Were British infantry trained to shoot attacking aircraft with rifles?
Upvote:1
Don't forget that early in WW2, a lot of WW1 thinking was still current, both officially and with individual officers/NCOs.
In WW1, rifles were used against aircraft; there were even special adaptations. Of course that was generally meant to be massed rifles. Th expected targets were also very slow aircraft by WW2 or even modern standards, but aircraft got a lot faster just prior to WW2 and armies always seem to train to fight the last war.
Coming to WW2, there were devices used to train riflemen in leading fast-moving targets, including (from their instructions) aircraft. This demonstrates that aimed rifle fire was still expected in an AA role.
Upvote:3
To answer the 1st question:
Yes, this, has probably happened sometimes at Dunkirk since there were German airplanes and British riflemen there. Given their numbers, this might have been a frequent behaviour. However, this does not mean that this was the main issue that German airplanes had to face at Dunkirk.
The movie Dunkirk conveys the false idea of an empty beach on which soldiers were waiting passively, under fire, to be evacuated. The reality of Dunkirk is that:
- Beaches were full of men and material, including anti aircraft guns and machine guns that would be more effective than rifles at shooting down aircrafts
- There was heavy land fighting at the beginning especially, with the Germans trying to break through. They were repelled by French and British, and thus relied on the Luftwaffe
Upvote:6
Well, the question in your title is not the question in the body...
But, for the question in your title, certainly the German army and air force wanted to do harm to those soldiers on the beach at Dunkirk. Of course. War.
The question of soldiers' obligations to (or prohibition from) shooting at airplanes attacking them is different. Given the general ineffectiveness of shooting rifles at airplanes (both inability to judge lead, and the small calibre making just very small holes in big sheets of metal), it'd be more sensible for people under air attack to get down and cover their heads.
Again, there are two fundamental reasons why shooting rifles at airplanes is not effective. (And, no, it's not so much that you'll miss and the slug will come down again...) First, it is insanely hard to judge lead time. This is why already anti-aircraft batteries operated primarily by humans do not hit so many planes. Second, even with large-ish calibre rifles, the little holes they'd make in nearly all parts of an airplane would be harmless. Sure, there are some spots that would really matter, but not so many... especially considering the typical armor-ing of vulnerable parts thinking of larger-calibre attacks.
But, sure, why not shoot at the enemy? I might not be able to resist, either, even though I have an idea of the probable futility. :)
Upvote:15
I must admit that I'm answering this without specific knowledge of British WWII regulations, but here is an American manual of the era, check page 29 (by page number) / page 36 (of the PDF document). Troops under air attack would be expected to fire their small arms when ordered fire, or to hold fire when there were no such orders.
The alternative to shooting at aircraft is not shooting at aircraft. Reasons not to shoot at aircraft:
- Shooting at aircraft may reveal the position of the ground unit. Not an issue in a besieged port.
- Bullets fired up will come down, a mile or two away, and the shooter cannot effectively judge what they will hit. WWII military rifles had a caliber similar to medium machine guns, and those were used for indirect fire with appropriate sights.
- Much ammunition will be expended to little direct effect.
On the other hand, there may also be good reasons to shoot:
- A bullet might bring the aircraft down. A low-probability event for any one rifleman, but with many soldiers firing the odds add up. Medium machine guns were used for air defense at the time, and a rifle platoon could put as much lead in the air as a machine gun. For that matter, British fighters carried .303 machine guns, too. They would fire more bullets than any one soldier, of course.
- Many bullets, or just their muzzle flashes, might cause the pilot to abort the attack run, or fire from less-than-optimum range.
The firing pattern prescribed for the machine guns of the American quartermaster company would basically fill the air with bullets and hope that the aircraft runs into one, by pure chance. Individual weapons would simply add to the density of fire.
Upvote:30
To answer the second part of your question, this WW2 British Army training film includes details of how ground fire from infantry should be directed at enemy aircraft. As you can see at about 20 minutes in, it shows section fire against a dive bomber. It gives no information about the effectiveness of such a defence, but it was certainly British Army doctrine to engage aircraft in such a fashion.
More post
- 📝 Are there any examples of people being able to predict the consequences of communication revolutions?
- 📝 What is the date of this photograph of a woman riding a horse sidesaddle?
- 📝 What are the "blue books" of Mr. Balfour?
- 📝 Looking for a symbol for Southern USA communism
- 📝 At the time of her death, were there any surviving witnesses to the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II?
- 📝 Did pirates call themselves pirates?
- 📝 Why acquire real vs forged signatures?
- 📝 Did France & Italy continue to develop and manufacture sophisticated military hardware once under German control?
- 📝 Why are the ground floors windows of northern Italian palazzi often barred up?
- 📝 How do large landowners affect a state?
- 📝 DNA results of Amarna dead?
- 📝 What set Checkpoint Charlie apart from the other border checkpoints in Berlin during the Cold War?
- 📝 Who are these people in this satirical cartoon of the Congress of Verona?
- 📝 Is biblical Joseph story historically valid?
- 📝 Did Bamako exist as a major settlement of trade and culture during the Mali empire?
- 📝 Are there any British peers whose surname matches their title?
- 📝 What was the reason why Americas didn't take to buckwheat as a crop?
- 📝 Why wasn't Akkadian translated into other more common languages?
- 📝 Nazis and Khazar Theory of Ashkenazi Jews
- 📝 Why couldn't Japan crack the Navajo Code in WW2, when they captured a Navajo native speaker?
- 📝 What possible uniform with decoration is my ancestor from New South Wales in the early 1900's wearing?
- 📝 How did Romans organise their files?
- 📝 Why Italy during the interwar years and ww2 didn't devote adequate resources to develop weapons against armored fight vehicles (AFVs) including tanks?
- 📝 Would colonial Maryland have been tolerant to all religions?
- 📝 Was there ever any organization of thieves or pickpockets?
- 📝 Manichaeism almost becoming state religion of Roman Empire
- 📝 What transit restrictions were in place in Occupied Germany limiting military and civilian movement between the four occupation zones?
- 📝 Why were Norwegian crews flying for Bomber Command paid more than other RAF crews?
- 📝 What exactly do eyewitness testimonies say about Hitler's behavior during the Munich Putsch?
- 📝 Did the Romans have winter uniforms?
Source: stackoverflow.com
Search Posts
Related post
- 📝 Were British infantry trained to shoot attacking aircraft with rifles?
- 📝 Were there ever wars/battles where infantry were given multiple rifles to speed up rate of fire?
- 📝 What percentage of British and American troops were involved in direct combat with enemy in World War II
- 📝 During the time of the British Mandate, who opposed the term "Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine" and who if any were OK with it being called that?
- 📝 In the "Christmas truce" of 1914 were there any football (soccer) matches between British and German troops?
- 📝 Why were British ships not of the same quality as French and Spanish ships until the latter part of the 18th century?
- 📝 What were the reasons that the British colonies in North America rebelled but not others?
- 📝 Why didn't the British Grand Fleet force an engagement with the German Imperial Navy in WW1?
- 📝 How heavily were the British taxing their American colonies?
- 📝 Why were troops with bayonets often effective against enemy cavalry even though the bayonet was a "secondary" weapon?
- 📝 Why were the British so reluctant to allow Jewish migration to Palestine?
- 📝 How come all the major WW1 rifles were bolt action?
- 📝 To what extent were Polynesians in contact with one-another before European contact?
- 📝 Why did so few militaries use semi automatic rifles as their standard issue infantry weapon?
- 📝 Were British fears of Russia using Afghanistan as a staging post for an invasion of India unfounded?
- 📝 What is the name and meaning of a World War 2 CCC Medal with both the Polish Eagle and British Statant Gardant Lion?
- 📝 Did a British civilian row across the channel and shoot 6 Luftwaffe pilots?
- 📝 Were Patton's and/or other generals' vehicles prominently flagged with stars (and if so, why)?
- 📝 How were the British and French armies invited into Belgium in 1914?
- 📝 Why was the British army so short of rifles after Dunkirk?
- 📝 Were there reasons for Japan to go to war with the US aside from the US owning Philippines?
- 📝 Was it not clear to the WWI allies that they were over-reaching with the treaty of Sevres?
- 📝 How many British navy officers were from lower classes at the end of 18th century?
- 📝 Were there concrete plans, 40-41, for Japan to attack Singapore/Indonesia, while avoiding a fight with the US?
- 📝 Were US exports in the early 1800s paid for with metal or with paper?
- 📝 Were the mongol army boots of 13th century lined with fur?
- 📝 What weapons were manufactured in India by the British forces which were used during world wars?
- 📝 Were there any battles in Continental Europe that were decided by "peasants with pitchforks?"
- 📝 In British heraldry, what happens when a woman with a coat of arms marries someone without?
- 📝 How were British personnel employed in the colonies after independence
