Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Camouflaged Military Bunkers of Switzerland (2015)

amusingplanet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 122 posts

Re: Camouflaged Military Bunkers of Switzerland (2015)

#81

Post by chrisseaton »

gonzo41 wrote: post #53
hutzlibu wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From Wikipedia about Monte Cassino "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. "

Those were unguided bombs. Modern artillery and mortars will just slowly wear down a static target like that. From a safe distance as well.

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.

Re: Camouflaged Military Bunkers of Switzerland (2015)

#82

Post by Shacklz »

rhexs wrote: post #55
mhh__ wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How effective would the Swiss military really be? I looked up the last military operation they were in and couldn’t find anything relevant. Looks like they do extraordinary light peacekeeping and such. (Yes, yes, they’re “neutral”. Suppose I assumed they were still deploying with western bloc powers at least for some sort of combat experience training.) Seems like the military is more for show than anything else at t…

As a Swiss - yup, it's just for show & nostalgia. In my opinion, it will take another 20-30 years of wasted money for this charade until the cold-war-era folks start to become a minority; then we can finally dump our armed boy scout camp.

Re: Camouflaged Military Bunkers of Switzerland (2015)

#83

Post by chrisseaton »

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #75
tosseuthansia wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

not sure if you got flagged because Afghanistan didn't have actual 'castles' or because some American Exceptionalists took exception to your language...

> not sure if you got flagged because Afghanistan didn't have actual 'castles'

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Nad-e-+Ali,+Afghanistan/@3...

Re: Camouflaged Military Bunkers of Switzerland (2015)

#84

Post by greatpatton »

rscho wrote: post #79
ARandomerDude wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just a single missile base What could go wrong?

Even 10 missile bases would still be cheaper than the planes we bought. Now what could go wrong with limitless military spending, you might ask? Easy: it's called "the USA". I've been there, and I don't want to go back.

Missile bases are just sitting ducks that are waiting to be destroyed before the real attack... Look at the Karabach, The nice S300 anti-airplane system was obliterated at the start of the war with cheap drones. (even the anti-drones systems were destroyed by drones)

Re: Camouflaged Military Bunkers of Switzerland (2015)

#85

Post by throw1234651234 »

speeder wrote: post #28
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #6

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.

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…

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

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.

Another recent example is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Donetsk_Airpo...

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.

Re: Camouflaged Military Bunkers of Switzerland (2015)

#86

Post by joshuaheard »

I travelled around Switzerland by car many years ago. I noticed there were military trucks driving around all the time, but I never saw a military base. I also noticed there were many iron entrance doors in the side of the mountains on the roads with no apparent purpose. Then one day, I saw one of these doors opened with 2 guards standing out front as a military truck drove into it. Finally, I figured out these must be tunnel entrances to the Swiss military bases.

Re: Camouflaged Military Bunkers of Switzerland (2015)

#87

Post by lukeqsee »

joshuaheard wrote: post #86

I travelled around Switzerland by car many years ago. I noticed there were military trucks driving around all the time, but I never saw a military base. I also noticed there were many iron entrance doors in the side of the mountains on the roads with no apparent purpose. Then one day, I saw one of these doors opened with 2 guards standing out front as a military truck drove into it. Finally, I figured out these must…

There's also quite a few barracks / bases around, but not usually in places one drives.

Re: Camouflaged Military Bunkers of Switzerland (2015)

#88

Post by xg15 »

nix23 wrote: post #3

I was in many of them, one of the most impressive was "the 5-star hotel" with a hall so big that you could calibrate tank-cannons and in another "bunker/fortress" you could "throw" out f-18 fighter-jets. Edit: BTW that the entrance of the 5-Star: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/Me... The plate is for making fun of new recruits because it's the opposite of a "5-Star" and for sure not a "Hotel…

> 5-star hotel

Before viewing the picture, I was thinking they had hidden a whole base in a fake Four Seasons building in Zurich or something like that. After all the other camouflage, I wouldn't have put it past them.

Re: Camouflaged Military Bunkers of Switzerland (2015)

#90

Post by rscho »

greatpatton wrote: post #84
rscho wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even 10 missile bases would still be cheaper than the planes we bought. Now what could go wrong with limitless military spending, you might ask? Easy: it's called "the USA". I've been there, and I don't want to go back.

Missile bases are just sitting ducks that are waiting to be destroyed before the real attack... Look at the Karabach, The nice S300 anti-airplane system was obliterated at the start of the war with cheap drones. (even the anti-drones systems were destroyed by drones)

In opposition to our 25 fighter planes piloted and commanded by greenhorns who have never seen a real conflict. Those will make quick work of the invader.

This is laughable. Swiss armed forces have their justification in policing or counterterrorism. Not defense against actual whole armies.

I'd rather have good hospitals and schools, thank you very much.

Post reply on HN