REQUIRED FOR THE ATTACK OF A MODERN FORTRESS. 
93 
Neglecting these last secondary requirements, clearly the primary, 
first mentioned, cannot be fulfilled at the same range, with maximum 
result, from the same description of ordnance, for while buildings, 
materiel and working’ parties, being covered by the works, can, for the 
most part, be reached only by high angle fire, the artillery upon the 
works may, more or less, be reached by direct fire.* 
Again, it is wasteful and particularly objectionable, on account of the 
labor of transport, to use heavier ammunition than necessary for the 
attainment of a particular object. 
Hence we are led to the conclusion, that the besieger must have the 
following ordnance for his first position, namely : 
I. For bombardment: — (a) for destruction of buildings, fbj for 
destruction of materiel, (cJ for destruction of men. 
II. For fighting the enemy’s artillery. 
III. For driving bach the enemy ivithin his worhs. 
IV. For repelling sorties. 
From what has already been said as to the distance of the first posi¬ 
tion, we may, for the present, lay down 5468 yards (5000m.) as the 
minimum range for ordnance of nature (a), when laid at that elevation 
which gives the greatest range, or at about 45° ;f at this distance the 
accuracy should be fair, so that, when the position of the object fired at 
is exactly known, it may be reached without undue expenditure of am¬ 
munition. As the destructive power of the piece depends upon the pene¬ 
tration and effect on bursting of its projectile, the weight and capacity 
of the latter must be a maximum, limited only by the strength of the 
former; this in turn is governed by the weight admissible for transport, 
which should not exceed 65 cwt.J 
But there will be parts of the first position from which shelters may 
be reached by curved fire and so destroyed more readily than by high 
angle fire, which latter they might be sufficiently strong to resist,|| 
therefore ordnance of nature (a) should be suited for this nature of fire. 
# Experiments have been carried out in Russia, 1875, at the suggestion of General 
Todleben, to ascertain the effect of placing the pieces of the defence some distance in rear 
of, instead of upon, the rampart, the results of which, however, appear inconclusive.—Revue 
d’Artillerie, January, 1877. Even if so placed, the pieces would be reached from the first 
position by direct fire. 
f When practicable, the penetration will naturally be increased by reducing the range 
and giving greater elevation. 
J See p. 109. Under difficulties of transport greater than ordinary, a lighter weight is 
desirable; for such exceptional purpose similar pieces of 55 cwts. might be used. See 
page 109, note. 
|| It is not to be expected that projectiles from the most powerful piece of this nature, 
which the besieger can place in position, will, with high angle fire, be effective against 
bomb proofs, for as the power of the besiegers ordnance is increased, so will the strength 
of the roofing be made to meet it. The results of German experiments and of the war of 
1870, demonstrated the inefficiency of the 21 c.m. rifled mortar, against the usual arched 
covering, and against blockhouses with roofs formed of double beams 9T9 ft in thickness, 
covered with a layer of concrete 2'08 ft. thick, and earth 3‘08 ft ; daring the siege of 
Paris, strong casemate arches, 29'5 in. thick, with an earthern covering of 
3P5in., were never penetrated by any projectile. (See Prussian Fortress and Siege 
Artillery, fourth part by Major H. Mfiller). At the Eastbourne experiments, 1874, shell 
from the 8 in. M.L.R. Howitzer failed to break through the roof of a splinter proof formed of 
