/k/ - Weapons » Thread #15565993

[184 / 0 / ?]

47KiB, 618x599, 618px-StarFortDeadZones.png

Star Forts

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 04:05:16 No.15565993 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>15566746 >>15566889 >>15577484 >>15577964

Hello /k/omrades

I am perplexed. I've been trying to figure out how you could make a star fort work with a 3 sided fort - specifically an equilateral triangle. So far I haven't been able to figure out the angles and measurements of the turrets to allow for a completely covered design.

Given an equilateral triangle shaped star fort with walls 150 yards in length and any dimensions you need (within reason) for the turrets located at the points, is it possible to have a completely covered perimeter as in pic related?

Bonus points if you can draw it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 04:08:58 No.15566053 Report

Quoted By: >>15566073

The walls against the dead zone don't need to be round. Just have something round up top so there is room to put people up there.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 04:10:05 No.15566073 Report

Quoted By:

>>15566053
>Missed the point entirely

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 04:35:23 No.15566403 Report

Quoted By: >>15566430

Would a Bowed Triangle design work?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 04:37:23 No.15566430 Report

Quoted By: >>15566472

>>15566403
Convex or concave side walls on your bowed triangle?

I hadn't thought of that, was thinking exclusively of turrets

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 04:40:23 No.15566472 Report

Quoted By:

>>15566430
Both may work depending on the turret design, play around and post what you come up with.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO star_fort_3.gif, 6KiB, 999x659

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 04:57:43 No.15566746 Report

Quoted By: >>15566880 >>15566920 >>15566969 >>15568848

>>15565993
Do you mean like this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 05:07:29 No.15566880 Report

Quoted By:

>>15566746
Alos, a comment:
As you see, it works. Just not terribly well.

The design gets better with more 'points', whatever the technical term is.
It gets impractical somewhere around nine, IIRC.
tl:dr: You do a 3-pointed-fort, but 5 is just better.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 05:07:43 No.15566882 Report

Quoted By:

While concave would work it would need to be at such an inward bending angle as to lose a significant portion of the interior angle of the triangle. While the angle could be lessened by the use of oblique angled loopholes cut into the interior walls.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 8ptstar.jpg, 17KiB, 880x420

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 05:08:18 No.15566889 Report

Quoted By:

>>15565993
8 point star

The corner turrets can cover the center-wall positions, meaning no dead space.

The center-wall positions can cover the dead space caused by the corner turrets.

>pic related

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 05:09:38 No.15566920 Report

Quoted By: >>15566969

>>15566746
Well son of a bitch

Don't suppose you would know the angular formulas for the walls of that would you? That's really what I've been trying to figure out, since it would be universal regardless of the size of a triangle.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 05:13:29 No.15566969 Report

Quoted By: >>15566978 >>15567094

>>15566746
>>15566920

Weak spots - horrible design.

The only way to cover these areas would be if it was possible to lean outside of the wall to fire - which would significantly expose the defenders. Even then, you're looking at reduced area of effective defense.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1364864263565.gif, 6KiB, 999x659

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 05:14:03 No.15566978 Report

Quoted By: >>15567026

>>15566969

Pic related -> horrible design.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 05:17:41 No.15567026 Report

Quoted By: >>15567193

>>15566978

So you are telling me you could not fire on that position?

You would just move your firing angle outward.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 05:22:03 No.15567094 Report

Quoted By: >>15567357

>>15566969
>The only way to cover these areas would be if it was possible to lean outside of the wall to fire

Nyet, that is what angled arrow slit embrasures are for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrowslit

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1364865243084.gif, 8KiB, 999x659

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 05:27:39 No.15567193 Report

Quoted By: >>15567762 >>15567924 >>15568213

>>15567026
If you attempt to clear the area (highlighted) from your inward-facing walls, you decrease the overall effectiveness for defense along the main wall face - which is always the center of attack.

If you attempt to cover the area (highlighted) from another turret, the angle the defender would have to shoot from would not be realistic if your walls were thicker than a couple of inches.

Figure 1: if you defend the red triangle area with your interior walls, thus leaving your main wall undefended (or with significantly reduced defense).

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1364865243084 (1).gif, 13KiB, 999x659

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 05:33:13 No.15567268 Report

Quoted By: >>15567762

Figure 2 - demonstrating that if firing on the red triangle area, it is impossible from the pointed turrets, even given arrow slits.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 05:35:45 No.15567311 Report

Quoted By: >>15567430

A triangle is an inferior fort than a five pointed star because you're making each corner be a much more valuable target for enemy artillery, you have to focus all of our turrets in smaller area.

also forts are obsolete in the age of air strikes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 05:38:36 No.15567357 Report

Quoted By:

>>15567094
>Russia
>Castles
wut?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1364865243084.gif, 7KiB, 999x659

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 05:38:38 No.15567359 Report

Quoted By: >>15567969

green dots are more cannon

use more cannon

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 05:42:19 No.15567430 Report

Quoted By:

>>15567311
Completely neglecting air strikes and given an enemy that is less advanced than a nation state and thus has limited access to mobile artillery capable of taking down a well built star fort with high walls and a massive amount of earth behind those walls (roughly 9,353,074 million cubic feet of earth given 60ft of retaining wall holding in an equilateral triangle with 600 ft. walls), the point of attempting to make this start fort with as few walls and turreted protrusions as possible is to minimize the number of people required to simultaneously man every section of the wall.

Of course a pentagon or hexagon with turrets would be 'better'. The area of responsibility for each crewed wall section goes down as their field of responsibility narrows, but the amount of people required to crew that fortress goes up at a geometrically doubled rate for each additional +4 geographically distinct wall sections you add by adding 1 side to the principal geometric shape.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 06:00:13 No.15567762 Report

Quoted By: >>15568044

>>15567193
>>15567268
You don't understand how star forts work, and why they were built as they were built.

In fact, you seem to be missing the entire point of using that design.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 06:03:00 No.15567809 Report

Quoted By: >>15567880

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

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Untitled.png, 13KiB, 400x400

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 06:07:21 No.15567880 Report

Quoted By: >>15568151

>>15567809

Rather crudely labeled but this would work

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO tri.png, 16KiB, 737x576

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 06:10:09 No.15567913 Report

Quoted By: >>15568446

How about this

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 06:10:31 No.15567924 Report

Quoted By: >>15568010

>>15567193
>you decrease the overall effectiveness for defense along the main wall face - which is always the center of attack.

lol what

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO star_fort_purple_guns.gif, 7KiB, 999x659

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 06:13:13 No.15567969 Report

Quoted By: >>15568618

>>15567359
Some cannones are missing.

Again, the very reason for this shape are cannons marked in purple.

Those guns clear the ditch in front of your walls with grapeshot (or canister shot), and their placement protects them from most enemy cannonfire.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 06:15:14 No.15568010 Report

Quoted By: >>15568081

>>15567924
He doesn't understand how star forts work. Maybe you can explain it to him ,as he is apparently unable to find the wiki article by himself.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO circlefort.png, 22KiB, 976x797

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 06:15:23 No.15568015 Report

Quoted By: >>15568299

Why not just a circle with slopped walls?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 06:16:29 No.15568044 Report

Quoted By: >>15568161 >>15568305

>>15567762
>You don't understand how star forts work.

You don't understand basic tactics, you retarded inbred fuck.

How about you address the weaknesses I've pointed out, instead of claiming I don't know what I'm talking about? If your fort is so grand, then there should be answers for the points I've brought up.

>EVERY FUCKING STAR-FORT has a moat, why? Because it is impossible to defend the red triangle areas: they are easy approach angles that let troops amass close to the walls. Did you specify a moat? No - so go fuck yourself and your horrible fort.

And switching back and forth between arrows and gunpowder isn't an excuse for a poorly designed tri-fort. Adding cannons only reduces the area of affect by decreasing the angle at which it can fire relative to the wall-face.

Idiot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 06:18:00 No.15568081 Report

Quoted By:

>>15568010
>Too retarded to realize a star-fort is useless without a moat.

Go fuck yourself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 06:19:19 No.15568116 Report

Quoted By:

What's a star fort?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 06:20:38 No.15568151 Report

Quoted By:

>>15567880
Round areas have dead zones.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 06:21:02 No.15568161 Report

Quoted By: >>15568836

>>15568044
lol, ITT
>one retard that drew incorrect angles in his diagram argues with several people who recognizes his premise is retarded.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 06:23:42 No.15568213 Report

Quoted By: >>15568865

>>15567193
>the main wall face - which is always the center of attack.

The main wall isn't always the centre of attack. In the 17th century the point of a bastion was usually the target of the attack. If you attack between bastions then you are caught in the worse possible crossfire. Caught in enfilade from both sides.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO rumperbum.jpg, 11KiB, 439x412

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 06:26:58 No.15568281 Report

Quoted By: >>15573590

Crudely done but it shows the concept.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 06:27:55 No.15568299 Report

Quoted By:

>>15568015
the idea is to defend all angles with the least number of people and cannon. circle fort, first of all, needs someone facing in every direction and covering every inch of wall, and second provides no mutual defense. you don't have an opposing wall that can shoot the asses of the guys at the bottom of yours, if they do something like walk at you with a defensive structure.

also with a circle configuration you would only ever be able to have one cannon shooting at a specific enemy on the horizon at any time, stars allow you to have several shooting at the same spot

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 06:28:09 No.15568305 Report

Quoted By: >>15569011

>>15568044
>EVERY FUCKING STAR-FORT has a moat, why? Because it is impossible to defend the red triangle areas: they are easy approach angles that let troops amass close to the walls. Did you specify a moat? No - so go fuck yourself and your horrible fort.

Lets fix that shall we?

>EVERY FUCKING FORTIFIED WALL has a ditch, why? Because it is the simplest fortification enhancement you can add to a fortified wall that both increases the walls effective height over the ground assaulting elemnts will have to stand in at the base of the wall and greatly increases the difficulty of maneuvering in close proximity to the wall with equipment: the angles I highlighted are in no way easier or harder to approach and mass from than any other point around the star fort, and I'm a retard that thinks troops on the inward facing sides of the corner protrusions would simply not fire on massing troops in the triangle zones because their zone of responsibility is ONLY the defilade in front of the wall, even if the enemy isn't their yet, because he's still massing in my magical triangle zone! HAHA!

Fixed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 06:34:49 No.15568446 Report

Quoted By:

>>15567913
Now THAT.... is pretty fucking original. The FoF diagrams for the grunts in the towers would be mind boggling... but that is workable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 06:43:12 No.15568618 Report

Quoted By: >>15568736

>>15567969
Why not use that design, but add another side to the corners, making the triangular tips square?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 06:48:51 No.15568736 Report

Quoted By:

>>15568618
Because then the area at the bottom of those tips would become an actual dead zone with no other fire that can be brought against it, save for the people at the top of the wall trying to directly engage the people far beneath them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 06:54:19 No.15568836 Report

Quoted By:

>>15568161
This isn't day/k/are - gtfo until you learn to tactics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 06:54:38 No.15568848 Report

Quoted By:

>>15566746

This is the right way to do it. Troops attacking the point of the bastion are supposed to be enfiladed by guns firing from the next bastion on either side. The shape of a star fort isn't the way it is to enfilade troops attacking the curtain wall between bastions.

The face of each bastion is supposed to be perpendicular to the rearward jutting face of the next bastion over.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 06:55:25 No.15568865 Report

Quoted By: >>15569032

>>15568213
Can't be caught in crossfire that doesn't exist because it's too busy trying to reduce enemies from amassing at each bastion.

Seriously, gtfo.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 07:02:02 No.15569011 Report

Quoted By:

>>15568305
Lets fix your statement, shall we?

>I'm a retarded faggot who doesn't think that a wall has a finite number of emplacements; this wall with infinite capacity to hold defenders has the ability to provide continuous defense over all possible angles of sight without regard to the number of approaching enemies. I also am so inbred as to not recognize that the simple reason every star-fort has a moat is to prevent troops from amassing at the areas which have the least amount of protection (triangle areas). Let's face it, I'm so retarded that I think an enemy that attacks a fort will simply stand in the place that is most open to attack from the most gun emplacements set in/on the defending wall.

>I'm also have no ability to defend my point of view, rather than parroting previous ideas. Too bad I cannot even do this effectively, as I fail to include relevant facets that were included with the original author's ideas. Instead, I'll simply make inane comments to try to discredit any opposing view, because I lack the understanding of basic military tactics necessary to formulate an idea on my own.

There you go - I fixed the shit coming out of your mouth (fingers, rather) so that everyone can understand you. Seriously, do you even know what a pincer attack is? I bet you're a fucking frenchie.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 07:03:01 No.15569032 Report

Quoted By: >>15569180

>>15568865
What infinite horde wave scenario are you fantasizing here? Seriously, how many tens of thousands of orks/persians/mongols/walkers do you think are mad dashing from your magical triangle zones to the base of the walls over open ground with no cover?

Fuckin kids these days

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 07:09:53 No.15569180 Report

Quoted By: >>15569616

>>15569032
The only kind of inbred enemy leader that would fall for your worthless, moatless, triangle shit would have to be as retarded as you are. What kind of enemy wouldn't march their troops towards the weakest area of the fort, amass troops, and then invade the fort from there? What kind of enemy general wouldn't sacrifice a couple hundred soldiers to move the bulk of their force within touching-distance of the wall?

You're such a fucking retarded mall ninja, too many potatoes these days.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1364523438035.png, 249KiB, 394x300

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 07:10:04 No.15569182 Report

Quoted By: >>15569249

ITT:

Your idea had a flaw. Not a lot of flaws, A flaw.

Therefore you are functionally retarded and I will spew shit from every orifice whilst I correct you instead of constructive discussion. You fucking retard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 07:13:30 No.15569249 Report

Quoted By: >>15571468

>>15569182
Who are you talking to?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO fixin.gif, 11KiB, 999x659

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 07:31:52 No.15569616 Report

Quoted By: >>15570259 >>15570359

>>15569180
Listen kiddo, don't get all butt frustrated and call names because your drawings of 'firing angles' from the walls were inaccurate and stupid. You literally just pulled random angles out of your ass and then magically 'wope look dis because in muh drawing it dunt wok it mean design fundamentally compromised'.

Here is one just slightly fixed that gives a bit better idea of the amount of wall that could face the magical red zone people.

Yes your diagram is unscientific and so therefore the angles are subjec to debate, however the length of the taper of the spade shaped protrusions is directly proportional to how much of the angular face can meet against the other walls - the longer and more tapered, the more the outward facing face will in fact turn more centerline and be perpendicular to the inward faces of the adjacent protrusions.

Don't get so hung up on the one picture with it's unscientifically crafted and obviously not optimal angles.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO geometricallymoreaccurate.png, 17KiB, 1152x648

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:00:16 No.15570217 Report

Quoted By: >>15573590 >>15577236

angular comparisons up in dis bitch.

Does a pentagon offer an easier job to the defenders by reducing each wall sections effective field of responsibility by a few degrees? Yes it does.

Have fun manning the extra 10 geometrically distinct wall sections with your finite garrison.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1364873512161.gif, 10KiB, 999x659

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:02:21 No.15570259 Report

Quoted By: >>15570620

>>15569616
Lol not even close.

The only area that can effectively attack the red triangles of doom are the interior walls (which represent approximately 1/6th of your wall length. Moreover, it will have to be ranged artillery if you have any hope of getting hitting a mass of soldiers in the red triangle area. But wait - if you use artillery, then you won't be able to use small arms fire to flank enemy units that attempt to breach the main wall.

Approximately 2/3 of the main wall will have a line of sight with the red triangle for a period of time, but will not have a line of sight against enemies that reach the wall. Once they reach the red triangle areas, they're relatively safe.

While there IS some defense in the red triangle of doom, the size of the area (roughly the 1/2 the size of each bastion) that is only defensible from a small section of the side-bastion/interior wall is severely lacking. Any competent leader would exploit this flaw to bring the majority of his force up to the wall.

Instead of defending this obvious FLAW as a non-issue (a failure of oversight that has lead many an army to their death/defeat), you should instead point to ways that can reduce the effectiveness of this defect.

>Here is an idea, since you can't come up with them on your own.

A MOAT which would prevent an army from amassing so close to the walls. Something that EVERY star fort HAS. Not a ditch, a MOAT. A person-high moat will make the red triangles of doom a NONISSUE, but you're too retarded to come up with it - despite all the pictures.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:06:58 No.15570359 Report

Quoted By:

>>15569616
Seriously speaking, what kind of guns do you think would fit in an arrow-slit? It sounds like you're expecting it to hold machine guns, snipers, and cannons.

If all of those things are around, why not just mortar the base from afar?

And if you're using arrows, which have a smaller rate of fire, less range, and less accuracy, how many people do you think you need to fill in/on a wall to stop a large army from simply attacking at an in-opportune angle?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:13:19 No.15570502 Report

Quoted By:

Mortars.

/Thread.

Go back to Italy you Guido.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:19:00 No.15570620 Report

Quoted By: >>15570846 >>15571013 >>15571024 >>15571056

>>15570259
>moat

I will address the rest of your point soon, but you keep bringing up this moat thing so I can only assume you are lacking in factual historic knowledge.

Do you have any idea what percentage of forts/castles/citadels had a 'moat' by the way you are thinking of it (trench full of water)?

Virtually none. You know what practically all of them, from Roman fortified towns to England to Wales to the Alsace to the Rhineland to Castille to Hungary and the Carpathians all had? FUCKING HUGE DITCHES. A 'moat' was almost never, ever filled with water and crocodiles and that fairy tale bullshit. Moats were usually angular trenches with steep sloping embankments at the base of the wall that Accentuated the wall itself. Moats filled with water, aside from being wasteful and useless and filled in as easily as a ditch if the enemy got that close with a siege force, were a breeding ground for disease and pestilence within a few feet of your walls that surrounded you with that danger all the time (not lol siege coming fill the moat). Tell you what; you find me a couple star forts - town sized, city sized whatever - that had no shit MOATS. Not earthworks, fuckin moats like you are prattling on about. Not a partial supplementary river either, no we're talking a man made "This is going in these places just like this because we've too much dead space at the tip of the bastion" moat.

Earthworks - modern anti tank trenches that are 15 feet wide, 12 feet deep and shaped like an upside-down pyramid? Absolutely, those were everywhere and are a part of any fort?

Fucking water filled moat? Mother fucker you've watched too many stupid movies that didn't have their facts straight. I bet you think portcullis' were made entirely of metal too.

KM !hgcMxFhLmk

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Military-Art-Italy-007.jpg, 347KiB, 750x615

KM !hgcMxFhLmk Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:22:05 No.15570672 Report

Quoted By: >>15571030 >>15577964

Some 17th century suggestions.

KM !hgcMxFhLmk

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Military-Art-Italy-008.jpg, 396KiB, 750x658

KM !hgcMxFhLmk Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:24:58 No.15570724 Report

Quoted By:

KM !hgcMxFhLmk

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Military-Art-Italy-009.jpg, 392KiB, 750x640

KM !hgcMxFhLmk Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:27:19 No.15570771 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:31:07 No.15570846 Report

Quoted By:

>>15570620
this is completely correct

>angled wall to deflect artillery
>trench with near sheer back wall and possibly sloping or sheer front wall
at the castillio de san marcos in St.augustine, the trench is about 30 feet wide and a sheer 20 feet deep: IE, the reason why the English only attempted to starve the fort and bombard it, since infantry attacks on the landward side of the gatehouse would result in massive canister shot and musket bombardment from two turrets and an entire section of wall.
>forward wood faced earthworks following the same pattern a the wall- zig zag wall segments with triangulating fire or straight wall with forward emplacements to create triangulation of fire

inb4 "fukkkk you fagget MOATS NIGGUH"

Euclid !!FP5L8HPPRnJ

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO rmoney.jpg, 163KiB, 500x500

Euclid !!FP5L8HPPRnJ Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:33:30 No.15570898 Report

Quoted By:

THIS IS A MATHEMATICAL QUESTION. THANK YOU KOMMRADES FOR THE RESEARCH AREA.

KM !hgcMxFhLmk

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Military-Art-Italy-051.jpg, 127KiB, 750x529

KM !hgcMxFhLmk Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:35:30 No.15570933 Report

Quoted By: >>15571113

Also, since the defenders here may be shooting over the top of a wall far mroe than out through slits and openings in it, it seems to me that you should be able to shoot at a pretty high angle to the wall without all too much trouble. So for an attack which comes straight at one of the point, you'd simply line up your fire from that point like the red arrows here. Thus you can get a bit of fire on the attacker even without considering any supporting sections at closer to perpendicular angles.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO delaware-fort-and-river.jpg, 47KiB, 605x412

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:39:26 No.15571013 Report

Quoted By: >>15571025 >>15571080

>>15570620
Fort Delware. To be fair,

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO moatsnigga.jpg, 403KiB, 731x1931

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:40:06 No.15571024 Report

Quoted By: >>15571223 >>15571225

>>15570620

MOATS YOU NIGGER.

And a Moat could be something as simple as a deep trench with wooden spikes at the end of it.
Moat: A deep, wide ditch surrounding a castle, fort, or town, typically filled with water and intended as a defense against attack. Doesn't mean it has to have water, you retarded mythical crocodile faggot.

But here you go - three star-forts that had WATER MOATS. FAGGOT.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:40:08 No.15571025 Report

Quoted By:

>>15571013
woops, meant to say "to be fair, it was a prison as well"

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:40:22 No.15571030 Report

Quoted By:

>>15570672
That one looks like it would work assuming you had guns accurate enough to fire along the wall to cover the point.

KM !hgcMxFhLmk

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Military-Art-Italy-014.jpg, 304KiB, 750x509

KM !hgcMxFhLmk Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:42:04 No.15571056 Report

Quoted By:

>>15570620
Bourtange and Naarden perhaps? Though I guess keeping a ditch dry in the Netherlands might be easier said than done...

The un-named manuscript I've posted from so far shows some wall/ditch/moat profiles, water appears to be involved in some. Whether or not those are suppsoed to imply the presence of a river or so is unknown to me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:42:24 No.15571063 Report

Quoted By: >>15571117

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_fort

Vauban principle. Also commonly referred to as Cooper's Corners.

lrn2history.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:43:07 No.15571080 Report

Quoted By: >>15571191 >>15571224

>>15571013
>implying dumb niggers at national parks have not destroy the foundation of half their forts by fulling up the dry trench and earthworks with water, which then seeps into the foundation and erodes the sedimentary foundation

KM !hgcMxFhLmk

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Military-Art-Italy-016.jpg, 319KiB, 750x509

KM !hgcMxFhLmk Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:44:18 No.15571111 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:44:36 No.15571113 Report

Quoted By: >>15571169 >>15571190

>>15570933
The whole point of the "sunken defense" was that it prevented direct artillery fire; this meant lower walls and high-angled incoming shots - which would destroy any emplacements on top of the walls.

Sorry, but null and void.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:44:47 No.15571117 Report

Quoted By:

>>15571063
>Almost every picture in this thread from that wikipedia page
>Implying those here haven't read it.
Are you one of those stupids i keep hearing about?

KM !hgcMxFhLmk

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Military-Art-Italy-017.jpg, 301KiB, 750x512

KM !hgcMxFhLmk Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:45:09 No.15571121 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:48:19 No.15571169 Report

Quoted By: >>15571205

>>15571113
>implying people with muskets cannot fire over the crenelations
>implying they did not build platforms to do just that
>implying they did not put mortars at the center of each bastion due to the fact that the bastions cannons could not turn foreward and had to rely on fire from another bastion
it's like you've never even seen a star fort

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:49:31 No.15571190 Report

Quoted By: >>15571260

>>15571113
also, are you implying that the gun deck of a star fort was not the top level, but sunk inside the solid stone walls?
>if so, then git out you fucking retard

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO ftmifflin.jpg, 28KiB, 520x317

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:49:38 No.15571191 Report

Quoted By:

>>15571080
fort mifflin
"On this day in 1777, a British Royal Navy fleet of ships, trying to open up supply lines along the Delaware River and the occupying British army in Philadelphia, is bombarded by American cannon fire and artillery from Fort Mifflin, Pennsylvania.

Six British ships were severely damaged, including the 64-gun battleship HMS Augusta and the 20-gun sloop Merlin, which both suffered direct hits before they were run aground and subsequently destroyed. More than 60 British troops aboard the Augusta were killed, while the crewmembers aboard the Merlin abandoned ship, narrowly avoiding a similar fate.

Although the American forces defending Fort Mifflin were undoubtedly victorious on October 23, 1777, the battle continued throughout the month of October and into November. With much of the fort destroyed and under continuous artillery and cannon fire, the American forces abandoned Fort Mifflin on November 16, 1777."

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:50:25 No.15571205 Report

Quoted By: >>15571305 >>15571360

>>15571169
>Implying that enemy mortars didn't rape the shit out of Star Forts, making them worthless.
>Implying that the top of a flat surface is the best place to survive a mortar barrage.

It's like you don't even know that people can have mortars if they aren't built into a fort.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:51:31 No.15571223 Report

Quoted By: >>15571286

>>15571024
>Moat: A deep, wide ditch surrounding a castle, fort, or town,

Funny, just a few posts ago when I changed your insistence on moats to a simpler "ditch protects fortified wall" you nearly had an aneurysm. Finally come around have you?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:51:32 No.15571224 Report

Quoted By: >>15571305

>>15571080
They probably invested in proper drainage and lining.

Also
>sedimentary foundation

wat?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:51:32 No.15571225 Report

Quoted By:

>>15571024
[ ] untold
[x] told

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:53:30 No.15571260 Report

Quoted By: >>15571305

>>15571190
I'm implying that because of the sunken defense of the star fort, enemy artillery fire had to be aimed at a higher angle to hit the fortifications. This reduced the enemy artillery effectiveness against the walls, as they were not directly aimed perpendicular to the walls. Point goes to star fort.

If you have artillery fire coming in from a high angle (above), what will it hit first? Gun emplacements set on the top of the wall/bastion. That means you're fucked if you're on top of the wall/bastion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:55:37 No.15571286 Report

Quoted By: >>15571358 >>15571460

>>15571223
>Because a simple ditch is the same as a moat.

A moat is a MOTHER FUCKING HUGE DITCH, not the shitty stub-penis ditch that you seem to prefer.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO seriously nigger.jpg, 36KiB, 700x422

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:56:39 No.15571305 Report

Quoted By: >>15571414

>>15571205
>star forts are worthless
confirmed for retard- they were the predominant form of defensive structure throughout the 16th-18th centuries

>>15571224
nope.jpg

they almost destroyed the Castillo in St. Augustine due to the misconception that "MOATS ARE FULL OF WATER FAGGET" the few decades they had the coquina eroding away in water is why 2 of the 4 bastions are on the edge of collapsing

>>15571260
>and the only place that the forts cannon could be placed to hit the enemy
>this retarded
if your assertion is correct, then please point out where these magic internal canons are on this fort

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:59:10 No.15571358 Report

Quoted By: >>15571461

>>15571286
are you this retarded?
>most moats were dry
>these "simple ditches" were made of multilayer ditch and earthwork construction
>the "simple ditches" could range from anywhere from 10-30 ft deep and as wide or wider

just stop posting and read up on some damn history

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 08:59:10 No.15571360 Report

Quoted By: >>15571404 >>15571459 >>15571494

>>15571205
>implying that with enough time, unlimited ammunition resources, manpower, and artillery of any sort that even the most well provisioned fort wouldn't fall.
>Implying that mortars somehow reduce an earthwork plateau with a thick curtain wall devoid of rubble, so when your troops come in they aren't fighting their way through an even tougher, partially collapsed, thoroughly cratered out fort, with the defenders still hiding in the many dozens of bunkers therein.

>Implying not a horrendous repeat of WWII ruined city fighting because of your insistence on lol mortars to do the job.

Also assumes the defenders mortars aren't better than yours, longer ranged than yours, or crewed by more skilled people than yours that won't counter battery you into the stone age before you can hit them. They have the advantage of prepared positions, preset aiming stakes, preset range calculations - essentially everything they need.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:02:00 No.15571404 Report

Quoted By: >>15571459

>>15571360
>this
mortars were thousands of pounds of brass or iron

a large ship could carry and fire 1 full sized mortar
>anymore and it would get damaged firing or be asininely top heavy

a field artillery mortar would have a bore of 8" to a foot, whereas a emplaced mortar on a fort would range from 12" to 36" in diameter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:02:35 No.15571414 Report

Quoted By: >>15571459

>>15571305
The development of mortars, high explosives, and the consequent large increase in the destructive power of explosive shells and thus plunging fire rendered the intricate geometry of such fortifications irrelevant.

>Florentine and French army
> French and allied besiegers

> Ottoman Empire ... still conquered in 1522

So let's see - notable battles in which they were effective were against the FRENCH. The Ottoman empire beat the star fort design after 20 years.

Yep, really effective.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:05:17 No.15571459 Report

Quoted By: >>15571543

>>15571414
see
>>15571360
>>15571404
you base idiot

a infantry mortar and field artillery pieces were popguns compared to the armament of the fort itself
have you ever seen an 18 pounder or up on an field artillery carriage?
>protip, the answer is no

>Constantinople
>thinking it was a star fort
lol

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:05:18 No.15571460 Report

Quoted By: >>15571565

>>15571286
Such a gift for mischaracterizing the most transparent statements that others can easily understand for what they are. Earthworks. Trenches. Ditches. Dry moats (the unquestionably vast majority of all moats ever dug). You know what moats were called when cut across a peninsula? Neck Ditches.
You know what they were called when positioned at the walls to separate different parts of the defenses? Cross Ditches.

Ditches.
Ditches.
Ditches.
DITCHES.
Ditches you stupid cunt.

Old English mother fucker, do you speak it?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO images.jpg, 10KiB, 252x200

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:05:19 No.15571461 Report

Quoted By: >>15571488

>>15571358
>Doesn't clarify dimensions of a ditch
>Implies he likes small penises
>Denies a moat as being effective
>My fault he is too retarded to clarify his position

Yeah, I'm going to need you to stop right there.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:05:47 No.15571468 Report

Quoted By:

>>15569249
You, you dumb faggot

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO laughing cossacks.jpg, 176KiB, 992x480

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:06:52 No.15571488 Report

Quoted By:

>>15571461
>it's time to stop posting

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:07:14 No.15571494 Report

Quoted By:

>>15571360
>Arguing semantics when history has proven the star-fort to only be effective against the French.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 35gygn.jpg, 55KiB, 350x519

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:08:54 No.15571523 Report

Quoted By:

>this thread

Dad always said its a good day when you learn something new. Today is a good day.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:09:45 No.15571543 Report

Quoted By: >>15571620 >>15571672 >>15571794 >>15573344 >>15573647

>>15571459
I didn't say Constantinople, now did I?
>confirmed for faggot who can't tell different people apart.

And yet, mobile warfare > static defenses. Why do you think the Margot line failed?

Seriously, how fucking stupid can you be. I don't have to prove it's a failed design, because HISTORY has already proven it's a failed design. Suck more stubby italian dick.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:11:06 No.15571565 Report

Quoted By:

>>15571460
OIY IT 2 BONG AN ME A BIT DEF

>Old English nigger.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:14:35 No.15571620 Report

Quoted By: >>15571725

>>15571543
>ITS A FAILED DESIGN, DESPITE IT'S WIDESPREAD USE FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS AND IT'S EFFECTIVENESS IS UNQUESTIONED BY NON RETARDS

so in the 5 odd times the British tried to take St. Augustine and couldn't due to The Castillo De San Marcos not falling from concerted landward and seaward bombardment is a fluke or did it not happen CAUSE STAR FORTS SUX BRUH?

>mobile warfare in the nonmodern age being better than static defense
lol it's part your bedtime

I don't have time to explain to you all of combat history before the advent of the radio and airplanes

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:17:31 No.15571672 Report

Quoted By: >>15571710 >>15571751 >>15571785

>>15571543
>And yet, mobile warfare > static defenses. Why do you think the Margot line failed?

>Implying anyone contended with the point that mobile warfare is the law of the land.
>Implying that anyone in this thread at any point said that fixed fortifications aren't fully supplanted by more important aspects of warfare.

You think the star fort failed because it is inherently a poor fortification. You're an idiot for thinking that. The reason fortifications aren't built period is compared to mechanized infantry and motorized weapons, they are not as goo at controlling land area.
That has nothing to do with some geometric flaw in the defenses, it simply means the strategic focus of tactics in modern warfare re-focused itself about 100 years ago away from the necessity for fixed elaborate fortifications. There is always a need for fixed fortifications of some sort, but usually the cost-benefit ratio of more elaborate forts is too heavy to cost and provides diminishing further benefits.

A fully equipped start fort would be better in every case than a simply square bunker because its fucking better - but who has the time and money to build them in such a prolific manner?

They fail the cost-benefit analysis test, that does not mean they are physically flawed.

Pleb.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:20:00 No.15571710 Report

Quoted By: >>15571797

>>15571672
>and because modern indirect fire weapons, massive population expansion, etc.

this fucking pleb thinks warfare 500-200 years ago is the same thing as war today and needs to go to fucking bed already- spring break is over

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:20:38 No.15571722 Report

Quoted By:

>completely forgetting another dimention

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:21:00 No.15571725 Report

Quoted By: >>15571788

>>15571620
>Castillo de San Marcos was twice besieged.

Yes, five times indeed.

>The small English cannon had little effect on the walls of the fort, because the coquina was very effective at absorbing the impact of the shells.
Yeah, that's not the star-fort, that's the surrounding rock.

>The siege was broken when the Spanish fleet from Havana arrived, trapping some English vessels in the bay.
Outside intervention, the star fort didnt prevail.

>Second siege: Block inlet, surrender.

Yeah, The Castillo De San Marcos is spectacular (sarcasm).

>part your bedtime
Old English Motherfucker, do you speak it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:23:00 No.15571751 Report

Quoted By: >>15571817 >>15571839

>>15571672
>HURR DURR ALL UR MORTARS ARE USELESS CAUSE I GOT BIGGER ONE ATTACHED TO MUH CASTLE

Yeah, you implied the shit out of it you stub-dicked guido

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:25:20 No.15571785 Report

Quoted By:

>>15571672
>OP asks for fort that would not have dead-space
>Idiot provides triangle "star" fort that effectively has dead-space
>Point out weakness in his design
>STOP MESSIN MUH STAR FRTS PFFFFFFFFFFFFF

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:25:27 No.15571788 Report

Quoted By: >>15571840

>>15571725
>coquina
>as in what the walls were made of
it's sandstone you pleb
>small cannon
>as in things that could be put on an infantry carriage without sinking into the dirt from weight.
>http://www.exploresouthernhistory.com/staugustinebattles.html
>the Castillo falling ever
when Spain ceded the Florida territory to Britain it became a British fort
>imagine that

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:25:54 No.15571794 Report

Quoted By:

>>15571543
What if the French had made the line all the way up to the coast?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:26:05 No.15571797 Report

Quoted By: >>15571839

>>15571710
>this fucking pleb thinks warfare 500-200 years ago is the same thing as war today

>exactly the opposite of what I said

Please point to where I said that nig nog. You need English lessons bad, because if you aren't intentionally mischaracterizing to save face, and your comprehension actually is that bad... god damn I can only imagine what you do when you pull up to a set of train tracks when the red lights are flashing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:27:12 No.15571817 Report

Quoted By: >>15571870

>>15571751
Can't even quote the right post.

Imagine that, a nigger on /k/.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:28:35 No.15571839 Report

Quoted By: >>15571897

>>15571751
>putting your expensive field artillery mortars in range of your enemies artillery and mortars, in order to attack the forts artillery and mortars
makes perfect sense!
just so you know, an 18 pounder cannon can be accurately fired about 2-3 miles from it's target, and has a total effective range of around 6 miles

>>15571797
I'm agreeing with you; learn basic reading comprehension. point out where i addressed "you"

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:28:38 No.15571840 Report

Quoted By: >>15571900 >>15571962

>>15571788
At which point in time, the British stopped trying to take it.
>so in the 5 odd times the British tried to take...

Yeah, how about you read some history books aspie?

>as in what the walls were made of
So not an aspect of star forts, just of that SPECIFIC star fort. So, not related to the design of star forts, but of San Marcos.

Yeah. /Lawyered.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:30:38 No.15571870 Report

Quoted By: >>15571900 >>15572013

>>15571817
>a infantry mortar and field artillery pieces were popguns compared to the armament of the fort itself
>have you ever seen an 18 pounder or up on an field artillery carriage?

Nope, I quoted you. You're just too illiterate to read the trail of quotations.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:32:06 No.15571897 Report

Quoted By: >>15572012

>>15571839
>OH NOES I MAY LOSE MUH MATERIALS WHEN FIGHT...BETTR RUN CAUSE I SKUURD

As if a commander wouldn't risk men/material to accomplish an objective. /retard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:32:26 No.15571900 Report

Quoted By: >>15571983

>>15571840
>no other fort ever was made out of sandstone
>the most common type of stone

>>15571870
that was me; you never answered the question
>HUE HUE LONGER RANGE, HIGHER DAMAGE, AND A DEFENSIBLE POSITION, AS WELL AS THE HIGH GROUND, IS MEANINGLESS

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:36:20 No.15571962 Report

Quoted By: >>15576304

>>15571840
>implying that because a specific star fort was notable for having some pretty decent sandstone walls, it is an exceptionally rare characteristic that no other fort would ever be expected to have, and that a 30 foot thick earthen wall, even without a stone face, is just going to disintegrate from industrial era black powder artillery.

Its like you have no idea how sectional density pertains to ballistic effectiveness.

Go find a Fuddy Fife V. 9mm thread lawyer fag.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:37:23 No.15571983 Report

Quoted By: >>15572083

>>15571900
>Implying all sandstone is exactly the same.
L2Geology.

>HUE HUE LONGER RANGE, DAMAGE, DEFENSE, HIGH GROUND ERECTSHUNNN PFFFFFF

Because every star-fort in existence had a magical food pantry that was always filled with vittles.

And it was still defeated by the Ottomans in 1522. And continually thereafter.

I'm done - you can take your failed fort and stick it up your ass. History has proven you wrong; you've clearly proved yourself illiterate and/or retarded.

/Thread.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:38:48 No.15572012 Report

Quoted By: >>15572258

>>15571897
>risk the loss of every piece of military equipment sent on the field by superior firepower from a better defended position
>not just cordoning off the fortress and trying to starve them out, like siege tactics for thousands of years, while bombarding them in an attempt to create a breach and to destroy of enemy materials.

this isn't MWF3, throwing a superior numerical force against a well defended and supplied position is what is know as a military blunder; if anyone had been stupid enough to attempt it, we would have heard about it
>as the most one sided siege and the most incompetent attacking commander in non-modern history

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:38:52 No.15572013 Report

Quoted By: >>15572226

>>15571870
This is why 4chan needs thread unique poster IDs.

No you didn't quote me retard. This thread has at least 3 distinct people posting in favor of star forts, and at least 2 distinct autistic Untermensch posting mindless drivel that they learned from their undergrad middle school history teacher and the occasional arm chair general on the history channel.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:43:55 No.15572083 Report

Quoted By: >>15572272

>>15571983
>i'll call him a retard! That'll disguise my asspain!
>magical food pantry
do you not into siege warfare? that is essentially the purpose of a fort: strong walls and lots of food with a bunch of dudes with weapons in it. The best way to take down a fort is though siege- IE, waiting for them to run out of food
>which, surprisingly, takes months to years

>coquina is magic, definitely not a normal soft sandstone like all other sandstone.
nigger it's rock- the only special thing about it's geology is it's location and the fact that it has some shells in it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:53:29 No.15572226 Report

Quoted By: >>15572269

>>15572013
Um, you realize you can click on the >>number and get taken to that post, right? So if you keep clicking on the reference numbers, you'll eventually get back to the source material.

Just thought you should know :/

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:55:47 No.15572258 Report

Quoted By: >>15572374

>>15572012
I'm confused. You first said that it was stupid to bombard the fortress with smaller weapons, and now you're telling him to?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:56:50 No.15572269 Report

Quoted By: >>15572302

>>15572226
>Not the point

Point is when multiple people are posting for one side of an arguement, and multiple people posting for another side, you go to address an anon you thought typed an earlier response by quoting a later response, and instead argue with the wrong person, thus derailing a conversation.

And derailed as this one is its still miraculously on topic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:56:59 No.15572272 Report

Quoted By: >>15572342

>>15572083
So one side can win simply by sitting on their ass and waiting for the people in the Star Fortress to starve? Then why are the superior cannons/mortars on a Star Fortress so amazing?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 09:58:29 No.15572302 Report

Quoted By:

>>15572269
I get that it can become confusing. I'm just wondering, since you and he linked each others' posts, then how did he misquote you? No offense, but it seems like you just got confused and then blamed him :/

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 10:02:07 No.15572342 Report

Quoted By: >>15572370 >>15572374 >>15572468

>>15572272
Because if you have the ability to put up a strong enough active defense that you can force the attacker into that position, of literally having to stand off miles away and not come near you for fear of annhilation but to just sit their with dick in hand and wait you out, you are occupying them, with your one fort and numerically inferior force, for a very, Very long time. You can plunk down a star fort anywhere and garrison it with a few hundred men. The biggest expense besides the construction is the artillery to fortify it with. That investment is relatively small for a nation state, and that fort can keep an army of thousands occupied with that annoying siege for a very long time.

Maybe if you're lucky your leader is someone like Santa Ana and he'll just throw his troops at you for no reason whatsoever. Then you can really fuck over their ability to sustain a field capable army.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 10:04:20 No.15572370 Report

Quoted By:

>>15572342
>Thier leader

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 10:04:30 No.15572374 Report

Quoted By: >>15572481

>>15572258
they did, because it can be effective and damages enemy morale and military effectiveness

that does not negate the fact the the fort has much better armament that has a longer range, which as >>15572342 said can hold a much larger superior force at bay nearly indefinitely

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 10:11:55 No.15572468 Report

Quoted By: >>15572533

>>15572342
Or they could just take their time and build/transport in a more powerful mortar that what is held by the fort.

I mean, if you have the time - why not?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 10:12:40 No.15572481 Report

Quoted By: >>15572572

>>15572374
Wouldn't the larger guns from the fort just destroy them before they could set up their smaller cannons? How would that hurt their moral, shouldn't it improve it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 10:16:12 No.15572533 Report

Quoted By:

>>15572468
They could do that too. It's what the infidel turks did to help break into Constantinople with the Orban Bombard in 1453.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 10:18:38 No.15572572 Report

Quoted By:

>>15572481
>siege works
the enemy digs it's own trench works and defenses, moving it's way till it is in range of the enemy and can build up enough defenses to prevent damage to their weapons from bombardment
>this is still miles out

against poorly defended targets (low amounts of powder or ammunition, low man power, disease, etc.) a bombardment can be effective and lead to a surrender, or against weaker forts could breach the wall and allow for an infantry attack backed by suppressing artillery fire.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 10:29:27 No.15572714 Report

Quoted By: >>15572729

What are dead zones?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 10:30:51 No.15572729 Report

Quoted By: >>15572851

>>15572714
areas you can't fire at from another part of the wall

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO eh.jpg, 32KiB, 642x608

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 10:41:41 No.15572851 Report

Quoted By: >>15572880 >>15572912 >>15572938

>>15572729
Then what about these areas?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 10:44:22 No.15572880 Report

Quoted By: >>15577636

>>15572851
>the point
>not getting it

star forts are designed to not have dead zones

some aspie anon got buttmad that a ms paint drawing couldn't cover each corner properly without longer bastions and resulted in a 130+ reply thread

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 10:46:46 No.15572912 Report

Quoted By:

>>15572851
If you would care to follow the lines drawn from the adjacent towers, not from the closest towers, you would see that those circled areas are all still exposes to the smaller, more inward facing wall sections of the turret protrusions. Do they get a full broadside from the longest length of the wall? No. But they get enfilading fire nonetheless, and they an't do shit from those positions except move to other positions that are even less advantageous. A star fort has no "dead zones", that's why they were made - leave no place where an enemy can sit and be subject to no fire whatsoever. There are places where they can stand and be subject to less bombardment, but nowhere in the firing range of the fort is completely safe because the firing arcs of all the gun emplacements form enough overlapping fields of fire that you can hit anyone no matter their position.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 10:48:35 No.15572934 Report

Quoted By:

https://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&safe=off&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1680&bih=932&q=fort+vauban&oq=fort+vauban&gs_l=img.3..0l5j0i24l5.1714.3135.0.3343.11.9.0.2.2.0.111.612.8j1.9.0...0.0...1ac.1.7.img.RrIOaf29RQY

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 10:48:45 No.15572938 Report

Quoted By:

>>15572851
the cannons aren't fixed, that is just the limit of their rotation before they start shooting the other bastion

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO trifort.png, 41KiB, 1163x930

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 11:01:04 No.15573079 Report

Quoted By: >>15573106 >>15573139

Fort: walls around stuff you want to keep safe + good place to shoot at people from.

Triangle: low area (where you keep your stuff safe) to perimeter(walls and cost) ratio (4.559:1)
Square, better perimeter to area:4:1)
pentagon, better again
...
Best ratio circle 3.5449:1 but complex build and complex storage management.

IMO a tri fort could make good use of a rotating gun emplacement on the points of the corners

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 11:02:51 No.15573106 Report

Quoted By:

>>15573079
fail
*wall to area

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO cannon1.gif, 49KiB, 392x244

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 11:06:54 No.15573139 Report

Quoted By: >>15573829

>>15573079
>yfw this actually went on top of a bastion

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 11:24:01 No.15573300 Report

Quoted By:

Ok lets make this interesting, if you have 24 cannon what fort design/layout/setup would you use to maximize the efficiency of your resources in situations where you need 360/270/180/90 degree coverage

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 11:30:44 No.15573344 Report

Quoted By: >>15573597 >>15577694

>>15571543
>And yet, mobile warfare > static defenses.
> Why do you think the Margot line failed?
>Seriously, how fucking stupid can you be.

Well, for starters..."Margot line"? And to add insult to injury, your dumb ass forgot that when you ask a question, you should end the sentence with a "?" and not a "."

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO ZAZ.jpg, 15KiB, 756x588

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 12:06:35 No.15573590 Report

Quoted By:

>>15568281
>>15570217

this is gay, check my pic

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 12:07:44 No.15573597 Report

Quoted By:

>>15573344
> Why do you think the Margot line failed?

i was not long enough

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 12:15:18 No.15573647 Report

Quoted By:

>>15571543
The Maginot Line didn't fail, where the French actually used it.

The whole "Let's move all of our troops out of our border positions and march North to save Belgium" thing is what put them out of position, disorganized on unfamiliar ground, and allow the opening for the German forces to go around and encircle.

It was an unarguable failure of mobility on the part of the French and British troops.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO seen_things_rain.jpg, 36KiB, 400x400

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 12:42:05 No.15573788 Report

Quoted By: >>15577740

Anon who drew the original shitty MS paint triangle fort here.

Holy fuck, this thread went places.
>mfw

Ditches, moats, dead zones. . .well, fuck, it's like half the people doesn't understand why one would build a star fort in the first place, and teh other half is arguing semantics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 12:51:35 No.15573829 Report

Quoted By: >>15573875 >>15573953

>>15573139
Is it a Windmill?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO bolo.jpg, 194KiB, 1264x632

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 13:04:16 No.15573875 Report

Quoted By:

>>15573829
It looks like one of da Vinci's doodles.

It's like the guy was just born a few hundred years early.
I'd love to see what he'd come up with after reading Tukhachevsky and Guderian (and de Gaulle, and Lidell-Hart, and possibly spending some time in the Porsche and Krupp workshops.

Pic probably related.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 13:18:59 No.15573953 Report

Quoted By:

>>15573829

Da Vinci's tank design.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Castle.jpg, 366KiB, 1920x1200

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 13:25:03 No.15573980 Report

Quoted By: >>15574140

Masons had wall building to an art, but beyond those walls were the real issue. Keeping the castle standing was also an issue in those spots.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 14:10:41 No.15574140 Report

Quoted By:

>>15573980
Well, this whole star fort thing happened because cannons made walls obsolete.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 20:13:40 No.15576304 Report

Quoted By:

>>15571962
Wait, are you saying that you would rather a rock wall? A pile of dirt is fucking perfect for eating up truck fulls of shells without going anywhere.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Grondplan_citadel_Lille.jpg, 2MiB, 2560x1920

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 20:18:09 No.15576350 Report

Quoted By: >>15576857

>>ctrl F : Vauban -> only 2 guys...

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Untitled.jpg, 37KiB, 999x659

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 20:19:47 No.15576366 Report

Quoted By: >>15577724 >>15577780

Ok the thread is currently eating itself but I just feel the need to point out which way things are being fired. There seems to be a whole lot of confusion from one or more people as to where the dead zones are. Excuse the shitty mspaint edit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 20:38:45 No.15576538 Report

Quoted By:

The shape of a fort is always dictated by is fonction and his surroundings (landscape). The only example I could find of a triangular fort is a maritime is a seaside one, probably Vauban's work.

http://www.fortified-places.com/dunkirk/

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 21:12:15 No.15576857 Report

Quoted By: >>15576963

>>15576350

Dat glacis

All my geometrical hnnnnnng

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Qk3OPbT.jpg, 315KiB, 960x614

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 21:24:27 No.15576963 Report

Quoted By:

>>15576857
Yes, aesthetically pleasing isn't it ?

There is a torrent of the Osprey Fortress books, I haven't read them yet but they look interesting.

http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/7892762/Osprey_Fortress

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 72317.jpg, 62KiB, 500x337

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 21:28:04 No.15577016 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO bastion.jpg, 86KiB, 551x390

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 21:32:57 No.15577071 Report

Quoted By:

Sorry for the French captions.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1316027392444.jpg, 81KiB, 623x467

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 21:34:15 No.15577093 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1316027474862.jpg, 91KiB, 600x420

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 21:36:38 No.15577117 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Vauban3.jpg, 461KiB, 1232x1041

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 21:40:57 No.15577163 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Vauban4.jpg, 553KiB, 1543x1045

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 21:41:32 No.15577172 Report

Quoted By: >>15577346

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 21:49:02 No.15577236 Report

Quoted By:

>>15570217
problem with the triagle is that if the enemy takes one point frontally the other two points are very far away, possibly out of reach and firing dangerously close to the own troops. more points means more spread out troops. but also more positions within firing range.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO starfort.jpg, 27KiB, 519x530

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 21:54:57 No.15577293 Report

Quoted By: >>15577319 >>15577525

I have made an star fort

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Neuf-Brisach.jpg, 2MiB, 2711x1808

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 21:56:09 No.15577304 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1346882594528.jpg, 172KiB, 447x618

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 21:57:04 No.15577319 Report

Quoted By:

>>15577293
Not bad

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Festung_Rosenberg.jpg, 970KiB, 3544x2502

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 21:59:03 No.15577333 Report

Quoted By:

star fort + castle = ?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO forte_da_graca_aerea.jpg, 237KiB, 1024x768

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 22:00:04 No.15577341 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 22:00:47 No.15577346 Report

Quoted By:

>>15577172
>near the front of the diagram
>meme system

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Fort McHenry.jpg, 878KiB, 3000x2072

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 22:01:42 No.15577355 Report

Quoted By: >>15577983

the flag of the american fort is more impressive than the whole fort

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1342978245519.jpg, 93KiB, 780x557

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 22:10:12 No.15577438 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 22:14:57 No.15577484 Report

Quoted By:

>>15565993
does elevation help any?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1316025613358.jpg, 996KiB, 2176x2000

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 22:15:57 No.15577499 Report

Quoted By: >>15578010

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 22:17:26 No.15577525 Report

Quoted By:

>>15577293
i like it

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 22:25:06 No.15577636 Report

Quoted By:

>>15572880
>HURR DURR STARFARTS PFFFFFF

Who do you think you were talking to, while you explained yourself? ME. Your stupid ass couldn't figure out that I simply wrote differently to evoke the responses I wanted.

YOU proved that it was possible to:
>take their time and build/transport a more powerful morter
>siege warfare works
>a breach in the wall would allow for infantry attack
Where would infantry attack from? From the area that has the least amount of fire possible of being directed towards it. Does this mean the red triangle of doom was a [true] dead space? No - it's not, but it's essentially one for all intensive purposes post-breach. A BREACH WHICH IS POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF MOBILE SIEGE WARFARE which you were like "no" and then changed your mind on.

Seriously, gtfo with your fail-tactics, you inbred italian-stub-penis-loving assclown.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 22:27:45 No.15577694 Report

Quoted By: >>15577845

>>15573344
I think he meant "Maginot Line."

And the sentence could actually be a command, rather than a question, therefore it could use a "."

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 22:29:55 No.15577724 Report

Quoted By: >>15577834

>>15576366
This is why I said that the raging faggot who claimed that there were blind spots doesn't understand star forts.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 22:30:50 No.15577740 Report

Quoted By:

>>15573788
It's a battle between tards

>tard 1: MOATS NIGGA
>tard 2: DITCHES BITCH
>tard 3: WEEKSPOT = DEADZONE
>tard 4: HURR DUUR STRFORT PURFCT

srs. wtf /k/?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 22:33:58 No.15577780 Report

Quoted By:

>>15576366
I think the point is that the area of the wall that can attack the triangle is limited; as such, you would be facing decreased fire (weakest defensive area). This would allow troops to amass at these locations with relative ease compared to the more heavily defended areas surrounding the fort. Kind of like in chess - if you only have one piece defending a position, you'll lose in a trade-off.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 22:37:45 No.15577834 Report

Quoted By: >>15578063

>>15577724
>HURR DURR STARFFARTS PFFF

Stfu about my red triangles of doom - unless you're as retarded as you've led me to believe, you should be able to realize the LACK OF FUCKING FIREPOWER that is directed towards those areas relative to the rest of the fort. You're leaving HUGE areas defended by FEW attackers - which is retarded.

The solution was to install a moat (or a huge ditch, not your stub-penis ditches) which would prevent troops from gathering at these triangles.

You said yourself that it would be retarded to simply throw troops at a starfort like cannon fodder - so wouldnt it make sense for them to attack at the section that had the LEAST AMOUNT OF DEFENSE?

You're nogunz mallninja with a history textbook. GTFO and go back to /pony/ you faggot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 22:38:36 No.15577845 Report

Quoted By:

>>15577694
He should have used the ? mark

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 22:49:44 No.15577964 Report

Quoted By:

>>15565993
>star fort

You know, when i read this I thought you were talking about a space installation. It's only when I got to>>15570672 I realized you meant terrestial.

I thought you were going to try and make something in the vein of a 40k Damocles Star Fort.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 22:50:55 No.15577983 Report

Quoted By:

>>15577355

Notice the expansion and increased angle of the "base" of the bastion "triangle". This allows the defenders to present more firing positions towards the point of adjacent bastions.

Also, until both sides have gunpowder artillery that out-ranges bow and musket shot, there isn't really a reason to build star forts. Vertical masonry walls can be built to withstand mechanized artillery (catapults) and still have overhangs allowing defenders to bombard besieges up against the walls.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 22:53:33 No.15578010 Report

Quoted By:

>>15577499
floridafag here, went there in like 4th grade. shit was cash

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO coolface_mask_2.png, 43KiB, 577x315

Anonymous Tue 02 Apr 2013 22:59:43 No.15578063 Report

Quoted By:

>>15577834
>You're leaving HUGE areas defended by FEW attackers
Your pretty good.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

Star Forts