Previous Threads

[Guest paddy]

G'day

Have there been discussions on the effects of "inaccurate" artillery work, particularly during an advance, or on the incidence & experiences of soldiers who may appear to be enlisted in the wrong army.

On the former, I have recently read that about 10% of the total casualties of some of the major WW1 armies resulted from "friendly fire". This was partly attributable to a preference for taking your chances close up to the barrage, rather than facing machine guns.

On the latter, there has been a recent study which resulted in the book "German Anzacs", [which I have not yet read]. On perusing memorials etc., one notices many names that would appear to be "on the wrong side."

Many forum members mention research into family and local soldiers. Are their "stories" published on this website?

ooRoo

[Annette Burgoyne]

Hi Paddy

I not sure if this subject as been talked about before. But I have a couple of examples.

On 9th Aug. 1915, the 6th Division attacked and re-captured Hooge. The Division's report on the attack records eight men being hit while getting to close to British barrage in their keeness at the start of the attack.

On 16th Aug 1917, the Germans counter-attacked the line held by the 20th Division, creeping up very close to British trenches. The 6th K.S.L.I. officer in charge seen back map refs. to Brigade that included part of their own line, so shell fell on that part of the line but it did the job and there were no Germans left in front on them, where as on the rest of the Brigades line the Germans pushed the line back about 200 yards.

Regards

Annette

[Tim Birch]

Casualties caused by your own artillery was one of the nightmares facing commanders. In the opening Somme offensive at least one mine was prematurely detonated, and the barrage lifted too soon. The reason was fear of the first waves being caught in them, the result was that it gave the Germans ample warning so that they were able to man the parapet and inflict heavy fire on the attackers.

As the war progressed it became generally accepted that the attacking waves should keep up close with the rolling barrage. This meant that some friendly fire casualties would be inevitable, but this was considered a more acceptable option than many more casualties from enemy retailiation if his fire was not supressed by the barrage.

Tim

[BeppoSapone]

I have recently read that about 10% of the total casualties of some of the major WW1 armies resulted from "friendly fire". This was partly attributable to a preference for taking your chances close up to the barrage, rather than facing machine guns.

I believe I once read, somewhere, that it was in reality shell fire from the Royal Navy that "cleared" the New Zealanders from Chanuk Bair at Gallipoli.

Does anyone have fuller details

[Guest Pete Wood]

I recall reading about that, too. Wasn't the 'smoking gun' evidence something to do with the fact that the surviving NZ troops were covered in yellow powder which was used only in British shells....??

[Bernard_Lewis]

Misdirected artillery fire - 10 May 1918 at Aveluy Wood a company of the Swansea Bn (14th Welsh) was shelled by one of its own guns. The gunner had mixed up degrees and half degrees so that the planned barrage fell in the assembly area of the friendly infantry rather than on the Germans. From memory 30+ casualties including 12 killed.

Bernard Lewis

[michaeldr]

I believe I once read, somewhere, that it was in reality shell fire from the Royal Navy that "cleared" the New Zealanders from Chanuk Bair at Gallipoli.

Does anyone have fuller details

So called 'friendly fire' was a very big problem during this action with several incidents reported at this time. With Malone's Wellington battalion were the 7th Gloucester and the 8th Welch Pioneers . The war diary of the latter refers to heavy shelling by "fire from the rear."

Malone was killed at about 5.00pm [8th Aug] when Allied naval shelling fell on his HQ trench.

Prof Tim Travers in his book 'Gallipoli 1915' quotes from the diary of Trooper Law [4th Waikato Reg.] who tells of several men hit by shells from an Allied warship at 4.00 am on the 9th. Travers also refers to the diary of Private Harry Browne [WMR] who tells of shells from an Allied destroyer falling on them at the same time as the Turks counter attacked. A little later when "There were only four men left to defend what had become the front trench on Chunuk Bair. A 75 French gun from Walker's Ridge and an Allied battery from Antafarta dropped fire onto them. Phoning out and waving flags to stop the friendly fire only produced more shelling.............Then Allied shelling became more accurate and got into the Turks....."

Nearby, Allanson together with his Gurkhas were also shelled and the argument still rumbles on as to who fired those shots. "Allanson blamed the Navy for the shells which destroyed the Hill Q assault. But this is unlikely, given Allanson's position over the crest, allowing a view of the straits. However, the ship's log of 'Bacchante', supporting the operation, shows that she opened fire at 5.20 am on 9th August on Hill Q with 6 inch shell and the 12 inch shells of a monitor might also have been responsible. But what historians have overlooked is that the 'pre-arranged artillery timetable' called for Anzac howitzers to search the forward crest 'at 5.15 am' on 9th August, obviously to defend Hill Q against Turkish counter attacks, and for the Navy to switch to flank fire at this time. Since Allanson and his Gurkhas were hit on the forward 'crest at about 5.35 am,' the responsibility for this unfortunate 'friendly fire' incident obviously lies with poor staff work, while the 'very excitable' but brave and energetic Allanson unintentionally put his Gurkhas at risk after 5.15 am. Clearly, Allanson did not know what the Allied fire plan was."

above quotes from Travers

8/9th August 1915 were not good days for gunners, be they naval, Anzac or French

and a bl**dy awful couple of days for the PBI

Regards

Michael D.R.

[Annette Burgoyne]

8/9th August 1915 were not good days for gunners

While on the same day (9th August 1915), the gunners at Hooge were excellant (the eight men I mention in my earlier post were only hit because they were to keen to get forward), the 6th Division took its objectives with only light casualties due to the skilfull work of the Artillery. But the skilfull German gunners then went to work and inflicked heavy casualties on the 6th Div. after the objectives were taken.

Regards

Annette

[michaeldr]

Sorry Annette, I should probably have made my remark clearer, possibly by inserting the word 'Gallipolian' before gunners

In fairness to them, theirs [the gunners] cannot have been an easy task

+ Secrecy was an aspect which had previously been ignored in this campaign and now they over-compensated with no body being told anything until the very last moment. Travers is probably correct in suggesting that Allanson did not know the fire plan

+ The physical geography of this area is horrendous; if someone has not been there and seen it then the best short description of it is Sir Ian Hamilton's. He was an old India hand and he likened it to the Khyber Pass region of the North West Frontier District. In aspect, it could not have been further from the flat terrain of Flanders

+ Signalling by radio, at least between the front line and the rear, was I think unknown on this battlefield [correct me if I'm wrong someone please]. Telephone wires were always being cut. And as for signalling by flags; anyone prepared to stand up and waive flags about under fire should have got the VC. The Australian artist Ellis Silas was a signaller during the first days at Anzac. After about three weeks he was sent off the peninsula, a nervous wreck who screamed in his sleep, and eventually he was invalided out of the army. *

+ A recent thread examined the importance of meteorology to gunnery and the hot, thin air of an August day on Gallipoli must have effected the flight of a shell there, but again I do not recollect reading of Meteor Telegrammes on this front [and again, please correct me if I'm wrong someone]

In the end, it was less of a case of 'somebody's fault' and more a collection of unfortunate circumstances. And the infantry paid the price

Regards

Michael D.R.

* According to Tom Curran's 'Across The Bar' the life expectancy of a "flag wagger" at The Landings was about two days.

Edited 2 November , 2003 by michaeldr