The strategic rationale behind the Third System was logical and sound. Totten 
argued against those who favored spending everything on naval forces with 
simple math - if there were 6 ports to defend and we were to rely on naval 
force alone, we would have to have a navy six times larger than the British, 
who could send their entire force against any one of those targets from Boston 
to New Orleans. If the harbors were to be defended by naval forces alone, the 
enemy could simply intercept shipping offshore. If the navy went out to defend 
shipping, our ports would be left undefended. We could not attack British 
ports, because they were defended by fortifications, which had the advantage 
in an artillery exchange.

Military technology is always about an arms race. You armor the humvee's, they 
come up with better IED's. That doesn't mean we give up on defenses. You just 
build the next round of better armored vehicles and enjoy the advantage while 
you have it.

The third system adapted, too. While concentrated firepower was an advantage 
earlier in the 19th century, later on rifled artillery increased gun range and 
accuracy to the point where large forts were an easy target. So in response, 
land-based artillery was dispersed over wider areas, making them more 
difficult to target. In the Endicott era, if I have my history right, a couple 
of large guns were all that was needed to defend a port that in earlier times 
had to be defended by dozens of smaller ones. The fort as a target was no 
longer a big issue, as artillery exchanges would be expected to occur across 
miles of open ocean.

Edison Coatings, Inc.
Michael P. Edison
President
3 Northwest Drive
Plainville, CT 06062
Phone: (860) 747-2220 or (800)697-8055
Fax: (860)747-2280 or (800) 697-8044
Internet: www.edisoncoatings.com
          www.rosendalecement.net
E-Mail: [log in to unmask]


> "Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man"
> 
> 
> I am not saying that the third system forts were useless. 

> "The appearance of the ironclad warship armed with heavy guns brought 
> with it a need for the investment of large sums of money in the 
> defense of harbours and naval bases

the 
> conjecture is solely on my part as to the relationship between the 
> technology of the third system fortifications (which provides a more 
> universal context for the development of natural cement mortars as 
> being in part a war industry) and the tendency of the strategy of war 
> to outdistance our applied technologies. In this sense I wonder to 
> what extent as a capital investment comparisons can be made between 
> the third system fortification and Star Wars, or to the current cost 
> of implementing democracy in Iraq? 

> > The third system forts did a great job in my book. We learned a hard 
> > lesson during 1812. After the incorporation of the third system how 
> > many foreign invasions did we have? Zilch.
> 
>

--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>