Concrete and earth in a 1917 coastal fort

Would 1917 concrete fortifications resist shell shock better than earthworks?

The proposed compromise combines earthworks with reinforced or prefabricated structures and protected gun positions, while the speakers disagree about early concrete's resistance to shock.

The objection to concrete is that early material and reinforcement may resist shell shock less effectively than traditional wet earthworks. The reply challenges the suggested 1930s starting point for reinforced concrete, citing earlier iron and steel reinforcement. Earth piled around brick, concrete-block or prefabricated positions would combine cover with a supporting structure. Armoured covers and retractable six-inch guns would give exposed batteries further protection. This is judged against what can be built for the 1917 scenario, with exact resistance figures unresolved. Prestressed concrete is briefly considered and then placed in 1928, beyond the scenario's date.