehicle and plant maintenance engineers, medical, supplies storage & management, camp tidying up, latrine digging, reserves etc.

The defence force required would be of an infantry battalion size of perhaps of about 800 soldiers / marines and support personnel in total and so the base defence force commander would likely be ranked at Lieutenant Colonel or higher.

Larger air bases

For larger bases with central Base areas that could be miles wide, such as military air bases that require aircraft runways, the lines of perimeter defences would need to be longer and so more gun towers, gunners etc would be required.

 

[rattler]

Don´t want to go into details of your schemes´ approach, just one aspect:

Your gun towers are way too far out: A battallion just to man A THIRD of them? Very limited mutual support? Not able to support the central base? Not feasable from my POV.

The towers itself would be my target if I was an insurgent, and I would not be too much afraid of the "Reaction Force" that would be prowling about somewhere in the 300+ square km Reaction Force Zone of your diagram.

If you insist to go with this static defense tower concept you would want to have a max of 22 towers at 1.2 km radius to the base: They could mutually support both each others as well as the base and a company would be enough to man them 24/7.

FWIW,

Rattler

 

[NP8901]

As a taxpayer I would say: I can´t afford it.

 

[Capt Frogman]

As a taxpayer I would say: I can´t afford it.

Nor do we have the manpower or hardware available (or ever will have).

 

[Yossarian]

If the year was 150 A.D. and manned by the Legion's Brightest to hold out against the barbarian horde.

Then maybe this plan would be feasible.

But heavy auto cannon platforms with TOW missiles?...

What are you expecting the Taliban to send out an armored division on the flat rolling plains of Afghanistan? (sarcasm).

 

[Peter Dow]

Not feasible?

Don´t want to go into details of your schemes´ approach, just one aspect:

Your gun towers are way too far out:

That's to keep enemy infantry mortar teams in the Threat Zone out of range of the Central Base.

A battallion just to man A THIRD of them?

Well there are about 200 gun towers in total.

One third of that is about 66 gun towers manned with 3-man teams = 198 gunners in the gun towers on duty for an 8 hour shift.

3 shifts is about 600 gunners and then there are their officers back in the central base etc. so yes a battalion gives 24/7 coverage.

Very limited mutual support?

Limited only at the first sign of trouble but the gunners have monitors displaying CCTV video from cameras looking well out into the threat zone and they are armoured so the first sign of trouble should not be lethal for them.

The towers are essentially armed lookout towers. Their most important function is to raise the alarm back at central base at the first sign of enemy activity, incoming fire etc. to call for back-up, reinforcements which spring into action to defend any gun towers which are attacked.

Before reinforcements arrive the manned gun towers are 1000 metres or 1000 yards apart. That's because the towers are one every 333 metres or 333 yards but normally only 1 in 3 is manned, so the distance to the nearest manned tower is 3 x 333 = 999 or about 1000 metres or yards.

Say about 15 or 20 minutes later when gunner reinforcements arrive then the neighbouring towers become manned as well so that will then be towers every 333 metres or 333 yards supporting each other.

Not able to support the central base?

Well the main support function that the gun towers provide for the Central Base is to keep enemy ground forces at a distance.

That leaves the enemy only really air attack options against the Central Base which will have its own standard defences which I have not yet specified because it is easy to imagine typical air defences such as ground to air missiles, anti-aircraft guns, air-raid bunkers etc.

Not feasable from my POV.

Not feasible? Really? Exactly why do you say that, may I ask?

The towers itself would be my target if I was an insurgent,

OK. How could an insurgent attack the towers successfully, do you think?

and I would not be too much afraid of the "Reaction Force" that would be prowling about somewhere in the 300+ square km Reaction Force Zone of your diagram.

Not all the Reaction Force would be confined to that Reaction Force Zone.

For example, attack helicopters could fly out from the Central Base out over the perimeter defences to attack insurgents in the Threat Zone or even the Trust Zone if enemy were detected firing from there.

Staying in the Reaction Force Zone would be those using indirect fire weapons - mortars, howitzers, artillery.

Tanks and Infantry Fighting Vehicles could travel all the way to between the gun towers to provide direct fire support.
:tank:
Insurgents ought to be afraid of what is coming out of the Reaction Zone firing at them. Mind you the Taliban seem to want to be suicide attackers. That can be arranged easily enough with my defences plan.

If you insist to go with this static defense tower concept you would want to have a max of 22 towers at 1.2 km radius to the base: They could mutually support both each others as well as the base and a company would be enough to man them 24/7.

No this would allow enemy infantry mortars to get within firing range of the Central Base.

FWIW,

Rattler

Thanks for trying to find a flaw in my base defences.

 

[Peter Dow]

Here's to us thrifty Scots!

As a taxpayer I would say: I can´t afford it.

In 2010, the US paid Karzai $6.8 billion in military aid.

So we simply advise and ask the US and other donors to the ANA to stop paying Karzai anything at all in military aid, spend some of the US money saved on a smaller, better quality but cheaper NATO-ISAF auxiliary force of Afghans with NATO generals, then spend some of the rest on projects like this base defence plan.

I bet if us frugal and efficient Scots got together to put this plan in operation we could save the USA taxpayer billions of dollars!

 

[Peter Dow]

Forget the Afghan-Pakistan border, it has no strategic significance

Nor do we have the manpower

We should close the NATO forward operating bases along the Pakistan / Afghanistan border and redeploy our forces to secure our bases and supply lines.

For us, this should be a war on terror, it shouldn't be a border skirmish between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The border FOBs have no strategic significance and are very hard to supply.

We want to kill enemy Taliban whatever side of the border they are on and we can hit them from the air using drones and bombing missions with no need for border bases.

If the Pakistani Taliban wish to do us the favour of coming into Afghanistan to attack our most secure bases and supply lines then all the easier for us to kill them.

As for building the gun towers which would be required to fortify such bases we could hire in civilian contractor manpower to help our military engineers.

or hardware available (or ever will have).

If we've got the money we can buy the hardware. See my last post for where the money could come from.

 

[Peter Dow]

If the year was 150 A.D. and manned by the Legion's Brightest to hold out against the barbarian horde.

Then maybe this plan would be feasible.

Hmm. In 150 A.D. the Roman Legions were completing Antonine's Wall to keep us northern "barbarian hordes" out.

My plans are not for empire but for freedom. I'd be more in sympathy with Spartacus, not Rome.

I do like Rome's pyramids though. :hide:

The Pyramid of Cestius, Rome, photoshopped into a gun tower

But heavy auto cannon platforms with TOW missiles?...

It's an all-purpose Global War On Terror perimeter defences plan which can be adapted to the particular country and enemy faced.

In the future, in some country, we could have a base where we might be facing regular armies with tanks. You never know. Be prepared.

The autocannon is good against pick-up mounted heavier machine guns or technicals.

In Afghanistan, The Taliban acquisition of anti-aircraft platforms is a possible threat. The Taliban certainly used technicals a lot when they were in power. Yes NATO air-power is an effective deterrence against Taliban technicals but I could not guarantee "it'll never happen" so the autocannons are advisable especially when defending our most important bases.

What are you expecting the Taliban to send out an armored division on the flat rolling plains of Afghanistan? (sarcasm).

It's been a while since the Taliban got very far in a tank I must admit.

Whereas so far, the green-on-blue attacks have been isolated small arms attacks, I don't think it would be prudent military planning to assume there can't ever be the possibility of green-on-blue attacks using the range of fighting vehicles and main battle tanks available to the ANA.

We know that the Taliban have been supplied from Pakistan and Iran. So I don't think we can rule out either of those countries training up a Taliban armoured assault force or invading themselves to kick our forces up the backside on the way out in 2014.

In any case I am specifying the TOW missile firing system into my gun tower design so that if a need for the missiles is determined in future it will be easy enough to buy the missiles and arm the gun towers with that facility.

Better to have the missiles function (anti-tank and ground-to-air) as a possible option for the gun turrets and never need it than later to discover you need it but can't deploy it.

If adding standard IVF turrets to the towers all those functions are available as options so why not?

 

[Capt Frogman]

We should close the NATO forward operating bases along the Pakistan / Afghanistan border and redeploy our forces to secure our bases and supply lines.

For us, this should be a war on terror, it shouldn't be a border skirmish between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The border FOBs have no strategic significance and are very hard to supply.

We want to kill enemy Taliban whatever side of the border they are on and we can hit them from the air using drones and bombing missions with no need for border bases.

If the Pakistani Taliban wish to do us the favour of coming into Afghanistan to attack our most secure bases and supply lines then all the easier for us to kill them.

As for building the gun towers which would be required to fortify such bases we could hire in civilian contractor manpower to help our military engineers..

You simply cannot leave the border unmanned, that would be mad, stupid and unthinkable.

If we've got the money we can buy the hardware. See my last post for where the money could come from.

An intelligent guy such as yourself must be aware of the current financial "crisis" affecting the worlds economies?

 

[Peter Dow]

You simply cannot leave the border unmanned, that would be mad, stupid and unthinkable.

Well we are told it'll be "the end of combat operations by 2014", right?

So is your notion that it will be OK for us to leave the border unmanned by 2014 but not before then? :roll:

We need to defeat the enemy equally both sides of the border. Having forces along the border makes it no easier to hit the Taliban deep into Pakistan. For that we need air power.

It's such a long border that making it impenetrable in summer is impractical and in winter the weather does the job fine.

It only takes one enemy supply path open through the mountains to make the whole border operation pointless.

The border FOBs are difficult to supply, difficult to redeploy forces to and from, a drain on resources and don't help our strategic objectives which is to defeat terrorism on both sides of the border.

So forget the Afghanistan / Pakistan border! We need to lose our obsession with the strategically meaningless border and concentrate on our strategic objectives in the war on terror.

Yes we do need strong defensive lines against the Taliban but we ought to choose defensive lines that suit our military efficiency, not suit the historical political map which drew the border.

It's much more efficient to choose defensive lines parallel to and at the end of our main supply lines. That way our FOBs are easier to supply and our supply lines are more secure.

Image: The text in this picture where it says "Border Defences" that does not refer to the Afghanistan / Pakistan border! NO IT DOESN'T! :read: Those "Border defences" being mentioned just mean the "Side-of-the-road defences". Repeat, the image above has absolutely nothing to do with the Afghanistan / Pakistan border! This road is a main supply road, a highway. Forget the Afghanistan / Pakistan border for one minute of your life if you possibly can! I know it is tough but go on, you can do it! :sarc:

An intelligent guy such as yourself must be aware of the current financial "crisis" affecting the worlds economies?

Yes I am aware.

Are you aware that I am not proposing that we spend more? I am proposing that we spend less but spend it more efficiently.

What part of -

In 2010, the US paid Karzai $6.8 billion in military aid.

So we simply advise and ask the US and other donors to the ANA to stop paying Karzai anything at all in military aid, spend some of the US money saved on a smaller, better quality but cheaper NATO-ISAF auxiliary force of Afghans with NATO generals, then spend some of the rest on projects like this base defence plan.

- didn't you understand?

 

[42RM]

Do you have any idea what kind of war we are fighting??

 

[Capt Frogman]

Do you have any idea what kind of war we are fighting??

Apparently people who have never set foot in the country are the experts. Those who have been in the country know nothing.

This is the Internet, everyone's an expert!

 

[Capt Frogman]

Well we are told it'll be "the end of combat operations by 2014", right?

So is your notion that it will be OK for us to leave the border unmanned by 2014 but not before then? :roll:

We need to defeat the enemy equally both sides of the border. Having forces along the border makes it no easier to hit the Taliban deep into Pakistan. For that we need air power.

It's such a long border that making it impenetrable in summer is impractical and in winter the weather does the job fine.

It only takes one enemy supply path open through the mountains to make the whole border operation pointless.

The border FOBs are difficult to supply, difficult to redeploy forces to and from, a drain on resources and don't help our strategic objectives which is to defeat terrorism on both sides of the border.

So forget the Afghanistan / Pakistan border! We need to lose our obsession with the strategically meaningless border and concentrate on our strategic objectives in the war on terror.

Yes we do need strong defensive lines against the Taliban but we ought to choose defensive lines that suit our military efficiency, not suit the historical political map which drew the border.

It's much more efficient to choose defensive lines parallel to and at the end of our main supply lines. That way our FOBs are easier to supply and our supply lines are more secure.

Image: The text in this picture where it says "Border Defences" that does not refer to the Afghanistan / Pakistan border! NO IT DOESN'T! :read: Those "Border defences" being mentioned just mean the "Side-of-the-road defences". Repeat, the image above has absolutely nothing to do with the Afghanistan / Pakistan border! This road is a main supply road, a highway. Forget the Afghanistan / Pakistan border for one minute of your life if you possibly can! I know it is tough but go on, you can do it! :sarc:



Yes I am aware.

Are you aware that I am not proposing that we spend more? I am proposing that we spend less but spend it more efficiently.

What part of -



- didn't you understand?

The majority of that is unrealistic, way off the mark and shows a complete lack of understanding. I can't be arsed picking it all a part as I have more constructive things to do with my time.

I am in awe of your superior knowledge! ray:. Clearly my 20 odd years of leading a team in countless conflicts (Afghanistan twice) counts for nothing! :roll:

 

[42RM]

Apparently people who have never set foot in the country are the experts. Those who have been in the country know nothing.

This is the Internet, everyone's an expert!

Well CF
We´re just some silly little boys in uniforms who know nothing about war.

 

[Peter Dow]

Do you have any idea what kind of war we are fighting??

We ought to be fighting the Afghanistan / Pakistan battles of the Global War on Terror in an efficient, strategically wise way. That takes intelligent leadership by republican intellectuals.

I am concerned however that if Her Majesty's generals or HM's current or aspiring honorary Knights Commander and Knights Grand Cross of the British Empire from the US general staff are calling any of the shots then the kind of war we might end up with will be a replay of the Royal military disaster-wars of Afghanistan such as the 1842 retreat from Kabul / Massacre of Elphinstone's army.

What kind of war should we expect royalist twits to be fighting?

 

[42RM]

So in your opinion, how do we fight in an efficient, strategically wise way?

 

[Peter Dow]

How to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan (and win the war on terror)

So in your opinion, how do we fight in an efficient, strategically wise way?

Thanks. That's a fair question. I should start a new topic on AfPak and war on terror strategy because it is a long answer - some of the stronger defensive measures I have mentioned here but we need a stronger offence as well, taking the fight to Taliban central and their Pakistani military intellegence (ISI) backers. Slapping Iran about a bit more would probably help some too, come to think of it! :mrgreen:

OK, I've now started a new topic at this link.

How to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan (and win the war on terror)

 

[rattler]

...No this would allow enemy infantry mortars to get within firing range of the Central Base.


...Thanks for trying to find a flaw in my base defences.

Well just for the fun of it and because this is this what I feel an absurd idea I ran your base defense through TACOPS milsim yesterday night, in different scenarios, my first intuition turned out to be right on the spot I think:

- First scenario: 3 toyotas with a 60mm 3-tube mortar team within one them simultaneously tried to squeeze through all your towers at the same time for a total of 600 toyotas and 200 mortar teams. I gave the base an AH 64 squadron, the towers 30 mm cannons and TOW (obstacles as pointed out by you: Wire and ditches), guess what: 87 mortar teams managed to fire one volley at the base, 36 got two volleys off, and 12 got 5 volleys off (I stopped it there).

- 2nd scenario: 100 LMG armed Toyotas with 30 (Russian) 82mm 3-tube mortar teams and 3 faulty old MANPADS tried to squeeze between 5 of your towers. Same defenses as above. Result (repeated three times with little difference in outcome): 15 mortar teams got 3 volleys at the base before eliminated.

- 3rd scenario: Attack on 3 of your towers with the intent to disable the middle one, using supressive fires by 6x 82 mortar teams (3 tube each) and 30 LMG equipped Toyotas took out the middle tower every time (the mentioned lack of mutual support) against a flight of AH 64 and 30mm cannons/TOW leaving a gap of 1600 yards where the follo up could easily enter.

Since the Maginot Line in the ´30s we know that such static defenses dont work and are useless once the enemy gets by (and he will with maneuver warfare): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line .

Excerpts (rings a bell?):

The Maginot Line (French: Ligne Maginot, IPA: [liɲ maʒino]), named after the French Minister of War André Maginot, was a line of concrete fortifications, tank obstacles, artillery casemates, machine gun posts, and other defenses, which France constructed...

...The French established the fortification to provide time for their army to mobilise in the event of attack, allowing French forces to move ... for a decisive confrontation with attacking forces. The success of static, defensive combat in World War I was a key influence on French thinking. Military experts extolled the Maginot Line as a work of genius, believing it would prevent any further invasions from the east ...

... The specification of the defences was very high, with extensive and interconnected bunker complexes for thousands of men; there were 45 main forts (grands ouvrages) at intervals of 15 kilometres (9.3 miles), 97 smaller forts (petits ouvrages) and 352 casemates between, with over 100 kilometres (62 miles) of tunnels. Artillery was coordinated with protective measures to ensure that one fort could support the next in line by bombarding it directly without harm. The largest guns were therefore 135 mm (5.3 in) fortress guns; larger weapons were to be part of the mobile forces and were to be deployed behind the lines. ...

... Armoured cloches There are several kinds of armoured cloches. The word cloche is a French term meaning bell due to its shape. All cloches were made in an alloy steel. Cloches are non-retractable turrets.

• The most widespread are the GFM cloches, where GFM means Guetteur fusil-mitrailleur (machine-gun sentry). They are composed of 3 to 4 openings, called crenels or embrasures. These crenels may be equipped as follows: Rifle machine-gun, direct vision block, binoculars block or 50 mm (2.0 in) mortar. Sometimes, the cloche is topped by a periscope. There are 1,118 GFM cloches on the line. Almost every block, casemate and shelter is topped by one or two GFM cloches.
• The JM cloches are the same as the GFM cloches except that they have one opening equipped with a pair of machine-guns. There are 174 JM cloches on the line.
• There are 72 AM cloches (armes mixtes or "mixed weapons") on the line, equipped with a pair of machine guns and a 25 mm (1.0 in) anti-tank gun. Some GFM cloches were transformed into AM cloches in 1934. (The aforementioned total does not include these modified cloches.)
• There are 75 LG cloches (lance-grenade – grenade launcher) on the line. Those cloches are almost completely covered by concrete, with only a small hole through which grenades were launched for local defence.
• There are 20 VP cloches (periscopic vision) on the line. These cloches could be equipped with several different periscopes. Like the LG cloches, they were almost completely covered by concrete. ...

... The line included the following retractable turrets.

• 21 turrets of 75 mm (3.0 in) model 1933
• 12 turrets of 75 mm (3.0 in) model 1932
• 1 turret of 75 mm (3.0 in) model 1905
• 17 turrets of 135 mm (5.3 in)
• 21 turrets of 81 mm (3.2 in)
• 12 turrets for mixed weapons (AM)
• 7 turrets for mixed weapons + mortar of 50 mm (2.0 in)
• 61 turrets of machine-guns
• ...

... As such, reference to the Maginot Line is used to recall a strategy or object that people hope will prove effective but instead fails miserably. It is also the best known symbol of the adage that "generals always fight the last recent war, especially if they have won it" ...

Try your scenarios out for yourself... :

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=122&Itemid=172

Rattler

 

[Tankboy]

Is this some kind of x box war game.