"Triangular forts" Topic

Small triangular forts as per the book and movie 'Platoon Leader'….were these a US development or a hangover from the french?

Firebases were of different sizes and shapes.

link

link

link

I was aware of that and that no two were identical, but I'm also aware there were a number of these very small forts – just 20 meters long on each side and housing a platoon with no fire support function and I was wondering when they were constructed.

Pretty common all over the globe.

link

There is also doctrine for platoon sized patrol bases. link

Found a lengthy and heavily-illustrated paper on Wordpress ' French Blockhouses in Indo-China'…there were hundreds of small forts from earthworks to concrete towers, but none similar to the triangular platoon-garrison forts, so in the meantime I'm guessing it was a US initiative.

Here is the only one I could find:
link

Why a triangle I'm not sure. Maybe it shortened the perimeter more than a square or rectangle.

Wolfhag

Interesting point about the enclosed area, for a given perimeter. For a rectangle the area within is one side times the other. For a triangle it is half the height, times the base ( a bit less then enclosed for an even smaller, now three sided, perimeter then). Like you said then, for smaller units, the perimeter is more easily defended.

The VC and NVA did not use cavalry charges as at Waterloo (about which I know far more)

Must also think about Vauban forts and those acute edges. They will funnel attacks out to either side, allowing for human nature. No one will charge at the apex. Channeled off to the side they face volley fire en enfilade.

Movies are not documentaries. I have my doubts about real US platoon-size triangular forts, though I could easily be wrong. A "patrol base" for overnight, maybe--fighting positions and an extra slit trench or so. But that thing in the movie looked as though someone had been reading 'way too much Vauban. A permanent base that small is a massacre waiting to happen.

FSB's seem to be company or battalion-size, and usually circular. Notice the only real US Vietnam-vintage triangular base shown here holds 250+.

I could see the French doing something like that. They seem to have kidded themselves that they had a police problem long after the Communists were at war--lots of tiny garrisons which were more like hostages.

Seems it was a French thing after all – as per Robert's 'police action' comment. Pretty confident that if McDonough had invented it somebody would have called him out long ago. As ever, thanks for all the help.

I came across this:
A triangular fort, also known as a star fort or trace italienne, has several advantages when compared to traditional square or rectangular fortifications. These advantages primarily revolve around its defensive capabilities and effectiveness in withstanding attacks from various angles. Here are some key advantages of a triangular fort:

Improved Defensive Geometry: The triangular shape of the fort allows for better coverage of defensive fire from multiple angles. This shape minimizes blind spots and provides a more comprehensive field of fire, making it difficult for attackers to find safe positions from which to launch an assault.

Bastions: Triangular forts typically have projecting bastions at the corners. Bastions are strong, fortified structures that jut out from the main fortification walls. They serve as defensive platforms for artillery and troops to fire upon attackers from different directions. This design enables crossfire, making it challenging for attackers to breach the fort's defenses.

Enfilading Fire: The triangular layout facilitates enfilading fire, which means that defenders can fire along the length of the enemy's attacking forces. This creates a deadly crossfire effect that can decimate advancing enemy troops.

Enhanced Resilience: Triangular forts are structurally resilient, with multiple lines of defense that can be reinforced independently. If one bastion or section of the fort is breached, the remaining parts can still provide defense, making it more challenging for attackers to fully conquer the fort.

Reduced Vulnerability to Siege Tactics: The shape of the triangular fort makes it more difficult for attackers to construct effective siege works such as trenches and saps. The multiple angles of defense make it harder for the besieging army to establish a continuous line of circumvallation.

Versatility: Triangular forts can adapt to various terrains and topographical features more effectively than square or rectangular forts. They can be built on uneven ground, hills, and other challenging landscapes while still providing strong defensive capabilities.

Psychological Impact: The imposing and complex design of a triangular fort can have a psychological impact on potential attackers. The intricate layout and formidable bastions can deter aggressors and make them think twice before launching an assault.

Space Efficiency: Triangular forts often make efficient use of available space, as they can be designed to fit within irregularly shaped plots of land or along natural geographic features like rivers or coastlines.

While triangular forts offer several advantages in terms of defense and adaptability, it's important to note that the effectiveness of any fortification also depends on factors such as the quality of construction, the size and training of the defending garrison, and the tactics employed by both the defenders and attackers. Additionally, advances in military technology eventually made traditional fortifications less relevant, as modern artillery and siege techniques rendered many fortresses obsolete.

Fascinating. a lot of thought went into this analysis. Many thanks.

Geometry tells me that it must be easier (as less distance) to reinforce a threatened perimeter, from a quieter front.

Deadhead,
That is the response to my ChatGPT inquiry "What is the advantage of a triangular fort?"

Wolfhag

Made my day that. Back in the day I could diagnose and treat head and neck cancers, I could stand up at national fora with a 35mm slide show, I wrote countless papers, but I am not sure I had a clue whether I was getting it right.

But stick me in VN, in command of a triangular fort, with Charlie or Nathaniel Victor through the wire, and I would show great confidence and authority (and hide in the deepest bunker I could find)

deadhead,
You'd be commanding from the command bunker as it says in your job description.

Wolfhag

Tell me about it. I would have happily tried to patch up the unfortunates and I have countless times been facially sprayed with the red stuff, but that was due to a surgical slip, not a battlefield pressure. What respect do I have for the guys who deal with that.

It is a funny thing, but if you stuck me in a situation going to pieces, I got worried, but I hope coped. If you called me into a situation which had gone pear shaped, under someone else, I dismissed them to rest, took over, but was totally composed. Five years retired, but that I recall about surgical crises.

How safe was the command bunker? I have seen Platoon too many times.