Quick change barrel MGs developed before WW1

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Driftless

Donor
Isn't there a two-step doctrinal change needed to goose this idea along? First, weren't the HMG's functionally viewed almost as a branch of artillery - set pieces with limited mobility, only to be moved by middle-level commanders? Second, you need to overcome command level aversion to giving the poor bloody infantry lots of ammunition to be used at the squad and individual level. Get those mindsets changed, and other operational possibilities open up. I'd have thought the British and French especially would have found a LMG very useful in colonial warfare, particularly with a changeable barrel. Or, the British cypher that same idea out during the Boer War. In those cases, you frequently had smaller mobile forces operating far from permanent arsenals, so the ability of local units to keep their firepower in the fight would have been critical.
 
Isn't there a two-step doctrinal change needed to goose this idea along? First, weren't the HMG's functionally viewed almost as a branch of artillery - set pieces with limited mobility, only to be moved by middle-level commanders?
That’s not so surprising though, MG08 69kg with water and tripod, schwarzlose/Hotchkiss/Vickers all around 45kg.
3.7cm Infanteriegeschutz M15 84kg, 37mm M1916 108kg. Gewehr 98 4.1kg, M1903 3.9kg.
So the HMGs were absolutely veering into the baby artillery end of the spectrum rather than infantry personal weapons.
For comparison the MG08/18 was down to 14.5kg, Lewis 13kg, Benet-Mercie 12kg, Madsen 10kg. Todays quintessential ‘old-school’ (meaning heavy SOB) GPMGs with QD barrels are the MAG58 and MG3 both a little under 12kg. More modern designs are down around 8kg.

So even a ‘light’ HMG is the equivalent of 3.5 Lewis guns or a bundle of 11 rifles. A Maxim without ammo probably weighs as much as the entire rifle/ammo/grenade issue of a 12-man infantry section, and cost substantially more. It’s unsurprising that these weapons tended not to be rushed forwards.

Personally I think something like a “cavalry machine gun” could be a driver for this. Maybe with minor PODs the UK takes Madsen guns to the Boer war and then to Somaliland & the North-West frontier, looking for a cheaper/improved domestic design around 1910 and have the MkI* of this ready by 1914.
 

Driftless

Donor
Personally I think something like a “cavalry machine gun” could be a driver for this. Maybe with minor PODs the UK takes Madsen guns to the Boer war and then to Somaliland & the North-West frontier, looking for a cheaper/improved domestic design around 1910 and have the MkI* of this ready by 1914.

That's the kind of practical POD that I was trying to get at.
 
The POD could be someone buys say a dozen for his local Yeomanry Regiment that's headed for South Africa after Black Week and they cover themselves in glory using them in front of a war correspondent. Big splash in the papers and the public demands the Army but them in general service thinking LMGs are the answer to the Boers.
 

Deleted member 1487

Personally I think something like a “cavalry machine gun” could be a driver for this. Maybe with minor PODs the UK takes Madsen guns to the Boer war and then to Somaliland & the North-West frontier, looking for a cheaper/improved domestic design around 1910 and have the MkI* of this ready by 1914.
Only issue there is that was actually done with the Madsen in the Russo-Japanese war for cavalry MGs with over 1200 models in service, but apparently that didn't make enough of an impression even on the Russians to expand their use, though they did continue to use them in the cavalry in WW1 and bought a license to make them. The Germans used them the same way in WW1, but weren't particularly impressed it seemed.

The Madsen during the Boer War was still teething and not reliable due to the blackpowder original cartridge that was only rectified in 1902, so too late for the Boer War.
http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=1280
In 1905 a British company did rip off the design and produce it without license, but again too late and apparently not attractive to the British Army. In 1903 the US Army tested it and found that the improved design was still not reliable, despite being manned by the Danish officer who manufactured them and improved on the original design.

So the POD is an interesting thought, unfortunately the timeline of the design doesn't match up and though they were used in the role you suggest historically, they weren't a spring to something more advanced or expanded use.
 
Maybe something like the Colt Browning Potato Digger then. Compared to the Maxim it's light weight and if it's modified to have a tall bipod and a shoulder stock or a small tripod it'll do the job.

 
Maybe something like the Colt Browning Potato Digger then. Compared to the Maxim it's light weight and if it's modified to have a tall bipod and a shoulder stock or a small tripod it'll do the job.

Marlin made these during WWI, modified for regular gas piston operation and aluminum for lighter weight. Planned for use in aircraft, ground and tanks, end of WWI also ended these
interrup.jpg
0_130bc6_b6105215_XL.jpg
 
Only issue there is that was actually done with the Madsen in the Russo-Japanese war for cavalry MGs with over 1200 models in service, but apparently that didn't make enough of an impression even on the Russians to expand their use, though they did continue to use them in the cavalry in WW1 and bought a license to make them. The Germans used them the same way in WW1, but weren't particularly impressed it seemed.

The Madsen during the Boer War was still teething and not reliable due to the blackpowder original cartridge that was only rectified in 1902, so too late for the Boer War.
You have highlighted many of the points I was trying to address. The Madsen in WW1 was basically v0.9 of a useful LMG. Get the design out of the door a couple of years early, get it into a couple of conflicts where the bugs can be documented, have a large technically capable nation address those bugs and it might plausibly go somewhere in time. The potato digger might be another plausible starting point for the same process. Either seems more likely than some clean-sheet concept that just nails QD barrels right out of the starting gate from OTL experiences.

The fact that the Russians didn’t get much joy out of them is something I’m happy to handwave on the basis that different armies in a different war often have different results with similar equipment. In particular it seems plausible that a small number of portable machine guns could have more impact in some of the skirmish warfare seen in those imperial actions than in a high-intensity slugging match like the RJW.

And I believe .303 was cordite from 1891? Certainly it seems very odd for them to be using black powder until 1902 when they introduced the Lee-Enfield in 1895 specifically to address issues the Lee-Metford was having with smokeless.
 
6,5x55mm Hotchkiss M / 98 produced by Kongsberg Våpenfabrikk in Norway. Belt-fed, air-cooled weapon with a reliable reputation, and the historical basis for the man-portable 6,5x55mm Hotchkiss M/ 11.
MG-Kongsberg-Hotchkiss-M98-kal65-1901-92-1.JPG

A good as any basis for a more modern MG doctrine.
 
It would not just be a matter of the technology, but of the tactical thinking in the high command of the armies. In the years prior to WWI most armies didn't quite know what to make of these new-fangled machine guns. How should they be employed? Some saw them as a sort of super-light artillery weapon which could be deployed in terrain where field guns couldn't go. In the US, there were proposals that machine guns should have their own separate branch of the service like infantry, cavalry, and artillery. Few, if anyone was thinking of them as squad-level weapons--especially since no one was even thinking about squad level tactics. in 1914 the company was still the basic tactical unit.
 

Deleted member 1487

Reading a bit about the Lewis gun there is no reason it shouldn't have developed a QC barrel, it would have made it cheaper, easier to make vs that shroud arrangement, and lighter as well as helped maintain sustained fire.
 
Reading a bit about the Lewis gun there is no reason it shouldn't have developed a QC barrel, it would have made it cheaper, easier to make vs that shroud arrangement, and lighter as well as helped maintain sustained fire.
The precision for QC barrels wasn't there yet when the Lewis was built, same as all the other WWI machine guns.
 
Top