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

91–100 of 119 posts

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#91

Post by [deleted] »

mesofile wrote: post #78
fiatjaf wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#92

Post by Noseshine »

e12e wrote: post #88
Noseshine wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that suffer trauma without serious head injuries You didn't read or you didn't understand the article. The injuries they are talking about are invisible unless you put the brain under a microsocope .

I meant trauma in the sense of head injury/head trauma -- a concussion is usually first diagnosed by secondary effects, not by "looking at the brain" as far I am aware. Perhaps I should've said "head trauma without visible/apparent injuries to the head". Sorry for the confusion. I only meant to contrast the micro-injuries that these new studies reference with the also real physical changes that often accompany "purel…

    > I meant trauma in the sense of head injury/head trauma
Yes? I linked an article with a specific subject and contents. I would expect replies to somehow relate to that (article).

I don't think it needs to be said that "PTSD" is not a specific condition but a word that collects a large variety of them. The article is quite clear in describing what it is about.

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#93

Post by darklajid »

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 don't think I can even remotely understand what this feels like. Worst thing I've done in my time over here was handling hand grenades (just as 13of40) and throwing/detonating a live one was the closest I got to 'hide behind shelter and feel a big boom' - and already far too scary on my personal scale of things Not To Do Again™.

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#94

Post by GarvielLoken »

13of40 wrote: post #82
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 remember hand grenade day in Army basic training, and at the time what struck me was that the grenades going off looked and sounded like what artillery does in the movies. Spine-jarring explosions, 25-foot-tall clouds of dirt and smoke, etc. Later on (at air defense school, for some reason) we did a claymore mine at one of our live fire events, and it was far, far louder and vicious than the POP and shower of spark…

It is really a very big blast, like an artillery blast like you say. I was given three opportunities to throw hand grenades during my conscription training.

First one was in a purpose-built field, where we were hunkered down in a concrete hole and threw the frag-grenade onto gravel.

The second was when were having an exercise of storming a machinegun-nest on top of a small ridge in the forest. So first we move by leapfrog (a combat pair) firing, then climbed a small ridge and threw over a live frag-grenade on to the "machinegun-nest".

Third time was when we were doing a urban combat exercise. In the middle of the forest they had a roofless building with several rooms, again purpose-built for training with live grenades, with dust floors. We were given two grenades each, one which was a chock grenade ( not flash , again doing the exercise as a combat pair. Really big blasts.

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#95

Post by lostlogin »

Khaine wrote: post #68
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.

It is also due to the creeping barrage, where you would inch your artillery fire forward with your troops behind its shield as the enemy took cover during a barrage and therefore it stopped them from being able to gun down your troops. "In late 1915 / early 1916, Commonwealth forces began developing a new form of barrage. Beginning close to their own lines, the 'creeping' barrage moved slowly forward, throwing up dir…

What could possibly go wrong? I know it's Wikepedia, but the concept that 10% casualties on your own side could be expected when done correctly should be a clue that this is another crap WW1 technique. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrage_(artillery)

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#96

Post by camtarn »

Someone wrote: post #50
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…

There also were mining operations at enormous scale ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mines_on_the_first_day_of_th... ) About a year later, the battle of Messines ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mines_in_the_Battle_of_Messi... ) saw larger mines, some of which with over 40,000 kg of explosives. Five of them weren't detonated. One of those exploded in 1955 after a lightning strike. Most likely, four others are still…

There's a good BBC article on it here, with a lot of detail about the people behind the tunnelling schemes, and the horror of digging in complete silence, listening out for enemy miners who might be just inches away:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36685270

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#97

Post by gadders »

mesofile wrote: post #78
fiatjaf wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd also recommend The Face of Battle by John Keegan. It covers Agincourt, Waterloo and the Somme:

"The Face of Battle is military history from the battlefield: a look at the direct experience of individuals at 'the point of maximum danger'. It examines the physical conditions of fighting, the particular emotions and behaviour generated by battle, as well as the motives that impel soldiers to stand and fight rather than run away."

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/275833.The_Face_of_Battle

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#98

Post by camperman »

13of40 wrote: post #87
camperman wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On that topic, artillery shells flying over you sound strange, like tearing a linen sail or sheet down the middle - no joke.

I was in an infantry exercise at JBLM where they were firing artillery from right next to our position, and I remember every tenth round or so would have a defect that made it go zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzoooooommmm when it came out of the barrel.

Ah yes, the whistling round. On the 105mm Light Gun this was from small gaps in the copper jacket around the shell that whistled when spinning.

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#99

Post by noir_lord »

brudgers wrote: post #53

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks, Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge, Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs, And towards our distant rest began to trudge. Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots, But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind; Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots Of gas-shells dropping softly behind. Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbl…

One of the few poems that stuck with me from English in high school, the Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori translates as "it is sweet and honourable to die for ones country".

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#100

Post by camperman »

rdl wrote: post #85
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 suspect quite a few more people in the Western militaries today have seen 155mm go off as IEDs, now. I assume it's roughly comparable to a ground detonation (usually they were buried slightly, either in a culvert or below grade, but only a few feet).

Yes. Some of the footage I've seen of IEDs in Afghanistan look just like hits with a round.
Post reply on HN