Use of incendiary and oxygen projectiles and minimal use of shrapnel and explosives prior to offensives in World War I - what would the results be and

[Simeon The Great]

In a study of the effectiveness of strategic bombing in Europe, it is clear that incendiary bombs are between 4 and 5 times more destructive than explosives, and chemical weapons because of gas masks in the First World War appear to be of low effectiveness. I want to ask if the artillery of the advancing troops during the First World War used explosive and shrapnel shells only at the beginning of the artillery preparations - until the defenders returned to their shelters, and then poured incendiary and oxygen shells on their positions - the latter in order to ignite plus the firestorm, how much more successful would offensive operations have been in WWI? How would it affect the morale of the defending forces? How much would it hasten the end of trench warfare? Would this have turned the tide of the war on fronts such as the Eastern, where, with explosive, shrapnel and chemical weapons used by Russian artillery, Brusilov's offensive in the summer of 1916 crippled the Austro-Hungarian army - its front with Russia shifted to the West with between 70 and 120 kilometers, and only the defeat of Romania with decisive Bulgarian help in the autumn of the same year and the revolutions in Russia saved the Habsburg monarchy from immediate collapse? How much would this innovation hasten the end of the war? And when and how would it be possible to implement this tactic?

 

[TDM]

In a study of the effectiveness of strategic bombing in Europe, it is clear that incendiary bombs are between 4 and 5 times more destructive than explosives, and chemical weapons because of gas masks in the First World War appear to be of low effectiveness. I want to ask if the artillery of the advancing troops during the First World War used explosive and shrapnel shells only at the beginning of the artillery preparations - until the defenders returned to their shelters, and then poured incendiary and oxygen shells on their positions - the latter in order to ignite plus the firestorm, how much more successful would offensive operations have been in WWI? How would it affect the morale of the defending forces? How much would it hasten the end of trench warfare? Would this have turned the tide of the war on fronts such as the Eastern, where, with explosive, shrapnel and chemical weapons used by Russian artillery, Brusilov's offensive in the summer of 1916 crippled the Austro-Hungarian army - its front with Russia shifted to the West with between 70 and 120 kilometers, and only the defeat of Romania with decisive Bulgarian help in the autumn of the same year and the revolutions in Russia saved the Habsburg monarchy from immediate collapse? How much would this innovation hasten the end of the war? And when and how would it be possible to implement this tactic?

Strategic bombing of cities and tactical shelling of trench lines are two different things

On top of that the kind of massive destruction and death tolls associated with incendiary bombing of cities in WW2 tends to be from fire storms. Firestorms were not just created by dropping incendiaries but involved careful work to coincide with favourable weather conditions, favourable target make up, and involved overwhelming civilian firefighting capabilities.

(two facts in why the Tokyo fire bombings in 1945 was so horrendous/effective was an extended dry spell and a high proportion of wood and paper in the buildings, and both factors was included in the planning)


In short the trenches of the western front are not so flammable and your less able to wait for prolonged good weather conditions

On top of that a lot of high explosive and shrapnel shelling was aimed at clearing obstacles

I'm not sure what an oxygen shell would be, but I guess any attempt to place oxygen would just dissipate


Given that (just about) man portable flame throwers were developed for trench and mine clearing the concept of using fire was a known thing so I suspect that if they could have made it work they would have done so.

there's also a difference between incendiary shells that produce burning materials than can start fires in suitable conditions (e.g. WP which they did have in WW1 but was mainly used for smoke), and stuff like Napalm which is post WW1 (but used to to clear targets)

 

[Rolf]

TDM covered it pretty well.

Trench warfare nothing changes. Weather played a major factor in any Smoke or Chemical attack.

 

[Simeon The Great]

(two facts in why the Tokyo fire bombings in 1945 was so horrendous/effective was an extended dry spell and a high proportion of wood and paper in the buildings, and both factors was included in the planning)



I'm not sure what an oxygen shell would be, but I guess any attempt to place oxygen would just dissipate

The Battle of the Somme began in the summer of 1916, and summer is the warmest season of the year. Also the lead and steel lined tunnels of the Germans there made 1 July 1916 the bloodiest day for the British Army and if incendiary shells had been used instead of mainly shrapnel and less chemical shells, many of the German defenders would have been burned alive or suffocate in the tunnels. And the idea of projectiles with oxygen occurred to me, because when the percentage of oxygen in the air increases, the temperature of combustion also increases.

 

[Simeon The Great]

On top of that a lot of high explosive and shrapnel shelling was aimed at clearing obstacles

But most of the shells were for the trenches and other fortifications. Also, as the war progressed, wire fences were made to withstand bombing. So the use of explosive projectiles could at least be reduced, compared to that in OTL.

 

[jlckansas]

The Battle of the Somme began in the summer of 1916, and summer is the warmest season of the year. Also the lead and steel lined tunnels of the Germans there made 1 July 1916 the bloodiest day for the British Army and if incendiary shells had been used instead of mainly shrapnel and less chemical shells, many of the German defenders would have been burned alive or suffocate in the tunnels. And the idea of projectiles with oxygen occurred to me, because when the percentage of oxygen in the air increases, the temperature of combustion also increases.

You idea is good but won't work. You would have to have a way to have the incendiary shells penetrate into the dugouts and lined areas for the to be effective. Even then with the anti gas measure taken with the ability to shut off portions you would be able to contain any places burning which happened IOTL in places.

Increasing Oxygen in the air doesn't work like you think, that is the reason that FAE only have a fuel component and not an Oxygen component to them. Increasing the oxidizer only works if you have things for it to react with and in this case if you wanted to saturate the air with oxygen you would need to have a cold still day to employ it so it does not leave it concentrations.

 

[TDM]

The Battle of the Somme began in the summer of 1916, and summer is the warmest season of the year.

Just being warm isn't enough, it has to be dry, the things you trying to burn have to be dry and flammable

Also the lead and steel lined tunnels of the Germans there made 1 July 1916 the bloodiest day for the British Army and if incendiary shells had been used instead of mainly shrapnel and less chemical shells, many of the German defenders would have been burned alive or suffocate in the tunnels.

and if you con get those shells into those bunkers then cool, but we're long was from bunker busting delayed fused secondary warheads, plus you have to know where the bunkers are, these of proprietary bombardments were saturation shelling to cover lager areas,

And the idea of projectiles with oxygen occurred to me, because when the percentage of oxygen in the air increases, the temperature of combustion also increases.

Yes, but that not going to matter here,

1). it will be near impossible to keep a oxygen enriched environment in place, some kind of compressed oxygen shell is going to be expensive and tricky

2). timing to coincide with you incendiary shells will be a nightmare

3). you still need stuff to to burn

You still haven't told us what these incendiary shells will be, even in enclosed areas you will need something like Napalm, or FAE, of thermobaric bombs. Now the Germans did mess with coal dust bombs in WW1 (but more in WW2) But these are tricky things and rely as much on placement and environment as raw destructive power.

Edit this all said you want a good setting for incendiary attacks, its the mining and countermining systems that were going on under the front, and IIRC it did happen here!

 

[The Tai-Pan]

In a study of the effectiveness of strategic bombing in Europe, it is clear that incendiary bombs are between 4 and 5 times more destructive than explosives, and chemical weapons because of gas masks in the First World War appear to be of low effectiveness. I want to ask if the artillery of the advancing troops during the First World War used explosive and shrapnel shells only at the beginning of the artillery preparations - until the defenders returned to their shelters, and then poured incendiary and oxygen shells on their positions - the latter in order to ignite plus the firestorm, how much more successful would offensive operations have been in WWI?

A firestorm is a very distinct phenomena. It is a fire so hot and large that it generates it's own micro-climate that produces yet further fire. This is a large scale event, usually an entire region during a forest fire or, as you note, an entire city in WW2. Even in WW2, this was rare (one study suggests less then 5% of intended city raids turned into firestorms). The main thing is you need a lot of fuel packed tightly together. An entire dry forest, or an entirely city of wood/paper construction. The WW1 trench system gives you none of that. It is mostly bare earth blasted to ruin.

 

[Machiavelli Jr]

A firestorm is a very distinct phenomena. It is a fire so hot and large that it generates it's own micro-climate that produces yet further fire. This is a large scale event, usually an entire region during a forest fire or, as you note, an entire city in WW2. Even in WW2, this was rare (one study suggests less then 5% of city raids turned into firestorms). The main thing is you need a lot of fuel packed tightly together. An entire dry forest, or an entirely city of wood/paper construction. The WW1 trench system gives you none of that. It is mostly bare earth blasted to ruin.

I think that figure is 5% of raids *designed to provoke firestorms* did so successfully. 5% of all city raids would mean there were a couple every month.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

I think that figure is 5% of raids *designed to provoke firestorms* did so successfully. 5% of all city raids would mean there were a couple every month.

Thank you for the obvious correction. Sometimes I forget the scale of WW2.

 

[muddyleathers]

With the intensity of WWI style artillery, they ight have been able to pull off the FAE thing, but did anybody know about such things back then?

 

[TDM]

With the intensity of WWI style artillery, they ight have been able to pull off the FAE thing, but did anybody know about such things back then?

they started messing with coal dust bombs in WW1 (IIIRC) but you don't get actual attempts as thermobaric weapons until WW2 (and FAE come after that)

Trying to get all this to inside a bunker form an artillery piece and then going off in bunker is going to be tricky to say the least

 

[Rolf]

In order for a smoke, flame or chemical attack you ideally want an Inversion. Colder air trapped below the warm air. Fog is a prime example of an inversion.

To heck with an Oxygen increase attack mechanism. Its easier to cause a smoke inhalation situation were the soldiers cannot breathe. It is mask independent. For example I was leading a breaching team once. We cleared a 3 story building, but found ourselves with 2 people in the basement who refused to come out. They were barricaded in. We would have taken losses trying to get them out. I asked them to do me a favor and just surrender. I threw in smoke grenades because I knew they would displace the oxygen and force them out. They had gas mask and tried to use them in the confined space of the basement. Once they could no loner breathe they chose to surrender and exited the 2 open windows in the basement. The faces were yellow and green from the colored smoke grenades, The ones that smoked them out were the 2 HC smokes I threw down the stairwell into the basement.

 

[Sekhmet_D]

(two facts in why the Tokyo fire bombings in 1945 was so horrendous/effective was an extended dry spell and a high proportion of wood and paper in the buildings, and both factors was included in the planning)

A couple more facts. The Japanese civilian population (including their firefighting personnel) was largely ignorant of the nature of napalm and how to extinguish it. Also, those whose clothing caught fire and dived into the Sumida to douse the flames were simply boiled alive as the river's water had become superheated - hundreds died in this fashion as evidenced by how the waterways were choked with corpses the morning after Meetinghouse.

 

[Garrison]

But most of the shells were for the trenches and other fortifications. Also, as the war progressed, wire fences were made to withstand bombing. So the use of explosive projectiles could at least be reduced, compared to that in OTL.

Except that the Allies shifted from ineffective shrapnel to much more potent HE shells precisely to destroy the wire, and it worked during the offensives in 1917 and especially in 1918. So no the use of explosive shells can't be reduced unless you want to leave the obstacles intact.

 

[AlanL]

The Battle of the Somme began in the summer of 1916, and summer is the warmest season of the year. Also the lead and steel lined tunnels of the Germans there made 1 July 1916 the bloodiest day for the British Army and if incendiary shells had been used instead of mainly shrapnel and less chemical shells, many of the German defenders would have been burned alive or suffocate in the tunnels.

In "lead and steel lined tunnels" dug in mud, what exactly is it that you imagine is being caused to burn by these incendiary shells? And how do their fuses work so that they burrow through an unknown depth of earth before igniting precisely in the (not very flammable) tunnel?

 

[Simeon The Great]

In "lead and steel lined tunnels" dug in mud, what exactly is it that you imagine is being caused to burn by these incendiary shells?

I'm mostly relying on the fire to draw the air out and the soldiers in the shelters to suffocate - because fires kill more people by suffocation than by burning alive anyway!

 

[YYJ]

I'm mostly relying on the fire to draw the air out and the soldiers in the shelters to suffocate - because fires kill more people by suffocation than by burning alive anyway!

I think you are talking about thermobaric explosives, also called fuel-air explosives. Those work well against fortifications. I'm not sure if the technology of the day was up to making them small enough to fit in an artillery shell. The modern Russian army loves them and uses them in on kind of RPG warheads and in TOS multiple rocket launchers. They are vulnerable to counter battery fire, because they make a huge explosion when the launcher is hit.

https://roe.ru/eng/catalog/land-forces/missile-systems-multiple-rocket-launchers-mrl-atgm-systems-and-field-artillery-guns/TOS1A/

Oxygen filled shells would work well if you were fighting on a planet with a hydrogen or methane atmosphere, like Neptune. There you would be in the opposite situation than on Earth. Here, the atmosphere supplies the oxidizer for free, the humans have to supply the fuel.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

I'm mostly relying on the fire to draw the air out and the soldiers in the shelters to suffocate - because fires kill more people by suffocation than by burning alive anyway!

You won't get enough. The average shell fired at Verdun was 135kg, with about 10% filler, so 13.5kg. The Germans planned on firing about 350,000 shells per day in the most intense phase, or about 4725 tons of filler. However spread out over 24 hours that's less than 200 tons per hour and that required over 1200 guns to manage, stripping modern artillery from much of the front. 200 tons of incendiary spread out over an area the size of Verdun is not enough, you'd need basically the entire supporting mass of artillery concentrated on a fairly small area to get that effect, and not hitting the rest of the defenses

HE has the advantage that if it damages something that doesn't get fixed, whereas oxygen will flow back to replace the depleted stuff, meaning you can't easily accumulate damage that way

 

[Simeon The Great]

200 tons of incendiary spread out over an area the size of Verdun is not enough, you'd need basically the entire supporting mass of artillery concentrated on a fairly small area to get that effect, and not hitting the rest of the defenses

HE has the advantage that if it damages something that doesn't get fixed, whereas oxygen will flow back to replace the depleted stuff, meaning you can't easily accumulate damage that way

I want a comparison of the effectiveness of the tactics I am considering with that of classical artillery training. And I hope it will be higher - that is, it is not necessary that 100% of the defenders of a position are dead.