Ralph J. Whitehead Posted 14 January , 2011 Share Posted 14 January , 2011 Hello Salesie, My posts are not deflecting criticism in any manner. They simply point out that while some feel that these lists are somehow based on false data in regard to the Verlustlisten and the SanB the evidence points to a high level of accuracy. I own a full copy of the Verlustlisten from 1914-1919 as well as the SanB and have studied both for some time. I also have access to other period records from several different German states. My opinions and explanations are simply those of a direct researcher using these primary sources. In this case as in others it is very useful to use the primary sources and see just how they were all prepared, used, etc. We will probably never agree on this issue and we will have to be content with this situation. In my posts I am responding to the criticisms with first hand research and study of these sources. I would welcome anyone who has a different opinion but I would hope it is based upon actual research and use into the subject and not through other sources that could prove less than accurate or reliable. Ralph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete1052 Posted 14 January , 2011 Share Posted 14 January , 2011 My need to prepare a talk I'm scheduled to give next week to the Shenandoah Valley Chapter of the Flat Earth Society prevents me from making my usual erudite contributions to this thread. It's unbelievable, you guys wouldn't believe how ever since the days of Galileo astronomers have conspired to mislead the public with their odd theories about the world. Some decades ago the nefarious German guy Werner von Braun even succeeded in poisoning the minds of aeronautical engineers working for the U.S. space administration NASA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salesie Posted 15 January , 2011 Share Posted 15 January , 2011 Seeing as I will be extremely busy over the next week or so, I think it's time to let my arguments stand (or fall) as is; it's time to leave any readers of this thread to draw their own conclusions. So, I'll leave you with the following thoughts: Ralph, one of my points in this thread is that the Sanitats is nowhere near as primary a source as its supporters herald it to be. And, Pete, seeing as a distinct lack of erudition is what marks your posts (in my opinion), be careful you don't actually step off the end of the world. Cheers-salesie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 15 January , 2011 Share Posted 15 January , 2011 it's time to leave any readers of this thread to draw their own conclusions. Cheers-salesie. Indeed it is. My conclusion is that I'm not really any wiser as to the original question than I was at the outset: whether a significant body of German military opinion had thought they were up against MGs or not. No debate about actual or theoretical casualty figures is going to illuminate the prevalence of a mistaken belief. Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Sheldon Posted 15 January , 2011 Share Posted 15 January , 2011 Mik This thread has been going on so long that I cannot remember what I may have posted previously and I cannot summon up the energy to read through everything once more, so bear with me if I am repeating myself. Speaking as someone who has waded through several hundred more German regimental histories than most other researchers, it is my sincerely held view that this notion is completely false. I have devoted some space in the introduction to my new Ypres 1914 book to the question and believe that mischievous selective quoting of an unsatisfactory German monograph by the British Official Historian in 1914 Vol II was responsible for giving the legend wings. There is ample anecdotal evidence to demonstrate that as far as French machine guns deployed in Flanders were concerned, even the raw soldiery of the German Fourth Army quickly learned to wait for the pause for reloading when the twenty five round strip of bullets was fired off and then move. That said, I continue to seek evidence, just as I do for any basis for perennial favourites such as, 'Xth Division was feared above all by the Germans', 'Devils in skirts' etc. When I come across anything, I'll let the Forum know. Do not hold your breath, however. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted 15 January , 2011 Share Posted 15 January , 2011 Having obtained a copy of the book "Ypres 1914 An Official Account Published By The German General Staff" referred to by Jack and others and read it through I have to agree with him. Seems to have been written by somebody who was not only somewhere else at the time but seems not to have done any thorough research. MG's everywhere, including those used by Indian Troops up trees (I kid you not), the deep lines of trenches, heavily fortified positions and vast belts of barbed wire could not have existed at that time. There were not the materials, labour and above all time, to have prepared them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph J. Whitehead Posted 15 January , 2011 Share Posted 15 January , 2011 MikB, I have also read numerous German regimental histories, not as many as Jack though possibly a close 2nd or 3rd, however I have not come across any reference to the British fire appearing as machine gun fire. I am going by memory but I believe there was one incident where the 12th Grenadiers were being fired from the rear flank by a machine gun that they thought was German but later found out was British. The other accounts just mention the heavy fire making it impossible to advance quickly over open terrain. There was one reference to the 'Mad Minute' (forgive me if I use incorrect terms, this is from something I read years back). It seems that Fusilier Regt. 122 came across this fire one evening about dusk in 1914 during the advance into Belgium and could not figure out what the British were up to. It did however kill one hornist I believe. I have heard many stories about the war and at times they are borne out by historic record, other times I cannot locate any specific reference. While this does not prove it is true or not, it just indicates that if any evidence is out there it is either very well hidden or I have not read the right book. In these cases I just keep reading and looking. In my research, I always wondered why the Granatwerfer 15 was called a 'Priesterwerfer' or 'Priester'. It did not appear to have anything to do with a religious issue or such. I did however locate a reference to this name in one regimental where they state it was developed by an Hungarian Priest and therefore picked up the odd nickname. I can assure you, if any references to this story or others comes across the research of people like Jack, myself and many others we will gladly pass it along to the forum. Ralph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 15 January , 2011 Share Posted 15 January , 2011 Thank you to the last three posters - you've made it clearer to me than most of the preceding volume of this thread. I can't remember for sure, but did Richard Holmes repeat this legend in the TV program he did about early WW1 battles? Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonraker Posted 15 January , 2011 Author Share Posted 15 January , 2011 Well, did I start something (writes the original poster), and I never thought a simple question would run to 209 posts! (Thanks to all who contributed.)I confess not to have read them all, as the debate did become a bit esoteric. There must be countless comparable cases of something being printed in the newspapers by an imaginative journalist and becoming gospel and of a flippant or jocular remark being blown out of all proportion. Two days there was a case of a public figure citing, apparently mistakenly, something he'd "read in the papers" about local council profligacy. (Let us go no further on this one, as to do so would break the no-politics rule.) And to go off-topic I remain sceptical about claims that the villagers of Tyneham and Imber (small villages evacuated in 1943 for military training) were promised that they would return after the war. I have absolutely no doubt that sobbing old ladies were told by well-meaning junior officials "I'm sure you'll be allowed back", but I believe that this has been misrepresented as a Government promise. ("Churchill himself...".) In the case of Imber I have found no evidence at all of such a promise in the National Archives.) Moonraker It is very easy indeed to alter the meaning of a statement. Moonraker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob lembke Posted 15 January , 2011 Share Posted 15 January , 2011 In my research, I always wondered why the Granatwerfer 15 was called a 'Priesterwerfer' or 'Priester'. It did not appear to have anything to do with a religious issue or such. I did however locate a reference to this name in one regimental where they state it was developed by an Hungarian Priest and therefore picked up the odd nickname. Ralph I have also heard that it was designed by a priest. I cannot give a source, but it was not detailed or a primary or document source. Bob Lembke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob lembke Posted 15 January , 2011 Share Posted 15 January , 2011 Thankfully, last month I was flying to Switzerland, and had a two-hour layover at Heathrow, and was not able to leave for 13 days, missing my paid Rhine cruise and acquiring a $4000 hotel tab in a place I had never planned to visit. I say thankfully as I evaded the recent eruption of this thread and the temptation to participate, in balance probably a good trade-off. Much of the Sturm und Drang here seems to have been generated by suspicion of Hunnish perfidity and pernicious accounting of the dead. The UK report of the astonishing mess at Heathrow eventually revealed that the villains were probably the Spaniards, who supposedly were able to buy Heathrow and other airports, not to mention BA itself, thanks to some heavily-leveraged deal, and then reportedly promptly laid off the plow operators in a desperate attempt to keep their heavily leveraged anchovie-gulping heads above water. Have we forgotten the Armada, so soon? Surely the villainous Papists are planning another strike against their age-old enemy, Albion*. The once-threatening Hun now seem to be good European citizens, (grudgingly) paying for the fiscal irresponsabilities of better-tanned Europeans, efficiently managing the recently foundering UK auto industry, and wisely refusing US and UK pressure to bomb and invade Iraq. I think an investigation is due as to who turned snow-clearance duties over to Spain, who seem to be in the same league as the Jamacian Olympic luge team in snowy matters. Reenforce Gibralter! Ever Helpful, Bob Lembke * Applied to my Anglophile spousal unit for insight into what "Albion" actually refers to, and she (conducted "digs" in the UK several times, audited courses at Oxford twice, and has excellent Latin and Anglo-Saxon, plus fair Old Norse {"Viking-speak"} ), and she tells me that it is from the Latin for the color white, and from the time another old foe, the Romans, sailed up and spotted the White Cliffs of Dover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latze Posted 16 January , 2011 Share Posted 16 January , 2011 In my research, I always wondered why the Granatwerfer 15 was called a 'Priesterwerfer' or 'Priester'. It did not appear to have anything to do with a religious issue or such. I did however locate a reference to this name in one regimental where they state it was developed by an Hungarian Priest and therefore picked up the odd nickname. Ralph, the German book "Vom Einzelschuss zur Feuerwalze" by Hans Linnenkohl says that the weapon in question got its name because it was designed by the head of a seminary in Hungary by the name of Vécer. The book is scientific and well researched. It cites a French book by Firmin Gascouin "L'evolution de l'artillerie pendant la guerre" that the Priesterwerfer caused more French casualties than the light Minenwerfer. regards Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 16 January , 2011 Share Posted 16 January , 2011 MG's everywhere, including those used by Indian Troops up trees (I kid you not), A little-realised or reported fact (the 100 Years' Rule still applies, so don't repeat this), but each Indian Battalion had on the strength a Fakir complete with Indian flute and a length of rope. Need I say more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmg17a1 Posted 16 January , 2011 Share Posted 16 January , 2011 >MG's everywhere, including those used by Indian Troops up trees (I kid you not).< The German 08/15 manuals have pictures and discourse on the technique for takng an 08/15 into a tree. No doubt a soldier needed some time to get up into the tree, positioned, tied in, MG tied in, food, drink, and settled...... Bob Naess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted 17 January , 2011 Share Posted 17 January , 2011 >MG's everywhere, including those used by Indian Troops up trees (I kid you not).< The German 08/15 manuals have pictures and discourse on the technique for takng an 08/15 into a tree. No doubt a soldier needed some time to get up into the tree, positioned, tied in, MG tied in, food, drink, and settled...... Bob Naess Just a little easier than lugging a Vickers and crew up a tree then! A little-realised or reported fact (the 100 Years' Rule still applies, so don't repeat this), but each Indian Battalion had on the strength a Fakir complete with Indian flute and a length of rope. Need I say more? Point taken - did that apply to the cavalry as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 17 January , 2011 Share Posted 17 January , 2011 Point taken - did that apply to the cvalry as well? Tw Fakirs. Those horses are big blighters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill24chev Posted 17 January , 2011 Share Posted 17 January , 2011 Good evening I was at home today watching a program "Elie Forces" on Discovery History. The program was about the Royal Marines and one of the presenters attributed the "rifle fire mistaken for MGs to the ROYAL MARINES. I know this was wrong because I beleive that the "myth" is probaly attributed to Bloem. Could an expert on The RMLI confirm that Marines followed AT LEAST the same standards as the Army in marksmanship. Just a point on the maths, 15 plus rounds per minute would. for a battalion of 600. riflemean would be equivilent to ten machine guns. bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Dunlop Posted 17 January , 2011 Share Posted 17 January , 2011 bill, Jack Sheldon has noted the most likely source of the myth: I... believe that mischievous selective quoting of an unsatisfactory German monograph by the British Official Historian in 1914 Vol II was responsible for giving the legend wings. The monograph was translated into English as 'Ypres 1914'. It was not Bloem's material. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill24chev Posted 17 January , 2011 Share Posted 17 January , 2011 bill, Jack Sheldon has noted the most likely source of the myth: The monograph was translated into English as 'Ypres 1914'. It was not Bloem's material. Robert Thank you for that Robert I thought I had read it in Bloem's Advance from Mons but having had a quick look I was mistaken. I suppose mis remembering is how some myths are started. The RMLI or RMA did not serve at First Ypres although they may have still been in Belgum withdrawing from Antwerp. bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Dunlop Posted 17 January , 2011 Share Posted 17 January , 2011 Well put, bill. I don't know about the RMLI and their musketry training/levels. Interesting question. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 19 January , 2011 Share Posted 19 January , 2011 Just a point on the maths, 15 plus rounds per minute would. for a battalion of 600. riflemean would be equivilent to ten machine guns. Maybe there's an approximate equivalence in bullet output, but a mounted MG must produce a denser cone of fire than any 60 riflemen firing freehand, however good they are. When defending on a broad front, it's not necessarily obvious which is better, but they are certainly different. Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now