German Soldiers Chained To Machine Gun

[Nick Thornicroft]

In Martin Middlebrook's book "The First Day On The Somme", he indicates that a German machine-gunner was found chained to his gun at Montauban, opposite to where the 7th Queen's & 8th East Surreys attacked.

There is a separate entry in the War Diary of the 8th York & Lancasters, positioned to the north of Ovillers La Boisselle, which states that two gunners were reportedly found dead chained to their gun in the front line. Was this the same incident reported along the line, or did it happen at least twice? I read in one Bristol newspaper from 1916 the thoughts of a wounded soldier who had heard about the find: 'Being chained to a gun would certainly help a doubtful man to make up his mind whether he would go or stay'

[John_Hartley]

The extarct indicates the man had chained himself "out of bravado". Such an unlikely event that the British divisional commander ordered a court of enquiry to investigate with the conclusion that the report was accpeted to be true.

Assuming it was true, then it doesnt seem something that would be much repeated. Although the myth that orders were given to chain gunners to their guns is often repeated.

John

[Jack Sheldon]

Nick

The point you have raised is seen quite regularly and it deserves a reasoned answer. Please do not take this as a personal remark, it is not; but in my opinion stories about men being chained to machine guns on 1 July 1916 are complete and utter bxxxxxxs. I put them in the same bracket as a story which appears in 'The Road Past Vimy' that a group of Canadian soldiers fought their way down into a dug out in the forward area on 9 April 1917 to be met by white-jacketed mess waiters behind a bar.

The men manning the machine guns were the elite of their units, specially picked and trained. Their tactics required them to be mobile and these guns, together with their tripods, were a heavy and awkward three-man lift. I have forgotten how to post an image now, or I would do so with a pensketch and a photograph of what this looked like. These three men wore special lifting harnesses which included chain-like steel loops which they attached to the weapons when they had to move. Two men 'chained' to their weapons were probably in the process of moving to another fire position when hit.

Someone remind me what to do about images. A picture saves a thousand words and I have two to post.

Jack

[paul guthrie]

While no expert on German Army on Somme like Jack I completely agree with him.

[John_Hartley]

Pals wanting to read more about 1 July and German machine gunners should have a nosy at Desmond7's website, where he and Ralph Whitehead recount the Ulster Division attack from both sides.

John

[Jack Sheldon]

Success! Too many bytes before. Take a look at these harnesses and see what you think about my theory.

Jack

[spike10764]

The men manning the machine guns were the elite of their units, specially picked and trained. Their tactics required them to be mobile and these guns, together with their tripods, were a heavy and awkward three-man lift. I have forgotten how to post an image now, or I would do so with a pensketch and a photograph of what this looked like. These three men wore special lifting harnesses which included chain-like steel loops which they attached to the weapons when they had to move. Two men 'chained' to their weapons were probably in the process of moving to another fire position when hit.

That would explain how with not too much imagination the story of "men chained to machine guns" could have spread so strongly as to be still quoted now.

Frankly, the idea sounds ludicrous and the product of an attempt to demonise the leaders of the German Army

[paul guthrie]

The Greman Army did not need to be chained to put it mildly.

[truthergw]

Nick

The point you have raised is seen quite regularly and it deserves a reasoned answer.............................complete and utter bxxxxxxs.

........................................

Two men 'chained' to their weapons were probably in the process of moving to another fire position when hit.

......................

Jack

I love your reasoning processes.

Thank you. This what I call an AHA moment. An answer so obviously right that you just know it is so.

[bob lembke]

Ahh, this old chestnut pops up again!

Reading the worse class of WW I sources, this story is common. Sometimes, as a varient, the MG men are chained up in a tree.

First of all, the long survival of the German war effort against long manpower and materiel odds was based on what must have been, overall, the best relationship between officers and men, and a willing attitude on the part of Other Ranks, in the war, despite problems like the terrible food situation that affected both the men and their families. Something like chaining men to MGs would have been repugnant to the officer class and would destroy morale.

Secondly, it is militarily stupid. In a rear-guard situation, you want these elite troops to resist as long as they could, but when no longer possible (No ammo, Jammed gun, overheated to destruction, etc., you want these men to slip away if possible.) If I was chained to a gun, I probably would not fight at all, but maximize my chances of non-violent capture. Being chained to a 140 pound MG 08 would hardly help you to pull back with your gun, when neccessary and possible. These troops often voluntarily fought to the death, and often inflicted very heavy casualties. One can see how some Allied troops easily believed that they could not retreat.

Read the memoir of US General Ballard, where he discussed the organization of "hate everything German" propaganda for his troops as they arrived in France. He discusses the difficulty to have this hate stuff stick, as so many of his troops, if not German-American themselves (like Pershing), usually knew German-American neighbors themselves, who typically were hard-working, successful, model citizens.

It is interesting to read of the reactions of Yanks captured by the Germans, who expected to be slaughtered, but were astonished to be treated if wounded, share cigarettes and scarce food with friendly German soldiers, who often spoke some English, and generally cared for quite well.

I have often written on the extensive, well-organized propaganda campaign run by the British, Americans, and Canadians assisting the UK. These were necessary campaigns to meet specific war needs. In the US there were large programs to intimidate and extort money from the German-American citizens, with whippings, home invasions, tarring and feathering, lynchings, prosecutions (in one effort the Federal Attorney in a part of Ohio indited, at the same time, 169 pastors and bishops of one church for treason), and the sentencing of pacifist Mennonites to 10 to 30 years in prison, where some were stripped naked and hung in chains from the ceilings of their cells till some died of pneumonia. In this athmospere, and spy and sabotage scares, it is no wonder that all sorts of stupid stories were swallowed. This is just another commonly heard story.

There are also many solid primary source narratives by Yank junior officers and sergeants who served in combat mentioning these reports of "chained to their MG", and scoffing at the stories, stating that the MG troops were simply brave and self-sacrificing.

Bob Lembke

[T8HANTS]

Hi

Taking machine gunners prisoner never ranked very high on the list of must do things during a battle, especially if you and your mates have just crossed his field of operations.

Timing the exact moment of your surrender to advancing hoards, is also one of extreme balance and care, perhaps the chains were there to help you avoid miss timing such event.

This is one where myth is better than reality, so I am going to stick to the myth and hurrah for bravado.

Gareth

[AndyHollinger]

The relationship between truth and myth is often a very slim line ... the above mentioned harness would be a good indication ... it would also be good for British soldiers to believe the Germans HAD to do this ...

I remember participating in a similar thread about a Canadian crucified to a Belgian door with bayonets ... which I had always dismissed as over active British propaganda (ala Belgian babies on helmet spikes) only to be "refuted" by about a dozen experts with lists and lists of citations proving this had actually happened.

I believe in the reaonable man theory stuff happens in war that doesn't really seem reasonable ... but, in general, stuff is subject to reason. IF the Germans made a habit of chaining their MG in 1916 why were they there in 1918? No could have ONE soldier been punished or something and then be found ... sure, but in general ....

And so it goes ...

[gporta]

Confusing the machine gun carrying harness with a chain suggests to me that the British did not have similar arrangements to carry/move machine guns other than the Lewis gun -carried over the shoulder-?

Maybe their machine gun mobility tactics were fairly covered by the use of the Lewis guns, and hence they did conceive heavier machine guns for more static positions...

Oh just curious, but if someone can enlighten me on that...

Gloria

[truthergw]

The relationship between truth and myth is often a very slim line ... the above mentioned harness would be a good indication ... it would also be good for British soldiers to believe the Germans HAD to do this ...

I remember participating in a similar thread about a Canadian crucified to a Belgian door with bayonets ... which I had always dismissed as over active British propaganda (ala Belgian babies on helmet spikes) only to be "refuted" by about a dozen experts with lists and lists of citations proving this had actually happened.

I believe in the reaonable man theory stuff happens in war that doesn't really seem reasonable ... but, in general, stuff is subject to reason. IF the Germans made a habit of chaining their MG in 1916 why were they there in 1918? No could have ONE soldier been punished or something and then be found ... sure, but in general ....

And so it goes ...

I don't believe this story for one minute. How many men were required to operate a German MG? Were they all chained to the gun? " Bit crowded here today Franz, certainly is, Hans." Once the crew were fastened to the gun , who stayed behind to force them to operate it? What did he threaten them with? " Keep firing until you get killed or I'll hit you with this big stick!". I just cannot see it. Now the MG and crew all chained together up a tree, that I do believe. Oh Yes. Can't think why there wasn't a whole lot more of it.

[bob lembke]

Gloria;

Interesting question. Note Jack Shelton's pic of three soldiers carrying a MG. The classic German Maxim, the MG 08, had a different base; two u-shaped parts, probably tubular steel, swung fore and aft, the gun sitting on the opened frame, on the two horizontal tubes. Swung wider, the gun was positioned lower; there must have been several stops to hold the gun at different heights. This rig supposedly weighed 140 lbs., and four men grabbed each corner of the base, with it wide open.

The gun in Jack's pic seems to be a cut-down base, and it shows that it could be carried by three men. Did this MG have a special designation?

Then they developed the MG 08/15, which was a MG 08 with the base entirely off, and a bi-pod fixed on the barrel jacket. This rig supposedly weighed 65 lbs. and could be carried on the shoulder by a husky man. I think that these were also water-cooled, but I think I have seen pics of them with an air-cooled barrel. Not really a light machine gun, but portable, and a good, reliable gun that could fire a lot of rounds before overheating or whatever.

For true light machine guns Musketien battalions were formed, first with Danish Madsen MGs taken from the Russian cavalry, then Lewis guns taken from the Brits. In my father's flame-thrower unit at Verdun the men were paid a bounty for bringing in a certain model of French light MG, which they then used themselves, firing them from the waist hung over the shoulder with two rifle straps. They had two MG 08/15s issued per company, but they wanted about 8 light MGs per company.

At the end of the war the Germans started to issue the MP 18, the first true sub-machine gun, I believe, one to each infantry Grupp (squad or section) of about 10 men. (This was the situation in the WW II German Army, with a MP 42 or such issued to each squad leader.) But WW I was over before many were issued. My father's cell leader in the Schwartze Reichswehr had one, and he once brought a civil disturbance to an abrupt halt by firing over the rioter's heads with it. They were popular in the Freikorps.

Thus wa'ar the Hunnish MG situation, in short. Hope that that was interesting.

Returning to Gloria's question, how was the UK Vickers dragged about? How heavy was it? Was it a Maxim knock-off?

Bob Lembke

[Jack Sheldon]

Just to clear this one up, size of crews was standardised by the summer of 1916 at six per weapon: Gun Commander, gunner, loader and three others to keep the ammunition coming and to substitute in the event of casualties. Bearing in mind that some guns fired 20,000 rounds (i.e about 1 tonne of ammunition) that day they were kept busy.

There is no doubt about this. I have the after action report of 2nd MG Coy RIR 119, responsible for close in protection in Beaumont Hamel South on 1 July 1916. We even know, as a result of this, the name of every man, exactly what each gun did that day, how many rounds they fired at what range into what areas, with what result and what stoppages, if any, they suffered.

Jack

[gporta]

Bob,

According to Michael Chappell's "The Vickers machine gun", The Vickers teams were manned by four soldiers. When it came to carry/move the machine gun, it was dismounted, and Number 1 would carry the tripod, Number 2 the gun, and Numbers 3 and 4 the ammo and condenser equipment.

However, the tripod looks pretty heavy and my back aches just to imagine carrying it over... The German Maxim's harness carriage system strikes me as a better way (at least, in the distribution weight among the men who are moving it)

Gloria

P.S.: Just read Jack Sheldon's nearly simultaneous post... He's right at two more men being part of the team (however , Nos 5 & 6 don't seem to have take part in the carriage of the gun -at least in the description I have-)

[bob lembke]

Jack;

Great info. By the way, I just finished your book on the Somme. Awesome!

Gloria;

More good info. I, to date myself, did my MG training with the M 1919 A4 Browning MG, which the Vickers sounds a lot like, at least in the rough. The receiver group and the tripod each weighed about 34 pounds, and each was carried about by one man. On manuvers my cadet company formed an infantry company and went out for 3 1/2 days of marching, digging in, etc., without any specific time set aside for something as banal as sleep. I had a MG section one day, and I think there were four of us. On the final march in to the barracks, basically all night, one guy carrying a receiver group broke down, and I carried his load basically all night, besides my pack, which supposedly weighed 65 pounds, but I think it was lighter. "Ahh, youth! Too precious to be wasted on the young!" (I was a rifleman that night, not in a MG section.)

Supposedly by the end of the war there hardly were any riflemen left in German infantry units; as the number of men available dwindled and more weapons were available almost everyone supposedly had some sort of crew-served weapon. American primary sources report one Hell of a lot of German MGs.

Bob Lembke

[Ralph J. Whitehead]

Bob, The 08/15 was a cut down version of the MG 08. There were some slight differences aside from the missing sled such as a reduction in the diameter of the water jacket among others.

The air cooled version was designate the MG 08/18 and I have seen several photos of its use, one in the Palestine area I believe.

The sketches shown above do represent the basic MG 08, the two forward legs are being carried by two men, the rear legs by the 3rd man. The MG crew consisted of a gun commander, a loader, an operator. The 4th man would pass along fresh ammunition and water. The 5th and 6th men would position themselves nearby to observe the action, supply additional materials as needed but especially to take the place of any man wounded or killed. In this manner the gun could be used without interruption for the greatest effect.

Ralph

[T8HANTS]

Hi

Here a point to ponder from the other way around.

When the 8th Hants attacked with the rest of 163 Brigade on the 12th August during the battle beneath Anafata Ove. The MG section with two antique Maxims couldn't keep up, so the MG officer "borrowed" two stretchers of the medics, and rushed his guns forward on them. Now if the jolly old Turk had employed this practical method of transport undoubtedly "Foul" would have been the cry, and I think the Germans were accused of such dastardly Hun trickery at one time or another. Our bright Lad got a glowing paragraph of praise in the local paper for ingenuity, or did he commit a mild "War Crime".

Gareth

[uncle bill]

I read somewhere of Germans using captured Lewis guns. Is this a myth too ?

[aconnolly]

Jack's posts seem to make perfect sense. I'll just throw in the point that it would be utterly stupid to chain men to the guns as the person (presumably an Officer or NCO) would have to be alive to unlock them, plus would have to be relied on not to lose the key in the mud!

Mind you, having read a bit about Starlingrad in WW2, a Russian machine gun might have been a different story...

Regards

Andrew

[bob lembke]

I read somewhere of Germans using captured Lewis guns. Is this a myth too ?

"Uncle Bill";

Look a bit back in this thread, post # 15, which mentions this use, and the special light MG battalions that were first set up to use the Danish Madsen LMG, captured, I believe, from Russian cavalry, and when these got a bit thin on the ground they were re-equipped with the Lewis guns they captured. The units were termed Musketieren=Battalione. (I may have that spelling off a bit.) They often seemed to be doled out by the company, or by fractions of companies, e. g., by Zug, to infantry units for certain tactical situations.

The Germans used all sorts of captured weapons, including a lot of artillery of different sorts, and two-thirds of German tanks were captured Brit Mark IVs; they planned to be running about 200 in 1919. These units used the terminology "Booty Tank Detachment xx" (roughly). A Bavarian transport unit had the job of rebuilding the captured Mark IVs, and had a large park filled with many captured tanks, and they had set up a large assembly line for their rebuilding in a very large shed. This was probably made easier as the Mark IVs were originally equipped with Daimler engines.

Bob Lembke

[Nick Thornicroft]

Many thanks for all your replies. There is logic in the theory that the m.g. was harnessed to the crew & was in the process of being moved when the position came under fire. The notion that they were 'chained' has obvious propaganda qualities, especially when the attack had faltered on the first day & the Press were looking for anything positive to report.

[Jon Miller]

If I have read the thread properly, it seems that if British troops moved a Vickers m-g, they wouldn't use chains to do so? If that's right, then when the German is found chained to his gun, killed in the moment of trying to move it, the British soldiers are not going to associate the use of the chain correctly, as they don't need them themselves, and may not understand the German system of M-G movement. In that case, it's hardly surprising that they jump to the conclusion that the German has been chained to his gun for the sole purpose of making sure he sticks to his post. Myth? I would have said so, but it's origins - perfectly understandable.

Jon.