>>64436930
>Can someone explain me fortifications and how they are supposed to work?
fortifications are force multipliers
in areas with limited natural cover, you need to create protection yourself

>Also are they still usable or has airpower killed them off
they are still useable, you need cover to survive artillery barrages and air strikes
but large-scale, permanent, fortifications are no longer worth building and temporary, expendable, fortifications are what are built instead

>>64436930
>When a bullet/piece of shrapnel hits your body that is bad
>If that bullet/piece of shrapnel hits your body armor that is better, but is still not great for you
>If, instead, that bullet/piece of shrapnel slams into a great big bag of sand/wall/thick bit of dirt then that's great, because it doesn't mind being shot
There you go OP. That's fortifications for you. We don't build giant medieval style castles any more because they wouldn't do the job well, and would just be airstrike/artillery bait (very very expensive bait). Were you asking about something more specific than that?

>>64436948
>>64436944
And machinegun and wire?
Also why do people love the term force multiplier?

>>64436954
>And machinegun
Do you need me to explain suppressing fire?
>wire?
Or that climbing over sharp bits of metal (that you're likely to get caught in if it's set up properly) fucking sucks?

>Also why do people love the term force multiplier?
Because finding the best force multipliers and fielding them effectively is basically all of military history and theory.

>>64436954
>And machinegun and wire?
it takes specialized equipment to cut through wire in a reasonable time frame, so the attackers are forced to go around the obstacle and into the crosshairs of a machine gun
machine guns can be packed up and moved around and wire can be laid quickly, so they are not overly troubled by having to quickly move to a new line of defense

>Also why do people love the term force multiplier?
because it is an easy way to tell someone that a certain thing buffs another thing
infantry supported by artillery is much more effective than either element alone

Fortifications in the sense of huge construction like the Maginot line have been long considered obsolete because they could be either nuked or hit with PGMs, and are always susceptible to being circumvented. Fortifications as in digging trenches or setting up sandbags/HESCO will never go away as long as there are soldiers on the ground.

>>64436944
>but large-scale, permanent, fortifications are no longer worth building and temporary, expendable, fortifications are what are built instead
Depends on what you mean by fortifications.
Russian could've used some hardened aircraft shelters before Ukraine launched that big behind enemy lines drone strike on their strategic bombers and AEW. Meanwhile, it's definitely worth NK, Iran and Taiwan keeping certain parts of their forces buried in mountain fortresses.

>>64437244
HAS are in a funny spot because pre-Gulf war they were thought to be important as they protect aircraft from airstrikes and even tactical nuclear weapons, then they were thought to be obsolete because any Paveway or Maverick could destroy the plane inside the expensive HAS, back to where we are now where they might be important again as they still provide protection from lightly armed drone strikes.

lol band sags

>>64436954
>It's a term used to describe how a force's power is.... multiplied.

>>64436930
What if instead of you getting shot, some dirt did?

>>64436930
>be you
>guys standing in a field.
>anyone can see you.
>anyone can swing by and kill you.
>you don't want that.
>make a few walls so you don't get shot or run down
>make elevated platforms and chokepoints so you don't get swarmed
>dig a few trenches so your enemies can't just run to you and break doors down to kill you
>maybe even make decoy entrances and exits to give yourself time in case the enemy jumps on you
>build high walls so the enemy can't tell if you're home or if you have friends over
>make a few temporary positions so you can effectively skirmish away from your structure without giving up real ground when you retreat
>build towers whose occupants can safely clear out pathways if enemies get in
>add cover to the tops of walls so anyone there can shoot down to the base of the structure or out to the opposing force
>add weapons specialized for use in an environment you completely control
>build a copy of this building in rough terrain near a city or town to make assaulting it even harder, but unavoidable
>include all of the provisions and equipment necessary to keep a full-time force safe, equipped, and expedition-capable
>have fortifications
Now add cannons, bullets, helicopters, tanks, and planes to the equation and whatever stops them.

>>64436930
Air power can kill them eventually if it's uncontested, but starting with the Siege of Aleppo up to Ukraine now it isn't as easy as commenters would have you think, even with precision munitions.
Most nations don't have B2s to fart a bomb the size of a tank onto their target from anywhere in the world.

>>64436930
Fortifications actually don’t work. It’s just a scam made up by defense contractors to make money. Even back when they were building castles, quarry owners just needed a way to get rich so they sold the idea of a big fancy stone house to inbred retards.

>>64436930
>can someone explain me
fuck off rajesh
what is it with all of these inane ESL OP posts

>>64436930
>Planes exist
>Cease to protect yourself from direct fire

wut