E Wilcock Posted 28 January , 2012 Share Posted 28 January , 2012 Does anyone know what G.F. stands for? We are currently transcribing and trying to footnote a war diary of an artillery officer with 4th South Midlands Brigade. The entry for 9 May 1915 near Ploegsteert (Ypres area) says,"G.F. guns commenced shelling at 4.30 a.m. " This was prior to an attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 28 January , 2012 Share Posted 28 January , 2012 Does anyone know what G.F. stands for? We are currently transcribing and trying to footnote a war diary of an artillery officer with 4th South Midlands Brigade. The entry for 9 May 1915 near Ploegsteert (Ypres area) says,"G.F. guns commenced shelling at 4.30 a.m. " This was prior to an attack. German Field Guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 28 January , 2012 Share Posted 28 January , 2012 Much more likely to be "Q.F.", meaning Quick Firing, i.e. those guns that utilised a brass cartridge case rather than a charge bag. In the British case this would have referred to the Brigade's 13 and 18 Pdrs plus the 4.5 inch howitzer rather than the heavier 60 Pdrs and Corps artillery. Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbox Posted 28 January , 2012 Share Posted 28 January , 2012 In terminology used during WW1 (and WW2) "GF" was an official abbreviation for "Gun Fire", which in turn specifically meant a gun or guns firing a certain number of rounds on an adjusted target as part of a fireplan - its nearest modern equivalent is "fire for effect". Thus in this context - if that is indeed what he meant - it refers to the guns firing their serials on a fireplan, which would be entirely to be expected on a deliberate attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 28 January , 2012 Share Posted 28 January , 2012 In terminology used during WW1 (and WW2) "GF" was an official abbreviation for "Gun Fire", which in turn specifically meant a gun or guns firing a certain number of rounds on an adjusted target as part of a fireplan - its nearest modern equivalent is "fire for effect". Thus in this context - if that is indeed what he meant - it refers to the guns firing their serials on a fireplan, which would be entirely to be expected on a deliberate attack. But then he wouldn't have written Guns as in effect it becomes Gun Fire Guns which is gobblydygook? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbox Posted 28 January , 2012 Share Posted 28 January , 2012 But then he wouldn't have written Guns as in effect it becomes Gun Fire Guns which is gobblydygook? Not really. "Gun Fire/GF" guns would be those specific batteries dedicated to the fireplan supporting the attack but, as a Gunner officer, he'd also be aware of other gun groups that may or may not be involved as well. I'm a bit rusty on precise WW1 terminology, but there'd certainly be an equivalent of "General Support/GS" guns, and also "General Support Reinforcing/GSR" guns. These would be guns either allocated to flanking formations, and/or held at higher command - but any of which might be chopped across to the local artillery commander to assist with the battle. Hence he might be habitually referring to GF, GS and GSR guns as a minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 28 January , 2012 Share Posted 28 January , 2012 As far back as 1774 GF Artillery meant General Field Artillery. It appears in contemporary accounts of ACW actions. Wellington uses the abbreviation in many of his despatches from the Peninsula. It is used in accounts of the Ruso Japanese war and it still crops up today. I think GF guns just meant much the same - the 13 and 18 pounders but excluding the howitzers and anything heavier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbox Posted 28 January , 2012 Share Posted 28 January , 2012 As far back as 1774 GF Artillery meant General Field Artillery. It appears in contemporary accounts of ACW actions. Wellington uses the abbreviation in many of his despatches from the Peninsula. It is used in accounts of the Ruso Japanese war and it still crops up today. I think GF guns just meant much the same - the 13 and 18 pounders but excluding the howitzers and anything heavier. Maybe, but I'm not sure an artillery officer of 1915 would be using a general term in his own gunner language. He'd be more likely to comment in terms of gun groups by command group or tasking. I presume that the date, 9th May 1915, indicates that this was the British attack at Aubers in support of the French attack at Vimy (second battle of Artois) . I don't have a detailed arty history with me, but i see once source describes the British arty assets as 504 field guns and 121 heavies present at this time in 1st Army. The arty plan, typical for this stage of the war, was field guns on the wire, howitzers on the enemy line positions, and heavy guns on depth strong points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 28 January , 2012 Share Posted 28 January , 2012 Maybe, but I'm not sure an artillery officer of 1915 would be using a general term in his own gunner language. He'd be more likely to comment in terms of gun groups by command group or tasking. I've seen it used by artillery officers in ww2 accounts. If its just a line in the WD it'd be shorter this way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 28 January , 2012 Share Posted 28 January , 2012 You need more of a context, was the attack theirs or ours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianjonesncl Posted 28 January , 2012 Share Posted 28 January , 2012 Not really. "Gun Fire/GF" guns would be those specific batteries dedicated to the fireplan supporting the attack but, as a Gunner officer, he'd also be aware of other gun groups that may or may not be involved as well. I'm a bit rusty on precise WW1 terminology, but there'd certainly be an equivalent of "General Support/GS" guns, and also "General Support Reinforcing/GSR" guns. These would be guns either allocated to flanking formations, and/or held at higher command - but any of which might be chopped across to the local artillery commander to assist with the battle. Hence he might be habitually referring to GF, GS and GSR guns as a minimum. The terminology General Support / General Support Reinforcing are more modern Gunner Command and Control relationships. The concept of RFA Guns not being allocated to a particular divisional artillery would not occur until the reorganisation of January 1917 with the designation of Army Brigades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianjonesncl Posted 28 January , 2012 Share Posted 28 January , 2012 From Phil Jobson's Royal Artillery Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations GF = Artillery Code used in WW1 meaning a fleeting target, there is also another entry which states = a specified number of rounds fired by a Troop, Battery or Regiment. In terms of a pre planned attack the latter would seem more appropriate though it would need to read Section / Battery / Brigade. It could be that a certain number guns were allocated to specific targets at that point in time, and not all guns would fire in that phase of the plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelfe Posted 29 January , 2012 Share Posted 29 January , 2012 Gunfire (abbv GF) was an executive order to fire, always coupled with the number of rounds (eg 5 rds Gun Fire) until 1965. It was genrally used against opportunity targets. It was obviously not used in barrages but would be used for concentrations within a fire plan including defensive fire (unless this was a standing barrage) and counter-battery tasks when the purpose was neutralising an active battery once the attack had started. It was probably also a standard response if an SOS target was called, eg something like 5 or 10 rds Gunfire. In WW1 arty C&C was very rudimentary, in fact the notion of 'control' didn't really exist, although it emerged late in the war with the creation of the Corps CB Officers. In this case, assuming it's not a misread QF, I think it just means guns firing Gunfire (in British terms). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbox Posted 29 January , 2012 Share Posted 29 January , 2012 It would be interesting to read the rest of his diary in order to see how he habitually recorded outgoing artillery barrages - did he tend to say "0430, x guns firing", "0445, Y guns firing", "0450, z guns firing", or does he limit himself to "0430, x guns firing". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E Wilcock Posted 29 January , 2012 Author Share Posted 29 January , 2012 Thank you both for replying - I think the latter Q F explanation might fit the context better. The diary appears to have been already transcribed by someone (may be mother or sister) unfamiliar with military terminology and with French - so quite a lot of misreadings. However, I need to read this whole thread as somehow I missed most of the extended discussion - not very adept at this Forum yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tipperary Posted 29 January , 2012 Share Posted 29 January , 2012 According to the list on Long Long Trail below GF was Fire For Effect(fleeting opportunity signal).john http://www.1914-1918.net/artillerycodes.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelfe Posted 30 January , 2012 Share Posted 30 January , 2012 The LLT isn't entirely correct on that. An opportunity target could well be fleeting, if you include 'depart rapidly/go to ground when engaged' as fleeting. However, a concentration (ie not barrage) in a fireplan would also be ordered as Gunfire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjjobson Posted 30 January , 2012 Share Posted 30 January , 2012 The LLT isn't entirely correct on that. An opportunity target could well be fleeting, if you include 'depart rapidly/go to ground when engaged' as fleeting. However, a concentration (ie not barrage) in a fireplan would also be ordered as Gunfire. Nigel Whilst you are correct regarding the definition of Gunfire, the LLT gives the definition for the Artillery Code meaning of the letters GF - which is specified in Field Artillery Training 1914 as "Gunfire for a fleeting target". Therefore, in essence, both you and the LLT are correct, once again a confusion caused by what was recently described to me a Gunner Mumbo-Jumbo Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelfe Posted 31 January , 2012 Share Posted 31 January , 2012 Later(?) GF was used against targets 'moving or likely to move'. This had an important point, it used battery 'salvo ranging' not section or single gun. As I understand it this wasn't the case in WW1. In this context it was a 'type of engagement', as was 'neutralisation', 'registration' and 'destruction' in WW1 and later, in which 'n rds Gunfire' was also used to order fire for effect (which was a descriptive term not an order). The 1917 'Co-operation of Aircraft with Artillery has the following in the context of aircraft to artillery signals: Fire for Effect (fleeting opportunity signal) GF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianjonesncl Posted 31 January , 2012 Share Posted 31 January , 2012 a confusion caused by what was recently described to me a Gunner Mumbo-Jumbo Phil I presume you are referring to the Language of Fire Control !!!! One hopes my interpretation of Nigel's post for control of the guns meets the initiators intentions (paraphrasing Gunner Mumbo Jumbo) - it is a type of engagement - fire five rounds when ordered - it is not an executive order to fire - so don't until someone orders fire and on pre planned fire - fire 5 rounds - not a rate of fire schedule. Which make senses - I often ordered a burst at the commencement of a fire plan for max initial shock effect. Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelfe Posted 1 February , 2012 Share Posted 1 February , 2012 It was an executive order to fire, if given by someone with the authority, which pilots didn't have. But GF could be sent by a battery commander in the OP by telegraph (morse over line). Obviously in that case it would be coupled with the number of rounds. From a pilot, as a request, none of the examples in the contemporaneous pams show it, which is consisting with the BC running the show, all the pilot chappy did was get the aim right. For a concentration in a Programme Shoot (fireplan) it was a written order (fireplans over wireless were late WW2 invention), can't find a WW1 example, the target was probably priinted on the specially issued map along with the barrage lines, and a written schedule with the target number, the time to fire and the number of rds GF. Of course instead of GF it could have been a period of fire and rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjjobson Posted 1 February , 2012 Share Posted 1 February , 2012 Phil I presume you are referring to the Language of Fire Control !!!! One hopes my interpretation of Nigel's post for control of the guns meets the initiators intentions (paraphrasing Gunner Mumbo Jumbo) - it is a type of engagement - fire five rounds when ordered - it is not an executive order to fire - so don't until someone orders fire and on pre planned fire - fire 5 rounds - not a rate of fire schedule. Which make senses - I often ordered a burst at the commencement of a fire plan for max initial shock effect. Ian Indeed I was Ian, the phrase Gunner Mumbo-Jumbo was used by a Lt. Col. at the Royal School of Artillery a couple of weeks ago! Phil 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