Before the age of massive armoured vehicles and long range missiles. Before the change from static box-like warfare to the use of guerrilla[1]-like urban warfare. During the First World War the fighting had come to a stalemate. Both sides had entrenched themselves into the ground and surrounded themselves with barbed wire. The army’s answer to this deadlock ... were machine guns and snipers. The question is what were the successes and failures of these weapons. In order to fully answer this question, we have to put the weapons into the historical context and time period.
The evidence supports the fact that both the machine gun and the sniper played a major role in the First World War. Although they also had their disadvantages. The machine gun, was a weapon that could fire many rounds a minute and thus claimed many lives. However to have these capabilities it was heavy and so, immobile. Regardless machine guns proved to be efficient and useful on the battle front, being able to cover a wider range, and devastate the opposing forces. This is further endorsed by William G. Dooly Jr.[2] who stated that “Whenever the French infantry advance, their whole front is at once regularly covered with shrapnel and the unfortunate men are knocked over like rabbits. They are brave and advance time after time to the charge through appalling fire, but so far it has been to no avail… The officers are splendid; they advance about 20 yards ahead of their men as calmly as though on parade, but so far I have not seen one of them get more than 50 yards without being knocked over.” His statement proves that machine guns were indeed an effective and lethal weapon against the stagnant trench warfare.
Whereas the machine guns were quiescent and motionless the snipers, on the other hand were lighter to carry and could be manned by a single person. This allowed for greater manoeuvrability and versatility. Snipers had a longer range then machine guns and therefore they were advantageous against soldiers within their trenches. The need to constantly be alert and the fear of getting shot, sapped away at the moral of the opposition. Snipers were used to assassinate the officers as to create chaos within the ranks.
Both weapons also had their similarities aswell, accuracy for one. The machine gun although some bullets might be wasted, still had the tendency to hit at least one or more soldiers. The sniper too, had great accuracy often shooting anything that moved behind the enemy parapet. Snipers often kept track of their kills, which sometimes went into the triple figures. Likewise machine guns were often manned by a group of up to six soldiers, among which they shot, fed the bullets, provided the cartridges, and carried the clips. However all six would be capable of actually firing the weapon. The sniper could be commandeered by a lone soldier but was usually accompanied by a spotter[3]. They could both handle the sniper rifle in the event of another’s death. As provided above these weapons caused great chaos and destruction and made the Great War[4] a bloody war indeed.
[1]- the use of hit-and-run tactics by small, mobile groups of irregularforces operating in territory controlled by a hostile, regular force.
[2]- British officer who survived WWI and became a writer
[3]-a member of a sniper team, who looks for possible targets and changes in landscape. This role can often be interchangeable with the sharpshooter
[4]- the name given to the First World War
A. Plan Of Investigation
The purpose of this investigation is to establish the extent to which the weaponry, namely machine guns and snipers, were a success or a failure during the First World War. The main body of the investigation focuses on how the weapons were used and their advantages or disadvantages. The machine guns were effective as they had the range, the firepower, and the accuracy needed for trench warfare. The sniper rifle was also a success in my opinion because of its long range, accuracy, and its versatility. The background on the guns, their orgins and their purpose will also be analyzed. Finally two of the sources used in this paper, “First World War”(website) and All Quiet On the Western Front, will be evaluated according to their purpose, value, and limitations.
No comments:
Post a Comment