Armored vehicles vs. artillery

by LeftSideUpDown

I'm listening to Dan Carlins "Blueprint for Armageddon" and I've just come to the point in WW1 where Armored vehicles start to enter the battles. Throughout WW1 the amount of shells being fired increased immensely, so I started to think about how big of a threat artillery posed to WW1 "tanks"?

TheWellSpokenMan

Artillery could knock out the tanks of the First World War. Compared with tanks from the inter war and Second World War eras, the armour on the British Mark I-V tanks and equivalent French tanks was relatively thin. However, artillery suffered from the problem of rapid communication and tanks offered a relatively small target. Upon the commencement of an attack, the tank's position would need to be communicated to the artillery batteries. The tank would be be moving, albeit slowly, the entire time so would be in a different position from the one communicated by the time the guns started firing. Now in theory, artillery could saturate an area with shells to try and neutralise a tank but by the time tanks really started making any kind of effective deployment, counter battery fire was accurately and effectively neutralising German field artillery.

Of greater threat we're field guns brought forward into the front lines to be specifically employed as anti-tank guns. These guns would be fired over open sights and were used very effectively during the last stages of the war to combat the increasing effectiveness of Allied tanks.