"Real firepower of WW2 riflemen in company level rules" Topic

Perhaps I'm missing something but Umpapa said in his OP that 'Germans were trained to shoot to kill'. I'd always assumed all soldiers were trained to do this (as well as suppressive fire). Did the the German training methods regarding use of weapons differ in some way to everyone else's?
Great thread by the way.

Afaik they also trained to shoot circles. The modern practice of shooting at human shapes is supposed to make a big difference.

I doubt the average german rifleman would be a more efficient killer than the average american or british or any other nationality.

Agent Brown wrote:

Perhaps I'm missing something but Umpapa said in his OP that 'Germans were trained to shoot to kill'. I'd always assumed all soldiers were trained to do this (as well as suppressive fire).

I'm not sure what Umpapa meant by that, but it's pretty hard to imagine that there is any reason to point a loaded weapon at someone and discharge it unless you intend to do them serious harm. Hearing the phrase "shoot to kill" always makes me wonder what other purpose the speaker might imagine there is in shooting at someone.

The real difference in modes of fire for riflemen is shooting against seen and unseen targets. In British Army usage, one of three different kinds of fire will be specified in a fire order: Rapid, deliberate, or watch and shoot (called "snap" shooting in the old days of the Empire Test). Rapid fire is what you use to win the firefight, and, as we know from Rommel ("Infantry Attacks") that the winner of an encounter is the first side to smother the other with fire. Once the firefight is won -- not too many lumps of lead coming the other way in the two-way range -- deliberate fire is used to keep the enemy's heads down, and, as their heads are down, one shouldn't expect to see much of them. While of course both these kinds of fire can be ordered against visible enemy if the enemy are stupid enough to make themselves visible, I suspect, from the fact that rates of fire are laid down for both these types, that they are used mainly for getting a suitable weight of bullets falling in an area where the enemy is known to be. The order "watch and shoot", on the other hand, tells the rifleman to choose his own targets from enemy as they expose themselves. All three modes of fire are intended to kill the enemy, but only "watch and shoot" needs you to see who you are trying to kill. In all three modes, a near-miss is many times more likely a result than a hit, and so the main effect achieved will be suppression, and if the enemy's heads are down, probably the only effect. The skill of infantry leadership, it seems to me, is getting your blokes to keep the bad guys' heads down long enough for you to move your assault group into its final assault position without running out of either blokes or bullets (or, if you are defending, to stop the attacker doing that). Easy to say, hard to do, as you might have guessed from Clausewitz' "In war the simplest thing is most difficult".

Having read translations of Russian and German minor tactics manuals, they seem to have much the same distinction between modes of fire, and I doubt that many nations do it hugely differently.

All the best,

John.

Hearing the phrase "shoot to kill" always makes me wonder what other purpose the speaker might imagine there is in shooting at someone.

I'd always heard the phrase in terms of Northern Ireland, and that the speaker had assumed that the Lone Ranger was pretty much real and the guns could be shot from the baddies' hands. Either that or the belief that people went for head shots rather than centre of mass.

Regards

Whirlwind wrote:

I'd always heard the phrase in terms of Northern Ireland, and that the speaker had assumed that the Lone Ranger was pretty much real and the guns could be shot from the baddies' hands.

Ah, yes. And in terrorist sieges "Why can't they use knock-out gas?", because Batman is pretty much real as well.

I suppose in an IS situation some people might expect warning shots to be fired, but until recently the British Army had no truck with the hazardous and insane idea of warning shots, so any confusion as to the intentions of a squaddy pointing an SLR at you and pulling the trigger should have been impossible.

Whatever the merits or demerits of warning shots for IS (and I think they are a very bad idea indeed), one would hardly expect such a courtesy in "big people's war".

All the best,

John.

My understanding is that as the German focus was on the MG34/42 to deliver the firepower, rifle armed chaps (apart from snipers) were typically not that great for shooting as the riflemen were not expecting their shooting to do anything more than harass the enemy. The focus with the allies was on the rifle so they would put in more effort on the average day due to either not having as good an LMG, or in the case of the yanks, even have an LMG, to rely on for their firepower.

I'd say that when they really needed to the average German rifleman was as good a shot as any other nationality, it's just they didn't expect to be able to really contribute to the firefight compared to the LMGs. This is in addition to their training to protect the LMG from flank attack too. I also believe that German rifle training was not prioritised especially with the very offensively minded German army and the increasing emphasis on new weapons (STG44, Gwr43 etc) and the increase in SMG allocation, the humble Kar98 would not be really that valued.

Shoot to kill I understand, refers to the deliberate act of trying to shoot and kill the enemy. This is opposed to a soldier generally shooting at the location an enemy is known to be in. Also that modern training in shooting at the enemy is to actually shoot to actually hit to actually kill, hence the human shaped targets instead of circles to shoot at. Many soldiers were found to even close their eyes when they pulled the trigger, and generally at the thought of killing another person it was too much, so modern training is done to overcome such inhibitions.

Sorry if my post is a bit brief, my wife is going in to labour and I am trying to get in on all my websites before I am distracted for the next 3 months! Great thread? Yup, I'll second that too!

Ark

I'm tagging on to John Salt and a few others.

Here is a great study of weapons effectiveness and it's effect on observation, movement and firing:
PDF link
Take a look at page 16 for responses concerning observation, cover and return fire.

Winning the firefight with superior firepower that suppresses the enemy is more of a psychological victory over the enemy than anything else. You've convinced him that you are superior to him and it's too dangerous to observe, move or fire. It's a morale killer. If he sees a few of his buddies getting shot so much the better.

In the US Marines (speaking for early 1970's period) the task of the Fire Team Leader and Squad Leader in an assault is to make sure the members of the squad were covering the the correct sector of the enemy and putting out the correct amount of rounds, not too little and not too much. This was done in conjunction with the maneuver/assault element to keep the enemy heads down while they move to engage (hopefully from the flanks and not directly ahead of us). Even though we had automatic M-16's only one person in four was designated the "Automatic Rifleman" and allowed to fire auto. The Squad Leader had an M-79 grenade launcher and could fire into the trees over the enemy for an air burst. The idea was to initially put out the maximum amount of firepower to suppress the enemy and win the "psychological" battle (even if it did not inflict causalities), then put out just enough rounds (about 1 every 5-6 seconds which is 120-150/minute for a squad) to keep their heads down while the assault element moved in. Just before the assault element made their final rush we put out max intensive fire for a few moments and then get the order to "Cease Fire" so the assault team can throw smoke/WP and make their final rush to hit them with flame throwers and demo charges.

Assault Teams used the "Blind, Burn and Blast Method" for their final rush against bunkers and pillboxes. Throw smoke or WP for cover, hit them with a flame thrower from 20-30 yards (for suppression, not causalities) and then the guy with the demo charge can do his work without interference. The suppressive fire element may never have a clear target to shoot at – it didn't matter. I trained with the Royal Marines at Lands End and they had pretty much the same drills.

If we were going to do a frontal assault we did squad fire and maneuver, depending on terrain, to within about 60-70 yards of the "enemy" and then Fire Team rushes to within 25-30 yards of them. The Squad Leader would make sure everyone was on line and spaced correctly and then give the order to fire what we had in our magazine (final intensive suppressive fire) which would be about 100-150 rounds for the squad in no more than 10 seconds. You would not want to be on the receiving end of that. While we reloaded some guys would lob grenades and then we'd all rise up and walk at a fast pace to cover the 25 yards to the enemy while firing from the hip. A Squad would put out almost 400 rounds while making that 25 yard trip in about 10-12 seconds. When you are putting out this much fire power, watching stuff fly all over in the air in front of you looking like a buzz saw while shouting your "Rebel Yell" you have very high morale. It's motivating! The idea was the enemy would keep their heads down while we fired, if they rose them up we'd have a definite target at close range. In VN sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't. Fortunately I never had to try this in combat!

Wolfhag

Wolfhag wrote:

The suppressive fire element may never have a clear target to shoot at – it didn't matter.

A very nice two-line distillation of what I was trying to say about fire against seen and unseen targets.

I trained with the Royal Marines at Lands End and they had pretty much the same drills.

I suspect, though I cannot prove, that infantry minor tactics differ little across nations, or, at least, across nations whose infantry win their battles. That's because direct-fire close combat is an environment that exerts very strong evolutionary pressures; if an organisation doesn't find out what works, it doesn't stay in the game for very long.

The Kubala and Warnick reference is one of the very few things available in the way of serious research on small-arms suppression. If this interests you it's worth digging up the paper by Kushnick and Duffy, also available from DTIC.

The Squad Leader would make sure everyone was on line and spaced correctly and then give the order to fire what we had in our magazine (final intensive suppressive fire) which would be about 100-150 rounds for the squad in no more than 10 seconds.

Ouch.

I'm sure Andy O'Neill will be along in a moment to remind us of the ability of WW2 British infantrymen to fire ten rounds in ten seconds by deft manipulation of the SMLE bolt, and this phase of the assault is the place where it makes sense to do so.

We were much more sedate in my TA unit, and one of our NCOs liked to give the order "Bullets, bullets, bullets, charge!", which meant were supposed to fire three rounds from our SLRs before closing with the bayonet (which in our case we had not got -- although our 'A' Company, from Edgeware, had a suspicious variety of edged weapons, despite never having been issued with any). Mind, that NCO was a Napoleonic wargamer, and would on occasion try things like getting the platoon to present and fire volleys kneeling and standing, with the ranks having fired retiring to the rear of the platoon to "reload" while the new front rank presented.

I have never experienced the suppressive effect of live rounds, but I do recall one exercise where HQ Company were, as usual, providing the enemy, this time for our 'C' Company (Crawley). A pal of mine, a fellow feedom-fighter in the People's Liberation Front for East Cheam or whoever we were, took a couple of casual shots at 'C' compamy from behind a log, just because, well, they were there, and advancing far too compacently. At 150-200 metres I doubt that many people spotted him, but 'C' Coy hit the deck and no fewer than seven Bren guns opened up immediately, and emptied their mags. Even from blank ammo, the roar of 210 rounds being fired in a few seconds is impressive. My mate put his head down, and, when the firing had stopped, stuck his head back over the log just long enough to say "Sorreee!".

Then we ran away, very fast.

All the best,

John.

Wow! 210 rounds in 10 seconds. That achieving fire superiority.

It's pretty easy to see what 10-20 M1 Garands or AR-15's look like when doing slow or rapid fire. In the US the Civilian Marksmanship Program runs matches around the country. The M1 Match in northern California I shoot in is open to anyone and they supply the rifle and ammo. You can shoot or be a spectator. We shoot at 200 yards and you spend one relay pulling and marking targets. You get to know what a 30-06 round sounds like when it passes 3 feet over your head and observe the results of rapid fire on the backstop. Here is their website:

odcmp.com/Clubs/STAssoc.htm

I remember one intensive war game we were having in North Carolina during the summer in 100 degree heat. Our Squad had to run about 100 yards to guard a flank that was being attacked. As I hit the ground my backpack slid up my back and hitting the back of my helmet (old WWII style pot) pushing it over my eyes. As I pushed my helmet up sweat and dirt was stinging my eyes and my lungs were bursting. Just then the "enemy" broke through their smoke screen about 50 yards to my front and we had individual targets to shoot at. I struggled to look through the peep sight of my M-16 cursing it and wishing I had the open sights of my boyhood Ruger .22cal carbine. A thought flashed through my mind that if this were a real combat situation I'd have a problem hitting anything so I just flipped the selector switch to "Auto". It was a real eye opener and much different than the range firing. I hate to imagine how much more difficult it had been if I were getting shot at too. I'm sure all of the other former military guys have had the same experience.

Wolfhag

I see a correlation between infantry combat and fist fights.
I had a mis spent youth.
If you're facing 3 guys,hit the leader until he drops.
The other two will usually just watch.
The third will usually watch as you slap the next one.
People don't really like fighting.
Even the ones who seem keen to begin with.
Another tip.
If someone threatens you,get them to repeat it. Hit them as they're talking. It's weird but the guy who is threatening to kill you will usually expect you to listen politely rather than interrupt rudely.
And the link?
Until you're really close, the rifleman can kid himself he doesn't really have to hurt anyone.
Within about 30 yards they have to kill or be killed.
So that's where the killing kicks in.

Remind me never to get I to your debt AONeill… :)

Not mis spent to quite that sort of extent, mate.

AONeill,
I had similar experiences growing up. I broke my hand in fights three times while in grade school. I had paper routes outside of my own neighborhood and was getting harassed by different groups along the routes. Name calling, throwing stones, etc. Each time I confronted them I went up to the guy that seemed to be the leader and thoroughly kicked his ass. None of his buddies came to his aid. No problems after that. I'm 6'2" and 260 pounds now (not then) so that helps too.

I think what we are observing in these examples is small unit leadership, training and the 80/20 Rule. Guys that follow along with bullies are not trained to fight, nor do they really want to. In game terms we'd classify them as "Green" or "Draftees". They need to be led and when they lose their leaders they are worthless as they are concerned with survival. When you get units that are mostly volunteer and train them they'll have the initiative and desire to fight. In game terms we call them "Elite". It seems like the 80/20 rule is pretty universal. 80% of the fighting is done by 20% of the group. My son just finished Marine Boot Camp and told me it was pretty much the rule. 80% were along for the ride, doing the minimum to get by and 20% were making things happen. When I was an enlisted Marine PFC I was one of the 80% most of the time as there wasn't much else I could do except obey orders. However, when the occasion arose and something really needed to be done I took the initiative saw to it that it happened. There are many stories of heroism of guys that were the 80% rising to the occasion in a tight situation.

I read an account of the fighting on Guadalcanal at Edson's Ridge where the Marine Raider unit was almost over run during the night and slowly one Marine at a time left the lines to go to the rear. An officer started gathering them up by pointing a .45cal pistol at them and ordering, "Get back to your hole and die" and they did. I think what passes for a good unit as opposed to a poor one is how much of the 80% is willing to become the 20% after the initial 20% start becoming causalities. Training and initiative should play a great role in that.

Wolfhag

AON,

and If you're facing 3 guys, hit the leader until he drops. The other two will usually just watch. People don't really like fighting.

If only that were true in my experience! The problem is that SOME people don't like fighting, but others most certainly do!

You are right in that sometimes there are "hangers on" who do little, but the real issue is that "fighters" often attract fellow fighters because they think and act the same. (In both civil and military life.)

And when you meet a group of such fighters you either beat them with greater "fire power" or you get you head kicked in by all of them, (to drop into English vernacular!).

DB

As a late addition to this thread, permit me to heartily recommend the recently-published book "Brains and Bullets":

link

…I ordered a copy on the recommendation of a bloke at this year's DSTL Historical Analysis symposium, and it is very definitely worth a read.

All the best,

John.

Thanks for the recommendation! It's also pretty inexpensive on Kindle:

link

3.19 for the kindle version.
I'll be buying that tonight then.
Cheers.

My understanding is the British Commandos chose to use the M1 Garand when engaged in beach assaults, due to the greater suppressive characteristics when required to assault over open ground. The SMLE was regarded for its longer range accuracy, but in a close range firefight a semi-automatic must have an advantage. That's why pretty much every army, including the British, had moved to SLRs by the 1950s.

James

I found this on another forum..

This extract is taken from Lt Col Ken Trevor's, 1 Commando, account of the action at Kangaw.

The plan was for the No. 1 Commando leading the assault supported by 5 Commando had to seize the hill and 42 Commando were to hold the banks of the Chaung at the beachhead. On 23rd January, 42 Commando were to advance and capture Kangaw itself. 44 Commando were to seize and hold Pinner. On 25th January, 51 Brigade composed of 19th Battalion Hydrabads, the 16th/10th Baluchis and the 2nd Punjabis (all Indian Brigade) were to advance. One of the advantages 1 Commando had over the other units was that we had brought from North Africa when we were with the Americans, Garand self-loading rifles with a bore of .3" with which they were armed. These rifles give a very high rate of fire, we also had the normal British – .303 LMG's, 3" mortars and American Thompson Sub-machine guns. We decided not to wear steel helmets but would wear our green berets.

I think Marshal fell into the trap of by interviews and discussion having gotten a pretty good picture of what was happening and then massaged the data to prove it.

That his method was suspect does not necessary invalidate his points.

I would think that men who exposed themselves to fire their weapons would most likely to be casualties. Thus may not be around for the interviews that were done after the action. Thus skewing the results somewhat in favor of those that hung back.

As somebody just properly getting into ww2 gaming this.is very interesting. Are there any books that you could recommend that cover this topic.