The comparative merits of either design for an infantry redoubt are not
of much importance. It is agreed that the main line of defence must
consist of a more or less continuous line of field defences and
obstacles, and that at some points in the line there should be infantry
supporting points with bomb-proof protection capable of resisting big
shells. The open question is, what additional works, if any, are
required for the artillery, whether for the medium and heavy guns that
will take part in the "artillery duel," or for the lighter natures that
will help in the close fight and defence of the intervals. Is it best
for the defenders to rely on armoured protection or on concealment for
his guns?
Opposing views as to armour, gun positions, &c.
Official opinion outside England has certainly sanctioned armour, since
all over the continent it is to some extent adopted in practice.
National practice is usually based on the advice of the most
distinguished officers of the day, and therefore it is unsafe to condemn
it hastily. Sir George Clarke and those who are with him--and they are
many, both in Great Britain and abroad--object entirely to armour. He
says (_Fortification_, ed. 1907, p. 96): "The great advantage possessed
by the attack in all ages has been the employment of a mobile artillery
against armaments cribbed, cabined and confined by fortification. It is
necessary to perpetuate this advantage?" Of course the effect of
long-range weapons, in increasing the length of front that can be held
by a given force, has given much greater freedom of action to the
defence and this should be taken full advantage of.
[Illustration: From Schroeter's _Die Festung in der heutigen
Kriegfuhrung_, by permission of E.S. Mittler u. Sohn.