Examples of (a) are Paris, Antwerp, Lyons, Verdun. Again for (a) and
(b), as is pointed out by Plessix and Legrand, Metz in the hands of the
Germans may serve both as a base of supplies and a _point d'appui_ for
one flank. Strassburg is a bridge-head giving the Germans a secure
retreat across the Rhine if beaten in the plains of Alsace, and an
opportunity of resuming the offensive when they have re-formed behind
the river.
[Illustration: From Plessix and Legrand's _Manuel complet de la
fortification_, by permission.
FIG. 46.--St Quentin position, Metz.]
The ring of detached forts.
The distance of detached forts from the place depends on the range of
the siege artillery and the distance at which it can usually be
established from the forts, and is variously given by different
continental writers at from 4 to 9 km. (4500 to 10,000 yds.). The
bombarding range of siege howitzers with heavy shells is considered to
be about 8000 yds., and if it is possible for them to be emplaced within
say 2000 yds. of the forts, this would give a minimum distance of 6000
yds. from the forts to the body of the place. Some writers extend the
minimum distance to 7 km., or nearly 8000 yds. In practice, however, it
must happen that the position of the forts is determined to a very large
extent by the lie of the ground. Thus some good positions for forts may
be found within 4000 or 5000 yds. of the place, and no others suitable
on the same front within 15,000 yds. In that case the question of
expense might necessitate choosing the nearer positions. Some examples
of the actual distances of existing forts have already been given.
Others, more recent, are, at Bucharest 7-10 km., Lyons 8-10(1/2),
Copenhagen 7-8 and Paris 14-17. _Strategic pivots_ are in a different
category from other fortresses. While not necessarily protected from
bombardment, they may yet have one or two forts thrown out from 9 to 12
km., to get advantage of ground. Such are Langres, Epinal and Belfort.
_The Enceinte._--The desirability of this is almost universally
allowed; but often it is more as a concession to tradition than for
any solid reason. The idea is that behind the line of forts, which is
the main defensive position, any favourable points that exist should
be provisionally fortified to assist in a "step-by-step" defence: and
behind these again the body of the place should be surrounded by a
last line of defence, so that the garrison may resist to the last
moment. It may be remarked that apart from the additional expense of
an enceinte, such a position would not, under modern conditions, be
the most favourable for the last stages of a defence. Again, there is
the difficulty that it is practically impossible to shut in a large
modern town by a continuous enceinte. It has been proposed to
construct the enceinte in sections in front of the salient portions of
the place. This system of course abandons several of the chief
advantages claimed for an enceinte.
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account