"ordinary" was thirty rounds per gun per hour. And one may note further
that the number of Siege Batteries on a given length of Front in France
was, even at this time, more than four times as great as the
corresponding number on the Italian Front. The Austrians to some extent
made up for their small quantity of guns and shells by a high proportion
of guns of large calibre. Their twelve-inch howitzers were disagreeably
numerous. It resulted, however, that neither Italians nor Austrians
could afford to indulge in continuous heavy bombardments, such as were
the rule in France. There was here on neither side a surplus of shell to
fire away at targets of secondary importance, and therefore there was
less destruction than in France of towns and villages near the lines.
Ammunition had to be accumulated for important occasions and important
targets. Thus battles were still separate and distinct in Italy, with
perceptible intervals of lull, less apt than in France to become one
blurred series of gigantic actions. So too counter-battery work on a
great scale was not practised on either side out here, partly for
reasons of ammunition supply, and partly for technical reasons connected
with the nature of the ground. For in a good _caverna_ one was perfectly
safe, though outside high explosive produced not only its own natural
effect, but also a shower of pieces of rock, thus combining the
unpleasant characteristics of high explosive and shrapnel. One of our
gunners had his ribs broken by a blow from a large piece of rock, though
standing three hundred yards away from where the shell burst. But often
after a heavy bombardment it was found that the enemy had been sitting
quietly in _caverne_, ready to emerge with his machine guns when the
attacking Infantry advanced. Aeroplanes also were less numerous than in
France. And, when I arrived, gas was not much employed on either side.

In the second place, I was deeply impressed with the natural strength of
the Austrians' positions. Almost everywhere they held high ground. On no