1914 rifles like machine guns

[armourersergeant]

I was wondering if anybody could shed some light on the old Myth, if that is what it is, that the rifle fire of the old contempibles was so fast that the Germans took it for machine gun fire.

I have read this so many times that i took it for granted that it was the truth but i wonder now?

Firstly how did we know this to be fact that the Germans thought this? (prisoners?)

Secondly was it Lord Norths public office that released this info and if so was this a good peice of propoganda? ( i have seen this suggested on another site)

comments

Arm.

[AOK4]

You can read stories about machine gun fire in the German regimental histories, although it is clear from British sources that the British either had no or only a very small amount of machine guns left. So it comes from the Germans. If a few hundred soldiers you are attacking fire 15 rounds a minute and your attacking force is annihilated in a few minutes, who wouldn't think the other side must have enormous amounts of machine guns?

Jan

[MartinWills]

I have heard it reported that concentrated rapid fire could easily be mistaken for machine gun fire by inexperienced soldiers, but that anyone with some experience could easily tell the difference. Both are potentially fatal.

I guess the difference is that typically machine gun fire has a rapid and very even sound, probably with breaks (a full belt for a vickers - "the full nine yards" - lasts no more than 30 seconds continuous fire). Rifle fire, whilst rapid would not have the regular "beat" of machine gun fire.

I would not like to be on the receiving end of either!

Martin

[gem22]

Arm

It may interest you to know that this self-same question has been asked on the Birmingham University site. I hope they publish the replies. At the moment we can't see the replies.

Garth

[CROONAERT]

I guess the difference is that typically machine gun fire has a rapid and very even sound, probably with breaks (a full belt for a vickers - "the full nine yards" - lasts no more than 30 seconds continuous fire). Rifle fire, whilst rapid would not have the regular "beat" of machine gun fire.

...But it would be rare for a machine gunner to fire a whole belt at one go.(Worn out,overheated and warped barrels are deadly!). A trained machine gunner (I'm assuming that firing drills were similar back then to how I was trained (on the GPMG) and my father was on the Vickers (1950's)) would fire in bursts of between 3 and 6 rounds.(I got "stomped on" for cooking of 10 at once!) .This conserves ammunition and prevents too much wear and tear on the barrel.

The German reports state that the British had many MG's firing at once. When you've heard a row of 16 GPMG's firing at will, it actually is a similar sound to the same number of SLR's giving it "10 rounds rapid". There's not that much difference in sound (one "bang" blends into another).When you're at the other end of the range, the effect is amazing!

Another point is about the "15 rounds a minute".Don't forget that these are 15 "aimed" rounds (though many in the BEF could better this anyway!). When firing into a "wall" of advancing troops, aiming could become irrelevant and this 15 rounds could be upped to as many as 25 or 30 rounds a minute, even by the more inexperienced soldiers. I believe that a line of soldiers firing at this rate could definately sound like machine guns (especially if you're in front of it where you hear the "crack" of the bullet breaking the sound barrier before you hear the "thump" of the weapon that fired it!)

Dave.

[Guest stevebec]

I ve been under AK 47 and Lt MG fire and you can pick the difference in firing.

But its the brave man who sticks his head up to check this fact.

But advancing on the enermy carring a load of gear and moving as quickly as posible seeing the flashers ahead and the noise of gunfire would soon become confusing to any man.

It 's only in some form of safety can the difference be defined.

You can quckly understand how the German tropps beleived that every British unit had so many MG's.

S.B

[ianw]

I think this is an "effect and cause" sort of question. Firstly there were a significant number of machine guns involved even in the early battles of the war and their voice will have been heard from day one. When faced with enormous numbers of casualties, human nature will tend to look for a cause that is irresistable and gargantuan and the machine gun fills that role nicely.

Faced with defeat and reverses, a regimental commander will surely tend to write that "we were faced with massed machine guns" rather than "the enemy shot exceedingly well with their rifles". What would you rather put in a report to Division to explain your decimated battalion ?

[Muerrisch]

Vickers machine guns [or indeed Maxims possibly at first] seem to have been almost totally discounted by 2RWF. Symptomatically, perhaps, the appointed MGO on mobilisation had MGO as a secondary duty and retained responsibility for his rifle platoon.

Anyone recoiling under 2RWF fire and thinking they were being machine gunned might well have been mistaken. There is an almost total lack of mention in The War the Infantry Knew, or the battalion War Diary, or Richards, Sassoon or Graves. Only when the Lewis was introduced does 'machine gun' come into the used vocabulary.

Is this true of other battalions, please? I know there is a general belief that the MG was undervalued at command levels, but for it to be undervalued at unit level beggars belief.

[Annette Burgoyne]

Hi langleybaston1418

I would say no this is not the case, here are two mentions of M.G.'s in battalion diaries in 1914.

The 1st Wiltshires diary mentions that they recieved two new Machine Guns on 21st Sept, 1914 to replace the two they lost near La Cateau on the 26th Aug.

The 1st K.S.L.I.'s diary records that one of its machine guns corsed havoc to a party of Germans who were advancing towards them on 23rd Oct. 1914 at Le Quesne.

Regards

Annette

[Annette Burgoyne]

Also the 1st K.S.L.I. diary mentions a third machine gun being mounted in its line on 2nd Oct, while it was in trenches west of Vailly, haveing more line to hold due to II Corps moving out of the line.

Annette

[Terry_Reeves]

Arm

I am happy to be corrected, but this appears to have first been quoted in English in Edmonds's Official History of the Great War Vol 1, p 115.

This arose from an attack at Frameries on 24th August 1914 by the German 6th Division on the Lincolnshire Regt and and the South Lancs. Edmonds source is Captain von Brandis of the 24th (Brandenberg) Regiment who wrote in his book "Die Sturmer von Douaumont":

"Tommy seems to have waited for the moment of the assault. He had carefully studied our training manuals, and suddenly, when we were well in the open, he turned his machine guns on. It was however only rapid rifle fire."

Brandis is also named as the source of another oft quoted phrase "Up to all the tricks of the trade from their experience of small wars, the English veterans brilliantly understood how to slip off at the last moment." This was in relation to the same German assault.

Terry Reeves

[ianw]

It was of course a machine gun officer , Lt M J Dease who won the V.C on 23.08.14 at Mons keeping his guns working while mortally wounded, so the first V.C awarded in the Great War related to use of a battalion's machine guns - surely not what might be expected of a cinderella weapon. I think the fighting soldiers of the British Army can be trusted to rapidly establish the real worth of any weapon.l

[Tim Birch]

!5 aimed shots a minute is very good indeed bearing in mind that it would involve a change of magazine after 9 or 10 shots. Changing a magazine would have taken about 5 seconds which leaves only 55 seconds for the 15 aimed shots ie 3.66 seconds per shot! Imagine doing that whilst under being under fire and probably feeling pretty scared! Imagine a platoon firing at will at this rate, it must have sounded almost continuous.

Tim

[Muerrisch]

Fifteen aimed rounds a minute was the unspoken standard in August 1914. The British Army had learned many lessons from the South African War, including the need for dispersal on the battle field, accurate range estimation, and rapid and aimed musketry.

Thus, men were trained in estimating distance and rewarded with a badge for excellence. Thus, men who had a spare 5 minutes voluntarily practised "pokey drill" with wooden cartridges to keep their speed up. Thus, men fired for good extra money, and had to requalify every year. Targets included moving targets, and some were shot at ranges modern infantrymen would find incredible, firing as they do risible little rounds from popguns a few yards down the battlefield. Battalions competed with each other for excellence in speed/accuracy. The best shot in a company, and the best shot in the battalion, wore very showy badges and were further rewarded. Also, the SNCO of the best shooting company was rewarded. Even the band had to compete, and third class shots held down the overall performance and were given extra tuition. Men firing ball ammunition at targets were trained to report to the NCO, before the shot was marked, how they had erred, ie left, right, up or down on the bull.

There is an anecdote, I believe in Stand To!, of a Guards NCO [admittedly not being shot at] firing 29 aimed rounds in the minute, all but one [memory fails me] an inner or better.

Finally, reloading did not mean a magazine change ..... it was virtually instantaneous, involving putting 5 rounds, held in the correct alignment by a clip, in the top, and slinging the clip [charger] away.

My aim wasn't brilliant, but as a cadet at the age of about 14 years I had absolutely no problem in putting 15 shots on target at a rate of one every four seconds at 25 yards with the SMLE