>building a city in a crater
What kind of stupid..
Think about it.
You'll waste massive money on road and tunnels.
Logistics will be a pain in the ass.
If it rains the city will flood like a hentai cunt.
Who knows what kind of diseases/minerals/CANCERAIDS the meteor scattered in the soil
No river
The outer edges shouldn't be all that stable, you risk an avalanche.
Why would you build a fucking city in a crater?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
>looking fucking awesome
Priceless
What is this shit from anyway? I've seen this post several times now.
It's from Campione.
I know, something like that would never happen in real life.
Oh, wait, it totally did.
That's a small dickcheese crater without a large elevated landmass.
Imagine living a town where you're surrounded by walls 10 times the height of the tallest building.
Maybe it's easier to defend from invaders?
It's basically a big fucking bullseye, camp a bunch of mid-range artillery outside and everyone's fucked.
>Why would you build a fucking city in a crater?
Best reason I can come up with is that they were mining meteor stuff and ended up building shit around.
Can you even build a modern town in a crater? Won't all the electromagnetic stuff left by the meteor fuck over all electronics?
No you idiot
Probably incredibly defensible, although that depends on the level of technology that existed when the city was founded.
People build incredibly successful cities in what should be shit conditions because its easy to protect themselves. Let's look at Venice, one of most impossible to invade cities in history, for example
>impossible to build roads, must rely on naturally occurring waterways and learning the labyrinthine structure of the marshes
>city is subject to getting fucked by high tides
>in a marsh surrounded by malarial mosquitos and other diseases
>very little direct access to fresh water
>built ontop of mudflats that required enormous effort to make stable
It looks cool. It's also good for defense, depending on what era they're in.
unless meteors carrying some wacky shit nah, usually they carry iron and other metals, so what we got already on earth
Meteors are nice.. I want one to hit our Parliament building.
> enemy opens fire
>Have highest elevation in the region
> Enemy can't direct fire artillery and mustard blind
> Enemy can't charge up crater walls
> Limited invasion access through roads
It's a giant fortress idiots.
>avalanche
So good.
>can't direct fire
It's a crater entirely filled with city.
>artillery only fires in a straight line
I'll take a parabola for $10, johny.
> Losing full sight on your target
What is wasting ammo?
It's not wasting ammo if you're targeting something stationary..
Like a city, in a giant crater.
And why wouldn't people in the city be able to intercept or direct their own fire at the invaders, but from a far more advantageous position?
modern mortars have laser and satellite guided sights, lack of direct view is of no issue.
Google Aogashima OP
They don't know the enemy positions without leaving the crater. The enemy could be anywhere.
The city remains inside the crater.
Advantageous position? They're in a fucking HOLE BUNDLED TOGETHER, ergo there's only one direction you need to point to, if you surround that huge fucking hole and fire from all sides they wouldn't even know where to begin shooting.
>volcano go boom
>everyone dies
Guess that worked out real well for them
>build fortresses on top or near the top of the crater wall at several points
You know, like how walled cities generally functioned in real life, only the crater walls are a million times more sturdy than any man made wall could ever be. You're acting like all cities aren't stationary targets
>if you surround that huge fucking hole and fire from all sides they wouldn't even know where to begin shooting
>attack any place with overwhelming forces and firepower and they won't be able to retaliate
Woah, what? Who would have thought?
>He doesn't want a free wall
Unless they have some way of preventing explosives from falling into the hole they have no chance, forts are nice but building defenses inside the crater walls would be even a better idea if they're that tough, a fort falling at that terain would require a lot of time to rebuild, and they're very easy targets.
Because normal cities move.
t. Socialist Alternative
>Why would you build a fucking city in a crater?
There's less chance of getting hit by a meteor.
>If it rains the city will flood like a hentai cunt.
top fucking kek
Kimi no na wa begs to differ
YOU CANNOT DEACTIVATE THE ATOMS OF SHELLS IN A REAL WORLD
defendable, mining, spiritual beliefs, etc.
just being in a crater isn't enough reason to exclude it from settlement if there are other resources there.
>intercept artillery fire
ahahahahaha what the fuck how retarded are you?
>preventing explosives from falling into the hole they have no chance
All cities developed after explosive siege weapons then?
>shit that has literally only existed for the past few years
truly ebin
>Counter Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar, abbreviated C-RAM or Counter-RAM, is a set of systems used to detect and/or destroy incoming artillery, rockets and mortar rounds in the air before they hit their ground targets, or simply provide early warning.
shooting down artillery shells isn't bleeding edge technology anymore. it's at least easier than shooting down rockets that are potentially faster and can change course mid flight.
>existed for the past few years
not sure about other defense systems, but the palanx has been in service since the 80s.
the concept of anti ballistic missiles have been around since the the invention of missiles themselves.
if you're talking strictly about pre WW2 technology then artillery places on top of a wall will out range those on the ground. in terms of defense, being surrounded by a mountain is an upgrade from a normal city wall.
You can only win so hard by targeting empty buildings. Sounds like a slow drawn out siege.
Can't win until the soldiers are eliminated.
Well, in essence, it doesn't take explosives to pester or put pressure on a city during war. Large, catapulted classical rocks work wonders in causing structural damage as well as keeping people in certain areas funneled, and using up any counter-projectile resources a city can have.
Sieges take long amounts of time. Starvation tactics are actually quite common in wartime.
Anyone with a more intimate knowledge of this feel like enlightening me? Specifically, this wikipedia page is talking about how these systems are able to intercept not only missiles/rockets, but also artillery and mortar shells in flight. Then it proceeds to talk about typical missile defense systems in operation with the only mention of stopping artillery and mortar shells being the Raytheon laser system in development. To me, it seems like the "A" and "M" parts of C-RAM are about early warning and not interception at all, and thus would not stop fixed positions outside of our hypothetical crater-city from firing artillery and mortars into the city, but only help in minimizing casualties from said attacks. Anyone with more knowledge on the matter able to help me out?
you're pretty much completely safe from ever getting hit my a meteor, cuz I mean think about it. What are the odds that a meteor would hit the same place twice? basically total assurance that the town is forever safe from a meteor impact
The only targets that make sense in war are military targets. Any other target is just an ablative shield between the attacker and victory.
By tying up a huge enemy force for a protracted siege, the city has already paid itself off many times over. That could even be enough to turn the tide of war.
Assuming that the defending nation/force has the capabilities to push the advantage elsewhere and that the attacking nation/force is not prepared for that push. Also, in a conventional battle in the modern era, total war makes soft civilian targets that provide for a war effort much more effective targets to go after than heavily defended and prepared military positions. Also thinking along the lines of total war, I disagree with your statement that "The only targets that make sense in war are military targets." There are no strictly non-military targets, just targets with varying degrees of importance.
>building a city behind walls
What kind of stupid..
Think about it.
You'll waste massive money on watchtowers, passage ways and arches.
Logistics will be a pain in the ass. Imagine if there was a moat surrounding the walls.
If it rains, the city will flood like a hentai cunt.
Who knows what kind of diseases/CURSES the dead buried on the soil will scatter.
No river.
The outer edges shouldn't be all that stable, you risk having stones fall from shitty mortar from great heights.
Why would you build a fucking city behind walls?
>Starvation tactics are actually quite common in wartime.
just like in syria, just a big waiting game
starve out the crater people
That's not necessarily true. If there were to be a city based in a crater, there're high chances that the resource that makes it worth settling for is industrial in nature, like iron or coal. Hence, with just knowledge of the layout of the city, you can not only disrupt production, but attack facilities outright with nothing but classical siege tools.
The initial invaders have a huge advantage, in that they don't have to worry about civilian casualties when attacking and trying to cripple the city functionally, but once they've taken it, it's hard for the defending nation to take it back, as they essentially have the entire city easily hostage. There would be no escape.
Not to mention if you turn this into a modern-day scenario, where a little bit of firebomb can cause conditions seen in WWII with gigantic tornadoes of fire, for which the civilians have no escape from.
That was the example I was thinking of. It's an age old strategy, and it'll probably always be a major war strat.
>Why would you build a fucking city behind walls?
Well. Maybe you don't want your people to be trapped inside when the city is attacked by artillery.
Except that the invaders have the high ground once they reach the lip of the crater.
It's not like building a city on a hill.
What makes you think a crater is any harder to escape than a wall?
Walls can fall down.
They have more entrances as well.
Digging tunnels isn't easy.
Walls were built with the prospect that people will travel through them, so you don't need to build 'passageways', you build around passageways, which is no extra effort essentially, and actually takes fewer resources.
A crater isn't built with any kind of intent of passage, so there have to be passages built, which will not always be in the best interest of efficiency when considering the overall design of the crater.
Think of it like this: Which do you think would be better, a feature of something that was intended while building it, or a feature added on without even the knowledge of how something was built?
Flooding is what I would be most concerned about personally.
It's on a smaller scale, but in WW1 there were horror stories of men falling into and drowning in craters created by shell impacts that then filled with rainwater which was also contaminated with chemical residue from gas attacks to create literal toxic lakes.
>Meteor crater
It's called a caldera and has absolutely nothing to do with meteors
It would only take a few of those cunts flying around the city for a couple of hours to completely destroy it and drown everyone living there.
Great city design.
I'm not arguing for it being a good city design, but I think you might be able to argue that, barring the latest in stealth technology, there could be radars and SAM on the ground all around the perimeter of the crater that could prevent airstrikes of almost all kinds.
What would you prescribe next?
>dig a few tunnels to outside
>all problems solved
?
Do you have any idea how hard it was for a warring faction to have sufficient siege weapons with effective range and destructive power? How hard it was to transport them?
When a siege was on the way, the defenders would cut down every tree and burn them to prevent that. So if the enemies somehow managed to get enough wood to build the siege weapons on site, they'd need some extra wood to build a defensive barrier. If they didn't do that, it would be pretty easy to raid the enemy camp.
Walls were the most effective means of protection except against immensely large invasions.
For an attacker? Artillery batteries
youtube.com
think you're just mistakenly assuming artillery shells are significantly harder to intercept than missiles. there's a reason why battleships are obsolete.
not to mention the range of artillery is comparable to the range of radar, so by the time you're in the position to shoot you already have a missile flying at you.
That looks pretty fucking cool
Who said it was easy? Are you saying there are no tunnels until war begins or something?
Another "more effort" argument. If you make a city inside a crater in a time when heavy artillery exists, obviously you'll plan around that or you wouldn't have chosen a crater for a city.
>It would only take a few of those cunts flying around the city for a couple of hours to completely destroy it and drown everyone living there.
>a few
Those tankers literally carry 45,000 liters of water. That's about 2% the water in an Olympic-size pool (50x25x2m).
Forgive me if I'm missing something in the video, but all I seeing/hearing in it is about missile interception. And I assumed that artillery shells already in the air moving towards a fixed target would be harder to intercept because they would be harder to notice, given their high speed and small profile even if their trajectory once discovered was much more predictable. That thought of mine, though, was just an assumption, and you know what they say about assuming. Also, I wasn't really trying to compare the effectiveness of a missile system vs. gun batteries in my other comment, considering that, as you mentioned, the battleship became obsolete because of radar, effective surface to surface missiles, and effective air to surface missiles in combination with fast planes equipped with good radar. I was wondering more about how an entrenched position on land would deal with artillery firing on them if they were unaware that the artillery had gotten into position and begun firing on them until the shells were already in the air. I seemed to me like C-RAMs solution to this was early warning and not mid-trajectory interception, but I wasn't sure so that's why I was asking. Is there a currently in-use defense system that is able to detect and neutralize incoming shells from artillery and mortars?
No, it's not a "more effort" argument in the sense I'm arguing it's a matter of effort.
It's a matter of maximizing efficiency, to which it's nearly impossible to do without knowing all of the parameters of the object you wish to modify (i.e. crater walls). Natural geological features are impossible to get an exact sense of dimensional analysis, so it's only to be expected that there's a loss in efficiency somewhere down the line, in terms of either having weak points or taking longer to escape because tunnels have to be rerouted around structural weaknesses, or otherwise requiring to be in more inconvenient places for a cost benefit.
Subs fucking when?
Not sure about this, but the crater city in Izure Shinwa was made because the area contained one of the only bits of land left on the planet that wasn't a wasteland.
>shells already in the air moving towards a fixed target would be harder to intercept because they would be harder to notice
don't think this is the case. the muzzle velocity of most artillery are less than what attack missiles are capable of, the the difference in size between a shell and missile is measures in centimeters. the main thing is rate of fire and available ammunition.
> Is there a currently in-use defense system that is able to detect and neutralize incoming shells from artillery and mortars?
there should be at least a few videos of the phalanx system taking down artillery or mortar shells
Awesome! Thank you!
ITT people that will die if they have this as their enemy
if people can build a city in a fucking lake, why not a crater
also if we're even in a traditional elimination war again, I don't think fortifications strong enough to survive a modern warhead exists. if you have a value target that can't intercept an attacker, it's as good as gone.
That's actually a pre-Roman oppidum. Or in otherwords, a prehistoric man-made enclosure.
Have what as our enemy, delicious pizza and cookies plus a cool box fort to eat them under?
>Meteor the size of the moon crashes into earth
>What's the point of building cities to create civilization guize we're all gonna die anyways
Yeah nah cunt you're retarded
>>/sci/
>not sculpting the crater walls into an near impenetrable wall.
It's what I would do.