Talk:Defence in depth

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Map needed

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.

Merge in article Deep defence[edit]

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)[reply]

I'm taking care of it right now. JKBrooks85 14:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling?[edit]

I was under the impression defence is spelled with an 's' as in defense. Yet this page seems to use the 'c' spelling. --71.103.62.164 (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article uses British spelling, for which Defence is correct. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical & strategic components[edit]

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 194.75.48.5 (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that it was a tactic too.Keith-264 (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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?[edit]

This article needs more references concerning the military side of Defense in Depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokeregehan (talk • contribs) 00:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism w.r.t. Fukushima[edit]

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)[reply]

Battle of Cannae[edit]

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)[reply]

outside the plan/plant?[edit]

in "nuclear engineering" section: "Defence in depth is implemented through design and operation to provide a graded protection against a wide variety of transients, incidents and accidents, including equipment failures and human errors within the plant and events initiated outside the plan."

this is probably ought to mean "events initiated outside the (nuclear power-) plant" instead of "outside the plan". if that is the case, pls change "plan" to "plant".

though it might make sense to speak about "events that are (normally) not planned (ie.: not supposed) to occur" that need preparations to be made in order to deal with (in terms of cosequences) but, judged by the context it makes more sense to expect the discussion of events that are happening/initiated outside of the nuc. installation's perimeters (eg.: outside the plant), like a tsunami, or an airplane attack.80.98.114.70 (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Reverse copyright violation[edit]

Apparently a recently published book has entire article copied into it, however, copyvio detector shows page as copy right violation (book link). Any tags to notify bots/detectors of so? cc @Diannaa: Baking Soda (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{Backwardscopy}} is what we need. Added, — Diannaa (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]