Artillery - distance from front line?

[AndrewBelsey]

I'm making some models of certain artillery pieces and wanting to put labels on them as to how far from the front line they were. The ones I'm modelling are 18 pounder, 4.5in howitzer, 60 pounder, 9.2in howitzer. If anyone could tell me how many yards or miles they were from the front line I'd be really grateful. Thanks, Andy

[centurion]

No simple answer as it could depend on the duty the artillery piece was tasked with so for example the 18 pounder could be right up to the front line if it was being assigned anti tank duties but further back if on barrage work - depending on what type of target it had been given. The 18 pounder's range increassed as different marks were produced so this is also a factor.

[WhiteStarLine]

Andy, Centurion's right of course, but you need some practical advice, so I suggest you pick a place, a phase and a year and ask for known artillery locations. Looking at your wonderful trench figures, they suggest to me static warfare, so pick a year and a place and just ask. Here is an example from the German spring offensive of 1918, which had now ground to a halt. The front line was centre of the map from Sailly-le-Sec north to Treux. The German lines ran back behind Morlancourt, where their artillery had once fired from the ridges over open sights during the intial Australian advance.

The Australian 18 pounders of the 7th Field Artillery Brigade were in the hills just north of Heilly, with a least one position within the top left hand map corner. This was a range of around 6,000 metres from the front line. The first divisional size attack was directed over the ridges towards Sailly-le-Sec, so the artillery range was around 7.5 k.

The 8th Field Artillery Brigade were at Lahoussie, which is not shown on this map but is 4 k west. The 6 inchers were here as well. This was a range of around 8,500 metres from the front line.

[AndrewBelsey]

Thank you guys. My artillery pieces will be made to complement my front line trenches model, so the period in question is mid 1916 in the Somme area.

[centurion]

A very rough answer (because it still depends on what role the guns were playing) for 18 pounders would be about 5,000 yards if they were firing "off the map" or guided by forward observers. However if ordered forward in anticipation of, say, a German counter attack (when they might have to fire over open sights) they might move up as close as 500 yards if suitable sites were available. There are also photos of 18 pounders concealed in dug out positions actually in the lines themselves.

Not sure how this affects the making of a model.

[johnreed]

It all depends on the tactical situation whether it be attacking in defence or withdrawal. I would suggest that 5,000 yards is a bit too far back a more realistic range would be 3,000 yards from the front which would give the guns a good zone to cover. At the time of the Somme offensive the maximum range of 18 Pdr is 8,400 yards.

[centurion]

I based my estimate on accounts by artillery officers who seemed to be operating at about 5,000 yards. But the point is, as I said, they could be anywhere from 5,000 yard back to right up to the lines depending upon what they were tasked with doing. BTW according to Hogg the range was just under 7,000 yards for the Mk 1 on the Mk 1 carriage which is what the majority of 18 pounders on the Somme were.

[AndrewBelsey]

Thanks again. I'm going to make my models on small bases with a label as to how they relate to the front line model, so I can label them "500 - 5000 yards from Front Line" or "3000 - 8400 yards from Fron Line" or "about 5000 yards from the Front Line" - I don't have to fix the position.

Do you know how far back the 60 pounders, and 9.2in howitzers would be (again it doesn't have to be a fixed point.)

[MikB]

Being high-trajectory howitzers, there were more targets on the battlefield accessible to the 9.2s than higher-velocity, flatter-trajectory weapons like the 60 pounders. The 9.2s were also far less agile in and out of action than wheeled guns like the 60 pounders.

Mk.I 9.2s ranged to just over 10,000 yards, Mk.IIs to a bit less than 14,000. If there was significant risk of a penetrating counterattack by the enemy, it would obviously be best to deploy these at the upper end of the range, say 8,000 yards. Against this an anticipated need for rapid follow-up might suggest 6 or 7,000 to allow barrages into enemy rear areas and secondary lines without having to re-emplace these big guns.

With a gun like the 60 pounder you might have to work a way round a hill or other obstruction to shoot at a target you couldn't reach over the top. That would dictate a more flexible appraoch to distances, but you probably wouldn't want to be closer than 2,000 if you had the choice - still quite a big gun and not as agile as an 18-pounder.

Regards,

MikB

[centurion]

Whilst the above is correct - again it's still a matter of what the artillery is being tasked with. Thus for example two of the many roles assigned the howitzers were taking out concrete strong points in the enemy's lines and forcing his observation balloons back two or three miles (so they could see less) by striking at their winches and gas generators. In the first case they could operate from near the extreme of their range but in the second they would need to be closer to the front. A battery might well be given different tasks for different stages of the battle and therefore have to shift position accordingly. Site preparation was needed, for example they would usually be using indirect fire and relying heavily on forward observers, their own balloons and aircraft. Setting up good communications was essential and lines had to be laid in such away that enemy counter fire was unlikely to cut them. This took time and advanced planning so that when it was time to move the new emplacements were ready and waiting.

[WhiteStarLine]

Here is a plot of the 36th Heavy Artillery Group positions for the July 9th 1916 attack on Ovillers la Boiselle as part of the Battle of the Somme. The attack was by the 32nd Division and as part of the harrassing / neutralising fire, targets were between west of Pozieres and Corcelette. All distances were plotted on a map overlay gridded in yards and rounded to the nearest 500. In the unit war diary, the grid references were standard (eg P24b75.45) so a more accurate plotting is possible.

For this operation, the group were dispersed, hence multiple distances are shown:

Enemy X8a and b and X14

15 inch 9,500 yards P24b

12 inch 10,500 yards P29a

8 inch 10,000 yards P24a

8 inch 5,500 yards F7c

6 inch 8,000 yards Q25b

6 inch 5,000 yards F7b

6 inch 5,000 yards W9

[jhill]

There are just a few points I can make that may not have been obvious from the previous discussion. Artillery positions were limited by the absolute need for access to a road so that the guns themselves could be brought forward and that ammunition might be brought up. Field artillery might be supplied by pack trains in emergencies but even then a practicable track would be necessary. From my studies so far one mile behind the lines was usually the closest that one could expect field artillery to be placed.

The attached sketch is from the Canadian operations against Passchendaele in late October 1917. This shows the approximate position of the field artillery for the left Divisional sector. The position is about a mile behind the front. Here the situation was particularly awful, with the batteries concentrated in a gaggle astride the only practical road. Even here, ammunition could only be supplied by pack train.

The other point is that, even with road access, it was difficult to position guns much closer to the front because they would be under direct enemy observation and within range of the other fellows field artillery. During the Vimy operation in April 1917 the fourth and final objective on the right of the Canadian advance was some three miles beyond the start line, and beyond the effective range of the field artillery positioned a mile back. It was necessary to place some "silent" batteries near the front which would not fire until zero day.

[nigelfe]

Actually heavy artillery was often supplied by the light rail network.

Heavy artillery was primarily used for counter-battery fire with some batteries assigned to destructive shoots against strong points, this means they had to be far enough forward to be able to reach the enemy gun areas. Furthermore heavy artilllery was not usually part of the barrage, but was used in concentrations (barrage had particular meaning it was not a portmanteau term for any old artillery fire).

The CB problem was that German heavy artillery generally outranged the British, so CB batteries had to deploy a bit further forward than they might have preferred.

[centurion]

All of which reinforces the point that the location of the artillery was determined by the role it was being asked to undertake modified by the terrain and ease of access factors.

Heavy artillery didn't just fire CB against opposing heavy artillery it was often used for CB against the enemy's field artillery which it usually out ranged.

British limitations of range were increasingly compensated for by a superior ability to locate the German heavy guns using techniques such as sound ranging. This became such a problem for the Germans that Ludendorff issued orders urging the capture of British sound ranging equipment and offering substantial rewards to any one achieving this.

[allen.h]

I thought that this extract from the diary of BRIGADIER - GENERAL G.B. MACKENZIE ,H.Q.IX.CORPS Heavy Artiilery might be of interest.

DATED 13 SEPT 1918, In the evening went to a Conference at Corps.Div C.R.A's were there, General Huhphreys asked them where they were going

to put their guns,then asked me.When i said i was going to put brigades in and in front of ATTILY where General De La Force,C.R.A 6th Div

had said he would not put his batteries because they could not clear the crest from there.General Lewin,C.R.A. 1st Div exclaimed" That is very unusual

to have heavies in front of field Artillery . " Our Heavies are thusters " remarked General Humphreys .

The Diary a most interesting read covers the WAR in great detail and would or perhaps should be put into print.

When it was the P.R.O. it was in W.O.-95-479 Thrusters i think is a fox hunting term,

ALLEN

[nigelfe]

That highlights another problem, Guns (eg 18-pr, 60-pr) could be crested by hills, whereas howitzers merely selected a charge to get over the hill, guns had to be far enough back so that they fired at a range that would give an elevation angle that would get the shells over the hill.

The corps CBSO dealt with all hostile artillery, using the batteries assigned for the purpose, these were usually RGA heavy/siege, 6-in, 8-in and 9.2-in How being preferred. Field arty was sometimes available for neutralisation, which was generally only required during an attack by either side. Obviously no one would make a habit of wasting field arty ammo on hostile battery destruction, because it would be an exercise in futility. Equally obviously this is all a matter of tactics so there were always exceptions somewhere.

[RobL]

Actually heavy artillery was often supplied by the light rail network.

Yes, there's at least one piece of surviving film showing a light railway line right behind a 6 inch howitzer battery, the track just a few metres behind the guns, and the superb 'London Gunners' about the HAC's 6 inch battery often makes reference to resupply by light rail. There's also images of artillery being moved by light rail and apparently it was sometimes even fired from it

[centurion]

That highlights another problem, Guns (eg 18-pr, 60-pr) could be crested by hills, whereas howitzers merely selected a charge to get over the hill, guns had to be far enough back so that they fired at a range that would give an elevation angle that would get the shells over the hill.

The corps CBSO dealt with all hostile artillery, using the batteries assigned for the purpose, these were usually RGA heavy/siege, 6-in, 8-in and 9.2-in How being preferred. Field arty was sometimes available for neutralisation, which was generally only required during an attack by either side. Obviously no one would make a habit of wasting field arty ammo on hostile battery destruction, because it would be an exercise in futility. Equally obviously this is all a matter of tactics so there were always exceptions somewhere.

For battery neutralisation gas shells were often used. This did not destroy any guns but made it very difficult for gunners to operate them.

[Robert Dunlop]

I'm making some models of certain artillery pieces and wanting to put labels on them as to how far from the front line they were. The ones I'm modelling are 18 pounder, 4.5in howitzer, 60 pounder, 9.2in howitzer. If anyone could tell me how many yards or miles they were from the front line I'd be really grateful. Thanks...

Andy, just taking a step back for minute. What are you hoping for when using the labels? What do you see the purpose that the labels will serve on the table?

Robert

[MikB]

That highlights another problem, Guns (eg 18-pr, 60-pr) could be crested by hills, whereas howitzers merely selected a charge to get over the hill, guns had to be far enough back so that they fired at a range that would give an elevation angle that would get the shells over the hill.

Even then, the flatter trajectory could produce a situation where the hill would create a long masking footprint behind, inside which the guns couldn't reach.

Regards,

MikB

[tony paley]

I was going to start a post regarding this very theme, as this post seems to have developed along the same lines I will just add my pennyworth. Earlier this year whilst in the tyne Cot CWG visitor centre a large school group entered and under the supervision of an elderly gentleman lined up at the panoramic window looking over the battlefield. He commence to speak the group and outlined the attack made, presumably by the Australian troops, on the area of the cemetery in late 1917. Most of what he said seemed correct until making a vague sweep of his hands he stated, '' The Heavy Artillery was around 20 miles away firing on the German position.'' This would probably put them in france, and would probably make a mess of some Corps and the Army HQ. not to mention our troops in reserve etc. then recently an excellent TV programme about the recent 'digs' in Messines the commentator again mentioned the Heavy Artillery some 20 miles away. I was at a recent WFA meeting when I mentioned these statements, as we were discussing similar errors in programmes and news items, when a very experienced fellow member said to me, '' Of course a lot of the Heavy Artillery was 20 miles away.'' Since then I have made a point of checking the maximum ranges of Heavy and Siege Artillery but now, with this post,I have some documentary evidence. Can anyone explain why this '20 mile artillery' seems such a common belief. Or could I be mistaken in converting my yardage.

Tony P

[davidfegga]

Just came across this post while searching for something else. While researching "my" field artillery brigade I've generally found the 18 pounders to be 500 - 2000yds from the front line but no more. As has been said above there are occasions when a gun or guns were virtually in the front line usually on anti- tank or SOS duties.

The map attached shows their positions on 1st July 1916, being roughly 1000 to 2000 yards from their targets at La Boisselle

Dave

[nigelfe]

Re the 20 miles thing (or roughly 32,160 metres, or 35,200 yards), I thinks its just a nice round impressive number used by people who know no better and sounds much better than 2. As a rough and ready planning aid, it's conventionally suggested that guns shoud be about 1/3 their max range behind forward troops (ie about 2/3 over the enemy). 20 miles behind the front would imply a max range in the 96,000 metres ballpark! This starts to expose us to the joys of zone to zone transformation when calculating firing data, definitely not in the WW1 artillery skill set!

[bmac]

Positioning of 18 pdrs would depend on their use and the time in the war. If wire cutting with shrapnel, up to late summer 1916, then the optimum range divined by the Calais test of late 1915 showed a range of between 1800 and 2400 yards. Any longer and the effectiveness rapidly diminished, much shorter and the flatter trajectory interfered with effective wire cutting. Thus the positions shown in the La Boisselle example above (though the terrain, i.e. Tara and Usna Hills, would also have dictated their positioning for wire cutting). The 2 inch trench mortar was, therefore, a useful addition to the wire cutting. process.

[derekspiers]

In the Somme pre-offensive artillery bombardment of June 1916 the 9.2s of 94/95 SB were positioned in Bayencourt, 6000 yards from their targets to the rear of Gommecourt.

In 1918 95SB 9.2s returned to almost exactly the same spot - they were supplied with ammunition from a "field" railway which terminated only 100 yards from the battery. It also brought in a "12" Naval gun" each day..