Landships II

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.

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.

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

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.

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, Modèle 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