auchonvillerssomme Posted 9 June , 2015 Share Posted 9 June , 2015 I'm getting confused by the conflicting information about Vickers and Maxim's. I have read the stuff about Vickers being a Maxim variant etc so please without over complicating answers with information about manufacturer, workings, variant's etc. Can someone give me a simple referenced answer as to the exact model MG used by Lt Dease VC and Pte Godley VC on 23/08/1914. Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trenchtrotter Posted 9 June , 2015 Share Posted 9 June , 2015 The gun would have been a Maxim. The Vickers was essentially a modification of the Maxim but appearances differed. TT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calibre792x57.y Posted 9 June , 2015 Share Posted 9 June , 2015 I concur. Vickers guns would have been very rare (and probably privately purchased) birds at that time. So a 0.303 inch Maxim gun. The chief design modification was that the toggle of the mechanism broke downwards in the Maxim and upwards in the Vickers which used the 'dead' space behind the rear sight. This then allowed the depth of the receiver to be much less, radically altering the appearance.. - SW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 9 June , 2015 Share Posted 9 June , 2015 A Maxim. Referenced by google books. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YbqfAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=4th+royal+fusiliers+machine+gun+section+1914&source=bl&ots=XUiAisWJEb&sig=UZ_KeSZJFXBcgWIc4XcI2lyZ1D0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBzgKahUKEwjh9pyfsILGAhXybtsKHXJdALo#v=onepage&q=4th%20royal%20fusiliers%20machine%20gun%20section%201914&f=false Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 9 June , 2015 Author Share Posted 9 June , 2015 Johnboy, that's what prompted me to ask the question, there's no reference to where that information came from. There's nothing in the war diaries or in the history of the RF. I agree that it was a maxim but wanted a specific reference to it. As an aside, having never really read much on these 2 men apart from citations and the history of the RF, I'm surprised how much conflict there is about their actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burlington Posted 9 June , 2015 Share Posted 9 June , 2015 Would this be THE Private Godfrey?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoppage Drill Posted 9 June , 2015 Share Posted 9 June , 2015 I would have said a Maxim at that point in the war, but this semi-official document published by the successor regiment seems to think the guns were Vickers. http://rrflondon.2day.uk/siteFiles/files/RRFLondon_MonsFinalOpt_1168346455.pdf (Edit: 3rd paragraph top of page 6) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 9 June , 2015 Share Posted 9 June , 2015 This thread, despite the acrimonious nature in places, addressed the issue of Vickers Guns in August 1914 http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=219260&hl= In simple terms - cavalry: Vickers, Infantry: Maxims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 9 June , 2015 Author Share Posted 9 June , 2015 Mr Drill, As I said lots of interesting but conflicting information for me to absorb. Steven, I found that thread slightly odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 9 June , 2015 Author Share Posted 9 June , 2015 Would this be THE Private Godfrey?? Wasn't his MM with the RAMC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 9 June , 2015 Share Posted 9 June , 2015 . Steven, I found that thread slightly odd. Oh, it was... but I think the final outcome was that August 1914 = Maxims for infantry and Vickers for the posh boys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 9 June , 2015 Share Posted 9 June , 2015 None of the WDs that I have to hand mention Vickers up to end 1914. Many mention Maxims. One battalion had a late Christmas present "two new Maxims". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 9 June , 2015 Author Share Posted 9 June , 2015 Thanks for that Grumpy, I wouldn't mind one as a Christmas present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie Posted 9 June , 2015 Share Posted 9 June , 2015 (edited) The Vickers, as previously stated, was a light pattern of the Maxim. The gun operated on the closed breech system - as did all Maxim-type guns. For those not so familiar with firearms, this means that when the gun was fully cocked there was always a round present in the breech with the breech fully closed. The maxim-types were unusual in as much as they had to be cocked TWICE to load the gun. The first stroke of the crank merely took the lock through its cycle and then positioned the extractor lips around the first round. The second stroke of the crank withdrew the round from the belt. The lock withdrew to the rear where the extractor started its downward stroke. As the lock returns to battery under power from the fusee spring the extractor starts to rise and presents the round to the breech. As the lock fully returns to battery the round is placed in the breech and the extractor grips the next round in the belt. It is a fascinating piece of kit to study in detail, the lock carries out four procedures in the blink of an eye! My earliest gun was manufactured in October 1914, and back in 1994 I gave it to the Queens Lancashire Regiment museum at Fulwood barracks in exchange for a German Mg08 on a trench mount. Serial number of the VSM was L1794, and the tripod was a commercial example which was dated 1926. All I have left of my collection of WW1 Mg's are many photographs of the various Vickers guns, Lewis guns and Maxims which I owned and restored over the years. Whilst on the subject of mg's, while researching my latest book on Pte Jack Smallshaw of the Accrington Pals, I was somewhat surprised to find the Hotchkiss Portative mentioned many times in Brigade orders concerning the supply of weapons to troops prior to major engagements. Cheers, Steve. Edited 9 June , 2015 by Stevie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 9 June , 2015 Author Share Posted 9 June , 2015 Hi Steve, yes there's plenty of info available on the working of the various MG's, but little about what were actually being used on 23/08/1914 by Dease and Godley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 9 June , 2015 Author Share Posted 9 June , 2015 Would this be THE Private Godfrey?? I have corrected it, the autocorrect prefers Godfrey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie Posted 9 June , 2015 Share Posted 9 June , 2015 (edited) Hi Steve, yes there's plenty of info available on the working of the various MG's, but little about what were actually being used on 23/08/1914 by Dease and Godley. I don't suppose it really matters which guns were used in defence of the canal crossing. One type was a Maxim, and the other a Maxim type. Both guns operated in the same way, fired the same ammunition at roughly the same rate. The only person who would have noticed the difference between the two was Godley when he dismounted the gun and chucked it in the canal. One gun being considerably heavier than the other! Edited 9 June , 2015 by Stevie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 9 June , 2015 Share Posted 9 June , 2015 I don't suppose it really matters which guns were used in defence of the canal crossing It does to the OP or I am sure he would not have asked. Accuracy is paramount! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 10 June , 2015 Author Share Posted 10 June , 2015 Quite right, facts are important, especially when there are some experts who will pick up the smallest mistake. That brings up another question, I can't find an original source that states the complete guns went into the canal. Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoppage Drill Posted 10 June , 2015 Share Posted 10 June , 2015 If this recent painting is accurate then it was a Maxim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 10 June , 2015 Author Share Posted 10 June , 2015 I'm not so sure, a closer look shows George V behind the gun, beard included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 10 June , 2015 Share Posted 10 June , 2015 Has no-one considered consulting the oracle? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p022twsy Sadly unavailable on iPlayer, but someone must either have recorded it or bought the DVD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 11 June , 2015 Author Share Posted 11 June , 2015 I'm a bit wary of playing the 'interactive' episode, we have new carpets and the cats don't like loud noises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 12 June , 2015 Share Posted 12 June , 2015 Has no-one considered consulting the oracle? https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p022twsy Sadly unavailable on iPlayer, but someone must either have recorded it or bought the DVD. This is available on Netflix in the U.S., and I have just re-watched it with a view to identifying the MG's used in this episode. The gun has the following characteristics: a fluted jacket (not smooth) covered in a tightly fitted cloth/fabric cover, RHS ammo feed, tripod-mounted, double-handled, cocking lever on RHS and a conical end to the muzzle. Difficult to tell if it was water-cooled (no hose running into a jerry-can ??), but the description seems to fit a Vickers (fluted), rather than a Maxim (smooth jacket). Lt. Dease quotes a rate of fire as 600 rounds/min, and a maximum range of 4,500 yds. Does this provide a clue ? Of course, this was a re-creation using which ever props were available; looking at the relative production figures for Maxim vs. Vickers given by in an earlier thread on the subject of BEF small-arms, I'm not surprised that any survivors would be Vickers rather Maxim MG's. Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 12 June , 2015 Share Posted 12 June , 2015 The one used is described as having holes in the water jacket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now