Sarkasis
22-06-2005, 17:02
OK. Let's suppose we have pre-WW2 warfare: no nukes, no jets, no napalm, no carpet bombing.
How easy would it be to defend your country against an invasion (land and/or sea)? How do you combine the people's will with the landscape to create an efficient national defense system?
Let's take 3 European nations, for example, France, Spain and the UK.
France is very hard to defend. It has some natural borders, the Alps and Pyrenees mountains, which cover about half of the . But most of its land is flat and has no forests. Important cities are all exposed: Paris is in a large plain, Marseilles is an easy target and vulnerable to a blocade, Lyon and Toulouse are badly located in lowland (hello shelling!). In fact, anyone getting a foothold in Belgium or Normandy can take Paris in a few days of fighting.
Spain has a completely different territory, perfectly made for national defense. The Pyrenees separate Spain from the rest of the continent, and you just can't land in the north and advance south easily: too many mountains in the Asturies. While Barcelona would have vulnerabilities similar to Marseille's, at least Spain can establish fortresses in the Baleare islands. And Madrid, the capital, has been built at the geographic center of the country, surrounded by mountains. A natural fortress on high lands. Not easy to get there, not easy to shell it. The only problem is that it wouldn't be tough to occupy the south of the country, lock the Mediterranean entry (Gibraltar and Morocco), and then Spain would be "locked in the Atlantic" and quite isolated.
And how about the UK? Basically, if the enemy successfully lands, you're toast. Not that anyone has managed to do that for the last 900 years! But you really, really have to have the best navy. Because it would be insane to install efficient ground defenses. London, especially, which would be easy to shell from the southeast. And you could easy cut England in two, by pushing through the middle of the country at Leeds.
How about the US, Canada, Finland, Japan, Australia, and other countries now?
How easy would it be to defend your country against an invasion (land and/or sea)? How do you combine the people's will with the landscape to create an efficient national defense system?
Let's take 3 European nations, for example, France, Spain and the UK.
France is very hard to defend. It has some natural borders, the Alps and Pyrenees mountains, which cover about half of the . But most of its land is flat and has no forests. Important cities are all exposed: Paris is in a large plain, Marseilles is an easy target and vulnerable to a blocade, Lyon and Toulouse are badly located in lowland (hello shelling!). In fact, anyone getting a foothold in Belgium or Normandy can take Paris in a few days of fighting.
Spain has a completely different territory, perfectly made for national defense. The Pyrenees separate Spain from the rest of the continent, and you just can't land in the north and advance south easily: too many mountains in the Asturies. While Barcelona would have vulnerabilities similar to Marseille's, at least Spain can establish fortresses in the Baleare islands. And Madrid, the capital, has been built at the geographic center of the country, surrounded by mountains. A natural fortress on high lands. Not easy to get there, not easy to shell it. The only problem is that it wouldn't be tough to occupy the south of the country, lock the Mediterranean entry (Gibraltar and Morocco), and then Spain would be "locked in the Atlantic" and quite isolated.
And how about the UK? Basically, if the enemy successfully lands, you're toast. Not that anyone has managed to do that for the last 900 years! But you really, really have to have the best navy. Because it would be insane to install efficient ground defenses. London, especially, which would be easy to shell from the southeast. And you could easy cut England in two, by pushing through the middle of the country at Leeds.
How about the US, Canada, Finland, Japan, Australia, and other countries now?