"WWI Machine Guns Representation?" Topic

If a game has a scale where 1 stand is a company, should HMGs be represented separately? Were they deployed so that they were clearly under one command and deployment, or were they detached to infantry companies regardless of their separation? Or, can they just be factored into the combat capabilities of a company? I believe, at least in the British Army, they were moved to The Machine Gun Corps by 1916 while the Infantry were given the Lewis gun instead.

Just some discussions I have had and games I have played have always felt odd when dealing with the scale of machine guns. I feel that there are too many of them sometimes or they have too much freedom. I imagine they were more immobile in the static defenses?

Thanks for any help! Oh and if you have a good book reference please include it. WWI is a period I do not know much about.

"If the Lord Save Us" by Two Fat Lardies distinguishes between the different machine-gun doctrines in use in the Middle East in WW1.
A model represents a section of two guns, where a company is represented by three or four bases of infantry.

I can only really speak for the opening battles as I have no interest in trench warfare so take this in that context.

Reading from a variety of authors, all supposedly taken from 1st hand accounts, the doctrines of the combatants seem to have had a good deal less to do with deployment than is often assumed.

Germans supposedly kept their regimental MG company (6 guns in 3 sections of 2) together and the French preferred to give each Bn a section. You come across both types of deployment on both sides quite often and it can often be governed by what opportunities or what necessities the regiment had at the time. I suppose that means that flexibility was more common than we may think.

MG certainly play a big role, the firepower they can deliver is huge – provided that they continue to be supplied with ammo. This is easier if the MG company keeps together but response is slower and the other parts of the regimental front have no MG support – no gain without risk.

We use Bloody Picnic at that scale and the deployment of MG units and their tactical attachment to Bn etc (i.e. how the MG Co is split and to which Bns) are usually a player's choice. That seems to fit with common practice at the time.

Even in East Africa where MG's were spread around singly and there was lots of cover, they tended to have a strong influence. This is why they and their ammo were lugged along wherever possible.

At a company to the stand, I would make up a counter or a MG stand and attach it to the battalion if the battalion has dedicated MG support. Based on the rule mechanic, they would get an extra die, a +1 to cause casualties, etc.

Think it depends on what you are portaying from a scale perspective. A division or brigade commander has expectations of what his weapons systems can do. That I think is the true answer. Plenty of anecdotal evidence that has a singl mg or mg section holding up a battalion. Deployment of Brigade/Regiment assetts would be brigade/regiment perogative unless the Corps Commander or Division commander wanted/needed to pool resources. So it is really situational.Doctrine holds true for the norm but that is very much situational.

Shawn

Think it depends on what you are portaying from a scale perspective. A division or brigade commander has expectations of what his weapons systems can do. That I think is the true answer. Plenty of anecdotal evidence that has a singl mg ir mg section holding up a battalion. Deployment of Brigade/Reiment assetts would be brigade/regiment perogative unless the Corps Commander or Division commander wanted/needed to pool resources. So it is really situational.Doctrine holds true for the norm but that is very much situational.

Shawn

On a very large scale game, I'd be tempted to abstract those weapons into "support markers" that could then be placed down each turn to give a bonus to nearby troops in a certain area.

In the old SPI WWI tactical game Soldiers, each infantry counter was a company or a section of MGs. There were about 4 infantry to each MG, a section of guns per battalion. Worked well enough, even if the game played even bloodier than the combat depicted.

If I recall, French company firepower was 3, German was 5 and BEF was 6. MG sections were 4, German MG company was double digits.

We use 4 stands representing a company, and 1 mg model representing a 2 section gun team. Usually 2 sections per battalion as they can dominate a game otherwise.

Firstly you need to be very clear about what is meant by 'machine guns'. I like the British MG Corps definition: an MG was a tripod mounted weapon that could lay down indirect fire. The Lewis gun and other bipod mounted direct fire automatic weapons were known as 'automatic rifles'. The latter should not be represented separately in a game where the stand = a company.

At the outset of the war, the Germans did mass their MGs into companies. There is a lot of evidence now that these were then parcelled out in sections to battalions, just like the British and French did.

Shawn has done a great job in Great War Spearhead. The MG stands increase in number and in power as the war progresses. There is a Spearhead mechanic too that prevents MGs from being targeted preferentially simply because they are spotted. This works very well.

Robert

Largely what Robert said.

Yes, it is perfectly OK to have tripod MG elements (typically batteries of around six guns) in one base = one company type games. Like Great War Spearhead or Square Bashing.

I also use them in base = one battalion games to represent the regimental/brigade machinegun companies as they have very different mobility and fire characteristics to rifle battalions.

In higher level games I use them as posture markers for brigades which are deployed for defence.

Given all the reports of 1-2 (tripod) MGs stopping whole battalions, I'd honestly put out ALL the MGs. Even a single gun or a 2-gun section on it's own base. Firepower-wise, they're about on par with a whole infantry company.

I would be cautious about such reports. It is very hard to find clear evidence of the impact of machine guns in the absence of supporting rifle fire and artillery. Another way to approach the issue is to look at contemporaneous evidence of the amount of firepower that could be laid down. I have seen estimates that an MG was equivalent to about 80 rifle-armed infantry. Thus an MG section of 2 guns is the equivalent of a depleted company.

It should be noted that, whilst the number of MGs per MG company and the number of MG companies increased significantly during WW1, the casualty rate did not increase. This is because other tactics mitigated the increase, such as the wider dispersal of infantry and the use of heavier artillery barrages.

Robert

Keeping in mind that 80+ pct of overall combat casualties in WW1 were caused by artillery fire, the following remains worthy of note –

A well managed water-cooled tripod-mounted machine gun of WW1 could deliver a sustained fire of not less than 125 rpm and a maximum rate of fire of 500+ rpm under urgent conditions. The difference in fire effect of such a machine gun was not so much its volume of fire compared to, say, that of a company of infantry, but its immensely greater accuracy and consistency of fire (in terms of placing its effective beaten zone), even at ranges considerably in excess of 1000 yards; the sheaf of fire of an infantry company under action conditions was gigantic by comparison. In addition, as a crew-served weapon under the immediate influence of an officer or non-com, the machine gun was far more likely to continue firing compared to 100 or 200 individual soldiers scattered over 100 odd yards of terrain.

I recall reading in the dim mists of time long past that the Germans considered an unmolested section of two well managed water-cooled sustained fire machine guns, provided with ample ammunition and sited to fire in enfilade, to be able to stop the advance of a battalion of attacking infantry.

FWIW.

B

I am not sure about the differences in accuracy and consistency of fire. At ranges over 1000 yards, for example, the beaten zone of a single MG covered a broad area.

In the situation cited, a single infantry company firing in enfilade would also bring an advance of a battalion to a halt.

The key difference was the numbers of men needed to achieve the same results.

Robert

Hi Robert – I think we will have to agree to disagree on the topic of MG beaten zones. Per von Merkatz, "New Methods of Machine Gun Fire" (1916), the sheaf in point fire with clamped elevation and deflection levers was actually considered to be too narrow when firing for effect upon a narrow target:

100 pct zone @ range 500m
1.2m vertical diameter x 185m depth

100 pct zone @ range 1000m
3.0m vertical diameter x 98m depth

100 pct zone @ range 1500m
6.6m vertical diameter x 73m

I think it would be a prodigious accomplishment indeed for any company of infantry to deliver its fire within such a confined area under action conditions, even assuming that all soldiers (a) could be directed to a specific common point of aim, (b) could correctly estimate the range and (c) actually execute the fire in unison. Johnson and Haven, "Automatic Arms – Their History, Development and Use" (1941), also referenced the fact that the sheaf of group fire by individual soldiers of a tactical element was much, much larger than that delivered by any machine gun.

FWIW.

B

It should be noted that, whilst the number of MGs per MG company and the number of MG companies increased significantly during WW1, the casualty rate did not increase. This is because other tactics mitigated the increase, such as the wider dispersal of infantry and the use of heavier artillery barrages.

I like how This Quar's War handles tripod automatic weapons. They have 2x 5" wide markers that represent either the start (HMG) or the end (heavy auto-shotgun) of their zone. Anything in the zone at any time loses one action (of the two they normally get), *and* the gun can still fire at one unit in the zone during the gun's activation.

Then again, TQW is a very small-scale game, where the units activating are individual squads, guns, or vehicles. Could probably scale things up to units-are-companies without messing with anything else, though.

Hi B. I have the equivalent documentation from Hyde as well as the diagrams for musketry too. Bear in mind that the comparison has be to made under 'action conditions' too. This is why the MG barrage maps are useful when you see how indirect barrage fire was planned, at least in the British and Dominion forces. My grandfather was a Vickers gunner in WW1 and he talked about his experiences at length before he died aged 99.

Robert

Hi Robert – Might we be discussing different firing techniques? By my understanding, MG barrages (oftentimes conducted as indirect predicted fire for area harassment/denial) might reach out as far as 4,000 yards. At such ranges, with "loose" traverse and elevation levers on the mount, the beaten zone would indeed be huge.

Wish my father would have spoken more of his wartime experience (WW2 destroyer sailor in the Pacific). He never did in any meaningful way and, at 94 years of age now, his memory and cognitive functions are largely gone.

B

There were long distance barrages, yes. But shorter range barrages were also used to thicken creeping barrages, particularly over tactical points of concern. Generally, MMGs were not fired on a fixed line but were tapped from side to side to increase the spread of the beaten zone.

Robert

Hi Robert – Numerous different tactics were employed by sustained fire machine guns: point fire, fire upon a fixed line, enfilade fire, traversing ("broad") fire, "deep" fire, barrage fire, harassing fire – all dependent upon the requirements at hand and tactical circumstances. Adjustment of the beaten zone would vary according to the nature of the fire required.

To be honest, I'm not altogether certain whether we are having a simple discussion or a debate here. What say you?

B

From my perspective, it is a great discussion. This sort of back and forth is how new insights come to light. I'm enjoying it. Definitely don't have a problem with you taking issue over various aspects.

Robert

Martin,

I would be interested to know what rules you are using for games at a level higher than GWSHII.

Alan