Camouflaged Military Bunkers of Switzerland (2015)
amusingplanet.com
amusingplanet.com
Edit: BTW that the entrance of the 5-Star:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/Me...
The plate is for making fun of new recruits because it's the opposite of a "5-Star" and for sure not a "Hotel"
The article confuses this, as there were some plans in actually deconstructing them which however turned out to be too expensive. So virtually all of these bunkers were indeed decommissioned and most also declassified in the last 10 years (some turned into a museum e.g. a WWII bunker https://www.crestawald.ch/). Others, such as the Castello mentioned by /u/nix23 are used as temporary barracks for troops, but don't have an actual defensive function any more.
>Others, such as the Castello mentioned by /u/nix23 are used as temporary barracks for troops, but don't have an actual defensive function any more.
But temporary is not quite right when it's used for then first 10 weeks of recruiting school ;)
Before viewing the picture, I was thinking they had hidden a whole base in a fake Four Seasons building in Zurich or something like that. After all the other camouflage, I wouldn't have put it past them.
The Tim Traveller did a wonderful video on those a few months ago [2].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toblerone_line
[2][video]: https://youtu.be/tPL9-L2gwzo
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Gotthard...
From here you can see three really small parts of a Bunker/Fortress (a supermassive one, probably the biggest in switzerland) ~quite clear.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holzbr%C3%BCcke_Bad_S%C3%A4cki...
Fun detail: Those can just be detonated with a "encoded" metal-plate.
They look a bit like that:
https://img.luzernerzeitung.ch/2018/4/14/5f68fda6-34ec-4375-...
Glad I only heared about this now and not back when I was driving over these regularly...
EDIT: The first ignition (the one in the plate) is manually fired often hundreds of meters away thru a fuse-cord, but you can "in theory" automatize it (trip wire or other technique's) witch is absolutely illegal, same with claymore's...they just have holes in the splinter to safe some weight ;)
BTW: DON'T try to open those sewer covers, you WILL have big problems in a matter of minutes.
There were even more interesting things like the new Elbtunnel in Hamburg having massive blocks of concrete above all entrances. The girders holding those blocks were intended to be cut by explosive charges drop the blocks, blocking the tunnel.
Bridges crossing major rivers as far west as the Rhine river as well.
Also, the original strategic plan for NATO against a soviet attack was defense in depth, so I think all NATO countries in Western Europe prepared for the need to destroy infrastructure. The Netherlands had plans to flood large parts of the country, for example. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IJssel_Line, not just Germany, and not just near the border with Eastern Europe.
And of course, there was a nuclear backup plan in case infrastructure couldn’t be destroyed before the enemy took it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Muni....
Considering what a rough time the US (and Russia) has had in Afghanistan, I suspect they'd still be fairly effective.
I was wondering, how useful are ancient castles in modern battles? Armchair generals all over the planet kept prattling about them being useless because modern weaponry is awesome and all...
Then I went to look properly:
1. Kerak de Chevaliers, yes, that one crusader castle, was occupied during the Syrian war, and gave a hard time to the enemy outside, the castle worked exactly as intended, even with modern weapons.
2. Ditto to a bunch of other castles in some past wars.
3. A fortified monastery gave enemies a hard time in WW2 in Italy, I forgot its name now.
4. Not exactly "ancient castle", but a "star fort" in France was captured in the opening days of Battle of Verdun, in part because the french leadership believed castles to be outdated and didn't garrisoned it properly... the result was that the attempts to retake the fort resulted in 100.000 casualties on the French side before they succeeded.
5. Also in Verdun there was a smaller fort, the commander of that fort was old and the military ordered him to retire for medical reasons, he refused and basically "kept" the fort as his own, with a small garrison, the old guy and his small garrison fought fiercely against the invading Germans and caused 3000 casualties to the Germans before they lost.
Monte Cassino?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino#/media...
"On 15 February American bombers dropped 1,400 tons of high explosives, creating widespread damage.[6] The raid failed to achieve its objective, as German paratroopers then occupied the rubble and established excellent defensive positions amid the ruins. "
It binds ressources. Lots of them. You even write "slowly". Meaning fortification is still effective.
While the enemy artillery is busy bombing stone, your troops can attack other targets from from other angles.
It didn't matter, the Monte Cassino was a meat grinder for the Allies.
Anyway, why dredge WWII era stuff? The US got spanked in Afghanistan by an irregular militia with bolt action rifles. And their tactic is simple as it is brilliant - negate the advantage of air raids by fighting as close to the enemy as possible.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Nad-e-+Ali,+Afghanistan/@3...
The same tactic was used to good effect, by the Viet Cong.
To the Germans' credit, they offered not to take the monastery as a position if the Allies wouldn't bomb it. They only took the advantageous positions after it'd been reduced to ruble.
The Germans also helped evacuate as much of the stuff inside as possible, moving it to the Vatican, where the monks trusted the Germans wouldn't steal the stuff. To further trust amongst the locals and monks, a monk accompanied every truck to the Vatican. As a result most of the library was saved.
Monte Cassino is one of the (many) examples of Allied war crimes and one of the (very) few examples of German honor in WWII.
But given your name, you might see things differently.
The reason almost any above ground strongholds still hold up today is that they're packed with civilians, not because their walls are that strong.
Same for some other castles in Syria from my research out of curiosity.
But I assume that people wanted to take the castles, not turn them into a parking lot... if you can nuke or throw MOAB into them, then it is obviously another matter entirely.
This ancient fortification was the only thing the Syrian army held in the city for months, if not years. It functioned exactly as an ancient fortress did - providing high ground, spotting enemy movement, safety of supplies, etc.
Another recent example is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Donetsk_Airpo...
This was NOT fortified, but allowed concealment, and was held through heavy bombardment, offering a tactical advantage.
Yes, US/Russia/China could pound it into the ground, but that takes a LOT of ordinance.
Btw, WW II is FULL of these examples.
I think the misconception comes from the fact that "modern weapons" - jets, radars, comm sites, missiles, etc cant be "secured" in these facilities. This is true. But that doesn't mean they can't be held through heavy bombardment and house mortars, snipers, ATGMs, small supply caches, etc.
That was the whole plan in WW2, take the army back to the mountains leave the city's and flatland to the enemy, then start Guerilla warfare and protect the big Mountain Fortresses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Redoubt_(Switzerland)
In other words, I think the Swiss wanted to tilt the cost/benefit calculation for invaders, not only by increasing the cost, but also by reducing the benefit.
(Much the same game-plan seems not to have worked for Afghanistan, though. High cost, zero benefit, lots of invasions.)
And that worked, as for sure germany did not wanted a neutral power in the middle of their empire, but due to cost/benefit the plan of invading was always pushed back till the war was over.
So this was also the plan for a potential cold war escalation.
That and they only have about 25 aircraft that could realistically do any good air defense work.
The idea that the US would struggle against Switzerland is predicated on them not doing that, because they would've had to found a reason to invade in the first place.
The idea is that the USA (or any other power) would struggle to occupy Switzerland, not to obliterate it from the face of the Earth. No country could defend against that, not even the USA.
The whole point of the Swiss defense system is to make the country much more difficult and costly to invade, occupy and control than it could possibly be worth to an attacker, even if such a goal was eventually achievable. In this, history has proven them successful.
There's good reason to assume that similar projects still exist.
There is lots of massive stone protecting them after all, you have to blast through. Which can be done, but is still a massive effort.
Unless you really know (and guard) all the exits and control the surface, how could modern tech render them useless?
For primitive caves(targeting Taliban), I believe there was a weapon developed where shockwave (and gas?) would kill anyone inside, but if you have multiple blast doors and air filtration inside, you still have to cut or blast your way inside.
And fighting in an enemy underground network is not something any soldier would look forward to.
So I guess the modern way to take the swiss bunkers out, would be
a) really scout them out
b) target critical infrastructure (bunker breaking bombs)
c) destroy all the exits
or
d) infiltration with commando troops
or
e) blow up the whole mountain
Would make a great backdrop to a Wes Anderson film
It provides cool pictures such as the ones posted here and some nice stories, but apart from that - the billions currently going to the army could be used so much better.
https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Du...
I agree that a bottomless barrel of funding is the wrong approach and they should get it together
As Switzerland's strategic reserve, the army has a broad array of tasks, ranging from support in low threat levels (current example: preparing for the storage and distribution of Covid vaccines), supporting the police (example: World Economic Forum) to high threat levels (where tanks and artillery are needed, so this is also being trained for).
In the end, the Swiss Army is the Swiss Army knife for Switzerland's national security. Articles like this one that talk about defunct bunkers that were built for a very specific cold war scenario (but again: are now decommissioned) naturally don't really help.
Furthermore, the 'bottomless barrel' also completely misses the mark, as Switzerland's military expenditure is very low (around 0.7% of the GDP, NATO benchmark is around 2% for comparison).
- policing the skies
- radar tech
As for policing, I'm quite sure many swiss would prefer to have 2-3 high-speed unarmed exploratory planes instead. Wanna shoot down the offender? Just a single missile base in the center of the country would do the trick more efficienty and for cheap. As for radar tech, we could most certainly have a better and cheaper solution adapted to our country by just asking for it at ETHZ or EPFL. We are not Russia or the USA. Our country is minuscule.
Just remembering the recent scandals with the israeli drones and the useless command software that cost tens of millions while we have degrading education, postal and healthcare systems makes me furious. And I'm far from the only one.
Fuck the army.
What could go wrong?
Now what could go wrong with limitless military spending, you might ask? Easy: it's called "the USA". I've been there, and I don't want to go back.
This is laughable. Swiss armed forces have their justification in policing or counterterrorism. Not defense against actual whole armies.
I'd rather have good hospitals and schools, thank you very much.
And so are your airbases, and aircrafts on "blind" patrol to low observable, ground hugging targets.
And this is where we differ - I think _your_ opinion is outdated ;) The services that you listed mostly do not require an "army", what exactly is camouflage gear & combat training good for with regards to helping with covid-related tasks (or any other "Katastrophenhilfe"-related endeavour)?
The "Swiss army knife" metaphor is exactly what I so despise about the Swiss army; it's their excuse for essentially being an eternal "Pfadilager" for adults. Actual participation in conflicts mentioned by GP aren't an option anyway thanks to Switzerland's neutrality.
Luckily, it seems the trend is clearly in my opinion's favor, as was evident once again with the results of the last referendum on fighter jets - the pro-army-folks are a dying breed, it is just a matter of time until the 'Wehrpflicht' is finally abolished (I estimate it takes another ~20 years or so until the cold war era generation starts to become a minority), and when that happens, it's just a matter of time until the rest of the army gets to boot too, as all the nostalgia-driven sentiments towards it will not exist anymore (currently, put 10 Swiss men in a room, and it will take at most half an hour until their army experience becomes a topic).
And you know what? It'll be for the better of the world, and Switzerland especially. Finally, we will be able to say "We do not participate in this barbarian head smashing anymore, we're civilized folks"; someone needs to make the start and Switzerland is in the best position to do so. We're already not participating anyway; but we're still training generation after generation to do so; and this needs to stop eventually. My hope is that this will be the case in the next 20-30 years or so, I wouldn't mind if it was earlier ;)
I am not Swiss so my opinion might not matter to you but I would say that there are many skills that are taught with military service that help out in other circumstances. Organization, mindfulness and the ability to give and receive orders.
>currently, put 10 Swiss men in a room, and it will take at >most half an hour until their army experience becomes a >topic
What is wrong with having something that is common across generations and backgrounds that allows people to connect with each other?
In my opinion we should train people to have many skills or better put:
>A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an >invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, >write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, >comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act >alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch >manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight >efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. > >-Robert A. Heinlein
This quote is so out of date, really. Humanity progressed so far just in the last couple of decades, but we're still supposed to prepare ourselves to smash each others heads in like we're some brutish barbarians? At some point, we should start acting like civilized adults and solve our conflicts by discussion, not by smashing each others head in.
The things you mentioned with regards to skills and such - you're right, but you don't need to have training on the weapon and such. The army teaches you ultimately death and destruction; everything else is just a means to that end. After all, if it truly were about the skills you mentioned, we could just have an obligatory boy scout camp instead and learn all the stuff without the barbaric parts, no?
But I do agree with you on the point that the training does not need to be with weapons, I would rather have some sort of mandatory Civilian Conservation Corp program than military service program.
Being Swiss, and having served in the army, I have a less optimistic view of its value. In particular, the professional officers it attracted tended to be mediocre at best.
> Organization, mindfulness
Armies in general have poor cost control, and an army at perpetual peace has even fewer repercussions to fear, so there is virtually no accountability. Your workforce can't quit because it's drafted, parliament sometimes gives you a higher budget than you asked for, because reasons, and you perennially plan for fictional wars that thankfully you never have to fight.
> and the ability to give and receive orders.
It's easy to give orders if your workforce can't quit and goes to prison if they don't follow the orders.
> What is wrong with having something that is common across generations and backgrounds that allows people to connect with each other?
This aspect, that (mostly) men of all backgrounds served together, was maybe the one positive thing about the army. But nowadays, a smaller part of each generation serves, so that seems to go away as well. And it should be possible to implement a common service for other purposes than an army.
"die Logistikbasis der Armee hätte ihn darüber informieren können, denn trotz ihren Informatik-Problemen hat sie den Bestand an M-113 und M-109 säuberlich registriert, wie mehrere Stellen im Verteidigungsdepartement betonen.
And that 2 weapons bunkers have exploded, 1 annihilating a village. Well, half of it exploded, and the other half is a ticking time bomb: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/mitholz--life-in-the-shadow-of-...
[1] - https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-villagers-face-10-year-ev...
Many of my older neighbors said pre-1990, these bunkers were used in a drill and everyone realized how cramped things were; I believe they've been retrofit for far less occupants now.
But are those real goats or decoy goats?
Unfortunately, my first though upon seeing military installations camouflaged as cabins, barns, homes - that gives an invading enemy a good excuse to target civilian structures...
> Conventional IHL (international humanitarian law), then, indicates that at least one form of disguising a military object as a civilian object—camouflage—is a permissible ruse of war, not a prohibited act of perfidy.
— Why didn't you tell the world, EH?
— It was to be announced at the P/a/r/t/y/ C/o/n/g/r/e/s/s/ Federal Council presser on Monday. As you know, the P/r/e/m/i/e/r/ President loves surprises.
(as far as kleptocrats hiding loot in banks goes, I believe currently the New World, especially states such as Montana, are better tax-havens than we are.)
Seems like the military is more for show than anything else at this point. I can’t imagine a populace living some of the most privileged European/western lives possible would have the stomach for its populace taking heavy casualties in any form of conflict.
The terrain is seemingly still their best advantage, but with modern air power this feels more like some sort of historical LARP the Swiss are proud of more than a force that would really achieve anything.
The other thing he argues that people overestimate is the effectiveness of hugely powerful weapons and technology. They generally don't degrade civilian morale enough to get them to surrender, and well prepared defensive positions are incredibly hard to render defenseless, even with modern weapons and seriously destructive bombing.
I don't think that it's necessary at the moment, but these decisions are a risk/reward thing, and I think the Swiss are prepared enough to make the pain of invading Switzerland outweigh the relatively small gain.
Maybe a stupid question, I understand that with Swiss Conscription this is perhaps common knowledge for a large chunk of the Swiss population. Nevertheless is this really public knowledge? As in, should you really be disclosing how bunker ventilation operates, and the additional protection mechanisms etc.?
No problem, even civil bunkers works like that, you can make tours and even buy some. However there are some bunkers which are used as "control-centers" and those locations are kind of ~secret, but then again i'm really sure that Russia and the US already know much more about them as i do.
That's a typical over-pressure vent (seen from the inside):
http://www.bochumer-bunker.de/Spellna2.jpg
And a filter-system for civil use (with hand-crank in case of power-outage):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/Fi...
And one for big Bunkers/Fortresses:
http://www.vorbei-ev.de/wwwa/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/bunk...
Hint for recruits/active military: In military bunkers the outlets are also very important so that the "enemy" cannot smell your kitchen or see the warm air (infrared), which makes it a excellent place to smoke some green stuff ;)
Are they usually dressed with curtains? Any nice patterns? I am particular fond of flowers.