Is There A Definition of 'Intense' Artillery?

[At Home Dad]

Hallo all

I wonder if anyone has information regarding what the differences

were between descriptions of artillery bombardments, ie 'intense',

'very intense' etc. and whether there was even an 'official' definition?

Was there a grade, for example 'desultory' >> 'very intense' or was the

language and description simply left to the best choice of the Adjutant?

many thanks for any assistance

[centurion]

Whilst it might be possible to quantify artillery fire from the viewpoint of those doing the firing I can't see how you would do it at the receiving end - some poor so and so trying to count the incoming shells? It would have to be a subjective judgement in part based on experience.

[dycer]

Snippets from the 8th Royal Scots History.

Battle of the Somme.

"The wood in which the Battalion was bivouacked was shelled continually,and shelling all over the front was very heavy.From noon 22nd to noon 23rd(July),the Battalion had over a 100 casualties."

"The enemy had massed a tremendous amount of artillery on the "High Wood" sector.The billets of the Battalion were continually shelled,and the only approach to the line was up "Happy Valley".The enemy took special delight in shelling this valley,and,in addition had his barrage lines across it.Time and again,but for judicious and skilful handling of the troops,the Battalion might have been completely wiped out.While at work,the Battalion was subjected to very heavy shell and machine-gun fire every night,and that the work was successfully done tells the tale of magnificent endurance and courage displayed by all ranks.Never before,and probably not afterwards,had the Battalion been called upon to endure such a nerve-racking and trying time as that to which it was subjected during its fifteen days' engagement in the first Battle of the Somme."

George

[truthergw]

Since the amount of artillery concentrated on any target continued to increase throughout the war, any definition of ' intense', ' heavy' or 'severe' would be relative to that particular period. The British at I Ypres thought the incoming artillery was heavy. Much greater than anything they could hope to return. The same men sitting in the German lines at the Somme or Passchendaele might well have thought that their experience paled in contrast. What might the French at Verdun have thought? As for an objective measure, that could be based on number of guns, proportion of calibres and area of target. I doubt if that is what is generally used as a measure in the men's descriptions. There were formulae for amount of artillery to carry out different tasks so there was some objective measure but I don't know if that could be translated into how the men at the receiving end saw it.

[pjjobson]

Admittedly the following concerns the 25-pdr of WW2, but it should give some idea of terminology etc.

Rates of Fire The number of rounds per minute to be used when a target or barrage line was to be engaged for a specified duration. The number of rounds would be specified, together with the required duration in minutes. Rates of Fire were named as, Intense, Rapid, Normal, Slow and Very Slow. The number of rounds per minute for each rate varied with the type of gun used by the engaging regiment. For example, the 25-pounder used the following rates of fire:

Intense 5 rounds per minute.

Rapid 4 rounds per minute.

Normal 3 rounds per minute.

Slow 2 rounds per minute.

Very Slow 1 round per minute.

Intense rate was the maximum sustained rate that the gun could fire without overheating.

The above is from my book on RA Terms and Abbreviations, hope it helps.

Phil

[centurion]

As I said if you are laying down the fire its easy to quantify but at the other end you probably aren't able to count the shells and, since you don't know how many guns are firing at you, can't know the rate of fire. It has to be a subjective judgement.

[At Home Dad]

thank you all for the informative replies

kind reagrds

[27thBN]

Hallo all

Was there a grade, for example 'desultory' >> 'very intense' or was the

language and description simply left to the best choice of the Adjutant?

many thanks for any assistance

I would go for your choice of the Adjutant!!

MC

[centurion]

And much might depend upon how insouciant or jumpy the adjutant was.

[dycer]

Or, as reflective,as originally written,in the snippets, I have quoted from.

George

[johnreed]

The rate of fire is dependant on what equipment is being fired. and what rate is specified in the Fire Orders or in the Fire Plan or Barrage Plan or as specified on the Gun Programmes.

John

[centurion]

I think one half of us is looking at this from the viewpoint of those doing the firing and the other half from that of those under fire. I think the original question referred to the latter

[Tyrim]

As Centurion says, a definition of the rate of fire has to be subjective on the receiving end. There can't be a formula since no one is going to sit around making a stroke record of how many rounds land per minute unless he's looking to be psychoed out.

I would think the perceived rate would depend on how often rounds land, how near they are to your position, how well you are dug in and what else is nearby. In the middle of an ammo dump it wouldn't be unreasonable to consider one round an hour as very intense.

[centurion]

And the incoming shells may be of different calibres - do you perhaps count one Jack Johnson as three whizz bangs? I have a mental picture of the ultimate anorak - the shell spotter complete with note pad and Bellamy's Shell Bursts of the Western Front and the Shell Spotter's Year Book. A sort of explosive twitcher.

[Tyrim]

"So you were an accountant on civvey street, eh Snuffy? Well, I have just the job for you!"

[dycer]

I suppose another point that must be considered and has been alluded to is the artillery role i.e. how many men does it take to serve and were the guns capable of intense fire over say a 24 hour period?

George

[SiegeGunner]

I translate many German accounts of being on the receiving end, and it is usually described as 'heavy' or 'intense', sometimes 'sustained' or 'concentrated'. My problem, when it comes to selecting terms to use, is that the Germans almost always mention the type of artillery involved - as in 'an intense bombardment by heavy artillery', 'heavy fire from trench mortars', 'heavy shelling by large-calibre guns'. I am always on the look-out for new terms/synonyms and different ways of saying much the same thing.

[Muerrisch]

I am reminded of the informal RAF definitions of clear air turbulence:

slight = passengers alarmed

moderate = stewards/ stewardesses alarmed

severe = aircrew alarmed

[centurion]

I translate many German accounts of being on the receiving end, and it is usually described as 'heavy' or 'intense', sometimes 'sustained' or 'concentrated'.

All of which can mean different things. A lot of shells over a short period might be intense but not sustained, a lower rate of fire kept up on and on and on would be sustained but not intense and a pounding of one particular area (say batt HQ) would certainly be concentrated but might or might not be intense or sustained.

[squirrel]

The "intensity" is in the eyes, ears and mind of the observer.

[nigelfe]

H'mm the media today tend to describe all artillery as heavy!

Formal 'shorthand' terms such as adopted in the 1930s for particualr numbers of rounds/gun/minute (and differnet types of gun didn't exist.

The two editions (1916 and 1917) of GHQ Artillery Notes No 4 Offensive operations reveal a bit.

The 1916 edn includes a list of bombardments from early 1915 to early 1916. Mostly British but a couple of French and German. It uses various terms to categorise these, but doesn't define them: Intense, Very Intense, Continuous, Intermittent, Steady.

These don't appear in the 1917 edn which gives a table of ammo for different types of guns and target. Eg trench destruction in rds/yard and MG emplacement destruction in total number of rounds.

[At Home Dad]

spotted another one, Jan 28th 1916 (Kaisers Birthday), West Ham Battalion.

"Terrific bombardment by the enemy’s artillery which lasted for 7¼ hours, viz 10.05am - 5.20pm."