T2K Fortification

[ArmySGT.]

[ArmySGT.]

[Panther Al]

Ah, Vaubon style fortifications. (The ones that are all star shaped)

The good:

In the TW2K Verse where heavy (as in cannon) weapons are scarce and rifle calibre stuff is about as heavy as it gets by and large, its perfect. They was designed to defeat infantry assaults without breaking a sweat. Its when you bring direct HE fire things fall apart. Which is the bad.

For a throw up the dirt and hide behind it sort, It serves. Add in mines and wire, muuuuuch better. Earth takes HE reasonably well. Depend on masonry construction however and its not too good.

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Ah, Vaubon style fortifications. (The ones that are all star shaped)

The good:

In the TW2K Verse where heavy (as in cannon) weapons are scarce and rifle calibre stuff is about as heavy as it gets by and large, its perfect. They was designed to defeat infantry assaults without breaking a sweat. Its when you bring direct HE fire things fall apart. Which is the bad.

For a throw up the dirt and hide behind it sort, It serves. Add in mines and wire, muuuuuch better. Earth takes HE reasonably well. Depend on masonry construction however and its not too good.

That its true - the masonry chip on HE impact and becomes shrapnel in iotself before it all crumbles and falls down in a smouldering heap. But bear in mind that thats after x number of impacts. Infantry portable mortars like 60s and 81s , AA automatic cannons, HMGs etc dont really cut it when it comes to bringing down sturdy masonry and concrete - as seen in Dubrovnik for instance. All the roofs went, and lots of peopl ekilled. But No breach. Also the "Håkons hall" in Bergen in 1944 - a German munitions ship blew up on the dock next to it. Untold number of tons of HE. 14th century walls still good.

Examples the one way - but there are of course the othr way too..

[ArmySGT.]

Masonry aka brick absorbs kinetic energy and turns to powder. It is stone and concrete that shatter and throws fragments.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Masonry aka brick absorbs kinetic energy and turns to powder. It is stone and concrete that shatter and throws fragments.

To a point yes: But even then, large fragments will fly out.

Its not the fragmentation though that makes masonry fortifications a bad idea - unless you put a lot of rebar and the like in it - Its the fact that unlike earth, its relatively brittle. The 'shatter' effect of direct fire HE on stone/concrete/brick is amazing. But, Earth is more, for lack of a better word, flexible. Of course, you have to take the fact that foot for foot it isn't as good as masonry into consideration when deciding how thick and how high it goes, but it is in the modern world, overall better than old fashioned works.

Its the addition of Rebar - and lots of it - that changes the equation once again. Now we have a 'binder' of sorts that, although HE will shatter the concrete, the rebar density is to the point that it will keep the wall in shape for far longer. Tiergarten is a very good example: it was so laced with rebar and such that it survived everything the soviets could through at it - and like every other flak tower of berlin, none was taken by storm. Even direct fire at almost point blank range by 203mm artillery pieces didn't faze them.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

To a point yes: But even then, large fragments will fly out.

Its not the fragmentation though that makes masonry fortifications a bad idea - unless you put a lot of rebar and the like in it - Its the fact that unlike earth, its relatively brittle. The 'shatter' effect of direct fire HE on stone/concrete/brick is amazing. But, Earth is more, for lack of a better word, flexible. Of course, you have to take the fact that foot for foot it isn't as good as masonry into consideration when deciding how thick and how high it goes, but it is in the modern world, overall better than old fashioned works.

Its the addition of Rebar - and lots of it - that changes the equation once again. Now we have a 'binder' of sorts that, although HE will shatter the concrete, the rebar density is to the point that it will keep the wall in shape for far longer. Tiergarten is a very good example: it was so laced with rebar and such that it survived everything the soviets could through at it - and like every other flak tower of berlin, none was taken by storm. Even direct fire at almost point blank range by 203mm artillery pieces didn't faze them.

The Flak towers in Berlin are reinforced concrete. The Pre-WW1 forts were masonry or masonry over stone/concrete because the brick essentially absorbed a bullet or a shell burrowed into it. No ricochets.

Building with masonry was and is more expensive than pouring concrete.

Even with explosives, when an explosive detonates the shearing forces turn the surrounding brick facade into a crater and the path of least resistance is away from the wall.

Enjoy this video by the U.S Marine Corps. http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...30260633420235