First Creeping Barrage (1 Viewer)

[Spitfrnd]

In reading reading about changes in artillery tactics over the years recently I was surprised to learn that the first use of the creeping barrage in support of an infantry advance is almost exclusively attributed to WWI. That is quite wrong.

While general acceptance of the tactic may have been delayed until then, its first use was actually made by the British during the storming of San Sebastian in the later stages of the Peninsula phase of the Napoleonic Wars. After watching a bloody failure of the first assault and with the second slowly declining toward the same result, General Graham ordered his batteries to re-commence their bombardment of the French defenders as his infantry continued to struggle at their base. Despite the fact that some of his guns were located over 1,200 yards away and the vertical margin of safety was less than 40 feet, the barrage shattered the resistance of the French defenders without inflicting a single loss on the British attackers. Of course the order shocked his staff as much as the French and despite its brilliant success, the tactic was apparently considered a desperate gamble and seemingly disregarded for nearly a 100 years. Certainly the South could have used this in Pickett's charge.

 

[DCN1898]

Great info! And that creeping barrage with smoothbore canon.
Pickett's charge would have been a lot more close run thing if the Confederate artillery would have had the ammunition to continue the barrage.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

In reading reading about changes in artillery tactics over the years recently I was surprised to learn that the first use of the creeping barrage in support of an infantry advance is almost exclusively attributed to WWI. That is quite wrong.

While general acceptance of the tactic may have been delayed until then, its first use was actually made by the British during the storming of San Sebastian in the later stages of the Peninsula phase of the Napoleonic Wars. After watching a bloody failure of the first assault and with the second slowly declining toward the same result, General Graham ordered his batteries to re-commence their bombardment of the French defenders as his infantry continued to struggle at their base. Despite the fact that some of his guns were located over 1,200 yards away and the vertical margin of safety was less than 40 feet, the barrage shattered the resistance of the French defenders without inflicting a single loss on the British attackers. Of course the order shocked his staff as much as the French and despite its brilliant success, the tactic was apparently considered a desperate gamble and seemingly disregarded for nearly a 100 years. Certainly the South could have used this in Pickett's charge.

The south was running out of ammo and the artillery told Lee he would have to start the attack as they would soon not be able to support the infantry. Even so, the south was badly outgunned in this battle, both by number and type of cannon and by type of ammo. The firing positions of the North were much better than those of the south.

Terry

 

[Spitfrnd]

The south was running out of ammo and the artillery told Lee he would have to start the attack as they would soon not be able to support the infantry. Even so, the south was badly outgunned in this battle, both by number and type of cannon and by type of ammo. The firing positions of the North were much better than those of the south.

Terry

That of course would not have changed the value of a creeping barrage which would have made much better use of their scarce ammo.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

That of course would not have changed the value of a creeping barrage which would have made much better use of their scarce ammo.

In most cases I would agree. But at Gettysberg the union guns were at the top of a ridge and were able to fire down at the advancing Confederates with enfilading fire. The Confederates needed counter battery fire to silence the Union cannon. A creeping barrage would have landed on the empty fields Pickett's men were advancing through and had no effect on Union cannon fire. The South needed more guns, rifled guns instead of smoothbore for greater range and accuracy, and more fused ammo to take out the Union artillery crews and troops along the stone wall with air bursts.

Terry

 

[FirstLegion]

In reading reading about changes in artillery tactics over the years recently I was surprised to learn that the first use of the creeping barrage in support of an infantry advance is almost exclusively attributed to WWI. That is quite wrong.

While general acceptance of the tactic may have been delayed until then, its first use was actually made by the British during the storming of San Sebastian in the later stages of the Peninsula phase of the Napoleonic Wars. After watching a bloody failure of the first assault and with the second slowly declining toward the same result, General Graham ordered his batteries to re-commence their bombardment of the French defenders as his infantry continued to struggle at their base. Despite the fact that some of his guns were located over 1,200 yards away and the vertical margin of safety was less than 40 feet, the barrage shattered the resistance of the French defenders without inflicting a single loss on the British attackers. Of course the order shocked his staff as much as the French and despite its brilliant success, the tactic was apparently considered a desperate gamble and seemingly disregarded for nearly a 100 years. Certainly the South could have used this in Pickett's charge.

I would think that the concept of a creeping barrage wouldn't be of any use at all with round shot cannon balls. My understanding of it is that it isn't so much the ability of artillery to destroy a target that makes a creeping barrage useful, it's the demoralizing effect of the concussion, shock waves, noise, etc. on the defenders coupled with the amount of dirt and smoke the barrage throw up thus providing defensive cover for the attacker which makes this tactic useful. The idea is to provide physical cover for the advancing troops and allowing them to engage the enemy before the enemy has a chance to regain his balance.

In the example above, if the artillery alone shattered the resistance of the French, then I'm not sure this is really a creeping barrage or just a barrage. One question I have is if the British Guns blew apart the defenses, why didn't they just shell the defenses in the first place? Why wait until a second attack had gone in? Seems to me the first attack would have succeeded if they just heavily bombarded the defenses from the start rather than not having shelled the defenses at all just prior to the the assault (I know they had shelled them for a long time as part of the siege, but I mean just prior to the assault when the full compliment of the defenders would have been manning the walls).

You're right to give credit to the British for this tactic as it's first use as truly a creeping barrage that I can find took place during the Siege of Toulon in 1793. "He covered the ascent by the fire of twelve-pounders from Fort Faron, directing the gunners to plant their shot about fifty yards in front of the column, and, when necessary, to stop their barrage probably the first use of this device." To me, this is more a true use of a "creeping barrage" and again, done by your beloved Brits! That excerpt was taken from "Lord Hood and the Defense of Toulon."

At Gettysburg, the rebs would have needed a battery of 150mm Howitzers, some Nebelwerfers, and possibly a tactical nuke to make pickett's charge a success. Short of that it was doomed regardless of how they employed their guns.

 

[binder001]

First, I question that the incident in the Penninsula Campaign is a "creeping barrage". That kind of fire involves the guns continually adjusting their point of aim to stay a certain distance ahead of the advancing troops. Different nations have set different safety margins for how close the troops should accompany the artillery barrage as there are almost always "shorts". As mentioned earlier, the effect of round shot would be impressive but not nearly so much as the advancing wall of exploding death that discourages the defender from even lifting their heads. The shock effect has to last long enough so that your infantry and or armor is arriving just as the enemy is recovering enough to engage (ideally). I don't think the smooth bore era had the fire control to allow for a creeping barrage. Youe example sounds like very close direct support, still a very gutsy move with the technology available.

There was an article in one of the Civil War magazines that discussed the failure of Confederate artillery support during Pickett's Charge. Apparently the South was not only short of ammunition, but quite a bit of it was of suspect quality. For exploding shells the fuzing was bad and often either didn't go off or went off early, exploding over the heads of the troops they were to support. They reported that some brigade commanders refused to allow the artillery to fire over the heads of their units.

The true creeping barrage came about during the WW1 era as the armies had better guns, more reliable ammo, the rifled field gun with recoil system and adjustable carriage allowed the control necessary for predictable results.

Gary B.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

In theory, a creeping barrage takes out or pins down successive lines of defense. In WW1, the creeping barrage was to first breach the rows of barbed wire, explode mine fields and take out advance and observation positions. As the attacking troops advanced, the creeping barrage would increasingly focus on the first line of enemy trenches to pin down the defenders. As the attacking troops reached the first line of trenches, the creeping barrage would focus on the second line of trenches to suppress fire, pin the defenders and break up counter attacks. The advancing of the barrage would continue to the support trenches until the entire depth of the defensive trenchworks had been breeched and the barrage would then shell the enemies' rear area.

In practice, it didn't work for several reasons.

Terry

 

[Spitfrnd]

I will try an address these comments in order.

I would think that the concept of a creeping barrage wouldn't be of any use at all with round shot cannon balls. My understanding of it is that it isn't so much the ability of artillery to destroy a target that makes a creeping barrage useful, it's the demoralizing effect of the concussion, shock waves, noise, etc. on the defenders coupled with the amount of dirt and smoke the barrage throw up thus providing defensive cover for the attacker which makes this tactic useful. The idea is to provide physical cover for the advancing troops and allowing them to engage the enemy before the enemy has a chance to regain his balance.

Perhaps my abbreviated discussion was unclear. The barrage at San Sebastian did exactly that, with round shot.

In the example above, if the artillery alone shattered the resistance of the French, then I'm not sure this is really a creeping barrage or just a barrage. One question I have is if the British Guns blew apart the defenses, why didn't they just shell the defenses in the first place? Why wait until a second attack had gone in? Seems to me the first attack would have succeeded if they just heavily bombarded the defenses from the start rather than not having shelled the defenses at all just prior to the assault (I know they had shelled them for a long time as part of the siege, but I mean just prior to the assault when the full compliment of the defenders would have been manning the walls).

Again all I did was summarize the action. You can consult any of the numerous sources on the Peninsula campaign for more detail. In fact, there had been days of barrages prior to the assault and as was typical for the time that is what created the breaches in the walls for the assault. The “creeping barrage” application was unique in that it included a barrage just in front of the advancing infantry that demoralized and killed the defenders who had left the safety of their shelters to fire on the attackers and provided a defensive screen that stilled or rendered ineffective the defensive fire.

You're right to give credit to the British for this tactic as its first use as truly a creeping barrage that I can find took place during the Siege of Toulon in 1793. "He covered the ascent by the fire of twelve-pounders from Fort Faron, directing the gunners to plant their shot about fifty yards in front of the column, and, when necessary, to stop their barrage probably the first use of this device." To me, this is more a true use of a "creeping barrage" and again, done by your beloved Brits! That excerpt was taken from "Lord Hood and the Defense of Toulon."

I was not aware of this aspect of Toulon. Perhaps it was the first but those writing about the Peninsula simply do not mention it. There is also no mention that Graham or any of his staff present were aware of it as well.

At Gettysburg, the rebs would have needed a battery of 150mm Howitzers, some Nebelwerfers, and possibly a tactical nuke to make Pickett’s charge a success. Short of that it was doomed regardless of how they employed their guns.

Amusing but according to many historians, somewhat overstated. In fact, Pickets charge nearly succeeded as it was and if supported might not have needed an improved use of the barrage. To use your early remarks to answer an earlier post, it is that defensive screen that would have given its value to the attack.

First, I question that the incident in the Peninsula Campaign is a "creeping barrage". That kind of fire involves the guns continually adjusting their point of aim to stay a certain distance ahead of the advancing troops. Different nations have set different safety margins for how close the troops should accompany the artillery barrage as there are almost always "shorts". As mentioned earlier, the effect of round shot would be impressive but not nearly so much as the advancing wall of exploding death that discourages the defender from even lifting their heads. The shock effect has to last long enough so that your infantry and or armor is arriving just as the enemy is recovering enough to engage (ideally). I don't think the smooth bore era had the fire control to allow for a creeping barrage. You example sounds like very close direct support, still a very gutsy move with the technology available.
.....
The true creeping barrage came about during the WW1 era as the armies had better guns, more reliable ammo, the rifled field gun with recoil system and adjustable carriage allowed the control necessary for predictable results.

Gary B.

Well Gary, I would say that your examples are enhancements of the original concept, which as you note was indeed a gutsy move at that time but did provide successful results whether or not completely predicted.

In theory, a creeping barrage takes out or pins down successive lines of defense. In WW1, the creeping barrage was to first breach the rows of barbed wire, explode mine fields and take out advance and observation positions. As the attacking troops advanced, the creeping barrage would increasingly focus on the first line of enemy trenches to pin down the defenders. As the attacking troops reached the first line of trenches, the creeping barrage would focus on the second line of trenches to suppress fire, pin the defenders and break up counter attacks. The advancing of the barrage would continue to the support trenches until the entire depth of the defensive trenchworks had been breeched and the barrage would then shell the enemies' rear area.

In practice, it didn't work for several reasons.

Terry

Yes this describes its use as the tactic advanced and interestingly it did work at San Sebastian.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

I don't know that I would call the siege of San Sebastian a creeping barrage. When the outer wall was breached, it was only then discovered that the French had built a second, inner wall. The troops passing through the first wall's breech, could not overcome the second wall, fell back from the second wall and were pinned down. At that point, the British siege guns fired very close over the pinned down troops and breached the second wall killing many of the defenders. The nearby, pinned British troops rushed the breach in the second wall before the French defenders could recover from the shelling.

To me, it seems more like 2 siege bombardments with the second one being very close to the attacking troops as a matter of necessity.

Terry

 

[Phantom Warrior]

Even earlier creeping barrages were used by English longbowmen against the French during the hundred years war in the 14th and 15th centuries. Those barrages against advancing troops started at 1000 yards and crept back towards rows of British archers.

I think the first successful creeping artillery barrage was by the Canadians at Vimy Ridge. In addition to the basic idea of the creeping barrage, the Canadians trained in it's use and added smoke rounds to hide the early part of the advance and also issued a map to each soldier showing where the breaches would be.

Terry

 

[Spitfrnd]

I don't know that I would call the siege of San Sebastian a creeping barrage. When the outer wall was breached, it was only then discovered that the French had built a second, inner wall. The troops passing through the first wall's breech, could not overcome the second wall, fell back from the second wall and were pinned down. At that point, the British siege guns fired very close over the pinned down troops and breached the second wall killing many of the defenders. The nearby, pinned British troops rushed the breach in the second wall before the French defenders could recover from the shelling.

To me, it seems more like 2 siege bombardments with the second one being very close to the attacking troops as a matter of necessity.

Terry

Sorry Terry but your logic escapes me. To me it was a first use of a creeping barrage but if you want to think otherwise, you are welcome to your own thoughts.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

I don't think it meets the criteria of a creeping barrage with gradually advancing, continuous cannon fire suppressing several defensive positions/obstacles, taking place at the same time the attacking troops are advancing.

The San Sabastian attack was a siege bombardment which breached the wall late in the day on August 30, 1813. The troops did not attack until low tide at 11:00 a.m. on August 31 from trenches 180 yards from the breach. The French had built a second, inner wall and several attacks up the rubble-strewn breach in the first wall failed to take the second wall. The British troops took cover in the rubble-strewen breach and were taking heavy fire from the second wall.

The seige artillery then targeted the second wall. When the British heavy guns first fired over their heads, the survivors of the attack began to panic. But, when the smoke cleared, they noticed that the big guns had wrecked most of the inner wall, killing many defenders and the British troops in the rubble of the first wall charged through the breach in the second wall.

There were 2 distinct bombardments at two specific targets on two separate days with no troops moving during either bombardment. The troops didn't move until the bombardment stopped. I do not think that this action meets the definition of a creeping barrage.

Terry

 

[Spitfrnd]

The first part of a creeping barrage is a bombardment just in front of the advancing troops, once, twice or fifty times. Without that element of close support, which was in fact novel for the time, there is no creeping barrage. Yes these troops were advancing. Obviously the technique improved over time but that is judged from hindsight after, as Gary notes, the equipment had significantly improved. But whatever you want to think mate is up to you mate.