Artillery

[dah]

I read so much about WW1, but know so little about its artillery

Just some of the many questions I have in mind........

Why does a creeping barrage move across no man's land when there are no enemy there? My logic suggests it should start on the enemies front line and move progressively beyond as the allied troops approach it.

Is the shrapnel from the detonation of a high explosive shell of meaningful significance (other than to the person it hits)? Is the the real destructive power mainly in the blast

How can a shell destroy barbed-wire. Is it blast, heat, shrapnel?

What is the lethal radius of various types of shell upon detonation?

Is there a book that you would recommend that would help me answer all these questions (and more) about artillery?

I went to the Firepower museum over Christmas - expecting to find a suitable book there. To my surprise - no such luck (altho otherwise a good museum)

All suggestions gratefully received.

Many thanks,

David

[Robert Dunlop]

David

I will attempt to answer some of your questions:

Creeping barrages might start in No Man's Land because it was not uncommon for German defenders to position themselves there. Machine gunners and riflemen might take cover in shell holes to avoid being caught in a barrage aimed at the front line trenches. As a campaign progressed, and as the war went on, it became less clear where No Man's Land ended and the forward defensive zones began. Lastly, creeping barrages kicked up a lot of dust and smoke. Sometimes smoke shells were added to supplement this effect on reducing visibility.

Shrapnel was meaningful in killing men/animals in the open and in cutting barbed wire. Blast was more important in destroying buildings and killing men therein.

Shrapnel is most important in destroying barbed wire. It slices through the wire and supports. Blast tended to lift the wire, entangle it further and then dump it back into a deeper hole.

Lethal radius depended on the type of shell, where and how it was detonated. In very muddy ground for example, the effect of even heavy shells might be completely negated. Alternatively, on hard frosty ground for example, men might be cut down by fragments that have travelled quite long distances.

I can't really help on the issue of books about these kinds of things. There has been a recent thread on books about artillery in WW1.

Robert

[Robert Dunlop]

David

Just to add, in case it isn't clear, blast was also important in killing people in the open.

Robert

[Robert Dunlop]

There has been a recent thread on books about artillery in WW1.

Here it is:

http://1914-1918.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=25984

Robert

[KONDOA]

blast was also important in killing people in the open

More effective against horses in the line of communication.

Roop

[Guest]

There is a difference between shrapnel and shell fragments which is often overlooked.

In 1914, the most common type of anti-personnel shell in use, certainly by British forces, was shrapnel. As the war progressed, though, this was superceded by high explosive.

A shrapnel shell was fitted with a time fuze, timed to produce an airburst over the heads of the enemy. The shell contained a low explosive charge which propelled a large number of shrapnel bullets down onto the enemy. It was very effective against men and horses, but not much use at all against fortified positions with overhead protection and of limited use in wire cutting.

High explosive shell produced lethal shell fragments when the high explosive filling detonated. This could be the result of an airburst, but was more commonly the result of a percussion fuze hitting the ground. Many of the blinds (duds) littering the battlefields today were caused by the shell landing in very soft mud, not firm enough for the fuze to work.

HE produced both blast and fragmentation effects, both of which could cut or break wire and both of which caused lethal injury, but wire cutting was always a slow business and the prolongued bombardments needed to do it gave away the point of attack, so that the enemy could concentrate reserves in the rear.

[MikB]

There is a difference between shrapnel and shell fragments which is often overlooked.

A shrapnel shell was fitted with a time fuze, timed to produce an airburst over the heads of the enemy. The shell contained a low explosive charge which propelled a large number of shrapnel bullets down onto the enemy. It was very effective against men and horses, but not much use at all against fortified positions with overhead protection and of limited use in wire cutting.

First paragraph is a very good point.

At the risk of sounding pedantic, I'd like to take a bit of an issue with para 3 to clear up the function of a shrapnel shell.

A shrapnel round of WW1 vintage is much like a flying shotgun loaded with heavy buckshot. The gyroscopic effect of the rifling keeps the shell pointed more or less at the same absolute angle it was fired at for pretty much the whole trajectory, as the spin is very much less degraded by air-friction than the forward velocity. The low-explosive charge is the minimum needed to jostle the shrapnel balls out the nose after the fuze has blown off - most of the balls' velocity is what's left of the shell's.

So bursting it above their heads would have delivered the balls tens or hundreds of yards behind the enemy. The idea would be to shoot it on a flattish trajectory straight at the enemy, and time the burst for 50-100 yards short if you were trying to kill troops with their heads above the parapet. The uncommonness of this situation was probably one of the factors that led to the progressive replacement of shrapnel with HE when attacking troops, though of course it would still be pretty effective in keeping enemy heads down when you didn't want them to see what you were doing.

For wire-cutting, shrapnel would need to be timed to burst closer, and almost at ground-level, so the balls would strike the wire as horizontally as possible, cutting it, tearing out the stakes and carrying it towards the enemy. You needed a dense pattern to do that, and the fuze timing was critical, so the success rate was very variable. It could work very effectively with skilled gunners who knew the ground and the ammunition in detail. If either of those factors were missing, bursts too short resulted in a high, loose pattern that might miss the wire altogether, while late fuzes would burst after the shell embedded in the mud, with little if any effect.

Regards,

MikB

[Guest]

I take your point MikB. My main puspose was to distinguish between shrapnel and HE frag, which is often called shrapnel, but isn't.

[Old Tom]

Hello,

Lots of interesting stuff here. An aspect of the creeping barrage (note the term comes from the structures built to control the flow in rivers) is that it was an attempt to make use of the principle of 'fire and movement' i.e. a part of the attacking force fires to keep the enemy heads down while the other part advances to be close enough to use the rifle and bayonet. A problem was that there was little or no effective means for the infantry, once it started to advance, to talk to the artillery and thus allow the barrage, or other fire, to be adjusted to suit the infantry rate of progress or deal with emerging targets.

I found the book below to be of value:

Fire Power, Weapons and Theories of War 04/45 Bidwell & Graham published by George Allen and Unwin

Regards

Old Tom

[Marco]

Why does a creeping barrage move across no man's land when there are no enemy there?

As already stated there were enemies there. I'm currently reading the diary of a German soldier. At Masnieres (Cambrai) he was attached with 7 other riflemen to a MG team which was located in front of the German frontline. The idea being that when the pressure from the British became too great the MG team would fall back to the frontline and set up shop there. While this was in progress the 8 riflemen covered the MG team. The riflemen retreated when the MG was back in business, covering them. Great in theory

Regards,

Marco

[Arnie]

In 1912 a committee chaired by Haig made a conscious decision to manufacture shrapnel shells as British Artillery main Artillery ammunition. This was based on experience of the Boar war and Haig's insistence that only raw troops were affected by artillery fire. There was also a bias against heavy artillery.

When the Trench warfare stage started in 1915 many of the British attacks were stymied because shrapnel could not efficiently cut Barbed wire. Against personnel and horses it was as said still effective.

With the introduction of the 'Graze' fuse, high explosive became the ammunition of choice and under the guidance of General Uniacke an artilleryman who was not horse artillery, had not served in the Boar war and had studied the Russo/Jap war, Under his supervision artillery fire became almost a science. Unfortunately Uniacke did not not enjoy the support of Haig and was later dismissed by him.

The early on the creeping barrage wasn't trusted by the infantry who tended to hang back thereby loosing the initiative. But, under Uniacke the artillery began to dominate the battle field and the infantry became so confident that they would conform to the creeping barrage rather than the barrage conform to the infantry.

Arnie

[Greg1]

The other problem is that it was very difficult to locate small targets and to communicate this to the guns so the creeping barrage had the advantage os suppressing the majority of possible locations albeit at enourmous cost in ammunition.

Greg

[BatterySergeantMajor]

the infantry became so confident that they would conform to the creeping barrage rather than the barrage conform to the infantry.

Arnie

Which is normal. For a creeping barrage you need a pre-calculated firing plan . It isn't that easy to adapt such a firing plan once the devil is out of the box.

Erwin

[Arnie]

BSM

Which is normal. For a creeping barrage you need a pre-calculated firing plan . It isn't that easy to adapt such a firing plan once the devil is out of the box.

The original creeping barrage was set to move at the pace that infantry would supposedly move. But the artillery was notoriously unpredictable in the early stages so the troops would allow for these errors.

Arnie

[AndyHollinger]

Remember in almost all cases the answer should be "usually" ... Artillery, even today is not an exact science ... short rounds, long rounds, good/bad fuses changes everything ... 1 short during a creeping and an officer and group of men can be taken out ... too long or too quick and it's no good.

Remember there's a variation on the theme of creeping which was "Boxing" keeping flank troops from moving into an attack zone.

and, of course, MGs could and were used as indirect fire by the end of the war. ...

[Guest]

Prior to the war, field and horse artillery would almost invariably fire by direct fire, galloping into action, unlimbering, firing over open sights and galloping off again. Direct fire means where you can see the target through the sights and aim directly at it. Little account was made of gun wear, temperature, wind, or any of the other factors which were considered to be the specialist arts of garrison artillery.

Trench warfare changed all that and very quickly the majority of artillery shoots were by indifect fire. That is firing on a range and bearing with the enemy unseen. This resulted in the introduction of forward artillery observation, including aerial spotting.

Therefore, I think it is possible to say that modern artillery practice was introduced during the war. Of course it was refined and perfected over a longer period. Artillery techniques used in WWII were certainly superior, but still based on the principles of indirect firing used from 1914 onwards.