Machine gun torment of the US Army. How America went to war without machine guns

43
Machine gun torment of the US Army. How America went to war without machine guns

Like all military men at the turn of the XNUMXth and XNUMXth centuries in general, the American military turned its eyes to a new weapon - machine gun. Like many before and after them, they opted for the system of their compatriot Maxim. But then something went wrong.

The first attempt was made in 1904. The Americans worked directly with the Vickers plant, and there, according to American specifications, they developed a version of the machine gun, which the US Army adopted in 1904. With the establishment of mass production in the United States itself, problems arose, and the American military (which is logical) wanted a machine gun of precisely domestic production.



As a result, the first 90 machine guns were fired by the British, and under the British rifle cartridge, and only in 1908 did the Colt factory begin to produce a localized version for American ammunition.


The receiver of a machine gun of the 1904 model, top view.

And everything seemed to be fine. The army received more than a modern machine gun, which was just a work of art, but there was a downside.

The machine gun came out heavy and expensive even by the standards of the Maxim system. It was one of the heaviest, if not the heaviest machine gun of the Maxim system, put into service. Even the rejection of the huge wheeled carriage and the transition to a tripod machine did not improve the situation. The machine gun weighed about 64 kilograms without water in the casing.

For comparison: the domestic machine gun of the Maxim system of the 1910 model weighed about 67 kilograms, but with water in the water cooling casing and with an armor shield, which was not even provided for on the American machine gun.


Model 1904 machine gun for US Army exercises in Texas, 1911.

Not only did the system turn out to be very heavy and expensive, but also the machines were not produced at the Colt plant, but in England, and it is not known when the Colt plant could launch the production of machine tools. A little less than 300 machine guns were adopted (90 of which were produced in England, later they were re-fired under an American rifle cartridge) machine guns, after which production was stopped.


Machine gun model 1904 in all its glory. Just look at the amount of bronze details. It is not surprising that it turned out to be expensive and heavy.

In 1909, the Americans adopted a manual version of the Hotchkiss machine gun, which they called M1909 Bene and Mercier, and they seemed to calm down on this for a while.


Practice shooting from a Benet and Mercier M1909 machine gun of the US Army, a single M1904 machine gun is visible in the background.

The fact that the Hotchkiss machine gun would not solve the problem became clear pretty quickly. The system turned out to be so capricious that it was nicknamed the "day machine gun" in the army. A hint of the complexity of the design and the impossibility of eliminating breakdowns and delays in the absence of daylight. Ironically, the first combat use of these machine guns took place at night, when repelling an attack by Pancho Villa's detachment on the American border town of Columbus.


Model 1904 machine guns of the 8th Cavalry Regiment firing, border with Mexico, 1916.

And then the Great War began, and it became clear to the American military that something had to be done. This time they did not reinvent the wheel and simply bought a license from the British for the production of the Vickers machine gun (a variant of the Maxim system), which had already successfully fought in Europe.


Machine gun model 1915.

In 1915, the machine gun was adopted ... And nothing has changed for the US Army. There were no more machine guns. The situation was so dire that in 1916, 300 Lewis machine guns had to be requisitioned in favor of the army at the Savage company, where they were produced for Great Britain.


A shot from a newsreel dismantling practice firing from Lewis machine guns in units leaving for Mexico, 1916.

The troops that went to Mexico to pacify the local revolutionaries were sorely lacking in automatic small arms. But in pursuit of Pancho Villa, only one consolidated division with reinforcement units went. The thing is that the establishment of mass production of machine guns of the 1915 model of the year at the Colt factory was very slow.

At the time of the US entry into the First World War, the Colt company did not produce a single machine gun of the 1915 model of the year, although mass production had been established for two years already. The US Army found itself in the situation of a shoemaker without boots, thousands of machine guns were produced in the country, and they were sorely lacking in the army.


Staged photo with a 1915 model machine gun at Fort Lee, USA, 1917.

The first American divisions that arrived in Europe found themselves without machine guns at all. They simply did not exist in the United States, and each infantry division of the US Army in 1917 needed about 260 heavy machine guns. As a result, the first 12 American infantry divisions that arrived in Europe had to be armed with French Hotchkiss machine guns.


Machine gunners of the machine gun battalion of the 2nd brigade of the 1st infantry division of the US Army, France, May 1918. The French machine gun in the American infantry was virtually standard in 1917 and the first half of 1918.

Colt began to give the first machine guns of the 1915 model only towards the end of 1917, when the US Army was already fighting in Europe. Until November 11, 1918, a little more than 12 thousand Colt-Vickers M1915 machine guns were produced. A little over two thousand were converted for installation on aircraft.

In 1918, machine guns finally began to equip divisions heading to Europe, and from the second half of 1918 they gradually began to replace French materiel in divisions that had already fought with the Germans. In 1917, the torment of the US Army with an easel machine gun stopped for many years, as the Browning M1917 machine gun was adopted. True, a little more than a thousand of these machine guns managed to make war in Europe, and the peak of its combat use fell on other conflicts.


Soldiers of the 83rd Infantry Division of the US Army with an M1917 machine gun. France, 1918 The machine gun is mounted on a machine from the British Vickers.

The most interesting thing is that all the time that the US Army was tormented with the production of an easel machine gun, a very successful easel machine gun of a completely original American design was mass-produced in the USA - the Colt Browning machine gun of the 1895 model. This machine gun even fought in parts of the US Army, however, it was never officially adopted. But this is completely different story.
43 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    7 June 2023 05: 08
    In the 30-40s, with an easel machine gun in the USSR, there was no ice either! And the old proven "Maxim" fought in the war! And only in 1943 was the SG-43 adopted!
    1. +2
      7 June 2023 05: 37
      And you don't confuse anything? DP, DPT, DShK...
      1. +3
        7 June 2023 05: 51
        I also forgot MT, DS, PV ... Well ... It turns out that my comment is not informative ... fellow La-la-la, poplars .... So it will go?
        1. +1
          7 June 2023 11: 31
          Quote: Mordvin 3
          La-la-la, poplars

          hi
          How will it go! good laughing
        2. Alf
          +1
          7 June 2023 19: 52
          Quote: Mordvin 3
          DShK..

          DShK-large-caliber.
          DP and DPT manual.
          DC is expensive and unreliable.
          PV aviation.
          MT is awesome weight.
      2. +2
        7 June 2023 12: 25
        Of which the easel is only DShK, but it is large-caliber
  2. +2
    7 June 2023 05: 54
    machine gun "Colt-Browning" model 1895.

    For the characteristic movement of the lever with the piston, as well as for the dust raised by the powder gases discharged downwards, known as the "potato digger"
  3. +3
    7 June 2023 06: 06
    I read the article with interest, but I did not understand the reasons for all the "hacks" with the release of machine guns of the 1904 and 1915 models. Those. reasons why the Colt was so slow in mass production. Is it really in retaliation (joke) for not adopting the Colt-Browning of the 1895 model of the year ("Potato Digger"))))

    And why, when mentioning the hand-held firearms of Hotchkiss and Lewis, the author did not say a word about the domestic development of the same John Browning - the Browning M1918 (BAR), which, although it was positioned as an "automatic rifle", was in fact an excellent light machine gun.

    Thanks to the author, and hello to all and best wishes. smile
    1. +2
      7 June 2023 06: 28
      Quote: Sea Cat
      I read the article with interest, but I did not understand the reasons for all the "hacks" with the release of machine guns of the 1904 and 1915 models.

      According to Pikul, it's all about the cartridges. The machine gun of the 1904 model could not withstand the cartridges of later years of production.
      1. +3
        7 June 2023 06: 56
        Well, if you believe Pikul ... The whole question is, should you believe him? request

        The fact that the Hotchkiss machine gun would not solve the problem became clear pretty quickly. The system turned out to be so capricious that it was nicknamed the "day machine gun" in the army.

        Then it becomes clear why Vereshchagin drowned him in the sea, and did not give him to Comrade Sukhov. wink
        1. +2
          7 June 2023 07: 35
          Quote: Sea Cat
          The question is, should he be trusted?

          There he led the dialogue of the deputies. Right now, I found it.
          Once visiting a meeting of the State Duma, I was simply dumbfounded by the dialogue that arose between one Duma member and a representative of the military ministry.

          - Did you give an order for one and a half thousand machine guns?

          “Yes,” came the clear answer.

          Are they state of the art?

          - This is the highest installed model of 1905.

          - Fine. Have you ordered ammo for them?

          - Of course.

          What kind of gunpowder are they stuffed with?

          - The highest standard of 1908.

          “Do you know,” followed the Duma member’s question, “that this gunpowder of 1908 is four times more destructive than that used in machine-gun cartridges of 1905?”

          - Notified. Enough.

          - So, you will not be surprised if these cartridges, when fired, will immediately break the barrels of your machine guns?

          - Yes, it turns out that it is.

          “If so, then why are you doing this?”

          - But the samples are the highest established! - And the face of the representative of the War Ministry suddenly became innocent, like that of a baby who plays with a loaded pistol in the cradle ...

          https://kniga-online.com/books/proza/o-vojne/page-77-239340-valentin-pikul-chest-imeyu.html
          1. The comment was deleted.
    2. -4
      7 June 2023 06: 59
      Quote: Sea Cat
      the author did not say a word about the domestic development of the same John Browning - Browning M1918

      Because BELGIAN!!! Browning lived in Belgium from 1902. Since the beginning of the last century, the Americans' weapons lobby has "eaten" all the machine guns - and since then to this day they have not fired A SINGLE normal machine gun. The peak of the machine-gun opupei - this is how you can turn the probably ideal machine gun for its time MG 42 into a miserable "spitting pig" - and send it really to fight with this hideout))) Although there is an anecdote on a joke, photographs of Americans in WWII, how they crawl through the jungle with with a three-legged machine, dragging a heavy fool with a casing for water, a tank, and a hose - they cause a healthy stir, this is not a "square roll" for you, Monsieur knows a lot about perversions.
      And so, everything is simple - a weapons lobby, therefore:
      * Maxim is an American, they didn’t let him release a machine gun, they survived in England, then they bought machine guns from the British.
      * Lewis - American, colonel, developed a machine gun just for the army, manual and infantry. But the lobby! Go to Angia, then they bought machine guns again.
      * Browning ... Moishe, go to Belgium, you don't need wassat
      And so to this day, only some miserable crafts such as Johnson's machine gun, which stands like a hand-assembled Ferrari
      1. +2
        7 June 2023 07: 57
        Because BELGIAN!!! Browning lived in Belgium from 1902.

        Well, that still didn't stop the Americans from adopting his system.

        M1917A1


        M1919A4.

        And some of it has survived to this day.
        1. +2
          7 June 2023 08: 27
          So they "taetseva" with rifles no worse than the Indians!
          As a result, they "copied with local color" the product of the Mausers and received their "Springfields 1903".
          The Germans then "cut down" money from them for "unlicensed use of patents"!
          1. +1
            7 June 2023 09: 42
            Hi Aleksey! hi
            The Germans then "cut down" money from them for "unlicensed use of patents"!

            But I haven't heard about this yet. It's funny, oh yes, the Teutons! good
            1. +2
              7 June 2023 12: 05
              Good day, Konstantin!
              You just forgot this information.
              She was voiced on VO and on the Internet is in articles about "Springfield 1903".
              At the same time, the Yankees "cast a glance" at the products from the Mauser Brothers after comprehending the events of the American-Spanish War. Especially the battles of the summer of 1898.
              There was a case when 500 (or 750) Spanish soldiers with "Mausers" for 16 hours held the defense against almost 7 thousand Yankees. The Yankees had their Springfield 1895 (Crag Jurgenson) or Lee Nevie.
              And after this victorious war, American generals urgently needed to re-equip their army with the "American Mauser"!
        2. +2
          8 June 2023 00: 02
          M1917A1
          ,, in capable hands winked
          John Basilone
      2. +3
        7 June 2023 09: 35
        Moishe, go to Belgium,


        Browning's father Jonathan, who was among the thousands of pioneers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who made the mass transition from Nauvoo, Illinois, to Utah, established an armory in Ogden in 1852. As was customary in the Latter Day Saint community at the time, Jonathan Browning was a polygamist who took three wives.


        So there is no smell of "mine" there, but it does not matter much. smile
        1. 0
          7 June 2023 09: 43
          Quote: Sea Cat
          So "mine" doesn't smell there,

          John Moses wink So long pinned)
        2. Alf
          +1
          7 June 2023 19: 57
          Quote: Sea Cat
          So "mine" doesn't smell there,

          And Ivan Moiseevich? laughing
          Good evening !
    3. +1
      7 June 2023 07: 05
      Although the BAR is a separate story, in reality it is closer to an automatic rifle, but unlike the M14 (where the fire translator was dismantled so that the cartridges would not be burned) and our ABCs at least got somewhere in bursts, and about whose he is also biting to this day day, you can pull an owl on a globe, which is what the Americans do. Only now he was not exactly magnificent, and in principle he was not capable of suppressing any machine gun.
      1. +1
        7 June 2023 09: 38
        Only now he was not exactly magnificent, and in principle he was not capable of suppressing any machine gun.

        And he didn't need to. BAR is an infantry support weapon, not a means to suppress enemy firing points.
    4. +3
      7 June 2023 07: 39
      BAR is still exactly an automatic rifle (especially the first model that didn’t even have bipods), and it appeared at the end of the First World War, when the Americans had plenty of trouble with the Shosh machine gun.



      There is a rather funny story with the fact that the military themselves were delaying the issuance of orders, plus the volume of orders did not suit the plant itself, therefore it was delaying the establishment of production (and this costs money) and began to move only when output volumes with three zeros loomed on the horizon. You can write a separate article.
      1. 0
        7 June 2023 07: 51
        Quote: Alexander Vasilievich_4
        You can write a separate article.

        Duc ... And drive through all the machine guns - there for a full cycle of material ... There is not much information about American machine guns ... Well, perhaps due to their absence? According to the mind, it’s only about the M2 that something will come out croaking, and then, if you dig, the M2 is designed from a PMV machine gun ... And from that time on, they will either dig up the stewardess, or bury it back. because there are no other flight attendants on their island
      2. +2
        7 June 2023 07: 59
        Thanks for the clarification, now this kitchen has more or less become clear to me. smile
      3. 0
        7 June 2023 08: 20
        Quote: Alexander Vasilievich_4
        There is a rather funny story with the fact that the military themselves delayed the issuance of orders, plus the volume of orders did not suit the plant itself,

        In my opinion, there was some kind of bodyaga with patents. Painfully much he asked for them. The American army did not pull the greedy Moses.
      4. +2
        7 June 2023 08: 39
        Bingo
        Today, 07: 51
        NEW

        0
        Quote: Alexander Vasilievich_4
        You can write a separate article.

        Duc ... And drive through all the machine guns - there for a full cycle of material ...


        And what a good idea, I fully support it. You read easily. So keep it up. I hope to see new material from you soon. smile drinks
    5. +3
      7 June 2023 09: 08
      I read the article with interest, but I did not understand the reasons for all the "hacks" with the release of machine guns of the 1904 and 1915 models.

      The main "hack" - the US military did not see a special need for a machine gun. At the time the machine gun appeared in US foreign policy, the Monroe Doctrine dominated, albeit a little "modernized".
  4. +2
    7 June 2023 08: 01
    Why are Americans wearing British helmets? They didn’t have their own helmets in WWI either?
    1. 0
      7 June 2023 08: 30
      Quote: Aviator_
      Why are Americans wearing British helmets? They didn’t have their own helmets in WWI either?

      Oh, it did. The modern American helmet was invented by a chef. From Fort Bragg, or something.
    2. +5
      7 June 2023 08: 32
      The helmet had its own, model 1917, but in fact it is a copy of the British MkI with some changes. The first units that got to the front simply ran in British clothes. Americans and French helmets used.



      In 1917, the Americans were either "not at all" or "severely lacking."
    3. +2
      7 June 2023 08: 47
      They didn’t have their own helmets in WWI either?


      Did not have. Entering the First World War in April 1917, American military commanders "suddenly" found that their soldiers had nothing to protect their heads.
      The problem was solved quickly - the British Brodie helmets were adopted. Trying to create their own, they experimented desperately, but this is a topic for a separate article.
      Here is an example of experiments, did not go into service.
      1. -4
        7 June 2023 09: 42
        And the idea is good ... What the mattresses clearly lack is a muzzle. In view of the special contagiousness and general rabies - it is steel!
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. -2
    7 June 2023 08: 20
    Well, not much has changed since the XNUMXth century. wassat
    The Sshashniks still don’t have a single machine gun. And as a manual Belgian FN under 5,56 with loose tape and weighing more than PKM. belay
    1. +2
      7 June 2023 13: 42
      The Sshashniks still don’t have a single machine gun. And as a manual Belgian FN under 5,56 with loose tape and weighing more than PKM.

      Try to read before writing. not to write nonsense.
      The single machine gun in the US Army is the M240 (FN MAG) chambered in 7,62×51mm NATO. It is indeed much heavier than PKM - 12,5 kg versus 7,5. It is currently planned to modify the existing M240 chambered for 6,8 × 51 mm.
      And the "Belgian FN under 5,56" is M249. Its weight and PKT weight are the same - 7,5 kg. It has an M48 variant chambered in 7,62×51mm NATO which weighs 8,2 kg.
      1. +1
        7 June 2023 14: 07
        It would be very interesting to see / read a comparison of these machine guns "head on", certainly from the operators of both at the same time.
  7. 0
    7 June 2023 08: 44
    Most of all in the article I would single out Pancho Villa. It turned out to be a very colorful character! It is strange that there is not a single article about him on VO request
    1. +2
      7 June 2023 15: 03
      There are no articles about Prescott BUSH, who, according to many Mexicans, ordered the desecration of Villa's grave and the theft of his skull!
  8. -1
    8 June 2023 11: 35
    Quote from Frettaskyrandi
    The single machine gun in the US Army is the M240 (FN MAG) chambered in 7,62×51mm NATO. It is indeed much heavier than PKM - 12,5 kg versus 7,5.

    You know, I somehow perceived the ONE machine gun as something wearable by the forces of calculation. Apparently wrong. A single machine gun weighing almost TWO PKM! No, I understand that only jocks serve in the US Army, but still. laughing After all, in addition to the instrument itself, you also need to transfer the BC.
    Well, the constructive, in the end, is again Belgian. Where is the vaunted Colt, Winchester, Zig Sauer at worst, the one that is in the USA? what
    1. +2
      8 June 2023 13: 31
      Your perception is a completely subjective process that has nothing to do with the question.
      A single machine gun is a machine gun, the design of which provides for its use both as a manual one from a bipod and as an easel from a machine gun (GOST 28653-90). In NATO, the definition of a universal machine gun is more extensive, but essentially the same.
      As for the weight. Very famous light machine gun DP-27 weighs 11,8 kg, the much less well-known RP-46 - 13 kg, Rheinmetall MG 3, the direct successor of the very famous MG 42 - 11,5 kg, the South Korean S&T Motiv K12 - 12 kg, and even the Chinese copy of PKM - Type 80, weighs 12 kg.
      This is not because all of the above manufacturers cannot make it easier. And the Chinese did not accidentally make it harder. This is because a further reduction in weight adversely affects the combat capabilities precisely single machine gun. The lighter it is, the worse it is as a single unit. Once again, I strongly advise you - before you write, try reading.
      And the Belgian construct in the production of single machine guns is used by the whole world. But the Soviet one is only China, and then with significant changes.
    2. 0
      8 June 2023 13: 55
      Where is the vaunted Colt, Winchester, Zig Sauer at worst, the one that is in the USA? what

      Again, with this remark you confirmed your complete ignorance of the topic. Ask what machine guns the USASOC uses.
  9. 0
    9 June 2023 13: 36
    Quote from Frettaskyrandi
    As for the weight. The very famous DP-27 light machine gun weighs 11,8 kg,


    And when was it created? And he was "manual" only in comparison with the "maxim".
  10. 0
    9 June 2023 13: 38
    Quote from Frettaskyrandi
    The main "hack" - the US military did not see a special need for a machine gun.


    Just like good rifles. Until they ran into the Spaniards, who had good German ...
    Well, yes, they are used to fighting with the Indians, "Rambo" overseas.