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

Medieval-style fortifications are back in the Sahel

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 82 posts

Re: Medieval-style fortifications are back in the Sahel

#71

Post by TFNA »

cineticdaffodil wrote: post #6
0xcafefood wrote: post #4

I thought walled towns died not due to state authority becoming stronger, but because offensive weaponry simply became effective enough to overcome walls. Walls can protect you from men with swords, but not from heavy artillery or bombers. Today, wouldn't a fleet of cheap drones render a wall moot?

Walls can not protect you from dhijadists either, the mortars take out the city- and besieging starves it out. In sudan- a "walled and ditched" city recently fell to the djandjhawid.. https://www.iss.europa.eu/publications/commentary/fall-el-fa...

Please do not use German-based transliteration on HN. It is foreign to most readers. Both of the Arabic terms you use have established English transliterations.

Re: Medieval-style fortifications are back in the Sahel

#72

Post by delfinom »

0xcafefood wrote: post #4

I thought walled towns died not due to state authority becoming stronger, but because offensive weaponry simply became effective enough to overcome walls. Walls can protect you from men with swords, but not from heavy artillery or bombers. Today, wouldn't a fleet of cheap drones render a wall moot?

It depends on who the offensive party is. Obviously it's not going to protect you from someone with air or artillery support. It still does wonders against roving militias of insurgents...

Re: Medieval-style fortifications are back in the Sahel

#73

Post by delfinom »

Spooky23 wrote: post #67
0xcafefood wrote: post #4

I thought walled towns died not due to state authority becoming stronger, but because offensive weaponry simply became effective enough to overcome walls. Walls can protect you from men with swords, but not from heavy artillery or bombers. Today, wouldn't a fleet of cheap drones render a wall moot?

Artillery and air power killed fortresses. De-industrialization and technology pretty much killed artillery And sustained air power engagements seem to be difficult for the same reasons. Drones democratize airpower but have significant limits.

Killed artillery?

No, pretty sure every western country is still racing to increase artillery production, though rheinmettal is not up to a million shells per year. The war in Ukraine fully demonstrated that when the enemy is actually at your level and not just some cave dwelling terrorists, it becomes a war of attrition with every weapon system possible.

Re: Medieval-style fortifications are back in the Sahel

#74

Post by Spooky23 »

delfinom wrote: post #73
Spooky23 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Artillery and air power killed fortresses. De-industrialization and technology pretty much killed artillery And sustained air power engagements seem to be difficult for the same reasons. Drones democratize airpower but have significant limits.

Killed artillery? No, pretty sure every western country is still racing to increase artillery production, though rheinmettal is not up to a million shells per year. The war in Ukraine fully demonstrated that when the enemy is actually at your level and not just some cave dwelling terrorists, it becomes a war of attrition with every weapon system possible.

In Ukraine, that was last year. The persistent drone surveillance and strike capability and fire radars have made them very vulnerable to counter battery/drone fires.

The failure of legacy air power to sustain in a hostile environment led to the WW1 style artillery duels. From what I gather in the public domain, drones have created kilometers deep kill zones where nothing can survive. That’s capability that I think is exclusive to the US sans drone.

Re: Medieval-style fortifications are back in the Sahel

#75

Post by diego_moita »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #70
everybodyknows wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The great revelation of Google Street View for me has been that such is more or less the world norm. Neighborhoods of entirely unbarred windows and unfenced lots are scarce on any continent. The tragedy is that so few, at least here in the US, see the liberating value in them.

The liberating value of unfenced lawns and yards? If so I'd say it's great for playing as a kid. Kind of annoying for maintaining pets.

It is more than that. It is about the state of mind.

Feeling safe is precious, with cascading effects on personal health, community cohesion, civic participation, etc.

Remember the Maslow Pyramid of needs, where safety is the most basic one? Well, this is part of it.

Re: Medieval-style fortifications are back in the Sahel

#76

Post by stymaar »

int_19h wrote: post #62
stymaar wrote: post #31

Fortifications never went anywhere. Just in this century, the US used fortified camps in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so did the French in Sahel. And the Ukrainians fortified Dombas and effectively prevented the Russians to take it quickly. Then the Russians fortified the Zaporizhzhia frontline (the Surovikin line) which stopped the Ukrainian counter offensive in 2023. And talking about Africa in particular, the border…

For a long time, basically since WW2, the assumption was that fortifications are at best a delaying measure, and worst case, the attacker can go around them (mobile warfare, blitzkrieg and all that). In the past decade, however, the changes in battlefield tech resulted in a situation where fortifications can be genuinely impregnable.

I don't think that's true.

At all point of history, fortifications have never been more than a force multiplier for the garrison manning the fortifications. Send an overwhelming force at it and it will always fall (I don't know what kind of impregnable modern fortification you have in mind but I'd be curious to hear what you have in mind) but it requires the effort and ability to send such an overwhelming force.

Even in the battle of France, famous for the failure of the Maginot line to stop the Germans (mostly because of a Franco-Belgian political dispute in the 30s, by the way), the Italians were completely unable to get through the fortifications in the Alps despite a massive numerical superiority because they were tactically inept.

Re: Medieval-style fortifications are back in the Sahel

#77

Post by olelele »

jltsiren wrote: post #56
Amezarak wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US forces performed better than people have been saying they would for decades against drones and anti-ship missile, and their defense tech performed better than what we’ve seen in prior wars with similar matchups. You and the other commenters keep focusing on overall strategy about eg the strait but the argument was about drones and missile attacks changing the game. Rather than changing the game, they were shown to…

The strategic level is the level that matters. In a video game, military forces fight other military forces and the stronger side wins. In the real world, a military force may choose to fight enemy forces, if it believes that's the best way to advance its goals. But if the enemy is clearly stronger, fighting it directly is probably counterproductive, and it may be more useful to hit softer targets instead. US forces…

The key point is what the eventual peace agreement entails.

I have a feeling it will be very similar to the „terrible Iran deal“ that Trump shredded in his first term. Is that a win for the US or Iran?

Re: Medieval-style fortifications are back in the Sahel

#78

Post by psd1 »

inglor_cz wrote: post #41
adrian_b wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but while the moat surrounding the US embassy in London will not deter drones, it will prevent any car from reaching the proximity of the building. A car can carry a much higher explosive load than even a lot of cheap drones. Moreover, in London a car will become suspicious only when it is already close to the embassy, and there is little time available to react, but drones should be detected much earlier.

"drones should be detected much earlier" Not if you follow in the steps of Ukrainian "Operation Spider Web", which concealed the explosive drones into a double roof of a truck and when the truck got into the proximity of the target, the roof opened and everything flew out at once. Granted, in the case of an embassy in London, you probably couldn't get a semi there, maximally a modest truck, but that should be enough…

[dead]

Re: Medieval-style fortifications are back in the Sahel

#79

Post by cucumber3732842 »

inglor_cz wrote: post #41
adrian_b wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but while the moat surrounding the US embassy in London will not deter drones, it will prevent any car from reaching the proximity of the building. A car can carry a much higher explosive load than even a lot of cheap drones. Moreover, in London a car will become suspicious only when it is already close to the embassy, and there is little time available to react, but drones should be detected much earlier.

"drones should be detected much earlier" Not if you follow in the steps of Ukrainian "Operation Spider Web", which concealed the explosive drones into a double roof of a truck and when the truck got into the proximity of the target, the roof opened and everything flew out at once. Granted, in the case of an embassy in London, you probably couldn't get a semi there, maximally a modest truck, but that should be enough…

You don't even need to follow Ukraine.

The IRA bombed 10-downing street out of a van. All they did was do some math, mount the mortar at the right angle, have a hole in the roof and park where the math said they ought to for that firing angle.

Nevermind the fact that civilian surveyors, work estimators, etc, etc, constantly just launch (smaller) drones out of the sunroof of their cars.

Re: Medieval-style fortifications are back in the Sahel

#80

Post by IAmBroom »

jjk166 wrote: post #65
0xcafefood wrote: post #4

I thought walled towns died not due to state authority becoming stronger, but because offensive weaponry simply became effective enough to overcome walls. Walls can protect you from men with swords, but not from heavy artillery or bombers. Today, wouldn't a fleet of cheap drones render a wall moot?

That was always a bit of a myth. Walls are not meant to stop things from getting destroyed, they are to prevent easy entry. Even in antiquity the ability to lob something over a wall existed, but if you were in range to do so, the defenders on the walls were in range to lob things at you, structures within the walls could be hardened to resist damage from things lobbed at them, and ultimately lobbing things over wall…

> Even the strategic bombing of WW2 wasn't sufficient to bring any side to its knees - only boots on the ground or the imminent threat thereof actually got the job done.

Ironic, given that two strategic bombs did in fact end WW2. There were imminent threats, Normandy-style, anticipated, and the Japanese were prepared to fight it to the death. It is widely agreed that a Fat Man and a Little Boy turned the war.

Post reply on HN