I read Jim Gavin's "On to Berlin" the other day. The author makes an intriguing comment. He says that the German infantry were nowhere near the American when it came to marksmanship and this was because the U.S has had such a long tradition in this field. All respect to General Gavin but it seems to me that the Wehrmacht that he encountered, which was basically in 1943, was a far cry from the men that stormed Western Europe and Russia in '40 and '41. I don't know if the comparison he makes is actually a fair one. Any comments?
Imad
Marksmanship
Moderator: John W. Howard
Marksmanship
Cry 'havoc' and let slip... the dogs of war
Very difficult to judge things like, how was it measured? Or is it just an opinion based on not very much except prejudice?
Tradition has little or nothing to do with military shooting, it's all about effective training and what soldiers are trained to do. Germany, of course, has its own shooting traditions, the schutzenfest. However, one or two country boys do not an army make! Of course the Brit fighter ace Johnny Johnson always claimed that the reason for his success was his pre-war poverty and rabbit shooting with a .22, if he used more than 1 bullet per rabbit he was running at a financial loss, hence he learnt to judge lead, which stood him in good stead against German fighters. However, I suspect there were only a few like him in any army or air force!
Tradition has little or nothing to do with military shooting, it's all about effective training and what soldiers are trained to do. Germany, of course, has its own shooting traditions, the schutzenfest. However, one or two country boys do not an army make! Of course the Brit fighter ace Johnny Johnson always claimed that the reason for his success was his pre-war poverty and rabbit shooting with a .22, if he used more than 1 bullet per rabbit he was running at a financial loss, hence he learnt to judge lead, which stood him in good stead against German fighters. However, I suspect there were only a few like him in any army or air force!
Imad
American riflemen were trained to shoot at targets they could see - the Germans were trained to support their machine gunners. Both of course had their prodigies and realistically, shooting is not that hard.
SLA Marshall concocted a whole theory about soldiers being reluctant to shoot but some think it may have simply been a thing of training.
Now everyone is taught volume of fire and area fire etc.
And ultimately, most of the killing is done by the big stuff - artillery. Next is crew served weapons. Rifles and sub machine guns are pretty much for self defense!
cheers
Reb
American riflemen were trained to shoot at targets they could see - the Germans were trained to support their machine gunners. Both of course had their prodigies and realistically, shooting is not that hard.
SLA Marshall concocted a whole theory about soldiers being reluctant to shoot but some think it may have simply been a thing of training.
Now everyone is taught volume of fire and area fire etc.
And ultimately, most of the killing is done by the big stuff - artillery. Next is crew served weapons. Rifles and sub machine guns are pretty much for self defense!
cheers
Reb
Actually there is supporting evidence for Marshal, but it may have been possible to improve the level by training, selection (and or more effective leadership at many levels). However, it doesn't seem to have affected the Germans, although that really is anecdotal, and we probably just don't know although I suspect there are fairly easily analysed indicators that may indicate there was some sort of issue, but establishing cause is another matter.
Wouldn't surprise me at all, I tend to the view that for some 60 years from 1915 the Brit army neglected good shooting skills. The pre-1914 regulars were outstanding as were some of the TF/TA. It didn't start to recover untill the introduction of the 'Shoot to Kill' programme, which the IRA tried to hijack for propaganda purposes.
Huh? The mythical 'shoot to kill' programme is hardly anything to do with British army rifle training! The army pre-WWII had extremely high standards of musketry but the men were trained for carefully aimed accuracy rather than the 'mad minute' rapid fire technique pre-WWI which was more suitable for concentrations of men and/or cavalry. The British Army until quite recently avoided issuing their men with fully automatic rifles because they thought them a definite minus to accurate marksmanship.
Hitler...there was a painter! He could paint an entire apartment in ONE afternoon! TWO coats!! Mel Brooks, The Producers
Nothing mythical about the 'Shoot to Kill' programme, it was the twin of 'Fit to Fight', both were official programmes introduced in the 1970s to raise what were rightly seen as poor standards. They never got around to 'Dig to Live' :-) The IRA picked up on the term Shoot to Kill, spun it around and declared that the Army had a Shoot to Kill Policy, this was untrue, it was the name of a training and qualification programme but when did factual accuracy ever have anything to do with propaganda.
In 1914 the training delivered an army capable of rapid aimed and accurate fire, trench warfare mostly eliminated the need for this. After that war Lewis and later Bren guns tended to substitute for volume, although for troops engaged on the NW Frontier accurate and fast long range shooting against somewhat fleeting targets was essential. General shooting standards were no more than competant.
In 1914 the training delivered an army capable of rapid aimed and accurate fire, trench warfare mostly eliminated the need for this. After that war Lewis and later Bren guns tended to substitute for volume, although for troops engaged on the NW Frontier accurate and fast long range shooting against somewhat fleeting targets was essential. General shooting standards were no more than competant.
The brits actually found out via range tests that the volume of fire was very important more so than accacery. As an example a person could shoot 20 times at 70% accercy and achieve 14 hits. A person who shoots 10 times with 90% accercy achives only 9 hits. In this example volume of fire was much more important than accurcy.
The brits during these range tests noted that most of thier soilders failed to acive min volume of fire. This is why they switched from single shot rifles such as the Lee Engfield to semi auto rifles. ess every one today uses semi auto rifles as a min so the volume of fire over accercy debate died years ago.
The brits during these range tests noted that most of thier soilders failed to acive min volume of fire. This is why they switched from single shot rifles such as the Lee Engfield to semi auto rifles. ess every one today uses semi auto rifles as a min so the volume of fire over accercy debate died years ago.
In 1914 the BEF achieved high rates of accurate fire, later generations clearly had difficulties achieving these rates with a bolt action rifle. That said I actually think that in 1914 some of the accounts fail to recognise the importancef shrapnel and the ability of the RHA and RFA to burst it at its most effective height, which was lower than other armies could consistently achieve.
Re: the whole "volume vs accuracy" debate -- as Darrin mentioned above, this seems to have been settled years ago. My two cents worth is to point out the issue seems usually to be cast in terms of aimed single shots vs automatic fire, whereas I argue for the importance of aimed automatic fire.
But anyway, I was intrigued by Nigel's comment:
As a final aside, I can relate a story about the British Army's "Shoot to Kill" experience. Here in Canada, back in the 1980s, we introduced new small arms marksmanship standards (for more-or-less the same reasons) that was based at least partly upon the British programme. However, after the British PR fiasco, guess what it was titled in Canada?
"Shoot to Live"
But anyway, I was intrigued by Nigel's comment:
What are you referring to Nigel? As I follow the SLA Marshall debates, he has been quite thoroughly discredited. Have you heard something different?nigelfe wrote:Actually there is supporting evidence for Marshal...
As a final aside, I can relate a story about the British Army's "Shoot to Kill" experience. Here in Canada, back in the 1980s, we introduced new small arms marksmanship standards (for more-or-less the same reasons) that was based at least partly upon the British programme. However, after the British PR fiasco, guess what it was titled in Canada?
"Shoot to Live"
Paul
Given the SLR / FN (which I used) I think "aimed automatic fire" is something of a misnomer - after trying it I could see why the Brits allowed no full auto function.
The AK was alright for that, and the M-16 - but ultimately, single shots fired rapidly make more sense in all by "alamo" situations.
cheers
Reb
Given the SLR / FN (which I used) I think "aimed automatic fire" is something of a misnomer - after trying it I could see why the Brits allowed no full auto function.
The AK was alright for that, and the M-16 - but ultimately, single shots fired rapidly make more sense in all by "alamo" situations.
cheers
Reb
Reb,
Back when Canada used the FN, we had two versions -- the FN C1 and FN C2. The C1 was the Canadian version of the SLR (semi-auto) and the standard rifleman's weapon. The C2 was a full auto version, which was essentially the same, but a slightly different trigger group, a heavier barrel, and a folding bipod instead of the regular forestock. It was a sort of Bren or BAR -- a standard infantry section was eight riflemen with C1s and two LMG gunners with C2s. I think one can certainly say that the C1 was universally loved and the C2 universally hated, so I take your point about:
Anway, we put a full section (8 x C1 and 2 x C2) in the trenches, started up the pulley system, and had the C1s only fire. They hit I think one or two of the moving targets until they were very very close. Then the replaced the ballons and did it again -- this time with only the two C2s firing. Within moments every ballon was gone.
The point is that -- as we have all I think agreed -- automatic fire is what counts on the battlefield, either for suppression, area fire, or to decimate personnel in the open. But we tend not train or practice aiming bursts of auto fire. Range work is generally semi-auto, with a bit of auto thrown in at the end. The skill of *AIMING* short bursts of auto (and keeping the auto to short bursts), is a skill, like any other marksmanship skill, and should be practiced as such.
Back when Canada used the FN, we had two versions -- the FN C1 and FN C2. The C1 was the Canadian version of the SLR (semi-auto) and the standard rifleman's weapon. The C2 was a full auto version, which was essentially the same, but a slightly different trigger group, a heavier barrel, and a folding bipod instead of the regular forestock. It was a sort of Bren or BAR -- a standard infantry section was eight riflemen with C1s and two LMG gunners with C2s. I think one can certainly say that the C1 was universally loved and the C2 universally hated, so I take your point about:
My point about aimed auto-fire was brought home to me vividly in a firepower demo years ago. A section was dug in on a live-fire range in a proper section defensive postion, and an ingenious system of moving targets were rigged up down range. Helium filled ballons were used, tied at various heights -- that of a running man and that of a crawling man. The were tied to this pulley system so that they would move across the range laterally and towards the position (that was the ingenius part - this was before computerized ranges and such).Reb wrote:Given the SLR / FN (which I used) I think "aimed automatic fire" is something of a misnomer - after trying it I could see why the Brits allowed no full auto function.
Anway, we put a full section (8 x C1 and 2 x C2) in the trenches, started up the pulley system, and had the C1s only fire. They hit I think one or two of the moving targets until they were very very close. Then the replaced the ballons and did it again -- this time with only the two C2s firing. Within moments every ballon was gone.
The point is that -- as we have all I think agreed -- automatic fire is what counts on the battlefield, either for suppression, area fire, or to decimate personnel in the open. But we tend not train or practice aiming bursts of auto fire. Range work is generally semi-auto, with a bit of auto thrown in at the end. The skill of *AIMING* short bursts of auto (and keeping the auto to short bursts), is a skill, like any other marksmanship skill, and should be practiced as such.
The Aust Army also used the heavy barrel SLR, albeit not for long, it was regarded as a disaster. Definitely not taken to Vietnam!
Interestingly in 1944-5 the Brits developed and prototyped a semi auto bullpup sniper rifle, the reason for this was that in Normandy it was found that a bolt action involved too much movement by snipers and compromised their position.
The argument for high rates of fire and not an excess of accuracy is only valid when being attacked by seried ranks as far as the eye can see. Most combat shooting involves uncooperative tgts that appear somewhat fleetingly, which puts puts a premium on speed and accuracy not volume of fire. That's why the Brits introduced optical sights.
SLA Marshall had probably never heard of Lional Wigram, and Wigram almost certaily hadn't heard of Marshall. Wigram was appointed CI of the first of the divisional battle schools in UK formed by Utterson-Kelso's 47 Div and then at GHQ's. He had some forthright views about the fighting qualities of infantry soldiers that upset many senior officers. Monty sacked for saying 'in a platoon there are only 4-6 men that can be relied upon to do what they were told while under fire', Wigram actually divided a platoon into to 3 classes but I can't find the exact quote. Wigram was subsequently KIA as a coy comd.
Interestingly in 1944-5 the Brits developed and prototyped a semi auto bullpup sniper rifle, the reason for this was that in Normandy it was found that a bolt action involved too much movement by snipers and compromised their position.
The argument for high rates of fire and not an excess of accuracy is only valid when being attacked by seried ranks as far as the eye can see. Most combat shooting involves uncooperative tgts that appear somewhat fleetingly, which puts puts a premium on speed and accuracy not volume of fire. That's why the Brits introduced optical sights.
SLA Marshall had probably never heard of Lional Wigram, and Wigram almost certaily hadn't heard of Marshall. Wigram was appointed CI of the first of the divisional battle schools in UK formed by Utterson-Kelso's 47 Div and then at GHQ's. He had some forthright views about the fighting qualities of infantry soldiers that upset many senior officers. Monty sacked for saying 'in a platoon there are only 4-6 men that can be relied upon to do what they were told while under fire', Wigram actually divided a platoon into to 3 classes but I can't find the exact quote. Wigram was subsequently KIA as a coy comd.