Static warfare with better air power

BigBlueBox

Banned
Is it possible to have have World War I-style static warfare if aircraft technology is equivalent to the late Interbellum or early World War II, but ground warfare is at a level no greater than that of 1918? Maybe air forces get huge investments while most of the money for the army is spent on static fortifications instead of mechanization and the Second World War starts in the late 1920s or early 1930s? Or does the advent of close air support strategic bombers bring an end to static fortifications?
 
Is it possible to have have World War I-style static warfare if aircraft technology is equivalent to the late Interbellum or early World War II, but ground warfare is at a level no greater than that of 1918? Maybe air forces get huge investments while most of the money for the army is spent on static fortifications instead of mechanization and the Second World War starts in the late 1920s or early 1930s? Or does the advent of close air support strategic bombers bring an end to static fortifications?

Have a look at the Gothic line campaign in Italy late 1944 to early 1945 for inspiration.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
Have a look at the Gothic line campaign in Italy late 1944 to early 1945 for inspiration.
That's certainly a good example of static warfare in WW1, but could the same situation arise in a place without mountains serving as natural defenses? E.g. a multi-year long struggle along an alt-Maginot line that covers the Belgian border?
 
1918 isn't a great example of static warfare...

Indeed. On all fronts things became much more mobile. Solutions to the problem of the prepared or entrenched defense were maturing. Air power was one of the solutions. The First Air War: 1914-1918' by Lee Kennett is a excellent primer on where tactical and operational airpower was in 1918.
 
Top