Concrete buildings VS medieval siege tactics. How effective

Modern, unreinforced concrete is more vulnerable to medieval siege weapons than old the old stone fortifications intended to resist said siege weapons. Catapults and trebuchets would fuck a concrete building up. Concrete's advantage is how easy it is to work with, you can make a complicated structure far more quickly than old stonemasonry. As in, the besiegers could breach your concrete wall only to find that while they did that you put up a second wall behind the first.

As for ballistae, didn't the Romans use them like big fuckoffish sniper rifles?
>See that Frankish commander over there wearing what looks to be Septimus' skin?
>Fuck him, and the three guys in front of, and behind him.

Depends if you mean ordinary apartment or specialy made military installation. Ordinary apartments will get breeched but 3m thick walls bunkers will survive long enaugh.

File: israel_wall_tower_2_ufnlj_3868_V6mAm_19672.jpg (11KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 480x360px

>>31893543

Yeah, I was thinking along the lines of military-grade steel-wireframe reinforced city walls. The kind what you see on old coastal bunkers.

or maybe in that wall that Israelis did on palestinian lands.

>>31893514
Thought I should clarify, as long as the medieval fortification is thick enough for its own structural integrity, its going to be stronger than an equivalent thickness of concrete. Medieval stonework has a much higher minimum thickness to be structurally sound, which is one advantage of Concrete. Concrete does thin walls far better.

Of course, medieval siege weapons will shred thin concrete walls like tissue paper, so the issue really just comes down to the question of how thick are your walls, and how quickly do you need to build them. Anything less than 1 meter thick is going to get breached relatively quickly, and since this thread was about buildings, its a moot point. Building is fucked.

File: coastal bunker.jpg (4MB, 3456x2304px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3456x2304px

>>31893607
Buildings meant for military use. With possibly this siege situation in mind.
We are talking this level of protection (pictured)

>>31893654
This is what happens when a dump truck hits a military grade concrete bunker. Are we to believe medieval siege weapons have more force than this?

>>31893784
>>31893654

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdVwhMGSscc

This.... is what happens.

File: great-wall-construction-small.jpg (88KB, 800x1100px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 800x1100px

>>31893784
Actually, around the same amount of force I guess?

Trebuchet shots were from 50 up to 100 kilos of hard stone (which, ulike the truck, WON'T bend and break on impact). I don't know how fast they flew, but 50 mph seems somewhat right?

The truck has a lot more mass, but it's also made from multiple different parts and much more malleable material. And it is also partially designed for crashes. I guess the engine block did most of the damage on that crash?

Yeah, I could see trebuchet/catapult stone having similiar effect. Would take multiple shots to break a wall, but it could be done with enough time.

ssoooo I guess i'd have an outer wall of hardened concrete, and then inner wall with steel frame filled with smaller stones and earth to suck the impact? and then the inner wall to keep it all together? like they did the great wall of china.

Concrete is brittle, and siege weapons were never a joke.
>>31893922
I ran a bit of napkin physics, and for a trebuchet to launch a projectile 300m, at a 45 degree angle, the projectile would have to travel at a minimum of 54 m/s, or 121 mph. Now consider that they generally launched at much shallower angles, meaning the minimum speed for covering that distance goes up drastically. 90kg is a good estimate for projectiles, so by f = ma we get 4879N of force, or 132 kilojoules of energy, at a bare minimum.

A couple trebuchets would crack a position like this, if you let them sit in place and pound away for an inordinate amount of time. Of course, that's only if you leave them alone to do their thing. A single guy with a rifle plinking at the trebuchet crew would be enough to break the siege.

Most modern residential buildings have windows.

I don't think those hold up well in medieval combat.

>>31894407
Meant to say that trebuchets would crack >>31893654 level of fortification if given enough time

File: door-blast-pour-in-place-cutout-800w.jpg (171KB, 800x1896px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 800x1896px

So even today's defensive engineering tech could not hold against a determined trebuchet?

Surprisingly effective weapons, those things. Provided, of course, that the other side doesn't have long-range weapons. A simple infantry mortar on the other side of the defensive wall would of course rain doom on anyone coming inside 2 km range.


...then how about modern steel doors (also meant for military use, like on bunker doorways) against some medieval battering rams?
Modern steel is pretty fucking sturdy, so I'd wager it might be easier to start breaking the walls rather than the door?

>>31894778
In general, modern steel would do a lot better than concrete. For instance, battleship style armor would likely neutralize medieval siege weapons entirely. As for battering rams, a lot of it depends on the setup of the door in relation to the doorway, the strength of the door doesn't matter the hinges or doorframe give way, so to speak. That said, a properly seated vault style door would completely shut down any battering ram attack.

>>31893444

>Glourious trebuche shooting at you.

or

>You're not surrendering.

You can choose only one, OP...

>>31893514
>Catapults
No such thing. This is vaporware.