What was the machine gun density: Allies v Germans

[widavies]

For all you machine gun experts out there.

After doing some reading on British attacks during WW1, a constant theme of strong German machine gun defence appears. I just wondered if they had more machine guns per unit than the Allied army units throughout the war, or was it just a case of more effective tactics being employed by the Germans. Another spin off question, was who started the war with more machine guns per unit, was it the French, Germans or British.

Regards

Will davies

[Robert Dunlop]

French, German and British forces started out with the same numbers of machine guns per unit, though there were differences in organisation. British and French forces distributed 2 MGs per battalion. Germans organised the equivalent number into a single company at the equivalent of the British brigade level. In practice, MG sections of 2 guns were often parcelled out as needed.

Robert

[Chris_Baker]

was it just a case of more effective tactics being employed by the Germans

Or a case of the Allies doing the attacking more often.

[widavies]

French, German and British forces started out with the same numbers of machine guns per unit, though there were differences in organisation. British and French forces distributed 2 MGs per battalion. Germans organised the equivalent number into a single company at the equivalent of the British brigade level. In practice, MG sections of 2 guns were often parcelled out as needed.

Robert

Hi Robert,

Thanks for that rather simple answer, so parity at the start and also flexibilty in use too. I wonder if reliability was ever an issue in the early days though?

Cheers

Will

[widavies]

Or a case of the Allies doing the attacking more often.

Touche!!! By this do you mean that the Germans had more practise to work out effective defensive tactics for the machine gunners!!!

How about if I coach it this way, I was really wondering if the allied tactics employed either in attack or defence were as good or better than those of the German army and was there a change in the results as the war progressed. Did effective machine gun density change too.

Regards

Will

[Robert Dunlop]

Reliability was always an issue. I don't know of any evidence that earlier models of MGs were more or less unreliable. MGs were used in pairs, at a minimum, in order to allow for blockages, barrel changes and other problems.

Robert

[widavies]

Reliability was always an issue. I don't know of any evidence that earlier models of MGs were more or less unreliable. MGs were used in pairs, at a minimum, in order to allow for blockages, barrel changes and other problems.

Robert

Thanks for that, it would have therefore have been a nightmare though if during an attack they suffered multiple blockages at the same time. Chance then for the attacking force to take full adavantage to press home an attack with reduced losses. I wonder if there are any incidents on record of this ever happening.

Regards

Will

[David B]

If we are allowed the include Lewis guns as machine guns, by the time of Mont St Quentin Australian Battalions were equipped with 30 Lewis machine guns.

Reason of course was because the battalions were so depleted that they had to keep the fire power up so resorted to a vast increase of portable machine

guns.

David

[widavies]

If we are allowed the include Lewis guns as machine guns, by the time of Mont St Quentin Australian Battalions were equipped with 30 Lewis machine guns.

Reason of course was because the battalions were so depleted that they had to keep the fire power up so resorted to a vast increase of portable machine

guns.

David

Hi David,

Thanks for that, and yes I guess any form of machine gun could be included, I know the Germans were deficient in light machine guns and had resorted to using captured allied material throughout the war.

However by taking the light machine gun force out of the equation for the moment, could anyone say if the Germans were better at employing and using machine guns either in defense or attack than the allies.

Regards

Will Davies

[truthergw]

Touche!!! By this do you mean that the Germans had more practise to work out effective defensive tactics for the machine gunners!!!

How about if I coach it this way, I was really wondering if the allied tactics employed either in attack or defence were as good or better than those of the German army and was there a change in the results as the war progressed. Did effective machine gun density change too.

Regards

Will

What you are asking is more a matter of strategy than either MGs or tactics. The strategy of the Germans for the duration of the trench warfare was to sit tight and defend. To that end, the Germans concentrated on defensive positions and tactics while the Entente concentrated on attacks to force them out of these positions.

[widavies]

What you are asking is more a matter of strategy than either MGs or tactics. The strategy of the Germans for the duration of the trench warfare was to sit tight and defend. To that end, the Germans concentrated on defensive positions and tactics while the Entente concentrated on attacks to force them out of these positions.

This is true, but during offensive manouvers by the Germans, they seemed to make greater and faster advances than the Entente, machine guns or not, or am I just mistaken.

Agreed overall the Germans were in static defence for most of the war after the initial 1914 attack had stalled, so they would have had interlocking defense systems in place and fall back positions prepared for defense in depth. But during the many "quiet" periods between offensive manoevers, were the tactics of the different armies machine guns units comparable?

Will Davies

[truthergw]

This is true, but during offensive manouvers by the Germans, they seemed to make greater and faster advances than the Entente, machine guns or not, or am I just mistaken.

Agreed overall the Germans were in static defence for most of the war after the initial 1914 attack had stalled, so they would have had interlocking defense systems in place and fall back positions prepared for defense in depth. But during the many "quiet" periods between offensive manoevers, were the tactics of the different armies machine guns units comparable?

Will Davies

Very wide questions but to try to keep the debate within limits, The Germans made 3 great attacks during the war. The initial invasion which was halted at the Marne. Verdun which did not succeed in its aims and might best be described as a costly draw, finally the 1918 attacks which again, were held. 1918 exhausted the German army and left it open to a successful attack by the Entente and USA. That sums up the overall strategic results. A machine gun is a defensive weapon par excellence. Carefully sited and protected, MGs in conjunction with wire obstacles are proof against infantry. The guns can make a whole area a killing zone, the wire can concentrate attacking troops into that zone. The only counter is to eliminate the guns or destroy the wire to allow infantry to overrun the guns. MGs can be used in attack but mainly in a support role where they need to be installed in captured positions to defend against counter attack while the position is still vulnerable. Indirect fire was used as a barrage weapon but this could probably have been done by artillery. The Lewis Gun lent some of the firepower of the MG to the attack and was a major factor. The one drawback of a MG is the need for a lot of ammunition. That is heavy abd takes up space. Again we are forced toward a static position, previously supplied. The drawback to the Lewis gun was the need to tote drums and ammunition to feed it. Tactically then, the MG is best for defence or a defensive mode of attack.

Just a small aside here. Fearsome as the MG was, artillery was the main killer and the arm which decided most outcomes throughout the war.

[widavies]

Very wide questions but to try to keep the debate within limits, The Germans made 3 great attacks during the war. The initial invasion which was halted at the Marne. Verdun which did not succeed in its aims and might best be described as a costly draw, finally the 1918 attacks which again, were held. 1918 exhausted the German army and left it open to a successful attack by the Entente and USA. That sums up the overall strategic results. A machine gun is a defensive weapon par excellence. Carefully sited and protected, MGs in conjunction with wire obstacles are proof against infantry. The guns can make a whole area a killing zone, the wire can concentrate attacking troops into that zone. The only counter is to eliminate the guns or destroy the wire to allow infantry to overrun the guns. MGs can be used in attack but mainly in a support role where they need to be installed in captured positions to defend against counter attack while the position is still vulnerable. Indirect fire was used as a barrage weapon but this could probably have been done by artillery. The Lewis Gun lent some of the firepower of the MG to the attack and was a major factor. The one drawback of a MG is the need for a lot of ammunition. That is heavy abd takes up space. Again we are forced toward a static position, previously supplied. The drawback to the Lewis gun was the need to tote drums and ammunition to feed it. Tactically then, the MG is best for defence or a defensive mode of attack.

Just a small aside here. Fearsome as the MG was, artillery was the main killer and the arm which decided most outcomes throughout the war.

Agreed on the point of keeping the debate within its limits and thanks for that detailed reply.

So effectively you are saying that the machine gun was in essence best used as a defensive tool par excellence due to logistical problems of ammunition supplies and spares, coupled with other barriers such as wire or geographical constraints. Also that the real deal was effective artillery support for offensive operations against such constraints. So would you say that the Germans were overall more effective in using MG's for defence than the Entente forces or is this irrevalent due to numerous other localised factors during any offensive especially the effectiveness of the artillery actions.

[truthergw]

The Germans were very well trained soldiers who generallyl fell back to a good defensive position in the ' race to the sea'. These positions were then further strengthened by a well constructed trench system. The Entente had to take up the best position available to them where they could exert pressure on the German lines. From the beginning, the roles were cast. The Entente reluctant to expend energy and resources on a position which they hoped to leave behind as soon as possible, the Germans digging in and making the position as strong as they could. The weaponry of the time favoured defence as opposed to attack. MGs, wire, trenches and magazine rifles all tend to bolster defence. This was demonstrated in ACW, South Africa and the Russo-Japanese war. The one weapon which could prevail against well dug in troops was artillery. In particular, heavy artillery. This again favours defence. Attacks quickly move away from heavy artillery which needs to be operated from a well prepared position while the attacking force is moving toward the artillery of the defence. The answer which evolved included tanks, artillery which could destroy the defensive works without days of bombardment, firing shells which destroyed the trenches and wire without turning the terrain into an impassable moonscape. Effective counter battery fire to destroy the defensive batteries and aircraft combining observation with ground attack. Light machine guns played an important part in exploiting the breakthrough. The Germans were well trained fighters who used every ounce of advantage that being on the defence gave them. When they had attacked, the same defensive advantage stopped them. The outcome was a strategic one. A war cannot be won by defending. The best that a defender can hope for is that the attacker will stop attacking. Once the USA entered, thus ensuring that the Entente could continue to attack, the end was inevitable.

[widavies]

The Germans were very well trained soldiers who generallyl fell back to a good defensive position in the ' race to the sea'. These positions were then further strengthened by a well constructed trench system. The Entente had to take up the best position available to them where they could exert pressure on the German lines. From the beginning, the roles were cast. The Entente reluctant to expend energy and resources on a position which they hoped to leave behind as soon as possible, the Germans digging in and making the position as strong as they could. The weaponry of the time favoured defence as opposed to attack. MGs, wire, trenches and magazine rifles all tend to bolster defence. This was demonstrated in ACW, South Africa and the Russo-Japanese war. The one weapon which could prevail against well dug in troops was artillery. In particular, heavy artillery. This again favours defence. Attacks quickly move away from heavy artillery which needs to be operated from a well prepared position while the attacking force is moving toward the artillery of the defence. The answer which evolved included tanks, artillery which could destroy the defensive works without days of bombardment, firing shells which destroyed the trenches and wire without turning the terrain into an impassable moonscape. Effective counter battery fire to destroy the defensive batteries and aircraft combining observation with ground attack. Light machine guns played an important part in exploiting the breakthrough. The Germans were well trained fighters who used every ounce of advantage that being on the defence gave them. When they had attacked, the same defensive advantage stopped them. The outcome was a strategic one. A war cannot be won by defending. The best that a defender can hope for is that the attacker will stop attacking. Once the USA entered, thus ensuring that the Entente could continue to attack, the end was inevitable.

Thank you very much, I now understand completely the concept of strategic events in trench warfare.

Regards

Will Davies