I was wondering, how useful are ancient castles in modern battles? Armchair generals all over the planet kept prattling about them being useless because modern weaponry is awesome and all...
Then I went to look properly:
1. Kerak de Chevaliers, yes, that one crusader castle, was occupied during the Syrian war, and gave a hard time to the enemy outside, the castle worked exactly as intended, even with modern weapons.
2. Ditto to a bunch of other castles in some past wars.
3. A fortified monastery gave enemies a hard time in WW2 in Italy, I forgot its name now.
4. Not exactly "ancient castle", but a "star fort" in France was captured in the opening days of Battle of Verdun, in part because the french leadership believed castles to be outdated and didn't garrisoned it properly... the result was that the attempts to retake the fort resulted in 100.000 casualties on the French side before they succeeded.
5. Also in Verdun there was a smaller fort, the commander of that fort was old and the military ordered him to retire for medical reasons, he refused and basically "kept" the fort as his own, with a small garrison, the old guy and his small garrison fought fiercely against the invading Germans and caused 3000 casualties to the Germans before they lost.
This ancient fortification was the only thing the Syrian army held in the city for months, if not years. It functioned exactly as an ancient fortress did - providing high ground, spotting enemy movement, safety of supplies, etc.
This was NOT fortified, but allowed concealment, and was held through heavy bombardment, offering a tactical advantage.
Yes, US/Russia/China could pound it into the ground, but that takes a LOT of ordinance.
Btw, WW II is FULL of these examples.
I think the misconception comes from the fact that "modern weapons" - jets, radars, comm sites, missiles, etc cant be "secured" in these facilities. This is true. But that doesn't mean they can't be held through heavy bombardment and house mortars, snipers, ATGMs, small supply caches, etc.
A castle gives you a hard time when you only have a gun. If the military has aircraft, missile launchers, and artillery, they'll be flattened before any fighting occurs. Plus it's a pretty easy target.
"On 15 February American bombers dropped 1,400 tons of high explosives, creating widespread damage.[6] The raid failed to achieve its objective, as German paratroopers then occupied the rubble and established excellent defensive positions amid the ruins. "
What's often not told of the Battle of Monte Cassino is the destruction of a jewel of the West.
To the Germans' credit, they offered not to take the monastery as a position if the Allies wouldn't bomb it. They only took the advantageous positions after it'd been reduced to ruble.
The Germans also helped evacuate as much of the stuff inside as possible, moving it to the Vatican, where the monks trusted the Germans wouldn't steal the stuff. To further trust amongst the locals and monks, a monk accompanied every truck to the Vatican. As a result most of the library was saved.
Monte Cassino is one of the (many) examples of Allied war crimes and one of the (very) few examples of German honor in WWII.
As a Jew I find this concept of german military honor during ww2 utterly repugnant. This fetishization of nazis is utterly sick, why don't you also give us examples of the honor of pol pots army or the honor of Argentina's military when they were disappearing people. Absolutely repugnant.
I think what the commenter is mentioning is about the individuals. Remember, Nazi Germany instituted a draft and had conscription. Not every German soldier was a Nazi. You can mention the honor of the individuals themselves without praising the regime that lorded over them.
Not really. If you have really honour, you don't fight for a murderous regime. You fight against it.
Easier said, than done, when you have family etc. but any praise of the Wehrmacht is pretty out of place, considering the context. They only turned against Hitler when the war was about to be lost. Not before.
But given your name, you might see things differently.
To be fair that quote is probably mostly about carpet bombing with relatively small bombs. In modern warfare not only are weapons a lot more precise but they also pack a lot more high yield explosives. Also most old fortifications were made to stand hits coming from the ground towards the outer walls, not from above.
The reason almost any above ground strongholds still hold up today is that they're packed with civilians, not because their walls are that strong.
it was still 1400 tons of high explosive. Monte Cassino was reduced to rubble. The entire monastery was reduced to ruble and had to be rebuild from the ground up. Also, the US did have artillery at the time, which is bloody precise.
It didn't matter, the Monte Cassino was a meat grinder for the Allies.
Anyway, why dredge WWII era stuff? The US got spanked in Afghanistan by an irregular militia with bolt action rifles. And their tactic is simple as it is brilliant - negate the advantage of air raids by fighting as close to the enemy as possible.
not sure if you got flagged because Afghanistan didn't have actual 'castles' or because some American Exceptionalists took exception to your language...
How does 'safe distance' work? If you can hit them... they can hit you. And they know exactly where you're firing from as soon as you send up a shell into the air.
Well that's not safe distance then is it - that's manoeuvring. You can do that at any distance. And you can't suppress if you're firing one shot, spending five minutes moving, and then firing one more shot.
Krak DID got hit with all of these, it is still standing, and the people inside still kept fighting.
Same for some other castles in Syria from my research out of curiosity.
But I assume that people wanted to take the castles, not turn them into a parking lot... if you can nuke or throw MOAB into them, then it is obviously another matter entirely.
I was wondering, how useful are ancient castles in modern battles? Armchair generals all over the planet kept prattling about them being useless because modern weaponry is awesome and all...
Then I went to look properly:
1. Kerak de Chevaliers, yes, that one crusader castle, was occupied during the Syrian war, and gave a hard time to the enemy outside, the castle worked exactly as intended, even with modern weapons.
2. Ditto to a bunch of other castles in some past wars.
3. A fortified monastery gave enemies a hard time in WW2 in Italy, I forgot its name now.
4. Not exactly "ancient castle", but a "star fort" in France was captured in the opening days of Battle of Verdun, in part because the french leadership believed castles to be outdated and didn't garrisoned it properly... the result was that the attempts to retake the fort resulted in 100.000 casualties on the French side before they succeeded.
5. Also in Verdun there was a smaller fort, the commander of that fort was old and the military ordered him to retire for medical reasons, he refused and basically "kept" the fort as his own, with a small garrison, the old guy and his small garrison fought fiercely against the invading Germans and caused 3000 casualties to the Germans before they lost.