Clearly, the reason why the Gigachad defenders of Fort McKillBox were able to defend themselves while outnumbered 2000000:1 is because they were Gigachads of infinite martial prowess. Definitely not the fact that they possessed a tool that was expressly designed to allow small forces to resist larger ones. Nope.
InfusionOfYellow on
Effective fortification design and construction is the mark of chadliness, yes.
Femto-Griffith on
Well, there’s a reason why most of the time, attackers needed at least 2:1 often times 3:1 or higher numerical advantages to beat defenders in castles or other such fortifications.
PetrichorDude on
40:1 is ww2, whole other dimension, muh dude
KrokmaniakPL on
What makes it so amazing is that fortifications in Wizna weren’t finished. It was barely functional at best.
Antigonus96 on
I mean it’s still testimony to the effectiveness of the fortifications, and therefore impressive. Wars are usually won through superior logistics and planning, not individual moments of bravery.
Square-Competition48 on
There was a 5-1 without fortification at Crysler’s Farm
Dinosaurmaid on
who doenst love an staggering siege?
thehollisterman on
What you’re overlooking is that for a lot of those moments that are glorified. The defense was built for 5:1 or even 10:1 odds. Not the 40:1 that the story may be famous for
EatLard on
Dig a big ditch to channel the enemy into a tight space, and rain arrows down on them. If they’re really dumb, they’ll charge right into the ditch and crush each other.
Fuzlet on
_please! I’m so tired of glorifying the spartans! those people were absolute scumbags!_
Dry-Goat8981 on
I FUCKING LOVE WAGON FORTS
XxOniSamuraixX on
“Holy shit it actually worked”
FourFunnelFanatic on
r/HistoryMemes users try not to be smartasses and belittle people’s sacrifices for 5 seconds challenge (impossible). Especially when they are flat out wrong; not only were the fortifications at Wizna not designed to hold out for that long against those odds (which was actually greater than 40:1), it wasn’t even complete yet. Like, not even close. Only 16 of the 60 planned bunkers were ready by September of 1939. And of those, only six were heavy reinforced concrete bunkers; the next two were lighter bunkers and the other eight were just adhoc machine gun nests made from sandbags and soil. I don’t know what bullshit you’re trying to spin here, but try not to be so blatantly incorrect next time.
The_Madoff on
Force multipliers? In my historical narrative? It’s more likely than you think
Adorable_Champion_85 on
Context ?
Lazy_Vetra on
Tahir bin al-Husayn once took 4-5k troops to a place and started preparing to defend it but when the army of 40k got there instead of using the city he ordered his army out to fight on the fields. He believed the people of the city would turn on his army and so he couldnt stay in the city. He won the battle as the troops ran after the commander was killed, and Tahir followed from iran to iraq to begin his campaign. he battled 8-10 times as many troops and then followed into their lands to make war. where he faced another army much larger than his and he defeated them too without using defensive fortifications. the second army he beat is one of the best stories on how an army was defeated in all of history its insane
Thomsie13 on
The ratio between Germany and Brazil was 7:1
orderofGreenZombies on
“Designed to” is the key phrase there. Lots of things were designed to do “x” that ultimately failed to even come close to doing “x.”
Eladryel on
Fortifications were designed to stall or defeat larger forces – up to a point. While attackers needed a numerical advantage (3:1, 6:1, etc; it depends on many factors), fortifications weren’t cheat codes. If, according to general consensus, a fourfold superior force was needed at a given time, but a castle was defended against a twentyfold superior force, that was still fucking crazy.
21 Comments
Clearly, the reason why the Gigachad defenders of Fort McKillBox were able to defend themselves while outnumbered 2000000:1 is because they were Gigachads of infinite martial prowess. Definitely not the fact that they possessed a tool that was expressly designed to allow small forces to resist larger ones. Nope.
Effective fortification design and construction is the mark of chadliness, yes.
Well, there’s a reason why most of the time, attackers needed at least 2:1 often times 3:1 or higher numerical advantages to beat defenders in castles or other such fortifications.
40:1 is ww2, whole other dimension, muh dude
What makes it so amazing is that fortifications in Wizna weren’t finished. It was barely functional at best.
I mean it’s still testimony to the effectiveness of the fortifications, and therefore impressive. Wars are usually won through superior logistics and planning, not individual moments of bravery.
There was a 5-1 without fortification at Crysler’s Farm
who doenst love an staggering siege?
What you’re overlooking is that for a lot of those moments that are glorified. The defense was built for 5:1 or even 10:1 odds. Not the 40:1 that the story may be famous for
Dig a big ditch to channel the enemy into a tight space, and rain arrows down on them. If they’re really dumb, they’ll charge right into the ditch and crush each other.
_please! I’m so tired of glorifying the spartans! those people were absolute scumbags!_
I FUCKING LOVE WAGON FORTS
“Holy shit it actually worked”
r/HistoryMemes users try not to be smartasses and belittle people’s sacrifices for 5 seconds challenge (impossible). Especially when they are flat out wrong; not only were the fortifications at Wizna not designed to hold out for that long against those odds (which was actually greater than 40:1), it wasn’t even complete yet. Like, not even close. Only 16 of the 60 planned bunkers were ready by September of 1939. And of those, only six were heavy reinforced concrete bunkers; the next two were lighter bunkers and the other eight were just adhoc machine gun nests made from sandbags and soil. I don’t know what bullshit you’re trying to spin here, but try not to be so blatantly incorrect next time.
Force multipliers? In my historical narrative? It’s more likely than you think
Context ?
Tahir bin al-Husayn once took 4-5k troops to a place and started preparing to defend it but when the army of 40k got there instead of using the city he ordered his army out to fight on the fields. He believed the people of the city would turn on his army and so he couldnt stay in the city. He won the battle as the troops ran after the commander was killed, and Tahir followed from iran to iraq to begin his campaign. he battled 8-10 times as many troops and then followed into their lands to make war. where he faced another army much larger than his and he defeated them too without using defensive fortifications. the second army he beat is one of the best stories on how an army was defeated in all of history its insane
The ratio between Germany and Brazil was 7:1
“Designed to” is the key phrase there. Lots of things were designed to do “x” that ultimately failed to even come close to doing “x.”
Fortifications were designed to stall or defeat larger forces – up to a point. While attackers needed a numerical advantage (3:1, 6:1, etc; it depends on many factors), fortifications weren’t cheat codes. If, according to general consensus, a fourfold superior force was needed at a given time, but a castle was defended against a twentyfold superior force, that was still fucking crazy.
the [Battle of Wizna](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wizna) is peak fucking Polish badassery tho and i will not have it nor the Sabaton song about it slandered