14 replies to this topic

[Melvin Hurst]

Has anyone read "Retreat and Rearguard 1914", by Jerry Murland (Pen & Sword Military 2011)? It is a well written account (although somewhat let down by poor proof-reading) of the actions fought by the BEF from 23^rd August to1^st September. It includes the most detailed account of the fighting at Mons that I have read, drawing on many first-hand accounts, but Mr. Murland is certainly not afraid of controversy.

He maintains that the German casualty figures do not support the oft-repeated view that the advancing Germans were cut down in their hordes by heavy and accurate British rifle fire, although he admits that this is tantamount to sacrilege in some British military circles. According to Mr. Murland, some descriptions of the BEF at Mons "defy belief", and he maintains that the firing of the much-vaunted fifteen rounds a minute would have been impossible to sustain over long periods. He goes on to say that "not by any stroke of the imagination" could he support the notion that the enemy were "cut down in their thousands".

Any thoughts?

[lostinspace]

This subject has been covered extensively over the past few years - take a look here http://1914-1918.inv...topic=156336= machine  guns  of  mons&st=0 , here http://1914-1918.inv...howtopic=142793 and here http://1914-1918.inv...howtopic=105402 (27 pages!).  There might be others that I have missed.

Dave

[Melvin Hurst]

Thanks, Dave.  I was surprised at first to note that there had been many views of my post but that yours was the only reply. Now I understand why - I was raking over old and very contentious coals! The views expressed on both sides of the argument make for very interesting reading, and I am much obliged to you for taking the trouble to look up the threads for me so that I can catch up, as it were.

The conclusion I have come to is that Jerry Murland was indeed justifed in claiming that doubts had been raised over estimates of German casualty figures at Mons being "in their thousands". He has chosen to agree with those doubts, a view to which he is of course entitled.

On the matter of the German view of the number of machine guns at Mons, which I did not raise but which is clearly related, it seems as though the verdict is very much that this emerged as a myth over the years, well suited to the ethos of the times.

[lostinspace]

Melvin,

I'm in the process of reading Jerry Murland's book, there is a thread on it in the "Book Review" section in case you are interested, you also might want to pick up Terence Zuber's "The Mons Myth",  he contends that it was relatively easy to turn the British out of  Mons and Le Cateau (with a minimum number of troops) and if not for the incompetence of the German high command the BEF would have been annihilated.  I think the value of his book lies in the research done on the German units involved and how they were deployed, of less value (in my opinion) is his treatment of the British participation in both battles.
Anyway, nice to see that you are interested in the early fighting - sometimes the critical first few months of the war seems to disappear under the shadow of the Somme and 3rd Ypres.

Regards,
Dave

[Melvin Hurst]

Dave,

Thanks for your advice but I haven't been able to locate the Book Review section on the forum - where can I find it?

Yes, the popular conception of the First World  War is so dominated by images of the trenches on the Western Front, and the moon-like landscapes of the battle zones, that it is easy to forget that in the early months the war for the British forces was one of rapid movement back and forth across the pristine fields and woods of North-West France and Belgium. From a military analysis standpoint this period provides many points of interest which are not applicable to the later, more static period of the war.

It has often struck me that there is a distinct similarity between the openings of the FFW and the Falklands War in1982. In both cases, Britain's highly trained professional army was called on to fight a conventional foe (although admittedly the quality of opponent was very different in each case) after long years of facing unconventional forces, whether on the North-West frontier or on the South African veldt, in the Malayan jungles or in Northern Ireland. That is not to denigrate their achievements in those theatres, but many of the soldiers in the armies of both periods must have found it a shock finally to face a foe who fought along the same lines as they did. That in each case they rose to the challenge so magnificently is a tribute to their courage and professionalism.

Regards,

Melvin

[Michelle Young]

Melvin

Scroll down the page, its is here

http://1914-1918.inv...hp?showforum=22

Michelle

[Melvin Hurst]

Michelle Young, on 28 March 2012 - 07:40 AM, said:

Melvin

Scroll down the page, its is here

http://1914-1918.inv...hp?showforum=22

Michelle

Great - thanks, Michelle

Melvin

[Ron Clifton]

Hello Melvin

As regards the SMLE's fifteen rounds a minute "over long periods", the infantryman's normal load in "marching order" was 120 to 150 rounds, which would have given him only ten minutes max to fire off his entire supply. In "fighting order" he carried an extra 100 rounds, giving him about seven minutes extra, but as Mons was essentially an encounter battle it is unlikely that the BEF were able to give its men much of a stockpile of ammunition, even if they had been in entrenched conditions, which they were not.

That the Regulars of the BEF were generally capable of firing fifteen AIMED rounds a minute (not just blazing away into a mass of field-grey) seems to be well borne out by most contemporary records. Jerry Murland is entitled to be sceptical but he seems to be flying in the face of testimony by men who were actually in the Army at the time.

I don't know the source of the story that the Germans though each British battalion had 28 machine guns (a suspiciously precise estimate) and that, at least, could well be one of the myths.

Ron

[squirrel]

Ron Clifton, on 29 March 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

I don't know the source of the story that the Germans though each British battalion had 28 machine guns (a suspiciously precise estimate) and that, at least, could well be one of the myths.

Ron

Ypres 1914 An Official Account Published By Order of The German General Staff - the German account of First Ypres possibly as an explanation of why they did not do better in this battle and also perhaps pertinent to Mons and Le Cateau also.
This contains some gems such as "there was a smoking machine gun behind every hedge" and refers to Indian troops up trees firing at them with machine guns.

[Jack Sheldon]

Tony

I pointed out in the introduction to my German Army at Ypres 1914 that the 'smoking machine gun' line is a mistranslation of the original German, which actually reads, 'Everywhere amongst bushes, hedges and ruins could be seen steam from machine guns fired until they were [red] hot' and I go on to mention that this is one of only two references to machine guns only, amongst the eleven concerning British small arms in the monograph. Furthermore there are much more typical and accurate statements concerning British small arms fire which the Official Historian could have quoted, had he so wished. I do not recall seeing the reference to Indians up trees. Can you help me out and tell me where it appears?

Jack

[squirrel]

From the book in question. I got it wrong about the Indians up trees as you will see:

Page 17 para 3
...The British, many of whom had fought in a colonial war against the most cunning of enemies in equally difficult country, allowed the attackers to come to close quarters and then opened a devastating fire at point-blank range from rifles and machine guns concealed in houses and trees.

Page 70 para 2
...Field Marshal French had put Indian troops in to the firing line on the 30th... (October)

Page 74 ...and over every bush, hedge and fragment of wall floated a thin film of smoke, betraying a machine gun rattling out bullets...

Page 96...Frenchmen with machine guns were roped to the trunks of some of the trees and they were found dead hanging from the shell torn stumps when the Park of Wytschaete was finally stormed...

Page 116...Suddenly at a few paces distance, machine guns would open on our troops from behind a bush or tree trunk...

Perhaps it is time for someone to do a more accurate translation Jack?

[Jack Sheldon]

Thanks for that Tony. I was beginning to doubt my own eyes. As for translating it, I personally do not rate it at all. As you can see it is written in a breathless style, rather like something in the Boy's Own Paper. It contains a fair bit of exaggeration for effect. It was a wartime production designed, I suspect, for some sort of propaganda purpose and in any case the facts are presented quite well and in an interesting way in the relevant volume of the German official history. I think that the British official historian used it, becausee there was little else available from the German side when the team was working on Ypres 1914.

Jack

[squirrel]

So, that's both sides being overly liberal with their writing and translation - no wonder it reads, as you rightly say, like a "Boy's Own" magazine.

[Trelawney]

So the problem, after all,  with the machine-gun attribution was hyperbole and exaggeration rather than mistranslation--the distinction                                                                                                                                                         between behind every & everywhere amongst seems rather elusive to me.  Jack began by declaring the problem as a mistranslation,                                                                                                                                                       but the terms of the argument seem to be changing.  More is going on here than lexical lapses; rather, serious issues have arisen
with respect to exaggeration, lack of objectivity, and propaganda in the guise of  factual reports from the field of battle.

Trelawney

[Bayne]

May I stir up a hornets nest?

There are members of this Forum much more widely read and knowledgeable than I which is a major source of my pleasure in cruising the posts.
The Hornet's nest to kick (to borrow a reference) is garner that expertise and slay some of the myths about the BEF and its use of the Lee-Enfield Rifle.

If I may "kick-off" with my pondering

Definitions.
All discussions limited to the 1914 BEF, both Regular and reserve.
The word shooting is used to describe individual prowess with a rifle
The word Musketry is used to describe shooting by a section or a platoon to order ie fire-control.

Information required.
1 What is exactly laid out in Musketry regulations?
2 What do the reports of Experiments on shooting and musketry from Hythe tell us?
3 Were the outcomes of the Hythe experiments incorporated into training the actual soldier?
4 In August 1914 how competent was a Regular in both shooting and musketry
5 ditto for a reservist
6 how many rounds can be rapid fired from a Lee Enfield before accuracy is impaired by barrel heating, oil evaporating & obstructing the sights, the pain of the recoil distracting the marksmen etc
7 What evidence do we have of rapid fire in combat and what does it mean, 15 rounds, two rounds, five rounds?