41–50 of 75 posts
How practical are these against modern weapons? Couldn't some modern explosives just destroy a fortress wall, thus rendering its inherent purpose of withstanding a siege impossible? It's an interesting sight and architecturally curious but I'm wondering what the purpose of such an effort is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Diplomatic buildings have often been strong points designed to keep staff safe in uncertain times. This is true even in safer locations; the new US embassy in London is very much a fort although the defensive features (like the water-filled moat/pond, and bollards hidden in the hedges) are well integrated into the landscaping. The new site is probably considerably harder to assault than their old building, even thoug…
Some people are unable to recognize great architecture when they see it. Saarinen's building is applauded as one of the finest modernist structures in Britain and is rightly Grade II listed. https://www.economist.com/prospero/2017/09/26/the-american-e...
Also to call this, as the (know-it-all) Economist does, a "modern classic" is wrong. This is a pseudo-brutalist work, hardly high modernism. The contemporary Seagram's building (1958) is Modernism.
Another contemporary work relevant here (Paul Rudolph's Yale School of Architecture, 1963) shares some of the vocabulary of this work. And Rudolph knew how to design rectilinear concrete buildings. Saarinen clearly didn't.
[p.s. It is possible that the scale distortions in the front are (building) program driven, to address security considerations. The crit remains.]
Mostly unrelatedly, whenever I see these types of forts I am reminded of the forts that workers build in Civ 5, which are equally useless
How practical are these against modern weapons? Couldn't some modern explosives just destroy a fortress wall, thus rendering its inherent purpose of withstanding a siege impossible? It's an interesting sight and architecturally curious but I'm wondering what the purpose of such an effort is.
Assuming "modern weapons" means bombers, tanks, cruise missiles: this is not going to stop them at all.
> While the design ... appears anachronistic Nothing anachronistic about it; this is likely an optimal design when considering how to maximise the effective coverage of guns. This is good design for a fortification that is meant to be held. This design is relatively quite modern and is a direct response to the introduction of artillery to warfare. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gunpowder#Changes_t... .…
It's anachronistic in the sense that it was largely made obsolete by artillery advances during the 19th century, replaced by polygonal forts (which could even adapt to high-explosive payloads, and actually proved their worth in both world wars), as well as the more modern bunkers & fortified emplacements. It makes a lot of sense when unlikely to face artillery and bombers though, as it's pretty straightforward and ch…
Newer fort designs seem to be about accepting that explosions will happen inside of the walls, and avoiding reflections?
So... nobody is going to ask why is the French Army in Africa?
France sent troops in with UN support in 2013 after a plea for help from the Malinese government (1)
That government was overthrown by the "National Committee for the Salvation of the People" very recently (2) so it's hard to say what the future holds, and if they should remain there. Most of the west (including the US) is not too excited about the new leadership though.
1) https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35863/the-french-army-...
2) https://www.voanews.com/africa/france-keeping-close-eye-mali...
So... nobody is going to ask why is the French Army in Africa?
So... nobody is going to ask why is the French Army in Africa?
So... nobody is going to ask why is the French Army in Africa?
France has maintained relationships with its former colonies in West Africa, and frequently performs counter-terrorism operations there.
Some local West Africans are OK with it, others are not. A 2016 attack on a beach resort in Côte d'Ivoire was claimed by the attackers (AQIM - Al'Qaeda in the Islamic Magreb), to be directly because of the foreign presence in West Africa, and the beach resort was targeted specifically because it is popular with foreigners (4 of the 19 killed were French).
France's history in West Africa is complicated but it's probably because of that history that they continue to operate there.