Why aren't water-cooled machine guns used anymore?

But how many where actually built/bought/designed during WWII and not simply old stock from WWI that where ready, available and effectively free?
The UK made Vickers guns until the end of WW2. They were virtually indestructible hence the reason one fired 5 million rounds of soon to be surplus ammo in an attempt to break one... they didn't.
Forgotten Weapons
"...In 1963 in Yorkshire, a class of British Army armorers put one Vickers gun through probably the most strenuous test ever given to an individual gun. The base had a stockpile of approximately 5 million rounds of Mk VII ammunition which was no longer approved for military use. They took a newly rebuilt Vickers gun, and proceeded to fire the entire stock of ammo through it over the course of seven days. They worked in pairs, switching off at 30 minute intervals, with a third man shoveling away spent brass. The gun was fired in 250-round solid bursts, and the worn out barrels were changed every hour and a half. At the end of the five million rounds, the gun was taken back into the shop for inspection. It was found to be within service spec in every dimension.
 
The UK made Vickers guns until the end of WW2.

And how many of these were used on vehicles like the OP proposes? Indeed how many Water cooled MGs were used on vehicles by any power? The british and US favoured Besas and aircooled M1919s (and brens for the british), germans favoured MG-34s and the russians favoured the DT and all of these nations had large stocks of surplus water cooled MGs.

The answer is that they are simply not practical be that in internal or external mounting configurations compared to air cooled MGs for the reasons I stated in my earlier post.
 
Last edited:
But how many where actually built/bought/designed during WWII and not simply old stock from WWI that where ready, available and effectively free?
Naval .50 Brownings were watercooled, Interwar development
3e57a3be42ce0465ae9d7ebd451806ca.jpg
 
A modern GPMG is a heavy bastard, I don't even want to think about having to lug around a water cooled MMG with a full water jacket.
 

Jack Brisco

Banned
And how many of these were used on vehicles like the OP proposes? Indeed how many Water cooled MGs were used on vehicles by any power? The british and US favoured Besas and M1919s (and brens for the british), germans favoured MG-34s and the russians favoured the DT and all of these nations had large stocks of surplus water cooled MGs.

The answer is that they are simply not practical be that in internal or external mounting configurations compared to air cooled MGs for the reasons I stated in my earlier post.

Remember seeing a water-cooled MG on a US half-track in Europe near the end of WWII. Makes sense. Vehicle can easily carry a lot of ammo and cooling water.
 
And how many of these were used on vehicles like the OP proposes? Indeed how many Water cooled MGs were used on vehicles by any power? The british and US favoured Besas and aircooled M1919s (and brens for the british), germans favoured MG-34s and the russians favoured the DT and all of these nations had large stocks of surplus water cooled MGs.

The answer is that they are simply not practical be that in internal or external mounting configurations compared to air cooled MGs for the reasons I stated in my earlier post.
The British Machine Gun Battalions mounted Vickers MMGs on Bren Carriers in WW2.
The Divisional Cavalry Regiment of 2nd NZ Division mounted Vickers MMGs that they picked up off the Battle Field on some of their Bren Carriers, and I've seen an Australian WW2 Infantry Battalion org that had all the Carrier Company equipped with Vickers.
672bd6a944f87342730d781de5319a9f.jpg

f2c461c39b1ab8a7c9ce8dec91f43148.jpg

British Light Tanks in the interwar years, and early war mounted Vickers MMGs initially as their sole armament, or as secondary armament.
IWM-KID-333-Light-tank-MkIII.jpg
 
For all the reasons so well stated here, water cooled MG's are pretty much a thing of the past. And even then...the heavy water cooled units were better for defense and the LMG's, for the attack, but, it was the WW2 U.S. and U.K. units that featured the M1917 and Vickers, while the Axis armies leaned almost exclusively on air cooled weapons. Warfare has a way of making us look like dummies...
 
And even then...the heavy water cooled units were better for defense and the LMG's, for the attack, but, it was the WW2 U.S. and U.K. units that featured the M1917 and Vickers, while the Axis armies leaned almost exclusively on air cooled weapons.

Given how things went, the Germans would have better off with watercooled Vickers, since they were on Defense for most of the War.

Putting an MG-34 on a special tripod really didn't make it a MMG
288cf5a98fe486a164be2b7a71b1f860.jpg

It just got used that way.

Really, having both, like the US did, was the best route. Air and Water cooled.
And yes, I know the aircooled Browning was way too heavy for a LMG.
That was just another the complete screwups of US Ordnance with MGs during the War

I knew a Marine(who sadly recently passed) part of the Heavy Weapons Squad who said without the watercooled Browning's ability to fire continuously as long as ammo was fed and fluid was in the jacket, saved his life, and many of the guys in his company while fighting the Japanese.

He said that even with the water cooling, he had shot out many barrels to where he would see his red tracers going out in a cone
 
Naval .50 Brownings were watercooled, Interwar development
Plenty of later navy guns with water cooling...
WNIT_5-54_LW_front_pic.jpg


it was the WW2 U.S. and U.K. units that featured the M1917 and Vickers, while the Axis armies leaned almost exclusively on air cooled weapons.
Was that not more to do with simply having them from WWI?

US/GB still had the same rifle round and didn't have to give up any guns inter war?
Germany lost most of its MGs in 1918/19.....
Italy and Japan both tried to change rifle round to a heavier one in 30s and especially Japan might not have built anything like as many MGs in WWI as US/GB.
 
Top