This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1893 Excerpt: ...to act at long ranges, dispersing and concealing it, as far as possible, in the intervals between the works. It seems doubtful whether the proposition that artillery can no longer remain behind existing parapets is admitted in its integrity. If it were, either all the guns, without exception, would be removed from existing forts, or there would be an extensive provision made of-armoured defences, turrets, or cupolas. Neither of these alternatives appears to have been adopted. Cupolas are used, but not to the extent of armouring all the guns in a work, while the entire removal of guns from existing forts is. a practical impossibility, since their sites have been chosen with a view to the efficient action of the artillery to be placed in them. However, large purchases of cupolas have been made, but these are more especially of those of small dimensions used for quick-firing guns. 678. A great deal has been done in the way of strengthening casemate and magazine roofs, with cement concrete, or even with iron in special cases. The intervals between tbe forts would be organised in a similar manner to that laid down for an English fortress in Chapter IV, Section 11. Quantities of light railways are kept in store in fortresses, which would be of great use in preparing to resist a siege. 679. As has already been said, the new systems of defence proposed by Continental writers are very numerous. Almost all, nowever, appear to be chiefly guided by the three following considerations: that works should be as little visible as Eossible; that cement concrete cannot be seriously injured by igh-angle fire, either with shells or obus-torpilles; that guns in cupolas will outlast a great deal of hammering, even if they may at last succumb. One author has the courage of his con...