British rifle-fire mistaken for machine-guns

[salesie]

Actually it does. This was the original theme of the thread before you transformed it into your personal bully pulpit for thinly veiled German-bashing and British jingoism. There are many non-British (as well as British) members of the Forum who don't share your prejudices and are here to discuss the Great War and not Nazis.

As to Moonraker's original question. While it is possible that a few inexperienced German soldiers mistook the rapid rifle fire of the British Army at Mons for machinegun fire, that it has become a legend demonstrating the 'pluck' of the British professional soldier is almost certainly the result of British propaganda. While this was no doubt good for war-time British morale, I think the true story of their courage and professionalism under fire in what they must have known was an almost impossible situation is far more interesting.

Cheers, Bill

So the logic of your case is that it is OK for iconoclasts to challenge the veracity and validity of the well-documented, and remarkably consistent, British version of events, on the grounds that certain (but not all) German accounts don't tally. But when serious questions are raised about the veracity and validity of this so-called "new evidence" the iconoclasts’ feel they can avoid answering said questions on the grounds that asking such questions is "German bashing and British propaganda"?

You attempt to avoid answering relevant questions, Bill, by throwing up a smokescreen of red-herrings and bluster (as usual) - if your case is so strong then the answers to said questions should be readily available to you (and others), should they not? So why not answer them directly and rationally and make the iconoclast case truly un-challengable?

Cheers-salesie.

[Piorun]

that it has become a legend demonstrating the 'pluck' of the British professional soldier is almost certainly the result of British propaganda.

Cheers, Bill

Bill; with great respect, I'm not sure that many of us see the reports as demonstrating "pluck". For myself, as a former soldier, I only see it as a sad commentary on the brutal efficiency of an iconic weapon in the hands of steady, well-trained soldiers doing the job they were paid for and ordered to do. I feel sadness for the dead and the wounded and sadness that any man had to endure that hell, no matter what end of the rifle they were looking at. As to the perceived facts of the engagement being "the result of British propaganda", I'd be grateful if you could post chapter and verse to substantiate that. Regards, Antony

[salesie]

Don't forget Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix ... what a band!

Seriously, though, as an outsider on this discussion, I personally find t hard to believe the Nazis had little to do with their time than rewrite the German casualty returns from what was (to them, I suspect) a somewhat minor skirmish.

Please keep up to speed, Steven - the Nazi angle is but one tiny part of this long-running debate - a tiny part blown-up out of all proportion by those wishing to re-write history on foundations built of sand (to distract attention away from their self-evident inability to answer other searching questions).

Cheers-salesie.

[dutchbarge]

As to the perceived facts of the engagement being "the result of British propaganda", I'd be grateful if you could post chapter and verse to substantiate that. Regards, Antony

Hello Antony,

I have never disputed, nor felt any cause to dispute, the 'perceived facts of the engagement' (if by that you mean that the BEF demonstrated a high level of professionalism in both halting the superior German force and successfully breaking off the engagement at the most propitious moment in which to effect a retreat in good order). In responding to the question originally posed at the beginning of this thread (did the Germans really believe they faced massed machineguns or was this legend more the result of British propaganda), I speculated that the Germans, if they ever did believe they were facing massed British machineguns, were not likely the ones to build this aspect of the engagement into a legend. This is the only British 'propaganda' I was addressing.

If memory serves, there has been a great deal of speculation that had von Kluck's reserve arrived earlier on the 23rd, he most likely would have pushed his attack at Mons that day, turned the British flank and that would have been that. As it was, von Kluck hesitated in the face of strong BEF resistance, waited for his reserves to arrive before pushing his attack and thereby lost his chance to put the BEF out of the war when French, having learned of Lanzerac's withdrawal, issued orders for a withdrawal early on the 24th before von Kluck had time to regroup and resume his attack. Some have called this luck, but IMHO, I think the professionalism of the BEF won the day.

I still can't bring myself to accept that the Germans generally believed they faced massed machineguns. I believe that this aspect of the engagement was likely a fabrication of British propaganda. While useful at the time, and in much the same vein as the 'Angels of Mons', I think this aspect of the engagement takes away from the factual accomplishment of the BEF at Mons.

Cheers, Bill

[Latze]

Cher Salesie,

Firstly, let me say for one last time - the "machine guns" story is in many ways a red-herring, thrown up by the iconoclasts when they have no answers to searching questions about the veracity of German casualty stats. It doesn't matter whether one Jerry or one-hundred-thousand believed the BEF had massed machine guns at Mons - it is an irrelevance - the German army was critically delayed by a much smaller force, a smaller force it had laughingly derided until meeting it in action.

I think the whole question about the machine-guns was what started that thread. But I take home that you do not believe it either - so we seem to agree on this point.

As for the Sanitätsbericht - on this forum there are a few threads with posts giving at least three versions of "official" German casualty stats. None of these give the same totals, and the discrepancies are pretty big. There is no balance between these differing versions, which means that, logically, they can't all be correct, but they could all be wrong. Which one of these non-balancing totals shall we choose? The Sanitätsbericht has considerably less deaths recorded than the other two versions (search German casualty stats and find the threads for yourself - because you'll have to do much better than your last post, Matt, to make anything like a viable case).

As for the Nazis; if a nazi told me that I was a 59 year-old Yorkshireman, living in Sheffield, married for thirty years to an Irish lass, having produced two daughters and a son - I'd doubt my own life and check-out the evidence before believing him.

Please let me recapitulate. Chris said that in another thread people tried to tally German casualty returns from different sources that pointed to much lower overall casualties. He also said that the Sanitätsbericht for example was dismissed because it was published in 1934. Mr. Custer and you said that this was not the case without making it clear to me what other grounds there were. So what did I do? I did a search to find out what books have been written about this matter, namely "what political pressures were at work during the writing and publication of the German OH and the Sanitätsbericht". Then I went to the library and had a look in this rather dry material. Turns out a lot is know about how which general tried to twist things in his favor etc (just like on the British side). But zero evidence for tampering with the Sanitätsbericht. Then I looked up stuff about censorship in 1934. As far as there is literature about this there was not much censorship on non-fiction. And a lot of clearly non-Nazi authors (Martin Buber, Richarda Huch for example) were still able to publish in 1934 and even later. All this basically to try to see if your point ("we should not trust these figures") has more basis than your gut-feeling. I was unable to find anything supporting your position...

Your policy of questioning everything a Nazi tells you is sensible. Yes, Your policy of questioning everything a Nazi tells you is laudable. But can you please acknowledge that so far you were unable to demonstrate that indeed 'a Nazi' wrote the Sanitätsbericht? Or that you have nothing to show against the report than it's publication date?

Me - as you asked - would say that we use the Sanitätsbericht figures. And the official British statistics for that matter. I have no problem with that. If you want to discuss the different totals in other German reports I would say we(you?) should start another thread to discuss this in depth.

regards

Matt

[Piorun]

Hello Antony,

, I speculated that the Germans, if they ever did believe they were facing massed British machineguns, were not likely the ones to build this aspect of the engagement into a legend. This is the only British 'propaganda' I was addressing.

Some have called this luck, but IMHO, I think the professionalism of the BEF won the day.

I still can't bring myself to accept that the Germans generally believed they faced massed machineguns. I believe that this aspect of the engagement was likely a fabrication of British propaganda. While useful at the time, and in much the same vein as the 'Angels of Mons', I think this aspect of the engagement takes away from the factual accomplishment of the BEF at Mons.

Cheers, Bill

Thank you for your thoughtful response, Bill. As we generally accept, a reverse facet of the so-called 'intelligence' machinery of war is the use of propaganda to excuse failure (its obverse is to laud victory). Could I ask you to consider whether or not the Germans did, in fact, use that reverse facet and gave credence to the reports of machine-guns in order to excuse their own failure to exploit the opening swiftly? The 'fog of war' envelopes the minds as well as the trenches. Once one has served in the so-called 'intelligence services' one becomes suspicious of all. Our cats are just now digging in for an assault on the fridge. Mills bombs, I think Yours, Antony

[TonyE]

Hi John,

A case such as the one you mention certainly offers no more substantial evidence than that of the Red Baron, and in his case it was the ballistic evidence that suggested the range was comparable to the Lewis gun shooter rather than the Vickers on Roy Brown's Camel.

The velocity loss figure comes from the Speer Long Range Ballistic Tables, 12th Edition, quoting for a pointed flatbase 165 grain .308" diameter bullet close in form, size and sectional density to Mk.VII ball. For such a bullet launched at 2400 fps the downrange residual velocity figures are:-

100 yds - 2204 fps, 200 - 2017, 300 - 1840, 400 - 1674, 500 - 1521 ; and it's obviously reasonable to assume at least another 100 fps lost in the next 100 yards travel to 600.

I don't believe an ammunition maker with as strong a form and following as Speer would overstate their velocity loss, and I don't believe their very well-finished bullets would perform materially worse than military issue ball. I don't know whose data you were looking at, but I'd be interested to see the detail of their claims.

Regards,

MikB

Mik is broadly correct with the residual velocity figures taken from the Speer manual, but why use approximation when the real figures are available?

"Text Book of Small Arms 1929", which I think we can all agree is authoritative, gives in Part IV Appendix I the residual velocity for the Mark VII bullet at all ranges to 3,000 yards taken from actual firings at Hythe. The relevent figures are:

Muzzle Velocity 2,440 fps

100 yds 2,230

200 yds 2,030

300 yds 1,840

400 yds 1,660

500 yds 1,500

600 yds 1,360

.

.

.

1,000 yds 1,000

.

2,000 yds 600

.

3,000 yds 300

I don't think this proves anything one way or another, but at least arguments can be made from a factual basis.

Regards

TonyE

[Chris Boonzaier]

Don't forget Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix ... what a band!

Seriously, though, as an outsider on this discussion, I personally find t hard to believe the Nazis had little to do with their time than rewrite the German casualty returns from what was (to them, I suspect) a somewhat minor skirmish.

Hi,

I agree, the records were not just done to fool historians (as certain members seem to think), they were there to be used to decide on pensions, widows pensions, awards, etc. etc....

I really do hope someone has enough time to compare the published amount of losses to the war records...

You would need a Monty Python Skit to portray the records office as Salesie sees it, preferably with John Cleese and Eric Idle as the woman...

Scene one: Woman comes into office, doorbell rings "ding-dong" John Cleese looks up

JC: Um.. can I help you?

Woman: Yes, I am the widow Bukowski...

JC: (Very fast) No you are not!

Woman: I beg your pardon?

JC: The widow Bukowski, you are not the widow Bukowski.

Woman: Yes I am!

JC: No you are not!

Woman: Yes I am!

JC: Ah! No madam, you are not!

Woman: Look, my husband has been dead your 15 years, I announced his death in the paper, had the official death scroll sent to me, he is listed in the roll at the back of the regimental history... and you are telling me he is alive?

JC: Yes.

Woman: I am sorry, have I come into the wrong office? I saw the ministry for silly walks was next door, and the room for arguments next door to that, are you sure this is a pedantic, overbearing, drowning in paper German pension office.

JC: Well, the pension office and the office for going into thousands and thousands of musty war records, bringing men back to life by adding entries into their records making it LOOK as if they had not been killed.

Woman: Well look mate, I know my husbands dead because I had his body brought back for local burial in 1919.

JC: No you didnt.

Women: Yes I did!

JC: How do you KNOW it was him?

Woman: Because it said so on the coffin, his dogtag was mailed onto it...

JC: Could have been sandbags inside....

Woman: No it wasnt...

JC: Look, I am sorry, I am not prepared to argue... If your name begins with B, G, L, or R, you cannot be a widow. They are all alive again to fool the Allies!

Woman: Well, where can I find him then?

JC: Ummm.... who?

Woman: My Husband

JC: What do you mean

then, with a bit of adaptation you can change the wording on the following to make it fit...

Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!

Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.

Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!

Mr. Praline: The plumage don't enter into it. It's stone dead.

Owner: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!

Mr. Praline: All right then, if he's restin', I'll wake him up! (shouting at the cage) 'Ello, Mister Polly Parrot! I've got a lovely fresh cuttle fish for you if you

show...

(owner hits the cage)

Owner: There, he moved!

Mr. Praline: No, he didn't, that was you hitting the cage!

Owner: I never!!

Mr. Praline: Yes, you did!

Owner: I never, never did anything...

Mr. Praline: (yelling and hitting the cage repeatedly) 'ELLO POLLY!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call!

(Takes parrot out of the cage and thumps its head on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)

Mr. Praline: Now that's what I call a dead parrot.

Owner: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!

Mr. Praline: STUNNED?!?

[salesie]

Hi,

I agree, the records were not just done to fool historians (as certain members seem to think), they were there to be used to decide on pensions, widows pensions, awards, etc. etc....

I really do hope someone has enough time to compare the published amount of losses to the war records...

You would need a Monty Python Skit to portray the records office as Salesie sees it, preferably with John Cleese and Eric Idle as the woman...

Scene one: Woman comes into office, doorbell rings "ding-dong" John Cleese looks up...

Not bad, Chris - but if I were to do a critique of the above sketches I would say, "It's all been done before, do you have nothing original to offer?"

That said, your attempt at humour does raise serious questions i.e. seeing as the Sanitätsbericht was published in 1934 and the war ended in 1918 (with war-deaths occurring from 1914), on what basis were German pensions awarded between those dates? (Unless, of course, no pensions were awarded until 1934)

And, supplemental to this, other threads have shown the total German deaths in the Sanitätsbericht to be substantially lower than in two other, much earlier, official German casualty counts (whose totals don't balance either) - so, were any pensions stopped in 1934 to bring them in line with the down-wardly revised total deaths reflected in the Sanitätsbericht? (Now that scenario would be worthy of Monty Python, and original to boot)

Cheers-salesie.

[salesie]

Cher Salesie,

I think the whole question about the machine-guns was what started that thread. But I take home that you do not believe it either - so we seem to agree on this point.

Please let me recapitulate. Chris said that in another thread people tried to tally German casualty returns from different sources that pointed to much lower overall casualties. He also said that the Sanitätsbericht for example was dismissed because it was published in 1934. Mr. Custer and you said that this was not the case without making it clear to me what other grounds there were. So what did I do? I did a search to find out what books have been written about this matter, namely "what political pressures were at work during the writing and publication of the German OH and the Sanitätsbericht". Then I went to the library and had a look in this rather dry material. Turns out a lot is know about how which general tried to twist things in his favor etc (just like on the British side). But zero evidence for tampering with the Sanitätsbericht. Then I looked up stuff about censorship in 1934. As far as there is literature about this there was not much censorship on non-fiction. And a lot of clearly non-Nazi authors (Martin Buber, Richarda Huch for example) were still able to publish in 1934 and even later. All this basically to try to see if your point ("we should not trust these figures") has more basis than your gut-feeling. I was unable to find anything supporting your position...

Your policy of questioning everything a Nazi tells you is sensible. Yes, Your policy of questioning everything a Nazi tells you is laudable. But can you please acknowledge that so far you were unable to demonstrate that indeed 'a Nazi' wrote the Sanitätsbericht? Or that you have nothing to show against the report than it's publication date?

Me - as you asked - would say that we use the Sanitätsbericht figures. And the official British statistics for that matter. I have no problem with that. If you want to discuss the different totals in other German reports I would say we(you?) should start another thread to discuss this in depth.

regards

Matt

I'm being patient with you, Matt, because I have a notion that English is not your first language. And, you seem to have missed the point that I've made several times now i.e. the publication date of the Sanitätsbericht is not my sole doubt; there are at least two other official German casualty counts been posted in the past on this forum in other threads, giving us three German casualty counts with different totals. And the Sanitätsbericht's total death count is by far the lowest of the three.

I'm afraid, I can't make it any clearer than that - so please stop harping on about the nazi angle in isolation, otherwise it may look as if your sole intent is to defend their reputation.

Cheers-salesie.

[Latze]

Salesie,

I'm being patient with you, Matt, because I have a notion that English is not your first language. And, you seem to have missed the point that I've made several times now i.e. the publication date of the Sanitätsbericht is not my sole doubt; there are at least two other official German casualty counts been posted in the past on this forum in other threads, giving us three German casualty counts with different totals. And the Sanitätsbericht's total death count is by far the lowest of the three.

I'm afraid, I can't make it any clearer than that - so please stop harping on about the nazi angle in isolation, otherwise it may look as if your sole intent is to defend their reputation.

Cheers-salesie.

I was unaware that the Nazis had a reputation worthwhile to defend. But I fail to grasp what you try to tell me there - possibly the language barrier, maybe something else: In what way does my questions to you and me citing two clearly ant-nazi scholars imply a defense of nazism? Maybe you can be so kind to enlighten me there.

As to the differences in German casualty returns. I think that these should be adressed as this topic crops up again and again. Because of that I made the proposal to open another thread on this. You did not respond to that. I guess that you will say that because the numbers differ they all should be dismissed in toto and we should use British estimates. Me, I think that I would be more worthwile to see why these number differ (different methodologies used? different dates?). But let me ask you this way: is it so that the only German casualty return that you would accept as true is one that tallies with the British estimate?

regards

Matt

[salesie]

With me being a Yorkshireman, Matt, English is not my first language either.

What I'm trying to say (it seems unsuccessfully) is that the date of publication of the Sanitätsbericht is not the sole concern for doubt - though, in my opinion, it is an important one. Anything published under the nazi regime should be viewed with strong suspicion, especially when said publication has substantially lower death rates than previously published records. You may have come across two books that don't mention any nazi interference in compiling the Sanitätsbericht, but that does not explain away the discrepancies with earlier records. And if any German casualty stats are to be taken seriously then the patent imbalance between at least three sets of German figures needs a rational explanation, otherwise how can any be trusted? If you were buying a business and the man you were buying it from offered you three sets of differing accounts would you buy that business? If you were still foolish enough to want to buy, which set of figures would you base your decision on?

On this forum, in the past, we have been offered three differing sets of German casualty "accounts", and I'm not dumb enough to buy anything on that basis.

You say you would like to debate these differences - if so, type "German casualty stats" into the search engine and if you wish you can resurrect those threads with new posts; if you come up with anything new, anything other than blind-faith, then I'll join in.

Cheers-salesie.

PS. As far as I know, there is only one set of British casualty accounts whose veracity has never been challenged.

[Gunner Bailey]

Mike and Tony

Thanks for your updates. The data I was looking at was for a modern .308 that may not have been comparable to a MkVII so I'll conceed that.

However I don't accept that the Red Baron was hit by either a Lewis or a Vickers MG as there was as I understand it, only a single sideways bullet hole in the fuselage, which to me indicates a rifle shot. Brown probably never hit him at all.

The case I state is relevant as the bullet penetration in the New York case was a point of fact. The woman's head was penetrated at extreme range, whereas according to the 'data' the bullet would have been in theory going at less than 10% of its initial velocity when fired. At what point will a bullet not penetrate a human? 200 fps? This does not tie up. There was also a case in Northern Ireland in the 1970's when a soldier dropped his SLR which let off a round that killed a person over 2 miles away. If someone can be killed by .303 or 7.62mm bullets at 3500 yards then as I stated earlier, at less than 500 yards I would expect the bullet to be able to penetrate 2 or more people closely grouped together. Hence giving the Germans the belief that machine guns must have been present or more prevelant than they actually were.

John

[Pete1052]

GAC, September 24, 2008:

You miss the point of how mythic Hitler and others of the Nazi hierarchy saw their service as Frontkampfer in the Great War ... If there was one issue that they would apply their powers of censorship to it was protecting the myth of the unbeaten German army stabbed in the back by Bolsheviks and traitors at home. Tidying away unpalatable statistics would have been central to this. From that point of view works such as the Sanitaetsbericht would certainly not have been viewed as 'esoteric' and of no interest to Goebbels' ministry.

Salesie, December 5, 2010:

Please keep up to speed ... - the Nazi angle is but one tiny part of this long-running debate - a tiny part blown-up out of all proportion by those wishing to re-write history on foundations built of sand (to distract attention away from their self-evident inability to answer other searching questions).

Which is it then? Was the Sanitaetsbericht censored or not?

[dutchbarge]

Thank you for your thoughtful response, Bill. As we generally accept, a reverse facet of the so-called 'intelligence' machinery of war is the use of propaganda to excuse failure (its obverse is to laud victory). Could I ask you to consider whether or not the Germans did, in fact, use that reverse facet and gave credence to the reports of machine-guns in order to excuse their own failure to exploit the opening swiftly? The 'fog of war' envelopes the minds as well as the trenches. Once one has served in the so-called 'intelligence services' one becomes suspicious of all. Our cats are just now digging in for an assault on the fridge. Mills bombs, I think Yours, Antony

Hello Antony, At the risk of opening a new cans of worms, I think that the idea of the Germans failing, on the evening of the 23rd, to 'exploit the opening swiftly' as you put it, needs some examination. von Kluck's 1st Army was originally proceeding in a southwesterly direction which he believed would have put his Army on the western flank of the BEF, and ideal location from which to roll them up. On the 21st, von Kluck was ordered to change his line of march from southwest to due south in order to bring his Army in alignment with that of von Bülow's 2nd Army (to protect 2nd Army's flank). von Kluck protested, however, as von Bülow was in overall command there wasn't much he could do. The unfortunate result of von Bülow's order was that it led von Kluck into a frontal assault and general engagement with the BEF (something his orders for the 23rd don't seem to have anticipated). I think that once von Kluck realized that he was facing costly, determined resistance (late on the 23rd) he decided he would be better off using the troops already engaged to hold the BEF in place until II and IV Corps were in position to roll up the BEF's western flank, something that he had been anticipating earlier in his advance. Therefore I'm not certain von Kluck failed to 'exploit the opening swiftly', so much as he was unable to bring about a western flanking movement in time to trap the BEF. So, in answer to your question of whether or not it was the Germans who used the isuue of machineguns to excuse their inability to break through the BEF at Mons I'd have to say that it doesn't fit with the tactical situation.

Regarding the machineguns. As each BEF battalion theoretically had 2 machineguns (please excuse my math as I'm doing this from memory-always a risk at my age) and there were 30-something BEF battalions engaged (again from memory), that would have put something like 60 BEF MGs on the scene. Obviously many of the Germans who thought they were up against MGs actually were (indeed the first two VCs of the war were given to Godley and Dease for the work they did manning 4/RF's 2 MGs). While descriptions of 'massed Germans storming the canal' have filled countless accounts, it is not generally commented on that their only avenue of advance would have been across the bridges which spanned the canal. The BEF knew this and placed their MGs accordingly. As the Germans crowded, predictably, into bridge approaches and onto the bridges themselves, they were easy targets for the BEF MGs (and rifle fire).

While much is made of the pre-war regular British Army's ability to fire 15 aimed rounds a minute, very few have reflected on the fact that the BEF forces at Mons consisted of quite a few Reservists, who may or may not have been capable of this feat.

Therefore, IMHO, I think that the question of whether or not the Germans believed they faced 'concentrated' or 'massed' machineguns, when in fact they were 'only' facing rifle fire, or was this aspect of the engagement merely British propaganda is, given that they WERE facing MGs, an easy one to answer. The BEF put up a spirited resistance against superior forces, disengaged at the right moment, retreated in good order and lived to fight another day. What more could one ask of an Army. To 'gild the lilly' with the machinegun aspect of the engagement does not do credit to the BEF.

Cheers, Bill

[salesie]

GAC, September 24, 2008:

Salesie, December 5, 2010:

Which is it then? Was the Sanitaetsbericht censored or not?

This is what happens, Pete, when quotes are used in such a highly selective way - it usually ends-up with highly simplistic and very shallow questions being asked i.e. "Was the Sanitaetsbericht censored or not?" That's like asking if a human being can live without breathing for ten minutes or not? You don't have to actually see people holding their breath for ten minutes to know the end-result.

I'll now elaborate on a subtle point I made earlier. The Sanitaetsbericht's total death figure is many hundreds of thousands lower than the earlier published accounts - so, how many war-death pensions were falsely awarded between the years 1914 to 1934; logically, there must have been many, many thousands falsely awarded if the Sanitaetsbericht is the one true account.

One last time - the nazi angle is not the sole cause for doubt regarding German casualty stats.

Cheers-salesie.

[calibre792x57.y]

J.H.C. I was amazed to open this thread after a few days and find that such a well worn subject was still running, and with such acrimony. There can be little doubt that the casualties were about the same, with more dead on the German side and more surrendered on the British. The fact is that the War was not won, nor lost by rifle fire. The design of the firearms used had nothing to do with it, nor the skills of the individuals. As ever Artillery conquers all. This section is about technology, not myth. Can we can on get with it? SW

[salesie]

J.H.C. I was amazed to open this thread after a few days and find that such a well worn subject was still running, and with such acrimony. There can be little doubt that the casualties were about the same, with more dead on the German side and more surrendered on the British. The fact is that the War was not won, nor lost by rifle fire. The design of the firearms used had nothing to do with it, nor the skills of the individuals. As ever Artillery conquers all. This section is about technology, not myth. Can we can on get with it? SW

This was indeed an artillery war more than anything else - but are you seriously suggesting that the skills of the designers, engineers and gunners made no difference? Seriously suggesting that the guns designed, built, laid, loaded and fired themselves? Methinks thou takes technology too far!

This forum, more than anything else, is about the men who fought not inanimate objects - if you don't like this thread then don't read it! Simples!

Cheers-salesie.

[calibre792x57.y]

The name of the section gives the clue. Paraphanalia. Technology! I was actually thinking of small-arms fire which was what the thread was about. But you are correct - the BEF was totally outgunned by the excellent artillery equipments of the German Army manned by reservists. Any previous experience left in the British Army as a residue from the Boer War or pre-War training had little impact, nor did the individual traits of the soldiers involved. 0.303s or 8mm bullets were almost irrelevant.SW

[salesie]

The name of the section gives the clue. Paraphanalia. Technology! I was actually thinking of small-arms fire which was what the thread was about. But you are correct - the BEF was totally outgunned by the excellent artillery equipments of the German Army manned by reservists. Any previous experience left in the British Army as a residue from the Boer War or pre-War training had little impact, nor did the individual traits of the soldiers involved. 0.303s or 8mm bullets were almost irrelevant.SW

An interesting concept you espouse, SW, fighting a one-arm, as opposed to an all-arms, battle - just one tiny thought bothers me though, how would the artillery take and/or hold territory without all those irrelevant boots, rifles and bayonets on the ground?

Cheers-salesie.

[Pete1052]

Nobody doubts that the British Army battalions and squadrons at Mons and Le Cateau fought very well during their delaying actions there. Why then does it become so controversial when it is pointed out that German records report far fewer casualties than those cited in English-language publications?

[salesie]

Nobody doubts that the British Army battalions and squadrons at Mons and Le Cateau fought very well during their delaying actions there. Why then does it become so controversial when it is pointed out that German records report far fewer casualties than those cited in English-language publications?

Sorry, Pete, but I have to ask, have you actually been following this debate? It matters because said German records don't balance and/or are inconsistent - it matters because some believe that because these German accounts are newly translated then they shouldn't be challenged, just accepted at face-value as gospel - it matters because those with less than honest agendas use these "new accounts" to sling mud - it matters because...I won't go on, I think you get my drift.

Now, I will ask you a question - if it doesn't matter then why do you bother to post in defence of this "new evidence"?

Cheers-salesie.

[salesie]

First patronizing; then bullying. Jekyll and Hyde Syndrome or worse? If you want help, we're here for you.

Cheers, Bill

I see that you still have no real answers to relevant questions that you can't paste and copy from the web, Bill.

Cheers-salesie.

PS. I meant to correct your little bit of history earlier but forgot - von Kluck did not initially position his forces in order to outflank the BEF at Mons because his intelligence and cavalry were pretty useless and he had no idea where the BEF actually was. Are you sure you're not confusing Mons with the Marne, a la von Bulow's order that von Kluck should turn? (to be fair, French had no idea where the German army was either, but he did realise a few hours before battle was actually joined).

[Pete1052]

Now, I will ask you a question - if it doesn't matter then why do you bother to post in defence of this "new evidence"?

This evidence isn't new, in fact it's been available since before most of us in this thread were born. The reasons it hasn't been given more discussion are because most people in the English-speaking world who write books about the war don't read or speak German, nor have they bothered to consult the German-language records. Also, since 1945 there has been a political climate that discourages Germans from saying anything at all about their nation's military history.

[salesie]

This evidence isn't new, in fact it's been available since before most of us in this thread were born. The reasons it hasn't been given more discussion is because most people in the English-speaking world who write books about the war don't read or speak German, nor have they bothered to consult the German-language records. Also, since 1945 there has been a political climate that discourages Germans from saying anything at all about their nation's military achievments.

I know, Pete, that's why I wrote it as "new evidence" - the quotes mean it's not to be taken literally. But I'll re-phrase my question, if it doesn't matter then why do you bother to post in defence of this old evidence?

Cheers-salesie.