Counter battery fire was an extremely important part of WW1 artillery operations. In the early part of the war most of the guns were of small caliber firing direct, so counter battery was usually a form of direct fire.
Once everyone dug in things changed considerably. The fire of guns and howitzers against the trenches was certainly not the only role. A large proportion were engaged in fire against the enemy rear to disrupt supplies and reserve troop movements. This fire caused considerable problems, so naturally it had to be countered. The only weapons capable of this were other guns and howitzers.....although I must point out that most counter battery fire was by GUNS not howitzers. This was, of course, because of the greater accuracy of these weapons.
Many wargamers note that the armies seem to have a range of guns and howitzers of much the same caliber, but don't realize why.
The Howitzer is an area bombardment weapon that drops into the fire zone from high angles and accuracy is surrendered in favour of a bloody big 'bang'. The shells are relatively thin walled and usually pack a lot more explosive as a result. Its angle of attack makes it effective against a dug in enemy position such as a trench. The howitzer is also cheap. It fires a shell which is also cheaper to produce.
The typical gun of the period is a very high velocity weapon in order to achieve accuracy, but as a result requires a thicker walled shell to survive the heavier charge used to achieve the required high velocity. Often the target will be dug in, which is a problem for a high velocity weapon because it needs to HIT the target. Many of the super-heavy weapons called in because it was thought they would make up for direct hits by a bloody great bang, were in fact a complete failure, because they buried into the soft ground, which in turn diluted the effect. With HE therefore the counter battery fire had to try to actually HIT its target.
Some weapons of WW1 were pretty much purpose designed. The German 13cm for example does not have all that much of a *bang* but certainly has a lot of range and good accuracy. The same applies for the British 60pdr. The extensive use of Naval Weapons, is almost entirely to allow accuracy as these are GUNS not Howitzers. This is not to say they were not used to pin point some other form of target, but none the less their main role was to counter the enemy artillery. The 13cm was very good in this role. It also explains why you have 10.5cm GUNS and HOWITZERS. The latter are for bombardment. The former are for accurate shelling.
To do this, many of these guns used Shrapnel, where the thicker walled shells actually produced a much harder hitting type than the howitzers. Such heavy shrapnel was capable of damaging the firing mechanism of the target weapons and red hot bits even setting off ammunition it might hit. Lighter forms of shrapnel, such as that fired by Howitzers, only killed soft squishy life forms.
Gas
Later GAS was extensively used as a counter battery weapon. Surprisingly this was mostly IRRITANT type gases. Tear gas, sneezing gas, etc. The reason for that was because the presence of the gas then forced the gun crews to wear gas masks. Once you have a gas mask on, you cannot indulge in lots of strenuous activity. The result is that the gunners slow down and the fire of the battery slows down. After half an hour the filters in the gas masks start to wear out and the fire of the battery will drop to almost nothing. In many cases the gunners will simply have to abandon the guns until the gas stops.
Mustard gas is less effective in this role because it is necessary for some of it to come into contact with the victim and it does not carry on the breeze or spread out like the light gases do. If on target it WILL certainly make the battery area untenable, but this is easier to achieve with the other gases. None the less during the Kaiserschlatch offensive of 1918, the Germans did drench some batteries in Yelow Cross (Mustard) but were quite prepared to fire *lots* of shells to achieve this. Generally though, it would not be used to silence enemy weapons during an offensive, because *your own troops* cant enter the area for a day or two either. In the above mentioned incident it was used on the flanks of the offensive.
GAS is therefore a means of countering the enemy battery and forcing it to either reduce its rate of fire, or cease altogether. It won't knock it out, or permanently deny the enemy the use of the weapon. It is however far easier to achieve than destruction of the weapon.
High Explosive
HE rounds would, one would expect, be much more desirable for counter battery work and some were often mixed in with the GAS and SHRAPNEL rounds, however they need to be far more accurate than the other forms of ammunition. With Gas and Shrapnel a near miss will do. With HE a near miss will often do nothing. If an enemy battery was known to be accurately targeted, then HE would certainly be used. This would achieve *destruction* of the enemy battery. In most cases this would be only the lighter forms of field artillery near the front line. If you look at old photographs of supposedly 'knocked out' enemy guns, they are really often quite intact....the horses might be dead, the tractors knocked out, limbers wrecked, even thecrew dead, but seldom do you see wrecked guns. (Some might look wrecked but are not really).
During later war barrages it was common to mix smoke with Shrapnel to fool the enemy into thinking that gas was being used. This helped a lot if gas shells were in short supply. Those on the receiving end were not going to risk a deep 'sniff' to find out if it really was gas. In addition it was common to mix some smoke and gas together, increasing the coverage and increasing the 'doubt' in the minds of the receiver.
A "Mixed Barrage" might well contain all types of shell. HE to achieve the occasional knock out. Gas and smoke to force the gunners to wear masks and become fatigued, Shrapnel to kill people, horses and tear masks.
Counter battery fire was achieved in several ways.
(1) Balloons. The numerous captive balloons used by each side were the main way of locating enemy batteries, or confirming other information on the possible location of enemy batteries. The balloon observers not only made a careful note of all the scenery in the sector in front of them, but of changes to it as well. These changes could well be an enemy battery as well as a dump etc. The success of these observation balloons can be seen in the huge number used and also the air battles fought to permit 'Balloon Busting' missions.
(2) Aerial Photography. This was helpful in locating enemy battery positions even if they were well concealed. Tracks of wagons, railwaylines and trucks moving ammunition to batteries revealed their position even if the camouflage paint and netting hit the weapons themselves. Again the Germans may have superficially won the 'Bloody April' clash of 1916 because of the huge number of Allied aircraft shot down....but they LOST the air battle in reality, because they did not manage to stop the Allies taking the aerial photographs that proved so vital in the ground fighting. The vast importance of this can be seen in that the Allies were prepared to lose so many aircraft and their crews in order to obtain the necessary intelligence. The Germans similarly failed to realize the importance and considered the number of aircraft shot down *over-all* to be the mark of victory.
(3) Direct Observation. Linked with the below, but basically intelligence officers noted where shells were landing and the direction of their flash at night or in dull conditions. With practice a good observer could link a flash with a detonation. By estimating the size of the explosion and comparing that with the likely range of the weapon, a fairly good estimate of its general location could be achieved.
(4) Buzzers. Several observers in the front line were given electric buzzers linked back to an artillery intelligence post. When an enemy gun fired they pressed the buzzer. Because of the speed of sound, each observer may hear the gun at a slightly different time. This is cross referenced on the maps by the artillery intelligence officer and the position of the firing battery can be fairly accurately worked out. Often this was then further confirmed by all of the above. The Germans particularly, but both sides to some extent, also used ground vibration as a means of detection.
Sound detection was difficult during a major bombardment where there was just too much noise. An annoying battery firing from time to time against enemy positions during fairly quite periods, was easier to detect by sound. For this reason this task was often carried out by light field artillery, which would get the hell out of the area once it fired a few rounds.
(5) Intelligent deduction. This required good maps of the enemy rear area. If a gun was still firing even after counter battery fire, an artillery intelligence officer would examine all the areas near where the gun was thought to be, trying to locate some position from which it could be firing and yet not get hit. This might turn out to be a ravine, fold in the ground, heavy walls etc. The weapon would also have to be in a position where it could be re-supplied so there would need to be a road, track or railway line nearby.
Why were they able to bring down effective counter battery fire??
It must be remembered that in WW1 it often took many hours to emplace the heavier weapons, sometimes days. Additional time might be taken up by establishing dumps, lines of re-supply etc. to say nothing of dugouts etc. for the gunners. This meant that the weapons could similarly NOT be moved quickly either, which made them quite vulnerable to counter battery fire.
In order to move them the horses would need to be brought up and this was obviously a risk if the battery was being fired on. Even the use of steam tractors etc. could not guarantee the ability to move the weapons and the crews would need to be in the open while doing it.
Counter battery fire became so effective after the first 12 months of war, that it forced the gunners to dig deep, just as the infantry had. Elaborate camouflage was used and guns were painted in all sorts of dazzle patterns. You can tell when photographs of many weapons were taken, simply by how they appear. For example if you see a British 60pdr or 18pdr, etc. firing in the open with the crew wearing caps, it was almost certainly taken in the first 12 months of war. If they are dug in wearing caps, it was taken up to 1916. If they are dug in wearing helmets then the photograph was taken in late 1916 - 1917 or 1918.
If they are wearing helmets, but brazenly in the open, the photograph was almost certainly taken during the last 100 days when the Germans were retreating back into their own territory, or possibly during the open fighting around the 'Kaiserschlatch' offensive of 1918. The same applies for the Germans and French.
When writing rules, you MUST NOT forget that GAS is a double edged weapon. Yes the Storm Troops did occasionally advance through Mustard gas areas....but very seldom and if they did they did so only by suffering the same casualties as anyone else. GAS forced troops to wear masks. A far more valuable effect than the actual casualties inflicted. Once they had masks on, the visibility was reduced to an engagement range of only 25 to 100 yds. Machinegunners being no less effected than anyone else. (Thats why they went to so much trouble to set up fixed fire lanes so they could fire blindly at night or when gassed.)
The attackers also had to wear masks. For this reason they could only WALK. You CANNOT run while wearing a WW1 gas mask. Hell you can't run while wearing a present day mask. (-ed note: I can attest to this in reality. Having just worn the most modern of gas masks (the M40) and attempted to remain functional, I was only capable of limited work on the computer and no physical activity. And this is the latest and greatest the world has to offer in the way of chemical and biological protection. For any country that thinks it can conduct offensive infantry operations in a chemical environment, then they have no idea the limitations of the human body. If you remain unencumbered by your chemical protective clothing, then you cannot be completely protected and you will die anyway. These weapons are nasty for all players…)
You also can't indulge in much activity without getting immediately fatigued due to lack of breath. Hand to hand fighting is therefore pretty damn hard!!!
To counter this an attacker would often crawl out into no-mans land and wait for the guns to lift. They would then advance quickly, slipping their masks on only as they reached the enemy lines. (This sometimes resulted in some casualties, which was considered 'acceptable'.) If they were lucky they would catch the enemy still in their dugouts, or emerging from them. That's why they mixed other ammunition with the gas. Troops subjected to purely gas attack, but provided with adequate masks, would be able to simply wait it out. If however the bombardment includes HE and SHRAPNEL they have no choice but to take cover. If they take cover there is a chance of being over-run before they can get back out of cover.
Therefore the 'perfect' bombardment is one that lifts, only just before the attacker arrives. A bad bombardment is one that lifts too early and lets them get out and prepare to defend.
BOOKS
Perhaps one of the best books you could obtain...and currently available.....is 'BATTLE TACTICS OF THE WESTERN FRONT' By Paddy Griffith. Yale University Press, Newhaven and London, 1994. It is subtitled "The British Army's Art of Attack, 1916-18". Although it concentrates on the British (Brilliantly) it cant help but mention the French and Germans. This book is very well worth reading for anyone interested in WW1 wargaming. It is certainly the WW1 wargaming 'bible' for our group.
There are many other books I have used but few of these are currently available. I would suggest that the above will give you such a deep insight it will help you form a new understanding of much of the things you read about other armies as well.
Please let me know if I can help any further. For example, Machineguns ain't just all Machineguns!!!
Back to The Gauntlet No. 13 Table of Contents
Back to The Gauntlet List of Issues
Back to Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1998 by Craig Martelle Publications
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com