When did artillery anti-tank training start?

[Moonraker]

When did the British Army start to train artillery men in attacking tanks?

A mile north of the Bustard Inn on Salisbury Plain and to the north-west of Lark Hill Camp, a 'tank practice railway' ran close to Shrewton Folly (a copse) and into Blackball Firs. Of 2ft 6in gauge, it carried an unmanned 'locomotive' consisting of an engine on a chassis and a trolley carrying a tank-shaped screen at which artillery fired. It is said to have opened in 1916, but tanks were a British 'secret' weapon until September that year and the Germans did not launch their own tanks until early 1918. (Websites seem to disagree on the precise month.) One wonders if the British army would have been sufficiently ahead of the game to have provided anti-tank training in 1916 and the railway does not feature in a large-scale map of 1924 (nor, indeed, of 1939). By 1960 it had fallen into disuse. (I visited the site c1962 and took a snapshot of tangled track.)

The person who published the 1916 date was a railway enthusiast who gave details of the company that supplied the track.

So when did the British army decide it would be a good idea to attack tanks with artillery?

And to what extent was artillery used to attack moving targets of any sort? I have the impression that up and during the Great War they concentrated fire on fixed targets.

Moonraker

[William Shelford]

The use of railway self propelled target trollies, running on 2'0" or 2' 6" gauge track dates from 1938, when the prototype trolley, built by D.Wickham & Co Ltd of Ware was tested at the ranges at Lydd in Kent. Following its test, 255 more we built for ranges both in Britain and abroad. If there was a target railway at Larkhill. I would expect it to date from WW2.

However when Larkhill Camp was built, in 1914-1916 by Sir John Jackson Ltd, the construction contract included an extensive standard gauge system. This ran from the London & South Western Railway at Amesbury two miles north west

to the camp. This military railway was closed and lifted after 1928.

I think it likely that these two seperate railways have become muddled up.

[Ron Clifton]

So when did the British army decide it would be a good idea to attack tanks with artillery?

And to what extent was artillery used to attack moving targets of any sort? I have the impression that up and during the Great War they concentrated fire on fixed targets.

Hello Moonraker

Perhaps the idea was actually anti-artillery training for tanks. Clearly, with their relatively low speed and limited manoeuvrability, the tanks would become potential targets for enemy artillery fire, so it might make sense to do some pre-emptive testing of the likely effects of gunfire on tanks. I think the ability to withstand shells of up to a certain calibre was built into the specification.

As to moving targets, field artillery often fired on bodies of advancing men (with shrapnel, mainly) and of course there was anti-aircraft artillery. But I suspect that the effectiveness of heavy guns against moving targets was hampered by the low rate of fire and the difficulty of making more than slight alterations to elevation and line of fire within an effective timescale.

The famous case of the German gunner officer at Flesquieres, who knocked out seveal tanks as they crossed a ridge in front of him, resulting in a mention in Haig's despatches, suggests that the Germans were fairly quick learners.

Ron

[David_Underdown]

The story as presented by Haig is not entirely grounded in reality, see Bryn Hammond's exposition in "Cambrai 1917: the myth of the first great tank battle"

[centurion]

The story as presented by Haig is not entirely grounded in reality, see Bryn Hammond's exposition in "Cambrai 1917: the myth of the first great tank battle"

Tanks were indeed knocked out by in such circumstances but the single gunner bit seems to be a misjudgement or myth.

The Germans appear to have used dummy tanks floating on rafts to train their gunners (speed would be about right) A railway would be much too fast for WW1 tanks. I think William has it about right.

There were instances of British male tanks successfully engaging German AT artillery over open sights and using canister (which was a misnomer as this was effectively chain shot) but real success was in the later 'all arms' battles when the RAF spotted German dug in AT guns and reported to British artillery for it to deal with them and Sopwith Camels prevented mobile AT guns from moving on the battlefield

[truthergw]

A tank on broken ground would not travel at much more than walking pace. A whippet reckoned on about 7 mph at most, so although moving, a tank might easily be aimed at by a field gun with a fair chance of a hit.

[centurion]

A tank on broken ground would not travel at much more than walking pace. If that

However many of the artillery hits appear to be on tanks that had already stopped (ditched, broken track, bellied, engine problem etc etc) before they could get going again. The artillery tended to give the coup de grace

[Pete1052]

When I sttended the U.S. Army Field Artillery Officers Advanced Course in 1982 at Fort Sill, Oklahoma an instructor who was an Armor officer told us not to be shy about using direct fire from our howitzers to defeat enemy tanks. Though our ammunition isn't armor-piercing and the loading of howitzers is slow a 155mm high-explosive round from a howitzer might just blow away a Warsaw Pact tank.

During World War II the U.S. Army learned by accident that white phosphorous rounds would knock out German tanks -- the extreme heat bakes the enemy soldiers in the tank and sucks the oxygen out of the turret. Around 10 years ago the use of WP against people was considerably restricted by war crimes treaties. When push comes to shove however winning the engagement and surviving is more important than abstract legal notions.

[centurion]

Around 10 years ago the use of WP against people was considerably restricted by war crimes treaties. When push comes to shove however winning the engagement and surviving is more important than abstract legal notions.

The Nazis felt the same way

[Pete1052]

.The Nazis felt the same way.

So have the British on numerous occasions. The truly reprehensible war crimes are operating death camps and massacring people. Tactical things on the battlefield are much lesser in odiousness.

[Moonraker]

Oh dear, I do hope we aren't going to stray a long, long way from my original topic.To pick up on William's post 2 above, I did wonder whether the guy who produced (about 20 years ago) a bit of info on the Tank Practice Railway had got it confused with the stretch of tramway that carried shells from the Lark Hill Military Railway to the Hamilton Battery, named after Sir Ian. In fact I think that this was in existence in June 1915, as I've a postcard showing George V arriving to inspect the 20th Division. This took place on the 24th on Knighton Down, very close to the battery, and the card shows some narrow-gauge track and a small flat-bed truck, such as might have been used to transport a shell.

Moonraker

[mrjustinhayward]

The following is attributed to an OS map of the mid 1950's by Norman Parker of the Amesbury local hstory society in a recent two part article in the "Stonehenge Trader"

Part two had several photographs of the railway

Can email a scanned copy of the article if required

Thanks

Justin H

[Jack Sheldon]

If you take a look at my German Army at Cambrai book, you will see that I included a description of how GenLt Freiherr Oskar von Watter trained his 54th Infantry Division in the anti-tank role in the year leading up to Nov 17. The heavy losses on the Flesquieres ridge then become much more explicable, although I do also discuss the 'lone gunner' saga.

FWIIW, they employed moving targets set on rails, but pulled by teams of horses hauling cables many hundreds of metres long. Against moving targets at 1,000 metres a hit was expected within three rounds; at 500 metres first round hits were the norm.

Jack

[Moonraker]

It's a minor coincidence that Justin has just posted on this thread, as I walked past Blackball Firs on Sunday, but didn't divert off the right-of-way to look at the site of the tramway. When I did so c1962 I suspect that there were fewer signs admonishing the public not to stray. And last week I was looking at the website for nearby Shrewton, which says the tramway was laid in 1923 - which seems more likely than than 1916.

(To go off topic, my OS map of 1971 shows more rights-of-way across the ranges than exist today, including a useful one from Market Lavington to Netheravon that I cycled along in the 1970s. For safety reasons some of these have been legally extinguished, leaving some useless stubs that end after a few hundred yards. There's an on-going programme of waymarking tracks and paths still open to the public. But it was sad that the old signpost north of Bustard Inn, where the road forks for Devizes and Lavington, lost its finger posts some years ago; I've a feeling that the sign predates the acquisition of the land by the War Office more than a century ago.)

Moonraker

[Old Tom]

Re fixed targets; the RGA engaged ships at ranges where account of speed was essential. The RN had the problem that they were moving as well. Going right off topic at one time manned tanks were used as targets for GW using inert rounds.

Old Tom