Talk:Defence in depth
|WikiProject Engineering||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Merge in article Deep defence
The article Deep defence seems to be describing the same thing as Defence in depth and if anything worthwhile can be rescued from Deep defence, it should be merged here and the original article converted to a redirect. Gaius Cornelius 12:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm taking care of it right now. JKBrooks85 14:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- This article uses British spelling, for which Defence is correct. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Tactical & strategic components
Exlicitely specifying defence in depth as a strategy ignores that it can also describe tactical & operational approaches; indeed in the modern understanding it more readily fits the latter two levels of organisation being a means by which forces "in theatre" are deployed & applied to battle (in forward screens, lines of resistance & reserves) & rather than concerning choices regarding the grander scale of organisation & supply. Pre-modern organisation in-depth was however frequently strategic, medieval fortification on a local level (i.e. conurbations & manorial seats being protected) was well understood to generate a situation where far reaching strategic outcomes were unlikely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The examples given prior to the Battle of Kursk with the arguable example of Normandy are very poor. I see some discussion as to whether defence in depth is strategic, tactical or both. The clasical view is that it's strategic. Defence in depth is a strategic concept that ensures continual defence along an enemies line of advance. Three rows of trenches in WW1 (for example) is not defence is depth, it's a strong front line, likewise earlier examples - mentioning castles for example, additional curtain walls do not provide defence in depth because once the castle is lost the area it protects is lost. Another way this strategy has been described is "rolling with the punch", the defending forces have to be able to withdraw or the defence does not work.
Incidentally "hill Forts" are pre-Roman, late iron age structures, not post Roman as suggested in the current text. This is something that does need correcting.
References and Sources?
Recentism w.r.t. Fukushima
I am going to remove the references to the Fukushima accident, since it is only tangentially related to the discussed concept and serves as nothing more than linkspam and POV pushing, and replace it with an IAEA report discussing the concept. --Tweenk (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Battle of Cannae
I do not agree that the Battle of Cannae was an example of Defence in Depth. Firstly it was not a defensive battle, from Hannibal's perspective. Secondly it was an example of maneouvre and encirclement, not depth in defence.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)