Ranking of U.S. Presidents by historians

[antikristuseke]

I don't think 3-1 worked too well against interlocked machine gun fire.

[Sailor Steve]

The Civil War was the beginning of the end of another conception as well - that forts were unassailable by ships. The use of ironclad batteries by the British and French against Sevastapol in 1855 was the first time that floating weapons had been even possible against fortified positions, and by the 1860s there were finally floating weapons powerful enough to be effective against mortar and stone, and at ranges long enough that the fort's guns had difficulty hitting the ships.

It was the beginning of the end for coastal forts.

Very good point, Mr Steve.

[August]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

I don't think 3-1 worked too well against interlocked machine gun fire.

Machine guns are indeed force multipliers that would change whatever attacker/defender ratio there was beforehand, but so would any new weapon or tactic.

For example, interlocking machine gun fire was not effective at all against poison gas and MG fire was not as effective if aircraft are strafing and bombing their position keeping the crews heads down while the attacking troops advance across the kill zone.

Even changes in doctrine for existing weapons change the ratio. For another example: Pickets charge might have achieved it's objective if the rebels had been able to keep their artillery barrage going right up until the leading ranks reached the stone wall.