Junger refers to 10-inch shells in Storm of Steel. 9.2-inch ?

[RodB]

In Storm of Steel (Penguin English edition, translation by Michael Hofmann 2003), Ernst Junger refers several times to British "10-inch shells". Is this an artefact of translation, does the original German actually read "24-centimetre" ? Is it reasonable to assume he is referring to the 9.2-inch (23.4-cm) howitzer ? Seems to me incorrect to change units of measurement in a translation.

thanks

Rod

[SiegeGunner]

Give me a couple of page references, Rod, and I will check in the edition of SoS that Hofmann used. There are so many mistakes, misinterpretations and infelicities in his 'translation' that I am not surprised when others come to light. He is particularly weak on artillery and, for example, refers at one point to the firing of "ships' guns' at Langemarck.

[RodB]

Give me a couple of page references, Rod, and I will check in the edition of SoS that Hofmann used. There are so many mistakes, misinterpretations and infelicities in his 'translation' that I am not surprised when others come to light. He is particularly weak on artillery and, for example, refers at one point to the firing of "ships' guns' at Langemarck.

Thanks for the offer, I finally found the references again :

First reference is five pages from the end of the chapter "The Beginning of the Battle of the Somme" (p 86 in the 2014 Penguin edition) : "On the evening of the 13th [July], our dugouts in the garden came under fire from a ten-inch naval gun, whose massive shells rumbled at us in a low arc". I presume the flat trajectory caused him to call it a naval gun... 9.2 inch railway gun ?

Second reference is on the fourth page of the chapter "Langemarck" (p 159) : "... a regimental staff had been pushed back a few days ago by the small matter of a thousand ten-inch shells". 9.2 inch howitzer ?

thanks

Rod

[centurion]

A French Ml 1903 240mm railway gun supporting the British? These were naval in origin

[SiegeGunner]

The first one reads 'Am 13. abends wurdern unsere Unterstände in den Gärten durch ein Vierundzwanzig-Zentimeter-Schiffsgeschütz beschossen, dessen gewaltige Granaten in scharfer Flachbahn herangurgelten ...'. So 'On the 13th, in the evening, our dugouts in the gardens came under fire from a 24cm naval gun, whose massive shells gurgled towards us on a low, flat trajectory.'

The second reads '... vor einigen Tagen ein Regimentsstab durch die Kleinigkeit von tausend Vierundzwanzig-Zentimeter-Granaten vertrieben war.'

So '... a few days before a regimental HQ had been driven out by a small matter of a thousand 24cm shells.'

The first sounds like a naval gun on a railway mounting and the second like a battery of 9.2" howitzers.

[centurion]

Which on the Somme might suggest that in instance one the French were supporting the British as their artillery did in a number of places. If you are facing the British it's not an unreasonable assumption to make that shells heading your way are British but with long range artillery it aint necessarily so

[Terry_Reeves]

Centurion

Surely you know the routine by now - produce the evidence.

TR

[bmac]

There were two 9.2 in railway guns on the Somme from the 45th Siege Battery, Left Half with III Corps and Right Half with VII Corps.

[centurion]

Centurion

Surely you know the routine by now - produce the evidence.

TR

Simples the French had 240mm railway guns (based on naval guns) at the time at the time and were giving artillery support at t the time - BTW I don't need or intend to operate to any of your self styled rules.

[bmac]

The French on the Somme had six batteries of 240 mm guns 1903 mounted on railway trucks 1914, with two guns per battery. They were all part of the 6^e Groupe de Artillerie à Pied d’Afrique. There were also four 240 mm guns 1884/93 mounted on wooden cradles (6^e Groupe de 240 à échantignolles).

[SiegeGunner]

There were two 9.2 in railway guns on the Somme from the 45th Siege Battery, Left Half with III Corps and Right Half with VII Corps.

The place names Jünger mentions in this context are Adinfer, Monchy and Douchy. So Monchy-au-Bois and Douchy-lès-Ayette, to the north of Gommecourt in the direction of Arras. So more likely a British 9.2" railway gun, I would think.

[bmac]

The 9.2 railway gun with VII Corps was on the north side of the Gommecourt salient and could have been fired at pretty much anything from Rossignol Wood round to Adinfer on its curved railway line. There were known to be German artillery positions in Adinfer and at Douchy and the 9.2 would have been able to reach them.

[Terry_Reeves]

Simples the French had 240mm railway guns (based on naval guns) at the time at the time and were giving artillery support at t the time - BTW I don't need or intend to operate to any of your self styled rules.

Sorry Centurion, sources are all important, surely you must know that, and they are not my rules. Does your academic supervisor accept such things without question?

TR

[SiegeGunner]

Strange, that .... Centurion seems to have lost interest ...

[RodB]

Thanks gentlemen... I have the impression from my readings that each ally was self-sufficient within their own sectors such as artillery, transport etc. I would think that differences in doctrine, language, command and control, objectives etc would have made French artillery operating in a British sector or vice versa more trouble than it was worth. I understand the Americans borrowed some French railway guns but operated them themselves.

I think Junger's reference to 24-cm is generic - they tended to round up to the next whole cm. I also think the translator should have left this in cm... he has changed the sense of what Junger actually wrote by converting to a nonsensical 10 inches.

[John(txic)]

Taking you all off on a tangent - why did the BEF refer to certain German shells as 5.9s? Surely they would have been metric calibre shells being fired?

[RodB]

Taking you all off on a tangent - why did the BEF refer to certain German shells as 5.9s? Surely they would have been metric calibre shells being fired?

Nationalism... armies used their own measurements rather than the enemy's... 15 cm worked out at about 5.9 inches. Same as Junger used metric equivalents for British shells. And I suspect the average Tommy had no idea what a centimetre was in those days. But he knew what a 5 9 was : specifically, shells from heavy field howitzers "traversing... with never a dud" (Sassoon).

I'm still astonished that the US Army managed to go metric during the war and still is, while the rest of the country still hasn't.

Rod

[bmac]

A number of French batteries of 75 mm and 220 mm guns were used to support the British attacks on the Somme before and on1st July 1916 and some others joined a few days later. One of the conditions of the movement of the French 10th Army from around Arras to south of the Somme in the spring of 1916 was that a reasonable chunk of French artillery was left in the sector to support the newly arrived British troops.

[SiegeGunner]

I would think that differences in doctrine, language, command and control, objectives etc would have made French artillery operating in a British sector or vice versa more trouble than it was worth.

On the Belgian coast, throughout the war, the Royal Naval Siege Guns, emplaced on land in concrete gunpits topped with sand, cooperated with the French heavy artillery in the same sector. When not required by their 'owner', the Admiral commanding the Dover Patrol, they were placed at the disposal of the French artillery commander. Among their guns was a naval 9.2" railway gun, which was one of three 9.2" naval guns on railway mountings 'built' in the coastal sector in 1914. The other two, if I am not mistaken, are the railway guns referred to by Bill above.

The RNSG was regularly available for cooperation with the French because there were no British land forces in that sector until June 1917. After that date, their availability declined as they were required to fire in support of the British forces massing for the 3rd Ypres offensive.

[SiegeGunner]

I also think the translator should have left this in cm... he has changed the sense of what Junger actually wrote by converting to a nonsensical 10 inches.

I agree entirely and there are other examples of nonsensical conversion of units of measurement in Hofmann's 'translation'. He knew very little about military matters, and it shows.

[David Filsell]

Whatever the references, forthcoming or not, from Centurion far more important is to say again that the Hoffman translation is disgraceful. A real crock. As I have boringly repeated on this forum, whilst Hoffman is a much feted translator of German works he is - by his own admission to me - ignorant on military matters. Do get the original translation (by a an ex WW1 combatant).

[SiegeGunner]

Basil Creighton's 1929 translation, to which David refers, says, in the first instance 'a 24-centimetre naval gun' and in the second instance '24-centimetre shells'.

[RodB]

Basil Creighton's 1929 translation, to which David refers, says, in the first instance 'a 24-centimetre naval gun' and in the second instance '24-centimetre shells'.

Yet Hofmann absolutely ridicules Creighton's translation in his Introduction. Egos at ten paces. I have encountered this "who cares about military accuracy" attitude in academia many times as if they see military accuracy as of a lower order... tell that to the men who depended on their officers getting these facts right. Junger is careful to differentiate between e.g. shrapnel and HE... important if your and your men's lives depend on knowing what's coming at you and reacting accordingly. Charles Bean struck me as a historian who took pains to get such details right, yet today he is being dismissed as a pedantic nationalist nutter by a newer more dashing style of historian.

Rod

[derekspiers]

Are the 9.2 railway mounted guns the same type BL as the "land based" platform versions deployed in SIege Batteries ?

[David Filsell]

Hoffmann was incredibly scathing of Chreighton's translation. Sad since the original translator served with Anzac and latter worked at the British Museum. He was a good translator and also wrote a most worthwhile GW novella. That said Hoffman's translations of Hans Fallada's works have gained much praise.