Never Fired a Shot

[martin_sole]

Some time ago I read an article on the number of WWII combat soldiers who admitted to never actually firing a weapon in anger. The confusion of battle being often too confusing to actually locate an enemy to fire at. I can't find it now but I recall that the suggested numbers were suprisingly high.

Probably the most well known was Cpt. Lewis Nixon, 101st PIR and veteran of D-day, Market Garden, Bulge and Varsity.

He claimed never to have fired a weapon after basic training.

Considering the "empty battlefield" of the western front, does anyone know of stats or accounts that point to a similar situation in the Great War?

[asanewt]

Frantic search has yet to produce an extract some time ago which gave percentage that never fired a shot in anger then percentage of those that did but never hit anything!

Anecdotal comment from our Dad regarding a night firing hundreds of anti-aircraft rounds without a hit as far as he knew.

[martin_sole]

Keep searching Jules

The anecdotal stuff is fascinating. My aunt's partner was a Wehrmacht Heer MG42 gunner in the last year of the war. He did what was left of the Eastern front and the also the battle for Berlin as part of 12th Army. He says he carried the gun around for precisely nine months and fired it for precisely nine seconds.

[Doc2]

In "Men Against Fire", by S.L.A. Marshall, it is stated that during WW2, over 75% of US soldiers in combat never fired their weapons at the enemy.

[calibre792x57.y]

I recall reading an article based upon the US Army which stated that even in 'crack' units (Marines, Paratroops) no more than 20% could be relied upon to use their personal weapons in combat. In the Great War the circumstances did not generally favour the individual soldier and it is not surprising that most never saw an enemy soldier unless they dead or a prisoner. Truly Artillery ruled the battlefield. - SW

[healdav]

On a side track, but similar sbject, last year, two female gendarmes were killed by a criminal (but not wanted, they simply wanted to check that he was where he said and thgus could not have taken part in a robbery), who grabbed the gun from one of them and sot her,. The other ran away (despite being armed), never drew her pistol and hid! behine a car. He killed her as well.

It shows, I think, that it is all well and good teaching people to shoot at a target, but what was/is really needed (soldiers, etc) is teaching how to kill people with a gun, not just how to fire it in a straight line.

[old sparky]

How do you think the training of soldiers to shoot at live targets would go? The Army has used moving picture targets for years and we frequently hear realistic video games being blamed for shootings. This would suggest that there is something more than the mechanics of pointing the weapon and pulling the trigger. Motivation? Psychology? It's a very complex subject.
It has always been the rule never to fire unless you can see your target/enemy. Given the nature of infantry tactics it is probable that only a few of a body of troops will see the enemy, hence the claims that a percentage never fired their weapons. Add to this the effect of reluctant conscripts, abhorrence of killing, self preservation (keeping ones head down) which are all entirely natural human reactions and you have the beginnings of an explanation. This is what training seeks to minimise and, in a professional army, will largely succeed in doing.

Peter B

[Coldstreamer]

It has always been the rule never to fire unless you can see your target/enemy. .

Peter B

whos rule would that be ? Not sure artillery could always see the target

[old sparky]

I think I mentioned infantry but your point adds an interesting angle. The artillery fire at grid references not human beings and in the Great War they stood a good chance of killing friendly forces as well as the enemy. Does not having to look your target in the eye, as it were, make it easier to kill? I suspect it does.

Added:

Apologies Coldstreamer. I apparently didn't mention infantry but that was my intention. Thanks for pointing it out.

Regards

Peter B

[bill24chev]

There are many instances recorded of RFA, RHA and even RGA batterys being involved in CQB's especially during the retreats of 1914 and 1918. The artillery units did have a number of Rifles and Lewis Guns allocated for just that occurrence.

My research into my fathers war in Burma and Eastern India in 1944/45 uncovered an incident around the Kohima/Imphal barttle were his batterys gun position was nearly over run. It was not so much "Firing Shots in anger" as using personal weapons, spades amd amunition boxes to bludgeon the attacking Japanese away.

[old sparky]

This is last ditch defensive fighting and in my opinion very different than deliberate offensive tactics. The image I was trying to evoke was that of gun crews in a gun pit loading and firing without seeing what they were firing at. Such is the Gunners role.