marc coene Posted 1 August , 2010 Share Posted 1 August , 2010 Hello, Where we live there was a Battery command and Officer's Quarter of 154 Siege Battery,RGA. We often found pieces of wire. I wonder why there are so much types of wire. From one wire going till about 16 small wires. Were they all used for phone lines. Why have some so much little wires and others not (to be more flexible?). Where there always needed two wires to make connection or were there also wire with already integrated the 2 wires? On the photo also several type of wire found overhere. Regards, Marc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete1052 Posted 1 August , 2010 Share Posted 1 August , 2010 Within the position there was probably wire strung to all four or six of the guns, to battery headquarters, and other elements of the battery as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc coene Posted 2 August , 2010 Author Share Posted 2 August , 2010 Within the position there was probably wire strung to all four or six of the guns, to battery headquarters, and other elements of the battery as well. Hi Pete, Overhere there were normally 4 pieces 9.2" guns. I did not know there were also wires to the guns itself (I thought it as only to headquarters and to the observation posts) as they were only about some 100 of metres out of each other I suppose, although I don't know how much place they left between such big 9.2" guns. In each case there was a central deep dug out overhere and in the diarees it is to read they could and had sometimes to run towards the dug out. Would there have existed some rules how the Battery had to organize or work? I suppose although the Major might have had his own ideas? Are such things somewhere described? Regards, Marc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David B Posted 3 August , 2010 Share Posted 3 August , 2010 In the book 'THistory of the Royal Regiment of Artillery Western Front 1914-18 By Gen Sir Martin Farndale'mention is made of separate line of communication from HQ's to the batteries to guarantee if one line is knocked out there are another two lines (hopefully) still operational. This alone, of course, would require more than one pair of wires. Certainly wire communication to the guns would also be provided - much more reliable than shouting out or using a runner - and infinitely quicker. So in actual fact you would find quite a set up of communication lines necessitating a multi wire cable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 3 August , 2010 Share Posted 3 August , 2010 AFAIK multicore (coaxial) cables are a WW2 invention. Is it possible that some of those cables are single core with finer wires used as armour? It would explain the lack of insulation between those wires Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 3 August , 2010 Share Posted 3 August , 2010 British field telephones in WW1 were mainly of a earth return variety using a single cable and a spike in the ground. This made them very vulnerable to interception from a distance using Moritz stations to pick up the ground signal. French and German phones used a twisted pair cable to avoid this (the French discovered the use of the German Moritz stations quite early but failed to let their allies know!) Cables were often duplicated to compensate for possible damage but never by putting them together which would be plain daft (if a shell cuts one it cuts them all) but instead alternatively routed. This photo shows a field telephone exchange with a plethora of separate single lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete1052 Posted 3 August , 2010 Share Posted 3 August , 2010 Would there have existed some rules how the Battery had to organize or work? I suppose although the Major might have had his own ideas? It is speculation on my part but my guess is that procedures for wire communications by British artillery units evolved considerably as the war continued. Most likely telephones were employed occasionally by British batteries before the war but their use probably became much more widespread during the war. When I was in the U.S. Army field artillery in '77-'84 we had procedures that everyone understood and we would have the guns laid, wire strung and telephones working within seven minutes of occupying a position, night or day. The standard was that the battery had to be ready to fire within seven minutes of occupying a position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc coene Posted 3 August , 2010 Author Share Posted 3 August , 2010 Ok all thanks for the info. New for me that the British field phones were mainly of a earth return variety using a single cable and a spike in the ground. Someone has a photo of a British field phone in operation?I know it worked on batteries as also that one we found back on our land near the earlier bunker where they were positioned. Curious to see how it looked. And curious to reconstruct the film and to imagine how Captain Walker, Major Rowan and Lieutenant Greene, all of 154 Siege Battery were using overhere such a phone. It was beginning 1918 they were overhere (with their 4 pieces 9.2" guns) ,where we live now, for about 4 months Regards, Marc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianjonesncl Posted 3 August , 2010 Share Posted 3 August , 2010 The Battery would be in contact with at least two OP's and Brigade or HAG HQ. As has been pointed out, two separate lines were run to the OP's and in some cases connected laterally in order to try to provide some form of circuit should they be cut (Reference 135th Siege Battery). There would be a line or again two lines to the Brigade / HAG HQ. Individual guns were not connected by line, however, it is possible that one of the sections could have a line to them. The connections were made to the Battery Exchange (BX), which was under the control of the Battery Signals Officer and the Signals Sergeant. Some of the daigrams of 135 Siege Battery actualy has the BX separate from the Battery Command Post. Personaly I would have a line out to the Battery Echeleon in order to call forward ammunition, transport etc. The minimun lines I would suggest would be 6 (2 OP's each with 2 lines, and a double line to Brigade / HA G HQ). If another OP is added, another 2 lines. Additional lines for sections or other locations, which could also require 2 lines, could mean around a dozen lines going into the BX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianjonesncl Posted 3 August , 2010 Share Posted 3 August , 2010 Instruction in army telegraphy and telephony (1914) Volume 1 - Instruments Instruction in army telegraphy and telephony (Volume 1) Volume 2 - Lines Instruction in army telegraphy and telephony (Volume 2) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 3 August , 2010 Share Posted 3 August , 2010 Ok all thanks for the info. New for me that the British field phones were mainly of a earth return variety using a single cable and a spike in the ground. Someone has a photo of a British field phone in operation?I know it worked on batteries as also that one we found back on our land near the earlier bunker where they were positioned. Curious to see how it looked. And curious to reconstruct the film and to imagine how Captain Walker, Major Rowan and Lieutenant Greene, all of 154 Siege Battery were using overhere such a phone. It was beginning 1918 they were overhere (with their 4 pieces 9.2" guns) ,where we live now, for about 4 months Regards, Marc By 1918 they would be using a Fuller phone which was introduced to avoid the problem of the Moritz interception (and also included a form of scrambling) It could be used for both voice and morse - one in use Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 3 August , 2010 Share Posted 3 August , 2010 The Fullerphone, was the invention of a Captain (later Major General) A C Fuller in 1915, was investigated and then later adopted. The Fullerphone could send Morse over a 20 mile long single wire line and voice over a shorter distance. On some versions of the device it could send Morse and voice simultaneously along the same line (effectively what your broadband modem does only it’s much much faster). When used on normal phone lines distance was not a problem. It used a DC signal that was much less powerful than the old trench telephone and therefore much more difficult for the Moritz Stations to pick up. It also required less battery power. At the same time the Morse system depended on a device in each phone called a ‘buzz chopper’, the people at each end had to synchronise their buzz choppers, these acted as a scrambling device so that no third party could listen in. As a bonus it was found that the Morse signals could be transmitted over damaged lines and across breaks (provided each side of the break was in ground contact and not too far apart). Like all new devices it took time to roll the new system out but it was in fairly widespread use amongst the Allies by the end of the war. More advanced versions of the Fullerphone system were in extensive use in World War Two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 3 August , 2010 Share Posted 3 August , 2010 A 'telephone' trench (courtesy of the Postal Museum) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete1052 Posted 3 August , 2010 Share Posted 3 August , 2010 It wasn't until World War II when man-portable radios became widely available that artillery firing in the indirect fire mode became truly devastating. In that war forward observers with radios up with the infantry and armor (or in the U.S. Army flying in L-4 Piper Cub light planes) could call for nearly instantaneous concentrations of artillery fire on the enemy. That's what my Dad's 105mm battery did to the Germans in 1945 and what I was ready to do in the event the Soviets had crossed the East-West German border in '78-'81. During the Great War most artillery fire plans were preconceived scripts written days or weeks before they were fired. It was difficult to change those fire plans midstream to accomodate changing circumstances during the battle because of the limitations they then had with wire communications. Hand-held radios changed all that 25 years later. It was American and British military research and development spending on communications and electronics technology that began in earnest during WW II and continued afterwards during the Cold War that gave us these computers and internet that we're able to chat on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 4 August , 2010 Share Posted 4 August , 2010 It was American and British military research and development spending on communications and electronics technology that began in earnest during WW II and continued afterwards during the Cold War that gave us these computers and internet that we're able to chat on here. Although its worth noting that its the work that the international telegraph companies did in the years before WW1 in developing the principles that lie behind multiplexor's and data compression systems that allowed the development of the physical network we use for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete1052 Posted 4 August , 2010 Share Posted 4 August , 2010 Good points. The website in this link describes the technology used during the American Civil War. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6th Hauraki KIA KAHA Posted 5 August , 2010 Share Posted 5 August , 2010 Hi How far was this Battery command and Officer's Quarter from the Front line? Where were the Gun positions located? Centurion' in post 6, is that an American field telephone exchange? In post 12 you have a Photo of what appears Americans with Magneto Telephone. One thing to note with the Fullerphone, is that the telephone attachment to the Fullerphone, and buzzer call, were as liable to overhearing as in other Field telephones. It was not secure...... Only the Fullerphone Telegraph circuits, were said to be immune from overhearing. So for the battery coms would they really need fullerphone coms between each other depending on location to the front line? As opposed to D111 or Magneto 234s. Regards JP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 5 August , 2010 Share Posted 5 August , 2010 Hi How far was this Battery command and Officer's Quarter from the Front line? Where were the Gun positions located? Centurion' in post 6, is that an American field telephone exchange? Yes they used basically the same technology In post 12 you have a Photo of what appears Americans with Magneto Telephone. so? One thing to note with the Fullerphone, is that the telephone attachment to the Fullerphone, and buzzer call, were as liable to overhearing as in other Field telephones. It was not secure...... Never said it was BUT it was an order of magnitude more difficult and the Moritz station need to be more sensitive and closer. The Moritz stations were always better at picking up buzzes that voice anyway and this was now scrambled - see below Only the Fullerphone Telegraph circuits, were said to be immune from overhearing.Incorrect they could be overheard (with the same restrictions as above, but with the buzz chopper in use could not be understood as they were scrambled, at some point the voice signals could be scrambled as well but not sure if this was in place before end of war So for the battery coms would they really need fullerphone coms between each other depending on location to the front line? As opposed to D111 or Magneto 234s. The more powerful Moritz stations could pick up a signal from a mile away. I believe that by the end of the War all British field coms were via Fullerphone - it used the same wires as the old, was more secure, was longer range and was less prone to cut off through line damage. Regards JP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianjonesncl Posted 5 August , 2010 Share Posted 5 August , 2010 Hi How far was this Battery command and Officer's Quarter from the Front line? Where were the Gun positions located? The Battery Command Post could be located on the Gun Position. The frontage of the battery could be as little as 65 yards for 4 guns, and the Garrison Artillery Training Manual states guns should be 20 yards apart. If the sections are split, then the BC Post would probably locate with one section, and run line to the other section. I have one diagram of 135th Siege Battery at Attilly in September 1918, where the Battery now increased to 6 guns, has the BC Post 250 yardfs to the nearest section, and 500 yards to the furthest. This I believe was to reduce the threat from Counter Battery fire and gas. This post shows some Artillery positions on the Somme in June 1916. http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=150354&view=findpost&p=1446696 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6th Hauraki KIA KAHA Posted 5 August , 2010 Share Posted 5 August , 2010 Hi Thanks for the replies. Instructions for the MK111 Fullerphone State........... Note Speaking is only to Be resorted to when specially permited: it is not immune from overhearing in the same way as signals sent with the morse key Chap 1V Sec. 16 Signal Training. I have 2 1918 Mk 111 Fullerphone's The serial numbers ranging in the 7000 figure, and also two other examples I have seen. The D111 Field telephones of the same date range from 120,000 to 130,000, why would you bother producing so many D111s if they were to be replaced by fullerphones. Would enough fullerphones have been in existence to cover the whole British and commonwealth lines in 1918 with just fullerphone for coms? Thanks Ianjones for the info and links. Regards JP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 5 August , 2010 Share Posted 5 August , 2010 Beware of extrapolating from serial numbers By 1918 over 23,000 Fullerphones had been produced and had largely replaced earlier equipment, production in 1918 would probably allow replacement of the lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 5 August , 2010 Share Posted 5 August , 2010 Worth noting that Fullerphones were produced by a number of manufacturers - it was not unusual for blocks of serial numbers to be allocated to different manufacturers. Two models were produced in WW1 (the Mk I and II) the Mk III was developed in WW1. The equipment was also produced in other countries. The Germans manufactured copies. The equipment began to be used in July 1916 A record of the 1/5th Battalion the Leicestershire Regiment describes their use and the demand for them. By 1918 they were widespread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc coene Posted 5 August , 2010 Author Share Posted 5 August , 2010 A 'telephone' trench (courtesy of the Postal Museum) Hi Centurion, Thank you very much for the photos and all the info. Regards, Marc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc coene Posted 5 August , 2010 Author Share Posted 5 August , 2010 The Battery Command Post could be located on the Gun Position. The frontage of the battery could be as little as 65 yards for 4 guns, and the Garrison Artillery Training Manual states guns should be 20 yards apart. If the sections are split, then the BC Post would probably locate with one section, and run line to the other section. I have one diagram of 135th Siege Battery at Attilly in September 1918, where the Battery now increased to 6 guns, has the BC Post 250 yardfs to the nearest section, and 500 yards to the furthest. This I believe was to reduce the threat from Counter Battery fire and gas. This post shows some Artillery positions on the Somme in June 1916. http://1914-1918.inv...dpost&p=1446696 Hi Iankonesci, As overhere on our farm 154 Siege Battery,RGA was postioned (from january till april 1918) with 4 pieces9.2 inch guns, the RGATraining Manual interest me very much. Does there exist digital copy of that manual for downlaoding? Would be very interesting to see what was the usual way of organizing the Battery. Please your advice.Thanks in advance. Regards, Marc Ypres Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6th Hauraki KIA KAHA Posted 5 August , 2010 Share Posted 5 August , 2010 Hi I am not sure where you received this information from, but it is incorrect. Worth noting that Fullerphones were produced by a number of manufacturers - it was not unusual for blocks of serial numbers to be allocated to different manufacturers. Two models were produced in WW1 (the Mk I and II) the Mk III was developed in WW1. The equipment was also produced in other countries. The Germans manufactured copies. The Mk 111 was produced during the war and post war, was converted to the Mk111*. In WW2 the MKV replaces the MK111* The Mk 1 that was obsolete by 1918. The only examples of Mk111 Fullerphone to date have been W. D. S. F. Other makers must exist as you say. Who was this maker? D Mk 111 in use British cable, of interest is the line markers on two of the cables to help identify . Regards JP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now