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

71–80 of 119 posts

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#71

Post by angry_octet »

happyslobro wrote: post #56

Does anyone know offhand how airburst shells were fused in those days? The only way that I can think that it could have been done, would be to have a very accurate timer detonate the shell. But then you have to know the flight time, and that would have changed whenever the gun was aimed at a different spot. Was the gun capable of setting the shell's timer automatically, based on it's firing angle? Did someone compens…

In WWI the British used burning timers, which are quite inaccurate due to variable burn rates vs pressure and chemical composition. The Germans had mechanical timers. The battery command post would do the calculations from gun tables, tell the battery the fuse setting (twisting something in the fuse (nose) of the round), then observers would report back and it would be adjusted.

In late WWII the UK invented RF proximity fuses, first for AA then for surface.

Nowadays the guns talk to the shells, the shells run self tests, etc. They will be self aware before too long, a la Darkstar: https://youtu.be/qjGRySVyTDk

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#72

Post by shabble »

happyslobro wrote: post #56

Does anyone know offhand how airburst shells were fused in those days? The only way that I can think that it could have been done, would be to have a very accurate timer detonate the shell. But then you have to know the flight time, and that would have changed whenever the gun was aimed at a different spot. Was the gun capable of setting the shell's timer automatically, based on it's firing angle? Did someone compens…

This[1] explains the various fuzing types pretty well. Generally, some sort of intertial or centrifugal striker lights a fuse-train of constant-speed burning powder, which subsequently ignits the main charge. Timed fuzes could be set by either punching a hole through the delay spiral into the trigger charge at a specific point, or rotating a metal collar on the shell which had the same effect.

I think they would have all been set manually, although probably with reference to markings on the fuzes themselves for either time or distance. Experience and/or feedback from the artillery spotters would indicate if they were bursting too early or late (and many would have backup impact fuzes in case they were too late).

[1] http://www.passioncompassion1418.com/decouvertes/english_fus...

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#74

Post by sandworm101 »

Someone wrote: post #58
sandworm101 wrote: post #7

The article treats conditions along WWI front lines as static. They were not. The conditions in the trenches changed from one part of the war to another. Gas was not a thing during the entire war. And the germans and allied trenches were different from each other, with allied trenches being much more haphazard due to the insistence that they not be permanent. Artillery too underwent change over the years, with new an…

"The article treats conditions along WWI front lines as static" I don't read that: "On the opening day of the Somme on July 1, 1916, British guns hurled 250,000 high explosive and shrapnel shells towards German positions" That's phase one: throw lots of stuff in the hope to destroy their capability to fight. When you think that succeeded, have your infantry walk over and conquer their positions. "During the beginning…

Static technology, which is something different than tactics or positions. The article does not do the subject of technological progression necessary justice. Many of the effects described as if true throughout the war, specifically the blast effects, changed radically with technology (think fragmentation rounds).

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#75

Post by andrewchambers »

dredmorbius wrote: post #24
andrewchambers wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're just saying "I hurt," not "I am just as damaged as a veteran at the receiving end of an artillery barrage." No, that is literally what they are saying.

That is literally a false statement. "PTSD" has a definition that includes other than physical trauma: "PTSD is a disorder that develops in some people who have experienced a shocking, scary, or dangerous event. "It is natural to feel afraid during and after a traumatic situation. Fear triggers many split-second changes in the body to help defend against danger or to avoid it. This “fight-or-flight” response is a typ…

The point is that these are two completely different things with totally different causes.

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#77

Post by zwily »

dexterdog wrote: post #12

If this piques your interest at all I highly recommend Dan Carlin's Hardcore History where he did 6 parts and about 18 hours on WWI from a mostly military history perspective. He also did a shorter one on the eastern front in WWII.

Can't second this recommendation enough. I used to take part in the whole "haha French military" nonsense... Not anymore.

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#78

Post by mesofile »

fiatjaf wrote: post #41
grellas wrote: post #13

There is no more eerie account of what it was like to be a foot soldier caught up in trench warfare than Arthur Guy Empey's book "Over the Top" (1917). It is available free as a Kindle ebook: https://www.amazon.com/Over-Top-Arthur-Guy-Empey-ebook/dp/B0... (some reviews can be found here: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1517707.Over_The_Top ) Empey was an American who managed to get in the mix with the British sold…

For anyone interested in getting a big picture of both reality at the front and the cultural moment of Europe during the Great War, I recommend Modris Eksteins's Rites of Spring: https://www.amazon.com/Rites-Spring-Great-Birth-Modern/dp/03... Besides other interesting things, it contains a ton of evidence cited from soldier letters.

For more in this vein: Lyn MacDonald's Somme is a highly regarded history of the battle told largely through first-person accounts.

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#79

Post by e12e »

neppo wrote: post #17
Animats wrote: post #2

France is still digging up and disposing of tons of unexploded ordnance from WWI. About 900 tons a year, every year.

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

A little more in this link posted to hn a while back:

"The Real “No-Go Zone” of France: A Forbidden No Man’s Land Poisoned by War" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9609091 http://www.messynessychic.com/2015/05/26/the-real-no-go-zone...

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#80

Post by e12e »

Noseshine wrote: post #5

In this context, about PTSD: "What if PTSD Is More Physical Than Psychological?" > A new study supports what a small group of military researchers > has suspected for decades: that modern warfare destroys the brain. Cause: Brain injuries stemming from blast exposure. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/magazine/what-if-ptsd-is-m...

I suppose a better synopsis would have been that there may be a set of injuries that result from physical trauma to the brain, that can be conflated with war-induced PTSD. But as people that suffer trauma without serious head injuries exhibit some of the same traits as those that are associated with PTSD, it's not really about PTSD in general being physical (as in result of external physical trauma, as opposed to physical changes in the brain, which can often result from eg: depression "alone").

But it is certainly interesting that "just" being subject to such physical abuse could lead to conditions similar to that of PTSD.

Post reply on HN