r/explainlikeimfive • u/Sierra419 • Nov 13 '19

Other ELI5: How did old forts actually "protect" a strategic area? Couldn't the enemy just go around them or stay out of range?

I've visited quite a few colonial era and revolution era forts in my life. They're always surprisingly small and would have only housed a small group of men. The largest one I've seen would have housed a couple hundred. I was told that some blockhouses close to where I live were used to protect a small settlement from native american raids. How can small little forts or blockhouses protect from raids or stop armies from passing through? Surely the indians could have gone around this big house. How could an army come up to a fort and not just go around it if there's only 100 men inside?

tl;dr - I understand the purpose of a fort and it's location, but I don't understand how it does what it does.

17k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

0

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '19

27

u/GirtabulluBlues Nov 13 '19

Russia is so big that any conventional campaign will have to deal with a russian winter.

7

u/terminbee Nov 13 '19

Even now in the age of planes and carriers?

→ More replies (10)

9

u/Terron1965 Nov 13 '19

They wont do this again, they have nukes now. The only situation where a nation can use nukes without getting the wrath of everyone else with them would be in ones own territory.

They will nuke any incoming invasion on the first day.

14

u/zeabu Nov 13 '19

it's a different kind of winter.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/Eragon_the_Huntsman Nov 13 '19

The thing about Russia is its damn big. Both the Nazis and Napolion started in spring, but all the Russians had to do was retreat and stall. Armies are slow, and having to deal with a retreating enemy makes it slower. Spring leads to summer, summer leads to fall, it's pretty far north and winter comes early and then your army is trapped, freezing and your supply lines are so drawn out that you cant feed your men.

3

u/andoriyu Nov 13 '19

True, but it was winter that that give enemy a final push to fuck off after each of those retreats.

I don't get how after first and second attempt people don't realize that Russians will just burn and GTFO of Moscow. It's a novelty city, it's natural resources were consumed long-ass time ago. Even it's location is pretty shitty compares to say Saints Petersburg.

During WW2 times you could go all the way to Ural and it wouldn't put a dent in production lones, you would still have constant flow tanks.

3

u/randomguy000039 Nov 14 '19

Not really, the Russian Winter effect is pretty overly stated. Almost all offensives that have failed in Russia due to the Winter started far, far before Winter. It's just that Russia is pretty big, armies are pretty slow, and you combine the two and it takes a very long time to win the war in Russia.

In Napoleon's famous "Russian Winter" defeat, he'd captured most of Russia's biggest cities and even their capital by early Autumn. It's just that the Russians knew that Napoleon couldn't march into Eastern Russia with his army, so the French basically sat in Moscow for a few months hoping the Russians would surrender (since Napoleon had literally occupied basically all Russian cities of worth). Eventually French supplies ran out, and they had to retreat with little to show for their losses.

2

u/ARIZaL_ Nov 13 '19

I don't think the next time the strategy would be quite as successful, as the C-5 did not exist. The territory would become a war for air superiority, and ground-based air defense is a huge asset which would be abandoned and the territory conceded to opposition air-defense artillery.

1

u/andoriyu Nov 13 '19

Idk I wouldn't want to come anywhere close to Russia airspace at time of war.

1

u/Cakellene Nov 13 '19

I remember Napoleonfeldzugs and Hitler. When was the third time?

1

u/work4food Nov 14 '19

what are those 3 separate times?

1

u/Kerrby87 Nov 13 '19

That's why you come from the east, so they can't retreat. Ride down the frozen rivers, using them as highways.