Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

angrystaffofficer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 119 posts

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#31

Post by ams6110 »

jschwartzi wrote: post #6
Aelinsaar wrote: post #3

I just want to throw this in here for some more context: "During The Somme, the British bombardment consisted of 1,537 guns firing over 1,500,000 shells over a period of 168 hours averaging 8,929 shells fired per minute." That is just... staggering. I can't find a source for it, but I remember some factoid stating that on average it took several hundred shells to kill one soldier. That's not to say they had to take s…

It seems like the purpose of a bombardment like that isn't to kill the soldiers outright, but to crush their advance and keep them out of your territory.

The purpose of a military bombardment is to kill people and destroy infrastructure, thus neutralizing the ability and will of your enemy to continue fighting.

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#32

Post by adamlett »

andrewchambers wrote: post #14
mikeash wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny to use the word "funny" in relation to other people's suffering.

You are right, it isn't so funny that people would equate being bullied with having your brain literally scrambled by explosive concussion.

During WWI, soldiers who developed PTSD were accused of being simply cowards, and by many not considered "real" invalids. Who were they to complain when other soldiers were losing limbs? And now here you are, saying people who have been bullied should suck it up, and not compare themselves to soldiers who have "real" PTSD. The irony.

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#33

Post by mikeash »

andrewchambers wrote: post #21
mikeash wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally, as in those exact words? I'm going to have to ask for a source on that.

You got me, i can't find that that literal quote (though im pretty sure it exists). I meant to say that is what is intentionally implied.

I'm going to have to ask for a source on that as well.

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#35

Post by ams6110 »

mikeash wrote: post #30
ams6110 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have literally used "PTSD" to refer to both the aftereffects of bullying and wartime combat.

People have used "sorrow" to refer to both denting a car and losing a family to genocide, but that doesn't mean there's any implied equivalence.

I myself find "sorrow" doesn't do the latter justice, but YMMV. In general I think specific meanings are better especially for complicated concepts like PTSD. I think separate terms would be better for the effects of long term psychological abuse experienced as a child, and the psycho/physical life-threatening experiences of combat soldiers. To use the same term for both just muddies the waters.

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#36

Post by martindelemotte »

ourmandave wrote: post #28
neppo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the so called red zone, here are some pictures about it: http://imgur.com/gallery/CdxZM

I wonder how many kids grow up in these areas thinking this is normal and the whole country isn't safe to play in.

As a kid I played in these areas while my dad was cutting wood. It was rather exciting to find a shell as these were rare compared to other pieces of metal. We were just told not to play with them.

I remember that one day we found a shell buried not that far from a fire that my dad had lit.

I was young so I can't certify that we were in a "red zone" but it was in the woods around Verdun so there's a high chance.

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#37

Post by eropple »

ams6110 wrote: post #31
jschwartzi wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like the purpose of a bombardment like that isn't to kill the soldiers outright, but to crush their advance and keep them out of your territory.

The purpose of a military bombardment is to kill people and destroy infrastructure, thus neutralizing the ability and will of your enemy to continue fighting.

Create casualties, not necessarily kill people.

Injuries are expensive to a military power.

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#38

Post by camperman »

I've been shelled with 155mm shells. There is (or used to be) a bunker on Salisbury Plain where trainee artillery officers could experience it for themselves. It has very thick concrete, four foot thick windows and so on.

Even with all the protection it's terrifying. They drop the rounds a few yards in front of you. The noise is unbelievable, the shockwaves actually bend the concrete inward a little and the dummy target vehicles you can see get instantly shredded with shrapnel. Delay the fuse a little and the shell penetrates a few yards before exploding, leading to a strange effect where all the dust and stones jump off the ground as the shockwave traverses it. Make the fuse go early and you get an airburst that sprays red hot metal down in a 100 yard radius and rattles those windows with waves of shrapnel.

We were all jumpy for days. It just does that to you.

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#39

Post by maxxxxx »

Aelinsaar wrote: post #3

I just want to throw this in here for some more context: "During The Somme, the British bombardment consisted of 1,537 guns firing over 1,500,000 shells over a period of 168 hours averaging 8,929 shells fired per minute." That is just... staggering. I can't find a source for it, but I remember some factoid stating that on average it took several hundred shells to kill one soldier. That's not to say they had to take s…

One goal was to destroy the barbed wire barriers so the infantry soldiers could reach the opposite trenches without getting stuck in the wires.

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#40

Post by thearn4 »

camperman wrote: post #38

I've been shelled with 155mm shells. There is (or used to be) a bunker on Salisbury Plain where trainee artillery officers could experience it for themselves. It has very thick concrete, four foot thick windows and so on. Even with all the protection it's terrifying. They drop the rounds a few yards in front of you. The noise is unbelievable, the shockwaves actually bend the concrete inward a little and the dummy tar…

I was an artilleryman is the U.S. Army. We get the machine gun fired over us in a trench during basic training (like everyone else), but that sounds like so much more profound of an experience. I kind of wish we did that here.

That said, I was enlisted (NCO), not a commissioned officer. For all I know, they may do something like that for (to?) the officers at Fort Sill.

Post reply on HN