Hotchkiss Machine Gun

[David B]

I have noticed on the service docos of a Light Horse Sergeant that I have been researching that in March/April 1917 he

attended and passed a 2 week course in the Hotchkiss MG.

I was under the impression that this gun was only used by French ground and airforces as well as US forces, so why would

an Australian L/horseman need to attend a course on this gun. The course by the way was in Egypt.

david

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

David

Mate, time to change your impressions.

By the middle of 1917, each ALH regiment in the EEF was equipped with Hotchkiss Guns on the ratio of one per troop. The impact was to increase the punch of the mobile troops. A four man team with six horses was allocated the task of taking care of the Hotchkiss Gun. The weapon was wonderfully adapted for rapid movement. The Hotchkiss Gun was so robust and accurate that the Turks tried everything to capture them, preferring the Hotchkiss over their own German automatic rifle.

So getting back to your original comment, Hotchkiss Gun training initially took place at Moascar but following the 1917 breakout, also at Deir el Belah. So your man was amongst the first batch of ALH to be trained on the use of the Hotchkiss Gun which meant going to Egypt and Moascar.

Cheers

Bill

[David B]

Thanks Bill, you have changed my impression, always thought us Aussies stuck with the Vickers/Lewis.

David

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

David

Mate, that impression is correct. The Machine Gun Squadrons operated with the Vickers.

If you go to:

http://alh-research.tripod.com/Light_Horse...fleas-on-fleas/

There is a link to some video of the 3rd LHMGS firing in the Judean Hills in late December 1917.

I forgot to mention the name of the German light machine gun - Bergmann MG15

Cheers

Bill

[David B]

Thanks Bill, I see what you are on about. No all appears to be what it appears.

David

[L.M]

I don't know if this adds to or confuses the Australian comments but the Service Record of an uncle of mine states that whilst with the 32nd Middlesex Regiment, aged 17, he "qualified as a 1st class shot at Gorleston (Norfolk?) on 8th November 1917, qualified on the Hotchkiss machine gun on the 14th December, and then passed 1st class on the Lewis machine gun at Gorleston on the 11th May 1918. The next month he was tranferred overseas and posted to the Middlesex Regiment 13 BEF (in France I believe).

[centurion]

I was under the impression that this gun was only used by French ground and airforces as well as US forces, so why would

an Australian L/horseman need to attend a course on this gun. The course by the way was in Egypt.

david

The Hotchkiss (a 303 version) was adopted by British cavalry from 1916 (see British Cavalry Equipments 1800 - 1941 for a description of how it was carried and used) I would imagine the Australian cavalry followed suite. BTW the gun was also used by the Belgians. It was a standard weapon for the Japanese army and probably used at Tsingtao in 1914

[bob lembke]

David

I forgot to mention the name of the German light machine gun - Bergmann MG15

Bill

Bill;

I had wondered what German "automatic rifle" you were referring to above. The Bergmann seems to never have been used on the Western Front. The Germans had a real gap in their weapons in regard to a truly light MG. The Germans formed some MG battalions using the Danish Madsen, some of which fell into their hands in a variety of ways (some captured from Russian cavalry, and I think some sort of a cloak and dagger operation led to the Brits sending a shipment to German agents). When their supply of Madsens ran out they regunned these battalions with captured Lewis Guns, which the Germans liked a lot. They also made a lighter but still water-cooled version of the MG 08, itself which was similar to the Vickers, but at 65 lbs. vs. 140 lbs. it was hardly "light". My father's unit adopted the French Chauchat, which in the original cartridge was not quite as bad as its really bad reputation, if carefully picked over, tested, and kept clean.

I guess that the Bergmann, being air-cooled, simply could not provide the sustained fire required on the Western Front. I don't know its stats, but it looks quite light, so probably it was a good fit for the Middle East; long trips and marches, with mostly very occasional lighter fighting. I know that German troops had the Bergmann in the East; I don't know if they were given to the Turks.

The gun should not be confused with the short-barrelled Bergmann MP 18 "machine pistol", which fired the 9mm Parabellum round from "snail-shell" magazines, and which was to be issued at one per Grupp or squad of about 10 men when the end of the war came.

Bob Lembke

[centurion]

Bob

Whether the Bergman was an air weapon issued to the ground troops or a ground weapon issued as an air weapon seems to appear to depend on which source you read! However as a ground weapon it does appear to have been first used mainly on the Eastern Front, as you say, where it had a major advantage of not freezing up in the harsh winters. However it could only manage 300 rounds before overheating (which would probably rule it out for use in the ME). It seems to have had an accuracy problem and a reworked model was produced in an attempt to solve this. However it was soon replaced by the MG08/15. In the air it was found that the g forces of combat maneuver played hob with the feed mechanism and it was soon deemed unsuitable for this role. Surplus air service Bergmans were fitted with a bipod and issued to German ground troops in Italy.

I understand that towards the end of 1918 some Bergman MG 15s showed up on the WF (whether ex air service or not is unknown) but then almost every variety of machine gun was pressed into service.

The KuK used a small number of Bergmans (air service) as AA guns in protection of observation balloons.

David

The Germans put captured Hotchkiss into service. Unlike the Lewis this required no modifications as there was ammo available to fit them

[David B]

Gee Whiz, a simple question as to why a guy did a course in the Hotchkiss and I get all these answers. Truly, the guys on

this forum are a fount of knowledge and replies much appreciated.

Cheers David

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Bob

I know that German troops had the Bergmann in the East; I don't know if they were given to the Turks.

Just to help you out here, on 1 December 1917 at El Burj, a battalion of Turkish Storm Troopers attacked the line held by the 8th and 9th LHRs. The following extract of a pic was taken by Bert Schramm, the fellow who is part of my avatar, taken after the clean up of the battlefield.

The helmet is a clear give away that it was used by Turkish Storm Troopers. Oh, and also the belt buckles. As they were the only one's to attack that day - there was not a German within 20km, one can only conclude that the Bergman in the pic was taken into action by the Turks themselves.

Centurion

The Germans put captured Hotchkiss into service. Unlike the Lewis this required no modifications as there was ammo available to fit them

I am a bit confused about this comment. The Lewis, Hotchkiss, and all British manufactured rifles all used the same calibre to avoid the problem of inventory and ammunition. It was one size fits all. So regarding the Lewis, unless the enemy did not have any captured .303 cartridges, there would have been no impediment on re-using the Lewis gun. I might add that it was the weapon of choice for the Turks along with the Hotchkiss, especially given the comments of Bob about ther Bergman, which rendered their weapons inconvenient after a few minutes of hard battle.

The robustness of the Hotchiss in the desert was not due to any better craftsmanship than that of the Bergman, it came from its ability to handle tolerances on ammunition when the barrel heated. That is also the reason why the AK47 has proved to be such a durable weapon. In addition, because at least two spare barrels were kept on hand, when a barrel heated, the men were trained to change the barrel in 48 secs. Every man in the team was trained to do this. So the barrels were rotated quickly through any fire fight keeping the weapon very serviceable despite the conditions that prevailed such as heat and dust. So in a standard fire fight, on average, the men would shoot 500 rounds, change the barrel, shoot another 500 rounds, change the barrel and by the time they were ready to rotate the first barrel it would have cooled enough to allow its reuse. The functional beauty of this part was that there was only one tool to do every task with the Hotchkiss. No need to look for the right tool, there was just the one tool which did all jobs.

The other advantage was that it employed no small parts so there were no fiddly bits to lose when a crucial part of the battle unfolded. Contrasted to the Bergman with its superb craftsmanship, it was nearly useless on the battlefield operated by non mechanical people. A spring breaks and the replacement - if one exists - drops on the ground. It needs to be found, cleaned etc before being fitted as it jumps out again on the ground ... etc etc. A common problem. The Hotchkiss was engineered to be used by dummies and therein lay its utility. It was not a beautiful gun in terms of engineering but it was robust in terms of usage.

If you want copies of the Cavalry Manuals, I have them on my website:

This is a listing of its use for the Cavalry:

http://alh-research.tripod.com/Light_Horse...opic_id=1113879

And this is the weapon per se:

http://alh-research.tripod.com/Light_Horse...opic_id=1106158

There is much literature and post battle reports on the use of the Hotchkiss Gun as a weapon. All the positives - and there were many - were described, as too were the negatives. Regarding the negatives, they were mainly tactical rather than mechanical. An example in the early days was the four man team with the six horses, a dead give away to the Turks that they were the ones with the Hotchkiss Gun and thus targeted by artillery or snipers or machine gun fire. When they broke this team up into different parts of the troop and deployed them in a manner that would not betray the location of the Hotchkiss Gun, the attacking ceased in a specific form and remained general and harassing. These are the sorts of details one finds. Oh and the barrel thing. They overheated too quickly which was resolved by carrying two spares.

Cheers

Bill

[David B]

Fascinating, thanks Bill

David

[pmaasz]

What appears to be the same guide to the Hotchkiss but in a slightly different format is published by the Naval & Military Press.

[centurion]

I am a bit confused about this comment. The Lewis, Hotchkiss, and all British manufactured rifles all used the same calibre to avoid the problem of inventory and ammunition.

French Hotchkiss decidedly did not take the same ammo as British ones where the design was changed to take 303!

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Centurion

Since the topic related specifically to the ME, mate who would have thought you were talking about the Western Front, something irrelevant in this discussion? You can understand my confusion. As to the French use of the Hotchkiss guns with the 1er Regiment Mixte de Cavalerie Du Levant, they too used the .303 cartridge so we can't even generalize on your comment but only specifically put it as relating to the Western Front to those French units that used the Hotchkiss Gun to French calibre specifications.

Cheers

Bill

[bob lembke]

Bill;

A fascinating picture that conveys a lot of info. The Germans trained Turkish storm units in Galicia and supplied them with specially made helmets, possibly at least two models. A specialty topic that I am not up to speed on. One type at least had no brim; traditional Turkish military lore equated billed headgear with surrender. (The story that Turkish style helmets had no brim so as to make them wearable during Muslim prayer is probably nonsense.) Some of the Turkish helmets never got there and were worn by some Freikorps detachments in the 1919 fighting.

When the Chauchat was converted to the US .30-06 round the bad design and manufacturing became almost entireably unworkable due to the more powerful round. But possibly it was a blow-back design or some other odd design. I would think that the Hotchkiss had a locked bolt and could handle a more powerful cartridge. (I am assuming that the .303 was more powerful, like the .30-06.)

Bob

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Bob

Below is a pic of the Turkish Storm Trooper.

As to the helmet being of that design, I have heard a number of different accounts for the reason. Obviously some are apocryphal. The most common one that keeps recurring and more in line with the Turkish view of their German ally is that these helmets were rejects as seen to be unsuitable for Western Front use and thus sold to the Turkish government as a bargain job lot. It is the bill that was the reason - the larger the frontage, the more facial protection from falling objects. Given all the factors surrounding the Turkish army at that particular period, I am reasonably inclined to believe this story although with reservations.

Cheers

Bill

[TonyE]

Centurion

Since the topic related specifically to the ME, mate who would have thought you were talking about the Western Front, something irrelevant in this discussion? You can understand my confusion. As to the French use of the Hotchkiss guns with the 1er Regiment Mixte de Cavalerie Du Levant, they too used the .303 cartridge so we can't even generalize on your comment but only specifically put it as relating to the Western Front to those French units that used the Hotchkiss Gun to French calibre specifications.

Cheers

Bill

Like you Bill, I was confused by Centurion's comment. Apart from the fact that the thread was specifically talking about British/Commonwealth use in the ME, I did not understand the comment about the Hotchkiss not needing to be converted as ammunition was available.

The only ammunition available would have been captured French ammunition or the very limited amounts of 8mm Lebel made by the Germans themselves in the latter part of the war.

The history of the Hotchkiss in British/Commonwealth service is interesting, as initially the army had rejected it and it was the Admiralty that ordered the first 1,000 guns and arranged for Hotchkiss to set up a new factory in Coventry.

In August 1915, as the new factory was being equipped, LLoyd George decided to order 3,000 further guns despite there being no army requirement. The first ten guns had been produced by Christmas 1915 but it was not until early 1916 that the army made their first demands for the new gun.

They never really loved the Hotchkiss and during the course of the war only 35,381 were produced, compared to 133,104 Lewis guns and 71,355 Vickers in the UK plus the thousands more Lewis and Vickers made in the US.

Regards

TonyE

[pmaasz]

I can confirm that Hotchkiss guns were first issued to the cavalry in April 1916, but there are no words other than complimentary about them in the QOOH regimental history. On the contrary, their ability of creating great destruction of the enemy is remarked.

[bob lembke]

Bob

As to the helmet being of that design, I have heard a number of different accounts for the reason. Obviously some are apocryphal. The most common one that keeps recurring and more in line with the Turkish view of their German ally is that these helmets were rejects as seen to be unsuitable for Western Front use and thus sold to the Turkish government as a bargain job lot. It is the bill that was the reason - the larger the frontage, the more facial protection from falling objects. Given all the factors surrounding the Turkish army at that particular period, I am reasonably inclined to believe this story although with reservations.

Cheers

Bill

Bill;

It is possible that the Turkish rank and file believed the defective goods story, I can't say, but in the Ottoman Army there was an aphorism (the wording of which has slipped my mind; it might be in my files) that equates soldiers who wear billed caps and hats (in other words, Europeans) with cowardice and surrender. Note that the variety of headgear that Turkish troops and officers wore never had bills, and how the German sailors and troops and advisors put aside their uniform headgear and wore the fez or other bill-less headgear when in Turkey. At the present, if you travel in Turkey, you see that the present-day Turkish Army wear caps with very large bills, which is a strong break with the Ottoman past, as was many things that Atatuerk instituted. (It would be interesting to see when the billed cap was adopted.)

So although I do not really know about what "Johnny Turk" actually thought, I suspect that the "defective goods" idea might be likely what a "westerner" might think or joke, as the idea equating cap bills and cowardice seems to have been very strong. And the "ease in praying" idea is rediculous, I think; I have been in many djamia (mosques), mostly Turkish or Turkish-tradition (Bosnia) and have never seen attendees (aside from an immam or two) wearing headgear, never mind a helmet. And I am not sure that the immam himself wears a turban while at services. Anyone?

Wasn't the helmet in the booty photo different than the one worn by the storm troopers? Does it have a deep ear cutout? Note the stormtroopers wearing a pair of sandbags sewn into a rig for carrying grenades. My father called the rig, in English, a "combat vest", a term I have not heard elsewhere.

Doffing my billed cap, and snapping on my mechanical engineer fez (rarely worn, for six years at the study), I have seen a series of photos showing the elaborate process involved in making the German helmet. Since the pressing is so deep, it required repeated heat-treatments and something like 22 successive pressings to gradually arrive at the deep shape without the helmet developing work-stress cracking. Perhaps someone posted the series of photos on the GWF, I don't remember. The shallow Allied helmets must have been much easier to make, but clearly provide less protection; I don't see a lot of armies wearing the Brodie or the Adrian these days.

Bob

PS: Perhaps the ammo quip implies that the French were much more liable to run off and leave their ammo to the attacking opponent than the Brits were.

[TonyE]

I can confirm that Hotchkiss guns were first issued to the cavalry in April 1916, but there are no words other than complimentary about them in the QOOH regimental history. On the contrary, their ability of creating great destruction of the enemy is remarked.

Perhaps I should have said that the Hotchkiss was less popular than the Lewis with the War Office and Ministry of Munitions, as I am sure it aquittted itself well with the cavalry.

I based my remarks on the History of the Ministry of Munitions, Volume XI Part V. This states in part "The abandonment of the Hotchkiss gun in favour of the Lewis gun for arming tanks in November 1916, still further increased the prospective surplus, so that at the end of 1916, the total British demand was likely to be met by the end of February 1917. The War Office accordingly suggested that the manufacture of this type of gun should cease. It was, however, considered desirable to maintain the factory as an insurance against any accident to the Birmingham factory for Lewis guns."

A new contract was placed with the intention of supplying the guns to the allies but 2,000 additional Hotchkiss guns were required in 1917 when once again thay were used in tanks.

The Min. of Mun. had arguments about costs with Hotchkiss, as they did with all the MG manufacturers, but it was compounded by Hotchkiss as they insisted that being a French company, they were exempt from British tax.

Regards

TonyE

[centurion]

Centurion

Since the topic related specifically to the ME

No it didn't as there was a comment in the first posting suggesting that the Hotchkis was only used by the Americans and the French and other postings pointing out that this was not the case.

The Germans went so far as printing manuals in German on the Hotchkiss. They certainly appear to have adequate supplies of rimless 8mm

[TonyE]

.....The Germans went so far as printing manuals in German on the Hotchkiss. They certainly appear to have adequate supplies of rimless 8mm

I am sure they did, as that is just another name for the German 7.92mm Mauser round.

The French Hotchkiss used the rimmed and heavily tapered 8 x 50mm Lebel round.

Regards

TonyE

[bob lembke]

It's a losing proposition to cross swords with our TonyE on MGs!

Bob

[centurion]

Well the Germans certainly used them without modification so they got some ammo from somewhere. I've seen one statement that they were using the same rounds as they used in the Chauchat and the modified Lewises and that was certainly rimless 8mm (apparently the Lewis was less likely to jam with the rimless ammo than with the original rimmed ammo). I'll post a copy when I get home