The emergency of war can produce large numbers of weapons
but the true test of how good Machineguns were can probably best be
seen in the light of how long they were kept in service in Peace and how
popular they were with the users.
M.M.G's
For long life in large numbers and user satisfaction, the Vickers MMG and the Browning.30 take some beating. Not only was the service life long, but also the weapons themselves were useful, required few major changes and remained very popular with the troops, which is always a good endorsement. The French Hotchkiss also saw a long service life and was fairly reliable and sturdy if not terribly spectacular. In all cases these weapons did what was required of them and did it well enough that no need for replacement arose for many years. Although the French Hotchkiss has come down with a somewhat lesser reputation, the fact is it could not have been too bad or it would have certainly been replaced much sooner.
The end of WWI saw many of the existing types being forced to soldier on due to a lack of funds to replace them. In this way the MG.08 remained with the Germans until re-armament of the 1930's and limited numbers were still in used during the Polish Campaign in particular. In WWI service the weapon had proved just too dam heavy, that factor relegating it to fairly static roles in which it performed reasonably well. It was often used in WWI bunkers and continued in that role during WW2. For the more mobile warfare of WW2 it would have been a distinct liability however.
Some of the Austrian Schwarloze weapons were also in service during WW2 and large numbers were with the lesser Axis armies. They had also been supplied to Turkey during and before WW I and remained in service with that army well after WW2. The gun performed well enough, had few bad vices and can be considered a success, however by WW2 much better things had overtaken it.
The Japanese had developed their own variant of the Hotchkiss Medium, the Taisho and continued to fiddle with it through various variants until WW2. They seemed prepared to put up with various problems and since they rarely threw anything away, older guns soldiered on until the end of the Imperial Army.
The Russians and subsequently the Soviets had many thousands of their model 1910 Maxim gun available and continued to produce it as a simple and relatively inexpensive weapon. Innumerable guns of this type were dragged about the Eastern Front, but it is noticeable that the Germans did not make much use of the large numbers they captured. It was also supplied to Soviet allied states, China, North Korea etc. It must be said that the performance for weight and calibre was not spectacular, but it was fairly easy to operate and as such well suited to the needs of its users.
In general therefore, it can be considered that most of the weapons mentioned were sturdy, reliable and therefore very useful. This cannot be said for the St.Etienne, which was a masterpiece of bad design, prone to frequent jamming and unnecessarily, complicated. Similarly the Italian Fiat Revelli had lots of bad habits and the troops were only too happy to see it replaced. Such problems meant that these guns did not perform well and failed in most of the requirements set for them in combat.
LMG's.
In this category the Lewis gun romped home. Post WWI examination showed that despite the cooling system being very clever, it was not really needed and just added weight. That resulted in many stripped Lewis guns being used. Many thousands had been manufactured and once the users got used to the fact that it was not a Vickers, its own particular qualities were more appreciated.
By WW2 standards it was not all that good, but for the time it was conceived it was revolutionary. The Lewis equipped armies of numerous nationalities right into WW2 and after. Although the Brengun was far superior, at the beginning of WW2 the British Army still had many Lewis guns in front line service. As they were replaced they were issued to merchant ships for AA defence, Home Guard, etc. Some saw front line service against the Japanese with the Australian, Dutch, Chinese and US Armies before being replaced. Even the Japanese used some.
In service it was fairly reliable and with a well trained crew a useful weapon. It was a bit too prone to damage for the Cavalry who tried some but usually re-instated the Hotchkiss as soon as possible. By the end of WWI there were up to 36 of these weapons with a Battalion and Lewis teams were an important part of each platoon. Through this weapon, small infantry tactics were developed in 1917 that would be just as recognisable on today's battlefield as then.
This is a fact most wargamers are ignorant of The last two years of WWI were fought with tactics much the same as WW2. Earlier historians had become far too hypnotised by the slaughter of the Somme to realise this. Talk WWI to most wargamers, schoolteachers, media people, etc. and they will conjure up examples of the early and middle war, but be ignorant of the advances made after 1916. The last 100 days were fought more like a WW2 battle, tanks and all.
If not as good as the LEWIS, the BAR did a workmanlike job and remained in service right through WW2 with few changes. Of course the US Army and Marines did also use the LEWIS in WWI after some misadventures with the Chauchat.
The end of WWI saw the end of useful service for the MG09/15 and its Austrian equivalent, but the lack of funds initially, then sheer volume of requirement, meant some were used in the early part of WW2, particularly the Polish campaign. They were disposed of as fast as replacements became available and can be considered a failed attempt to produce an LMG the easy way and a historical oddity. The weight of these weapons prevented them being used with the same versatility as the Lewis and other lighter types, so they tended to be more a defensive weapon, adding to the firepower of the infantry when repulsing attacks.
The big joke of WWI was probably the CHAUCHAT. This attempted to use ideas that became common and successful in WW2. That is to say cheap stamped parts, mass-produced for a low priced weapon. However the means to bring it all together were lacking and the result was a cheap gun that jammed frequently, had a very poor range and was only every popular with the French.
The US Marines had used the LEWIS until going to France in 1917 where they were issued with the CHAUCHAT. They hated it and 'lost' them as quickly as possible, then managed to 'find' their Lewis guns again!! Similarly the US Army was horrified to find how bad the weapon was, especially as they had agreed to purchase thousands of them. It officially soldiered on until the end of the war, but was replaced by the Lewis as rapidly as possible. US cavalry had, by the way, used the light version of the Hotchkiss, which was known as the Merci to them.
In combat, the CHAUCHAT was intended to be used, on a strap slung from one shoulder and fired from the hip. The idea was to have large numbers of them issued and the troops could then virtually 'spray' their way across no mans land and along the enemy trenches. Because of the very large numbers used, it did achieve some success, if only because while some were jammed and being cleared, others were still working.
The British and Indian Army used the HOTCHKISS light for many years. The last use by Cavalry being during the Syrian campaign of WW2. It was never spectacular, but was fairly reliable and therefore quite popular. Australian Light Horse units of WWI much preferred it to the Lewis purely on the grounds of its sturdiness in the field and were prepared to put up with a lesser firepower. It was its sturdiness that saw it used as a tank machinegun in preference to the more flimsy Lewis. Many countries used it, but weight and an awkward shape prevented it being used in quite the same way as the Lewis or BAR.
The VILLAR PEROSA did not even survive WWI as an MG and very few exist today, although this has a lot to do with so many being converted into Sub Machineguns. Despite the impressive firepower at close range its tactical use was far too limited due to the pistol ammunition.
The MADSEN also soldiered on for many years, even seeing service in Vietnam against the Americans. It was a weapon never used exclusively by any of the more than 30 armies that bought it and it had a very complicated operating system. None the less it did the job, was sturdy and easy to use. It was probably the oldest LMG type and the longest surviving, when used by the Viet Cong. Its field use was similar to that of the Lewis but it lacked the same firepower. Cheap Chinese copies were manufactured for many years.
Submachine Guns
The Germans were forbidden to keep most of theirs by the terms of the Treaty at the end of WWI, but managed to retain some. They later produced an improved version for 'Police work'. Reports of the weapon in action are sparse, but it is believed to have performed well, only the compromise 'snail' magazine causing any significant problem. The Allies considered captured examples an oddity. Perhaps, because they were not sure what to do with it.
The Italian weapon soldiered on and was joined by others. It was still in service at the beginning of WW2 and was always considered a bit of fine workmanship. I can find no records of how the Italians used it during the latter part of WWI or even if they actually did.
USE IN WARGAMES
I hope this article will clear things up for many wargamers and rule writers. One point commonly 'got wrong' was weapons mounted in tanks of WWI. Frankly the vision from these vehicles was so bad that it little mattered what type of machinegun you put in them, the range was rarely better than 100 to 200 yards. In these circumstances the LMG's were no worse off than the MMG's and at least in the case of the former, they could be dismounted easily for use by the crew, if the AFV was knocked out. The Vickers guns mounted in AFV's were often provided with the normal tripod mount in case they had to be dismounted, but late war vehicle types show that there was a definite preference for weapons such as the Hotchkiss light, even over the Vickers.
Rule writers need to allow for the Lewis and similar weapons to advance and fire, while the cumbersome LMG's such as the MG.08/15 could perhaps either advance OR fire.
MMG's should be given a distinct advantage at long ranges and the effect of LMG's drastically reduced. At short ranges however, the LMG is easier to sweep or change position to meet a threat, so although its fire rate is still not as good as the MMQ it catches up a lot in sheer usefulness.
Back to Table of Contents -- Courier #82
To Courier List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2001 by The Courier Publishing Company.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com