THE GUNS OF AUGUST

Ash, Hamburger provide a link from which i obtained the picture. As i do not read German, i do not know that this is a picture of one of the 42 centimeter guns--but have assumed as much because that was the point of the link. I believe the Paris rail gun had a much longer barrel, and a much more massive carriage. However, i'm working in most of this from memories of what i read from 35 to 40 years ago.

Well, you said that Falkenhayn was trying to convince his "superiors." Apparently, your notion of "superior" includes anyone who might have had some kind of connection, even the most tangential, with Falkenhayn -- and if that's the case then so be it. Obviously, we have very different notions of what "superior" means.

I'm not sure why Marshall would contend that Falkenhayn was attempting to convince the civilian leadership to sue for peace, unless he meant that Falkenhayn was attempting to convince the French civilian leadership to sue for peace. Falkenhayn, let us not forget, thought that Verdun would be a German victory, so it's extremely unlikely that he intended to force the German government to sue for peace.


Then you would be just as wrong as them.


I have absolutely no clue. Looking at the website, a few observations can be made. First, the men are located at the rear of the gun: as the other photos on the page show, the wheels of the gun were located at the front, and the position of the firing shield is also consistent with the artillery piece facing away from the camera. If the soldiers, then, are loading the gun, they are certainly not loading at the muzzle, but rather at the breach. And given that the projectiles weighed anywhere from 400kg up to 1160 kg, it shouldn't be surprising that it took more than a few soldiers to load the piece. The photo's caption seems to support this conclusion:

Die "Dicke Berta", hier das fahrbare M-Gerät, in Ladestellung.

Translation: The "Big Bertha," here the mobile M-model, in loading position.

Ash, i've read, and don't recall the source (pacem, JoeOnTheBigStinkyLake), that the projectiles of the Paris railway gun reached the stratosphere before dropping back to the target. This would have made them, of course, so far as any historical record, the first man-made objects to do so.

Joe, Marshall made a point of indicating that Falkenhayn had arlready criticized the very methods by which he proceeded in his attack on Verdun, and this was a part of the reason for Marshall's conention. Again, it's been about 30 years since i read that, and my self-image is not at stake here, so if you wish to demure on the topic, or even to deny what i've said Marshall wrote, you just help yourself.

I went to check my artillery reference materials, and couldn't find large numbers of my military reference books, many of which seem to have gone missing since our big flood last winter. They will turn up, unless the gremlins gottem. I did find one note of interest. The Paris Gun because of its size could only be loaded at a 50 degree angle, and the projectiles were about five feet in length. Ergo, the gun in the photo could not have been the Paris Gun and I shouldn't have suggested that it might be.

I also did some checking on Falkenhayn to refresh my memory. No copy of S.L.A. Marshall found, but many other references to Falkenhayn's thinking seem to confirm my recollection. Falkenhayn concentrated in depth behind the Crown Princes' 5th and attacked on a narrow 5 mile front. This caught the French mostly by surprise and that part of their own front was poorly prepared. Because of the symbolic significance Verdun called for heroic measures. It seems that most of the references I was able to put me hands on believe that Falkenhayn didn't expect a breakthrough, though he would gladly have welcomed one. Apparently his thought was that the battle should be one of attrition that would so shock and dishearten the French that they would sue for peace. He had in an uncharacteristic note assured the Kaiser that the French would suffer far worse than the German army. In the end, the French did lose more men the French lost at least 315,000, and the Germans something over 280,000. Actual KIA rates will never be known because so many corpses were never recovered (an estimated 175,000 at least). Falkenhayn was relieved by Hindenburg and Ludendorff. As frightful as the carnage was at Verdun in 1916 , it was followed by the Somme a short time later that same year.

DIE DICKE BERTA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i'm not sure that this is a really important subject, but since i provided some background material from german websites, i thought i should do a bit more checking and see if i can help provide answers to some questions that have come up. i'm sure you all understand that i have no technical knowledge about artillery and weaponry. i was drawn to setanta's entry because DIE DICKE BERTA played at least a small part in german history when i was growing up and also because my dad - a ww I veteran - would sometimes speak about his war experiences as i became a teenager, and big berta would sometimes be mentioned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from checking and comparing english and german dictionary entries re. artillery pieces i have come to the conclusion that the descriptions being used for various artillery pieces are similar but not identical between english and german. big berta is desribed as technically being a MORTAR(moerser) - or a short-barrel HOWITZER. it is also stated that the description HOWITZER(haubitze) could be used, but that it would be incorrect to call it a CANNON(kanone). both the mortar and howitzer are described as breech-loading artillery pieces , but a front-loading piece is described as a GRENADE-THROWER(granat-werfer) - usually for small projectiles. further it is stated that a mortar carried a larger explosives load than a howitzer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
there were two different big bertas, both with 42 cm barrels. the smaller unit was transported disassembled on three trucks; it was called M-GERAET(M-UNIT) and the power of the shell hitting the object(auftreff-wucht) is given as 3,500 m.t.(mega tons ?). the larger unit was mounted on a railway carriage. it was called GAMMA-GERAET and had 6,000 m.t. of power.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
despite its enormous power, big bertas' grenades were apparently not able to penetrate the modern steel-reinforced concrete fortifications of the verdun fortress. they were successful against the older brick and mortar fortifications, but many of these older fortifications had added reinforcements under the brick and mortar, and again, big berta was not able to penetrate these fortifications.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
even on serious subjects i often cant help throwing in an 'old' joke. i think big berta can perhaps be compared to the german V-weapons(V 1 and V 2) used towards the end of ww II against london. a british friend who lived in london during ww II said that the british called them 'doodle-bugs' because of the insect-like noise they made. while they did some damage to london, i think they were really meant to invigorate the german population by proclaiming that the war would be won by germany with these weapons. i recall a joke that circulated at that time by being whispered from one trusted person to another trusted person (the joke even survived ww II and circulated for some time after the war). ... here goes : two german friends meet in april 1945. friend no. 1 : "have you heard that the german army has a new V-weapon ?" ; friend no 2 : "no, what is it called ?"; friend no 1 :"it's called V 25"; friend no 2 : "what does V 25 do ?" ; friend no 1 : "V 25 flies to england and brings back herr rudolph hess to germany". rudolph hess had been the fuehrer's "stellvertreter" and had earlier in the war flown an airplane to england to try and plead for peace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
well, that's all i can say on this subject for now. i hope you will forgive the 'joke'. it's late and i'm getting gyddy. hbg

DIE DICKE BERTA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i'm not sure that this is a really important subject, but since i provided some background material from german websites, i thought i should do a bit more checking and see if i can help provide answers to some questions that have come up. i'm sure you all understand that i have no technical knowledge about artillery and weaponry. i was drawn to setanta's entry because DIE DICKE BERTA played at least a small part in german history when i was growing up and also because my dad - a ww I veteran - would sometimes speak about his war experiences as i became a teenager, and big berta would sometimes be mentioned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from checking and comparing english and german dictionary entries re. artillery pieces i have come to the conclusion that the descriptions being used for various artillery pieces are similar but not identical between english and german. big berta is desribed as technically being a MORTAR(moerser) - or a short-barrel HOWITZER. it is also stated that the description HOWITZER(haubitze) could be used, but that it would be incorrect to call it a CANNON(kanone). both the mortar and howitzer are described as breech-loading artillery pieces , but a front-loading piece is described as a GRENADE-THROWER(granat-werfer) - usually for small projectiles. further it is stated that a mortar carried a larger explosives load than a howitzer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
there were two different big bertas, both with 42 cm barrels. the smaller unit was transported disassembled on three trucks; it was called M-GERAET(M-UNIT) and the power of the shell hitting the object(auftreff-wucht) is given as 3,500 m.t.(mega tons ?). the larger unit was mounted on a railway carriage. it was called GAMMA-GERAET and had 6,000 m.t. of power.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
despite its enormous power, big bertas' grenades were apparently not able to penetrate the modern steel-reinforced concrete fortifications of the verdun fortress. they were successful against the older brick and mortar fortifications, but many of these older fortifications had added reinforcements under the brick and mortar, and again, big berta was not able to penetrate these fortifications.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
even on serious subjects i often cant help throwing in an 'old' joke. i think big berta can perhaps be compared to the german V-weapons(V 1 and V 2) used towards the end of ww II against london. a british friend who lived in london during ww II said that the british called them 'doodle-bugs' because of the insect-like noise they made. while they did some damage to london, i think they were really meant to invigorate the german population by proclaiming that the war would be won by germany with these weapons. i recall a joke that circulated at that time by being whispered from one trusted person to another trusted person (the joke even survived ww II and circulated for some time after the war). ... here goes : two german friends meet in april 1945. friend no. 1 : "have you heard that the german army has a new V-weapon ?" ; friend no 2 : "no, what is it called ?"; friend no 1 :"it's called V 25"; friend no 2 : "what does V 25 do ?" ; friend no 1 : "V 25 flies to england and brings back herr rudolph hess to germany". rudolph hess had been the fuehrer's "stellvertreter" and had earlier in the war flown an airplane to england to try and plead for peace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
well, that's all i can say on this subject for now. i hope you will forgive the 'joke'. it's late and i'm getting gyddy. hbg

Hamburger,

If in German a breech-loading piece can be called a mortar, that might explain the confusion. In English a mortar is a high trajectory muzzle-fed piece. In modern times the propellent is contained in the base of the projectile and fired when the round strikes the bottom of the tube.

A howitzer is a high trajectory, breech-loaded piece. Usually rifled, modern howitzers do tend to have short tubes. Originally these were used to shoot over fortification walls. The ability to fire over intervening obstacles has made the howitzer almost ubiquitus in modern artillery.

A gun has a flat trajectory, and since the last quarter of the 19th century are breech loaders. Guns historically are unrifled pieces, but not always. Historically, guns were mostly used for direct fires. These days unrifled pieces can still be found on the battlefield.

I've looked it up in some French sources: the French call the Dicke Berta «la Grasse Bertha, un mortier géant» as well. (Which isn't so surprising, since the Germans use this word [according to the Grimm's dictionary] since the 15th century identically to the original French idiom.
(Howitzer = German: 'Haubitze', is [again according to Grimm] originally Boheminan 'haufnice'.)

Well, i do appreciate that this has been cleared up. I had started this thread more with the effects of World War I in mind, rather than the course of the fighting itself. However, it seems that the fascination with this unique conflict still holds center stage. Tant miuex, i'm not one to complain if a thread goes somewhere unitended.

I did want to note that simply saying a mortar is muzzle-loaded and a howitzer breech-loaded is more than somewhat naive. This would mean, by that rather imprecise definition, that nearly all artillery before the mid-19the century were mortars, in that they were muzzle-loaded. I'm no artillery expert either, but i had always taken the difference to be based (before indirect fire became common in the 20th century) on the elevation of the piece. That would be guns firing on a flat or nearly flat trajectory--as Ash said, and howitzers lobbing the shells in at a "mid-range" trajectory, and mortars delivering their projectile with high trajectory.

Perhaps our new friend from the other thread with the excellent credentials in knowledge of ordnance will show up.

GUNS OF AUGUST
setanta : i have to apologize for leading you all over the place, but ... i believe you told me once that it would be allright to get off topic. so this is your reward for giving kind advice ! ... i have to make a correction : what i called a GRENADE-THROWER is probably more properly called a GRENADE-LAUNCHER(this is what happens when trying to do a word-for-word translation). ... the PARIS GUN that was mentioned was a completely different piece of artillery equipment. it was a railcarriage mounted cannon of only 21 cm calibre. a description (in english) can be found here >>> PARIS GUN ... i noticed that my entry from last night was entered twice. in checking the procedure for removing entries, i found that a moderator should be contacted in order to remove older entries. i could not find a moderator, so what do i do now, just leave it ? hbg

oh i think they are probably stuffing the artillery with the shell

I dont think that this knid of machine is useful.
Germans wished to destroy the courage and the spirit of French. But the effet is no better the wish.
like V-2 in WW2.
It just showed that Germans were feared to lose the war.

John-Bush, the 42 centimeter mortars or howitzers, whichever one prefers, were used to reduce the concrete forts which protected the cities in the Belgian fortress zones. Before the "Dicke Berta's" were brought up, the Germans took horrible casualties in conventional infantry assaults against positions which were invulnerable to standard field artilleray, and which were well provided with machine guns.

So like Maginot in WW2 right?

Yes, that would be a good analogy.

Thanks Hamburger, for explaining the mortar thing.

Set,

Prior to breech loading there were cannons and there were mortars. The difference being in the firing angles and barrel length.

Since then cannons have been divided between guns and howitzers. Mortars are still something different. The difference is that they continue to be muzzle loaded.

There were muzzle-loaded howitzers, as well, Adrian. Nice try, though. I would really rather you don't attempt to instruct me on artillery, as i have yet to see any evidence that you have anything to teach me on the subject.

Noted.

I don't really study history prior to the 20th century. WWI is as far back as my knowledge on these things goes. I'm aware that the two terms were considered "basically" the same back then but "technically" they are not and the difference is that a mortar is muzzle loaded.

Anyway, I'm not here for a fight.....
Certainly not with you.....
Especially not on the bloody history forum.

Well, please note that one cannot convey tone of voice here, and that there's no hostility intended on my part. As far as concerns history, military history is a side interest for me. It was common in the armies of the southern Confederacy during our civil war to place four guns in battery, two cannon and two howitzers. Earlier i wrote that my understanding has always been that the distinction in these types of gun was the elevation at which the projectile was delivered to the target. There was a gentleman who showed up at the "Battalion Guns" thread is more than sufficiently qualified to enlighten us all on these matters. Perhaps he'll show up here.

Here is a link that will show you a photo of the nefarious character.

How could he possibly know that his actions would result in the death of over 100 million people.

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/F/firstworldwar/biog_gprincip.html