Machine-Gun Tactics

by R. V. K. Applin

The siege of Port Arthur by the Japanese and its defence by the Russians have thrown an entirely new light on Fortress Warfare. Although the main principles of the attack and defence remain unchanged and the primary armament of both is still the heavy artillery, the improvement of small-arms, their great range, and rapid fire have materially altered the nature of the fighting in the later stages and during the assault. The result of this has been to prolong the defence after the fortress has been dismantled by the bombardment, and to render the storming of a single breach an operation no longer possible in war. The machine gun is largely responsible for this; and when high-explosive shells have destroyed the fortifications and disabled the artillery, the stormers will be met by rifle fire and that of machine guns concealed among the ruins of the works. The intensity and accuracy of this fire will be such as to result frequently in the complete repulse of the assault, and even when the glacis of a work has been occupied it may be several weeks before the capture of the work itself is effected.

Machine guns are particularly suited to the defence of fortresses during this period, and Sir G. S. Clarke, in his book Fortification, says: “The fire of the Maxim gun, delivering about 700 bullets a minute,[38] can be directed by one man, who need not show more than his head (easily shielded) above the parapet, the feed being tended by another man completely under cover. In the special qualities of the machine gun there is a distinct advantage to the defence, arising from the fact that an intense fire over a particular area can be suddenly developed by a few men occupying a small space. This, in the case of night attacks especially, is a valuable quality. At Port Arthur the Russians in some cases employed machine guns with good effect, concealing them so that their fire came as a surprise to the assaulting parties. Their portability renders them well suited for the defence of positions, and they will doubtless form an important element in the armament of fortresses.”

Speaking of the difficulty of “storming” the modern fortress, the same author says: “The vive force school proposed therefore—on paper—to shell them heavily and then storm, trusting to incomplete organisation and general unpreparedness. There is little or nothing in military history to bear out the views of this school, and modern experience is entirely against them. Only one such attempt was made in 1870-1, against the indifferent provisional works of Belfort, garrisoned mainly by Gardes Mobiles—and this failed completely. The tremendous assaults on the defences of Port Arthur may have been partially inspired by the German teaching; but the results were discouraging, although the devoted and sustained gallantry of the Japanese could not be surpassed and probably would not be equalled by any European army.”

The machine guns of a fortress should be divided into two classes—the stationary and the mobile guns. To the former will be allotted the defence of distinct portions of the permanent works, and they will be provided with cone and parapet mountings,[39] the former being fixed and the latter capable of being moved within the work to which it is allotted.

The mobile guns should be mounted on a light tripod and carried in a low-wheeled handcart, or they may be mounted on a very light two-wheeled carriage capable of being drawn by one man and having wheels of small track, which can move over the narrowest roads in the fortress. These mobile guns should not be allotted to any particular work, but to the garrison other than those within the forts, for use in repelling assaults and making counter-attacks.

We will deal first with the stationary machine guns. It will not be necessary to provide a machine gun for each cone mounting, as the guns can be easily carried from one cone to another as required. Shields should be used with all stationary mountings, but must be detachable, and should not be placed in position until required, as they indicate the situation of the gun and are easily destroyed by artillery.

The positions for machine-gun mountings in a fort must depend on the size and construction of the work, the nature of the outer defences, and particularly on the supporting works in the immediate vicinity. Positions commanding the glacis and the entanglements, on salients of works and enfilading ditches, and any dead ground where the enemy may effect a lodgment, are suitable. Counterscarp galleries at the angles of works flanking the ditch should invariably have machine-gun positions, with a special loophole, long and shallow, to enable them to sweep a wide area with fire.

The selection of the positions for machine guns in permanent works belongs to the art of the engineer, and there is little that can be said of their tactical employment. Fire should be reserved until the attack has reached close range, and then only opened when the target is large and vulnerable. Guns must be concealed by every possible device and all the loopholes must be blinded. By night all guns should be mounted and trained to sweep ground by which the enemy must approach; when search-lights are not in use, the elevation should be checked by the use of a clinometer and the amount of traverse may be shown by chalk lines on the parapet, or white stones placed in two rows. In this way accurate fire may be brought to bear on the assault on the darkest night, and many night attacks were repulsed with machine-gun fire by the Russians at Port Arthur. Sir G. S. Clarke says: “The front faces of the forts were retrenched in some cases by obstacles and a line of field parapet across the terre-plein. These, with the assistance of machine guns brought up at the last moment, enabled assaults of the breaches formed by the mines to be repulsed.” Again, “The Russians used machine guns with effect, frequently concealing them in light blindages, so that their positions could not be detected until they were brought to bear upon an attacking force.”

The war correspondent Mr. F. Villiers, in his book Three Months with the Besiegers, speaking of the storming of West Panlung Redoubt,[40] says: “The death-dealing machine guns of the Russians in the casemates of the fort are playing ghastly havoc—such havoc that only a score or more of Ouchi’s battalions reached the first ditch of the fence, where they threw themselves panting into the grateful cover of the pits their own artillery have torn.”