Landships II

JamesH · Major

The Madsen Gun

Peter Kempf · Field Marshal

I have some more info on this MG, including colour photos I've taken in museums. Will try and post them eventually...

All the best

Centurion · Legend

It was used in some numbers by the Russians, especially as an aircraft weapon but proved too lightweight (its almost a sub machine gun) and the Russians replaced it with the Lewis whenever they could. I'll post some more later.

Centurion · Legend

More on the Masden as promised

The Danish Masden is also sometimes referred to as the Rexler and the Schouboe, it first saw the light of day in1902. It was produced by the Danks Rekyl-Riffel Syndicat and had been designed by J Ramussen a director of the Danish Royal Military Arms Factory in 1899. He assigned the rights to the Danks Rekyl-Riffel Syndicat and Lt Schouboe who was a director of that company took out a parallel set of patents. It was a (very) light machine gun. The Russians took it up and it was used in the Russo-Japanese War 1903-4 as a cavalry weapon. It proved to be prone to jamming, especially if the cartridge case was not 100% perfect, burst cartridges tended to damage the breech and it was too complex (and susceptible to dirt and moisture) to be easily maintained in field conditions. It was however very light and in 1914 was taken up as an aviation weapon. However its rate of fire was lower than comparable weapons and it tended to be outranged by the German and Austrian guns on the aircraft it faced. This meant that to be sure of a kill the aircraft using a Madsen had to be in range of its enemy for longer than would have been the case if, say, a Lewis was used. For this reason the Russian preferred the Lewis when they could get it.

Matt Heil · Lieutenant

I think the report that it was prone to jamming is interesting, because I have heard that it was a rather popular and reliable weapon. It was also manufactured in several different variations for over fifty years, and in virtually every military rifle caliber available up to the 1950s. It seems to have been especially popular in Latin America.
Centurion, was there any reason given as to why it was so outranged by other aircraft guns? That just seems odd to me considering that it was chambered for cartridges that were comparable to those of Germany's and Autria's.
The second entry on this page also deals some with the Russian (and later Finnish) Madsen:
http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/LMG2.htm
HTH,
Matt

Centurion · Legend

Matt Heil wrote:

I think the report that it was prone to jamming is interesting, because I have heard that it was a rather popular and reliable weapon. It was also manufactured in several different variations for over fifty years, and in virtually every military rifle caliber available up to the 1950s. It seems to have been especially popular in Latin America. Centurion, was there any reason given as to why it was so outranged by other aircraft guns? That just seems odd to me considering that it was chambered for cartridges that were comparable to those of Germany's and Autria's. The second entry on this page also deals some with the Russian (and later Finnish) Madsen: http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/LMG2.htm HTH, Matt

Provided that you could use well manufactured rimless ammunition in a relatively clean environment the propensity to jam seems to have been less. These conditions seem to have been lacking in the conditions in which WWI infantry operated and rimless ammo was less common (so that for example the Russians were often forced to use it with rimmed cartidges). I think that cause of its long term popularity lay in its lightness and relative cheapness (and possibly in its manufacturer's willingless to market it almost anywhere).
As far as the range issue is concerned I don't know the reason but various accounts of Russian use on Nieuport IX, X and XIs do report problems with range (and hint at a lower muzzle velocity which may be a contributing factor). Its worth remembering that ammunition is not the only factor in a gun's performance, length and design of barrel for instance plays a part. As a bit of pure speculation its always possible that muzzle velocity was deliberately kept lower so as to reduce recoil in such a lightweight weapon. There is often a price to pay for an advantage in one quarter. Of course one should not equate larger calibre Masdens (and there was even a 20 mm cannon) with the smaller 1902 gun even though they may look similar (any more than its correct to compare the 1909 Hotchkiss with the heavier 1914 model they being two very different weapons with a similar look). I'll dig out some specific references and post them.

JamesH · Major

Oh, dear. It sounds as bad as the Chauchat. After reading A New Excalibur I was under the impression that it was rather a fine weapon.

A.J. Smithers is much more complimentary about it:

�In 1904 a Danish officer, Major-General Madsen, invented a light automatic gun which weighed only 5lbs more than a rifle, had a mechanism of the simplest kind, and was better by far than anything of the kind for a long time to come. In 1918 an official statement was made in (the British Parliament) that �the present Madsen gun is considered by many the most wonderful machine-gun of its kind ever invented� and that it was admittedly superior in many respects to the Lewis and the Hotchkiss.

The gun was taken into service by the Danish cavalry but the (British) War Office was not interested. The Madsen gun would have been cheap . . . . Efforts were made to get hold of some but Germany prevented the sale and collared the guns herself.�

At the trials of Mother on December 3rd 1915, �specimens of Vickers, Lewis, Hotchkiss and Madsen guns were produced. Where this last came from is a mystery; it would have been the ideal weapon. There seems no obvious reason why the existing gun should not have been copied but people were punctilious about patent rights in 1915. The Hotchkiss was chosen as second best.�

In February 1916 contracts to build Tanks were issued. Smithers says, �The specifications, it will be remembered, spoke of Madsen guns (which is not exactly what he says above). These excellent weapons, much like the Bren in appearance, would have been by far the most suitable. They formed part of the agenda for a Defence Committee meeting on 21 June. (Sir Maurice) Hankey explained that 900 had been ordered from Copenhagen and half the price of �230,000 had been paid. There was, however, a difficulty. The Roumanians, lured at last into the Allied camp, wanted them too. (British Prime Minister) Lloyd George told the meeting that the Danes would not part with them except to neutrals. If the Roumanians took them they would have to go through Russia �and the Russians would probably take possession of them en route�. He observed that �the Roumanians could be told that they could have them if they would arrange for getting them safely. He thought it doubtful that they would ever arrive in Roumania but we should make a show of virtue.� Nobody mentioned that on February 5th the War Office had told the Committee that Madsen guns were not required. This is hard to explain. The guns, badly needed, were bought and half paid for. The United States . . . ought to have been able to find a well-disposed neutral to make the necessary arrangements. Instead of that, merely to make �a show of virtue�, this invaluable weapon was thrown away. What happened to them is unclear. There are many photographs of German cavalry equipped with the Madsen; certainly, by one means or another, that is where they ended up.�

In the summer of 1918, after the switch from Hotchkiss to Lewis and back again, �efforts were once more made to obtain the best light automatic of them all. In (Parliament) the Marquess of Salisbury said that he had tried out the Madsen and found it to be �enormously superior to any other gun in existence�. Another member called it �the most wonderful machine of its kind ever invented� and (yet another) pointed out that its construction was so simple that stoppages simply did not occur. This could never have been said of any other machine-gun, not even of the Vickers itself. More tests had been carried out in May (with the one from Mother�s trials?) but in spite of all efforts no more could be got out of Denmark. It was a great pity, for this was the perfect Tank weapon.�

So Smithers is obviously very keen on the Madsen and seems to be able to support his view. It�s a strange tale. I haven�t seen any of these photos of German cavalry with the Madsen.

Maybe it was because it wasn�t tried under battle conditions that the British didn�t come across the failings described on this page. Perhaps it would have been more suitable for use in Tanks than in aircraft for other reasons.

Centurion · Legend

JamesH wrote:

Oh, dear. It sounds as bad as the Chauchat.

No nothing could have been as bad as that!

Germany prevented the sale and collared the guns herself

In fact it seems that the Danes sold them to the Russians and got paid for them but before they could be shipped the Germans complained about neutral Denmark selling arms to a beligerant and the delivery was halted. The Danes kept the money though and then secretly sold the same guns to the Germans who tried to ship them out in a boat disguised as a French vessel. Allied intelligence then found out and blocked the transfer. there was much skulduggery on both sides but in the end the Danes got paid twice for guns they didn't ship to anybody! What happened to them in the end I don't know - perhaps they found a third customer (and afourth and a fifth? - it sounds like a good racket). There is a good account of this in The Dark Invader by Captain von Rintellen who was the German intelligence agent involved - he later went on to run a sabotage operation in New York (with the cooperation of some Irish Americans).
I don't think they were too bad a weapon if treated with care and considered as a very light and very portable machine gun but not quite as marvelous as some made out. I understand that at one time the Danish War Minister acted as some sort of sales agent for them (his name was Madsen which is how it came to be known by this title). A British firm called Rexler was the agent in the UK.
Major F. W. Hobart who was something of a machine gun expert adapted a quotation from Dr Jonson to say that "the remarkable thing about the Madsen was not that it worked so well but that it worked at all". A description of the mechanism is too long for me to type out but it was very complex indeed (which is probably why it was not a good idea to try and maintain it in WWI front line conditions). It seems to have been used by a lot of armies but only in relatively small numbers in most cases. I suspect that it was too sophisticated and not soldier proof. Probably the sort of gun that Q would have owned.

JamesH · Major

Excellent stuff. Apparently his name was Franz Rintelen Von Kleist, and you can get the book from as little as �4. I'll have a look at that.

Centurion · Legend

Some more info

In July 1915 the KuK (Autro Hungary) ordered a consignment of about 600 Madsens for use by mountain units (with a small number earmarked for aircraft use). When they arrived it turned out that they were all chambered and barreled for the Danish and Swedish armies who used a slightly smaller calibre round (6.5 mm) than the KuK (8mm). Also the KuK used a rimmed cartridge with which the Madsen did not work well. The guns were all bored out to take the German 7.92 mm rimless ammunition but this meant that by the time there were enough rebored Madsens available for issue other solutions had already been found and the guns were withdrawn from service in early 1917

SASH155 · Major

I have been researching and have been very interested in finding out more about the Madsen guns, being that they were used by so many armies. The color photos of the gun in the beginning of the thread are of a mid to late 1930s or early 1940s vintage Portuguese gun (I have seen a badly cut up Portuguese gun here in Alexandria at a local gun store; I tried to pick it up and I must say that the word "light" did'nt come to mind; solid and beautifully made did however) which was probably originally chambered for either the Portuguese 7.7mm cartridge (which was in fact was probably just the .303 British) (the models 1930, 1936, and 1952 were in this caliber) and also the 7.92mm Mauser ("8mm" for the less precise among us) for the Models 1936 (again), 1940 and 1947. The design seems to be of the later type (post 1934) with the cone shaped flash hider and later "streamlined" butt-stock. The many model designations don't seem to have had much significance as far as major changes, as there was apparently a different 'model' for almost every year ie: in the 1920s alone there was a Model 1920, Model 1921, Model 1922, Model 1923, Model 1924, Model 1925, Model 1926, Model 1927, Model 1928 and Model 1929, or a 'model' for every single year! It seems highly unlikely that these were significantly different guns for every single year, but more likely the contract years when the guns were made and delivered to the customer (this is just a theory of mine; if someone can disabuse me of it with hard fact that would be great). As far as their reputed unreliability, this was probably due not only to the use of rimmed ammunition in some of the guns (Russian for example), but the nature of the action (modified Martini-Henry type action with long recoil). I would wager that, with a well trained and motivated crew, who took good care of the gun, one could do a lot of damage and reliabilty problems would be few. The barrels seem pretty long for a machinegun of this class. The relative quantities used by the countries which bought them is unclear, but the major nations that bought some ie: Britain and France, were probably using them for trials only. It seems to have become the standard light machinegun in many smaller nations, however, such as the Netherlands, Norway and almost every single Latin American country.

Centurion · Legend

Here is an account of the workings of the Madsen

"The mechanism relies on a rear-pivoted dropping breech block derived from the Martuni action. Operation of this block is controlled by a stud on its side which travels in a groove cut in a switch plate which forms the right side of the gun body.
On firing, the barrel, barrel extension and breech block recoil. the stud on the block reaches a fork in the switch plate groove and is deflected upwards, lifting the the front of the block away from the breech. An extractor claw beneath the chamber now strikes a cam surface and is drawn up and back so as to extract the empty case and eject it from the chamber; the case is deflected by the curved under surface of the breech block and is expelled through the botomof the gun. By this time the stud has reached the end of the switch plate: the recoiling unit has cocked the guns hammer and compressed a return spring which now begins to force everything back to the original position. During the recoil stroke a feed arm, pivoting at the bottom of the gun body, has been swung to the rear and now snaps in place behind a fresh cartridge which has entered the gun body from the overhead magazine. The forward movement of the rcoiling parts now causes the stud to move down in the switch plate groove, dropping the face of the breech block below the mouth of the chamber. As the parts go forward, the feed arm drives the new cartridge into the breech; the sud then rides up in the switch plate, so raising the face of the block and closing the breech behind the cartridge. The final part of the forward movement carries the stud into a straight section of the groove, locking the block firmly in place ready for the hammer to fall and fire the cartridge"

Phew! Just imagine the effect of a smidgeon of dirt in that lot, especially if it retarded the stud in the complex gooving. And think of the poor Russian cavalry man trying to strip it all down and clean it in the trenches. You would certainly need an elite unit to get the best out of the weapon. BTW I just get worried about the Martini falling block alone. My old university rifle club had a set of ancient Martini Henry single shot rifles (just like the ones in Zulu) and the number of times the empty cartridge jammed in the extraction process ws horrible (especialy when the gun got warm) and that was just on a simple single shot weapon. Now this may have been down to wear but just think about the wear on an automatic gun.

Peter Kempf · Field Marshal

Gentlemen!

I wil eventually try and collate all your statements, comments and quotes, and make an article on the Madsen. And you will all be quoted as authors! Ok?

My only contribution is the fact, that it was sometimes used in German Armoured Cars, the crews preferring this lighter gun, despite it's drawbacks.

Peter Kempf · Field Marshal

But before I can post your collective article on the Madsen, I need to know the following:

Weight?
Length of weapon?
Length of barrel?
Muzzle velocity?
Rate of Fire?
Feed type?

Help!!!?

Centurion · Legend

Peter Kempf wrote:

But before I can post your collective article on the Madsen, I need to know the following: Weight? 9.07 Kg (unloaded) Length of weapon?Length of barrel? Not seen any published figures but based on a sale drawing barrel 24 in overall length 47 in Muzzle velocity? None seems to have been published will dig a bit Rate of Fire? 400-450 r p m. Feed type? Curved box magazine 3 sizes 25, 30 and 40 rounds (combination of spring and gravity) :

Centurion · Legend

Peter Kempf wrote:

My only contribution is the fact, that it was sometimes used in German Armoured Cars, the crews preferring this lighter gun, despite it's drawbacks.

Given that both the Russian and Austro Hungarians passed the gun to their air forces this sounds about right. There would be a cleaner environment and better facilities for cleaning/maintenance etc. As I've effectively said in my quip about it being the sort of gun Q would buy I think it was a technician's weapon

J Fullerton · Captain

Ian Hogg gives the dimensions in the Machine Guns appendix as:
Length 45.00
Barrel 23.00
Weight 20.00
Feed B40
Velocity 2460
Rate 450

But in the text he lists the 1950 model as:
Overall length 45.9" (1166mm)
Weight, empty 22.0 lbs (10Kg)
Barrel 18.8" (478mm)
Muzzle velocity 2700 ft/sec (822 m/sec)
Muzzle energy 3194 ft/lbs (4316J)
Rate 400 rounds/min
Effective range 600 m

I've seen online animations of basic MG mechanisms and have always wanted to find/make specific ones of the various WW1 versions. The Madsen sounds like one of the stranger and more difficult designs to visualise, as does the Fiat Revelli.

Centurion · Legend

J Fullerton wrote:

Ian Hogg gives the dimensions in the Machine Guns appendix as: Length 45.00 Barrel 23.00 Weight 20.00 Feed B40 Velocity 2460 Rate 450 But in the text he lists the 1950 model as: Overall length 45.9" (1166mm) Weight, empty 22.0 lbs (10Kg) Barrel 18.8" (478mm) Muzzle velocity 2700 ft/sec (822 m/sec) Muzzle energy 3194 ft/lbs (4316J) Rate 400 rounds/min Effective range 600 m I've seen online animations of basic MG mechanisms and have always wanted to find/make specific ones of the various WW1 versions. The Madsen sounds like one of the stranger and more difficult designs to visualise, as does the Fiat Revelli.

Effectively consistent with the ones I gave. Measurement I'd take the Hogg figures (I was measuring from a scale drawing but the two sets are so close who wants to argue) As far as feed B40 was one of the three feeds I mentioned. The other two (B25 and B30 may be what was more often used in aircraft.The rate of 400- 450 rpm came from Harry Woodmans 'Early Aircraft Armament' and relates to what the Russian IFC managed to achieve but again is not inconsistent with Hoggs figures.
As far as difficult designs go I'd agree about the Fiat Revelli. However simplicity could also bring problems - for example the Austro Hungarian Schwarzlose (using retarded blow back) was nice and simple (and easy to maintain) but as a consequence proved virtually impossible to fit with synchronisation gear (giving great problems to the KuK's aircraft designers and crew) and still had problems with ammo that wasn't near perfect.

J Fullerton · Captain

I wonder how great the variations were between the different models of the Madsen? The Danes made them for quite a few different countries as I understand it.

Centurion · Legend

J Fullerton wrote:

I wonder how great the variations were between the different models of the Madsen? The Danes made them for quite a few different countries as I understand it.

Apart from the calibre not many. Woodman has a photo of one in Russian service in 1916 and one from twenty years later - the only variation is a slight change the shape of the butt. I've seen a photo of one with a Bren gun like flash surppresor on the muzzle - and thats about it. Production ended in 1950.

Peter Kempf · Field Marshal

Hi guys!

The article on the Madsen you guys wrote collectively on the Forum thread above, has now been published. (I also used the pics that could be found in the first link posted.) And all that chipped in have been credited.

A first "Group Write" on "Landships", but I trust not the last!

Martin · Corporal

Centurion wrote:

JamesH wrote:
Oh, dear. It sounds as bad as the Chauchat.

No nothing could have been as bad as that!

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.

Centurion · Legend

Martin - re the Chauchat

I quote from Ian Hogg

"But while the basic design was sound, its execution was cheap and slipshod, the gun being made from stamped and turned components with excessive tolerances, much hand fitting of parts, and absolutely no interchangebility of spares. It was unusual for a gun to complete more than one or two short bursts before jamming and when this happened it invariably had to be completely dismantled to clear the blockage "

"Nine American divisions were equiped with the weapon and and it has been estimated that fully 50% of them were thrown away after the first blockage"

The Spanish Republicans (especially the International Brigades who appear to have been lumbered with these weapons) also seem to have found the Chauchat pretty dreadful in action, (their buyers had acquired a significant no. of WWI surplus stock) and it seems still to have been a chronic jammer. It certainly was manufactured in huge quantities but I seem to remember having read somewhere that there was a whiff of corruption somewhere. I'll dig and see what I can find. Perhaps we need to open a new thread.

Martin · Corporal

Indeed, that might be needed :)

Yes, I'm aware of the Chauchats terrible reputation. That's mostly the only thing I ever read about the weapon wherever I look :)

I'm just curious about the soruces that claim that it might not be the complete picture.

Those nine American divisions that were equipped with Chauchats - was it the original one or the Mle 1918? According to the post i quoted above, the accounts of Americans throwing away Chauchats has to do with the Mle 1918, which after being modified was much worse than the original Chauchat.

I'm not saying it was a reliable and high quality weapon - certainly not - but I'm wondering if the truth is somewhere in between. Just like the posts above suggests.

-- Edited by Martin at 12:32, 2006-01-31

SASH155 · Major

The last thing I would add to the Madsen debate is that I have seen photos of guns with short and long barrel lengths, as well as variations in the stock and flash hiders, and variation in the magazine curvature due to the number of cartridges and their type. There were myriad models and users (see the list in Small Arms of the World under Denmark). The article should try to include as many photos as possible, including as many variations as possible of this interesting LMG.

Peter Kempf · Field Marshal

Just send me the photos, and I will post!

Matt Heil · Lieutenant

Hey! I'm an author now, thanks Peter! I'm glad I could actually make a contribution to the site, however miniscule. I just hope I can contribute more, and maybe be a part of another "group write."

I'd also just like to point out that the 155mm mle 1877 link is not working at all, Peter. Just so you know.
Matt

SASH155 · Major

I have a few photos, from books mostly (I will credit the photos as is my standard practice), but unfortunately the types are usually imprecisely ID'd.

Peter Kempf · Field Marshal

That broken link is fixed now. Thanks for the tip!

Centurion · Legend

The Estonian army used Madsens having bought up all those used by Finland (one wonders why Finland got rid of them). see links

http://www.estonianarms.com/images/Mads.jpg

http://www.estonianarms.com/images/made3.jpg

-- Edited by Centurion at 18:09, 2006-02-07