Trench Warfare.

[JB88]

does it still exist in modern day warfare?

if not, could it?

[rabbidrabbit]

Nope!

[skernsk]

Depends.

With the USofA, nope.

With Berundi, perhaps.

With Canada...you'd have trouble digging in right about now

[JB88]

okay, is there a modern day equivelant?  by equivelent, i am asking for the modern offspring or lack thereof.

[JB88]

Originally posted by JB88
okay, is there a modern day equivelant?  by equivelent, i am asking for the modern offspring or lack thereof.

what i mean to say is, in trench warfare, each side has dug in, in such a way as there is a clear demarcation of sides.

modern warfare seems to be divided upon less concrete conceptual lines.

can these lines be compared to the situational notion of trench warfare?

how would it be applied?

[Neubob]

Originally posted by JB88
does it still exist in modern day warfare?

if not, could it?

Just try getting divorced right now.

You'll be wishing for trench warfare.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Neubob
Just try getting divorced right now.

You'll be wishing for trench warfare.

Excellent comparison!

[JB88]

in cyberspace are there any clear lines between things?  are the dark and the light still at war in cyberspace?  how so.

i am wondering, with this war on terrorism where the front lines actually are...

have they dug in?  are we advancing?

[DREDIOCK]

Ask a Mexican

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Ask a Mexican

I was waiting for this.  

[Monk]

The Iran/Iraq war in the 1980's could have been called a trench war.

Beirut, the green line had trench qualities.

[cpxxx]

No, foxholes are de rigeur these days.  I've dug a few in my time. 'Ow me back':p

With precision weapons and very accurate artillery. Trenches wouldn't last long. Even the deepest bunker is vulnerable.

[Charon]

The second half of the Korean War certainly qualifies.

 Charon

[Gunslinger]

Modern warfare is no longer about 2 or more standing armys dukeing it out.  The US uses a doctrine of manuver warfare wich says you strike fast and hard with a quick mobile army at an enemy's weak points and supply lines.

Wars of attrition where he one with the most at the end wins are a thing of the past.

[Maverick]

Originally posted by JB88
what i mean to say is, in trench warfare, each side has dug in, in such a way as there is a clear demarcation of sides.

modern warfare seems to be divided upon less concrete conceptual lines.

can these lines be compared to the situational notion of trench warfare?

how would it be applied?

While it doesn't quite live up to the situation as you specified it there have been 2 examples of an attempt at this in the last 20 years. That would be GW1 and GW2. The Iraqi's dug in and set fortified positions each time. They assumed that the attack would come from a specific position or direction each time. (Really dumb after the experiance the first time)

In each case they were flanked as well as had their fixed positions pounded. A fixed fortified position has a secondary term, it's called a sitting target for air and indirect fire.

As long as we are able to fight in the air, recon by air / space and are more mobile than foot speed the future of actual trench warfare is doomed. Mobility and ability to impact the front as well as the rear echelons of the enemy preclude any real fixed static line as long as the politicians do NOT try to play general.

The last real (IMO) entrenched conflict was Korea and that was because of the length of time it took to get the NK's to the table to hammer out the cease fire. The allies didn't want to open up large scale ops again once the 38th parallel was reached and the Chinese seemed happy to sit there as well.