In regard to classic nation vs. nation full inventory land warfare, I doubt that elastic defence makes sense any more. A grandson may make sense, but not elastic defence itself.

The classic approach of elastic defence was

* to reduce losses by exposing less troops on the very front
BUT: Today's sensors reach farther back, and today's weapon accuracy allows for pinpoint destruction of sitting targets. Their dispersion and entrenching doesn't matter much any more. It worked against barrages, not so much against today's very accurate 155 mm (and I don't mean guided munitions).

* to buy time for railway-mobile reinforcements to strengthen the threatened sector
BUT: This head-on defence idea is outdated because we have high mobility thanks to 100% motorization even of mountain infantry. Attacks of armoured brigades can furthermore penetrate 10 km defence in depth in 2 hrs or much less - not enough for the handling of a reserve brigade.

Elastic defence is furthermore a brainchild of the Western front 1916-1918. This was a very high force density front-line. We haven't anything close to such a mobilization and cannot expect it for the first 6 months of any NATO conflict either.



Today we require a corridor of possibly up to 400 km width in which defence and offence are only tactically defined. Think of battleship and cruiser fleets roaming the Northern Sea. Few ships, huge sea. Scouting and manoeuvring became the principal challenge.

Such a "skirmish corridor" (tm ) is what I envisage as modern and appropriate grandson of elastic defence, mobile defence and many other historical land warfare concepts.


Imagine this: Five Russian brigades invade the Baltic states.
The next thing that happens is that company to battalion-sized (personnel- and vehicle-wise) units infiltrate up to 200-400 km far behind them and raid airfields, bridges, convoys, depots and even the outskirts of St. Petersburg, if not Moscow. LRS teams set up hundreds of observation points at up to the same depth.
The military back of the invading force would be ripped apart and their security and scouting forces be torn apart as well - long before NATO brigades from Central and Western Europe arrive for a counter-attack in force against the partially blinded invaders.
That's when NATO publicly calls the whole thing a misunderstanding-based border conflict and proposes status quo ante within 48 hrs.