Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (5) « First ... 3 4 [5]   ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Carol II fortified line, Photos from casemates-today
Radub
Posted: December 04, 2013 02:40 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



QUOTE (Imperialist @ December 04, 2013 12:33 pm)
QUOTE (Radub @ November 25, 2013 01:51 pm)
This type of fortress was a popular idea in the days of "horizontal warfare" but they became obsolete with the advent of aviation.

Aviation didn't have much of an impact on well built forts. At least not until later in the war when the US came up with huge bunker-busting bombs.

To be pedantic, the first "bunker busters" were made by the British: Google "Tallboy" and "Grand Slam".

When I say "aviation" I mean everything to do with aviation, not just dropping bombs and not necessarily "planes" either. That means baloons, planes, zeppelins, artillery spotting, scouting, transport of supplies, transport of personnel, gliders, dropped munitions and paratroops.
The first impact made by aviation in WW1 was to direct artillery fire and assess its effectiveness as it happened - first from tethered baloons, later from planes. That made artillery fire immensely more effective. By the end of the war, planes could carry tons of explosive straight to the enemy in one go from a range and in a manner never available to artillery up to that point.
But the biggest impact was psychological. Any fool can understand that there is no point in building a wall as a means a defence when a plane can fly over it.

And "bunker busters" are not essential. Google "Eben Emael" to see what "aviation" can do to forts without a single "bunker buster".

This remonds me of that stupid sign of "bellows camera crossed with a red line" in all Romanian train stations meaning "no spying". Two words: Google Earth.

Radu
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Imperialist
Posted: December 04, 2013 06:14 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (Radub @ December 04, 2013 02:40 pm)
To be pedantic, the first "bunker busters" were made by the British: Google "Tallboy" and "Grand Slam".

When I say "aviation" I mean everything to do with aviation, not just dropping bombs and not necessarily "planes" either. That means baloons, planes, zeppelins, artillery spotting, scouting, transport of supplies, transport of personnel, gliders, dropped munitions and paratroops.
The first impact made by aviation in WW1 was to direct artillery fire and assess its effectiveness as it happened - first from tethered baloons, later from planes. That made artillery fire immensely more effective. By the end of the war, planes could carry tons of explosive straight to the enemy in one go from a range and in a manner never available to artillery up to that point.
But the biggest impact was psychological. Any fool can understand that there is no point in building a wall as a means a defence when a plane can fly over it.

And "bunker busters" are not essential. Google "Eben Emael" to see what "aviation" can do to forts without a single "bunker buster".

This remonds me of that stupid sign of "bellows camera crossed with a red line" in all Romanian train stations meaning "no spying". Two words: Google Earth.

Radu

I don't have to google Eben Emael, it's a well known example. But that didn't make forts obsolete, just prompted the defenders to watch out for surprise attacks of that sort and prepare to repel them. I am not aware of any other attacks like that on forts in WWII.

I am not sure the use of airplanes as spotters was a must when using heavy artillery fire on fixed fortifications. Maybe it was in some cases, but artillery could have handled that job without the air element too. I don't see aviation as the game changer in this.

In my opinion aviation became a real game changer on its own when it was able to pack a punch strong and accurate enough to render fortifications very vulnerable.
PM
Top
Radub
Posted: December 04, 2013 06:57 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



QUOTE (Imperialist @ December 04, 2013 06:14 pm)

In my opinion aviation became a real game changer on its own when it was able to pack a punch strong and accurate enough to render fortifications very vulnerable.

Yeah, pretty much what I was saying... The only difference is what you understand by "packing a punch".
"Aviation" is not limited to some winged object that delivers bombs.
Radu
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
MMM
  Posted: December 04, 2013 10:18 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



QUOTE (Florin @ December 04, 2013 06:18 am)
Should I understand that "FNB / FNG" are abbreviations for the ring of forts around Bucharest ? First time when I read the initials I took them as "Focsani - Namoloasa - etc. "
OK, if I made a horrendous mistake, you'll live happily ever after.

I put the darn link exactly to be as clear as posssible! FNB is Focşani-Nămoloasa-Brăila, whereas FNG is Focşani-Nămoloasa-Galaţi. What Bucharest ring?
Re: believable documentaries: yeah, sometimes there are new and interesting things in them, but sometimes they are just simplifying facts(over-simplifying, IMHO) and presenting with a pretty biased vision.
I tend to trust more the books, because it is not that easy to write a (good) book, especially one that would be reviewed by some (other) guys with expertise. For example, look no further than our forum and the neverending feud among Vrinceanu and fratello / cainele franctiror etc.)
Thanks for the wishes, anyway - and may the magic of the holidays be upon us all! :P
[edited by admin]
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Florin
Posted: December 05, 2013 12:19 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1867
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



QUOTE (MMM @ December 04, 2013 05:18 pm)
QUOTE (Florin @ December 04, 2013 06:18 am)
Should I understand that "FNB / FNG" are abbreviations for the ring of forts around Bucharest ? First time when I read the initials I took them as "Focsani - Namoloasa - etc. "
OK, if I made a horrendous mistake, you'll live happily ever after.

I put the darn link exactly to be as clear as posssible! FNB is Focşani-Nămoloasa-Brăila, whereas FNG is Focşani-Nămoloasa-Galaţi. What Bucharest ring?
......................

So I understood the abbreviations correctly.
Now, returning to previous posts:

QUOTE (MMM)
QUOTE (Florin @ November 25, 2013 03:58 am)
I did not forget the FNB line, but that was not built during peacetime.


Really? But when was it built, then?
FNB / FNG
Is this wrong? I will search into "Istoria Militară a Poporului Român", if you believe it is wrong, but I DO remember it was begun in XIX-th century.
...................................

Your last words above: "I DO remember it was begun in XIX-th century..." made me thinking that who knows, maybe those letters are initials for the forts around Bucharest.
What sense would make to start building fortifications lines along Focsani - Namoloasa - Galati in XIX-th century ? For the Tsarist / Russian Empire, meaning the abandoning of Moldavia and relying only on Wallachia ? It looks like WWI in reverse / in mirror .
* * * * *
[edited by admin]

This post has been edited by Victor on December 05, 2013 09:12 am
PM
Top
MMM
Posted: December 05, 2013 08:13 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



Re: FNB/FNG line: if you look at a map, you will see that it was the only natural defense line which could be held against vastly superior forces. Before the apparition of air forces, that is... Look at the plan of attacking forces of the Red Army in 1940 and see the ”pinchers” movement. The same thing could have happened at any moment - let`s not forget that Romania (under Carol I) was allied with Germany and not with Russia

[edited by admin]
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Victor
Posted: December 05, 2013 09:14 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4332
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



MMM, it is not acceptable to insinuate, even for rhaetorical reasons, such things regarding other forum members.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Radub
Posted: December 09, 2013 06:55 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



QUOTE (Florin @ December 05, 2013 12:19 am)

What sense would make to start building fortifications lines along Focsani - Namoloasa - Galati in XIX-th century ? For the Tsarist / Russian Empire, meaning the abandoning of Moldavia and relying only on Wallachia ? It looks like WWI in reverse / in mirror .

The FNG line is along the rivers Milcov and Siret, which if you may recall from your history books marked the border between Wallachia and Moldova.
in 1885, the United Principalities were not yet independent of the Otoman Empire, so maybe they were preparing for a future war of independence.
Radu
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
MMM
  Posted: December 09, 2013 07:42 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



QUOTE (Radub @ December 09, 2013 09:55 pm)
in 1885, the United Principalities were not yet independent of the Otoman Empire

?!
Are you sure?!?!
IIRC, the "Independence War" was in 1877/78, Romania was declared (proclaimed) kingdom in 1881; the main reason for the FNB/FNG line in late XIX-th century was a possible Russian advance along the same lines as in 1877.
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Radub
Posted: December 09, 2013 09:14 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



Sorry, my mistake. I was not paying enough attention to the years.
But the Milcov-Siret tracing the border line between the Principalities is still valid.
Radu
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
MMM
Posted: December 10, 2013 07:00 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



Of course it is, but the fact remains that the original FNB line was initially designed against the Russians.
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Radub
Posted: December 10, 2013 08:36 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



QUOTE (MMM @ December 10, 2013 07:00 am)
Of course it is, but the fact remains that the original FNB line was initially designed against the Russians.

Well... It is a line separating two sides. In one direction was Russia and in the other direction was the Ottoman Empire. Both had "interests". However, overall, tsarist Russia was actually quite "friendly" to Romania at the time, it was an ally in the War of Independence, a friend during the Treaty of Berlin and later an ally in WW1.
Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on December 10, 2013 08:37 am
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Victor
Posted: December 24, 2013 01:20 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4332
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



A number of posts were split into a new topic: http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=6816
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
MMM
Posted: December 28, 2013 06:46 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



Unfortunately, Carol II did not really "like" fortifications; he said they look like "concrete mousetraps" or something very much on the verge of claustrophobia - and thus a reason for not hurrying thier construction when we had the time and manpower for it (after 1935, that is...); my 2 cents about this: the great "affairs" could not be done with fortifications (like with some other expensive, imported weapons) and Carol II (plus his gang) lost the interest towards those. Regardless, Romania would have accepted the Soviet ultimatum even if we DID have a couple of hundreds of pillboxes ready on the Dniester.
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (5) « First ... 3 4 [5]  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0293 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]