Infantry Discussion Thread 9: Parabellum [NO KAIJU]

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

How did combat in WWI's Western front change between the beginning and the end? I think one could sum it up as 1914: Massed suicidal charges(after the First Marne of course) and 1918: Modern infantry tactics. But can any smart people go into detail?

[Husseinarti]

How did combat in WWI's Western front change between the beginning and the end? I think one could sum it up as 1914: Massed suicidal charges(after the First Marne of course) and 1918: Modern infantry tactics. But can any smart people go into detail?

Okay. Here I go.

The start of World War 1 began much like the wars that had come before it. It was allot of maneuvering and traditional form-and-file fighting. It broke down due real quick to the fact that tactics hadn't fully come into being to make due with the weaponry and equipment being fielded by armies of the time.

Traditional thinking in the years before World War 1 was that, in the same fashion that we treat tanks, they saw the cavalryman as the most effective offensive weapon a field commander can have. The cavalryman was of good stock, came from a good family, was healthy, boastful, and carried with him a saber, a rifle, a pistol, and possibly a lance or really any combination of weapons. The cavalry was the primary offensive force. The artillery and infantry, seen as the 'lower' and more 'dirty' groups were typically chained to the cavalry thinking, which was held to be more 'gentlemanly' and 'honorable'. The majority of the British senior staff at the start of World War 1 were originally cavalry officers, so the army was very much so dominated by the notion that 'The cavalry will get though'.

Its not like nobody knew of the effectiveness of the machine gun and the large capacity (For 1914) bolt action rifle, etc. Its that those who knew this were typically infantry officers and were not in a position to dictate policy of the time. The colonial police actions between the 1890s and the start of WW1 had proven to these troops and officers than bolt-action rifles and machine guns were going to be very important, however even to these men they totally didn't understand how these could be used in Europe, not Africa or Asia.

Calvary regiments had 1-2 machine guns in a cart that would be towed behind the regiment. During one field training exercise, a British machine gun team set up on a hill as the regiment practiced maneuvers below. The team fired thousands of blanks (Or possibly just made a bunch of banging noises) at the maneuvering cavalry below. After some time, the machine gunner went down to inform the commander that the entire regiment had been killed. Upon hearing this, he was reprimanded by the commander for even humoring the notion that some little gun could possibly impede such a large force of the world's finest cavalry. The Germans saw pistols as secondary weapons for the cavalryman, insisting that the saber was his primary weapon. They adopted a series of very nice, however very antiqued single-action revolvers that lacked things like ejector rods, swing-out cylinder, etc which matched their thinking for the time.

The infantry were not all that better. The idea of the infantry was to form up line formation (These line formations were very allot looser compared to the Napoleonic formations mind you) and would typically try to fire at the other from a position of cover. If no cover could be made or found, then they'd try to use terrain to lay in the prone to fire at one another. After some time of firing at one another, one side would begin to break. At this time, the assaulting force would, in line formation, advance with bayonet and break the enemy. This is where the "Reach Gap" problem that Puz posted about a while back presented. In a bayonet charge in which both sides have begun to charge at one another, it was seen that if one lacked a rifle of proper length and with proper reach of his bayonet, then he would be at a bad disadvantage against an enemy with a longer rifle and longer bayonet.

Infantry combat post-Franco-Prussian War and pre-WW1 was a weird and exciting time in a very twisted kind of way. Allot of technology had changed and advanced, but there had not been a large enough war to really test these new weapons. Without a war or some other means to test these weapons, tactics were devised that, on paper (Then and even sometimes now) looked very good and very promising, but just didn't do it in the end. Here are a few;

Volley sights are like, the best example and are the coolest. Now, you've certainly seen the rather generous iron sights on a World War period bolt-action rifle, which typically will mark out to some distance beyond 1000 meters or yards, volley sights follow a sightly different approach to this. The use of volley sights would be use the rifle as some kind of direct artillery piece. A force would set up in formation and aim their rifles at the distance called out and the rifles would be accurate out to an acre at the 2000+ yard distance. While for a single rifle, thats unimpressive, however for 200+ men all massed together firing, that can quickly become an issue. The volley sights on the Lee Enfield were ranged out to a max hilarious distance of 2800 yards. They fell out of use just because of their overall incredibly niche use, the fact that by 1915 open combat that allowed for the volley sights was long long dead, and that the machine gun was a much more effective tool at super long distance shooting.

The Vickers Machine Gun also had volley-ish sights, but these were not some additional attachment, but instead the Vickers' iron sights that ranged to 2600 yards, and the machine guns also came with an indirect fire optic. Since the max effective range of the Vickers was 4 kilometers, the British found the most elan producing way of taking advantage of this and would use the Vickers to indirectly assault positions with their machine guns. The British kept doing this until they replaced the Vickers.





Just. Great.

Uniforms, like volley sights being uniquely British, the issue of uniforms was something only really the French had a problem with. The Germans had settled with 'Feld-grau' a kind of gray, olive drab cross which worked out pretty well. The British had adopted a tan, brown style of uniform which also worked out well too. Then came the French who were very staunch traditionalists in terms of uniforms. They had rejected (On a number of occasions) uniforms that weren't some kind of red, blue, and white for their European troops. A number of French politicians and military officials had called it out a number of times that these colors were just bad, but were always sidelined. In fact in 1914 the French had adopted a uniform style in the color of "Horizon Blue", this got its name from the concept that it would be hard to fire on an advancing infantryman as he'd be indistinguishable from the horzion backdrop he'd be advancing from. While this really didn't go the way they wanted it too, the French kept using the blue uniforms up and to the end of the war.

I have more, but idk

[Eisarn-Ara]

Mmmmmmmmmmmm, Violation of the Hague Convention, do-want............

[Crookfur]

Actually mentioned to say this earlier: that is one very nice drawing.

ICly Crookfur historical firearms collectors probably pay a huge premium for these mags for their lugers and M18 pistols.

Funny shit, that's a 20 round double-stack magazine (cast aluminum floorplate) of that rediculous 7.65x25mm kraut-style pistol cartridge I came up with a ways back for the K-reich, but did nothing with ( OAL of 34.50mm, base diameter of 10.06mm). The pistol it's going to be socketed into is basically a Simson M1929, just short recoil and with some Steyr Hahn M1912 embellishments.

Oops I had just assumed it was a longer luger mag in 9mm.

Obviously great minds think alike as the M18 was first inspired by the Simson

[Allanea]

[quote]Calvary regiments had 1-2 machine guns in a cart that would be towed behind the regiment. During one field training exercise, a British machine gun team set up on a hill as the regiment practiced maneuvers below. The team fired thousands of blanks (Or possibly just made a bunch of banging noises) at the maneuvering cavalry below. After some time, the machine gunner went down to inform the commander that the entire regiment had been killed. Upon hearing this, he was reprimanded by the commander for even humoring the notion that some little gun could possibly impede such a large force of the world's finest cavalry.
/quote]

This is actually not fully true.

Russian cavalry training actually overstated the power of the machine gun for example.

[Puzikas]

San beat me to the punch but I'd like to add a few things.


-There was a very prevalent thought that the maximum range of a cartridge was vastly important. Not effectove, but maximum, fired from any angle in ideal conditions in which the termination of the projectiles flight path has reached the end of that which is possible under all physical constraints.
The Vickers had an effective direct fire range of about 1000m for point and about 2200m for area sized targets, but the Vickers and Enfeilds both had MAXIMUM ranges of some 4,800 yards.
Maj. Gen. (Then Colonel IIRC) Hatcher, US Ordinance made the US change its ENTIRE SERVICE CARTRIDGE because he felt the maximum range was shit; this netted us the glorious .30-06 but really drives hone how important that volly fire idea was to many nations.

-Machine Guns were understood by mostly colonial Troops and commanders; the guys who REALLY knew their abilities were all those Infantry NCOs and officers who fought in colonial wars. You know who loved Machine Guns?
Paul Von Lettow-Vorbeck, General of the German African Schutztruppe. He was an enormously effective general for many reasons, and Machine Guns are not cheif among these, but his tactical use of the German MG-08 and captured British Vickers and Lewis guns certainly showcased an understanding of how to truely vital they are to Infantry operations.
In addition, I have more information on the cavalry story.

A Non-Commisioned officer named Edward Spears, of the 11tg Hussars, was placed in command of the Machine Gun section. He was told to "put his tired contraptions (the guns) to good use". With that goal in mind, he strategically placed his Vickers on a position with excellent view of the Brigade undergoing manuvers, set up Ines of retreat and containment, and fired away for ten minutes.
At the formation.
No one paid him any mind. He, having fired enough ammunition to kill all 2,000 men of the bridage and its horses at least twice over, approached the commander and declared jubilantly, "I say, You are all dead, sir!"

To which the Brigade commander responded:

Never, never have I seen a lack of Cavalry spirit more blatantly displayed. Here is a young Cavalry officer who has the impertinence to say that the Infantry weapons, that he is so inappropriately carting about, has wiped out the first cavalry Brigade, the finest mounted force in Europe. Get off your horse sir, and hand it over and walk back to the barracks, the proper form of locomotion for you.

Because war is hell, but prepping for war is hellish.

-The Reichrevolver was antiquated the day it was adopted and wasn't just a secondary, but a tertiary weapon for German cavalry.


There's more and I'd love to get in detail on it some other time.

[Allanea]

There's a whole book available right here for Puzikas which talks about how Russian cavalry overestimate the machine gun to the extent that training exercises claimed seriously that cavalry attacks on folded and stored machineguns were bound to fail.

[Husseinarti]

Calvary regiments had 1-2 machine guns in a cart that would be towed behind the regiment. During one field training exercise, a British machine gun team set up on a hill as the regiment practiced maneuvers below. The team fired thousands of blanks (Or possibly just made a bunch of banging noises) at the maneuvering cavalry below. After some time, the machine gunner went down to inform the commander that the entire regiment had been killed. Upon hearing this, he was reprimanded by the commander for even humoring the notion that some little gun could possibly impede such a large force of the world's finest cavalry.
/quote]

This is actually not fully true.

Russian cavalry training actually overstated the power of the machine gun for example.

And look how well that worked for them.

[Gallan Systems]

Well enough that cavalry were considered credible even twenty years later.

[Purpelia]

Indeed. In fact Soviet cavalry tactics which I presume are a further development proved very effective into and throughout the second world war as well. Although by that point they had become a sort of dragoon force with a heavy armored and SPG component. Something I intend to emulate.

[Gallan Systems]

I was really referring to the Poles and Italians tbh, but the Russians had horse cavalry too.

[Purpelia]

Bottom line is that if used right cavalry just worked.

[Laritaia]

needs more mortorbike cavalry.

[Allanea]

And look how well that worked for them.

Far better than for the guys on the Western Front.

[Kassaran]

needs more mortorbike cavalry.

Too motorized, use bicycles.

[Laritaia]

needs more mortorbike cavalry.

Too motorized, use bicycles.

what about Vespas?

[Kassaran]

Too motorized, use bicycles.

what about Vespas?

0.3Hp or bust

well-trained bicycle patrols will stop all

[Fordorsia]

Why didn't the C96 get a drum magazine at some point, given that its holster doubled as a stock, it could be select fire in the case of the M712, and it went through all the same shit at the same time as the Luger, which did get a drum?

[Laritaia]

Why didn't the C96 get a drum magazine at some point, given that its holster doubled as a stock, it could be select fire in the case of the M712, and it went through all the same shit at the same time as the Luger, which did get a drum?

Because most C96s didn't actually have detachable magazines.

[Fordorsia]

Why didn't the C96 get a drum magazine at some point, given that its holster doubled as a stock, it could be select fire in the case of the M712, and it went through all the same shit at the same time as the Luger, which did get a drum?

Because most C96s didn't actually have detachable magazines.

Early in production, yes. But I thought removable magazines became standard fairly quickly before or during WWI.

[Laritaia]

Because most C96s didn't actually have detachable magazines.

Early in production, yes. But I thought removable magazines became standard fairly quickly before or during WWI.

The vast majority used fixed internal magazines, and IIRC the first model with the detachable magazine as standard was the Model 711 in 1931.

[Husseinarti]

Well enough that cavalry were considered credible even twenty years later.

German infantry can't melt Polish Ulhans.

[Fordorsia]

Well enough that cavalry were considered credible even twenty years later.

German infantry can't melt Polish Ulhans.

German machine guns can though

[Husseinarti]

German infantry can't melt Polish Ulhans.

German machine guns can though

I mean the infantry battalion certainly didn't know that.

They needed armor recce with 7.92 and 20mm to engage them.

[Heavonia]

So, on the topic of 'WWI Infanteering', anyone seen the BF 1 trailer?

Looks like it'll be interesting - gon' rock mah webley/enfield combo and shiv some kraut with a bayonet. I'm looking forward to seeing how now-commonplace developments and the almost-end of the earlier tactics will be represented in a fast-paced, close-quarters war shooter where teams are rarely more than a platoon-per-side (e.g. industrial-scale deployment of indirect-fire heavy artillery, 'at least you tried' mechanised warfare).

Also, most modern shooters tend to focus on the 'elite' forces (eg. SEALs, SAS) which don't really exist (whether organisationally, or even as a theoretical role in those nations' armies) at that time afaik.

Thoughts?