Why don't the U.S. military build heavy turret emplacements/automated towers?

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Well, I guess I agree that it wouldn't work very well

That, my friend, is the first intelligent thing you've said since you came on here.

, but you still have to agree that the sheer fact that it requires nuclear bombs to destroy it is a pretty big deal. I mean, there has never, ever been a single enemy unit that has been almost completely impenetrable outside of nuclear weapons at all in all of human war history,

Except even this monstorisity wouldn't qualify. A single B-52 can carry 31.5 metric tons of bombs, and this mobile fortress is moving slowly enough to be practically stationary, so targeting it with such a massive bombload is not a problem, especially if it were modified to carry MOABs. Also F-15 Strike Eagles employing bunker busters such as the GBU-28 could conceivably take this thing out.

To say nothing of a TLAM strike from offshore, or a conventional warhead from a Russian missile such as the SS-22.

so you can probably agree that it would cause serious damage to a country that for some reason let it creep into their soil without noticing it coming

A blind man would notice this huge thing creeping anywhere, especially over someone's national border. It sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb.

say for instance it drove there during peacetime, and then became hostile to that country during wartime. It could creep around the enemy cities and be very difficult to kill, while being capable of great damage.

This mobile fortress exists for one purpose. It creeping slowly toward, let alone over anyone's borders would be considered an act of war by even the most anally-retentive peace-loving nation, and it would be attacked instantly and immediately, losing what little element of surprise it might have had.

In fact, I imagine if intelligence reports got out that this thing was even being built, it would be subjected to pre-emptive strikes by at least the Western powers, possibly Russia and/or China as well, depending on where this monster is being birthed.

[Isolder74]

A B-52 could not destroy it with just a standard bomb from high altitude, as it has over 1 kilometre of top-facing armor. So it couldn't just drop a few 2000 pound bombs on it and expect it to be destroyed, plus the sheer size of it would make it possible for there to be dangerous survivors even after being hit by multi-kiloton nuclear bombs.

It seems you have NO CLUE how many 2000 lb bombs a B-52 is capable of carrying. Even with your massive armor plating on the roof of your 'fortress' it would only take 1 B-52 to take it out making anywhere you decide to deploy it unsafe from one.

In case you don't want to actually look it up the B-52 can carry 70,000 pounds of bombs which is more then enough to turn your 'fortress' to scrap.

[Archinist]

A B-52 could not destroy it with just a standard bomb from high altitude, as it has over 1 kilometre of top-facing armor. So it couldn't just drop a few 2000 pound bombs on it and expect it to be destroyed, plus the sheer size of it would make it possible for there to be dangerous survivors even after being hit by multi-kiloton nuclear bombs.

It seems you have NO CLUE how many 2000 lb bombs a B-52 is capable of carrying. Even with your massive armor plating on the roof of your 'fortress' it would only take 1 B-52 to take it out making anywhere you decide to deploy it unsafe from one.

In case you don't want to actually look it up the B-52 can carry 70,000 pounds of bombs which is more then enough to turn your 'fortress' to scrap.

Well how much steel and concrete and dirt can a single 2000 lb bomb penetrate? And remember that there is no 'main area', but at least a few quarters of the electricity generators would need to be destroyed. The bombs simply punching a hole through the fort will not destroy or cripple it.

I mean wasn't there a much smaller mobile fort being planned in WW2? It's not as ridiculous as it sounds, surely. Also the thousands of SAM turrets and flak cannons might be a hazard to the B-52 or they might not be?

Oh and umm any random civilian might have a problem with just walking away alive from seeing it in wartime, as there is plenty enough watchtowers on it for that person to be shot or hunted down by patrols sent after him. He might never have a chance of reporting it back, and isn't it possible to make cell phone jammers in your backyard? So the fort would probably jam most phone signals within a certain range as well.

[Luke Starkiller]

I mean wasn't there a much smaller mobile fort being planned in WW2? It's not as ridiculous as it sounds, surely. Also the thousands of SAM turrets and flak cannons might be a hazard to the B-52 or they might not be?

Something being considered in (or even after; project Pluto comes to mind) WW2 does not make it not ridiculous. Even if something with 1km of effective armour could be built, and that somehow makes it invulnerable from above, it would still be relatively trivial to disable the locomotive mechanisms from near misses and hits to the sides.

[Isolder74]

Well how much steel and concrete and dirt can a single 2000 lb bomb penetrate? And remember that there is no 'main area', but at least a few quarters of the electricity generators would need to be destroyed. The bombs simply punching a hole through the fort will not destroy or cripple it.

I mean wasn't there a much smaller mobile fort being planned in WW2? It's not as ridiculous as it sounds, surely. Also the thousands of SAM turrets and flak cannons might be a hazard to the B-52 or they might not be?

Lets see…The B-52 can fly a strike mission with full payload higher then either of your AAA weapons can reach and STILL POUND YOUR THING TO SCRAP. Who cares how much armor your things has none of the weapons, drive, or crew access systems are going to survive in an operational state after ANY air attack by ANY attack/bomber aircraft. Get this through your tiny brain, YOU DO NOT NEED TO DESTROY THE ENTIRE VEHICLE to render it useless as a weapon. You just need to remove it's ability to fight which just means taking out mobility or weapon systems.

[Archinist]

I mean wasn't there a much smaller mobile fort being planned in WW2? It's not as ridiculous as it sounds, surely. Also the thousands of SAM turrets and flak cannons might be a hazard to the B-52 or they might not be?

Something being considered in (or even after; project Pluto comes to mind) WW2 does not make it not ridiculous. Even if something with 1km of effective armour could be built, and that somehow makes it invulnerable from above, it would still be relatively trivial to disable the locomotive mechanisms from near misses and hits to the sides.

The crew could repair it, and since it would take months and months to cross a few hundred kilometers of land I doubt a few weeks setback would really delay them that severely. Anyway, there would be multiple tread 'mounds' not just lined across the outside, but also in the center as well, you wouldn't want the surrounding tread mound supports to snap or otherwise the fort would cave in on itself. So there would be mounds of treads in the center to support it and to assist it's movement.

Lets see…The B-52 can fly a strike mission with full payload higher then either of your AAA weapons can reach and STILL POUND YOUR THING TO SCRAP. Who cares how much armor your things has none of the weapons, drive, or crew access systems are going to survive in an operational state after ANY air attack by ANY attack/bomber aircraft. Get this through your tiny brain, YOU DO NOT NEED TO DESTROY THE ENTIRE VEHICLE to render it useless as a weapon. You just need to remove it's ability to fight which just means taking out mobility or weapon systems.

I don't think you realise that this fort is dozens of kilometers thick and over 30 kilometers long. It has THOUSANDS of weapon mounts, knocking out a few dozen guns will NOT disable it, nor will punching a hole through a few hangars or cargo bays. A better idea would to use chemical weapons on it, since it probably wouldn't be NBC sealed, but I'm not sure if most countries would be comfortable with massacring 100,000s of people within a few minutes with chemical weapons like that, so that would probably be reserved for later.

I mean you could disable it, but it would certainly take more than just one B-52, unless of course you had literally weeks and weeks spare to destroy it with your one B-52. I guess a large flock of bombers could disable it in one or two days, though they would risk being shot down by the fort's fighter jets which can launch from a runway imbedded maybe halfway under the armor.

It would be extremely difficult to disable a significant amount of tread mounds, since they are covered under a giant block of armor. The treads would probably be one of the most difficult targets to destroy.

[Isolder74]

So you are admitting that it is a huge easy target.

Once again you don't need to destroy it to render it useless. No you CAN"T have thousands of weapons(AKA holes in your armor) turrets and have it be invincible. One bomb in a turret cooking off ammo will devastate this monstrosity. With smart guided munitions, YES, ONE B-52 CAN RENDER YOUR STUPID MONSTROSITY COMBAT USELESS!

[Archinist]

So you are admitting that it is a huge easy target.

Once again you don't need to destroy it to render it useless. No you CAN"T have thousands of weapons(AKA holes in your armor) turrets and have it be invincible. One bomb in a turret cooking off ammo will devastate this monstrosity. With smart guided munitions, YES, ONE B-52 CAN RENDER YOUR STUPID MONSTROSITY COMBAT USELESS!

No, it has compartmentalized ammunition storages, so that if one set of shells explode, the entire fort doesn't erupt in a massive cloud of dust. That would be a terrible design.

Okay, so the fort itself would look something similar to this city below, except it would be covered with thousands of tiny turrets and much lower to the ground, and the treads would be better protected.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

The crew could repair it, and since it would take months and months to cross a few hundred kilometers of land I doubt a few weeks setback would really delay them that severely. Anyway, there would be multiple tread 'mounds' not just lined across the outside, but also in the center as well, you wouldn't want the surrounding tread mound supports to snap or otherwise the fort would cave in on itself. So there would be mounds of treads in the center to support it and to assist it's movement.

And, in that time, multiple strike packages can be delivered against it, keeping it incapacitated or destroying it altogether.

No, it has compartmentalized ammunition storages, so that if one set of shells explode, the entire fort doesn't erupt in a massive cloud of dust. That would be a terrible design.

And, that design feature saved HMS Hood at the Battle of the Denmark Strait.

Oh, wait, no, shit....

Broomstick's parrots for the win.

[Archinist]

The crew could repair it, and since it would take months and months to cross a few hundred kilometers of land I doubt a few weeks setback would really delay them that severely. Anyway, there would be multiple tread 'mounds' not just lined across the outside, but also in the center as well, you wouldn't want the surrounding tread mound supports to snap or otherwise the fort would cave in on itself. So there would be mounds of treads in the center to support it and to assist it's movement.

And, in that time, multiple strike packages can be delivered against it, keeping it incapacitated or destroying it altogether.

No, it has compartmentalized ammunition storages, so that if one set of shells explode, the entire fort doesn't erupt in a massive cloud of dust. That would be a terrible design.

And, that design feature saved HMS Hood at the Battle of the Denmark Strait.

Oh, wait, no, shit....

Broomstick's parrots for the win.

Why would it need to be absolutely still just to be bombed? If it takes WEEKS to move 100 kilometres, then I would assume modern day bombers would have little trouble hitting it even moving at full speed. The trouble being that it would take at least 15 bombers constantly bombarding it over the course of an entire day and then some before it could be destroyed or disabled. These bombers would also need fighter jet support, to protect from the fort's fighter jets.

[Isolder74]

He really is clueless. He has no concept of why a mission kill is a thing.

It doesn't matter if they can repair it, it can BE BROKEN FASTER.

[Archinist]

He really is clueless. He has no concept of why a mission kill is a thing.

It doesn't matter if they can repair it, it can BE BROKEN FASTER.

Seriously? I already mentioned the words "disable" and "cripple" more than several times now. I am aware that you can render a vehicle useless without completely destroying it. HOWEVER, this vehicle is special in the fact that it is built out of MULTIPLE INDIVIDUAL UNITS, meaning that it is very difficult, NOT impossible, just difficult to mission-kill it which would either completely take away it's useful attack power or severely cripple it.

So it's kind of made up of many different sections, meaning that if one section is destroyed after much bombing, then although the entire fort obviously loses a small part of it's usefulness, the presence of many other separate sections will still allow the fort to retain much of it's usefulness.

The armor is MAX 1 kilometre thick. The LENGTH is about 30 kilometre. The width is about 12 kilometres thick.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

dozens of kilometers thick and over 30 kilometers long

Several posts ago, you were saying the armor was a kilometer thick(not that this is, in any way, practical). Sigh, no matter. Again, a B-52 carries 70,000 lbs of bombs, which is 31.5 metric tons of ordinance, or 35 SAE tons, and it can deliver that entire weight of ordinance bang-on to your virtually immobile monstrosity. It won't take weeks. A single strike will suffice, especially, if, as I've mention, the Stratofortress can be modified to carry MOABs.

Alternatively, fighter craft can be sent in with bunker buster bombs, which can physically penetrate the first six feet of your armor, and drive through the rest of the armor through sheer kinetic energy, before its warhead detonates inside your fortress. And, for a GAU-28, that's five thousand pounds of high explosive, which will, at best, cripple your O.G.R.E. wannabe, and at worst, destroy it.

And, compartmentalization will be of little use.

[Archinist]

dozens of kilometers thick and over 30 kilometers long

Several posts ago, you were saying the armor was a kilometer thick(not that this is, in any way, practical). Sigh, no matter. Again, a B-52 carries 70,000 lbs of bombs, which is 31.5 metric tons of ordinance, or 35 SAE tons, and it can deliver that entire weight of ordinance bang-on to your virtually immobile monstrosity. It won't take weeks. A single strike will suffice, especially, if, as I've mention, the Stratofortress can be modified to carry MOABs.

Alternatively, fighter craft can be sent in with bunker buster bombs, which can physically penetrate the first six feet of your armor, and drive through the rest of the armor through sheer kinetic energy, before its warhead detonates inside your fortress. And, for a GAU-28, that's five thousand pounds of high explosive, which will, at best, cripple your O.G.R.E. wannabe, and at worst, destroy it.

And, compartmentalization will be of little use.

Any country will want to avoid using MOABs even on enemy territory. This is not CoD where nukes are tossed around like candy and a generic marine can call in a nuclear bomb after killing 10 enemies.

Okay, so could you tell me how much armor a bunker buster can actually penetrate? The thickness is still maximum 1 kilometre, but the length of the fort is 30 kilometres, and the width is 12 kilometres.

And could you please explain how putting a few holes through the massive fort will mission kill/disable/cripple it unless it is an EXTREMELY lucky shot? If it does not hit anything vital it will simply detract a relatively small amount of the fort's total usefulness, but nothing serious enough to be noticeable.

And there are supposed to be fighter jets inside the fort, but I guess we will just ignore those.

[Isolder74]

MOAB's ARE NOT NUKES!!!!!! They use regular explosives.

Yes a B-52 carries enough munitions to mission kill this impractical monstrosity even if only 1/3 of the bombs hit something vital.

Can Broomstick's parrots learn to type so they can tell this idiot he's an idiot.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Why would it need to be absolutely still just to be bombed? If it takes WEEKS to move 100 kilometres, then I would assume modern day bombers would have little trouble hitting it even moving at full speed.{/quote]

I didn't say it needed to be absolutely still. I said, it would move so slowly as to be standing still. Stop misinterpreting my words. First, last, and only warning.

The trouble being that it would take at least 15 bombers constantly bombarding it over the course of an entire day and then some before it could be destroyed or disabled. These bombers would also need fighter jet support, to protect from the fort's fighter jets.

Which would be deployed from this mobile wankfort precisely how? Unless you have a runway on top of your machine(reducing the amount of weapons you can deploy up top) from which conventional aircraft can be launched, you have to VTOL jets, and those tend to be slower than even a B-52 and lack its operational ceiling. That "Strato" in Stratofortress isn't just Boeing PR, you know.

And, if you do have a runway on top of the fortress, it will be taken out by the bombing run, no matter how deeply the bombs penetrate, and any aircraft handling facilities will be wiped out right along with the runway up top, unless you want to put the hangars so deep inside the fortress, that it would take too long for them to be deployed. And, if you use multiple hangar facilities, instead of one large one, you're still going to incur delays in getting fighters deployed, plus have multiple points of vunerability inside your fortress.

Of course, you could suggest that your fortress' fighters are launched with rocket boosters, eliminating the need for a runway...except, you're either going to have to have a field somewhere else to recover them(and some means of getting them back aboard the fortress) or you're going to accept that your fightercraft are on a one-way mission, as they run out of fuel and have to ditch somewhere, rendering those machines non-recoverable, and incurring a huge logistics penalty in keeping the fortress constantly re-supplied with new disposable fighters.

Not the mention that the rocket boosters themselves will be just another point of vunerability.

Fifteen bombers? No, just one. 70,000 lbs of bombs=wrecked O.G.R.E. wannabe.

[Archinist]

MOAB's ARE NOT NUKES!!!!!! They use regular explosives.

Yes a B-52 carries enough munitions to mission kill this impractical monstrosity even if only 1/3 of the bombs hit something vital.

Can Broomstick's parrots learn to type so they can tell this idiot he's an idiot.

Well okay fine I guess they do even though they probably couldn't at least not in one swipe. Let's say that 5 B-52s could kill the fort with 5+ swipes, that sounds reasonable enough.

What about the opposite of a giant fort, what if a superpower country got rid of all it's tanks and heavier weapons/vehicles and produced nothing but technicals and light attack aircraft? How well would that work?

I was thinking about maybe putting multiple runways leading from centralized hangars leading out to the outside world and sealed off by massive steel vault doors which take a bit to open/close. They would be just under the ending of the armor, and would be perfectly flat and seamlessly integrated into the armor. Since the fort is so long, the fighters would have no problem taking off from the runway, which would be about an appropriate distance away from the entrance to allow safe landings and take-offs.

The rocket fighters could just have a massive circular door somewhere either under the main structure in which they could delicately fly back under, or just through the front where they could slowly fly into or something.

Or maybe the fighters could have an extremely short hook runway, and yeah just launch there somewhere through the entrances.

So how well would a superpower with nothing but millions of light attack aircraft and technicals (utes with guns) work? It's the opposite of one big giant fort, would it work any better?

[Khaat]

[snip] This is not CoD where nukes are tossed around like candy and a generic marine can call in a nuclear bomb after killing 10 enemies.

... So instead it's a RTS game where having "Engineer Units" on board means the unit's "Health Bar" is constantly being repaired, regardless of the actual, real-world concerns of "supply", "materiel", "physics", "engineering", or "causality".

The thickness is still maximum 1 kilometre, but the length of the fort is 30 kilometres, and the width is 12 kilometres.

It can't, by your own definition, be all armor. Hells, only the front end needs to be disabled, the rest has to stop. Now it's a target-rich island, with one end plowed deep into the topsoil as the tracks high-center the rest of it. This is "mission killed".

And could you please explain how putting a few holes through the massive fort will mission kill/disable/cripple it unless it is an EXTREMELY lucky shot? If it does not hit anything vital it will simply detract a relatively small amount of the fort's total usefulness, but nothing serious enough to be noticeable.

These weapons (you were so proud to bristle this thing with) need to be on the outside to be of any offensive use. That means thin (say, the usual for an armored vehicle/ship turret) armor (unless you'd like to explain how your anti-aircraft guns, tank guns, etc, can shoot through this "kilometer of armor"?) Destroying these is "mission killed". (Do you know why ships don't like enemy planes getting close? It's because a single fighter can sink a ship!)

And there are supposed to be fighter jets inside the fort, but I guess we will just ignore those.

Exposed flight decks? Armored ports for Mazinger-type launches? Aviation fuel stores? Limited numbers of concentrated aircraft? Well, since it's either AA or interceptors (since both means AA kills yours and theirs), the total effectiveness drops yet again.

And just in case you missed the strategic failure of this project: "meanwhile, back at the capitol of the nation that launched this impossibility, the ruling government surrendered to a squad of lazy/stupid/insane SWAT guys, before they all watched porn and took a nap."

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Le sigh...

Any country will want to avoid using MOABs even on enemy territory. This is not CoD where nukes are tossed around like candy and a generic marine can call in a nuclear bomb after killing 10 enemies.

As Isolder mentioned, a MOAB is a very large conventional bomb, the modern equivalent of the "daisy cutters" used in Vietnam.

Okay, so could you tell me how much armor a bunker buster can actually penetrate? The thickness is still maximum 1 kilometre, but the length of the fort is 30 kilometres, and the width is 12 kilometres.

Length and width are irrelevant, except as to make this thing a bigger target. Tests conducted on the GBU-28 indicate that it will physically penetrate roughly six feet of concrete, while kinetic energy drives the bomb through another mile of same before exploding. Granted, concrete isn't RHA or Chobham armor, but the penetration figures should be roughly similar, especially if your armor is all one piece.

And could you please explain how putting a few holes through the massive fort will mission kill/disable/cripple it unless it is an EXTREMELY lucky shot? If it does not hit anything vital it will simply detract a relatively small amount of the fort's total usefulness, but nothing serious enough to be noticeable.

There are these things called explosives. And these other things called fuses. And, this other thing we like to call a bombsight, which can deliver most of the package aboard the bomber at a precise aimpoint, even taking into account the speed of the bomber, and the slight speed of the fortress.

Not to mention this other thing called a precision-guided muntion.

And there are supposed to be fighter jets inside the fort, but I guess we will just ignore those.

And, any method you can think of deploying said fighters from this fortress is fraught with problems which will make launching fighters impractical. Even multiple runways atop/inside the fortress.

Runways on top of the fortress are exposed, and runways inside have to open holes inside the fortress to deploy their fighters. A hole through which either a guided missile or a precision-guided bomb can be steered. BOOM!

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Well okay fine I guess they do even though they probably couldn't at least not in one swipe. Let's say that 5 B-52s could kill the fort with 5+ swipes, that sounds reasonable enough.

No, let's not. In the real world, things are what they are, and there's no changing that.

I was thinking about maybe putting multiple runways leading from centralized hangars leading out to the outside world and sealed off by massive steel vault doors which take a bit to open/close. They would be just under the ending of the armor, and would be perfectly flat and seamlessly integrated into the armor. Since the fort is so long, the fighters would have no problem taking off from the runway, which would be about an appropriate distance away from the entrance to allow safe landings and take-offs.

Except those hangars would still have to open something to let those planes out. If your doors take "a bit" to open/close, that prolongs the time the fortress needs to deploy those fighters, and, bad things happen if you start up a jet or a rocket motor inside an enclosed space. Very bad things.

And, what has to be opened up renders the fortress vunerable to an up-the-kilt shot from a guided missile or a precision-guided munition.

The rocket fighters could just have a massive circular door somewhere either under the main structure in which they could delicately fly back under, or just through the front where they could slowly fly into or something.

See above.

Or maybe the fighters could have an extremely short hook runway, and yeah just launch there somewhere through the entrances.

See above.

So how well would a superpower with nothing but millions of light attack aircraft and technicals (utes with guns) work? It's the opposite of one big giant fort, would it work any better?

Now, you're starting to use your head, even if your numbers are off(it wouldn't be millions).

The answer is, if you equip the technicals with anti-armor weapons such as man-portable ATGMs or recoilless rifles, it could work very well, as the Chadians demonstrated against the Libyans back in the mid- to late 1980s. Such a force would be extermely mobile, capable of hit and run raids and similar asymmetrical warfare operations.

[Archinist]

[snip] This is not CoD where nukes are tossed around like candy and a generic marine can call in a nuclear bomb after killing 10 enemies.

... So instead it's a RTS game where having "Engineer Units" on board means the unit's "Health Bar" is constantly being repaired, regardless of the actual, real-world concerns of "supply", "materiel", "physics", "engineering", or "causality".

No, but the engineers are more than happy to slowly repair the damage over time.

The thickness is still maximum 1 kilometre, but the length of the fort is 30 kilometres, and the width is 12 kilometres.

It can't, by your own definition, be all armor. Hells, only the front end needs to be disabled, the rest has to stop. Now it's a target-rich island, with one end plowed deep into the topsoil as the tracks high-center the rest of it. This is "mission killed".

If it still retains 99% of it's capabilities after the "mission kill", then no, it's not a mission kill. The front is still 15 kilometres worth of length, which would take a decent amount of ammunition.

And could you please explain how putting a few holes through the massive fort will mission kill/disable/cripple it unless it is an EXTREMELY lucky shot? If it does not hit anything vital it will simply detract a relatively small amount of the fort's total usefulness, but nothing serious enough to be noticeable.

These weapons (you were so proud to bristle this thing with) need to be on the outside to be of any offensive use. That means thin (say, the usual for an armored vehicle/ship turret) armor (unless you'd like to explain how your anti-aircraft guns, tank guns, etc, can shoot through this "kilometer of armor"?) Destroying these is "mission killed". (Do you know why ships don't like enemy planes getting close? It's because a single fighter can sink a ship!)

The turrets can be outside the armor, and long cables and conveyor belts can bring supplies to them. Expensive, sure, but it doesn't matter since the fort is a good chunk of the entire country but moving.

And there are supposed to be fighter jets inside the fort, but I guess we will just ignore those.

Exposed flight decks? Armored ports for Mazinger-type launches? Aviation fuel stores? Limited numbers of concentrated aircraft? Well, since it's either AA or interceptors (since both means AA kills yours and theirs), the total effectiveness drops yet again.

And just in case you missed the strategic failure of this project: "meanwhile, back at the capitol of the nation that launched this impossibility, the ruling government surrendered to a squad of lazy/stupid/insane SWAT guys, before they all watched porn and took a nap."

No, no, The runways would be sealed off by a massive metal door of steel that could block at least one penetrating bomb on the sides of the fort. More doors could be added throughout the entire runway until there are too many doors. It doesn't matter, the other countries have limited numbers of high altitude bombers and losing even one will be a major setback.

The doors would work for a while, as long as they still work after having massive holes blown through them, if not that would be a major problem.

Le sigh...

Any country will want to avoid using MOABs even on enemy territory. This is not CoD where nukes are tossed around like candy and a generic marine can call in a nuclear bomb after killing 10 enemies.

As Isolder mentioned, a MOAB is a very large conventional bomb, the modern equivalent of the "daisy cutters" used in Vietnam.

Oh. I thought they were nukes for some reason.

Okay, so could you tell me how much armor a bunker buster can actually penetrate? The thickness is still maximum 1 kilometre, but the length of the fort is 30 kilometres, and the width is 12 kilometres.

Length and width are irrelevant, except as to make this thing a bigger target. Tests conducted on the GBU-28 indicate that it will physically penetrate roughly six feet of concrete, while kinetic energy drives the bomb through another mile of same before exploding. Granted, concrete isn't RHA or Chobham armor, but the penetration figures should be roughly similar, especially if your armor is all one piece.

I highly doubt it can penetrate a MILE of the same, because then you wouldn't be bothering to mention the first few feet, and what wouldn't it miss it's target at a mile? What targets are buried 1 mile+ below ground?

And could you please explain how putting a few holes through the massive fort will mission kill/disable/cripple it unless it is an EXTREMELY lucky shot? If it does not hit anything vital it will simply detract a relatively small amount of the fort's total usefulness, but nothing serious enough to be noticeable.

There are these things called explosives. And these other things called fuses. And, this other thing we like to call a bombsight, which can deliver most of the package aboard the bomber at a precise aimpoint, even taking into account the speed of the bomber, and the slight speed of the fortress.

Not to mention this other thing called a precision-guided muntion.

So it will explode and take out a few dozen turrets instead of one. Still not going to disable the fort within one bomb..

And there are supposed to be fighter jets inside the fort, but I guess we will just ignore those.

And, any method you can think of deploying said fighters from this fortress is fraught with problems which will make launching fighters impractical. Even multiple runways atop/inside the fortress.

Runways on top of the fortress are exposed, and runways inside have to open holes inside the fortress to deploy their fighters. A hole through which either a guided missile or a precision-guided bomb can be steered. BOOM![/code]

[/quote][/quote]

The runways are covered up with dozens of steel doors which will hopefully not get stuck if they get hit. Each door could probably block one bomb at the cost of being destroyed. The doors provided they work right will protect the fighters from dozens of guided bombs.

As for your other post:

Except those hangars would still have to open something to let those planes out. If your doors take "a bit" to open/close, that prolongs the time the fortress needs to deploy those fighters, and, bad things happen if you start up a jet or a rocket motor inside an enclosed space. Very bad things.

And, what has to be opened up renders the fortress vunerable to an up-the-kilt shot from a guided missile or a precision-guided munition.

What things will happen if you start up a jet inside a enclosed space? The crew have their own oxygen supply, so that shouldn't be an issue, and the people outside either don't matter or they can quickly run back inside and close the doors when it's taking off. Or just open the doors before taking off. I'm sure the enemy won't be constantly watching every single bit of the fort 24/7.

No, a single fighter filled with conventional bombs would not take down the fort unless it was extremely lucky. It would take at least 5 on at least 3 or 4 fresh swipes. There is simply too much land to be covered with on.

[Isolder74]

Every door, hanger, turret, exhaust pipe or entry hatch is a potential week point in the armor as no matter how thick that armor is that door has to be able to open, turret traverse, etc, etc, etc(Yul Brenner). All of those things are going to be thinner then the main armor and are going to be a potential attack point to exploit. 70,000 lb's of guided bombs are going to make a mess of any of those things each of them with potential catastrophic possibilities for the inside of the unit.

A hanger has fueled aircraft, turret ammo and engines fuel and lubrication oil……..and so on. Even with compartmentalization fire and internal explosions are not a trivial matter and can destroy this fortress quite nicely.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

And, just when I started to have hope for you.

The runways are covered up with dozens of steel doors which will hopefully not get stuck if they get hit. Each door could probably block one bomb at the cost of being destroyed. The doors provided they work right will protect the fighters from dozens of guided bombs.

The more doors you have, the longer it takes for your fighters to deploy. The thicker your doors are, the longer it takes for them to open, and the longer it takes for your fighters to deploy.

No, a single fighter filled with conventional bombs would not take down the fort unless it was extremely lucky. It would take at least 5 on at least 3 or 4 fresh swipes. There is simply too much land to be covered with on.

A B-52 is a bomber, not a fighter. And the entire area doesn't have to be bombed, especially not with precision-guided munitions. Just enough ordinance in one particular area will do the job.

I'm sure the enemy won't be constantly watching every single bit of the fort 24/7.

Apparentally, you've never heard of satellite or drone surveillance, have you? And, yes, something this big gets built will have the whole world watching its every move 24/7.

What things will happen if you start up a jet inside a enclosed space? The crew have their own oxygen supply, so that shouldn't be an issue, and the people outside either don't matter or they can quickly run back inside and close the doors when it's taking off. Or just open the doors before taking off.

The backblast inside an enclosed space will burn anyone in the proximity, cause damage to the surrounding area, and may even damage or destroy the aircraft itself. And, if you open the doors before takeoff, again, you are rendering the inside of the fort vunerable to an up-the-kilt shot from a precision-guided munition.

[Archinist]

And, just when I started to have hope for you.

The runways are covered up with dozens of steel doors which will hopefully not get stuck if they get hit. Each door could probably block one bomb at the cost of being destroyed. The doors provided they work right will protect the fighters from dozens of guided bombs.

The more doors you have, the longer it takes for your fighters to deploy. The thicker your doors are, the longer it takes for them to open, and the longer it takes for your fighters to deploy.

Of course you will now explain how having more doors will magically make everything, seeing that they are button-controlled electric doors which can be opened simultaneously. Yes, thicker doors will generally open slower than thin ones, but..

No, a single fighter filled with conventional bombs would not take down the fort unless it was extremely lucky. It would take at least 5 on at least 3 or 4 fresh swipes. There is simply too much land to be covered with on.

A B-52 is a bomber, not a fighter. And the entire area doesn't have to be bombed, especially not with precision-guided munitions. Just enough ordinance in one particular area will do the job.

Nah, there is more than one main power generator (let's say there are 10), meaning that at least (let's say 6) need to be destroyed/disabled before anything happens. After that, there will be no power for weapons, engines, or other power-intensive things, so that's when the fort is mission-killed. If you take out all 10 then the fort gets plunged into literal darkness except for some weak backup generators for the most required areas.

I'm sure the enemy won't be constantly watching every single bit of the fort 24/7.

Apparentally, you've never heard of satellite or drone surveillance, have you? And, yes, something this big gets built will have the whole world watching its every move 24/7.

I've heard of it, but there is simply too much land to cover. Also satellites give you a birds eye view, they won't be able to see the sides, and drones are a bit dubious there.

What things will happen if you start up a jet inside a enclosed space? The crew have their own oxygen supply, so that shouldn't be an issue, and the people outside either don't matter or they can quickly run back inside and close the doors when it's taking off. Or just open the doors before taking off.

The backblast inside an enclosed space will burn anyone in the proximity, cause damage to the surrounding area, and may even damage or destroy the aircraft itself. And, if you open the doors before takeoff, again, you are rendering the inside of the fort vunerable to an up-the-kilt shot from a precision-guided munition.

[/quote]

Well, I should have mentioned that the runways are open-plan hangars, and have enough space to run around in, so they're not cramped or anything. But anyway I've mostly given up on the idea that the fort would do much damage, although it would definitely give the other nations a fright and for a few days the civilians would panic and think that the monster is unstoppable.

en-air (not exposed to outside air)

[Simon_Jester]

Well, I guess I agree that it wouldn't work very well, but you still have to agree that the sheer fact that it requires nuclear bombs to destroy it is a pretty big deal.

Not really. You can get that same result just by putting a military facility or 'unit' or whatever inside an abandoned coal mine. It would "require a nuclear bomb" to physically destroy the facility, because the facility is under a mountain.

Not that it matters, because a conventional attack that collapses the mine entrance means that everyone in that mine full of soldiers will die of starvation, thirst, or running out of air.

Likewise, your giant traveling fort, even if it could move which it probably wouldn't, could be totally wrecked and crippled by conventional attacks of all types until it had no ability to resist enemy action and was completely neutered and paralyzed.

I mean, there has never, ever been a single enemy unit that has been almost completely impenetrable outside of nuclear weapons at all in all of human war history...

So? There's never been a unit full of soldiers on pogo-sticks who wear bunny ears and throw apple pies at the enemy either. That doesn't mean it'd be a smart way to fight a war.

so you can probably agree that it would cause serious damage to a country that for some reason let it creep into their soil without noticing it coming, say for instance it drove there during peacetime, and then became hostile to that country during wartime. It could creep around the enemy cities and be very difficult to kill, while being capable of great damage.

Unless the invaded country was ruled entirely by people who were dumber than a squirrel, this could literally never happen.

If I were running a country, and my neighbor drove a giant slow-rolling traveling fort across my border, and they refused to turn around and drive it back out of my country...

The war would start right then and there, with me blowing the crud out of their slow-rolling traveling fort.

Invading another country is an act of war. When you commit an act of war by physically intruding on their land, you can expect an immediate armed response. They will not wait a week for you to get ready after you invade them.

This is why in the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese bombed the American ships immediately. They did not just sail their ships right into the harbor saying "not at war not at war lolololol," take a week to get ready, and then launch an attack. That would never ever work in real life, because the enemy would prepare for you, and in fact would probably strike first to eliminate the very very obvious threat you're presenting.

Real people do not stand there ignoring you while you sloooooowwwwly roll into a position where you will be able to kill them.

Of course if it was in the middle of nowhere when war broke out it would be completely useless and probably get destroyed quickly, but it might actually be of some use if it was already in an enemy's borders.

No one would ever let you drive this into their borders unless they were dumber than a squirrel why did you even think that might happen?

A B-52 could not destroy it with just a standard bomb from high altitude, as it has over 1 kilometre of top-facing armor. So it couldn't just drop a few 2000 pound bombs on it and expect it to be destroyed...

Attacks like that would mean the weapons on the surface would be destroyed. The slow-rolling traveling fort would be useless and helpless and neutered. Then surface-level attacks from things like tank guns would be used to destroy the running gear (i.e. the wheels), and the slow-roller would be unable to even move, and then it would be surrounded by soldiers who would just shoot anyone who tried to get out.

plus the sheer size of it would make it possible for there to be dangerous survivors even after being hit by multi-kiloton nuclear bombs.

The allegedly "dangerous" survivors would not be able to escape the useless neutered hulk of their own slow-rolling fort without being killed. They would not be dangerous, and would soon cease to be survivors.

The crew could repair it, and since it would take months and months to cross a few hundred kilometers of land I doubt a few weeks setback would really delay them that severely. Anyway, there would be multiple tread 'mounds' not just lined across the outside, but also in the center as well, you wouldn't want the surrounding tread mound supports to snap or otherwise the fort would cave in on itself. So there would be mounds of treads in the center to support it and to assist it's movement.

So all the ones at the edges of the traveling fort get shot and wrecked. They jam up, stopping the vehicle from moving. Or they collapse, and the sides of the vehicle slump down while the center is well supported. And the treads can be shot at from ground level by guided missiles and tank guns. You can't protect them with armor, because then the armor would scrape against the ground and stop the traveling fort from moving.

Also, the crew cannot repair all the weapons that have been destroyed. Destroyed not only by planes, but by soldiers with cannons who park on the other side of a hill from your traveling fort, spend an hour throwing shells at it, then back up a mile and do it all over again. Your fort would spend every moment being shelled and bombed, and any repairmen who climbed out to work on the damaged weapons would be killed by the shells and bombs.

A better idea would to use chemical weapons on it, since it probably wouldn't be NBC sealed, but I'm not sure if most countries would be comfortable with massacring 100,000s of people within a few minutes with chemical weapons like that, so that would probably be reserved for later.

The crew of your traveling fort are enemy soldiers committing an act of war. Just by moving this vehicle they would be destroying homes and property and even lives if people didn't get out of the way.

No one would consider any weapon off-limits to stop this thing. If the country you invaded with it had poison gas, they would use that gas immediately. I know I would.

Any country will want to avoid using MOABs even on enemy territory. This is not CoD where nukes are tossed around like candy and a generic marine can call in a nuclear bomb after killing 10 enemies.

No country will hesitate to use MOABs on this vehicle. It is so large that just by existing in your territory it has physically crushed and killed everything in an area tens of kilometers across, remember? Even if gigantic fuel-air bombs and bunker busters had a blast radius of several kilometers (they don't), it wouldn't matter, because dropping the bombs wouldn't damage anything that the travelling fortress wasn't going to roll over anyway.

I was thinking about maybe putting multiple runways leading from centralized hangars leading out to the outside world and sealed off by massive steel vault doors which take a bit to open/close.

People will fire missiles through the vault doors as they're opening, a guided missile can do that. Large bombs hitting on or near the doors will jam the hinge mechanisms and cause the door to stick.

The rocket fighters could just have a massive circular door somewhere either under the main structure in which they could delicately fly back under, or just through the front where they could slowly fly into or something.

If there is enough clearance for fighters to fly under the fortress, it will be extremely easy to wreck the wheels/tracks.

Fighters trying to slowly fly into the fortress will be shot down by enemies with anti-air weapons on the ground, and then guided missiles will be fired through the hole they were going to fly into.

So how well would a superpower with nothing but millions of light attack aircraft and technicals (utes with guns) work? It's the opposite of one big giant fort, would it work any better?

It would work much better, because such a force can disperse, fight in many places at once, hit many things at once, mass to attack concentrated targets and spread out when the enemy concentrates against it, and take casualties to one part of the fighting force while still having all the other parts be effective.

It would be massively less effective than it could be. But it would still work, sort of assuming that the technicals and light aircraft were being supplied adequately.

I've heard of it, but there is simply too much land to cover. Also satellites give you a birds eye view, they won't be able to see the sides, and drones are a bit dubious there.

Drones work great. Satellites also work great, because they can look diagonally. They can be a hundred miles above you and a hundred miles to your west and see the side of your slow-roller.

Well, I should have mentioned that the runways are open-plan hangars, and have enough space to run around in, so they're not cramped or anything. But anyway I've mostly given up on the idea that the fort would do much damage, although it would definitely give the other nations a fright and for a few days the civilians would panic and think that the monster is unstoppable.

On the contrary, everyone would be running betting pools on whether it stops one mile south of the border, or one and a half miles.