Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Concrete fort/battleship

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Concrete fort/battleship

    A relic of WWII, it was the last bastion of American resistance in the Philippines (apart from rogue American led guerillas).



    http://www.wearethemighty.com/articl...l-the-very-end

    I understand that this is somewhat outdated, but reinforced concrete can withstand alot of punishment, what prevents the creation of more?

    I prefer these rather then a rusting old derelict of a warship for defense.

  • #2
    That's Fort Drum. IIRC, it was unusual in that the guns and turrets were designed by Army and not the Navy. It withstood a lot of damage but since it fired in a low trajectory, it couldn't reply to the Japanese howitzers that were sited in ravines or on opposite slopes.

    Comment


    • #3
      When we took it back the Army pumped a lot of gasoline into it and lit that off. End of resistance.
      Hyperwar: World War II on the World Wide Web
      Hyperwar, Whats New
      World War II Resources
      The best place in the world to "work".

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by BKnight3 View Post
        A relic of WWII, it was the last bastion of American resistance in the Philippines (apart from rogue American led guerillas).



        http://www.wearethemighty.com/articl...l-the-very-end

        I understand that this is somewhat outdated, but reinforced concrete can withstand alot of punishment, what prevents the creation of more?

        I prefer these rather then a rusting old derelict of a warship for defense.
        Essentially, lack of maneuverability is a major disadvantage since the enemy has a stationary target, and if the enemy does nothing but blockade a fort like this, the defenders will simply run out of food and water.

        Another problem not often discussed is the effect of shells and bombs on the troops inside a such a fort. Sounds and concussion still have a serious effect on the defenders, as the French discovered at places like Verdun and Duoaumont, and then there is the problem of ventilation during combat. the ventilation system sucks in explosive gases as well as fresh air, which the French also discovered.

        I always though of this fort as an elegant solution for the time, but lacking in enough storage capacity and secondary batteries to be fully effective, especially against landing parties and aircraft.

        And, it was defeated, not by shellfire, but by American troops who landed on top of it. Sort of a repeat of Eban Emael, and a vindication of Sun Tzu.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          Essentially, lack of maneuverability is a major disadvantage since the enemy has a stationary target, and if the enemy does nothing but blockade a fort like this, the defenders will simply run out of food and water.

          Another problem not often discussed is the effect of shells and bombs on the troops inside a such a fort. Sounds and concussion still have a serious effect on the defenders, as the French discovered at places like Verdun and Duoaumont, and then there is the problem of ventilation during combat. the ventilation system sucks in explosive gases as well as fresh air, which the French also discovered.

          I always though of this fort as an elegant solution for the time, but lacking in enough storage capacity and secondary batteries to be fully effective, especially against landing parties and aircraft.

          And, it was defeated, not by shellfire, but by American troops who landed on top of it. Sort of a repeat of Eban Emael, and a vindication of Sun Tzu.
          I know the issues of such an emplacement.

          But my point was this, I'd rather have ANY proper immobile fortification within reason compared to the Philippines current immobile fortification:

          The LT 57 Sierra Madre



          And yes, THERE ARE TROOPS ACTIVELY STATIONED THERE.
          Last edited by BKnight3; 23 Mar 16, 15:01.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by BKnight3 View Post
            I know the issues of such an emplacement.

            But my point was this, I'd rather have ANY proper immobile fortification within reason compared to the Philippines currentimmobile fortification:

            The LT 57 Sierra Madre



            And yes, THERE ARE TROOPS ACTIVELY STATIONED THERE.
            The reason they are using that has a lot to do with the politics of escalation. The presence of troops on that ship gives the PI a legitimate claim to the "islands" it is on. But, there are political ramifications if they were to start constructing more permanent arrangements. So, they are stuck with a rusting hulk...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by BKnight3 View Post
              But my point was this, I'd rather have ANY proper immobile fortification within reason
              Immobile fortifications have been obsolete since 1940. Actually longer then that, but 1940 was the year they were decisively proven.
              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

              Comment


              • #8
                I don't know much, but I DO know ships that can't move are pretty much doomed...ships without ammo, fuel, or power only get to wait for the end.
                Skip

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by BKnight3 View Post
                  I know the issues of such an emplacement.

                  But my point was this, I'd rather have ANY proper immobile fortification within reason compared to the Philippines current immobile fortification:

                  The LT 57 Sierra Madre



                  And yes, THERE ARE TROOPS ACTIVELY STATIONED THERE.
                  Agreed. Grounding a steel vessel permanently in salt water is never a good idea. Not very good housekeepers, are they?

                  Any idea what armament it has?
                  Last edited by Mountain Man; 23 Mar 16, 17:13.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                    Immobile fortifications have been obsolete since 1940. Actually longer then that, but 1940 was the year they were decisively proven.
                    Not true at all. We continue to use immobile fortifications to this day, including the Cheyenne Mountain Complex, Weather Mountain, the Greenbriar bunker and many others. We have numerous underground hardened facilities as well as missile silos, the Russians have a plethora of them left over from the Cold War and their current crop of fortified shelters as well as their own missile installations, the Chinese have them and have carved out a massive underground submarine base similar to what the Soviets once used, Saddam Hussein's bunker complex is still intact, and the Iranians have very large underground complexes, not to mention Lil' Kimmie in North Korea, who has probably poured more ferroconcrete than we can imagine, and Israel has a number of hardened shelters.

                    Man always has and always will turn to the earth for security and safety.

                    We just don't build above-ground bunkers much any more in the era of guided munitions and bunker penetrators, but we still rely heavily on immobile fortifications.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                      Immobile fortifications have been obsolete since 1940. Actually longer then that,
                      Probably since HMS Diamond Rock
                      Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                      Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        Not true at all. We continue to use immobile fortifications to this day, including the Cheyenne Mountain Complex, Weather Mountain, the Greenbriar bunker and many others. We have numerous underground hardened facilities as well as missile silos, the Russians have a plethora of them left over from the Cold War and their current crop of fortified shelters as well as their own missile installations, the Chinese have them and have carved out a massive underground submarine base similar to what the Soviets once used, Saddam Hussein's bunker complex is still intact, and the Iranians have very large underground complexes, not to mention Lil' Kimmie in North Korea, who has probably poured more ferroconcrete than we can imagine, and Israel has a number of hardened shelters.

                        Man always has and always will turn to the earth for security and safety.

                        We just don't build above-ground bunkers much any more in the era of guided munitions and bunker penetrators, but we still rely heavily on immobile fortifications.
                        So why are missile subs around then?
                        Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                        Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The US uses Missile Subs as part of a three pronged Nuclear attack. We have SAC, the Subs and the Missiles. Don't forget that the Navy can also send cruise missiles.

                          I hope we never have to use the missile silos, as we don't really know how accurate they are. The only way we have ever shot the missiles is to an atoll in the Pacific. The Russians, North Koreans and Chinese are in another direction.

                          The Navy has had bombers on Carriers that are capable of delivering Nuclear bombs for years. The Subs are probably more survivable but once again we won't know how accurate their missiles are until we use them. Some Ballistic Subs were converted to fire cruise missiles and these can carry nuclear warheads. They may well be more accurate than ballistic missiles but are vulnerable to defenses.

                          Sac is probably the most accurate, but is also very vulnerable to defenses.

                          The only thing we can say for sure is there are still enough nuclear warheads around to kill everything on Earth many times over.

                          Pruitt
                          Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                          Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                          by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            Agreed. Grounding a steel vessel permanently in salt water is never a good idea. Not very good housekeepers, are they?

                            Any idea what armament it has?
                            One squad of P.I, Marines.
                            The twin 40mm forward was supposed to be in decent condition when it was grounded, but they are now rusted and useless.

                            That thing is the ultimate hardship post, the few men aboard spend most of their time fishing for something to eat. There are always Chinese "Coast Guard" ships lurking nearby, and they have been known to interfere with supply runs.

                            That reef is one of the closest to PI lands and isn't worth much otherwise, but if the Chinese think they can steal something they never stop trying.

                            What life in that rusted out old hulk is like during a storm is unthinkable.

                            Comment

                            Latest Topics

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X