MACHINE-GUN TACTICS
MACHINE-GUN TACTICS
The modern machine gun is essentially an automatic weapon of small-arm calibre, capable of firing from 100 to 600 shots a minute from a light mounting of extreme mobility, and should fulfil the following qualifications:
1. It should be able to deliver about 400 shots a minute without loss of accuracy, even with prolonged “continuous” firing.
2. It should be capable of accompanying cavalry and infantry wherever these arms can go; it should occupy the smallest space, and be able to come into action quickly at rifle range.
3. It should have a firm mounting, upon which the gun is steady, and from which it can be aimed rapidly and fired while kneeling, sitting, or lying.
4. The gun and its mounting must present a small target, and be light enough for each, and if possible, both, to be carried by one man for a considerable distance, and should admit of being dragged by a man crawling or crouching for short distances.
5. It should be in constant readiness for action, and able when limbered up to open fire in less than thirty seconds.
6. It should be simple, strong, and durable. Mobility and constant readiness for action are indispensable with cavalry, while lightness and smallness of target are essential factors.
There are eight main types of machine guns at present in use in the armies of the world, viz.:
The principal differences between these guns are: (a) The automatic mechanism. (b) Method of loading.
(a) may be divided into two classes: 1.Recoil action—the Maxim, Perino, and the Madsen. 2.Gas-pressure action—the Schwarzlose, Hotchkiss, Skoda, and Colt.
(b) consists of three classes: 1.Belt loaders—the Maxim, Schwarzlose, and Colt. 2.Metal clip loaders—Hotchkiss, Madsen, Perino, and Puteaux. 3.Hopper loaders—the Skoda.
Several of the above countries—notably Russia, Japan, France, and Austria—have morethan one pattern of gun in their service, and it is difficult to say which they intend finally to adopt; but Russia, since the war, has ordered several thousand Madsen guns, and Japan is said to be trying this gun, one of which during the war fired 25,000 shots in a single day.
The Rexar gun has been purposely omitted; it only weighs 17½ lb., but is fired from the shoulder, and is therefore more of the nature of an automatic rifle than a machine gun. It would take too long to deal with each of these weapons separately, therefore the Maxim has been selected as the type with which to discuss the question of tactics.
In order thoroughly to understand the methods that should govern the tactical employment of machine guns, and their place in the battlefield, it is first necessary clearly to realise their nature and potentialities, and for this purpose we will examine their principal characteristics. Guns of this class are capable of firing service small-arm ammunition at the rate of 800 shots in one minute, but this very high rate of fire is obviously undesirable for several reasons—the principal, from a military point of view, being that, however skilfully the gun is handled, a great waste of ammunition must ensue, and hundreds of shots be wasted in space, however accurate the fire. These guns are, therefore, regulated to fire at a maximum rate of from 400 to 500 rounds a minute, or seven to eight shots a second, but even this is greater than is necessary to obtain the maximum fire effect;at ordinary targets 100 to 250 rounds a minute, according to the nature of the target, has been found to give the best results in practice. The “rate of fire” of a gun must not be confused with the number of rounds that can be fired from it effectively in one minute; the necessity for frequent pauses to observe the effect, to correct the elevation and direction of the fire, prevent a greater number than from 150 to 250 shots being fired effectively in one minute from a gun whose rate of fire is 450 shots a minute. Colonel Mayne, in his bookThe Infantry Weapon and its Use in War, says: “The machine gun now in use can fire about 600 rounds a minute, or ten a second. This is a far greater rapidity of fire than is really necessary, for it means that a man or horse is struck several times before falling. It is a good thing to be able to fire 600 rounds a minute on occasions (such as for rangefinding), but a far slower rate of fire (say 100 rounds or even less a minute) is ample for all ordinary tactical purposes against living beings and animals, whilst causing an enormous saving of ammunition.”
The extreme range of this type of gun is for all practical purposes the same as the infantry rifle—about 3,500 yards—though it is more effective at the longer ranges than an equal volume of rifle fire, owing to the ease with which the firer can elevate and aim the gun on its mountings and the stability of this mounting, which causes it to have a beaten zone of only half the depth and nearly half the width of thatof infantry firing the same number of rounds. This has been proved again by actual experiment at the schools of musketry in England, India, and South Africa, while very elaborate experiments and trials carried out in Germany with the Maxim gun on the carriage adopted for that service proved that the beaten zone was only one-sixth of that obtained by infantry, probably because of the greater stability of their mounting.
Diagram ITO SHOW THE ZONE BEATEN BY 50 PER CENT. OF BULLETS
Diagram ITO SHOW THE ZONE BEATEN BY 50 PER CENT. OF BULLETS
In order that “fire” may be “effective,” it is necessary to bring the enemy within the zonebeaten by 75 per cent. of shots, and it has been found by experiment that 25 per cent. of shots fall immediately in front and behind the target, then 12½ per cent.,7½ per cent., and, finally, 5 per cent. scattered far in front and behind.
Diagram IITO SHOW THE DISPERSION OF BULLETS
Diagram IITO SHOW THE DISPERSION OF BULLETS
Infantry usually fire at the rate of three rounds a minute “slow,” and fifteen rounds a minute “rapid”; “slow” fire is the ordinary rate, and “rapid” fire can only be effectually maintained for about four minutes; but this is when the firer is fresh, and has not been subjected to several hours’ marching and fighting as would be the case in battle, and it is doubtful if “rapid” fire can be kept up on service for more than one-and-a-half to two minutes without becomingwild and consequently ineffective. On the other hand, “rapid” fire is less tiring to the machine gunner than “deliberate” fire; the gun is held for him by the mounting, it loads and fires itself, while elevation and direction are maintained without the least exertion on his part by the elevating and traversing gears.
In comparing the volume of fire of the machine gun with that of a body of infantry, it is obvious that “rapid” cannot be taken as the normal rate of infantry fire, as it can only be used for the shortest periods, and even then it reduces the users to a state of inefficiency as regards accuracy in two or three minutes. On the other hand, “rapid” fire can only be used by the machine gunner on special occasions, for tactical reasons which will be explained later, so that it will be necessary to compare “slow” infantry fire with “deliberate” fire from the machine gun, in order to arrive at the mean fire volume of each. Seventy shots a minute can easily be fired “deliberately” from a machine gun, and this could be increased to 120 by highly trained gunners, but, taking the lower figure, deliberate fire equals in volume the fire of twenty-four men using rifles. But it must be always remembered that the object of the fire fight is to bring a concentrated and overwhelming fire to bearat the right momenton certain positions of the enemy, and when the moment arrives machine guns can and will use the most rapid rate of fire possible, which will be from 250 to 300 rounds a minute or equal tothat of 50 or 100 riflemen. Mere volume of fire, however, is useless without control, accuracy, and concentration, and it is here that the machine gun is so vastly superior to the rifle; for amongst 50 men using their rifles there can only be a small percentage of good shots, while even among the good shots unforeseen factors, such as fatigue, bad fire positions, excitement, wrong sighting, failure to see the target, etc., cause a large percentage of the shots to go astray, and make it very difficult to concentrate the fire on any particular position of the enemy.
An object-lesson to illustrate this superiority of the machine gun has been carried out during each course at the South African school of musketry under circumstances most favourable to the rifles. The record of one such test, carried out on September 21st, 1904, between a Maxim gun mounted on Mark III. tripod and 42 rifles (Lee Enfield), was published. The machine gun was worked by two sergeant-instructors, while the 42 rifles were fired by students who were all, at least, 1st Class shots before joining the school, and who for five weeks had been receiving daily instruction in musketry, and had just completed a course of firing both on the ranges (Table B) and in field-firing, and had gone through a course of judging distance. The range was unknown—the number of rounds unlimited, and the rate of fire “rapid.” The time was limited to one minute, and the firers were allowed to charge their magazines before starting. The targets were figures representinginfantry in line extended to two paces. The following was the result:
The small number of rounds fired by the Maxim was due to the necessity of picking up the range by firing small groups of five or ten shots and observing the strike of the bullets. What is most interesting is that although the rifles fired nearly twice as many shots as the machine gun, the latter made actually more hits, while the percentage of loss inflicted was 10 per cent. greater. The actual range was 1,000 yards. A similar experiment was carried out during the annual training for 1908 in the U.S.A. between 42 “sharpshooters” and a Maxim at the regulation “L” target. The ranges were 600, 800, 1,000 yards; the sharpshooters fired an average of 750 rounds at the three distances and made an average of 429 hits, which gave a collective figure of merit of 59·09. The machine gun also fired 750 rounds, made 601 hits, giving a collective figure of merit of 79·54, being 22·45 in favour of the machine gun. The troops were armed with new rifles, and fired the new “S” bullet, while the machine gun used the old pattern ammunition and a barrel that had fired at least 7,000 shots. The gun squad had no previous practice at this target, and the gun was fired by different men at the several ranges. The collective fire of the troopwas “slow aimed,” while the fire of the machine gun was “rapid continuous” for the number of rounds at each range. The machine gun took 30 seconds to fire 250 shots at each range, or a quarter that of the troop.[1]
The two experiments are particularly interesting, as showing how closely the results agree, although the conditions are dissimilar in one respect: viz. that in the first case the number of rounds was unlimited and the result had to be obtained within one minute; while in the second case time was unlimited, but the number of rounds fired by each was the same. The result of the two experiments show that both in accuracy and rapidity a machine gun is much superior to 42 picked shots, whether firing the same number of rounds at known ranges or firing an unlimited number of shots in a given time at an unknown range. We shall not be wrong, then, if we say that a machine gun is at least equal to 50 rifles in fire value,[2]but there are other factors to be considered as well as fire effect in determining its tactical value, and it is in these other factors that machine guns are so far superior to riflemen as to make a reliable estimate of their relative value almost impossible; these factors are: (1) Mobility; (2) Visibility; (3) Vulnerability.
Mobility.—The mobility of the infantry soldier is limited to the rate at which he can march, whichon the battlefield is about 100 yards a minute or less than three-and-a-half miles an hour. Doubling may be left out of the question, as it quickly reduces fire efficiency to a minimum. An experiment made in the Austrian Army showed that the percentage of hits which was 76·5 per cent. after an advance in quick time, fell to 51 per cent. after doubling.[3]The mobility of the machine gun will depend almost entirely on the way it is carried, and must not be judged by any particular carriage which may happen to be in use for the time being in our own service. A short description of these mountings and their method of transport will be found in Chapter IX., but none of them are entirely satisfactory.
The infantry carriages are heavy, clumsy, and conspicuous, and are the least mobile of all; they can hardly be moved out of a walk without risk, and Marks III. and IV. cannot come into action without first unharnessing the mule or horse, and they then have to be dragged into position by the whole detachment—thus presenting a most conspicuous and vulnerable target at the moment when least desired and when concealment and invisibility are essential to tactical success.[4]In the German Official Account of the late Boer War, issued by the General Staff, is the following criticism of this carriage:
“Both sides have machine guns, but the rather clumsy mountings of those used by theBritish offered too high a target, and so prevented their being advanced from position to position during the attack.”
The tripod mounting, which is light and inconspicuous, is carried with the gun on a limbered wagon; but the advantages of its lightness and portability are almost neutralised by being carried on a wagon, thus reducing its mobility by confining it to ground suitable for wheeled vehicles.
If used on a pack-saddle the difficulty of managing a led animal on foot in the stress of battle may become insuperable, and moving the gun in and out of action is entirely dependent on the docility of the pack-animal. The gun weighs anything from 40 to 60 lb., while the mountings need not weigh more than 34 lb. The combined weight of a gun and mounting should never exceed 120 lb. and can be as little as 74 lb.
In whatever way it is decided to carry the gun, it is asine quâ nonthat it must be at least as mobile as horse artillery. There is no reason why it should not be as mobile as cavalry, and the choice remains between a pack-horse with a mounted detachment or a galloping carriage; and the former is in every way preferable, principally because it can carry the gun and ammunition across any country, and can come into action in less than 30 seconds on an adjustable tripod, which can be carried by hand into any position and presents a very small, inconspicuous target.
The majority of foreign countries have adopted pack transport for their machine guns. It is desirable with infantry and absolutely essential with cavalry. A suitable saddle is, of course, indispensable, and strong spiral springs to the hooks which hold the gun and tripod on either side will entirely prevent horses from straining their backs when galloping across country or jumping obstacles with the guns. These hooks must be leather-covered and made to fit the gun exactly, and, in order to do away with the present cumbersome straps and buckles, they should have a hinged attachment to close over the gun and lock automatically in such a way as to admit of its being opened by a single movement when it is required to dismount the gun. The Swiss and the Americans have permanently adopted pack transport for the machine guns with their cavalry, which are able to accompany them over any country without detriment to either horses or guns; and in the American army the average time for a well-trained cavalry machine-gun detachment to go into action front, from mounted formation, unpack, and set up the guns, load, aim, and open fire, is 25 seconds; while at the departmental meeting for 1908 the machine guns of the 10th Cavalry, from the halt in line,moved forward in section column at a gallop for 200 yards and went into action and fired a blank shot in 31 seconds.[5]
This brings us to the second factor—Visibility.It is absolutely necessary for the successful tactical employment of machine guns that they should be as inconspicuous as possible when in action; the gun itself is a very small object when close to the ground, and its visibility will depend almost entirely on the nature of mounting and its adaptability for use behind cover of varying heights. All our infantry carriages are so conspicuous as to be quite unconcealable except in defence, the wheels being 4 ft. 8 in. in diameter and the gun axis 3 ft. 6 in. above the ground. The Mark IV. tripod is the handiest and least conspicuous of the mountings at present in use in our service, and although it weighs 48 lb. it can be carried into almost any position and easily concealed. It can be adjusted to fire at any desired height between 14½ and 30 in. above the ground level, and consequently can be used from behind any suitable cover.
Vulnerability.—The question of vulnerability would appear at first to depend entirely on visibility; or, in other words, on the target presented to the enemy’s fire, but this is only true to a certain extent. To obtain the minimum vulnerability it is of course necessary to have the gun as low and inconspicuous as possible, because the less it can be seen and the better cover it can obtain, the more difficult it will be to locate and hit. But the true vulnerability of the gun in comparison with infantry lies in the amount of front they occupy respectively; or in other words, the breadth of the target exposed to theenemy and the percentage of loss they can each sustainwithout their fire effect being reduced. Infantry will never again fight in two ranks in civilised warfare, and the closest formation possible for a firing line is one pace per man; 50 men will therefore occupy a front of, roughly, 50 yards; in other words, the target presented to the enemy is 50 yards in breadth, and, provided the elevation is correct, shots striking anywhere within this 50 yards will be effective. The machine gun, however, only occupies a front of from 4 ft. to 5 ft. 2 in., or1/25ththe front offered by infantry having equal fire effect. It is on this point that the wonderful tactical possibilities of the machine gun rests:the maximum of rifle fire from the minimum of front. It is obvious that 10 per cent. of casualties in the infantry firing line reduce the fire effect by just that amount, while from 30 to 40 per cent. will probably silence its fire altogether or render it ineffective. The machine gun, on the other hand, is unaffected by even 50 per cent. of loss, while it can suffer 80 per cent. of loss without diminishing its fire effect, though such a loss would of course cause it to lose its mobility and seriously affect the morale of the gunners. A machine-gun detachment consists of from 16 to 24 men, but only two of them actually work the gun, and one man alone can fire the gun once it is in action, the second man merely assisting him with the ammunition, etc., but he is not absolutely necessary to the firing of the gun. Thus we see that the killing of the gunneronly causes a momentary cessation of fire until another man takes his place, when the fire is resumed without loss of intensity, accuracy, or concentration.
We are now in a position to form an accurate estimate of the potentialities of the machine gun and its true tactical value as compared with infantry, and we find:
Before discussing their place in battle and tactical use it will be necessary to say a few words on the best methods of grouping the guns and organising their detachments and the training of the personnel in peace for the duties they will have to perform in war. In our service two machine guns are issued to each regiment of cavalry and battalion of infantry, and the detachment consists of:
This section of two guns is therefore the smallest tactical unit, and the officer in command is solely responsible for the training and efficiency of his section. It is therefore absolutely essential that the machine-gun section commander should be a subaltern of not less than three years’ service, specially selected for his keenness, efficiency, and self-reliance, who has passed the examination “C” for promotion, and who holds the special machine-gun certificate from a School of Musketry. A “destroyer” in the Royal Navy is commanded by a very junior officer, but he is most carefully selected for similar qualities to those mentioned, and is in addition required to possess the necessary professional qualifications—consequently it is a command much sought after, and competition enables the authorities to appoint the pick of the service and thus obtain the maximum efficiency where efficiency is the essence of successful employment in war. The best and nothing but the best is necessary to the successful employment of machine guns, and the importance of obtaining the very best officers as section commanders is so great that there is reason to doubt the utility of having machine guns at all if they are not commanded and handled by those who are in every way expert in their use.
In order to enable machine-gun sections to be trained in tactics and to co-operate with larger units in war, it is essential that they should be trained under a senior officer during peace. The late Colonel Henderson said of the Volunteersin Mexico: “The ideal of the battle is a combined effort directed by a well-trained leader: as individuals they fought well; as organised bodies capable of manœuvring under fire and of combined effort, they proved to be comparatively worthless.” This is precisely the case of regimental machine guns. It is easy enough to use a section or even a single gun apart from its battery should occasion require, but it is impossible to improvise a battery from a number of separate sections. It is therefore essential before attempting the tactical training of machine guns, much less their tactical use, to organise them in batteries during peace. For this purpose it is suggested that when a battalion is brigaded with others, either for administration or training, the six or eight guns should be formed into one or two batteries, under a selected field officer, who would be solely responsible for their peace training and tactical efficiency, and who would command them on manœuvres and on service. There would be little or no innovation in this, as our regimental signallers are at present trained and commanded on similar lines under the divisional signalling officer. A cavalry brigade under the present organisation (1909) would have one battery of six guns, and an infantry brigade two batteries of four guns each. The batteries of a Division would be commanded by the divisional machine-gun commander. While such organisation would in no way prevent the regimental machine-gun section being used with its own unit as atpresent, it would ensure a very high standard of tactical training, and enable the Divisional General to have a splendid reserve in his own hands for use at the critical moment of the fight as mobile as cavalry, in fire action more powerful than infantry, occupying the smallest possible front, yet capable of delivering a storm of some 10,000 bullets a minute with the maximum of accuracy and concentration.
The tactics in this book are based on the understanding that the machine guns are trained on this system, and that they are mounted on light, adjustable tripods and carried on trained pack-horses with the entire detachment mounted.
The failure of machine guns is due to two principal causes: (1) Insufficient training in working the guns. (2) Improper tactical employment.
It will be obvious that unless the gun can be depended upon to open fire with certainty and accuracy, and maintain it continuously without jamming or mechanical failure, it is useless to consider its tactical employment. The mechanism of the Maxim is somewhat complicated and delicate, and depends for its proper working upon the exact adjustment of each part; but no more so than any other piece of modern machinery—it is far less complicated and certainly far less delicate than the modern motor-car. Indeed, the comparison is analogous in several respects, as both require highly trained operators to ensure their smooth and continuous working, and each individual machine, whethergun or motor, has its own peculiarities and requires special study to obtain the best results. Both are capable of hard and constant employment for long periods, without breakdown or failure, in the hands of an expert.
No one would think for one moment of engaging a chauffeur for a high-class motor-car who had less than six months’ training and experience, and who was not capable of stripping and adjusting the motors and effecting minor repairs. It would be difficult to find a machine-gun detachment with a single man who possessed even these minimum qualifications. Apart from the mechanical knowledge it must be remembered that the man who fires the gun, known as No. I. in our service, has in his own hands the fire from 50 rifles, and on his own judgment and skill as a shot will entirely depend the effectiveness or otherwise of this fire; it stands to reason therefore that he should be chosen primarily for his good shooting, but, in addition to his skill in aiming, he must be a good judge of distance and possess considerable intelligence, initiative, and self-reliance; for although he will usually receive orders as to target, range, rate of fire, and the moment for opening or ceasing fire, it will often happen that he has to use his own judgment in these very important matters.
As the gun is generally required to move and come into action independently of other troops, it must find its own scouts, who not only have to safeguard it from surprise when moving, but must be trained to select good positions whenceit can come into action. For this reason the men of the detachment must be trained scouts.
To summarise:
(1) Only marksmen should be chosen.
(2) Trained scouts should be given the preference.
(3) The whole detachment must be trained as range-finders and scouts.
(4) The whole detachment must be proficient in judging distance.
(5) Only strong men should be selected.
The strength of a machine-gun detachment is given in Chapter IX. With the tripod mountings and pack transport the bestworkingstrength for a machine-gun section will be found to be the following:—
1 officer, 1 sergeant, 2 corporals, and 20 privates—that is, 1 N.C.O. and 10 men to each gun. It is almost superfluous to say that the whole detachment must be trained to work and fire the gun, and should have a very thorough knowledge of its parts and mechanism, and be experts at remedying failures and effecting minor repairs. Until the whole detachment are so trained and can detect the cause of any failure instantly and remedy the same in the minimum time required, it is useless to attempt tactical training in the field. The preliminary training will take from three to six months, according to the ability of the instructor and the time available daily for work.
It will be found that certain men of the detachment are far more skilful in laying andfiring the gun than others, and it is undoubtedly sound to specially train these men as gun-layers and to permanently allot to the two best layers the duties of Nos. 1 and 2 (i.e.the firer and his assistant). This should be the post of honour and coveted accordingly, and the two best gun-layers should be awarded a distinguishing badge. As no badge is authorised by our regulations, a lance stripe might be given to the best No. 1 of each gun.
In training the men of the section in the preliminary details of working the guns, the following points may be found of use. First frame a course of instruction for each day which will give systematic and progressive individual instruction in the following points: mechanism, name and use of every part, the working of the mechanism, care of gun, stripping and fitting, loading and firing; spare-part box, the name of each of its contents and recognition of every partwhen out of the box; failures, their recognition and remedy; gun-laying and firing, co-operation between layer, loader, and observer. This course should last at least three months, provided not less than two hours a day are available. Drills may be combined with preliminary instruction at the end of the first month, and must aim at extreme quickness in dismounting the gun and openingaimedfire and remounting the gun again. The chief points in the preliminary training are thatallthe detachment areequallyinstructed. Training on the 20-yard range in barracks should take place during the thirdmonth, and special targets should be used to teach laying the gun, slow use of elevating gear and combined sights, traversing fire, fire control, rapid change of target, indirect fire. During this short-range practice the failures should be practically demonstrated, and firing on the range should never take place without making a few artificial failures to test the efficiency of the detachment. These failures should be introduced by the officer himself without the knowledge of the detachment, and should be so arranged as to occur naturally while firing. They should be timed by him in each case, and the record time for the remedy of each failure posted up in the barrack-room with the man’s name. Artificial failures can easily be made by filing round the base of a cartridge so that it is torn off when fired; by loosening a bullet in a cartridge, by slightly flattening a cartridge so as to cause it to jam in the chamber, by wedging a cartridge in the belt, by introducing a blank cartridge, and by repacking the asbestos with dry packing. It will be found that by making two or three such jams every time the gun is taken out to fire the detachment will soon become expert in recognising and remedying failures.
The men should be taught that failures may be divided into two classes, viz.avoidableandunavoidable. The occurrence of an avoidable failure should be looked upon as a disgrace to the firer. Theunavoidablefailures so seldom occur that they are negligible.
Theavoidablefailures are those due to (1) Fuzee spring adjustment. (2) Want of oil. (3) Dirt. (4) Want of water. (5) Bad packing. (6) Damaged ammunition. (7) Faults in feed due to badly filled, new, or damaged belts. Each machine gun will be found to work best with a certain weight of fuzee spring which can only be found by trial, and this weight will change from time to time as the gun wears. The machine gunner cannot be considered fit for further training until he has become so familiar with his gun that he can instantly tell by the sound if it is working at its best; just as a chauffeur knows at once if his engines are running perfectly, and can instantly detect the slightest defect and make the necessary adjustment of the spark, petrol, or oil to ensure smooth running. The unavoidable failures are so few and rare that they will seldom be met with, and can be quickly remedied, except the breaking of an important part. Failures due to defective ammunition are extremely rare provided ordinary precautions are taken to avoid placing damaged cartridges in the belt. A breakage in any part of the lock can be remedied in a few seconds by substituting the spare lock which should always beon the gunin action. The breaking of any other part of the gun will be an accident of rare occurrence and, provided the gun is properly inspected before use, may be more properly classified under accidents than failures. A modern machine gun in the hands of experts should never jam, while failure ofautomatic fire will be rare and momentary. Until this standard has been reached a machine-gun detachment cannot be considered fit to begin tactical training. The Japanese in the late war were obliged to improvise the detachments for their hastily acquired machine guns; and Captain Matsuda, who commanded the machine guns with Prince Kanin’s Cavalry Brigade, says: “Whereas at the battle of Peu-si-lau on October 12th we had some trouble after firing 1,800 rounds, on March 3rd the guns of one section after firing 11,000 rounds continued to work perfectly.The gunners were absolutely familiar with their weapons.” Lieut.-General Sir C. J. Burnett, K.C.B., remarked: “Like a good chauffeur, the Japanese machine gunner knows all the peculiarities of the weapon he fires and can tell almost by instinct when anything is going wrong.” It is almost superfluous to say that the men of the machine-gun detachment must never be changed or taken for any other work. Nothing has been said of the necessity for training the detachment in the all-important duties of scouting, range-taking, and horsemastership during this period, but of course they are vital to ultimate success and must not be neglected.
Range practices will follow, and the peculiarities of the gun and its fire effect must be carefully taught during this period. The use of traversing and sweeping fire, combined sights, and observation of fire and the use of deliberate fire in imitation of rifle fire should be perfectedduring range practice, so that they may be carried out under service conditions during the field practices which follow.
The tactical training should commence as soon as the field practices have been completed. The course for this should be carefully mapped out beforehand and should be based upon the principles given in Chapter II. and in the chapter dealing with the arm to which the section belongs, and should culminate in divisional manœuvres. This course might follow the following headings:
(1) Drill over rough country.
(2) Selecting a position.
(3) Selecting alternate positions.
(4) Taking up a position.
(5) Screening guns.
(6) Making artificial cover.
(7) Mutual support (movement and fire).
(8) Indirect fire.
(9) A battery working on a wide front in mutual support.
No drill for a battery has been authorised yet (1909), but the simple formations of a troop as laid down inCavalry Trainingwill be found admirably suited for a battery of machine guns on pack-horses with mounted detachment.
The writer is fully aware of the condition under which machine guns are officered and manned at present, and that a great error has been made in estimating the time required to train the detachments. The Germans, who have studied the question of machine guns with athoroughness far greater than that of any other nation, have made them a separate arm of their service, under trained and permanent gunners, and they evidently consider that only specialists can attain the necessary efficiency.
However this may be, it is certain that the officer, whether commanding a section or the batteries of a Division, must be a specialist and a highly trained one.
An officer commanding a company of Russian machine guns in the Russo-Japanese War, writing his experiences to theNouskin Invalid, says:
“I have spent three years in studying machine guns, and consider myself proficient in their use, but I have always been convinced that the requisite skill and knowledge cannot be acquired in ashortertime.”
The commanding officer who at present looks upon his machine guns in much the same light as he regards any other portion of his first-line transport—a necessary encumbrance taking away an officer and several men from their proper duties, and a source of anxiety when the regiment goes into action—would regard them with very different feelings if assured of their efficiency and relieved of the responsibility for their tactics and safety. That this is possible without altering the present organisation has been shown; that it is absolutely essential for their efficient use in war it is hoped to demonstrate in the chapters that follow.