Quote:
Originally Posted by Panther Al
To a point yes: But even then, large fragments will fly out.
Its not the fragmentation though that makes masonry fortifications a bad idea - unless you put a lot of rebar and the like in it - Its the fact that unlike earth, its relatively brittle. The 'shatter' effect of direct fire HE on stone/concrete/brick is amazing. But, Earth is more, for lack of a better word, flexible. Of course, you have to take the fact that foot for foot it isn't as good as masonry into consideration when deciding how thick and how high it goes, but it is in the modern world, overall better than old fashioned works.
Its the addition of Rebar - and lots of it - that changes the equation once again. Now we have a 'binder' of sorts that, although HE will shatter the concrete, the rebar density is to the point that it will keep the wall in shape for far longer. Tiergarten is a very good example: it was so laced with rebar and such that it survived everything the soviets could through at it - and like every other flak tower of berlin, none was taken by storm. Even direct fire at almost point blank range by 203mm artillery pieces didn't faze them.
|
The Flak towers in Berlin are reinforced concrete. The Pre-WW1 forts were masonry or masonry over stone/concrete because the brick essentially absorbed a bullet or a shell burrowed into it. No ricochets.
Building with masonry was and is more expensive than pouring concrete.
Even with explosives, when an explosive detonates the shearing forces turn the surrounding brick facade into a crater and the path of least resistance is away from the wall.
Enjoy this video by the U.S Marine Corps.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...30260633420235