WW1 Bolt Action

[Charge The Guns]

In the Robinson book on Halen there is an interesting account of of Belgian farmers selling German lances to American war correspondents the day after the battle. I wonder if units that had any lances left after their first action stopped using them once it became evident that they were more of an encumbrance to a ‘mounted infantry man’.

[Brin]

Agree with IO and Robert the German cavalry carbine based on the G98 cut down like the K98 but slightly shorter is a very good weapon.
I own a 937A which for those who known their Mausers is the 10mm shorter barrelled K98 made before WW2 for the export market as a cavalry carbine. The sound produced is slightly different than the K98 and slightly louder, yet the drop off measurements for your range card are very similar to the stock K98. The ears fitted to the foresight are very handy and prevent inadvertent damage (a problem K98s suffered from prior to fitting the sight hood).

Digressing slightly – to compare a SMLE with a 98 cavalry carbine variants…. The SMLE has a 10 round mag and a quicker action on the bolt whereas the 98s only has room for 5 rounds internally – so the initial fire-fight goes to the SMLE. At short range both are accurate to the accuracy of the ammo MOA. At medium range again both are accurate. At long range with standard iron sights I find both about the same. What is a distinct difference is the heat variation characteristics – the SMLE suffers more from heat deviation affecting accuracy than any K98 (or similar) I ever used. Have yet to compare with an original G98. So each has strengths and weaknesses – the SMLE for the initial fire-fight or the 98 for a longer duration watch and shoot scenario with high repetition.

[Dr Dave]

Dear IO,

“L Battery was out of action”

My dear chap, L battery was maintained in action by the plucky crews of 2, then just one solitary 13 pdr. Hence the award of 3 Victoria crosses. In was in action from start to finish.

The German cavalry div seems to have broken up in the forest around Nery. They buried their colours and then disabled their artillery pieces by removing the breaches and chucking them. This was when one of the guns was inadvertently fired. It seems the crew had forgotten that they’d loaded it before they fled the field. Poor Jerry seems to have suddenly gone all wobbly at the thought of a serious fight with someone who was prepared to fight back.

[invisible officer]

Dear Doc, did the cavalry send men to the home garrisons to get the colors to bury them at Néry? ;.) Like British cavalry they no longer carried them on campaign. It’s one of the many patriotic myths.

Like the numbers given, counting all Germans from Division’s OOB, not actual strength present at Néry and ignoring the many British infantrymen.(That took the guns and started to encircle the Kavallerie that fought on foot) Well, all is fair in love and war and patriotic history writing.

L battery was out of action for the campaign, like the German. It was sent home. The VC, German gunners there did the same under MG fire but they got nothing. For Germans that’s normal service. “Im Westen nichts neues!” 😉

No.

But in all fairness that affair was just that, an affair. Both sides had small losses and, apart from the artillery, all units could serve on in the campaign. Well, many British (and Germans) lost the horses and had to walk. Did the affair change the campaign? No, the British still retreated.

The German 4. Kavallerie Division was not out of action, it assembled after breakout, being ready again next day. It just got replacement guns and gunners and served on in the West, at Somme in same month. In November they went to the East to fight the Russians.

[Dr Dave]

The book “The adventure of the German 4th Cavalry Division at Nery” (I think its the title) states that they buried their colours – could it mean lance pennons?

Yes L battery was withdrawn, but it was not put out of action so long as the action lasted. They kept it up right to the end when the Germans were driven off.

“German gunners there did the same under MG fire but they got nothing”. Odd, considering how few MGs the British had present compared to the number of German field guns (and MGs).

[Inverugie]

And not forgetting that British cavalry formations also had their own machine-guns; initially Vickers and later Hotchkiss guns (for dismounted use only!).

[Dr Dave]

Yes they did have MGs. At Nery there were 6 of them in the Brigade. Plus 2 more with the infantry bttn coming up. Totalling 8.

[invisible officer]

Hmm pennons dug to prevent loss? Hardly. Hmmm a GUESS. In big letters. The Trooper had a two Color pennon but the nco a one Color with the arms on it. May someone saw one half burried by action and thought it to be a flag.

The German MG Units had not been stronger in 1914. The Kavallerie Regiment had no MG.(Only infantry regiments had 1914 a MG Company, one for all 3 Battalions = 2 MG for 4 companies. Not much)

The 4. Kav. Division had a single MG unit, the Garde Machinengewehr Abteilung (= Company) 2 with 6 machineguns. Six in a cavalry Division and one MG as reserve !

The Jäger that should work with horse had 6 in a battalion (There had been no Jäger regiments) . But in that affair they had not been present.

[Robert]

Bear in mind, however, that a cavalry regiment was the not the same size as an infantry regiment. A dismounted cavalry division was roughly equivalent to an infantry regiment, which means that the allocation of an MG company was in line.

Robert

[invisible officer]

Very roughly.

The Division had three brigades of two regiments (Mobilisation strength 688 OR each) The infantry Regiment had 3 battalions of 1024 OR.

The Division had 3 Reitende Batterien of four guns, so each Brigade could get a battery.

In 1914 the number of MG was much too small for a modern war. Only in 1916 the German infantry regiments got a kompanie of 6 for each Battalion.

—–
In 1914 the MG was used like artillery, rarely distributed. That makes a small problem with Bolt Action, the infantry getting 1 model for a MG but normally just 1 gun model for a battery. Six MG models side by side fighting a single 13 pdr………

[Robert]

I have read many German infantry and cavalry regimental histories. In 1914, it was more common than not for German MG companies to be deployed by section at the battalion level. In practice therefore, the equivalent of a Bolt Action MG08 stand would be operating in close proximity to a Bolt Action infantry unit.

Likewise but much less commonly, individual field guns were manhandled forward and operated as infantry guns in direct support of infantry.

Bolt Action can be used with historical OOBs, in which case MG and field artillery stands most likely would not be on table. But the standard game flavour of BA, with the variety of options that can be chosen by players, can include the option of an MG and/or a field artillery stand for German forces in 1914 IMHO.

Robert

[invisible officer]

The deployment of MG to Battalions came in October 1914 with the static war. In the war of movement the Company was kept together to be used as a local fire power reserve of the regimental CO. It was thought that in attack only massive direct MG fire would have effect.

It took time to learn that the heavy MG was in attack best used in indirect fire from behind. But in that the German army was much inferior in WW I and in 1914 no unit had the MG Clinometer in use.

The tactical deployment changed a lot in winter 14 and 1915 and then you find them with the battalions. For direct fire in defence. In the trenches it was much better to deploy them, not making them an easy target area for the howitzers and mortars. For that direct fire role they got in April 15 shields.
.
Before you find Battalion MG with the Jäger Battalions. But they had an MG Company each.

You hardly find German single field guns 1914 in the movement war. Only in very rare situations like in a town to support a bridge crossing. The street simply offering not space for a battery.

The use of single artillery weapons under infantry control started with the need to attack the trench strongpoints. At first they took the Minenwerfer from the Pionier Units. The Standard 7,5 cm field gun was too big for the frontline use as Begleitbatterie (and with flat trajectory far from ideal in close Support, the 10,5 cm Howitzer was not better against close targets) .

Only the AT needs of late war caused the use of 7,7 cm as single gun direct behind the front trench to defend the infantry. Before they used mountain guns and captured and converted Russian as begleitartillerie. But that is 1915, not 14.

[Robert]

I will publish examples of MGs and field guns in the movement war to illustrate. Agree with your other points.

Robert

[invisible officer]

You will surely find examples. But they had been the exception, not the rule.

The German 08 was too heavy, with Schlitten 66,5 kg. (Vickers with tripod just around 34,8) It needed a minimum of three men for movement of the arm and three amo carrier. Or a wagon with two horses.

Most German infantry officers thought 1914 that the “Feuerhöhe” (Hight of weapon) prohibited the use in the infantry firing line in attack. (See Reichenau, Bogulawski and others) Oberstleutnant Leyritz asked for a 1 man portable MG before 1914 but few followed him.

Most Battalion CO’s rightly thought that the 08 would slow down the infantry.

Hauptmann Kretzschmar wrote 1913 a treatise about the Problems of attacks against MG, but he was CO of a MG Abteilung. And ignored as “technician”.

[Robert]

Ah, I think we may have talking at cross purposes. I wasn’t talking about MG08s being used in the infantry firing line. There were times when this happened, for example where there was defilade cover up to the firing line and there was a definite advantage to deploying MGs there, such as the ability to take an enemy position in enfilade.

My point was that MGs were commonly deployed in sections separately not as a whole company together. Hope this clears things up.

Robert

[Author]

Posts