Old Tom Posted 31 January , 2006 Share Posted 31 January , 2006 Hello, A thread about the characteristics of French and German field guns included some points on wire cutting. I attended a talk recently when it was said that the BEF carried out trials in 1915, possibly near St Omer, to investigate the use of shrapnel to cut wire. It seems that it was found that 18 pounder shrapnel, if the carrier shell was exploded at a precise height, perhaps 30 ft, was an effective wire cutter. I have not found any reference to such trials. Can anyone help. Old Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Dunlop Posted 31 January , 2006 Share Posted 31 January , 2006 I have seen these trials mentioned, Old Tom. I will look out the information. There were also trials conducted with 18 pounders versus parapets, using direct fire. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Dunlop Posted 31 January , 2006 Share Posted 31 January , 2006 I saw the description of the trials in Farndale's 'History of the Royal Regiment of Artillery', quoted here: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...ndpost&p=373019. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike_H Posted 1 February , 2006 Share Posted 1 February , 2006 Tom The trials were at Calais in 1915. Details are in the Stationery Services pamphlet CDS 93, title" Report on Experimental Fire with 18Pdr Shrapnel and HE at Calais." report published November 1915. See also pamphlet SS98/5 "Artillery Notes 5, Wire Cutting by Artillery" published May 1916. There are copies of both of these in the Dept of Printed Books at the IWM and they will provide photocopies for a fee. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGWR Posted 13 February , 2006 Share Posted 13 February , 2006 A couple of questions, prompted by the fact that I seem to keep coming across different answers! During the preliminary bombardment before 1st July 1916, how far above the wire would a shrapnel shell need to burst in order to cut wire most effectively? How difficult (in technical terms) was the art of wire-cutting in June 1916? Regards, AGWR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desmond7 Posted 13 February , 2006 Share Posted 13 February , 2006 Patrols report on state of enemy wire, late march 1916. Ancre North sector. Lance Sergeant A. Steele/L.corporal J. Hamilton:- “The patrol went out at 8.30pm from our own wires. After patrolling the coy’s front thoroughly we found nothing of any importance, only a very large shell hole which the patrol, 7 strong, was able to take cover from machine gun fire from the enemy lines and also our own lines. “We then turned to our front heading for the enemy lines and about 200 yards in front of the enemy’s wire we came across another very large shell hole, half full of water, but there was no connection with the German trenches. “We crept cautiously up to the German wires over crackling rushes and 15 yards of ploughed ground. We made a thorough examination of the wire and found that it was mostly put up in tight conertina fashion, each concerntina being about eight feet in length and at each end was cross sticks for trestles. The depth of the wire from where we were was about 25 yards. “We also saw that there was wire put up in the same fashion as our own only it appeared to be much tighter but just about the same height, we also saw that they have got the iron corkscrews. “We cut a piece of the wire and brought it with us and after lots of difficulty in getting through our own wires the patrol returned safely at 11. 30pm.” The following wire was received from Gen. Griffiths GoC 1018th Inf. Bde.: “Please congratulate patrols on the good work done last night.” March 27 – Left sector – Situation normal all day. Some shells fells in our lines but 12 out of 16 were duds. Patrols went out at night. Reports below:- 2nd Lt. A. Hall – “May patrol left our trenches by old sap left of sector Q106 at 10.30pm and returned to same place at 1.15am. “No obstructions which would impede infantry in attack were discovered. About 40 yards from enemy wire is a ridge running parallel with enemy trenches which could afford protection from MG or rifle fire on either side. “Crossing ridge we proceeded toards enemy wire and came to a point at Q1oD 54 at which point was a pcket in the ground about 15 yards in front of enemy wire. The pocket was dead ground and would have held about 20 men. “There is a slight re-entrant in enemy’s front of pocket. In front of and to the right of the pocket the wire was thick and of the saem quality as the wire already brought in by other patrols. “The wire cutters I had with me would not cut the wire. On the left pocket the wire was thin for about 15 yards and the pickets about three paces apart. Their wire was string tightly to pickets in ‘zig zag’ fashion and not in concertina fashion as to the front and right. The height was three feet and depth 20 to 25 yards, The patrol heard no sound in German trenches and saw no sign of the German patrol seen by A coy. (see report below). The enemy put up six lights close to us when were out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Tom Posted 14 February , 2006 Author Share Posted 14 February , 2006 Hello, AGWR has his finger on what I think is the main point. If wire cutting with 18 pounder shrapnel worked and if it depended on close control of explosion of shrapnel shell, how was such precision possible with a fuse woking with a variable length of powder. (Hope that's not too oversimplified). It is often reported that shell quality was poor in 1916. Old Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted 15 February , 2006 Share Posted 15 February , 2006 Also at that time the observers had to be able to see the fall of shot to guide the batteries and give corrections accordingly to ensure the target was hit. Weather and topography made what could be observed difficult at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam_s Posted 15 February , 2006 Share Posted 15 February , 2006 In the books, "Shrieks and Crashes" and "Arms and the Maple Leaf" both written by Wilfred Kerr about his time in the CFA during WW1, he speaks to great detail about this. He was a signalman and he would have to relay the messages back. He does not go into much detail on the fuses but he does say that it could be done and it was done. However it was an extremely difficult task and took alot of time. Personally from actually seeing both airburst and impact rounds today (Lg1 105mm), I think that an Airburst would have the least affect. The ground burst would have had the punch to rip the wire a part from the supports it was on. Also I think that the weakening or shattering of the posts that it was on would have been much better done by ground burst than by airburst. Kind of like a Bangalore Torpedo. You have to get that lift from under the wire in order to destroy it. Cam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGWR Posted 19 February , 2006 Share Posted 19 February , 2006 Thanks for the replies. I see that Richard Holmes states in his book Tommy that ' to cut barbed wire, shrapnel had to burst three or four feet above it...' Regards, AGWR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 19 February , 2006 Share Posted 19 February , 2006 Thanks for the replies. I see that Richard Holmes states in his book Tommy that ' to cut barbed wire, shrapnel had to burst three or four feet above it...' Regards, AGWR I don't know if Holmes is quite right there. Remember that a rifled projectile retains the orientation it had on firing for the whole stable length of its trajectory, which means the shrapnel round - effectively a big flying shotgun - will remain pointing a few degrees upward even when descending towards the target. I would make sense to say, for the blast of shrapnel balls to cut and clear away the wire, the shell had to burst a few feet short of it - but to burst above the wire would presumably just fling the balls uselessly over the top. The main kinetic thrust would have to be applied upward or parallel with the ground, not into it. Following from that, it's reasonable to think that, where everything could be got right - fuse consistency, exact knowledge of wire position, spotting feedback and gunners' experience and skill - such an operation could be successful. But if any of the essential factors was missing, it was in the lap of the gods. Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Hayter Posted 19 February , 2006 Share Posted 19 February , 2006 Not sure if this link is relevant but it does cover the art of wire cutting in some detail .. a personal account by an Officer who worked on improved methods. Weblink Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cnock Posted 19 February , 2006 Share Posted 19 February , 2006 Hello, During 3rd Battle of Ypres the new British fuse n° 106 for HE shells was used. The fuses minimized cratering of the ground British infantry would have to cross. They also acted as a wire-cutter, the fuse being so sensitive that it exploded when hitting the wire, and not deep in the ground. Regards, Cnock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGWR Posted 20 February , 2006 Share Posted 20 February , 2006 Some very interesting posts and pictures, It seems that there is a clear consensus that wire-cutting was not a straightforward task. AGWR 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