Summary of Paul Strong & Sanders Marble's Artillery in the Great War

By IRB Media

Please note: This is a companion version & not the original book. Book Preview:

#1 Each nation organized its armed forces to fit the strategies that it expected to use to secure its intended national objectives. The pre-war development of artillery techniques and technology reflected these assumptions.

#2 The Germans had planned to attack France head-on in 1870, but the French had upgraded their defenses and increased their army size to fill the gaps between the upgraded forts. In 1900, the French had refortified their frontier and increased the size of their army to protect it.

#3 The German siege train was made up of five heavy mortars that could lob 800kg shells a distance of 9km. The Belgians were able to resist the Germans because the fortifications were inadequate due to the use of mediocre concrete.

#4 The Belgian forts were outdated, and they were easily destroyed by the German shelling. The forts were helpless against the more modern and powerful shells.

• Language: English
• Publisher: IRB Media
• Release date: May 12, 2022
• ISBN: 9798822513754

IRB Media

With IRB books, you can get the key takeaways and analysis of a book in 15 minutes. We read every chapter, identify the key takeaways and analyze them for your convenience.

Book preview

Insights on Paul Strong & Sanders Marble's Artillery in the Great War

Contents

Insights from Chapter 1

Insights from Chapter 2

Insights from Chapter 3

Insights from Chapter 4

Insights from Chapter 5

Insights from Chapter 1

#1

Each nation organized its armed forces to fit the strategies that it expected to use to secure its intended national objectives. The pre-war development of artillery techniques and technology reflected these assumptions.

#2

The Germans had planned to attack France head-on in 1870, but the French had upgraded their defenses and increased their army size to fill the gaps between the upgraded forts. In 1900, the French had refortified their frontier and increased the size of their army to protect it.

#3

The German siege train was made up of five heavy mortars that could lob 800kg shells a distance of 9km. The Belgians were able to resist the Germans because the fortifications were inadequate due to the use of mediocre concrete.

#4

The Belgian forts were outdated, and they were easily destroyed by the German shelling. The forts were helpless against the more modern and powerful shells.

#5

The German field gun was technically less formidable than the French 75mm or British 18-pounder, but was supported at the divisional level by an effective light howitzer, the 105mm FH 98/09. German field gunners were expected to support any assault as closely as their opponents, but the howitzer gunners were given basic instructions in how to conceal their positions and how to use the indirect fire methods that German liaison officers had witnessed in the Russo-Japanese War.

#6

The German army had a technical advantage over the Entente powers in the first few months of the war, and this advantage was maintained once the front line stabilised and Falkenhayn ordered the armies in the west to go on the defensive while the Russian threat was addressed.

#7

The training of German artillery officers was more focused on tactics than on the technology available to their batteries, which made them more open to new ideas. The Germans also developed a variety of weapons that were unique compared to their opponents.

#8

The French army had developed a range of doctrines based on the Gallic tradition of offensive élan on the battlefield. The 75 was the most advanced quick-firing field piece in the world, and it was used to support the infantry as they charged forward.

#9

The French 75mm field gun was superior to the German 77mm field gun, but as soon as heavier guns were deployed and began counter-battery fire, the French 75 simply didn’t have the range or the shell weight to reply effectively.

#10

The French tried to adapt their doctrine to allow for the analysis of recent conflicts and new technologies in 1913. However, they did not widely disseminate the new approaches.

#11

The French had a difficult time