The Use of Fortresses in Both World Wars - Essay Example

They were characterized by thick walls. Fort's concept was seen as a strategic plan and was seen as a strong shelter against enemies. However they were less helpful in both world wars and were easily grounded and conquered, there were several reasons for it,

They were shaped in different forms ranging from polygonal to ring shape fortresses however never survived and were not able to fulfill the purpose of their existence. One of the reasons was its stagnant and motionless own existence as a giant body in itself. Despite its high walls and masonry. Walls were directly exposed to cannon fires, Explosive shells, and artillery fires.

Although advancements were made in order to kill the effect of cannon fires, Steel and concrete forts were introduced, and the bunker concept was introduced to avoid assault by enemies.. however despite all this and thick shielding there were a couple of reasons that resulted in the whole scheme being a failure, the advancements in the machinery, the weapons, and later in world war two the use of Tanks meant any target in sight was vulnerable, and in a way, it was exposing yourself directly to the enemy.

With fighter plans available, the forts presented a case of a sitting duck that was waiting to be shot from above. By the 2nd world war, nuclear capabilities were achieved that would eliminate and erase the whole of the city, a fort being a small area. For any fort that had bunkers in it, a counter was created for it. and bunker busters were introduced and implemented in the forts strategy. Bunker busters are specially designed for such materials that are hard in nature .they were highly penetrative.

The permanent existence of the fort at one point, being a static entity, allowed the enemy to prepare itself and collect and gather all the information that was necessary to attack and launch an assault, therefore forts stood no ground in preventing and standing the enemy’s attack.

During the 2nd world war, the battles were fought on a mobile basis. Any fixed position strategy never served the purpose, therefore the fort strategy became a liability. In the 2nd world war, missiles were introduced that could hit the target from many miles away, and forts were the easiest targets.

Another reason why the forts were not successful was the fact that a massive defensive line approach was used in world war 2, since the whole defensive line could not be captured or destroyed by the enemy, the single fort served as a pivot and rest point for the enemy to conquer and establish their roots into opponents territory. Therefore these forts played a positive point for the enemy.

Mobility is not a fixed point. the concept of the defensive line approach and fortification made the whole defense weak and defenses were employed in front-line protection rather than mobile attack and defending. The battle of Kursk was an example where an extensive defensive strategy was not used. Rather a mobile strategy was used which resulted in crushing the enemy.