Army equipment that should have seen service

The M1910 used the SAME COCKING SYSTEM as the shotgun. When it jammed, Joe Infantry had the tendency to try to clear the jam the same way Rupert Redondo, the civilian, did: stick the buttplate on the ground, grab the barrel and shove down on the barrel. Head blown off was the result.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Madsen.


Explanation: As I watched Othais take this turkey apart, I thought about its design in 1900 and I was horrified. The gun uses a single stack magazine with gravity feed into a hopper and then indexes shells sideways into the feed path that then rams into the breech. That is a complex feed geometry that even in 1905 is NTG.

The latching of the magazine into the tray is very weak connection-wise with a tendency for human body parts to bump into it and knock the magazine out of the tray. There was another gun that had that kind of magazine into feeder tray lip.
View attachment 535368

Sideways, that was, and see how aggressively large the feed tray lip is? Also note the line of travel in the function path? There is no 90 degree turn as in the Madsen. The cutoffs for both the Johnson LMG and the Madsen are built into the single stack magazines (Which is the reason they are single stack magazines.), which makes the magazines long awkward extrusions, another mechanical fail point and adds a further undesirable military field fail. These setups are EXPENSIVE to make and require an indexer to pull the individual bullets through from cutoff to final position to ram into the chamber. COMPLEXITY means fail to function heaven in an automatic weapon. The more complex the operating action, the more ways a machine can fail. This is why the Johnson rifle and machine gun were ultimately rejected, what the US found wrong with the Madsen, what the Danes markedly improved in the 1920s through tweaks and quality control and why I frankly hate the 1905 gun. I see too many ways in the modern field range demos under ideal conditions that it failed.
In which of the three videos which were originally cited, did anybody dissamble the Madsen?

You are introducing "facts" from different sources other than the ones originally cited. I am well aware of the "fiddly" nature of the Madsen. However, it worked by all accounts. Which is more than can be said for many other comparable LMGs. I understand that Madsens also had a long service, being retired from Brazilian service only in the late 1980s. Not bad going for a "fiddly" weapon.
 
Asked.

In which of the three videos which were originally cited, did anybody dissamble the Madsen?

You are introducing "facts" from different sources other than the ones originally cited. I am well aware of the "fiddly" nature of the Madsen. However, it worked by all accounts. Which is more than can be said for many other comparable LMGs. I understand that Madsens also had a long service, being retired from Brazilian service only in the late 1980s. Not bad going for a "fiddly" weapon.
Answered.



You may have your reasons to defend this LMG. I have my good reasons which I have stated for hating it.

I see it as no better than the Reising; which also had a long "civilian police" service but which was really not a good "military" weapon.
 
Asked.



Answered.


Those were not cited in the original post which we are discussing....

You may have your reasons to defend this LMG. I have my good reasons which I have stated for hating it.

I see it as no better than the Reising; which also had a long "civilian police" service but which was really not a good "military" weapon.
My mentioning of the Madsen's long service was in passing, nothing more. I am not familiar with the Reising weapon.

I think you're problem is you are looking for the perfect gun instead of accepting to good enough one.
 
Those were not cited in the original post which we are discussing....
I had mentioned the entire CandR Arsenal series of which YouTube has about 120 episodes covering WWI weapons. The Madsens are 118 and 119.

My mentioning of the Madsen's long service was in passing, nothing more. I am not familiar with the Reising weapon.

I think you're problem is you are looking for the perfect gun instead of accepting to good enough one.
I am very familiar with the Reising. HORRIBLE weapon. Check it out below as a historical item and see why the WW I Madsen compares to it as a piece of junk.


If your life depends on a weapon, then you want it simple, durable, functional, and preferably easy to use and maintain when it inevitably fails you. That last bit is essential as you tear it apart to see what caused the mechanical casualty. If the weapon issued, does not meet those basics of easy to takedown and clear, it is absolute garbage. I mean that with a vengeance.
 
Last edited:
As I have said, I am not interesting the Reising weapon. Again, you are introducing videos not having a direct bearing on the Madsen.
 
The Madsen was not a bad weapon and was still in regular use with the Brazilian Police until recently. The weapon had some mods post WW1 which made it a lot more useable and relevant as a LMG. It was also very reliable and could be easily converted to different calibres if required.

Gun Jesus did a full strip and explanation of the weapon so you don't need to.

 
Last edited:
I did read it. Did you, again? The researchers claim the shooters in the British studies reported the shooters (Korea specifically) used their weapons most effectively within 300 yards (270 meters) of enemy, *(Turks shot by the Chinese, BTW.) not that the M1 Garand could not hit anything beyond 100 meters. The one study which cites Bougainville and the M1 and short ranges is JUNGLE TERRAIN where I would expect meeting engagement ranges (ambushes) would close down to the 70 yards cited as typical. SHEESH, context and accuracy is important when one cites data.
The British shooters were reporting on WW2. The US study cited immediately after was from Korea and incorporated Turkish casualties. No where did I say that that Garand couldn't hit anything over 100m, in shooting range situations the average shooter (as I said in my original post on the subject) could hit out to 500 yards with regularity, but in combat conditions the average shooter operating the Garand did not hit much above 100m.

I didn't quote the section on Bougainville (not even on the page I quoted either) specifically because it was a jungle situation with restricted visibility, you decided to quote it though for some reason, while completely ignoring the Korean war data and chart about engagement ranges and visibility. Even in the report they state that that report was an outlier because of the jungle.
Let me repost the section I actually quoted to fix your misunderstanding of the text:
"The British AORG during World War II, and ORO in FECOM, have both attempted to study part of the man-rifle complex by interviewing experienced riflemen on their use of the weapon in offensive and defensive combat actions. The British examined officers and NCOs who had experience in the ETO 7 and ORO examined men with experience in Korea. 8 The agreement of the two independent studies is striking. For attack and defense in European actions, it was found that about 80 percent of effective rifle and LMG fire takes place at less than 200 yd and 90 percent at less than 300 yd, according to the estimates made by the men interviewed. About 90 percent of the LMG fire was at less than 300 yd."

The part about the Garand came from Korean war studies, because there was very limited work done on the subject during WW2 by the US. The Brits meanwhile did a lot of studies on infantry and came to the same conclusion during WW2 that the US figured out in Korea.
 
As I have said, I am not interesting the Reising weapon. Again, you are introducing videos not having a direct bearing on the Madsen.
I have a comparator with similar problems in takedown complexity and you claim it is not relevant?
The Madsen was not a bad weapon and was still in regular use with the Brazilian Police until recently. The weapon had some mods post WW1 which made it a lot more useable and relevant as a LMG. It was also very reliable and could be easily converted to different calibres if required.

Gun Jesus did a full strip and explanation of the weapon so you don't need to.
That is not the 1905 weapon Ian took apart as Othais did. There are several subtle differences. I think I wrote earlier that the Danes did a rework of the guns in the 1920s to address many issues they found.
The British shooters were reporting on WW2. The US study cited immediately after was from Korea and incorporated Turkish casualties. No where did I say that that Garand couldn't hit anything over 100m, in shooting range situations the average shooter (as I said in my original post on the subject) could hit out to 500 yards with regularity, but in combat conditions the average shooter operating the Garand did not hit much above 100m.
Operations research showed the average rifleman couldn't hit squat with the Garand beyond 100 meters in combat.
Done with that. You wrote it and now you deny it?

I didn't quote the section on Bougainville (not even on the page I quoted either) specifically because it was a jungle situation with restricted visibility, you decided to quote it though for some reason, while completely ignoring the Korean war data and chart about engagement ranges and visibility. Even in the report they state that that report was an outlier because of the jungle.
Let me repost the section I actually quoted to fix your misunderstanding of the text:
It is mentioned on the page which is why I* NOTICED it.

"The British AORG during World War II, and ORO in FECOM, have both attempted to study part of the man-rifle complex by interviewing experienced riflemen on their use of the weapon in offensive and defensive combat actions. The British examined officers and NCOs who had experience in the ETO 7 and ORO examined men with experience in Korea. 8 The agreement of the two independent studies is striking. For attack and defense in European actions, it was found that about 80 percent of effective rifle and LMG fire takes place at less than 200 yd and 90 percent at less than 300 yd, according to the estimates made by the men interviewed. About 90 percent of the LMG fire was at less than 300 yd."

The part about the Garand came from Korean war studies, because there was very limited work done on the subject during WW2 by the US. The Brits meanwhile did a lot of studies on infantry and came to the same conclusion during WW2 that the US figured out in Korea.
Per previous where I quoted your statement about "the average rifleman" and dragged out a study that actually refuted your claim, it appears you have not presented an accurate case about the Garand at all.
 
Last edited:
You can only mean the Vought Corsair? The USN demanded Brewsters build a machine to turn each aircraft over to shake out all the loose parts before it left the factory.
The Corsair was a carrierborne combat aircraft. Brewster built versions were restricted to land based trainer use only. The wings were known to fall off mid-air. The British refused to use their Brewster built Corsair Mk IIIs in combat.


I agree with your comments about Curtiss-Wright. They had other troubles. They were stuck on the downward curve of their fighter development cycle and locked themselves into constantly improving their old designs when they really needed to try something new.
There was the scandal Curtiss-Wright had with the defective engines and bribery of inspection staff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss-Wright#Defective_engines_sold_to_U.S._military_in_World_War_II
Thanks for the info. I never read the Brewster Corsair's were so defective. Doesn't say much for Brewster's quality control. I guess that's why they didn't have much of a post war future. Your right about Curtiss-Wright, you could only go so far with the P-40 design. The P-60 would have been fine if you didn't have P-38's, P-47's, and P-51's as alternatives.
 
Done with that. You wrote it and now you deny it?
Deny what? I've maintained the exact position I took before, you just purposely lied about what I said because you couldn't support your position.

It is mentioned on the page which is why I* NOTICED it.
Yeah, you brought up something unrelated to strawman what I said. I left out that study because it wasn't relevant, the only reason you brought it up was to fight a strawman and claim to have won some sort of victory.

Per previous where I quoted your statement about "the average rifleman" and dragged out a study that actually refuted your claim, it appears you have not presented an accurate case about the Garand at all.
Except you did nothing of the sort.
 
No comment.

1. Brewster quality control failed on the factory floor.
2. The Buffalo was not reworked in the wing lift co-efficient and engine watts as the Wildcat was when the USN (Bu-Air) belatedly added armor and weapon change requirements to the bird. Grumman did due diligence to try to keep to demanded final performance.
3. Labor mismanagement. Sure; I blame the union local's leadership (criminals and thugs.) but I also blame company management for falling down on their end with the rank and file.
4. The Buccaneer was a flying death trap. I'll have much the same complaint about the Son of a Biscuit second Class in a mo. .

Garbage planes from Curtiss.

5. The problem with the P-40 is that it is an evolved Seahawk. It goes back that far. (1927) Each Hawk that follows is an incremental improvement to the original airframe with Curtiss designers moving bits around to make all the parts sort of work together. Bigger heavier engines, they move the main wing back and adjust the tail control. The cockpit gets shoved back a bit and the CG/CM solution is approximated in a mushy sort of way until they "balance" the four aeronautical forces and the bird is stable in the air. Curtiss designers could cheat that way until the performance instability margins needed were too narrow to allow such Jesus tweaking to make their fighters work. The P40 was the end of their bag of in-house tricks. Subsequent planes were GARBAGE in the air, being either miscalculated as to live load, underpowered, inadequate tail control, faulty engines and some were pilot killers with the aerodynamic issues added, but most after 1938 were badly designed as if in defiance of the best aeronautical science of the day. Seamew, Helldiver II, Commando etc. . Trash planes. Why was Curtiss allowed to sell their WWII junk? POLITICS.



See previous comments. The C46 had garbage engines and was "barely adequate" as a plane. It was there and it was used, so it gets a reputation. There were better options.

Yup. Great QM that was. Planes from Brewster had a tendency to unzip their rivets.

The wing joins at the barrel fatigue cracked in the skin. CREF rivets.

See my previous comments. Curtiss probably killed as many US pilots as the enemy did in their lousy planes. I regard them as the Messerschmidt of US aviation.
I just have to disagree. Your analysis of a lot of the equipment, and aircraft you talk about is highly technical, and bitterly critical. It largely doesn't jive with the historical record of what we're talking about. No one seemed to think the P-40 was junk when they were using them in combat, they had an excellent war record, and it's considered a legendary warbird. The P-40 proved the equal of both the Bf-109, and the Zero, the fact it was superseded by superior fighters later in the war doesn't make it junk.

The C-46 did a job that the C-47 proved ill suited to preform, that is flying the Hump. A piece of junk couldn't have done the job. The fuel leak, and pooling problem was an inexcusable error, which should have been discovered, and corrected much sooner. Most of the vapor lock problems were caused by the extremely high altitude operations over the Hump, any aircraft would have suffered the same problems. It's powerful P&W Engines had high fuel consumption, but could hardly be called garbage. Without the C-46 the supply route to China couldn't have been maintained. The C-54 wasn't available in numbers till later in 1943, which would leave B-24's, or their cargo variant to carrying their own supplies. That would've put the 14th Air Force out of business before it started.

As for Brewster I guess their fair game. I didn't know they had such quality control problems. I must also correct myself it was Bell that designed, and built the post war X Planes, not Curtiss, sorry all. Bell did better work then they generally get credit for. The P-39 was a disappointment because of the USAAC changing their requirements about the supercharger. It was a good ground attack aircraft, and Chuck Yeager loved it. The Russians made great use of it. Like the P-60 the P-63 would have been a fine fighter if better fighters weren't already in production.
 
Deny what? I've maintained the exact position I took before, you just purposely lied about what I said because you couldn't support your position.
I do not lie. I even quoted you.
Yeah, you brought up something unrelated to strawman what I said. I left out that study because it wasn't relevant, the only reason you brought it up was to fight a strawman and claim to have won some sort of victory.
Same again.

Except you did nothing of the sort.
Third time .
 
I just have to disagree. Your analysis of a lot of the equipment, and aircraft you talk about is highly technical, and bitterly critical. It largely doesn't jive with the historical record of what we're talking about. No one seemed to think the P-40 was junk when they were using them in combat, they had an excellent war record, and it's considered a legendary warbird. The P-40 proved the equal of both the Bf-109, and the Zero, the fact it was superseded by superior fighters later in the war doesn't make it junk.

The C-46 did a job that the C-47 proved ill suited to preform, that is flying the Hump. A piece of junk couldn't have done the job. The fuel leak, and pooling problem was an inexcusable error, which should have been discovered, and corrected much sooner. Most of the vapor lock problems were caused by the extremely high altitude operations over the Hump, any aircraft would have suffered the same problems. It's powerful P&W Engines had high fuel consumption, but could hardly be called garbage. Without the C-46 the supply route to China couldn't have been maintained. The C-54 wasn't available in numbers till later in 1943, which would leave B-24's, or their cargo variant to carrying their own supplies. That would've put the 14th Air Force out of business before it started.

As for Brewster I guess their fair game. I didn't know they had such quality control problems. I must also correct myself it was Bell that designed, and built the post war X Planes, not Curtiss, sorry all. Bell did better work then they generally get credit for. The P-39 was a disappointment because of the USAAC changing their requirements about the supercharger. It was a good ground attack aircraft, and Chuck Yeager loved it. The Russians made great use of it. Like the P-60 the P-63 would have been a fine fighter if better fighters weren't already in production.
. Your analysis of a lot of the equipment, and aircraft you talk about is highly technical, and bitterly critical.
EXACTLY. Glad you understand why I write what I write.
 
The fuel leak, and pooling problem was an inexcusable error, which should have been discovered, and corrected much sooner.
Wasn't just the C-46 with that problem, the B-24 also had legendary leak issues. Knew a Pilot of one, he said one plane that used never got the leak problems fixed, so every mission would have the bomb bay doors raised just a bit, so fuel vapor wouldn't concentrate. Some times it would be bad enough that it woukd have liquid dropping out.
Said him, his Engineer and his Navigator got real good at fuel burn calculations
 
Top