Attack of Fortified Places. Including Siege-works, Mining, and Demolitions.: Prepared for the use of the Cadets of the United States Military AcademyMercur, James
History
Attack of Fortified Places. Including Siege-works, Mining, and Demolitions.: Prepared for the use of the Cadets of the United States Military Academy
Mercur, James
Defensive (Military science); Military engineering; Offensive (Military science); Siege warfare
=21.= When, in the close attack of the work, the besiegers are
subject to vertical fire from small mortars, better overhead cover must
be obtained by bomb-proofs, constructed by deepening the trench, using
stronger beams, and a greater thickness of earth. Twelve-inch timbers
laid touching each other, with spans of 5 feet and 5 feet of earth
cover, have been considered sufficient; but with the improvement of
high-angle fire and the use of high-explosive shells greater protection
will be needed in the future. Experimental data for fixing the amount
is not now available; an approximate thickness of earth cover may be
computed as indicated below.
The mining effect of dynamite in common earth is something less than
twice that of an equal weight of gunpowder. (See Military Mining, Arts.
13 and 14.)
An explosive enclosed in a strong case, however, expends a part of
the energy due to explosion in rupturing this case. The stronger the
explosive the less will be the percentage of the total energy required
for breaking the case, and the greater the percentage remaining for
performing other work. For this reason equal weights of high explosives
and of gunpowder enclosed in strong shells will not produce the same
relative effects in forming craters, &c., that they would if contained
in paper cases. The effect of the high explosive is relatively much
greater when contained in a strong shell. Experiments made at Fort
Hamilton, 1890-91, with 8-inch shells loaded with explosive gelatine,
showed this explosive to have between 4 and 5 times the effect of
gunpowder, while in paper cases the relative effects were as 1.7 to
1.0. (See Report of Board of Ordnance and Fortification, Ex. Doc. No.
12, 52d Congress, 1st Session, January 5th, 1892.)
Since the mining effects of the charges contained in shells are,
however, less than when packed in thin cases, the thickness of cover
determined by the use of the usual mining formulas should err on the
side of safety.
Knowing the charge contained in shells to be fired against a
bomb-proof, and their probable penetration, the formulas given in Arts.
7 to 12, Military Mining, may be used for finding equivalent common
mines and radii of rupture for dynamite and explosive gelatine by
substituting in them 1/17 for 1/10.
The values given in Art. 11 will probably be sufficiently accurate for
the radii of rupture. The cover given in the direction of the fire must
be greater than the sum of the penetration and the radius of rupture.
When the penetration is equal to or greater than twice the L. L. R. of
an equivalent common mine a camouflet will probably be formed, whose
radius of rupture, from the formulas, will be equal in all directions
and may be assumed as ⅕ of the L. L. R. of the equivalent common mine.
In this connection, see par. 61, p. 58.
SAPPING.
=22.= When the trenches have been carried so near the work that
the simple or flying trench cannot be used without undue loss, recourse
must be had to the _sap_.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account