Landships II

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Chauchat, Americans etc.


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 2332
Date:
Chauchat, Americans etc.
Permalink   


I've opened this up as the Madsen thread seemed to be drifting this way. So new readersmight want to look at the last few postings to that thread first.


There seems to have been something odd about the way in which the American forces ended up with French machine guns. See the following two quotes from Woodward


"When the first American divisions arrived in France in June 1917 they were equipped with the Benet-Mercie machine gun but the French offered to re arm them with the heavy Hotchkiss and the Chauchat. The US Marines were particularly incensed at this: on arrival they were the only American force armed with the Lewis gun but on being attached to various Army units their Lewis guns were taken from them and they were given the inefficient Chauchat instead."


"The French .. asked the Americans for Vickers guns. The Americans obliged transfering 1,000 Colt-Vickers guns to the French and receiving Hotchkiss heavy machine guns in exchange, which went straight to Pershing's troops."


Now whilst the heavy Hotchkiss wasn't a bad gun the Vickers was probably better and between the Lewis and the Chauchat - well no contest. BTW the French were constantly pressing the British to increase the supply of Lewises to them  (for aircraft armament) one wonders what happened to the Marines' Lewises.



__________________
aka Robert Robinson Always mistrust captions


Lieutenant

Status: Offline
Posts: 64
Date:
Permalink   

The Benet-Mercie is our old friend the Hotchkiss Model 1909.


As the main need of the allies in 1917-18 was for manpower, the US sent over huge numbers of troops with very little in the way of heavy equipment, nearly all of which was provided by the French and British, who had plenty to spare.


Presumably the US Lewis guns were in 30-06 calibre so they wouldn't have been much use to anyone else.



__________________


Captain

Status: Offline
Posts: 93
Date:
Permalink   

At the risk of venturing into 'Freedom Fries' territory, there seems to be a pattern of unloading dreadful weapons on hapless allies. Giving the poor Italians the St Etienne MG was pretty sneaky too, though I think the Chauchat may have been even worse, especially when modified to take the US 30-06.

__________________


Corporal

Status: Offline
Posts: 21
Date:
Permalink   

Since the discussion has moved over here I will post my ponderings in this thread again :)

Here goes:

The Chauchat is notoriously known as one of the worst machine guns of all times. I wonder how truthfull that really is. I think that at least some of the critique has gotten worse based on the bad performance of the failed modifications of the Chauchat for the AEF.

At worldguns.com they say this about the Chauchat:
"Much maligned today, the CSRG (Chauchat) machine rifle was in fact the most manufactured automatic weapon of WWI, outnumbering every other machinegun made, by the Allies and the Central Powers. It was the world's first successful squad automatic - the ancestor of the modern assault rifle. One can recognise for the first time together all the classic attributes: the pistol grip, the inline stock, the large-capacity magazine, the fire selector, and the bipod. French and AEF CSRG Gunners formed the nucleus of the world's first Infantry machinequn-killer teams during World War I, using the Chaushat to such telling effect that many were awarded the highest decorations their countries could bestow. A well-reasoned, historical classic."

http://www.gunsworld.com/gun_mg/chauchat.htm

I also read an interesting post at the developers forum for the Half-Life WW1 modification "The Trenches", where one of the developers says this:
"... With the Chauchat (and trust me I've shot the weapon) it is all about body placement. You're going to get a damn beating if you attempt to fire it like a real rifle. When firing you have to offset the rifle and rest your cheek against the side of the rifle. (This is clearly why the sights were changed from the original Mle. 1912 Chauchat to the left-offset sights on the Mle. 1915.

As to the gun itself though, it isn't nearly as bad as many people claim. Most of the "horrific" accounts of the weapon come from highly-published exerpts about the Mle. 1918, which was never a standard issue weapon, and was unceremoniously dumped. (If you ever hear a story about soldiers dumping Chauchats, it stems from the Mle.1918 which would often times destroy it's own barrel recoil system), However there are a lot more first-hand sources becoming available on the Chauchat and clearing up the different myths and discrepencies about the weapon. I would suggest anybody who doesn't want to be a blind sheep going by the "History Channel" (I say that loosely) or any of the billions of second-hand sources to pick up a copy of Honor Bound: The Chauchat Machine Rifle by G. Demaison and Testing The War Weapons : Rifles And Light Machine Guns From Around The World by Timothy J. Mullin."


http://www.thetrenches.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3491&st=60

Of course the quality of the weapon suffered from its rushed production by the Sutter bicycle factory, but still, I wonder if the ciritique is entirely justified.


So I wonder if perhaps the justified claims about the Mle 1918 being utterly crap has partially made the original Chauchat sound _even worse_ than it is.

About the dumping of American Chauchats this can be read on Wikipedia:
"They received a mix of ones chambered for 8mm Lebel and ones designed for the US .30-06 caliber round. The idea was to simplify ammunition supply (they could share stocks of 8 mm), though it probably created more problems than it fixed since both types were still needed. The performance of the M1917 .30-06 Chauchat was even worse than the original Chauchat and not surprisingly it was soon unceremoniously dumped by the troops who used it. The .30-06 version used a box magazine rather than the semi-circle one."

I guess the boxed magazine one is the one that I've attached a diagram picture of.

Attachments
__________________
__________________ \________] Lest we forget [_________/


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 2332
Date:
Permalink   

Drader wrote:


. As the main need of the allies in 1917-18 was for manpower, the US sent over huge numbers of troops with very little in the way of heavy equipment, nearly all of which was provided by the French and British, who had plenty to spare. 

A myth I think. Certainly the problem of equiping the Americans (for example with heavy tanks)put serious strain on Britain and initially caused shortages in supply to the British army in the field (and crtically during the German 1918 offensive). The lack of battle experience of the American troops, made worse by some of the structural restrictions instituted by Pershing (which made it more difficult for them to take advantage of bitterly won Bitish experience and techniques) meant that American forces were only becoming fully effective by the second half of 1918 (having had to undergo many of the same bloody learning experiences that the British and French had gone through in 1914/15). The real effect of the American army (coupled with the growing effect of the Allied naval blockade) was to force Germany's hand as it was clear that if they didn't win the war in 1918 they would certainly loose it in 1919 when US war production was in full swing and the AEF had greater numbers of trained and experienced troops in the field. The 1918 German offensive was effectively a make or break effort (possibly analogous to the Ardennes offensive of WW2) and probably forced prematurely by the growing number of battle ready Americans
This should not be taken in any way as being diminishing the gallantry of the American soldier on the ground who displayed as much fortitude and courage as his French and British counterparts on the battlefield and often suffered a high casualty rate. However there are frequent accounts by British officers of Americans suffering unecessary casualties through their own or their commands sheer inexperience. The decimation of American MK V* tanks at the second Battle of Cambrai is a good example.  British liason officers at Chaeau Thierry were literaly moved to tears at the sight of American infantry advancing in line against German machine gun fire a tactial formation that both France and Britain had abandoned by the end of 1916 but was probably made necessary through lack of training and experience in moving masses of troops across broken ground under fire.

__________________
aka Robert Robinson Always mistrust captions


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 2332
Date:
Permalink   

After some digging I've come the following conclusions


1. The 'American' version was never used on active service. There are a number of references to it being dumped after trials.


"The American Expeditionary Force, awaiting delivery of their intended primary weapon, the Browning M1917 machine gun, intended to adopt the Chauchat as an interim measure, purchasing 34,000 in 1917.  In order to make the transition to the Browning easier the Chauchat was modified to use 0.30 inch ammunition.  However the French manufacturers used incorrect chamber measurements with the result that the weapons performed poorly.
In the event the AEF largely used French, i.e. unmodified, versions of the Chauchat rather than the U.S. model until the Browning became available."


http://chauchat.biography.ms/
"but when the Americans realized how deficient the M1917 .30-06 Chauchat was, it was unceremoniously dumped. The AEF used the French M1915 for the rest of the war."


2. That the Chauchat was abandoned after jamming is clear.

History of The 353rd Infantry Regiment
"Chauchats were issued instead of Browning automatic rifles and so on down the line. But with typical Yankee ingenuity, we proceeded to do the best we could with what we had at hand.
As soon as a Chauchat jammed, it was left behind for the pioneers to salvage."


3. References to US troops throwing jammed Chauchats therefore refer to the French nodel


4. The French offloaded the Chauchat on a number of countries

http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/LMG2.htm
Small number (15 or so) of Chauchat light machineguns had cumulated to hands of Finnish Armed Forces by end of Finnish Civil War in 1918. Certain photograph suggests that they may have been captured from the Russians, but some the Finns might have also received some from the Germans. At that time Finnish military wasn't terribly interested about them and year 1937 they were sold abroad. During Winter War Finnish military equipment shortage led to second coming of these dubious weapons, as France "generously donated" some 5,000 Chauchat light machineguns and 10 million rounds of ammunition for them to Finland. The weapons were delivered to Finland in February - March of 1940. This was so late that Chauchat were not issued to Finnish troops during Winter War, but during early part of Continuation War even some unfortunate front-line units got these issued as their light machineguns. At earliest possible moment they were replaced with captured Soviet light machineguns and were soon only used by home-front units and some field artillery units. After World War 2 Chauchat light machineguns remained warehoused until 1955 when selling them abroad begun, the last ones were sold to Interarmco in 1959 - 1960.

I have seen references to some Chauchats popping up in Vietnam so one wonders who Interarmco's customers were


5. Jamming wasn't the weapons only problem

History of The 353rd Infantry Regiment
"No one was able to make high score with the Chauchat. The targets looked like they had been hit by fragments of a shell; yet the men insisted they had aimed and held the same for each shot. The French instructors contended that the effect of this dispersion was even more destructive to the morale of the enemy than direct hits, but the American soldiers were never satisfied with the result on the range and distrusted the Chauchat in campaigns. "

6. There are suspicions that there was something iffy about the  American adoption of the Chauchat.



There are various (unsubstantiated) references to it being due to political considerations. The most serious being:


http://www.specialoperations.com
"During WWI, American troopers were issued a French light, automatic rifle, as part of an economic sweetheart deal with the French. The gun, called the CSRG (Chauchat), was notoriously unreliable, and that fact was well known by Americans and French alike. But, it was issued anyway, and we will never know how many Americans were needlessly killed as a result."


7. The Chauchat seems to fully deserve the title of worst machine gun



__________________
aka Robert Robinson Always mistrust captions


Corporal

Status: Offline
Posts: 21
Date:
Permalink   

You're right. Although, I still believe that many people mix the experiences of the .30-06 Chauchat with the Mle 1915 one so that the picture gets a bit skewed. You often hear about the americans "dumping" the weapon, which seems to be a reference to the .30-06 one. Although the "original" one was still bad and apparently got left behind when jamming.

I also wonder about the claim that some French Chauchat gunners got high awards and so forth. I don't know where that information is from.

__________________
__________________ \________] Lest we forget [_________/


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 2332
Date:
Permalink   

Martin wrote:


 I also wonder about the claim that some French Chauchat gunners got high awards and so forth. I don't know where that information is from.

I'd award any poor guy who got lumbered with this weapon on the battlefield  and still managed to fight on with all the ribbons and crosses around. Valour is not a direct function of the effectiveness of the weapons with which the soldier is equiped - often the reverse.

__________________
aka Robert Robinson Always mistrust captions


Corporal

Status: Offline
Posts: 21
Date:
Permalink   


Centurion wrote:

I'd award any poor guy who got lumbered with this weapon on the battlefield  and still managed to fight on with all the ribbons and crosses around. Valour is not a direct function of the effectiveness of the weapons with which the soldier is equiped - often the reverse.



Again, I agree to that.

This is the type of thing I mean:

"Some of the test reviews are just too much to swallow whole. I mean, who could think that the French Chauchat and its 16-round .30 U.S. counterpart (a cartridge that could literally shake the weapon apart) could be anything but a piece of junk, given the well-documented history and obvious design faults? The book shows a closeup photo of the Chauchaut magazine with its huge side cutouts, but there's not even a mention of what trench mud could do and did to cartridge feeding."

That is a quote from a customer review of a book at Amazon.com. Very often I see people refering only to "the Chauchat" and not separating between the terrible flawed attempt at US conversion that was made and the not _as_ bad original Chauchat.

This kind of disregard of specific versions of the weapon seems very common for the Chauchat, which is probably partly due to the confusing and mysterious cicumstances surrounding the AEF and the fact that they received Chauchats. Many American soldiers probably - of course - came home after the war and spoke of the horrible Chauchats that broke when fired - referring to the .30-06 conversion. At the same time the experiences from the original Chauchat was of course still bad, as it jammed and such, but might have gotten mixed up.

At least modern historians and amateur historians seem to not pay that much attention to the different versions.

__________________
__________________ \________] Lest we forget [_________/


Lieutenant-Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 197
Date:
The Chauchat.
Permalink   


Chauchat - like a lot of'new' kit I think - is a case of double benefit to good units & double wammy for bad. A great many of the problems came from woeful initial production (lack of Quality control etc etc).

The good units appear to have quickly developed the practice of disassembling and then finishing and reassembling - a much much better weapon was the outcome. The second is maintenance - most especially cleaning & keeping the weapon & magazines clean. Here the opensided magazine & the bolt arrangements & ergonomics of the weapon did make this much more important. Finally the magazine springs - one of the reasons for short bursts - the springs were often not strong enough or weakened quite quickly so the number 2 often aids the feed & recocking was common.

Note NO automatic weapon liked or was fully reliable in the conditions of WWI, the mud, the often marginal manufacture, questionable ammunition & frequently less than adequate training!


However plse see below extracted from a Great War Spearhead Digest.

"1. Honour Bound
Posted by: "Robert" robert.dunlop@infermed.com monk2002uk
Date: Tue Jun 5, 2007 2:12 am ((PDT))

Subtitled: The Chauchat Machine Rifle
By: Gerard Demaison, Yves Buffetaut

Fascinating book published in 1995. The authors have undertaken an
indepth analysis of the development and use of the French Chauchat
Machine Rifle. Lots of great pictures, but also some detailed
information about the effectiveness. As an illustration, the
following information relates to a questionnaire issued by Petain in
May 1917:

"Questionnaires were sent out to all French units. The weapons
covered included: M1907 St-Etienne MG, M1914 Hotchkiss MG, M1915
Chauchat, Modčle 1917 RSC autoloading rifle, the V-B rifle grenade,
hand grenades, and the 37mm Puteaux cannon.

The responses on the Chauchat included:

"16th Infantry Regiment:
...The CSRGs have been used to defend conquered trenches and have
made a major contribution in breaking counter-attacks; walking fire
was not used.
Several guns functioned normally and gave excellent service; a few
had stoppages what were nearly all caused by deformations of the
magazines at the lips.

19th Infantry Regiment:
...The CSRG has been used in the offensive, where its handling is
difficult, and in the defensive where it very effectively played the
role of machine guns.
...Obtained results were very satisfactory, particularly in the
defensive. Observed problems: when it is raining and the terrain is
muddy, the CSRG becomes dirty and fouled and a certain number of
these guns are put out of action.

34th and 49th Regiments:
...After having given excellent results during the actions of May 4
and 5, by intense flanking fire, these weapons were less effective
because of stoppages, in spite of all the precautions. It is
necessary that this weapon should be cleaned and oiled during
combat...
Also, since the Assistant Gunners are overloaded, one of the
riflemen should help transport the ammunition.

62nd Infantry Regiment:
The CSRG teams are overloaded; the men have difficulty keeping up.
The Backpacks and the ammunition should be carried by carts or
mules.
The CSRGs magazine is not solid enough and often malfunctions.

64th Infantry Regiment:
Very effective in the defensive, for flanking and direct fire.
In the offensive, walking fire is used in approaching the position.
The weapon has given entire satisfaction; several thousand rounds
have been fired between April 19 and 30, 1917.
The following two problems have been observed: the lips of the
magazine become deformed, giving feeding stoppages, and the
cartridge guide rod breaks at its rear extremity.

65th Infantry Regiment
...The magazine spring often fails... A protection system is needed
to keep dirt out of the radiator ventilation holes on the barrel
housing.
The current gun cover does not protect the gun sufficiently against
rain and dust.

93rd Infantry Regiment
Excellent weapon in the hands of well-trained men. Nevertheless the
magazines need to be improved, for the lips are too weak and are the
source of stoppages.

98th Infantry Regiment
It has been used by the assault companies during the April 13
attack. A company that progressed through the hamlet of La Biette
brought down a lot of the enemy while firing on the walk...

105th Infantry Regiment:
These weapons gave full satisfaction. Only the magazines are
defective.

116th Infantry Regiment:
They are only exceptionally to be used as offensive weapons, but
present considerable advantages for the stabilization of new lines
that have just been conquered.
Too many stoppages during walking fire.
Carrying the CSRG and its Backpack are the source of much suffering
by the men...

137th Infantry Regiment:
The CSRGs expand the action of the machinegun sections; they must be
pushed forward as much as possible. Their deployment in combination
with groups of V-B rifle and hand grenadiers, which provide them
with cover, have given excellent results.
From the material viewpoint, necessity of great care and cleanliness
and of oiling after 5 or 6 magazines.

9th Infantry Division:
Results: the CSRG has excelled in all circumstances of combat.
Disadvantages: becomes fouled and prone to stoppages in contact with
mud and dirt projections.

12th Infantry Division:
Excellent results were obtained. The fire of the CSRGs during the
night counter-attack of May 5-6 has contributed to a large degree to
the failure of the German assault.
All were convinved after repeatedly seeing whole enemy ranks brought
down in front of our trenches by the fire of the CSRGs."

Robert
"

Me again:

For the Americans adaption to the 30-06 cartridge was more than the design could sustain.

The weapon was designed for what was to be the new cartritge of 7mm or 7.5mm that the French were looking to change to but could not work out the logistics & thus was mmanufactured in 8mm lebel causing problems.

The 30-06 is bigger & much more powerful than 8mm lebel hence real problems. Add in inexperienced troops new to the weapon, lack of training,  etc .....


Brennan

__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1626
Date:
RE: Chauchat, Americans etc.
Permalink   



Hi Brennan heres a few Chauchat links you may find interesting, you may need to use an online translater though....

Great site on french arms....
http://armesfrancaises.free.fr/FM%20Chauchat.html

Big Mikes Chauchat....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&v=lPFu_ZlQ6yg

http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?3141-CSRG-1915-it-lives!!

Polish site on the Chauchat and its history....
http://www.sztab.com/bron-reczna,FM-CSRG-Mle1915-Chauchat,1974.html

Cheerssmile

__________________

"Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazggimbatul, ash nazg thrakatulûk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul"

 

Daniel

Date:
Permalink   



Sir-

Being new to the gun collecting world. If i wanted to purchase a Chauchat C.S.R.G. to complete a WW1 tribute, where would i go, and what should i budget?

Any help would be appreciated.

D

__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard