Hacker News Reader

Comment by Aelinsaar | Hacker News Reader

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 several hundred hits, but that on average that's how many shells it took to rack up one kill.

(from: http://www.tommy1418.com/wwi-facts--figures--myths.html)

*Edit for caps only

View on HN

One goal was to destroy the barbed wire barriers so the infantry soldiers could reach the opposite trenches without getting stuck in the wires.

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 lying below ground. It's anybody's guess whether they still are dangerous and might detonate one day.

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

Glad you posted that, didn't know where I'd read it. Good read on an aspect of the trench war I hadn't heard about before.

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.

The purpose of a military bombardment is to kill people and destroy infrastructure, thus neutralizing the ability and will of your enemy to continue fighting.

Create casualties, not necessarily kill people.

Injuries are expensive to a military power.

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 dirt clouds to obscure the infantry who advanced close behind. The barrage would reach the enemy lines and suppress as normal (by driving men into bunkers or more distant areas) but the attacking infantry would be close enough to storm these lines (once the barrage had crept further forward) before the enemy reacted. That was, at least, the theory."

From http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/worldwar1/p/prcreepingb....

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)

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

It just represents a vast amount of energy, and human endeavor, literally blown away.

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

And yet, more than half of the combat related deaths in WWI were from artillery/mortar fire.

Could you please edit that quote to not use all caps? (per https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

Sure, sorry about that, it was direct from the source.

Thanks!

No sweat, thanks for the heads up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com