Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Artillery Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: WW1 and artillery
Question    10/22/2003 11:30:44 PM
I heard that the reason there were so many casualties in WW1 was due to the pratice of infantry charging when the artillery barrage stopped.I also heard that the rolling barage was invented to keep the enemy distracted and not able to pour accurate fire into the advancing infantry.Anyone got more details on how rolling barrages was done? Also would more artillery have solved trench warfare?Shortage of artillery was listed as one of the reasons for trench warfare in WW1.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
Carl S    RE:WW1 and artillery improvements   11/8/2005 8:01:15 PM
Supressive fires would be the modern (late 20th Century) description of what the artillerymen were working towards post 1916. Specificly the sucessfull arty comanders were trying to put the minimum number of shells on a target and still prevent the enemy there from firing or manuvering while the arty attack continued. The differences in ammo expendenture between the suppresion or nuetralization attack of late war and the 'destruction' attacks of 1915 could be as much as 1 - 20 or 95%. Aside from the reduction in strain on the ammo transport fewer guns were required to fire the suppresion attack on a specific target area, thus a battalion or brigade could attack more targets. Also with only a battery or battalion controled by a single observer better response was had, vs the rigid fire plans required for coordinating 'hundred gun' firegroups. The foundation of Bruchmullers ideas seems to have been his through understanding of the real effects of cannon ammunition. His use of suppresive fires in 1915 were a large step ahead of his contemporaries. the command and control techniques he developed were also highly efffective. Bruchmuller went from a LtCol on the retired list in 1914, to the most important German field commander in 1917.
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:WW1 and artillery improvements   11/9/2005 5:21:42 AM
Not sure that I would call Bruckmuller the 'most important German field commander in 1917.' He was never a 'commander' and in 1917 he didn't arrive in the west until quite late in the year as 'an observer' although he successfully intervened at Cambrai. In 1918 he had only limited acceptance in the West by GE commanders and his role was advisory although 18 Army comd stated that a suggestion by Col B was to be treated as an order by him. Furthermore in the first GE offensive, Plan Michael, only 2 of the 3 GE armies took any notice of him. The barrages for significant attacks by both GE and BEF in 1918 were planned a higher formation level, never below division, (the Feb 1917 GHQ Arty Note No 4 clearly stated that control of the barrage 'remains in the hands of the corps commander', and that the 'barrage lines throughout the corps must be arranged by the GOC RA Corps', this edition was never recinded) and in the BEF at least the barrage was distributed to batteries as a printed map showing all lines of the barrage (these lines were continuous across the attack front) and the areas for concentrations of fire. They most certainly involved hundreds of guns and were most definitely not controlled by batteries or FA bdes (bns). After Albert Canal & Amiens in Aug 1918 while the advance was fluid then the BEF switched to decentralised operations generally using simple arty concentrations in support of inf, of course Valenciennes (1 Nov 1918) was again a major barrage. The idea that BEF barrages were quite light isn't borne out by the facts either. The intensity of neutralising fire at Valenciennes was extremely high, the 1946 MORU Report on the effects of bombardment shows that its intensity (wt/area/time) was greater than anything by UK in WW2 including Bauchem! Of course a bombardment lasting hours is always going to involve less ammo than one lasting days. Furthermore the neutralising barrage (covering fire for inf) was not enough, the CB component of the fireplan was vital and attacks on other depth tgts at least useful (and by 1917 the BEF was well ahead in CB tgt acquisition). However, a key aspect was to be able to defeat GE counter-attacks (this is probably the root cause of the failure of the BEF's Somme offensive 1 Jul 1916). The challenge was communications, although given a satisisfactory air situation and clear weather air observation could be a great help and at least some a/c had radios (but TX only) and some btys and arty HQs also had radios, albeit not very mobile ones. It's also useful to remember that although the BEF moved to hurricane bombardments at Cambrai (because they'd reached a useful level in 'map shooting' (predicted fire) and Haig was finally convinced - probably rightly I don't think the entire RFA were up to effective map shooting until well into 1917, RGA a very different story) they did not abandon preliminary bombardments although these focussed on CB and wire cutting. It's interesting that otherwise reliable sources such as Dastrup or Bailey don't seem to know about the BEF's GHQ Arty Notes 1 - 7 issued 1916-18, some in 2 editions. These set out a comprehensive and clear arty doctrine. Eg in supporting the attack: 'The object of the artillery barrage is to prevent the enemy from manning his parapets and installing his machine guns in time to arrest the advance of our infantry' - can't get much cleaer than that! (although the first edn of Apr 1916 was nowhere near as clear) and 'the FA Barrage may consist of 'creeping','back' and 'standing' barrages applied seperately or simultaneously.' The planning rule of thumb was one 18pr per 15 yards of barrage (less on back barrages).
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:WW1 and artillery improvements   11/9/2005 8:06:29 AM
The BEF artillery notes are one example of the general trend towards suppresive vs destructive tactics. Certainly the concept was not perfectly grasped and executed and many commanders did not let go of the idea of the destructive attack. Similarly the development of more flexible fires responsive to the assualt commander was there and slowly displacing the practice of centrally controlled and rigid fire plans. The French neve r are mentioned in these discussions. I have not accquired much concerning them. Any suggestions on sources to read concerning the French artillery?
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:WW1 and artillery improvements   11/10/2005 2:44:45 AM
Nothing in English beyond Gudmundssons' 'On Artillery' that I've come across.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:WW1 and artillery improvements   11/10/2005 9:10:00 PM
A pity. I've long been curious about the developement of the 'groupe poste' command system of the French and any paralles to the FDC system of the 1920s in the US.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:WW1 and artillery   11/12/2005 8:03:59 AM
I'm wondering if any of this answered the original question?
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics