| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fortification article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This  level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Any German speakers looking to work on our fortification articles might like to look at some of the pretty good German Wikipedia articles on fortification linked from de:Fachbegriffe Festungsbau and category de:Kategorie:Befestigungsanlage. Securiger 13:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The following lines are confusing and since I'm not clear what they are trying to say I can't edit them. I'm flagging this as needing cleanup in the hopes that someone more knowledgable can take a look at it.
"Star forts of the cannon era did not fare well against the effects of high explosive, and the intricate arrangements of bastions, flanking batteries and the carefully constructed lines of fire for the defending cannon could be rapidly disrupted by explosive shells."
- Why were they disrupted any more easily by explosive shells than non-explosive shells?
"Worse the large open ditches surrounding forts of this type were an integral part of the defensive scheme, as was the covered way at the edge of the counter scarp. The ditch was extremily vulnerable to bombardment with explosive shells."
- Did troops hide in the ditch? If the ditch is just an empty ditch why do the defenders care if it's being bombarded?
"Wide enough to be an impassable barrier for attacking troops, but narrow enough to be a difficult target for enemy shellfire, the ditch was swept by fire from defensive blockhouses set in the ditch, and firing positions cut into the outer face of the ditch itself."
- how do you cut firing positions into the outer face of a ditch? The outer face points one of two directions, back into the ditch, or out into solid ground. Neither of which is a logical place to put firing positions.
"The entrypoint became a sunken gatehouse in the inner face of the ditch, reached by a curving ramp that gave access to the gate via a rolling bridge that could be withdrawn into the gatehouse."
- can anyone give a source for this? I've never heard of it and although I don't doubt that it was used in some places, I doubt it was widespread enough for such a blanket statement.
Jerdwyer
I've linked to the more extensive article on polygonal forts (with pictures), which may help reduce some confusion.--Shoka 22:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]Architecture of Africa is currently nominated on Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Come to this page and support it with your vote. Help us improve this article to featured status.--Fenice 08:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that you like link about Petrovaradin fortress one of the greates and most preserved XVIII cenrury in Europe.
The excessive use of bold text in the opening is a bit distracting, and I personally think it detracts from the article. Anyone mind if I remove these and replace them with links where necessary? Montag 04:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No objection, feel free--Shoka 22:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does a modern fort look like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.76.176 (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about separate sections for permanent fortifications and field fortifications, and examples of the later with some explanation of their use throught he ages, construction, and tactical context?--Mrg3105 (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The history section currently begins in the 14th century. Anyone able to add anything from older times?--Kotniski (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
George Ripley writing just before the American Civil War had several interesting points to make about field fortifications.
III. FIELD FORTIFICATION. The construction of field works is as old as the existence of armies. The ancients were even far more expert in this art than our modern armies; the Roman legions, before an enemy, intrenched their camp every night. During the 17th and 18th centuries we see also a very great use of field works, and in the wars of Frederic the Great pickets on outpost duty generally threw up slightly profiled redans. Yet even then, and it is still more the case now, the construction of field works was confined to the strengthening of a few positions selected beforehand with a view to certain eventualities during a campaign. Thus Frederic the Great's camp at Bunzelwitz, Wellington's lines at Torres Vedras, the French lines of Weissenburg, and the Austrian intrenchments in front of Verona in 1848.
Under such circumstances, field works may exercise an important influence upon the issue of a campaign by enabling an inferior army successfully to resist a superior one. Formerly the intrenched lines, as in Vauban's permanently intrenched camps, were continuous; but from the defect that if pierced and taken at one point the whole line was useless, they are now universally composed of one or more lines of detached redoubts, flanking each other by their fire, and allowing the army to fall upon the enemy through the intervals as soon as the fire of the redoubts has broken the energy of his assault. This is the principal use of field works; but they are also employed singly, as bridge heads to defend the access a bridge, or to close an important pass to small parties of the enemy. Omitting all the more fanciful shapes of works which are now out of date, such fortifications should consist of works either open or closed at the gorge. The former will either be redans (two parapets with a ditch in front forming an angle facing the enemy) or lunettes (redans with short flanks). The latter may be closed at the gorge by palisadings. The principal closed field work now in use is the square redoubt, either as a regular or an irregular quadrangle, closed by a ditch and parapet all round. The parapet is made as high as in permanent fortification (7 to 8 feet), but not so thick, having to resist field artillery only. As none of these works has a flanking fire in itself they have to be disposed so that they flank esch other within musket range. To do this effectively, and strengthen the whole line, the plan now most generally adopted is to form an intrenched camp by a line of square redoubts flanking each other, and also a line of simple redans, situated in front of the intervals of the redoubts. Such a camp was formed in front of Comorn, south of the Danube, in 1849, and was defended by the Hungarians for 2 days against a far superior army.
Source: George Ripley, Charles Anderson Dana, The New American Cyclopaedia: A Popular Dictionary of General Knowledge,D. Appleton and Company, 1859, p. 622
I think his comment "The parapet is made as high as in permanent fortification (7 to 8 feet), but not so thick, having to resist field artillery only" is as pertinent now as it was in 1848, so I think that this article needs to be restructured into sections covering "permanent fortification" and "field fortification" and possible a section on "semipermanent fortification" as with the lines of Weissenburg and the Siegfried Line.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Baird Shearer (talk • contribs) 9 September 2008
Are machine gun nests considered fortifications?--Commander v99 (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Children's Forts.
I found the section that discussed building forts, particularly materials used. At an appropriate point, I inserted something along the lines of "Many children enjoy building forts out of pillows or boxes." However, someone reverted the change. (User Hello71 if I'm reading the change log correctly.)
If this is not the correct place for this, then where is?
Children building forts using pillows, blankets, boxes, drying racks and so on is a part of this world and deserves it's place on Wikipedia just like anything else.
Please discuss, elaborate, whatever. Where do children's forts go if not in the forts article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.218.64.86 (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[1]. Apparently during the Donghak Peasant Revolution, Korean traditional chicken coops were used as a moveable bullet-proof fortification tool. Komitsuki (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Goguryeo-Persian Fortifications Similar <Presentation from the Ancient History Association>. There is a debated theory about Goguryeo fortifications (mostly in NE China) resembling Sassanid fortifications because of the co-incidentally similar construction methods. I also have some Korean blood in my background but I think we are very similar to Iranian nomads in the past. Komitsuki (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems he detailed the indian Fort of Kangra, not sure if that could maybe be placed into the Indian section as it is the oldest of its kind miltray wise within india. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangra_Fort92.236.96.38 (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Caplock[reply]
«India has more forts than any other country in the world». «India currently has over 180 forts». I think the first sentence should be changed. In Spain there are around 2500 castles. --Jfbu (talk) 10:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the wrong headings, but this laid bare that we have nothing on fortifications in the Islamic world. They only start AFTER Muhammad, he lived in Arabia among a still pre-Islamic civilisation, so that's what we have. Worse even, pre-Islamic Arabia had fortifications long before his time, so even this section is very punctual (just around 600 CE).
I have added a "see also" tag with a long row of Muslim terms re. fortifications, but that's all we have for now. Arminden (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The word "fort" is primary, meaning it is highly useful and must not be tampered with, such as to not define it well, and such as to transform it always to "fortifications," to corrupt or "hack" the way the word "fortify" as in "make stronger," is used. -Zonkeideist (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
