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

111–119 of 119 posts

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#111

Post by pbhjpbhj »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #107
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>instead the armies would execute soldiers for cowardice // Was it not a necessity (on the basis of "winning" the trench warfare)? If you can go home to a nice feather bed and being looked after in a care home without even the appearance of an injury by presenting as having PTSD/shell-shock then the effect on moral and ability to force men to go over-the-top with the threat of capital punishment for desertion is goin…

Strangely it had no impact on the outcome. Marching millions of men 'over the top' to be mowed down by machine guns was pointless. Even though the tactic failed utterly, they kept doing it. Out of desperation? They executed a generation.

I'm not sure we can say it had no impact. Two cousins playing who can get the most soldiers to die for their side, sickening stuff.

Perhaps there was some Gambler's fallacy involved - like wow, stopping shelling and blowing whistles before we attack somehow isn't fooling them, lets keep shelling whilst we walk on over no-man's land, it's got to work this time for sure; can't change it now, we've nearly won!??

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#112

Post by chiph »

angry_octet wrote: post #71
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 proxim…

One of the first large-scale uses of POZIT proximity fuses by US forces in WW-II was at Elsenborn Ridge[1] in late 1944. Prior to this, the commanders restricted their use for the fear that the Germans would find a dud and reverse-engineer it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Elsenborn_Ridge#Arti...

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#113

Post by ja30278 »

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.

Oddly enough, I just finished the last episode of this series 10 minutes before seeing this link posted (and your comment).

It is uniformly excellent, and well worth the time commitment required to listen to the whole thing.

I've also enjoyed watching several episodes of "The Great War" on youtube, which seems to be of a similar quality. ( https://www.youtube.com/user/TheGreatWar )

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#114

Post by camperman »

gonzo41 wrote: post #101
camperman wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

120mm rocket artillery incoming near Talil. Felt like an earthquake. Was great fun at the time, now I think back and wow...

Oh to be young and carefree again :)

It does feel like an earthquake. The most powerful subwoofer I've ever heard doesn't come close to the teeth-scraping body-slamming whump of a near miss from large ordinance.

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#115

Post by Someone »

sandworm101 wrote: post #74
Someone wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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).

"The article does not do the subject of technological progression necessary justice."

If you had said that in the comment I responded to, I likely would not have reacted, but I think that's quite a different claim from "The article treats conditions along WWI front lines as static"

When you write a one-page article on a four year war involving millions of people, you can't do all its aspects justice, but not discussing something doesn't mean denying its existence.

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#116

Post by dexterdog »

apozem wrote: post #110
zwily wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Me too. After hearing what the French army suffered through at Verdun, I don't know how anyone could question their courage or tenacity.

Don't forget what they had previously done in the American Revolution.

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#117

Post by Spooky23 »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #107
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>instead the armies would execute soldiers for cowardice // Was it not a necessity (on the basis of "winning" the trench warfare)? If you can go home to a nice feather bed and being looked after in a care home without even the appearance of an injury by presenting as having PTSD/shell-shock then the effect on moral and ability to force men to go over-the-top with the threat of capital punishment for desertion is goin…

Strangely it had no impact on the outcome. Marching millions of men 'over the top' to be mowed down by machine guns was pointless. Even though the tactic failed utterly, they kept doing it. Out of desperation? They executed a generation.

They didn't really understand what was happening. Keep in mind that 1914 was a different war -- there was maneuver and grand strategy elements there.

What had happened is that you had officers and political leaders fed on a steady diet of studying Napoleonic warfare. They earnestly believed that elan and offense would bring them to a decisive victory on the battlefield. Unfortunately, the British experience in the Boer War and other conflicts distracted from the hard lessons learned by the Americans from 1861-1865... rifles and railroads meant that victory didn't matter in modern war, only breaking down the enemy's ability to maintain the army.

The other thing was that while WW1 armies had many of the trappings of the modern era (machine guns, explosives, some vehicles, limited aircraft, railroads), they lacked good communications infrastructure. The order of battle was driven by a pre-defined, precisely timed plan. The guns fired at target X at time Y, and division Z needed to move as planned. If circumstances changed, they could not react. With shock tactics and other advances, armies were able to "win" territory at a tactical level -- but they couldn't exploit the victories in a meaningful way.

It is a war that should always be studied and talked about, because it aptly demonstrates the horror and futility of modern warfare without the overarching "Good vs. Evil" narrative in WW2 or the weird political calculus of other conflicts. Millions of lives were sacrificed for nothing.

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#118

Post by cs24 »

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…

Basically three mechanisms have been used: a. Powder burning, these were the norm with shrapnel shells in WW1, and continued with smoke shells until at most a few decades ago. b. Mechanical time, appeared in WW1 and still used for shells that need a high burst such as smoke and illuminating. Were also used for HE, but round to round variation meant they were sell that perfect. c. Proximity (AKA Variable Time (VT)), this uses a radio transmitter and relies on reflected radio waves, first used in WW2 for anti-aircraft. Based on UK development that was transferred to the US in 1942. Used in the ground role to get a burst about 10 metres above ground late in WW2. Now a function in Multi-role fuzes that provide airburst, ground burst or delayed burst (ie penetrate the ground for about a metre before bursting) as selected.

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#119

Post by andrewchambers »

dang wrote: post #62
andrewchambers wrote: post #10

Funny how that shows every person online claiming to have PTSD from online bullying have nothing of the sort.

You started a flamewar and then fed it. Please don't do either of those things again. Snarky provocations aren't welcome here, and have little to do with serious discussion (of PTSD or anything else), regardless of how correct your opinion is. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12032858 and marked it off-topic.

Sure, I have the bad habit of never deleting or editing a post no matter how much negative karma it gets. Probably for the best you shifted it.
Post reply on HN