Artillery Positions in a Barrage Map WW1, help needed to understand

[Annbee]

Hello,

I'm half way there to a basic understanding of Barrage tactics at the frontline in WW1. (In trying to understand the death of my Bomardier cousin Alec Beach).

I'm attaching the barrage map associated with the operation in which he was killed 4th Oct 1917 and would like to check if my interpretation of it is heading in the right direction.

Am I right in thinking the Artillery would have taken up positions on or further south of the bottom most line drawn on the map? ie the position marked 'zero to zero' or south at the front line?

And that the horizontal lines refer to the barrage's target settings, as in that's where their bombs are meant to fall at designated times.

I've read the War Diary associated with this operation and can see that the red line (and County Roads intersection) is the ultimate goal, and it turned out they surpassed that goal and infantry managed to gain ground beyond that. There were quite a few casualties of course.

The front line was bombed half an hour before the operation commenced, where the Battalions were already assembled, and there were casualties from that. Am I right in thinking Battalions would assemble in front of the Artillery line? It might be that is when young Alec Beach died, hard to say and am not looking to lock in his time of death really. From an earlier post I learnt from Andy that he had probably been killed by a bomb.

In a day long offensive, did Artillery remain in the same positions or did they move forward as the infantry advanced?

Your insights and knowledge appreciated (I always say that, but it's so true)

[Andy J2022]

Hi Annbee,

Just a couple of points on your problem. The first is terminological: the artillery fire shells not bombs. Confusingly the infantry are equipped with mortars which do fire bombs! The second thing is the artillery is usually fired in what is called indirect mode. This is best explained in terms of tennis: a lob shot is similar to indirect fire, whereas a smash would be similar to direct fire (a rifle or tank gun employ direct fire). The range which a shell would travel was determined by two factors: the elevation of the gun barrel and the amount of propellent charge used. The smaller  calibre guns ( 18 pdrs and 4.5inch howitzers for example) fired a composite round in which the shell and charge were combined in a brass case, and so the charge couldn't be altered.  Artillery shells had fuses in the nose which would either detonate on impact or would incorporate a kind of timer which could be set to detonate after so many seconds of flight, meaning that the shell would explode in the air over the target and the shell fragments (shrapnel) would travel vertically down onto the enemy troops below.This was particularyly effective aganist troops in the open, say when they were crossing no man's land. As you are aware, much of the battlefield in Flanders consisted of clay and turned to mud whenever it rained. This was particularyly effective aganist troops in the open, say when they were crossing no man's land. Shells with impact fuses often sank deep in the mud and either didn't go off at all or only went off when they were buried deep and so were much less effective.  Also when the enemy troops were in their trenches and dugouts, only a direct hit with a conventionally fused shell was likely to cause any serious casualties. The main purpose of a barrage before an attack was to keep the enemy soldiers from sticking their heads above the parapet and being able to fire their rifles and machine guns at our troops as they advanced. The noise and the shock also disorientated the enemy.
The Germans had a tactic of withdrawing their men into trenches further back once a barrage started, then coming forward again as soon as a ground attack was under way. To counter this a British barrage would start by being targetted on the front trenches and then as the British Infantry moved forward the barrage would creep back further into the German territory in order to suppress the enemy troops in the second line trenches and make it harder for them to come forward again. The lines marked 'protective fire' were the positions of the likely enemy machine guns or mortars and so if the advancing troops came under fire from these locations they could ask for their own artillery to give protective fire and some of the guns which were already specifically aimed at that range would be ordered to open fire.  That said, once the infantry were on the move they had no contact with  their own guns so couldn't ask for changes to the plan. The fire of the guns was controlled by small two or three man groups known as forward observation parties who would be sited off to a flank, preferably on higher ground where they could see the whole area of the attack. They were part of the gunner battery and connected to the guns by field telephones. This was before the tactical use of small radios was possible. However once the attack was underway there was so much smoke that it was often impossible to see clearly what was happening and direct the guns accordingly. On other occasions their telephone wires were cut by enemy shelling  so they couldn't communicate with the guns. This is why there were so many instances of the artillery accidentally firing on their own troops.
Not sure I understand what you mean by the artillery line, when you ask if the infantry would assemble in front of the artillery line. The artillery would be much further back than the infantry front line, possible up to half a mile, depending on the terrain. As you can imagine, with indirect fire, the guns could be behind a hill, (which would be ideal for them as it would provide some protection from the enemy's guns).  And, no, once the attack was underway the guns didn't move. It took too long to set them up and to register them on the target. 

Afternote: I have amended the word order so it makes more sense!

[Andy J2022]

This video on Youtube explains some of the terminology and techniques. However don't rely on the subtitles for an accurate record of what the narrator is saying! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r77_ZYEjV20

[jim1]

I can't really add much to Andy's excellent narrative.
This map reinforces the narrative I gave re this assault.
What you see is a creeping barrage.
The shelling of the 1st. line starts at "0" hour & continues for 3 minutes
then lifts to the 2nd. line for 5 minutes & so on.
After the guns lift to the 2nd. line the infantry would advance staying around 150 yds.
behind it. This continues until they reach their objective.
The fixed barrage stayed on 1 target possibly a command post, enemy guns etc.
The 3rd. type of barrage was called a combing barrage & this was employed anywhere
along the front & was dictated by information coming back from the infantry or spotters.

[Annbee]

shells not bombs

Andy, thanks, terminology is important. I've since looked up the anatomy of shells, shrapnel and high explosives, and can see roughly how that works now (a terrible weapon to be struck by).

Tennis is a great analogy for dummies (from a former tennis player) and thanks for your detailed explanation. It's most helpful in forming the picture of what could happen to the men. It clearly was a hazardous operation.

there were so many instances of the artillery accidentally firing on their own troops

Yes, I read a shocking statistic that which claimed the French Army is thought to have lost men in the six figures to 'friendly' fire. When I watched an odd - but handy - little animation illustrating the types of barrages I thought that tactic looked very iffy. Thanks for your video link BTW, I watched that.

Not sure I understand what you mean by the artillery line, when you ask if the infantry would assemble in front of the artillery line

Sorry, badly phrased. I knew the artillery would be somewhat further back. I was wondering at the time I wrote, knowing it was improbable but looking to discount it, that if the front line received enemy shelling and sustained casualties could those casualties include a casualty from artillery. In rereading that portion of the diaries today I'm fairly sure the writer intended to mean infantry. If the word 'line' is a sticking point - it's because in photos that's mainly what I've seen: big guns lined up and firing in a line!

Here's a question for both of you, Andy and Jim: have you ever heard of the "79th H.A. Group"? I guess that H.A. stands for Heavy Artillery - but 79th? It's not hugely important, I am just curious now. On the orders for the 4th October offensive, in the section at the end of the orders detailing to which brigades the copies are meant to go, along with 144th and 145th Inf and the New Zealanders there is also the "79th H.A. Group ".

I'm wondering if it's a typo. Wikipedia tells me that there was a Scottish Lowland Field Regiment, Royal Artillery, but I can't see it was in France or Belgium in WW1.

Don't go spending wasting your time looking for a unicorn; but if you KNOW already off the tops of your twin heads - fill me in!

[Andy J2022]

Artillery guns within a battery were usually arranged in a line, at least in the first part of WW1, because that was the way that they did it in earlier campaigns. It meant that each gun was (approximately) the same distance to the target so they could all be given the same adjustment to the elevation of the guns, in order to increase or decrease the range of the shells.
Tactically, one reason for having the guns in line, apart from making control easier, was because in earlier campaigns, it made it more difficult for the enemy cavalry to get in among and capture the guns. Developments in accurate counter-battery fire, that is to say the enemy's guns trying to knock out our guns, made it sensible to not have the guns in neat lines equally spaced apart!

Yes, 79th Heavy Artillery Group existed and consisted of:
142nd Heavy Battery
1/1st Essex Heavy Battery
14th Siege Battery
145th Siege Battery
174th Siege Battery
185th Siege Battery
187th Siege Battery
222nd Siege Battery

As you may know the Royal Artillery was still at this stage, nominally at least, divided into three branches, the Field Artillery, the Royal Horse Artillery (which performed the same role as the Field Artillery but with more swagger!) and the Garrison Artillery. The siege Batteries listed above were RGA. All three subdivisions were formally combined into the Royal Regiment of Artillery in 1924, although the title Royal Horse Artillery was retained for some batteries.

As for the Scottish gunners, 1 Lowland Artillery Brigade served in France during WW1. The term 'brigade' is always confusing where the gunners are concerned, because at this time it generally meant a battalion-sized unit. 1 Lowland Brigade was largely formed from the 1st Midlothian Artillery Volunteers although both the name and the composition changed during the course of the war. 1/1 Lowland Battery formed part of 81 HAG for most of the war, and 2/1 Lowland battery was with 92 HAG for most of the war but went to 93 HAG in 1918.
There were several other Territorial Force gunner regiments which came from the Lowlands of Scotland but as you say they served in other theatres. 

There's a good read on the artillery in WW1 here on the Long. Long Trail website: https://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/how-the-british-artillery-developed-and-became-a-war-winning-factor-in-1914-1918/

[jim1]

Bringing up the rear again I can answer this:

could those casualties include a casualty from artillery

Yes.
Medium & large trench mortars were manned by the RA.
As the name suggests they were mounted in the trenches alongside the infantry
so in the front line.
The friendly fire question leads me to recall a German Commander saying it was
better to lose a few men to friendly fire than fall too far back behind the barrage
& lose the advantage.
I don't believe the British or French shared that view.
Casualties came from shells falling too short or men getting disorientated
& wandering into the barrage line.