Onetap1 t1_irsz76m wrote
No, metal was too expensive. Having a metal pot was a status symbol, like having a Mercedes now.
Trebuchets and cannons weren't accurate, it would take days or weeks of bombardment to breach the walls of a masonry fort.
All that changed at Fort Pulaski in 1862. The new rifled cannons were accurate enough to hit the fort at the same point repeatedly. The walls were breached within 30 hours, the fort surrendered (very sensible). Masonry forts became obsolete.
HDH2506 OP t1_irx095d wrote
If a metal pot was a status symbol, what would a 10 ton cauldron be?
Onetap1 t1_irxaeqc wrote
A Bugatti, an heirloom.
MeSmeshFruit t1_isl3he3 wrote
Not quite...
Onetap1 t1_isngh58 wrote
Yes, quite.
Pulaski was under direct, line-of-sight, fire with rifled artillery, which was the big game changer. There was no accurate counter battery fire from the fort, they didn't have rifled artillery.
The Prezmy fort could not be engaged with direct fire because of the earthworks, trenches and barbed wire defending it. You could lob shells at it with howitzers and mortars, from behind earthworks, but they're nowhere near as accurate. If you breach the walls, you can't easily assault it because of the earthworks, barbed wire, trenches, machine guns, etc.. The defenders would be mostly underground, no-one would be relying on a masonry fort for protection from artillery.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments