Quote:
Originally Posted by Homer
Yep. As a place to fight from Frederick leaves a lot to be desired. You’d need to rebuild the gun platforms and/or a firing step, and probably add a glacis outside. That said, the location still makes it suitable for its original use as a kind of “super patrol base” and there’s enough local material and land to do defensive improvements and to build outerworks.
The walls themselves aren’t much good for defense, but they do provide shelter and protection, and there’s enough space inside for mortar pits or extemporized shelter.
Could almost see it as the basis of a hardened redoubt, serving as a harbor for squad sized patrols into and out of the area.
For forts suited to actual fighting platforms against modern weapons, I’d be stretched to call most of the stuff on the interior of the US suitable. Even the modern hardened facilities weren’t designed with that use in mind.
|
Sure, it's just that Frederick's walls are
really thin. Fort Monroe is 10 feet. Castle Williams on Governors' Island is 8 feet. The Castillo de San Marcos is 14 feet of coquina. Even Fort Washington is 7 feet, albeit mostly brick with a stone entrance. I suspect Frederick's 3-to-4.5-foot walls could be breached by infantry-carried explosives with a pretty small number of devices, where most of the others would need something a little heavier or a more sustained effort. I don't think a raider squad could carry enough AT4AST to punch through the Castillo's walls, let alone less effective warheads in the anti-building role. I'm less confident in Frederick's walls.