"Creeping Barrage" win Gettysburg...

[5fish]

I have a simple thought about Gettysburg an a "what if".

.My thought is: What if the confederacy had develop the "Creeping Artillery Barraged" that was develop in WW1 by the British. They had the knowhow and the artillery may not have been best suited for it but it could have done the job. Plus, the union army would have had no knowledge of the concept so the union army would have been caught off guard.

If Lee would have use the artillery tactic of a "Creeping Barrage" would that have made a difference in Pickett's charge?


Could it have saved the day for Lee that July day in 1863...

 

[jgoodguy]

Lots of ifs there. If Lee had the knowledge, if the CSA army infantry could have performed the maneuver and if the black powder artillery could have performed it.

 

[rittmeister]

Lots of ifs there. If Lee had the knowledge, if the CSA army infantry could have performed the maneuver and if the black powder artillery could have performed it.

come on, be nice - he didn't ask for confederate stukas, did he?

 

[jgoodguy]

come on, be nice - he didn't ask for confederate stukas, did he?

No, but Stukas are post-WWI.

One technology that is needed for the Creeping Barrage to work that is post Civil War is smokeless powder. With Black Powder, you cannot see what you are shooting at, or if you have changed the range enough or even if the Infantry can see not to run into the barrage. Precise artillery is also a post Civil War thing to have.

Maybe he should have asked for some Fokkers and Sopwiths

 

[rittmeister]

No, but Stukas are post-WWI.

One technology that is needed for the Creeping Barrage to work that is post Civil War is smokeless powder. With Black Powder, you cannot see what you are shooting at, or if you have changed the range enough or even if the Infantry can see not to run into the barrage. Precise artillery is also a post Civil War thing to have.

Maybe he should have asked for some Fokkers and Sopwiths

even if they had smokeless powder it wouldn't have worked. for a creeping barrage you need to utilize plunging fire. with acw guns (line of sight) the confederades would blast the very men they wan't to protect to pieces.

 

[5fish]

plunging fire

In Thirty years the created a weapon that may have given Lee a chance.... ,In 1897...

The French 75 is widely regarded as the first modern artillery piece.[2][3] It was the first field gun to include a hydro-pneumatic recoil mechanism, which kept the gun's trail and wheels perfectly still during the firing.

If you look at the history of hydraulic recoil the tech was available in 1860s, I bet.

 

[rittmeister]

In Thirty years the created a weapon that may have given Lee a chance.... ,In 1897...

The French 75 is widely regarded as the first modern artillery piece.[2][3] It was the first field gun to include a hydro-pneumatic recoil mechanism, which kept the gun's trail and wheels perfectly still during the firing.

If you look at the history of hydraulic recoil the tech was available in 1860s, I bet.

yeah, he could have asked the yankees for a 35 years (procurement, shipment & training take their time) cease fire at gettysburg.

what's next? css dreadnought?

 

[jgoodguy]

even if they had smokeless powder it wouldn't have worked. for a creeping barrage you need to utilize plunging fire. with acw guns (line of sight) the confederades would blast the very men they wan't to protect to pieces.

Mortars you mean?

 

[rittmeister]

Mortars you mean?

nope, modern guns (howitzers) that can be elevated - a mortar is the wrong weapon for that (you need a pecision gun to advance behind a curtain of shells)

sth like this

15cm sFH 13 (WW I)

 

[jgoodguy]

In Thirty years the created a weapon that may have given Lee a chance.... ,In 1897...

The French 75 is widely regarded as the first modern artillery piece.[2][3] It was the first field gun to include a hydro-pneumatic recoil mechanism, which kept the gun's trail and wheels perfectly still during the firing.

If you look at the history of hydraulic recoil the tech was available in 1860s, I bet.

I know that mortars were around.

 

[jgoodguy]

nope, modern guns (howitzers) that can be elevated - a mortar is the wrong weapon for that (you need a pecition gun to advance behind a curtain of shells)

sth like this

15cm sFH 13 (WW I)

A mortar is sufficient for plunging fire. Mount on a cart and you can move it forward. Precision is another issue of concern. The smoke from black powder is another. Training the troops comes to mind also.

 

[5fish]

come on, be nice

Indirecr fire had been around for a while just got better after the 1860s... from wiki...

Indirect arrow fire by archers was commonly used by ancient armies. It was used during both battles and sieges.[5]

For several centuries Coehorn mortars were fired indirectly because their fixed elevation meant range was determined by the amount of propelling powder. It is also reasonable conjecture that if these mortars were used from inside fortifications their targets may have been invisible to them and therefore met the definition of indirect fire.[original research?]

It could also be argued[according to whom?] that Niccolò Tartaglia's invention of the gunner's quadrant (see clinometer) in the 16th century introduced indirect fire guns because it enabled gunlaying by instrument instead of line of sight.[6] This instrument was basically a carpenter's set square with a graduated arc and plumb-bob placed in the muzzle to measure an elevation. There are suggestions,[7] based on an account in Livre de Canonerie published in 1561 and reproduced in Revue d'Artillerie of March 1908, that indirect fire was used by the Burgundians in the 16th Century. The Russians seem to have used something similar at Paltzig in 1759 where they fired over trees, and their instructions of the time indicate this was a normal practice.[8] These methods probably involved an aiming point positioned in line with the target.[citation needed] The earliest example of indirect fire adjusted by an observer seems to be during the defence of Hougoumont in the Battle of Waterloo where a battery of the Royal Horse Artillery fired an indirect Shrapnel barrage against advancing French troops using corrections given by the commander of an adjacent battery with a direct line of sight.[9]

Modern indirect fire dates from the late 19th century. In 1882 a Russian, Lt Col K. G. Guk, published Field Artillery Fire from Covered Positions that described a better method of indirect laying (instead of aiming points in line with the target). In essence, this was the geometry of using angles to aiming points that could be in any direction relative to the target. The problem was the lack of an azimuth instrument to enable it; clinometers for elevation already existed. The Germans solved this problem by inventing the lining-plane in about 1890. This was a gun-mounted rotatable open sight, mounted in alignment with the bore, and able to measure large angles from it. Similar designs, usually able to measure angles in a full circle, were widely adopted over the following decade. By the early 1900s the open sight was sometimes replaced by a telescope and the term goniometer had replaced "lining-plane" in English.

The first incontrovertible, documented use of indirect fire in war using Guk's methods, albeit without lining-plane sights, was on 26 October 1899 by British gunners during the Second Boer War.[10] Although both sides demonstrated early on in the conflict that could use the technique effectively, in many subsequent battles, British commanders nonetheless ordered artillery to be "less timid" and to move forward to address troops' concerns about their guns abandoning them.[10] The British used improvised gun arcs with howitzers;[7] the sighting arrangements used by the Boers with their German and French guns is unclear.

 

[5fish]

Here a link to a page telling the story of German use of indirect fire in the Pussian Franco war...

Field Artillery

books.google.com

 

[rittmeister]

guys the infantry needs to be fifty to 100 yards behind the falling shells - no way with mortars, it'd be a suicide mission. no mortar ever was supossed to hit a certain spot on a map.

 

[5fish]

Here there was a artillery piece by 1887... For instance, an Elswick Ordnance Company 4.7-in gun fired 10 rounds in 47.5 seconds in 1887

A quick-firing or rapid-firing gun is an artillery piece, typically a gun or howitzer, which has several characteristics which taken together mean the weapon can fire at a fast rate. Quick-firing was introduced worldwide in the 1880s and 1890s and had a marked impact on war both on land and at sea.

The characteristics of a quick-firing artillery piece are:

• A breech-loading weapon with a breech mechanism that allows rapid reloading
• Single-part cased ammunition, i.e. a cartridge containing both shell and propellant.
• Recoil buffers to limit recoil, so the barrel can quickly return to the same position after firing.
• The use of 'smokeless powder' - nitrocellulose, nitroglycerine or cordite - which created far less smoke than gunpowder, meaning that gun crews could still see their target.

These innovations, taken together, meant that the quick-firer could fire aimed shells much more rapidly than an older weapon. For instance, an Elswick Ordnance Company 4.7-in gun fired 10 rounds in 47.5 seconds in 1887, almost eight times faster than the equivalent 5-inch breech loading gun

 

[rittmeister]

Here a link to a page telling the story of German use of indirect fire in the Pussian Franco war...

Field Artillery

books.google.com

indirect fire is fine against an area target but not 50 to 100 yards in front of advancing troops. they bombarded that ridge and then advanced across open terrain. don't you think they'd moved the infantry closer if they dared to? the yankees had amble time to man their defences and blast them to pieces.

 

[jgoodguy]

Here there was a artillery piece by 1887... For instance, an Elswick Ordnance Company 4.7-in gun fired 10 rounds in 47.5 seconds in 1887

A quick-firing or rapid-firing gun is an artillery piece, typically a gun or howitzer, which has several characteristics which taken together mean the weapon can fire at a fast rate. Quick-firing was introduced worldwide in the 1880s and 1890s and had a marked impact on war both on land and at sea.

The characteristics of a quick-firing artillery piece are:

• A breech-loading weapon with a breech mechanism that allows rapid reloading
• Single-part cased ammunition, i.e. a cartridge containing both shell and propellant.
• Recoil buffers to limit recoil, so the barrel can quickly return to the same position after firing.
• The use of 'smokeless powder' - nitrocellulose, nitroglycerine or cordite - which created far less smoke than gunpowder, meaning that gun crews could still see their target.

These innovations, taken together, meant that the quick-firer could fire aimed shells much more rapidly than an older weapon. For instance, an Elswick Ordnance Company 4.7-in gun fired 10 rounds in 47.5 seconds in 1887, almost eight times faster than the equivalent 5-inch breech loading gun

In short, while a creeping barrage was possible in 1863, it would be so ineffective and dangerous as to be useless.

 

[rittmeister]

In short, while a creeping barrage was possible in 1863, it would be so ineffective and dangerous as to be useless.

it would also be quite random as to where the shells come down - good luck trying it with these

canon obusier de 12 (aka napoleon)

 

[Wehrkraftzersetzer]

Lots of ifs there. If Lee had the knowledge, if the CSA army infantry could have performed the maneuver and if the black powder artillery could have performed it.

that settles it once & 4 all

 

[jgoodguy]

it would also be quite random as to where the shells come down - good luck trying it with these

canon obusier de 12 (aka napoleon)

I agree.
There were a lot of problems with it even with WWI equipment.