The effectiveness of barrages in World War II

[Carl Schwamberg]

Soviet or Red Army "Norms" are guidance for selecting ammunition type, quantity, duration of attack & other details. Similar to the effects tables we used.

Here is a example of a Red Army 'Norm', for use circa the 1970s or 1980s. It is from a US Army training doc. I've run it past some Russian miltiary historians who pronounced it a accurate translation.

[Carl Schwamberg]

Here is a Nomogram, or more accurately a translation of one. It is something a officer at a CP would use for planning large scale fires against multiple targets. A simple FO attacking a target of opportunity with a single battery would be unlikely to use a item like this. Instead he or a officer at the battery or battalion CP would execute the attack following a standing order or SOP for ammunition and duration. That saves time getting the initial attack underway. The decision then can be made to make changes if the situation suggests it.

[wolfhnd]

Very cool Mr. Schwamberg

[The Land]

Originally Posted by Carl Schwamberg

Soviet or Red Army "Norms" are guidance for selecting ammunition type, quantity, duration of attack & other details. Similar to the effects tables we used.

Here is a example of a Red Army 'Norm', for use circa the 1970s or 1980s. It is from a US Army training doc. I've run it past some Russian miltiary historians who pronounced it a accurate translation.

How's that work, then...

*tries to work it out*

A 10-round battery of 100m guns firing a total of 50 rounds per gun, into a beaten zone of 14 hectares, over the course of 12 minutes, is one "norm" of fire against an exposed target?

But against a dug-in target, the same guns would have to concentrate on 1.5 hectares to achieve the same effect?

Have I interpreted that correctly?

[lcm1]

Originally Posted by Carl Schwamberg

Here is a Nomogram, or more accurately a translation of one. It is something a officer at a CP would use for planning large scale fires against multiple targets. A simple FO attacking a target of opportunity with a single battery would be unlikely to use a item like this. Instead he or a officer at the battery or battalion CP would execute the attack following a standing order or SOP for ammunition and duration. That saves time getting the initial attack underway. The decision then can be made to make changes if the situation suggests it.

Carl, as a poor old 'Plod' your technical Data leaves me stunned!!! Ken.(lcm1)

[Carl Schwamberg]

m... the bad part here is I am very bad at mathmatics. So the Marines sent me to artillery school where rithmatic and cyphern are necessary skills. I made it through by brute force, but it would have been better to send me off to engineering school. They place the explosive charge carrying it by hand to the target. A lot less techincal as you might say.

Originally Posted by The Land

Have I interpreted that correctly?

I think so, but on this lap top I cant puff up the view enough to read the text on the gram. Will have to wait until I'm back at the desk & look at the original. Also I'll try to remember to post a sample Of a US Army effects table from circa 1930 for comparison. Lighter calibers of 75mm & 105mm & still largish quantities of ammo.

I've tried to locate descriptions of artillery fires detailed enough to compare with these tables. Six plus years of searching has turned up a few, but most witnesses were not interested in counting precisely how many shots were fired at them, or timing the duration of the attack with a stop watch.

[lcm1]

Originally Posted by Carl Schwamberg

m... the bad part here is I am very bad at mathmatics. So the Marines sent me to artillery school where rithmatic and cyphern are necessary skills. I made it through by brute force, but it would have been better to send me off to engineering school. They place the explosive charge carrying it by hand to the target. A lot less techincal as you might say.



I think so, but on this lap top I cant puff up the view enough to read the text on the gram. Will have to wait until I'm back at the desk & look at the original. Also I'll try to remember to post a sample Of a US Army effects table from circa 1930 for comparison. Lighter calibers of 75mm & 105mm & still largish quantities of ammo.

I've tried to locate descriptions of artillery fires detailed enough to compare with these tables. Six plus years of searching has turned up a few, but most witnesses were not interested in counting precisely how many shots were fired at them, or timing the duration of the attack with a stop watch.

That's the trouble with most witnesses Carl,they get far to involved in staying alive to bother about counting the bangs,no consideration some people!! lcm1

[Soothesayer]

Originally Posted by Karri

I think the current model is to deliver as much ammo as possible as fast as possible.

Some armies may, other definitely don't. The issue is 'casualties/damage/destruction' as one class of effect and 'suppression' as the other. In NATO its been further confused by adding 'Neutralisation' to mean 10% casualties.

In any event your suggestion is illegal under international law. Effects must be proportionate to the situation. This is a law abiding site I'me sure exhortations to criminality are frowned upon!

Suppression only lasts while fire is falling and for a short time after (I previously cited a Soviet article and their calculations on this).

UK realised in 1915 that the 'casualties/damage/destruction' effect for everything wasn't the solution. It still isn't and the law now demands proportionality.

The issue of shell size and suppressive effects is an interesting one. It seems the UK WW2 research suggested that the square root of HE filling weight was a reasonable approximation of relative suppressive effect. AFAIK no one has come up with an alternative based on data (opinion is not data).

The problem with precision weapons is that they need precision targets, ie precise coordinates unless the weapon is a 'homing type', unfortunately enemies tend not to be fully cooperative in this. Area fire will be needed for the foreseeable future, things like course correcting fuzes, while not cheap are cheaper than full precision and offer cost effective area fire by reducing dispersion and allowing area fire to be optimaly spread across an area. This has significant tactical implications for increasing the effectiveness and reducing the risks of suppressive covering fire.

[Dresden]

A barrage is artillery fire that precedes advancing Infantry that is attacking, at some point it shifts to the area behind the enemy to prevent retreat and suppress reserves joining the fight.
Artillery fire on an enemy position is a bombardment

[lcm1]

Originally Posted by Dresden

A barrage is artillery fire that precedes advancing Infantry that is attacking, at some point it shifts to the area behind the enemy to prevent retreat and suppress reserves joining the fight.
Artillery fire on an enemy position is a bombardment

Anyway regarding prolonged barrage, it becomes more mental than physical after a period of time,which is partly the idea. I would not be bothered to define the differance between the two,barrage and bombardment except that the latter can drag on in a very desultory manner for hours. lcm1

[skiplc]

Originally Posted by Dresden

A barrage is artillery fire that precedes advancing Infantry that is attacking, at some point it shifts to the area behind the enemy to prevent retreat and suppress reserves joining the fight.
Artillery fire on an enemy position is a bombardment

So you have a term for several hundred rounds dropped between friendlies and an enemy assault? We called it shootin'.

I agree with lcm1...a curtain of steel is a curtain of steel.

[lcm1]

Originally Posted by skiplc

So you have a term for several hundred rounds dropped between friendlies and an enemy assault? We called it shootin'.

I agree with lcm1...a curtain of steel is a curtain of steel.

Hi skip, one more thing while we are on this subject,contrary to many of the contributors on this Forum, in my experience the majority of fire laid down by the German gunners was extremely good, notably the 88 crews,their rate of fire combined with accuracy was something to always remember. Now the historical know it alls have always differed with me on this point but I know differant. lcm1

[Hetzer 15]

Ask the people on the Seelow heights(1945), and how they liked that Red Army artillery barrage, the duration and amount of firepower was incredible...train car loads of it, by the mile, wheel to wheel. Even the gunners were not fully prepared for the concusion and blast, of so many guns!

That is if any of them are still around...

[lcm1]

Originally Posted by Hetzer 15

Ask the people on the Seelow heights(1945), and how they liked that Red Army artillery barrage, the duration and amount of firepower was incredible...train car loads of it, by the mile, wheel to wheel. Even the gunners were not fully prepared for the concusion and blast, of so many guns!

That is if any of them are still around...

Yes I don't doubt that for a moment but my comments were reffering to the skill of individual crews which included both accuracy and rate of fire. Cheers, lcm1

[Rebel44]

Originally Posted by Hetzer 15

Ask the people on the Seelow heights(1945), and how they liked that Red Army artillery barrage, the duration and amount of firepower was incredible...train car loads of it, by the mile, wheel to wheel. Even the gunners were not fully prepared for the concusion and blast, of so many guns!

That is if any of them are still around...

Most of barrage at the start of battle for Berlin landed on empty positions - soviet recon was predictable to some extend which gave Wehrmacht about 24 hour warning.

Germans positions on Seelow Heights stopped/slowed attackers for much longer than soviets expected.