German machine gunners

[RammyLad1]

Did German machine gunners deliberately fire below waist height knowing that their target would be struck in the head on the return sweep of the gun as the unfortunate victim stumbled forward ?

Duncan

[Radlad]

Most machine gunners aimed low. Too high and bullets went over victims heads. Aiming low caught crouching men as well as standing and recoil forces would sometimes force the muzzle upwards, depending on the gun and it's mount

[RammyLad1]

Thanks Radlad - I wonder if the arc of fire must have been very narrow then to hit a man again on the return sweep. I have always read that the German machine guns were placed to have a wide arc of fire against the advancing troops.Thinking about it then, the nearer to the German gunners position that the advancing troops got then the arc of fire would get smaller, if that makes sense.

[TonyE]

I think there is a misconception here about how the Germans used their machine guns.

When working on the defensive and being attacked by advancing lines of British troops it would be unusual for the guns to "sweep" the target in the manner you suggest. Not only was this wasteful of ammunition, it was also quite difficult. Traverse on the Schlitten 08 mount was limited by the traverse bar controls unless the gun was disconnected from these .

Guns worked in concert to produce a mixture of direct frontal and enfilading fire so that the entire front of the MG company was covered with only small adjustments to the traverse controls.

Attached are just two of the several possible defensive set-ups shown in the German manuals.

Of course, when attacking using the MG08/15 tactics were different.

Regards

TonyE

[RammyLad1]

On my first trip to the Western front last year, I was told that the tactic was to hit the advancing troops below the waist and that the return sweep would hit the head as the victim fell. Is this another myth then?

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Attached are just two of the several possible defensive set-ups shown in the German manuals.

Regards

TonyE

TonyE,

Excellent diagram, how on earth did anyone survive such a concentrated swathe of murderous machine gun fire ?

Regards,

LF

[TonyE]

Thanks, LF.

What I think it does show is that if it had not been for the barrage the carnage would have been many times worse.

Rammylad1: I think that is a "yes"!

Cheers

TonyE

[Steven Broomfield]

On my first trip to the Western front last year, I was told that the tactic was to hit the advancing troops below the waist and that the return sweep would hit the head as the victim fell. Is this another myth then?

Probably a tactic used only by the machine gunners chained to their guns.

Attached are just two of the several possible defensive set-ups shown in the German manuals.

Tony - that's splendid. Did the British have similar schematics? Serious question - did the two-inch tap (IIRC) really exist, and di the germans have a similar tactic?

[Chris_Baker]

If I recall correctly, British MG fire included much firing into the air so that the bullets would arc and fall from above. This created a "beaten zone" of some depth, through which an enemy soldier would have to pass. Did the Germans employ a similar approach?

[Steven Broomfield]

But is that not an indirect "barrage fire" technique? Shooting at a target in sight might be different (I don't know - it's a question, really).

[squirrel]

One of "my men" was wounded and his wounds described as "GSW both knees, right thigh, left arm, left ear which might suggest that what Rammylad says happened even if it were not actually intended.

[TonyE]

Steve et al - I have to go out now for the rest of the evening but will answer some of these points tomorrow.

...and yes, the "tap" most certainly did exist and was an important part of a gunner's training.

Regards

TonyE

[Dave1418]

If I recall correctly, British MG fire included much firing into the air so that the bullets would arc and fall from above. This created a "beaten zone" of some depth, through which an enemy soldier would have to pass. Did the Germans employ a similar approach?

Hi Chris, there is direct fire and indirect fire. Direct fire is with the target in line of sight/view, indirect fire is fired over an obstacle, hills, reverse slopes etc to hit the target. In the indirect fire mode even with a fixed gun the rounds create an oval area of fire when they land. This is the beaten zone, this allowed MG's to fire on enemy communication lines, rear trenches etc in much the same way the artillery did, the greater the distance / elevation the larger the zone, the elevation being set by measuring the angle along the top of the gun using from the horizontal set against a set of tables for the distance . Hope this is of assistance.Dave

[RammyLad1]

One of "my men" was wounded and his wounds described as "GSW both knees, right thigh, left arm, left ear which might suggest that what Rammylad says happened even if it were not actually intended.

The obituary of one on the lads that I'm interested in states that he was wounded in both legs below the knees and thigh, later to be killed during the battle of Aubers in 1915

[TonyE]

The location of his wounds would be dependent on his position within the beaten zone. If he was at the extremity of it the bullets would be hitting the ground around his feet. The range would also determine the length of the Danger Zone (where the bullet's trajectory is below the heigt of a standing man).

To answer Steve's point about the "two inch tap", this was an essential part of the machine gunner's training and he would not qualify until he could perform this effortlessly. A single tap moved the gun about 8 minutes of angle, equivalent to 2 inches at 25 yards or 8 inches per 100 yards. It is actually not as difficult as it sounds provided the clamping screw is adjusted correctly - just tight enough to hold the gun but not too tight to allow it to be tapped.

The German Schlitten 08 sled mount had the gun clamped to a traversing screw so could not be tapped.

Britsh techniques against frontal assault differed slightly from the German but still offered a mixture of direct and enfilade fire. The diagrams are from "The Employment of Machine Guns" January 1918 edition, A range of options and the methods of calculating the gun angles is shown

The first shows how four guns cover a front, each gun traversing by tap and overlapping the fire of the next gun.

The second is interesting and shows how by laying the beaten zones of two guns across the advance the enemy must pass through a wall of enfilading fire without the guns ever being aimed directly at the enemy.

Regards

TonyE

[Steven Broomfield]

Cheers Tony - appreciated.

[SteveMarsdin]

The second is interesting and shows how by laying the beaten zones of two guns across the advance the enemy must pass through a wall of enfilading fire without the guns ever being aimed directly at the enemy.

Fascinating ! As always, thanks for sharing your expertise.

[RammyLad1]

Tony, thank you for the informative answers and diagrams, no wonder the machine gun caused so much carnage to the attacking troops.

[Mark Finneran]

_{I went on a battlefield tour in Oct last year and the 'guide' knew everything!!!! I will post an image of the German MG08 Indirect Fire Sight which was only introduced in 1918. I think it is general knowledge that the British use and expertise in Mgs overtook the Germans not long after the Somme. A costly lesson but 'invaluable' in many respects. The use of indirect fire was employed by the British far sooner than the Imperial Army but certainly in 1917 both sides tended to withdraw their heavy MGs behind the front lines. As the Vickers became more of an artillery weapon and ''replaced'' by better mortars and field artillery then this was the beginning of the end for the MGC.Images to follow.Mark}

[Mark Finneran]

[Guest]

I read somewhere (don't ask me where) that fire was aimed deliberately to wound (lower body) as a wounded man was far more of a burden than a dead one. Any truth in that?

Mike

[MikB]

I read somewhere (don't ask me where) that fire was aimed deliberately to wound (lower body) as a wounded man was far more of a burden than a dead one. Any truth in that?

Mike

Only if the wounded man's army recognised recovery and treatment of the wounded as a priority, estimated the expected numbers reasonably, and organised accordingly - and frequently none of these appear to have been the case.

Although theories like that were described in WW1, I would think that many if not most WW1 battles were far too bloody and chaotic for any of them to have been tested or applied with any precision.

Anyway, at ranges of several hundred yards, fire accurate enough to choose between disabling and fatal wounds would be practically impossible to achieve with any consistency. A percentage of hits - any sort of hit - would be the objective.

Regards,

MikB

[TonyE]

Think about it logically. For example if a beaten zone is being fired at say 800 yards then rounds will be striking the dirt between about 750 and 850 yards depending on all sorts of factors.

Advancing infantry walking into this barrage will of course be hit in the lower part of their body as they encounter individual rounds at the end of their trajectory.

Regards

TonyE

[Guest]

Thanks Tony. Do you mean deliberately " hit in the lower part of their body as they encounter individual rounds at the end of their trajectory. " Or would this be a sort of, bonus effect?

Mike

[TonyE]

No, not deliberately, just the inevitable effect of walking into the far edge of the barrage.

Regards

TonyE