What kind of fortification can can be used in modern warfare. I'm talking everything except nukes(I know bunkers are a thing).
>>564185
Nothing can stand to ICBMs so the best chance is to scatter as much as it can be done
>>564200
Well aren't there concrete bunkers that can withstand nuclear explosions? Why can't a fortified position be reinforced with that kind of material?
>>564203
Not even nuclear here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8ajJ1EjgkE
>>564214
What a waste of money.
>>564200
This could.
Nuke the incoming missiles before they nuke you.
>>564185
These appear to be 9.2 inch guns in barbette mountings. South Africa?
>>564252
I'm from a third world shithole.
>>564607
Ah. Just noted the filename. Ascension. Middle of nowhere.
The Brits had coast arty forts all over the world.
>>564185
Any building sturdy enough to take an RPG. And then ridiculously deep bunkers to hole up in. Anything in between is pointless because it'll just get bombed. Fortification is an outdated tactic, our ability to blow shit up outpaced our ability to fortify things a long time ago.
>>564185
All static fortifications will do is eat cruise missiles and JDAMs
>>564185
Offense
>>564214
The important thing to note on tests like that is that they use a standard grade of concrete, steel reinforcing lattice, and grade of steel rebar. Think of it as a stranded test medium like ballistic gelatin, and it was based on the most up to date means that the US ( not the best in the world by any means) would use at the time to make fortifications. The standards were last updated due to considerations over the effect of 'new' high strength concrete... in 1967.
The issue with missile specs is that the US has never been the field leader in quality concrete nor has it really been into the idea of fixed fortifications in since the civil war. Also just about every one uses the US standards on penetration of concrete or standards closely based on US standards ( like the post WWII soviet/Russian ones).
For some reading on the subject....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1507652/Inside-50m-nuclear-bunker-that-couldnt-save-Saddam.html
Also there is another of Saddam's bunkers (one of his Swiss built ones) that was hit with 22 GRU-28 that is rumored of survived.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-28
There is in fact a number of bunks that were hit with various types of bunkers buster multiple times during the second Iraq war either are known to survived or rumored to have survived. All of those bunkers that did so were built after the first Iraq war by a mix of Swiss and North Korea outfits.
>>564185
>modern warfare
/k/ seems more suited for this kind of question
>>564585
Hey I found that in Fallout 4
>>564185
>What kind of fortification can can be used in modern warfare.
To get a meaningful discussion on the subject you are going to have to be more narrow on the subject. Ideally into 19th century warfare, early 20th century warfare, or post WWII warfare.
>>564198
based on what subject matter it is covering it does follow the 25 year rule. Also is a poor place to discus the matter due to having a large number of America posters. Been from a country with by far the largest and most modern air force, a highly level of investment into bunker buster and other anti-fortification weapon systems, and a strong disinterest in building permanent fortifications cause a biased outlook in most of my countrymen on the subject.
>>564185
An old crusader castle called Krak des Chevaliers is still being used as a fortress in the ongoing Syrian civil war, and is apparently standing up remarkably well to modern weapons. Machine gun and RPG fire have no effect, and even airstrikes have caused only superficial damage.
Obviously it couldn't withstand a concerted assault from a major modern military, but against terrorists and the remnants of a shattered third-world army, it's unassailable.
>>564185
good old fashion, digging in. a shell scrape will protect you from most artillery strikes save a direct hit
>>571749
or HESCO for walls and small arms/RPG protection, simple, quick and effective
>>571749
A airbrust or proximity fuse make that not fully true anymore.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8eLH3VbJOQ
They have been in use since the Battle of the Bulge. You are still much safer from artillery inside a foxhole then outside a foxhole. Especially if you end up under fire from man portable mortar firing rounds made in locally or cheap export versions. Those normally do not have proximity fuses.
>style was replaced with practically
As with military uniforms. Feels bad.
>>564185
None. Fixed strategic defenses went obsolete with modern warfare.
>>572107
unless you dig a double dog leg, stage 3 pit with OHP
>>572118
what are the combat outposts and forward operating bases all over Afghanistan, what are checkpoints at road junctions, river crossings etc, what is the Baghdad green zone?
