The American Civil War showed the power of rifles behind slight
defences. Plevna in 1877 taught a further lesson. It proved the great
resisting power of extemporized lines; but more than that, we begin to
find new arrangements for protection against shell fire (see plans and
sections in Greene's _The Russian Army and its Campaign in Turkey_). The
trace of the works and the sections of parapet and ditch suggest Torres
Vedras; but a multiplication of interior traverses and splinter-proof
shelters show the necessity for a different class of protection. The
parapet was designed according to the old type, for want of a better;
the traverses and shelters were added later, to meet the necessities of
the case. The Turks also used two or three tiers of musketry fire, as
for instance one from the crest of the glacis, one from the parapet, and
one from a traverse in rear of it. This, however, is a development which
will not be necessary in future, thanks to magazine rifles.
Principles of modern field defences.
From 1877 to 1899 the efficiency of rifles and guns rapidly increased,
and certain new principles, causing the field defences of the present
day to differ radically from those of the 18th century, remained to be
developed. These may be considered under the following heads: the nature
of protection required, the diminished need of obstacle, and the
adaptation of works to ground.
The principle that _thickness_ of parapet is no longer required, to
resist artillery fire, was first laid down at Chatham in 1896. The
distance at which guns now engage makes direct hits on parapets
comparatively rare. Further, a shell striking near the crest of a
parapet may perhaps kill one man if he is in the way, and displace a
bushel of earth. That is nothing. It is the contents of the shell,
whether shrapnel or explosive, that is the source of danger and not the
shell itself. Thus the enemy's object is to burst his common shell
immediately behind the parapet, or his shrapnel a short distance in
front of it, in order to get searching effect. It follows that a parapet
is thick enough if it suffices to stop rifle bullets, since the same
thickness will _a fortiori_ keep out shrapnel bullets or splinters of
shell. For this purpose 3 ft. is enough.
Real protection is gained by a trench close in rear of the parapet, deep
enough to give shelter from high angle shrapnel, and narrow enough to
minimize the chance of a common shell dropping into it. This protection
is increased by frequent traverses across the trench.
The most essential point of all is _concealment_. In gaining this we say
good-bye finally to the old type of work. Protection is now given by the
trench rather than the parapet; command and the ditch-obstacle (which
furnished the earth for the high parapet) are alike unnecessary.
Concealment can therefore be studied by keeping the parapet down to the
lowest level above the surface from which the foreground can be seen.
This may be 18 in. or less.
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