Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Smoke


PhilB

Recommended Posts

Having recently learnt that fog was a most unreliable and unpredictable help in the attack, I switched to wondering about smoke. One often reads that "smoke was used" but little more. Does anyone know how and when smoke was used and how effective it was?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The British army has a long tradition of using smoke-more than any other in World War II and postwar it could be argued. Smokescreens were used- an RE detachment put down a very effective one, for example, during 30th Division's attack on Montauban on 1st July 1916.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil,

Are you excluding the "effective use of smoke on 21 March 1918" example I sent you yesterday? :lol:

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9th Div used a lot of smoke at Loos. Phosphorous smoke grenades and smoke bombs from Stokes mortars, as well as the smoke candles used to augment the gas attack and some attributed their initial success at Hohenzollern Redoubt to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree with Tom's mention of smoke used with gas. This resulted in the enemy wearing gas masks for protracted periods of time, often quite unnecessarily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were there occasions when smoke was either indicated or contra-indicated? Why was the smoke/gas mixture deemed to be effective? What exactly was the smoke and did it develop as the war went on? Sorry to pose so many questions, but if the knowledge is out there....!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, some gas may be released causing the enemy to put on gas masks. Later they see another 'gas' cloud rolling towards them and again don masks. The attacking force are aware that it is only smoke and can thus attack unencumbered putting the defenders at a disadvantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The smoke would hide their approach and they would be on top of the defenders before they had time to react.

Ideally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Early reports indicated that gas masks were only effective for half an hour or so. If you could force them to wear them for longer, you could hope to force them out of position. At Loos, there was not enough gas to do this so smoke was used along with and instead of gas. As Ian said. First gas lay in the trenches. Attackers might well be above it. Wind direction and strength was all important. Once gas shells became available and artillery accuracy improved, wind was not a factor in delivering gas but remained one in how quickly it dispersed. Heavy rain could also disperse gas and temperature affected some of them. It was quickly realised that just forcing troops to wear masks had a tremendous effect on efficiency and morale, even when no other attack was contemplated. I wouldn't fancy trying to repair a road, unload a train or dig a trench with a respirator on. A few smoke shells would be instantly seen as a gas attack and cause the same disruption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Australians were great tactical users of smoke ( especially in combination with tanks). This may be why some Australian battalions retained the 2 inch toffee apple firing trench mortar as it provided smoke capability not availabe (or effective) from the 6 inch Newton or the 3 inch Stokes.

Various members of the German high command (including Ludendorff) were on record commenting on the effectiveness of smoke combined with tanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil,

This is an extract from an Artillery Operation order.I do not know how successful the attack was but it gives an insight into your question.

5 The 4.5" hows. will fire as follows,in all cases keeping 200 yards ahead of the 18-pdr barrage.

D/255 will cover the lane of the 180th Brigade,R.F.A until Zero plus 20,when they will resume their place in the barrage on their lane.

D/180,with 4 hows.,will fire on the railway cutting at--- till Zero plus 10,when they will lift on to the small copses and Mill on the railway at--- till Zero plus 20,after which it will concentrate on trenches and trench junctions in its own lane beyond the line E.-E.until Zero plus 70,when it will lift on to all approaches east of the final protective barrage in its own lane.

S/177,with 4 hows. will take part in the barrage in its own lane.lifting for the final protective barrage on to all approches from the east including the western exits from PLOUVAIN.

The remaining two hows. of D/180 and D/177 will enfilade the railway cutting,----,remaining on this task till the end of the barrage.

D/256,from Zero to conclusion of protective barrage will put down a smoke screen along the ROEUX-PLOUVAIN road from----.

I'm not a Gunner so possibly someone will translate but it gives an idea of the ratio of shell to smoke.

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Smoke" can mean several things. In the US military, at least in the 1960s, it meant white phosphorous, which was very nasty stuff (I can supply a disgusting story, if required.), and which was a lot more than simply a screening agent. I was on a rifle range in 1962 when we were subjected to a WP barrage from some fool with a 82 mm mortar.

Bob Lembke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At Meteren in July 1918 the 9th Div used smoke and gas. The Germans, on seeing smoke, habitually put on thir masks. By the time of the attack (after two week's bombardment) the smoke was followed by the attackers instead of gas. Result - disorientated defenders.

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smoke was generated in a variety of ways and used for a variety of purposes. Mention has been made of smoke candles, smoke bombs fired from 4" Stokes mortars, smoke grenades used by infantry, and smoke shells. The Germans also used a device known as a Nebeltopf:

http://www.chakoten.dk/images/roeg56.jpg

The obvious use was screening attacking infantry from defenders, particularly on the flanks or other danger spots that were not going to be assaulted directly. The best way to do this is to place the smoke immediately in front of the enemy position to be screened. This means that the enemy is blinded, while the assaulting troops can move freely. If the attacking troops advance through smoke (as in many places in the attack at Loos), then they are liable to become disorientated. Worse still, if the smoke does not reach the enemy positions, then the attacking infantry emerge and are silhouetted against the smoke cloud, making them easy targets. For this reason, it was better to place the smoke where it was needed, not release a cloud that produced a fog-like effect. Hence the development of smoke projectiles for mortars and artillery. There were even attempts to drop smoke onto the battlefield from aircraft.

Smoke was used to 'thicken' conventional barrages. It would be mixed with HE and shrapnel, with the purpose of further reducing the visibility of the defenders. At least one barrage fired in the war contained only smoke.

Prior to the battle of le Hamel, the Germans were treated to repeated barrages of smoke and gas to 'train' them. Every time a combined barrage was fired in the lead-up to the battle, the German troops would don their gas masks. On the day, the gas shells were omitted, which made the jobs of the Australian and American troops easier as they were attacking without masks.

Smoke was used for signalling purposes. In the Third Ypres thread, there is mention of smoke shells being fired into a standing barrage to indicate to the next wave that the barrage was about ready to creep forward again.

As with gas, the successful deployment of smoke was heavily dependent on weather conditions.

As Bob mentioned, WP is a particularly nasty agent. It generates dense clouds of smoke when the phosphorus burns on contact with air. Dowsing WP with water does not extinguish the burning process. Other substances were used, but few are as effective as quickly.

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By 'what was it?' do you mean what was used to create smoke? With White Phosphorus, the smoke itself is made up of oxides of phosphorus.

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds a complicated way to make smoke, C? I assumed it would be much simpler and cheaper in WW1 - closer to the oily rag!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil,

In the Fire Orders I've quote from it appears the "smoke" was fired from a 4.5 inch howitzer.

Any of our artillery experts got an example of the shell?

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Jan 4 2008, 10:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Sounds a complicated way to make smoke, C? I assumed it would be much simpler and cheaper in WW1 - closer to the oily rag!

Most of the chemistry to make a smoke bomb was Victorian. The Great War was an industrial war between industrial nations with vast chemical and matallurgical expertise. Einstein published his Special Theory in 1905 and the General Theory was completed during the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil

Non-phosphorus induced smoke is used to obscure the view of the enemy, but if he has organised his machine-guns onto fixed-line firing or else pre-recorded targets then the smoke may not achieve much, as the enemy will fire effectively through it.

Coloured smoke can also signal where specific locations are or else signal the end of a high-explosive fire plan.

Phosphorus-induced smoke can be used as above but with the effect that the phospherous is harmful to friendly forces - therefore you need to exercise caution in its use.

Phosphorus smoke weapons are also very useful against personnel, as the splashing phosphorus goes into locations that shrapnel may not be able to access (eg: behind solid cover), but it may not be technically legal to deliberately use phosphorus in this way.

The basic problem of introducing smoke into a fireplan is that you may need to dedicate weapons to this role, thus taking them off the HE role, as the smoke shells or bombs being used may need seperate range tables & therefore different elevations & bearings. Also the accurate prediction of where smoke shells should fall is difficult in gusty wind conditions. A cross-wind blowing from left to right or right to left across the enemy position to be screened is best, this observation may seem obvious but very few winds blow exactly as the Forward Observation Officer wants them to.

Slick observation & gun-drills can overcome these problems on a timed fire plan, but the realities for the assaulting infantry of the ground & its condition (eg: a flooded river or inundated pastures to cross), & above all enemy aggressive reaction, often make timed fireplans irrelevant, and "On Call" fireplans take over.

One effect of smoke on the enemy is to make him react to a chemical weapon threat, thus he dons his respirator etc & his personal skill level deteriorates.

I don't think that the relevance of the above points has changed much in 90 years excepting that weapons now often use ballistically matched smoke & HE shells, thus the elevation for a given range is constant, but whenever a smoke screen is being applied the bearing used is nearly always different.

Harry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smoke was used on a number of occassions to mask a tank attack- the vehicles and infantry emerging from the smoke - you wouldn't want to use phosphorus for that.

Phosphorus smoke shells and bombs were sometimes used not to obscure but to mark a target for further attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...