Impact of Small Arms on WW2.

[Wisbech_lad]

At least initially. The British infantry in 1914 rejected the idea of encompassing automatic weapons within the battalions due to concern about "upsetting the balance of firepower" whatever that meant. Even late in the war, the Vickers was used in specialist units (indeed, even throughout WW II they were used in specialist units, not in the infantry battalions directly). The Lewis Gun, however, was adopted in the infantry units directly, though only about midwar through the War.

Wrong way round Michael. The BEF in 1914 had 2 Maxim MG's organic to the battalion, increased to 4 in early 1915

In late 1915, the medium MG's were pooled to brigade level companies (and replaced by Vickers), and replaced by a larger number of Lewis LMG's in the battalion. (up to 36 by the end of the war)

Not sure why the MMG's were removed from the bn. Guess it was due to the static nature of the war by then - and so placement of MMG bunkers on defence would be a brigade level decision, not bn?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:

Wrong way round Michael. The BEF in 1914 had 2 Maxim MG's organic to the battalion, increased to 4 in early 1915

In late 1915, the medium MG's were pooled to brigade level companies (and replaced by Vickers), and replaced by a larger number of Lewis LMG's in the battalion. (up to 36 by the end of the war)

Not sure why the MMG's were removed from the bn. Guess it was due to the static nature of the war by then - and so placement of MMG bunkers on defence would be a brigade level decision, not bn?

I realize there were 2 MGs on the battalion War Establishment - but thought the resistance came from wanting to add more, at least initially? I may be remembering incorrectly.

The Canadians were using Colt MGs, I think 4 or 8 per battalion, from the time they entered the line in early 1915 (and first saw action in April) and kept the US Colts until Vimy Ridge when they finally felt the Lewis was available in sufficient numbers.

The MMGs used more as light artillery in any event by the middle of the war - which is why I would guess they were taken from the infantry. I rather suspect that the images from All Quiet on the Western Front - ie German human wave assaults through No Man's Land - were not terribly common (you know better than I when the Germans began using stosstrupp tactics) by the middle of the war, so medium machine gunners (it seems to me - you can correct me if I am wrong) spent a lot of time on indirect missions, interdiction fire, and thickening preliminary barrages rather than for defensive fires. The paucity of German offensives before Spring 1918, as well as the number of active snipers, probably had a lot to do with it?

As you know the Lewis could be used (however inelegantly) on the offensive, and more important, be set up quickly in enemy trenches. One section per platoon (36 per Bn sounds right) was armed with a Lewis (and the men to carry the bulky panniers).

[Wisbech_lad]

I think the issue in the early war (1914-1915) wasn't that they didn't want to add more, but that none were available - and many bn's were short of establishment anyway.

Good point about MMG becoming "arty" by mid war - and the fact the Lewis was a better manoevre weapon

Here's a link you might fine interesting!

http://www.cda-cdai.ca/symposia/2003/holden.htm

[yacinator]

Originally posted by klapton:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Joachim:

The French-German war in 1870/71

Actually, the French introduced the machinegun in that war, but it didn't prevent their defeat. </font>

[Bigduke6]

I think German infantry with better small arms at Stalingrad would have done nothing to change the result of the battle, because even on the small arms firefight level, there were a whole lot more factors going into who won and lost, than who had the faster-firing personal weapons.

Most importantly the Russians were defending. The Germans were attacking. The terrain is urban. That means, in most cases, firefights began when the Russians ambushed the Germans. If the Germans were doing things right, it was just the scout(s) that got killed. If the Russians were on the ball, maybe a platoon or so of Germans gets wiped out.

SMGs, Degaterevs, and Maxims are perfectly adequate for executing an ambush. What the small arms in the hands of the people walking into the ambush would make little difference. A modern automatic rifle doesn't do you much good if you are dead or wounded before you get a chance to use it, even if the bullets that made you a casualty were fired from weapons developed two or three generations ago.

It is possible of course to argue that once the shooting began superior German tactical training couple with - for this example - superior German small arms would have allowed German infantry to maneuver and so win more firefights, by killing Soviets more efficiently than the Soviets were killing Germans.

However, in my view, it is hard to overestimate the fanatacism of the Soviet infantry defending the ruins of Stalingrad, and indeed for centuries underestimating the defensive resilience and native intelligence of the Russian infantryman has been a traditional mistake of west Europeans for centuries.

Remember, the Russians are the ones coming from a less technologically sophisticated society, with a greater percentage of the population having grown up in rural conditions. That would tend to make them, generally, more resistent to physical stress, better at figuring out how to get by without the proper machine, and more comfortable in a situation of technolgical inferiority.

So I doubt the Germans would have fought much better, or the Russians much worse, had the average German infantryman had an automatic rather than bolt-action rifle.

After all, the true German advantage during the first half of WW2 was not technological, but rather in their army's unparalled skill at rapid maneuver on the operational level, and skill at combined arms on the tactical level. These advantages pretty much go out the window in the Stalingrad environment. There it's a short-range man against man infantry fight, and we have WWI to teach us whether it's the defender or the attacker who has the advantage under those conditions.

[ February 01, 2005, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

[The_Enigma]

Regarding the conservation of ammo, I understand that the SMLE was originally issued with a magazine cut-off so soldiers would only fire one shot at a time.

am rather confused here ... the smle is bolt action correct? so it can only fire one round at a time cant it?

What broke the deadlock? Innovative tactics, above all with the artillery

it was to my understanding that arty in ww1 was on the most part ineffective? unable to brake thru barbed wire, ammount of duds being fired and the fact that the germans had iirc built shelters aslong there defence lines wernt harmed by it.

[Leopard_2]

Bigduke6, you fell to the wrong impression that I meant better small arms would have made a difference at Stalingrad.

What I meant is that a small advantage, continuously applied over a long period of time, could have made a medium difference, which - at the right turning point of events - could have turned into a large difference.

Increase Allied infantry losses by 5%, across the board. Decrease Axis infantry losses by 5%, across the board. Would the Russians still be fanatically defending Stalingrad, or would their morale and/or manpower be so drained by that additional 10% difference that Stalingrad - or some other "crucial" battle - could have turned out differently?

As was pointed out before, we're talking a very subtle cause here, which can't have any "big bang" effect. But chaos theory being what it is, small causes can amount to big effects.

Like, what would the effect be if Russian railroads had the same width as German ones? A nuisance in supply logistics being removed, but what would have been the results?

What if that radio operator didn't make that stupid, stupid mistake on 1941-08-30, repeating a message with the same code, which allowed Allied cryptanalysts to defeat the Lorenz SZ40, instead of high-level communications remaining secret for longer than they did?

All this minor causes...

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by the_enigma:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Regarding the conservation of ammo, I understand that the SMLE was originally issued with a magazine cut-off so soldiers would only fire one shot at a time.

am rather confused here ... the smle is bolt action correct? so it can only fire one round at a time cant it?

What broke the deadlock? Innovative tactics, above all with the artillery

it was to my understanding that arty in ww1 was on the most part ineffective? unable to brake thru barbed wire, ammount of duds being fired and the fact that the germans had iirc built shelters aslong there defence lines wernt harmed by it. </font>

[The_Enigma]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by the_enigma:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Regarding the conservation of ammo, I understand that the SMLE was originally issued with a magazine cut-off so soldiers would only fire one shot at a time.

am rather confused here ... the smle is bolt action correct? so it can only fire one round at a time cant it?

What broke the deadlock? Innovative tactics, above all with the artillery

it was to my understanding that arty in ww1 was on the most part ineffective? unable to brake thru barbed wire, ammount of duds being fired and the fact that the germans had iirc built shelters aslong there defence lines wernt harmed by it. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

It may have been stated poorly - you are correct in that the SMLE can only fire "one round at a time".

The Springfield bolt action rifle did have an attachment called the Pedersen Device which turned it into an automatic IIRC but the SMLE did not have anything like that. The cutoff was a piece of metal added overtop of the magazine well, restricting access to the magazine.

[The_Enigma]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

It may have been stated poorly - you are correct in that the SMLE can only fire "one round at a time".

The Springfield bolt action rifle did have an attachment called the Pedersen Device which turned it into an automatic IIRC but the SMLE did not have anything like that. The cutoff was a piece of metal added overtop of the magazine well, restricting access to the magazine.

ah i get you now

[A.E.B]

Hi all

Actually WWI artillery was only effective if used in a limited manor.

All the great offensives of 1916-1917 failed on the Western Front due to the fact that shells did so much damage they made logistical supply across no-mans land impossible.

Basically huge numbers of shells would be fired. While this destroyed wire and certainly killed and surpressed defending infantry, the moonscape battlefield meant that - even if the offensive breached the enemy lines - the defender could bring up reinforcements and supplies across an undamaged rear area far quicker than the attacker could move its reinforcements and supplies across no-mans land. Even tanks drowned in the shell holes of 1916.

Then finally it dawned to both sides in late 1917 that a short wirlwind barrage with a mix of gas, shrapnel and HE shells did the same job but left the battlefield relatively undamaged.

It is also interesting to note that the heaviest casualty rates on the Western Front occurred in 1915 and 1918 during the periods of maneuver warfare, as soldiers were out of the trenches in the open and thus far more exposed to artillery and MG fire.

The scale/density of forces of the other fronts differed so Western Front experience does not necessarily apply to Russia, Austria-Hungry, Italy, the Balkins or the Ottoman Empire.

Regards

A.E.B

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by A.E.B:

It is also interesting to note that the heaviest casualty rates on the Western Front occurred in 1915 and 1918 during the periods of maneuver warfare, as soldiers were out of the trenches in the open and thus far more exposed to artillery and MG fire.

Ironic somehow that the worst single day as far as Britain was concerned was smack dab in the middle of 1916, isn't it!

Good points re: artillery and casualties though.

[A.E.B]

Michael

WWI lasted roughly 53 months. During that period of time the British/French suffered 8,018,000 casualties (dead & wounded).

This gives a rough monthly casualty rate of 151,000 per month.

In 1914 the French/British lost 935,000 casualties in 7 months: or 133,000 per month.

In 1916 the Verdun/Somme campaigns lasted from February to November - roughly 9 months - with total British/French casualties during the period of 1,100,000 (950,000 in the two battles): or 122,000 per month.

The battles of late 1917 - Ypres, Cambrai - were exceptionally bloody, but I can't find my notes for exact figures.

In 1918 between March and July - 5 months - the British/French casualties were 800,000: or 160,00 per month.

The Americans (not included in the above figures) lost 100,000 casualties in the Aragorn forest alone.

So the period during the battles of the Somme and Verdun were slightly below average as far as casualty rates go, only the serious killing was concentrated to a few short periods of time. It is just the futility of the slaughter for a few kms of ground that have captured the popular imagination.

Edited to add - Western Front only!

Regards

A.E.B

[Michael Dorosh]

Hi AEB - I phrased that lousily - wasn't questioning your assertion about casualty rates, I trust you implicitly; just thought it interesting that July 1 (almost dead centre in the calendar year 1916) was so traumatic. I think it does highlight your point - that there were indeed periods of maneuver in both the beginning and end of the war (on the Western Front) - the attempt at the Somme to create a maneuver period without a significant change in tactics was pretty much dreadful for all concerned.

[A.E.B]

Michael

No problem.

A.E.B

[GSX]

On the topic of fantasy alternate history and US Civil War I seem to remember a Novel where some mad man travels back in time to the South with the complete plans for the british Sten. Apparently he has worked out that the technology of the day was quite able to produce this simple weapon. Of course, pure fantasy but at the end of the day isnt infantry fighting about suppression? That after all is why the germans were able to suppress much easier as they had a higher proportion of automatic weapons down to squad level. In fact a German Inf squads tactics were designed around the MG34/42. Fire and movement. However, the ammunition use for the MP44 must have been prolific as compared to a mauser. Still its threads like these that keep me coming back here.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by A.E.B:

The Americans (not included in the above figures) lost 100,000 casualties in the Aragorn forest alone.

Small wonder if they start messing with the Elves. Anyone who watched LOTR could have told them that.

Mefinks you mean the Argonne forest?

[Jasper 2x]

If every German had night vision and where armed with xm-8 with the new M320 40mm grenade launcher plus 4x power scopes etc yes it would have changed the war. All the allies would have died in the night

[A.E.B]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by A.E.B:

The Americans (not included in the above figures) lost 100,000 casualties in the Aragorn forest alone.

Small wonder if they start messing with the Elves. Anyone who watched LOTR could have told them that.

Mefinks you mean the Argonne forest? </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by A.E.B:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by A.E.B:

The Americans (not included in the above figures) lost 100,000 casualties in the Aragorn forest alone.

Small wonder if they start messing with the Elves. Anyone who watched LOTR could have told them that.

Mefinks you mean the Argonne forest? </font>

[Guest Mike]

The SMLE cut off was designed to make het soldier load rounds 1 at a time for deliberate fire, so he would always have 10 rounds available in the magazine in an emergency.

there was an automatic rifle version of hte SMLE produced either here in NZ or in Aus in WW2 - I dont' recall how many were made tho.

re using the Milliatusse as arty - the main reason wh this ensuerd it's lack of success was its limited range - IIRC it had an effective rage of 1200m or so - much much less than the 1800-2400m of "real" artillery.

also deploying it as artillery meant that it took up a lot of space, had a lot of horses and limbers attached, etc.

whereas had it been deployed as Battalion or Regimental artillery in the old fashioned manner it would ahve been lugged by soldiers and been on the front line - albeit probably with less ammo per gun (due to lesser numbers of horses & no limbers)

[Bigduke6]

Leopard 2,

Fair enough, I was at least to some extent attacking a straw man, my apologies. I certainly subsribe to attrition as the main means of warfare.

The only quibble I have then, is in the term "small advantage." After all, if there is some advantage that isn't/can't be countered in a long war, and the result depends on that advantage having been owned by the winning side, I would rate that advantage as far from small, but rather decisive.

[Leopard_2]

@ Bigduke:

Ah, linguistics.

@ Michael Dorosh:

> Wire cutting shells were used to great effect

> (Vimy Ridge being the classic example)...

Hm... then again, the Somme offensive had some of the most intense arty preparation until that point of the war, and it still failed to make a significant impact on the wire defenses...

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/2354/somme.html

http://www.1914-1918.net/BATTLES/bat15_somme/bombardment.htm

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Leopard_2:

@ Bigduke:

Ah, linguistics.

@ Michael Dorosh:

> Wire cutting shells were used to great effect

> (Vimy Ridge being the classic example)...

Hm... then again, the Somme offensive had some of the most intense arty preparation until that point of the war, and it still failed to make a significant impact on the wire defenses...

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/2354/somme.html

http://www.1914-1918.net/BATTLES/bat15_somme/bombardment.htm

The Somme was in 1916, Vimy in April 1917...

Think they learned their lesson?