41–50 of 122 posts
The Tim Traveller did a wonderful video on those a few months ago [2].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toblerone_line
[2][video]: https://youtu.be/tPL9-L2gwzo
Also an interesting fact: The Swiss packed all bridges connecting Switzerland to Germany with tons of explosives until just recently. The wooden bridge [0] connecting Bad Säckingen with Stein contained hundreds of kilo of TNT until 2015. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holzbr%C3%BCcke_Bad_S%C3%A4cki...
West Germany did much the same with all roads and train tracks crossing into East Germany and Czechoslovakia. There were pre-made holes in the roads to blast craters into them. Bridges and tunnels were prepared similarly. It was also rumored that the explosive charges were mounted in place all the time, but I don't believe that part anymore.
Fun Fact: The Swiss once lost tanks in their underground networks. Around 400. https://www.nzz.ch/maurers_schimmelnde_panzer-1.8120259
I've also learnt that they threw a lot of (expired?) ammunition into the lakes... And that 2 weapons bunkers have exploded, 1 annihilating a village. Well, half of it exploded, and the other half is a ticking time bomb: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/mitholz--life-in-the-shadow-of-...
[1] - https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-villagers-face-10-year-ev...
The living example of the aphorism "Si vis pacem, para bellum" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum
War with whom? 25 C model F-18s aren't going to stop any nation large enough to consider invading the world's bank in the first place.
Looks like anyone wanting to invade is in for a rough patch, but maybe modern tech renders these types of things worthless. Considering what a rough time the US (and Russia) has had in Afghanistan, I suspect they'd still be fairly effective.
If you want to defeat the Swiss, and keep in mind what kind of enemy would want to do that, just start carpet bombing where the actual people live. That and they only have about 25 aircraft that could realistically do any good air defense work. The idea that the US would struggle against Switzerland is predicated on them not doing that, because they would've had to found a reason to invade in the first place.
The idea is that the USA (or any other power) would struggle to occupy Switzerland, not to obliterate it from the face of the Earth. No country could defend against that, not even the USA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While such stories and the pictures posted here are rather interesting, as a Swiss, I also find it at the same time quite depressing. The Swiss army is a bottomless barrel when it comes to funding; always requiring & demanding money, while preparing for scenarios that were maybe somewhat plausible during the height of the cold war but are nowadays obviously antiquated, plain for anyone to see who doesn't wear the nos…
I'm not a Swiss, so I don't know what your army strategists are preparing for, but generally a military staff plans for dozens of scenarios, not a single one. The overall trend of conflicts has changed, but the frequency has not. This might surprise you. There have been many conflicts since WW2 and even the end of the CW https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Du... I agree that a bottomless barrel…
As Switzerland's strategic reserve, the army has a broad array of tasks, ranging from support in low threat levels (current example: preparing for the storage and distribution of Covid vaccines), supporting the police (example: World Economic Forum) to high threat levels (where tanks and artillery are needed, so this is also being trained for).
In the end, the Swiss Army is the Swiss Army knife for Switzerland's national security. Articles like this one that talk about defunct bunkers that were built for a very specific cold war scenario (but again: are now decommissioned) naturally don't really help.
Furthermore, the 'bottomless barrel' also completely misses the mark, as Switzerland's military expenditure is very low (around 0.7% of the GDP, NATO benchmark is around 2% for comparison).
Looks like anyone wanting to invade is in for a rough patch, but maybe modern tech renders these types of things worthless. Considering what a rough time the US (and Russia) has had in Afghanistan, I suspect they'd still be fairly effective.
>Considering what a rough time the US (and Russia) has had in Afghanistan, I suspect they'd still be fairly effective. That was the whole plan in WW2, take the army back to the mountains leave the city's and flatland to the enemy, then start Guerilla warfare and protect the big Mountain Fortresses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Redoubt_(Switzerland)
In other words, I think the Swiss wanted to tilt the cost/benefit calculation for invaders, not only by increasing the cost, but also by reducing the benefit.
(Much the same game-plan seems not to have worked for Afghanistan, though. High cost, zero benefit, lots of invasions.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This made me remember something about castles... 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 worke…
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. "
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Considering what a rough time the US (and Russia) has had in Afghanistan, I suspect they'd still be fairly effective. That was the whole plan in WW2, take the army back to the mountains leave the city's and flatland to the enemy, then start Guerilla warfare and protect the big Mountain Fortresses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Redoubt_(Switzerland)
Also, viewed from the other side, the point of taking Switzerland would have been to have easier transport across the alps, Germany-Italy. But with all the bridges & tunnels blown up, this benefit would be lost. In other words, I think the Swiss wanted to tilt the cost/benefit calculation for invaders, not only by increasing the cost, but also by reducing the benefit. (Much the same game-plan seems not to have worked…
And that worked, as for sure germany did not wanted a neutral power in the middle of their empire, but due to cost/benefit the plan of invading was always pushed back till the war was over.
So this was also the plan for a potential cold war escalation.