Learning how to establish defensive relationships between detached
field works can be a very difficult thing even if the conjoined principles
of mutual defense and the flanked disposition are easy enough to grasp given
a moment's silent reflection. Continuous lines of field works were considered,
before the American Civil War, to have a tendency to inhibit an army's ability,
if not necessarily its willingness, to suddenly and fortuitously jump from
a strictly passive defense of a fortified position to attack the attackers
when those poor souls had spent their limited energy vainly bashing themselves
against a strong line of field works. To conduct an attack troops were considered
to require more or less even ground that would allow them to advance rapidly
and maintain their delicate formations; certainly passing over a parapet
eight feet tall and crossing a ditch six or ten feet deep and 10 or twelve
feet wide would, of course, prevent any offensive action at all. Armies capable
of something more than pure passivity, but still so weak that they required
the extra strength and confidence instilled by the protection of field works
the best answer was to leave gaps in their entrenched lines that would permit
troops to sally out when needed to complete the defeat of an attacking army.
If this explains the need for the development of entrenched lines with intervals
between field works, it hardly explains the complexities involved in theoretical
tracings of lines with intervals in which the various detached field work
composing a line are all neatly arranged to both illuminate and drain every
last ounce of benefit out of the principle of the flanked disposition.
|