Live data from Hacker News

Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

angrystaffofficer.com

51–60 of 119 posts

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#51
post #8

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…

The Germans fired nearly as many shells, 1,100,000, in just the first five hours of the 1918 Spring Offensive.

Interesting fact, I do remember reading they were trying to make a last minute siege near by the end of the year.

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#52
post #44
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Perhaps the world would be a less violent place if we laughed at soldiers for their failures instead of glorifying them. The article fittingly ends with "all that suffering .. for what?" It really was a lot of murderous people getting themselves killed and injured while trying to kill other people. Not something to have sympathy for. Sure, they might have been fooled by naive ideas of nationalism, but that's still a…

The great majority of WW I troops were drafted. Moralizing from a base of total ignorance doesn't advance a cause.

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#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 fumbling
  Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
  But someone still was yelling. out and stumbling
  And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime.—
  Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
  As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

  In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
  He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

  If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
  Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
  And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
  His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
  If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
  Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
  Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
  Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—
  My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
  To children ardent for some desperate glory,
  The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
  Pro patria mori.
Dulce et Decorum Est, Wilfred Owen

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#54
post #47
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the world would be a less violent place if we laughed at soldiers for their failures instead of glorifying them. The article fittingly ends with "all that suffering .. for what?" It really was a lot of murderous people getting themselves killed and injured while trying to kill other people. Not something to have sympathy for. Sure, they might have been fooled by naive ideas of nationalism, but that's still a…

Soldiers don't generally start wars. They go where they're told and fight who they're told. The penalties for disobedience are severe. To force someone to fight and then laugh at them for the effects it has on them strikes me as psychopathic.

Many soldiers are volunteers. You're clearly trying to present one side of an arguement only.

Any while I dont believe soldiers suffering is funny, I do feel some nations hero worship soldiers ad nauseum. And further even with severe punishments for people refusing conscription cases, I admire a man like Ali who went to prison over his conviction not to go to war, over someone willing to support a killing machine that they dont believe in because of a few years in gaol. We almost always have a choice.

Also I appreciate someone in this (or any) discussion presenting an alternate view. And I like to think HN will remain a place where we can have open minded discussion without pushing clearly limited consideration retorts.

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#55
post #30
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.

Just to clarify, and god I hope this tedious subthread is detached and hurled with great force towards the bottom of the thread, but PTSD and sorrow are very different things. I have friendly and familial connections to PTSD and am familiar with what a PTSD episode can be. It is nothing at all like sadness or hurt feelings. It can be closer to seizure behavior than anything like that.

And, of course, nobody I've known with PTSD has been in combat.

Thanks for taking the time to slap back the toxic, ignorant comments that sparked this subthread. Would that for every one of you, we had ten people more willing to use the flag button on comments.

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#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 compensate for elevation difference? Or, was there a guy with a slide rule tweaking a knob on each shell just before firing?

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#57
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soldiers don't generally start wars. They go where they're told and fight who they're told. The penalties for disobedience are severe. To force someone to fight and then laugh at them for the effects it has on them strikes me as psychopathic.

Many soldiers are volunteers. You're clearly trying to present one side of an arguement only. Any while I dont believe soldiers suffering is funny, I do feel some nations hero worship soldiers ad nauseum. And further even with severe punishments for people refusing conscription cases, I admire a man like Ali who went to prison over his conviction not to go to war, over someone willing to support a killing machine tha…

I wasn't referring to the draft. Everything I said applies to volunteers too. Soldiers don't get the right to disobey orders just because they volunteer.

There's a huge gulf between acknowledging the pain and suffering of the veteran, and glorifying soldiers. Totally different concepts.

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#58

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 of the Battle of Passchendaele in 1917, over 3,000 British guns and howitzers fired a “creeping barrage” on German positions"

Throw lots of stuff to prevent their soldiers from killing your soldiers with their guns while your soldiers advance on their position.

"The Germans developed and perfected the “box barrage"

Throw lots of stuff to prevent your enemy from being reinforced.

"The American St. Mihiel Offensive on September 12, 1918 was preceded in some areas by a seven-hour preparatory bombardment"

Throw lots of stuff for ages to soften their defenses. Stop bombarding when your troops attack. Problem: they dig down deep, wait for the bombardment to end, and then get up and shoot your infantry while it still is exposed between trench lines.

"By the end of the war, most attacks by French, American, and British forces began with a swift but short artillery bombardment that massed thousands of guns on one small area, followed up almost immediately by a ground attack"

Throw lots of stuff to force them to keep their heads down, then immediately have your infantry get up to them (= use artillery bombardments as covering fire)

That's a lot of evolution, partly driven by technological advances. For example, a creeping barrage requires the capability to drop stuff close to your own troops, while not hitting them. That requires good maps and explosives with reliable explosive force (so that one can be confident that shells will carry the desired distance). As another example, concentrated fire requires precision, too.

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#59
post #55
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just to clarify, and god I hope this tedious subthread is detached and hurled with great force towards the bottom of the thread, but PTSD and sorrow are very different things. I have friendly and familial connections to PTSD and am familiar with what a PTSD episode can be. It is nothing at all like sadness or hurt feelings. It can be closer to seizure behavior than anything like that. And, of course, nobody I've know…

I don't mean to draw any comparison between PTSD and sorrow. It's merely an example of how the same word can be used to describe very different things without implying any sort of equivalence.

Re: Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage

#60
post #59
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to clarify, and god I hope this tedious subthread is detached and hurled with great force towards the bottom of the thread, but PTSD and sorrow are very different things. I have friendly and familial connections to PTSD and am familiar with what a PTSD episode can be. It is nothing at all like sadness or hurt feelings. It can be closer to seizure behavior than anything like that. And, of course, nobody I've know…

I don't mean to draw any comparison between PTSD and sorrow. It's merely an example of how the same word can be used to describe very different things without implying any sort of equivalence.

That makes sense. I didn't think you were being dismissive. Hopefully I haven't just managed to be dismissive of you!
Post reply on HN