The use of radio in WW1

[Moose1871]

This is probably a very obvious/simple question. I understand that radio was in its infancy during the First World War, and so could not generally be relied on as troops pushed forward (necessitating the use of runners, etc.). I've read that radio was used by airplanes for artillery spotting and to direct artillery fire. Why was this possible, when radios couldn't be used by ground troops during the attack? Was it just being up in the air which allowed it?

I haven't been able to find a satisfactory answer in any books, so if someone could point me in the right direction, that would be good too.

[Ponury]

Sorry, only in polish. Please take google translator

https://wnet.fm/kurier/radiowywiad-w-i- ... -w-eterze/

[Sheldrake]

Wireless Communications
The destruction of Fifth Army’s communications during
the opening stages of the final German offensive
(Operation MICHAEL1) in March 1918 illustrated how fragile
communications capabilities still were. The initial German
bombardment was very intense: not only did it disrupt or
destroy much of the forward cable systems, but also long
range artillery did significant damage to rear area systems.
The attack was conducted under a veil of thick fog which
put visual signals out of action and prevented pigeons
from flying. The enemy barrage destroyed much of the
limited wireless and power buzzer (a system whereby
messages were buzzed through the ground) equipment.
Consequently, there was an almost universal interruption
of communications between brigades and divisions and
little ability to call for, and direct, artillery fire. The lack of
communications and associated deficiency in supporting
fires considerably hastened the collapse of Fifth Army.
The history of the military wireless makes a fascinating
case study in the cultural impediments to introducing new
technologies. Wireless had been available to the British
Army prior to the war but was generally, and with some
good reason, regarded as unreliable and insecure up until
this point. However, left with no other effective means,
brigades and divisions began to make extensive use of it
during the retreat from Mons. It worked particularly well
when messages were sent in clear and this was permissible
when the exigencies of the situation exceeded the
perceived security risks of enemy interception. Wireless
was less effective once the situation stabilised, and when
Staff policy – for understandable reasons for maintaining
security – insisted on messages being enciphered. It
would not be until the middle of the Second World War
that the British Army successfully integrated wireless
on the battlefield all levels from platoon to army group,
incorporating lighter and more effective equipment. The British Army Guide to the Western Front
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-jVEJR ... sp=sharing

[jluetjen]

In a "by the way" sort of fashion I've come to the conclusion that radio and other forms of "modern" communications were far more widely used in WWI than many people understand. A few couple of examples that I've come across are mentioned below. Note that they are predominantly German based since that has been the focus of much of my research.

1) Even in 1914, mobile radio sets were standard equipment in larger German cavalry formations. They had basically 2 versions: a small set (shorter range) and a large set(longer range). To give you a sense of scale, I believe that both of these were wagon portable -- so they could be towed by a horse or a car. These were used to communicate from forward Cavalry formations ( roughly Brigade level, although the actual use depended on the situation) back to Division, Corps and Army headquarters. Their use seems to have been almost taken for granted by the Germans since there isn't much mention of them, but there does seem to be regular and fairly timely communications from the forward units back to the higher headquarters. Note that I believe that this was generally via morse code and not necessarily verbal.

2) Voice communications via telephone in the same period was also widespread. For example, I've come across examples of the Russians using this technology in 1914 leading up to the battle Konin. There are also pictures that I can think of of German and French field telephones being used by forward units and observers early in the war.

So I think that we tend to take a somewhat jaundiced view in the 21st century of the fairly widespread use of telecommunications in 1914. It was available and it was used. The technology of 1914 was not so far removed from today as many assume.

[John Eggert]

@jluetjen.
My father was a signalman and forward observer in the German Army WWI. He said that their field radio was very crude,(no voice, only morse code) and that the electrical discharges associated with even moderate local shellfire rendered radio about useless. Signal lamp and heliograph was the order of the day where wire could not be maintained.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Guys,

I would suggest that radio is one usually forgotten reason for German early successes in WWII.

The only two German units to get awarded the cuff band “Spanien 1936-1939” as a result of the Spanish Civil War were the tank and signals demonstration battalions.

Most Soviet aircraft and tanks began the war with no radio, making their coordination much more difficult. All German aircraft and tanks had them.

Most east European armies only had radios at higher levels in their artillery, relying on landlines further forward, whereas the Germans had radios down to battery level. You can't be very flexible or mobile if you have to keep laying, repairing and recovering miles of wiring.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Sheldrake]

Hi Guys,

I would suggest that radio is one usually forgotten reason for German early successes in WWII.

The only two German units to get awarded the cuff band “Spanien 1936-1939” as a result of the Spanish Civil War were the tank and signals demonstration battalions.

Most Soviet aircraft and tanks began the war with no radio, making their coordination much more difficult. All German aircraft and tanks had them.

Most east European armies only had radios at higher levels in their artillery, relying on landlines further forward, whereas the Germans had radios down to battery level. You can't be very flexible or mobile if you have to keep laying, repairing and recovering miles of wiring.

Cheers,

Sid.

This is now claimed to be Guderian's major contribution as a WW1 communications officer.

[monk2002uk]

Ground-based radios were available from the outset of the war. There were problems with establishing and maintaining comms for multiple reasons. The Eiffel Tower was used to intercept German radio messages and was used to jam German wireless comms as well. The biggest issue, however, was the problem of trying to interpret messages in the overall context of an operation or battle. It didn't matter how the messages were transmitted, it was very difficult to piece together what they meant. There are British army-level war diaries that contain reams of messages from wireless and multiple other sources. Each message provides a small piece of a huge jigsaw.

Guderian pressed for high quality wireless comms ahead of WW2 based on his experience as a wireless operator in a German cavalry corps in the first weeks of WW1.

Robert

[Sheldrake]

The issue with wireless was the size and reliability of equipment. In 1914 it was possible to fit a wireless set into a battleship. By 1917 one was fitted to a tank. IRC the British used a spark system and had less reliable radio valves than the French. The crude sparks generated by the buzzers used by aircraft transmitted across a range of frequencies which meant you could not have many operating at the same time in the same area. I am not a signals geek but there is an recent article that goes into great depth on this.

Until you could have lots of radio nets on different frequencies it was impossible to used wireless extensively,

[Sid Guttridge]

We still had problems in Rhodesia in the 1970s. My force's command net was on the same frequency as a taxi service somewhere in South Africa and in freak atmospheric conditions we picked up their calls.

Sid.

[wm]

The first simple wide-bandwidth spark-gap transmitters were problematic but since 1900 resonant (syntonic) circuits were employed that reduced transmitters' bandwidth to tolerable, useful values. For example, RMS Titanic had an advanced version that basically generated a single frequency.
I don't know what they used on those planes but it certainly wasn't contemporary modern equipment.

[jluetjen]

I've been trying to find some pictures of the German sets used in 1914, and this is the closest example that I could come up with.

[monk2002uk]

Example drawings of British pre-WW1 wireless carriage here:

http://marconiheritage.org/ww1-land.html

German example of early war wireless wagon here:

http://www.hgkampe.homepage.t-online.de/1weltkrieg.htm

Robert

[jluetjen]

Excellent! With a picture of each and a lot of details. The "small" set in the picture appears much the same as the picture from 1917 that I attached above.

Thanks for finding that and forwarding it.

- John

[MikeMeech]

Hi

It should be remembered that during WW1 it was not a case of 'either' wireless or another method of signalling, but using several different methods so that the 'message' would likely get through, whatever the conditions on the battlefield. Instructions for battle took this into account during the planning stage. As in the following document(UKTNA WO 95/1869/2) dated 2nd April, 1917, this shows the methods in use at that time. :

The best book that covers the development and use of communication systems in the British Army during WW1 is 'Work of the R.E. in the European War, 1914-19 - The Signal Service (France)' by R E Priestley, this is available both on-line (archive.com IIRC) and in a reprinted book form from Naval & Military Press. Page 86 of this publication shows the first (British) use of 'Trench Sets' was between 15-17 June, 1915 when the 'army' borrowed Stirling Transmitters and Short Wave Receivers from the RFC to try out the principle.

I hope that is of interest.

Mike