(TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR. "] SIR,— " A. M. A.'s
" suggestion is not by any means a new one, and shields of the description he proposes have been made and tested ; but it is doubtful if they are ever likely to be carried by the attacking ranks of infantry. The steel sapping shield (which has been long in use) is a similar thing, as are also the shields on Maxims and other guns ; but for infantry purposes the thickness of metal necessary to resist modern rifle bullets makes the shield of impossible weight. From experiments it has been proved that at five hundred yards range a Lee-Metford bullet will penetrate a steel shield one-sixth of an inch thick, hitting it fairly at right angles. A shield " not thicker than an ordinary sixpence, borne at an angle of, say, forty degrees to the ground," would probably, as "A. M. A." says, be impenetrable, but the de- flection of the bullets would have a most deadly effect (with modern velocity) on the supports and reserves in rear of the front line of the attack. Moreover, it would be almost im- possible to get the proper angle to produce a deflection when attacking positions such as those occupied by the Boers. The Italians in Abyssinia, I believe, adopted steel shields (locked together) in place of shelter trenches and other hasty field- works, but they were far too heavy to be carried by individual
soldiers in the firing line.—I am, Sir, &c., X. Y. Z.
Previous page
