The Chauchat - Bad performance or bad publicity?

[Johan Banér]

Originally Posted by popuptarget

if only intended for walking fire, why have a bipod at all? The original 1918 BAR was designed for the tactical concept of walking fire and had no bipod. Seems to me that the CSRG was designed as more of a machine rifle - kind of in between the LMG and the BAR.

Sounds reasonable to me. I concede.

Originally Posted by popuptarget

mostly I see the poorly designed bipod as indicative of overall fuzziness of thinking. I think that with a proper amount of development, the CSRG could have been useful despite the handicap of the long recoil system. I think "its cheap and we need it now" won out over proper development.

But, on balance, had "proper development" been allowed to trump getting the things made and deployed asap what's to say it wouldn't have left the French where the Germans ended up, with no gun for the moment, but a great gun promised any day now?
Which probably would have been a worse call. French Chauchat teams were still the most decorated units in the French army by the end of WWI, so apparently some good use was had from them.

[Merkava188]

This gun was without a doubt one of the worsrt light machine guns ever made.For example it was so badly amnufactured that you couldn't interchange parts from one gun to another.I also have to wonder why the U.S. would issue such a piece of garbage when it already had ( what many consider one of the most outstanding lmgs) the Browning Automtic Rifle a weapon that was cleary a better choice than Chauchat.Why Pershing would issue American soldiers and marines with such a poor excuse of a weapon is beyond my understanding.

[Pruitt]

I am not sure if there were enough BAR's available to furnish all American troops with them. The Marines used them in one Offense and had to give them back after the battle.

What was criminal was the American's refusal to put the Lewis Gun into large scale production. The Hotchkiss MG was nowhere near close in performance.

Pruitt

[Carl Schwamberg]

Major Lewis machine gun was well tested and much demonstrated by 1912. Yet, the US Army Ordnance Dept. rejected it as unnecessary, and probably impractical in the proposed use as a aircraft carried weapon. 1912 was the same year Captain George Pattons new pattern for a cavalry sword was accepted by the US Army Ordnance Dept. It may very well be the BAR would not have been built in sufficient numbers. However a timely adoption of Major Lewis weapon and useful production was possible.

This was the same era several competitive US designed cannon were sabotaged by the insistence on using obsolesent & poorly thought out carriages to mount them.

[Carl Schwamberg]

Originally Posted by Johan Banér

... . French Chauchat teams were still the most decorated units in the French army by the end of WWI, so apparently some good use was had from them.

A example of leadership motivation and training overcoming poor hardware. Something akin to the Israli tank crews defeating modern T55 tanks with their antidiluvian Shermans.

[TacCovert4]

The Lewis gun was a no go for the US. Part of the NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome. Lewis invented the gun, proposed it, and demonstrated it. The Ordnance Board rejected it outright, and Lewis was incensed. That's why he went overseas with it. Despite it obviously being a very successful design, I don't think the Ordnance Board was actually capable of admitting their mistake and ordering Lewis Guns.

[Johan Banér]

Originally Posted by Merkava188

This gun was without a doubt one of the worsrt light machine guns ever made.For example it was so badly amnufactured that you couldn't interchange parts from one gun to another.I also have to wonder why the U.S. would issue such a piece of garbage when it already had ( what many consider one of the most outstanding lmgs) the Browning Automtic Rifle a weapon that was cleary a better choice than Chauchat.Why Pershing would issue American soldiers and marines with such a poor excuse of a weapon is beyond my understanding.

Availability. The French could hand over 50 000. Cheap as dirt, and possible to manufacture in a French bicycle repair shop should be a clue here methinks.

[arkai]

finally this weapon did the work requested kill enemies good or bad for those poor what was good for killing those she saved

[T. A. Gardner]

Originally Posted by TacCovert4

The Lewis gun was a no go for the US. Part of the NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome. Lewis invented the gun, proposed it, and demonstrated it. The Ordnance Board rejected it outright, and Lewis was incensed. That's why he went overseas with it. Despite it obviously being a very successful design, I don't think the Ordnance Board was actually capable of admitting their mistake and ordering Lewis Guns.

History is replete with the US Army ordinance department's turning down what works for some shoddy in-house design over the "not invented here" syndrome:

Dropping the Spencer carbine for the Springfield in part got Custer wacked.

The Lewis and earlier Gardner (no relation) machineguns are two more examples of excellent weapons rejected because of being outside designs. Both found homes overseas while the US Army was saddled with the inferior Colt "potato digger" and Nordenfeldt machineguns instead.

The Shillelegh antitank missile rejecting the TOW until the former proved almost entirely a failure.

[Johnny_BoomBoom]

Originally Posted by TacCovert4

The Lewis gun was a no go for the US. Part of the NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome. Lewis invented the gun, proposed it, and demonstrated it. The Ordnance Board rejected it outright, and Lewis was incensed. That's why he went overseas with it. Despite it obviously being a very successful design, I don't think the Ordnance Board was actually capable of admitting their mistake and ordering Lewis Guns.

Shame - as it was very widely used by the British forces during WWI and on into WWII!

Politics eh?

[F2000]

The Belgians used the Chauchat as well. They modified them in 1927. I think these changes were made by Fabrique Nationale. Here is some info in French http://www.tircollection.com/t1647p30-chauchat

"En 1927 ces armes ont été profondément modifiées (bipied , manchon de refroidissement , protection de la fenêtre d'éjection , renforcement du boitier) pour devenir le CSRG mle 1915/27 qui est resté en service jusqu'au milieu des années trente."

"In 1927 these weapons were seriously modified (bipod, barrel cooling?; ejection cover?, reinforced magazines) and became the CSRG model 1915/27 which stayed in service until mid 1930's."

Actually these were reissued to 2nd reserve units in 1940. Belgian Chauchats used 7,65x53mm ammo. (Just like the Mausers.) They were loaded with 20 round box magazines as far as I recall. Active and 1st reserve divisions used the FM30 aka the Belgian BAR. I wonder if these modified Chauchats solved the problems? I don't know much about guns

[johnbryan]

Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner

History is replete with the US Army ordinance department's turning down what works for some shoddy in-house design over the "not invented here" syndrome:

Dropping the Spencer carbine for the Springfield in part got Custer wacked.

The Lewis and earlier Gardner (no relation) machineguns are two more examples of excellent weapons rejected because of being outside designs. Both found homes overseas while the US Army was saddled with the inferior Colt "potato digger" and Nordenfeldt machineguns instead.

There was the M-1909 Benet-Mercie machinegun developed by the French company Hotchkiss and used by the US Army until after they went to France in 1917. This was the machine gun used very effectively against Pancho Villa's raiders in Columbus, New Mexico in 1916.