Did shells really whistle?

[trajan]

Sitting currently in Munich airport , a mas in hand, reading G.Coppard, With a Machine gun to Cambrai' bought from a second hand book shop in the UK yesterday  in anticipation of an scheduled 8-hour layover... 

Anyway, p. 23 (IWM 1980 edition). 

"In a few minutes I became aware of pulsating rushing sounds., increasing in power and intensity. The threatening noise struck equally between my ears , and I knew instinctively that the shells were heading in my general direction". He was describing howitzer fire.

p. 112.

"... Jerry was using a 17 inch howitzer ... The missile approached with a roar like an express train..."

IIRC he talks elsewhere of only howitzer shells making such noises.

Julian    

[MikB]

8 hours ago, trajan said:

Sitting currently in Munich airport , a mas in hand, reading G.Coppard, With a Machine gun to Cambrai' bought from a second hand book shop in the UK yesterday  in anticipation of an scheduled 8-hour layover... 

Anyway, p. 23 (IWM 1980 edition). 

"In a few minutes I became aware of pulsating rushing sounds., increasing in power and intensity. The threatening noise struck equally between my ears , and I knew instinctively that the shells were heading in my general direction". He was describing howitzer fire.

p. 112.

"... Jerry was using a 17 inch howitzer ... The missile approached with a roar like an express train..."

IIRC he talks elsewhere of only howitzer shells making such noises.

Julian    

Well, yes - and Wilfred Owen wrote of "The shrill, demented choirs of wailing shells" and someone else of "...a heavy shell/Whispers itself passing high, high overhead..."

The "17 inch" - if he's not exaggerating - is probably a 42 cm "Big Bertha".

I'd venture to suggest all of these descriptions represent individual experiences of the turbulence generated by shells from howitzers, so at that time practically always subsonic.

If it'd been from something like a heavy naval gun, it'd still be doing something like Mach 1.3 at more than 15 km range, so an observer would hear a crack of thunder as it passed if it missed him and nothing at all - then or ever - if it didn't.

Edited 27 August , 2022 by MikB

[trajan]

On 27/08/2022 at 14:49, trajan said:

... G.Coppard, With a Machine gun to Cambrai' ... (IWM 1980 edition) ... IIRC he talks elsewhere of only howitzer shells making such noises.

Note p.92-93: "Whizz-bangs were a torment to us. They travelled faster than sound. If you happened to be near the recieving end you first heard the thing burst, then the whizz of its approach, and lastly the boom of the gun that fired it. There was no split-second warning to get one's self-preservation instincts to work , as was the case with howitzer shells, which had higher trajectories and less speed" [Emphasis added]

Julian

[MikB]

12 hours ago, trajan said:

Note p.92-93: "Whizz-bangs were a torment to us. They travelled faster than sound. If you happened to be near the recieving end you first heard the thing burst, then the whizz of its approach, and lastly the boom of the gun that fired it. There was no split-second warning to get one's self-preservation instincts to work , as was the case with howitzer shells, which had higher trajectories and less speed" [Emphasis added]

Julian

Well, that'd make it a Bang-whizz, wouldn't it?  A million soldiers can't be wrong...? 

Unless it was pretty close or the front quiet, I'd think the discharge thump might be lost in general battlefield noise. Still. it probably would have to be considerably less than, say 2000 yards away to still be well supersonic over the lines, having only started at Mach 1.4 or so.

I'd still say whether they whistled depended on how fast they were going, where they were on their trajectory, where the listener was in relation to them and whether he wanted - or could be bothered - to describe the sound in any detail. For some writers, it might be just that 'whistled' meant they made some sort of high-ish frequency sound that he could hear?

For those who used the 'express train' description, was the train blowing its whistle as it went?

Edited 29 August , 2022 by MikB

[ianjonesncl]

On 29/08/2022 at 19:04, MikB said:

I'd still say whether they whistled depended on how fast they were going, where they were on their trajectory, where the listener was in relation to them and whether he wanted - or could be bothered - to describe the sound in any detail. For some writers, it might be just that 'whistled' meant they made some sort of high-ish frequency sound that he could hear?

A memorable sound of whistling was as a reconnaisance officer on an exercise which involved all of the Divisional Artillery plus additional units. I would think it was about 60 guns (yes it was a number of decades ago) all firing at different times, sometimes all together. Everywhere we went there was the sound of shells whistling overhead.

The many occassions at the observers end, one would hear shells whistling, thankfully over ones head. The one that got close, there was a rushing of air rather than a whistle. If you are not under the trajectory or near the round, then the first indication is observing the fall of shot and / or the the noise of the explosion. 

I think subconciously that on hearing the distant bang of a gun firing, there was the thought that there was some high explosive heading ones way, though not as the target. However things can go wrong. This one went too far; MoD 'should apologise' for Salisbury Plain stray shell - BBC News others have dropped short.  There was always an awareness of the sounds going on. For those serving during WW1  and subject to bombardment I would think there would be an acute awareness.

On 29/08/2022 at 19:04, MikB said:

Still. it probably would have to be considerably less than, say 2000 yards away to still be well supersonic over the lines, having only started at Mach 1.4 or so.

I seem to recollect that the OT distance (Observer to Target distance which is calculted to adjust rounds) was 2 to 3 km and a 155mm (6 inch) shell was whistling. No idea of the speed.