Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

German Soldiers Chained To Machine Gun


Nick Thornicroft

Recommended Posts

Speaking of the inventor of the flame-thrower...

"'Liquid Fire' Inventor Dead," The Kansas City Star (May 4, 1917), page 4, column 2.

The article is subtitled "Was Embittered Against Germany for Nonpayment of Royalties."

Atlantic city, N.J. -- Paul Saggan, reputed inventor of the "liquid fire" used by the Germans in the war, died here today from poisoning. He was known as an eccentric scientist. He was born in Germany and came to the United States about five years ago.

Investigation recently showed Saggan had become embittered against the kaiser and German war council because of broken promises. He said he gave his "liquid fire" patent to Germany with an understanding that he was to receive huge royalties. When war was declared by the United States he was about to start proceedings against Germany.

Saggan, it is understood, had recently been experimenting with other deadly gases and acids, which he intended to offer to the United States.

Thought you'd be interested.

Edward J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edward;

Thanks again.

As I think I demonstrated, the history of the German development of the FW is well known. This story you posted also must be a complete fabrication. I have seen or have about a dozen pre-war FW patents filed by German inventors, not only German patents, but from at least one other country. No Saggan, I assure you.

Very vexing, the German White Pages seem to be completely taken off the Internet. So I went to the Austrian White Pages. (Saggan does not even seem to be a German name.) Ran a search on Saggan for all of Austria, and only found one, in Innsbruck, and he has a 100% Turkish first name!

Edward, keep these citations flowing! However, you can see why I feel that at least 85% of what you see about FW for the era is quite bogus.

Bob Lembke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

Apologies for resurrecting this old thread. I don't want to re-open the debate about whether this was a myth or not, but thought I ought to add this news item from The Times which indicates the story off men chained to machine guns was also doing the rounds on the Eastern Front (of course, this story might not have originated from Moscow at all, but somewhere much closer to home)

The Times, Thursday, May 11, 1916; pg. 7; Issue 41164; col C; Article CS118425259

News in Brief

The Mayor of Moscow has received a letter from the front stating that all along the line, from the Dvina to its southern extremity, the Germans chain the men working machine-guns in the advanced line to their guns. It is declared that this has been done at the request of the German gunners themselves, even the most hardened of whom could not stand fast before enemy troops rushing to the assault.

NigelS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If as seems to be the concensus, Germans chaining themselves to machine guns is a myth then this casts doubt on the accuracy of "Somme Mud" by Lynch as there is an account of a man chaining himself to stop him from losing his nerve. The account said that soldiers had to cut the chains.

Glen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This myth made it into film as well.

In a Soviet (?) movie I have seen a Tsarist soldier killing an Austro-Hungarian machine gunner who was chained to his machine gun.

As well the US-Army reported about dead Vietcong soldiers chained to machine guns in Viet Nam war.

By the way a German soldier capturing a Lewis gun got a "Beutegeld" of 30 Mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This myth made it into film as well.

In a Soviet (?) movie I have seen a Tsarist soldier killing an Austro-Hungarian machine gunner who was chained to his machine gun.

As well the US-Army reported about dead Vietcong soldiers chained to machine guns in Viet Nam war.

By the way a German soldier capturing a Lewis gun got a "Beutegeld" of 30 Mark.

I am reading a book published in the UK in 1918 with government involvement (the "Private Peat" propaganda effort), and it tells us that the Germans crewed their MGs with, not machine gunners chained to the MG, but Belgian women chained to the Maxims. The US materials, memoires, etc. at about 1917 were full of this nonsense story. (Soldiers chained, not women.)

My father's company utilized the Chauchat French LMG, which, in the original French round, might even work, if you were careful and kept the magazine clean, and a bounty was paid into the men's company welfare fund for every one brought in.

Bob Lembke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Returning to the original question about gunners chained to their weapons and Jack's explanation of how this myth probably came about, there has been a fair amount of generalised comment about the MG08 and Vickers without a great deal of hard fact.

For a number of reasons there was a considerable difference in the way the two armies used their machine guns. One was the way in which the two guns were moved. The MG08 was designed to be moved on its mount, the Schlitten 08, partly because of the slightly more complicated way the gun was attached to the mount. It required three or four men to move it as the gun (with water) weighed 30.5 kg (67 lb) and the sled mount 38.5 kg (85 lb) making a total of 69 kg (152 lb). The Vickers on the other had could be brought into action carried by one man with another carrying the tripod, as both were a manageable heavy one man load. The gun with water weighed 22.2 kg (49 lb) and the tripod 23 kg (51 lb). Also the Vickers could be mounted on its tripod in seconds and brought into action. Numbers 2 and 3 would have the ammunition.

Then of course was the fact the we had the Lewis that could go forward in the attack, leaving the Vickers to fire from fixed positions and then (theoretically) move forward when the objective had been taken. Apart from captured weapons the Germans did not have that luxury in 1916. Although deignated the MG08/15, they did not have many in use in mid 1916. The highest noted serial numbered MG08/15 dated 1916 is 1787, so there would not have been a lot available in mid 1916.

Bob - the Vickers can hardly be described as a "knock-off" of the Maxim, as Vickers owned Maxim at that time. The Vickers was a development of the Maxim, using lighter materials and inverting the toggle lock to make a lighter more compact gun.

lassu - what evidence do you have that the Germans made any .303 inch ammunition in WWI. I have never seen any reference or indication that this was the case. They made 7.62 x 54R for the Moisins as you say, 8 x 50R Lebel for the Chauchats and possibly Hotchkiss guns and 8 x 50R Mannlicher for the Bulgarians. I have examples of all of these but no .303 inch. There was no need, as they regularly captured it.

Incidently, we re-barrelled captured MG08s to .303 and issued them.

Regards

TonyE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob - the Vickers can hardly be described as a "knock-off" of the Maxim, as Vickers owned Maxim at that time. The Vickers was a development of the Maxim, using lighter materials and inverting the toggle lock to make a lighter more compact gun.

Regards

TonyE

Did I say that? I am not a MG student and have no idea which gun pre-dated the other, although I knew that they had some sort of common ancestry, and were somewhat similar designs. I say enought foolish things without having others invent even more and insert them into my unaware mouth. Seriously, I have always enjoyed reading your undoubted expertise on MG matters.

I probably have posted this already, but my father's flame company were allocated two MG 08/15s, but they wanted two LMGs per platoon, so, being opposite the French, the Chauchat seemed to be the LMG they adopted. Pop never specified the gun, but specified French LMG, and specified how it was used and fired. I was reluctant to think it was the Chauchat, due to its horrible reputation (especially in the English language literature, probably due to the horrible weapons rechambered for the Yanks), but prior discussions with MG specialists, probably including yourself, lead me to believe that it was the Chauchat. Worst come to worse, the damn thing could be thrown away.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Bob Lembke

Bob

This is from your previous post, so I don't think I can be accused of putting words into your mouth.

Thank you.

TonyE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob

This is from your previous post, so I don't think I can be accused of putting words into your mouth.

Thank you.

TonyE

Good Grief! The post is from 3 1/2 years ago. You have certainly proved me the fool. I would not even have thought that I was active on the Forum that long ago. I can only appologize, and note that at the time I knew next to zilch about the UK forces, equipment, etc., aside from reading "Goodby to All That" and a few other things. I must have been thinking of the Maxim as a product of a non German inventor, not the Maxim as a German weapon. Was it Hiram Maxim? Am I inventing the gentleman? My only experience which such artifacts was having to carry a M1919 A4 all night on a route march when a chum broke down. Formative experience, tho.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problem, Bob. Apology accepted.

I actually only found that post because NigelS resurrected the thread a couple of days ago and I was going back over the early posts and thought I would stick my two pennyw'th in.

Hiram Maxim was indeed the inventor. He formed the Maxim company in the UK and in turn that became Maxim Nordenfelt Ltd. The design was licensed to a number of countries to manufacture including of course Germany.

Eventually Vickers bought the company and it became Vickers Sons and Maxim Ltd (VSM)

Regards

TonyE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hiram Maxim was indeed the inventor. He formed the Maxim company in the UK and in turn that became Maxim Nordenfelt Ltd. The design was licensed to a number of countries to manufacture including of course Germany.

Regards

TonyE

Was Maxim a Brit, or a transplanted Yank? It seems that so many weapoms designers and designs had to travel abroad to gain acceptance.

I was able to pat a Nordenfeld a few weeks ago, but it was not a pom-pom, but a six pounder QF on the armored cruiser USS Olympia, Dewey's flagship at Manila Bay, presently parked in Philadelphia's harbor, and rather nicely restored by volunteers.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was, in your words, a "transplanted Yank". The family had origins on Hugoneot France, via England and then as settlers to Massachusetts.

Better than patting a Nordenfelt, we recently fired a few rounds from a restored one inch four barrelled Nordenfelt. It is probably the first time one has been fired for a good few years, maybe even a century.

Regards

TonyE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Many excellent replies. The harness quoted is translated as the 'Drag strap' and were either leather/canvas/web/ersatz. See my wtb list!! The majority, not all, of German combat images towards the latter part of the war show German MG crews without drag straps. Bearing in mind the 08 was initially front line, then 'behind the lines, then in 1918 desperately everywhere. Of course images show the drag strap featuring somewhere at all periods but generally it was only used if the crew wish to tactically manouvre at low height or 'generally' have the luxury to move from a to b not under fire. To drag something like this through obstacles is obviously complicated if done from strap dragging distance, despite sled base. There is no doubt in my mind the 'story' is clearly of the crew or individual attempting to 'drag' before becoming a casualty.

As to man handling the schlitten, it can be done by one man, 2 or 3 or 4. One of the approved handling versions was on the back of one gunner - in a hurry!!??!! There is a wood chock on the base to provide some shoulder ''comfort''. The vickers tripod is actually quite comfortable compared to the sled, even without sandbags or the not much used MG waistcoat. However once the German sled is on one's back, it is bearable - but of course a valued target.

Third Ypres accounts also speak of German machine gunners, 2 men, carrying covered sled and guns as a stretchers, under British observation/no interferrence. To then find new gun posn at later date.

Finally a quick word - it is no secret that the MG08/15 was not popular amongst its owners, for many reasons and it was actively encouraged to obtain and re-use the much better and much admired lewis against its original owners. (Post WWI modifications to the MG08/15 eliminated all its faults - fortunately too late of course. The lewis was not without problems but speed of tactical movement was consistently and highly valued by the Germans, as it was with ourselves...eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

Last week I was at a spot in the former sector of the Belgian Army near the Yser.

The owner of the actual farm told me that the last Belgian veterans visited him some 30 years ago.

They said that when they attacked the farm in 1918, they found a German soldier chained to his machine gun.

Just to say it is an universal story.

Regards,

Cnock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could we not be looking at this from the wrong end of the telescope? I have always thought the man who chained himself to the machine gun was not doing it from want of courage, rather the opposite, nobody was going to drag his machine gun away as a trophy, even over his dead body. I think it is the same as the security card chaining the cash delivery box to his wrist. You may knock him down but you won't get the money.

Whether or not it actually happened is another matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The chain that bound a German machine-gunner to his weapon was in his head, not around his body, and if his corpse was found still attached to his gun, it could be readily detached by releasing his carrying harness ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to see that there is life in the old threads yet. It occurred to me that there would be no point in chaining a man to his machine gun. To serve any useful purpose one would have to chain the crew to each gun. I hope the chains were of a reasonable length.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Great topic!

Just a question: Couldn't it be that the chained soldiers to the machineguns where sentenced to death squads and that this could be a reason to chain soldiers to their machineguns?

If this is a rediculous question, appologies for my ignorance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reverse the question. Why chain a condemned man to a machine gun and lose both?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The man is condemned to death and so you chain him to a machinegun. The rest of the crew are free to run away if they think it wise. He however is given the most responsible job of aiming the gun and maintaining a steady rate of fire. He does so because...? What stops him aiming high, low or at the feldwebel who chained him up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we go again.

I have studied the German Army in WW I for about 5 hours a day for the last nine years, almost entirely from German (and French) sources. I have my family letters from the front from my father and grand-father, lots of oral history, I buy manuscript diaries and letters, etc., etc. There is no evidence of anything like this at all, except in Allied propaganda books written during the war. The idea is silly business, but is found often in Allied material written in English during the war. Another varient is the German use of Belgian women chained to the machine gun. A further variant on this theme are the semi-naked Belgian women chained to German machine guns. Certain propaganda themes in the Allied propaganda tidal wave produced during the war are repeated so often that one would think that there was some semi-official sheet of talking points issued to writers during the war.

Really, if you think about it sensibly the idea is very, very silly. Why not chain blind French lepers to your machine guns? If a soldier was chained to a MG he would instantly cease fighting and bend every effort to escape, and/or might turn his weapon on his former comrades.

I can generalize and state that, in general, the spirit of the German soldier, and their solidarity with their officers and the national cause, was much better than the Allies, in general, and the discipline was much less strict, despite stereotypes. In an army of about 6 million at any one time, over 4 1/3 years of war, according to IWM data, the Germans shot 18 men for military offenses in the course of the entire war. This bond and good spirit would be utterly broken by anything like chaining men to MGs.

Bob Lembke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we go again.

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

Bob Lembke

Don't worry, Bob. We know you didn't do it but those babies on bayonets! How could you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...