"WWI Frontages" Topic

The last period I have read upon extensively prior to WWI is Franco-Prussian War, and British colonial fighting in the 1880-1900, which didn't include people who really shot back as accurately or better until the Boer War [which I have not read up on].

So I'm wondering on what frontage a company would deploy on in WWI, and what a Battalion would deploy upon. The WWI formations seem to have gotten deeper over time, with more reserves. In the FPW and thereabouts, most battalions would have about half their companies in reserve a few hundred yards back, and rotate the companies to keep a fresh firing line.

Did this development continue in 1914-1916?

At what ranges would companies open fire upon an advancing enemy with tripod-HMGs and then bolt action rifles?

Trying to get a feel for how this looks compared to WWII and 1890.

Thanks in advance for thoughts and information!

Review this: Infantry in Battle

PDF link

A US Army publication from between the wars built on after action reports. Good source material

Frontages were insanely small in WWI, particularly on the attack. I remember a long-ago article on why Squad Leader wasn't suitable for The Great War. An illustration showed an American battalion on the attack in Squad Leader. It was a solid block, with all of the hexes fully stacked. Ridiculous.

Up until 1916 you are looking at around 500 yards frontage for a battalion in the attack, usually in multiple waves (so a similar depth).

Say 100 men in each wave at 5m intervals, 50m between each wave. The 1916 British Divisional tactics manual outlines the expected formations.

Units became more dispersed later in the war as divisional assault frontages extended from half a mile up to a mile or two.

On the Somme the German MGs opened fire at 2 to 3000m, but they had long fields of fire from high ground and were able to engage reserves behind the front line. Normally fields of fire were more restricted. In twentieth century warfare typically the infantry battle opens at 1000m with area fire and small arms at around 300m, depending.

As a rule of thumb, a WW1 battalion occupied the same ground as an FPW regiment, or a WW2 company. Very roughly (or a Napoleonic Division!)

To reinforce Martin's point, here is a comparison of frontages between 3 battles, one each from Napoleonic, FPW and WW1 eras. The maps have been adjusted to the same ground scale. The battles featured roughly the same number of men:

Robert

We use Great War Spearhead as the ruleset for WW1 battles. A stand represents an infantry company with a frontage of roughly 120 yds. In the WW2 version, called Spearhead, a stand represents a platoon with roughly the same frontage. As Martin noted, there was a quantum change during the interwar period. Many people argue that late WW1 was similar to WW2 but, with regards to frontages, it was not.

Robert

WW1 frontages depended on whether a unit was attacking or defending. Here is a map illustrating the dispositions of German infantry companies (red dots) and German artillery batteries (black dots) in the sector attacked by British XIII Corps on July 1st 1916. The British infantry companies are dark blue dots.

Robert

Here is a view of the frontlines near Anzac Cove, Gallipoli. It features the area of the Battle of Lone Pine, from August 1915. The density of Australian and Ottoman troops was so great in this area that it was impossible to represent the number of companies accurately. This level of troop concentrations was possible because artillery was much less powerful in this theatre in 1915.

Robert

Just bumped into this thread. Even in WW1, effective ranges for sustained fire tripod-mounted MG08s was a complicated topic. Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to unpack full details, but one German reference source that makes deep dive into the topic is "New Methods of Machine-Gun Fire" by Capt. Friedrich von Merkatz of the German Army; this essay was translated and published by The United States Infantry Association in its publication "Infantry Journal" in 1916.

The "short story" is about 800 to 1,000 meters.

I'll try to get more deeply into it and post when I return from my trip.

B

Evidently water cooled MG's were used for indirect fire: link

One reason that this was effective is that at long ranges the angle of descent would put rounds into trenches that did not have overhead cover and hit reverse slope defenses.

My grandfather was the 313 MG Company Commander in France in WWI and described how he used long range indirect fire from 12 M1917's for night time interdiction. He was in the 80th Division that took part in the battle mentioned in link for "Infantry in Battle."

Wolfhag