Castles

How viable would castles be in a modern conflict? The thick stone/brick walls should offer good protection against mortars, airstrikes and artillery. If you're attacked by a weak military that lacks the firepower of the US then you could probably hold out for a long time, tying up an invading enemy force. We've seen how fortifications in Ukraine has been slowing down Russia.

Why hasn't PrepHole got together and built a castle?

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Lots of reasons, big bombs make them irrelevant.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      But what bombs? Russia has a hard time with Ukrainian fortifications and they have thousands of artillery guns.

      If you're in a small country and get attacked by a small enemy military then a castle fortification should be able to hold your opponent back for months.

      Recently with the Armenia-Azerbaijan war if Armenia would have built a bunch of castles then Azerbaijan would have been slowed down and probably failed in conquering NK.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Pepper it with Artillery.
        MLRS
        MOAB
        500lbs bomb
        Bunker busters.

        Pick one.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Castles work, they are just not worth it in terms of cost-benefit if you have to build new ones.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Plane bombs, don't get your plane grounded. Missiles, have missiles that are accurate. Russia has failed in this. Will a castle stop a nothing country from shooting you? Sure. Siege warfare sucks, don't get involved. Next you need to hope the castle is a strategic target because it takes a lot to make a hedgehog base and that's not really optimal. Stay on the move and keep the enemy backpeddaling.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The same 1000 and 2000kg bombs they were dumb-dropping over Azovstal would turn a stone fortification into dust. If you want to build a modern strong point you want most of it deep underground.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >The thick stone/brick walls should offer good protection against mortars, airstrikes and artillery
        Medieval castle walls were blasted to rubble in an afternoon by early renaissance cannons. Modern weapons will perform far better.

        >Ukrainian fortifications
        Those were constructed in a vastly different manner.

        https://i.imgur.com/mhRGyLx.jpg

        They'd be useless against anything heavier than a hand grenade. Rockets and mortars would shatter the stone walls and could cause entire sections of the castle to collapse.

        It's why we switched to star forts with earthened walls. Soft dirt stands up to blasts better than hard stone and no matter how you attacked it you'd get caught in a crossfire.

        >Soft dirt stands up to blasts better than hard stone
        Not massively, the magic ingredient of star forts was rather that the walls are ridiculously thick compared to those of earlier castles (which in turn were usually two thin stone walls and a lot of sand&gravel in between) and sloped so that they couldn't really do a lot of falling down, most was already shaped like the pile gravity wanted it to be.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        > Russia has a hard time with Ukrainian fortifications
        No they haven't. Hohol threads are warping your sense of reality. Here's one example that took me 5 seconds to find

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Russia has a hard time with Ukrainian
        No they don't. They are grinding Ukraine down. They just don't want to take losses and the war is great for them anyway so they are not in a hurry. The longer this lasts, the more combat experience they can gather, their trade surplus is enormous thanks to sanctions increasing gas and oil prices and their enemies economies are collapsing.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Amazing. Literally none of what you just said is true.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Fpbp.

      A single guided missile would flatten it.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Thick stone walls can resist modern artillery quite well.
        Stone fortifications were still being built for a long time after cannons started being used in sieges, so the design adapted to resist artillery fire.

        The problem is that modern artillery can easily fire over stone walls.
        Here's what happened when Dubrovnik, a walled city, got besieged in the Yugoslav wars.

        The 4 meter thick walls resisted shelling, but the city behind it still got hit pretty hard.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Dumb fuck post.

        [...]
        They're still relevant like any decently stable construction. The issue is more that the enemy can just go around you in most cases.

        Remember that german force hiding out in a concrete monument (Volkerschlachtdenkmal) in ww2 that the allies could not displace or kill despite artillery shelling, airdropped bombs and sieging? It's a good read, they had to surrender in the end but it sure gave the allies a headache. I don't recommend the wiki article on it tho, it's kind of lackluster and heavily anti-german with little to no facts from the actual witnesses.

        Well read and based post.
        Know the difference...it could save your life.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/YNJA3Ff.jpg

      How viable would castles be in a modern conflict? The thick stone/brick walls should offer good protection against mortars, airstrikes and artillery. If you're attacked by a weak military that lacks the firepower of the US then you could probably hold out for a long time, tying up an invading enemy force. We've seen how fortifications in Ukraine has been slowing down Russia.

      Why hasn't PrepHole got together and built a castle?

      They're still relevant like any decently stable construction. The issue is more that the enemy can just go around you in most cases.

      Remember that german force hiding out in a concrete monument (Volkerschlachtdenkmal) in ww2 that the allies could not displace or kill despite artillery shelling, airdropped bombs and sieging? It's a good read, they had to surrender in the end but it sure gave the allies a headache. I don't recommend the wiki article on it tho, it's kind of lackluster and heavily anti-german with little to no facts from the actual witnesses.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Volkerschlachtdenkmal
        https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%B6lkerschlachtdenkmal#Zeit_des_Nationalsozialismus_und_DDR
        Damn dude, a wikie article that calls it NATION SOCIALISM and not Fascism or "Naziism", wow, I for once am impressed.

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >The thick stone/brick walls should offer good protection against mortars, airstrikes and artillery
    How can you be this dumb

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    They don't really work, in WW1 the fortresses that didn't have Literally 1000000 defenders just got tubed into dust in days

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    One bro with ww2 era arty can reduce stone/brick walls into rubble.
    So practically useless unless the castle has historical value and the enemy does not want to damage it.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Why aren't you assuming the castle also has artilery?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Because a castle is a stationary target whereas that bro out there is quite fucking mobile

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Because a castle is a stationary target whereas that bro out there is quite fucking mobile
          Arty looks stationary too me.

          The castle would also be located on a hill (and be dug into the hill for deep underground bunkers) and would have scouted out the surrounding areas and places alarms and detectors to track enemy movements so you can't sneak up on the castle. Then the castles arty would have longer range because of the height advantage.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Sure. And the attacker can be on the other side of the planet if he wants

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >Arty looks stationary to me.

            You have no idea how shoot and scoot tactics work do you? There’s a reason that arty has wheels on it. They roll it in, set it up, fire a few rounds from 20km away then pack up and move.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >Arty looks stationary too me.
            H
            Igh
            Mobility
            Rocket
            Artillery
            System

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >Arty looks stationary too me.
            Oh look, a retard. Slide thread.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The castle can, that’s great, good on them.

        However outside the castle I can position my artillery anywhere. Where as the castles artillery can only be places in one very obvious and easily targeted position.

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    You remember how turks turned Constantinople into Istanbul? They had cannons. Giant cannons. These cannons turned castle walls into dust. Torn them to shreds. That was eons ago. We have more powerful cannons now. Cannons that are stronger, fire farther and with more precision. Cannons that are designed to misfire point blank for massive damage. Cannons of both types on flying machines. Cannons that fire cannons that are designed to misfire point blank for massive damage. Cannons obsoleted castles.

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    the only castle that works is an underground castle
    castles above ground are completely worthless because modern munitions
    underground its a completely different story and requires much more sophiscated munitions to penetrate deep earth

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Fortifications can be useful if you're fighting an enemy who's pretty primitive, but you're making a big mistake if you're building up instead of digging down. Going up gives you better sightlines, but also gives the enemy good sightlines to slam you with explosives, while digging in makes it much harder to kill you with direct fire munitions and even provides some protection against artillery/bombs. There's also the simple fact that building up is slow and expensive, while digging in is relatively quick and takes nothing more then guys with a shovel though actual earthmoving equipment is preferable.

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    No this won't work as your new tactic for Donbass Vlad.

  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    A castle made of steel would be immune to anything short of a nuke. Cost would be absurd though.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      I would make a corundum and diamond castle.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >When your curtain walls lack multi hit capability
        Is your diamond castle even drop safe?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >A castle made of steel would be immune to anything short of a nuke.
      Really?

      >Cost would be absurd though.
      Truer words have never been uttered.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        That thing was made out of scaffolding and glass dude. There was a reason the Muslims targeted it twice, it was built cheap.

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Is that Langley Castle Hotel in Northumberland? I was there last summer and had a great time on Hadrian's Wall. Their restaurant is really good too. I remember I had some great blackberry gin there.
    Interesting history too as the building itself was restored in the 19th century by an American tradcath LARPer who built a chapel on the roof. Bit of a kitsch interior but overall a very pleasant stay. 7/10

  11. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    They'd be useless against anything heavier than a hand grenade. Rockets and mortars would shatter the stone walls and could cause entire sections of the castle to collapse.

    It's why we switched to star forts with earthened walls. Soft dirt stands up to blasts better than hard stone and no matter how you attacked it you'd get caught in a crossfire.

  12. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    because digging a trench is faster, cheaper and more effective

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      In civilized countries with their own culture and history, castles and fortresses already exist and are maintained to this date. Not like an American would understand.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The problem is that these are stone castles, not reinforced concrete. They're not going to stand up to shelling.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Nah, they did fine in WW2 and they will do fine in WW3.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            pls

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              Pls what? Castles were great strong points in ww2 and did just fine under heavy artillery.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Castles in medieval times were taken out by people throwing equally large stones at them. Please source me any castle that withstood heavy direct bombing and shelling and didn’t crumble? If you do I’ll happily apologize.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                http://www.revisionist.net/bombed-castles.html
                If you can find something that proves this wrong you're welcome to provide it.

                I know that you're an American but you could at least do a nice tour around Europe and visit one of hundreds of hundred of hundreds of castle museums and their section about their role during the two great wars. Most survived with minimal damage, some were rebuilt, some were destroyed near completely.

                There is too many individual cases to talk about as many only saw little to no combat during that time but there's also very famous examples like pic related. Now please go eat a burger or watch sportsegg or whatever you mutts do in your freetime.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                And the name of this place is...?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                http://www.revisionist.net/bombed-castles.html
                If you can find something that proves this wrong you're welcome to provide it.

                Castles in medieval times were taken out by people throwing equally large stones at them. Please source me any castle that withstood heavy direct bombing and shelling and didn’t crumble? If you do I’ll happily apologize.

                This little stone monument didn't even have a scratch after hours of shelling.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                And the name of this monument is...?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Reverse search is your friend.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                So you don't know?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                the darude sandstone monument

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Let's see here. Monument to the Battle of Nations.
                Oh, turns out that the commander had surrendered after a shell hit the inside. So it Was defeated by artillery if only because the commander knew it wasn't capable of standing up to a barrage.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                I grew up in the UK, most castles didn’t really get a lot of use in the wars unless they were far further north. The reason for this being that they were very large stationary targets that could easily get surrounded.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                The reason for it it's because you're an island,for example the only reason Hungarians exist is because of castles, the mongol empire couldn't crack them in time before they collapsed so they just genocided the countryside and cities
                God Brits are literally just Americans in 2022

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                I know you're european, but could you be less insufferably gay?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Could you stop telling me about my country, continent and history first?

                I grew up in the UK, most castles didn’t really get a lot of use in the wars unless they were far further north. The reason for this being that they were very large stationary targets that could easily get surrounded.

                Yeah, most of England didn't see action.

                And the name of this place is...?

                Retard + Pevensey Castle one of the beautiful famous examples of modern fortification mixing with ancient walls. It's well known for this great aesthetic alone.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                How about you fuck off and have a nice day?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Pevensey Castle
                Pevensey Castle. In England. Which never got invaded. In fact I'm pretty sure it wasn't even a major target for air attacks. Germany initially spent most of their firepower trying to wipe out the RAF at first and then switched to hitting population and industrial centers. An old normal castle just isn't a priority.

                Unless you're a Homeguard fanboy.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Pevensey Castle. In England. Which never got invaded

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Irrelevant. Germany never landed an invasion on the British isles. Pevensey was never a strategic factor in WW2.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Pevensey was never a strategic factor in WW2.
                Whoa holy hindsight batman, don't mind the british fortifying positions where the germans may have actually invaded

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                You know, my grandfather built a sandcastle on the south coast during WW2.

                So what the Germans never invaded it stood so clearly could withstand a German bombardment.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                See this is how moronic you are.

                >Pevensey was never a strategic factor in WW2.
                See that narrow band at the top off

                https://i.imgur.com/KxRD5dv.jpg

                that's the Channel, tell me again how highground on the coast offers no strategic factor

                "It acquired a fresh military significance in 1940 when Pevensey's exposed shoreline and flat hinterland became a possible target area for a German invasion after the fall of France. It was reoccupied by the military for the first time in over 400 years, with British and Canadian troops garrisoning it from May 1940, and Americans later."

                It's ok to be wrong anon, what's not ok is trying to convince yourself you're not, in the end you're only cheating yourself.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                moron they literally surrendered after one (1) shell landed inside. Why are you doing this?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >So what the Germans never invaded it
                Maybe because y'know they knew it was fortified?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Stop being stupid on purpose

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                By the Royal Navy

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Royal Navy won't stop paratroopers tho?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >invading only with paratroopers
                not even the russians are retarded enough to do this

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Comment doesn't say only with paratroopers tho does it you literal-minded simpleton

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                he only indicated paratroopers as something that could get past the RN, so it would be a para-only assault you nitwit.
                what do you think the other part of the assault would consist of then?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >what do you think the other part of the assault would consist of then?
                uh escort fighters and bombers?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain
                they couldn't win purely in the air, why would it be different if they also had to provide air support? this is not exactly uncontested airspace we are talking about an the germans knew this.

                And armoured vehicles and artillery

                which would get past the RN how? as far as I know the only air-droppable vehicles the germans had were motorcycles.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >which would get past the RN how?
                By plane?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                lrn 2 read

                >as far as I know the only air-droppable vehicles the germans had were motorcycles.
                Listen i'm in charge, i've secured a landing spot for my planes with my paratrooppers and i'm flying in armour and other stuff before going on to win the war

                Yes, mein Fuhrer, of course mein Fuhrer.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >lrn 2 read
                I did?

                Why limit yourself to air-drops when you can land armour in, it's how the germans had to do it in africa once the axis transport fleet was practicaly wiped out, tanks/tankettes delivered bu plane.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >as far as I know the only air-droppable vehicles the germans had were motorcycles.
                Listen i'm in charge, i've secured a landing spot for my planes with my paratrooppers and i'm flying in armour and other stuff before going on to win the war

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                And armoured vehicles and artillery

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Could you stop telling me about my country, continent and history first?
                It's a shame you're correct, because as a noguns fag, you're retroactively wrong.

              • 1 week ago
                OP

                >Please source me any castle that withstood heavy direct bombing and shelling and didn’t crumble? If you do I’ll happily apologize.
                There's the siege of vienna where the Ottomans outnumbered the defenders 5 to 1 and still didn't manage to take the castle. They had lots of cannons and guns during the siege.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >siege of vienna
                >fucking 16th century
                lol

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Siege is a siege, tardo.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            http://www.revisionist.net/bombed-castles.html
            If you can find something that proves this wrong you're welcome to provide it.

      • 1 week ago
        OP

        Huh? Why the anti-American rhetoric all of a sudden? I'm just asking about how effective castles would be in modern conflict against a weak enemy military that doesn't have access to stuff like nukes and would instead have to rely on a limited amount of artillery or airstrikes to try and take out a squad entranced in a castle.

        So you're either only facing 2-3 howitzers or the enemy is mostly throwing mortar rounds at you. With good firing lines and lots of cameras and detectors placed around the area you would have a good knowledge of where the enemy is and attack them.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        America built plenty of fortifications in the 19th century and continued building up to the end of WW2. During the cold war the US dug all kinds of bunkers.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheyenne_Mountain_Complex

  13. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Incredibly viable if you fill the dungeon with gunpowder then allow the enemy to take it.

  14. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    These things were nigh impossible to destroy

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Frig

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      how did you do it then?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The Russians just went around.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Just don't use nigh obviously.

  15. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Eh they could probably work in a pinch, many still offer strategic positions. better than nothing.
    Pic related WW2 pillboxes built into the Roman curtain wall of a Roman fort dating from 290AD which later housed a Norman castle

    Pevensey castle, it has seen some shit.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous
  16. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >be european
    >have retarded ideas
    >get told your ideas are retarded
    >have meltdown

  17. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >be American
    >have no history
    >seethe

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      this, kek

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        It's textbook crab mentality, imagine saying castles hold no strategic factor despite them being there for many centures and repurposed again and again because they offer the best strategic factor of the locale

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Lol Mortar go boom
          Bye bye castle

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Worked so well in Monte Casino didn't it, oh wait.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              MODERN DAY moron

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Ah so what’s the most recent castle built for wartime purposes?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >Why don't they build new houses during wars as soldiers seem to use them for defence

            amazing

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              This is some expert levels of retard posting

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                You self reflecting? If so I agree

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                You are trying to hard now anon, go back to defending castles, less obvious, sone how.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              Ok then retard what castle are they currently building in preparation for a war? Any country? Anywhere?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Ok then retard what castle are they currently building in preparation for a war? Any country? Anywhere?

            All kinds of fortifications nowadays, you mongoloid. The original question was if castles can serve a purpose in modern times and yes as we obviously made out they hold their ground pretty damn well against artillery, bombs and small arms. They are already existing free fortifications made for war on high grounds, choke points, in and near mountains, on river crossings - everywhere you would want a stronghold.

            No you don't build castles while being invaded, building castles takes months, years in some cases decades. You fill up Hesco barriers and dig trenches if you are fancy. And yes, modern day fortifications with modern materials are cheaper AND more effective. Your retarded question is absolutely disconnected from this and obviously serves no purpose except for you to point with the finger at that anon and be like "HURR DURR SEE? NOBODY BUILDS NEW CASTLES THAT MEANS THEY ARE USELESS!!!!"

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              I actually admire you for replying to such moronic posts as those two, I couldn't bring myself to do it, I applaud you, alas like me you're wasting your time, i've seen some genuine morons in my time but he's real pice of work.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >they hold their ground pretty damn well against artillery, bombs and small arms
              Nope. Better than nothing I guess but a hole in a ground is more effective for defense.
              >They are already existing free fortifications made for war on high grounds, choke points, in and near mountains, on river crossings - everywhere you would want a stronghold
              And a historical locations where you do not want to fight because you will get killed by your own population if you direct fighting to it

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      God euros are so touchy, they aren’t reinforced concrete, it’s just stone, it’s not a matter of history you retard, it’s a matter of vast improvements in weapons. The fuck got your balls all twisted?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >it’s a matter of vast improvements in weapons.
        hmm what if we could use these already defended positions occupying the highground and base our improved weapons and signals there

        critical thinking not one of your strong points is it

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          moron
          THEYD LAST ABOUT A DAY BEFORE GETTING BLASTED TO SHIT AND BE WORTHLESS AFTERWARDS AS A BASE.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            MODERN DAY moron

            >seething so much he's now in caps lmao
            go to bed m8 you've been done

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              It’s rare I see this level of pointless stupidity here, so forgive me, but Jesus this thread degraded into something stupid.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            MODERN DAY moron

            If you're down to name calling you've already lost.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              Says the bro who’s pointlessly shitting on Americans

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Wait, you're anti-castle? Frankly, I can't tell you two apart anymore.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >THEYD LAST ABOUT A DAY BEFORE GETTING BLASTED TO SHIT AND BE WORTHLESS AFTERWARDS AS A BASE.

            Monte Casino
            On 15 February American bombers dropped 1,400 tons of high explosives, creating widespread damage
            The raid failed to achieve its objective, as German paratroopers then occupied the rubble and established excellent defensive positions amid the ruins.

            >rubble worthless he said

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              I can’t tell if this is sone how supporting castles while literally stating that it was nothing but rubble that was just used as cover, or just mocking the concept

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                More the point that just because you blast X to shit it doesn't remove it''s tactical advantage, high-ground is still highground and cover is stil cover

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Ruins, not rubble. Are you high? It was holding up quite well after the raid and served as an excellent position.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                how disingenous of you

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                The ground floor and lower levels are completely intact, the bricks from the collapsed upper floors offer a ton of protection and the entire location is on high ground. Not sure what you're trying to point out.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Frankly at this point You’d probably argue a pile of mortar from a castle will act as the supreme defense or something, it amazing

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Good enough to inflict more than double the losses onto the allied side of the battle.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Ah so we traded the English retarded for a germ, interesting

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >nooo the massive amount of casualties inflicted on assaulting the position doesn't matter and is completely irrelevant to the protection the fortification provided because they're english and germaaaan

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous
              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Well for one it's not really a castle anymore and the question is about castles in modern combat.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                We didn't really have a war in Europe since ww2. Just to let you know.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Yes because explosive tech has completely stagnated after 1945 and modern day muntion systems are incapable of delivering more explosives that are pound for pound more powerful than older compounds. Because Vienna survived Turks centuries ago it means they can shrug off cruise missiles

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Yes because countermeasures have completely stagnated after 1945 and modern day bla blah blah something somthing highground is obsolte despite it being used extensively in Afghanistan blah blah blah

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              [...]
              All kinds of fortifications nowadays, you mongoloid. The original question was if castles can serve a purpose in modern times and yes as we obviously made out they hold their ground pretty damn well against artillery, bombs and small arms. They are already existing free fortifications made for war on high grounds, choke points, in and near mountains, on river crossings - everywhere you would want a stronghold.

              No you don't build castles while being invaded, building castles takes months, years in some cases decades. You fill up Hesco barriers and dig trenches if you are fancy. And yes, modern day fortifications with modern materials are cheaper AND more effective. Your retarded question is absolutely disconnected from this and obviously serves no purpose except for you to point with the finger at that anon and be like "HURR DURR SEE? NOBODY BUILDS NEW CASTLES THAT MEANS THEY ARE USELESS!!!!"

              So you agree then, using a medieval castle would be retarded and modern fortifications are the go to, good

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Reading comprehension

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                There's aren't many posts I blink at rapidly in shear astonishment, but yours I was genuinely taken aback by, by how much it missed the premise of the thread.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                I’ll take it seriously when the thread topic is serious, this is a joke. A bad one at that.

                I mean look at

                https://i.imgur.com/aZr8dAU.jpg

                Ruins, not rubble. Are you high? It was holding up quite well after the raid and served as an excellent position.

                “it held up well” This is vatnik levels of cope, it’s literally a shell of a building.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                A shell of a building that was the single reason the ally and polish memorial on site is twice as large as the German one. Idk what to tell you any more at this point. There's hardly a better example of the strategic value of a fortress like this.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Is this all just build up to sone retarded, “hill to die on” joke?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >>have no history
      They do, it's just really pathetic and queer.
      Take this picture for example, you know how many of my gear queer friends dont even bring a water jug to the woods? Not even a small one.
      LARP is a dumb word to use, unprepared and underestimating circumstances? Yes.

  18. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I knew a carpenter who built "castle steps" going to his lofted bedroom.
    Shits were painful to walk up if you didn't know just where to place your feet.
    I heard his kids grew up to be twice as autistic.

  19. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The best sort of modern castle is a vast underground bunker fortress complex, similar to Verdun. People don't realise just how massive the fort network was at Verdun because it was all underground, it was ridiculous. Azovstal held out for as long as it did for similar reasons.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      AH YES, THE ARCANE IDEA OF A BUNKER, HOW NOVEL

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous
        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          No, suck my cock

  20. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I'd have lost less brain cells sniffing glue than I have lost in this thread and I shan't be losing any more

    alf weederzane i'm out.

  21. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The modern equivalent would be the Flak Towers like this one built in Berlin.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flak_tower

    Pic related has so much concrete in it that its been left in place since WWII because it would simply be too expensive to demolish it.

    If you could build it heavy enough to survive air strikes and artillery strikes and topped it with air defenses it could be a pretty impressive base of operations particularly if you put it on top of a heavy lift elevator connected to a subterranean facility loaded with supplies, troops and vehicles making it both a hardened command center and a safe place to send out reinforcements from.

    Would be pretty cool as a plot device in a movie; but in practice would you actually have time to build this in an area that needs fixed defenses like this over an extended period of time in a modern conflict? A flak tower castle over a subterranean faculty could be useful in a conflict like what's going on in Ukraine right now but it would probably take years to build. I suppose a more realistic application would be along a DMZ area like the North Korea, South Korea border where both sides have time to fortify and having a facility that could survive a massive artillery bombardment would be useful as the spearhead for a counter offensive in the event a war breaks out.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      We could probably get the Flak Towers to work by placing them around airfields and supply depots but honestly it's not worth the effort.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Wow. It's like you read:

        Castles work, they are just not worth it in terms of cost-benefit if you have to build new ones.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Sorry but according to this thread this is completely useless and would literally break under mortar... no! Even under under barrel grenade launcher fire. It's also static so it's totally a deathtrap and enemies would just ignore it anyway aside from when it's a deathtrap because modern weapons improved so much upon explosions. Also: not modern.

      Get fucked nerd.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        wow, you're literally retarded if you think you can take that down with underbarrel grenades.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        modern PGMs where they could concentrate hits instead of having to drop masses of unguided bombs would definitely test the mettle of the flak towers

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          A modern built flak tower would have CIWS to shoot down PGMs

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            I hear the lasers they're making these days can be pretty powerful if you pump enough electricity into them.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >tfw America is NOD and GDI at the same time

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      So expanding on this concept, you might even consider disguising the thing so that the enemy wouldn't immediately recognize it as a military target.

      1: Subterranean facility connected to the surface by heavy elevators capable of lifting tanks.

      2: Subterranean road or rail line that allows you to move equipment and troops in and out covertly.

      3: Concrete Flak Tower with AA on top and disguise the thing as a skyscraper with a large garage on the bottom floor.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The US had disguised microwave relay towers and other command and control buildings for the cold war. Some of them are in private hands as SHTF bunkers.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Skyscrapers themselves have actually proven to be able to withstand bombing to a much greater extent than you'd otherwise assume feasible. Married with competent AA systems, and you have a competent hard point that doubles as great vantage.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          You just need to kamikaze a plane into a skyscraper to knock it down, what are you on about

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            What are you crazy? Everyone knows jet fuel can't melt steel beams.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      filename says Wien
      >built in berlin
      muttbrain at work

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Wow, I posted the wrong flak tower and didn't read the file name I copy pasted. Clearly this is undeniable proof of the intellectual superiority of the Euro.

        But real talk, this is PrepHole and you probably can't even own guns in your country what are you even doing here? You wanna talk shit? Wanna, make excuses about how you actually can own guns if you suck enough government cock? Want to have every American here take turns laughing at you as you explain about how it took you 2 years to get your license for a bolt action .22 and 10 rounds of ammunition that you have to keep locked in a government approved safe while your waiting for you government approve license to go shoot at a government approved range under government supervision?

        Keep talking shit.

  22. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Fixed fortifications are a testament to the stupidity of man.

  23. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Pretty shit. You don't have the resources and manpower to guard it. Takes one competent team of sappers to dig under it and collapse a whole section of wall. No explosives even needed. Jerry rig some armor on a wrecker and unless you've got some artillery to take it down it'll just beat the front wall down all by itself with a tank of diesel. But they're pretty impervious to break ins and you are right about them being resistant to small arms. So it's better than your average suburban home I guess. But easy to take on for an inclined military force.

    • 1 week ago
      OP

      >You don't have the resources and manpower to guard it. Takes one competent team of sappers to dig under it and collapse a whole section of wall.
      You could have security cameras placed in and around the castles to detect people moving close and around it.

      These could be wired to live feed a command center under the castle that's equipped with wired controllers to automatic guns placed in the castles to attack intruders.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      I mean if its a modern castle then you'd extend the concrete the walls are made out of under ground 50 feet or so and you'd only have a few entry ways.

      An actual medieval or renaissance castle would have the sort of problems you're talking about and really wouldn't be that useful beyond improvised cover for infantry. There are precedents for sturdy apartment buildings and the like being turned into improvised fortifications in urban combat though.

      https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/pavlovs-house-stalingrad/

      In the event of urban combat in a city with an actual castle I could see the castle being used for such a thing as it would be a sturdy building likely built in a tactically advantageous geographic position.

      Of course in the current year one bunker buster would blow it to bits.

  24. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    it's 99.9% likely that castles are built on a vantage point of some sort, therefore castles are viable and valuable on a strategic level, just like Donetsk Airport was, it was shelled to shit but didn't stop both sides trying to take it, why?.. It was a vantage point..

    tl;dr yes

  25. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    One word - JDAM.

  26. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >mogs ur castle

  27. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Great if the enemy doesn't have air power and most people underestimate how tough their walls are versus artillery, but even modest dusters can completely circumvent their walls.

  28. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Are we all just pointing at castles in ww2 when the likelihood of a bomb successfully hitting anywhere near its target was like 25%, and the chance of a dud was 5-10%

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Bombing raids usually involved dozens if not hundreds of bombs so this wasn't considered an issue.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah but my point is that obviously shrapnel isn't going to hurt a castle for the same reason I doubt a hellfire exploding 50 feet away would even harm a T-55, but the second you get a direct hit that T-55 crew is being promoted to cosmonauts. I doubt that a castle would hold up to a single bombing run from a B1 without it being less "castle" and more "piles of boulders with a few rooms that survive". Which would still be more useful than nothing, but I don't think they'd hold up much to direct, repeat hits, unlike WW2 where they'd just be hit intermittently

  29. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    megablock apartments are better for military purposes, they were designed to fall apart in such a way they would still provide great advanced positions. Truth is anything will get demolished by modern artillery.

  30. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >The thick stone/brick walls should offer good protection against mortars, airstrikes and artillery
    They stopped building castles specifically because they couldn't even handle cannons, you fucking retard. you absolute monkey

  31. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    If you're going to build fortifications, you go for reinforced concrete, not stone and brick. You need to mix steel with concrete, and then you can last a bit, but just a bit more.

    The days of turtling with thick slabs or armor or stone fortifications are long behind us. Today is all about active protection, not passive: destroy the missile before it hits, rather than absorb the impact.

    The problem is that while you can indeed scale the materials science to take more hits, you can also scale the material science to destroy much more, so in this case, the future will become more and more about active protection, armor will have a much less important role than before.

    Barring some sci-fi shit like energy shields or literally deflecting ammunition with some sci-fi gravitymemes, offense>defense.

Your email address will not be published.