Type of machine gun - Lt Dease VC and Pte Godley VC

[Khaki]

It would be interesting to know whether the MG's are still in the mud at the bottom of the canal or whether any attempt has been made to locate them,

khaki

[Derek Black]

I'd imagine the canal has been dredged and scoured for war relics many times in the intervening 100 years.

[Khaki]

You could be right, but as they are heavy items, they could be under many feet of mud.

khaki

[Khaki]

One additional thought on the previous post, if those guns went into the canal, they would have a minimum of four years to settle into the mud.

khaki

[Derek Black]

I'll dig out the underwater metal detector, gps and snorkle

[Khaki]

Sounds like fun, getting permission might be the tough part.

khaki

(probably best left to the current Royal Regiment of Fusiliers)

[auchonvillerssomme]

My issue is that I can't see what information the 'expert' authors, documentary advisors, painters etc are working from that identifies the type of gun. That was the reason for my original request. I'm not entirely sure what definite conclusions can be made from the descriptions of the action, none I think, otherwise those in the know would be all over it.

Did the guns go in the canal, or was it, as described, broken into parts and the working parts went in. An argument has even centred around whether he could have thrown a gun the weight of a maxim in the canal, but hold on nowhere does it state the complete gun went in.

Mick

[JMB1943]

At the end of the episode, Pte. Godley (badly wounded) is seen dismounting the MG from the tripod and staggering to within a few feet of the water's edge with gun on shoulder; he is barely able to throw it in, but a splash is heard.

The episode concludes with Sid Godley's own voice recorded in 1954....

"but when it was time for me to get away, I smashed the MG up and threw it in the canal and crawled away up to the main road....".

No more, no less.

Regards,

JMB

[Stevie]

I very much doubt that Godley managed to 'smash up' the Mg in the true sense. The normal procedure to 'smash up' these guns was to open the top cover plate, remove the lock, and place a grenade between the left and right barrel extension plates within the receiver and pull the pin. Given the state of his injuries, it is likely that he just removed the lock and the feed block before dismounting the gun and throwing it in the canal. It might be worth having a look at the battalion war diary to see if that reveals the guns they had on charge - although there was a tendency to refer to both types of gun as being a Maxim, which they were!

Edited 13 June , 2015 by Stevie

[green_acorn]

Mick,

Somewhat later, and this doesn't directly answer your question, but the June 1915 pamphlet CDS 36 "Notes on the Employment of Machine Guns and the Training of Machine Gunners" refers to, and illustrates, Maxim machine guns.

Cheers,

Hendo

[paulgranger]

Whether or not it answers the question, there is a rather fine photo of 1st Irish Guards machine-gun section on page 43 of today's Sunday Times magazine, with Maxims, and taken in 1914

[Guest]

I would concur that the BEF's infantry were not using the Vickers in Aug 1914. The Vickers was roughly half the weight of the Maxim, and given the relationship between weight and mobility, I suspect this is why the regular Cavalry got the Vickers before the infantry. The Yeomanry were still trundling around with Maxims a year after the war started.

To provide some reassurance that Vickers were not used by the infantry in Aug 1914, a search of the complete BEF Infantry diaries for 1914 gives a zero return for 'Vickers' and scores of returns for 'Maxim'.

Not the same period, but at least one diarist differentiated between the Vickers and the Maxim exactly a year after the VC action. It is the only diary I have seen that makes the comparison. Interesting it incidentally mentions another regular battalion of the Royal Fusiliers:

5th Bn Royal Irish Fusiliers War Diary, 23rd Aug 1915. 2nd Bn ROYAL FUSILIERS withdrawn at dawn and communication established with ROYAL MUNSTER FUS on right by occupying 250 yards of trench on our right which they should have taken up on relief. Quiet day and little action but sniping by Turks on exposed points.

Several wounded observed in front and brought in by RAMC at night. 2 machine-guns 5th Bn ROYAL INNISKILLING FUS (Vickers) and 2 from BERKSHIRE YEOMANRY (Maxim) borrowed to take up gun positions. B Coy occupied at dusk trench vacated by ROYAL FUSILIERS and commenced to deepen and improve under RE supervision . Many dead buried in vicinity of trenches and between GREEN and CHOCOLATE HILLS.

2 Lt D T FIGGIS rejoined from beach to command C Coy.

Separately, the 4th Bn Royal Fusiliers diary records that the machine-guns had been 'disabled by artillery-fire and had to be abandoned'. No mention of Godley's heroics hurling 50 lbs of metal into a canal some yards from his position. If there are easier ways of mechanically disabling a Maxim by removing a small moving part, and throwing the part away, I suspect that would have been the easier option. MG

[Muerrisch]

I very much doubt that Godley managed to 'smash up' the Mg in the true sense. The normal procedure to 'smash up' these guns was to open the top cover plate, remove the lock, and place a grenade between the left and right barrel extension plates within the receiver and pull the pin. Given the state of his injuries, it is likely that he just removed the lock and the feed block before dismounting the gun and throwing it in the canal. It might be worth having a look at the battalion war diary to see if that reveals the guns they had on charge - although there was a tendency to refer to both types of gun as being a Maxim, which they were!

Now what sort of grenade would that be in August 1914 I wonder?

[ServiceRumDiluted]

Possibly a MK1, quite a thin type unlike the later 15 or mills. Looks like, and similar size to, the cardboard tube of a toilet roll with an iron segmented ring round it on a long stick with ribbons on.

As an aside on early machine guns, I was looking at the painting 'The second battle of Ypres' by Richard Jack, it shows Canadians using an M1895 Colt 'potato digger' which apparently was used by the Canadians until replaced with the Vickers. Can anyone shed any light on the use of these -apologies for any thread hijack- as I have not seen any photos or reference to these types on the Western front before now.

[Stoppage Drill]

The Canadians were equipped with the modified 1895/1914 Colt-Browning at first, until replaced by the Vickers. There are lots of references and photographs of the gun in use.

Some recent posts in the "Military Motors" thread show Colts mounted on to armoured waggons.

One of the photographs here shows Canadian infantry with the Colts as late as July 1916, which does surprise me. I assumed that they had all been long binned by then, though the gun was modified to straight gas operation (losing the swinging lever) by Marlin, and became a useful tank and aeroplane gun as the Marlin Model of 1917 (not to be confused with the common Browning M1917)

https://canadaatwarblog.wordpress.com/2015/04/13/the-colt-browning-m189514-machine-gun-used-by-canadians-from-1899-1916/

[David Filsell]

I certainly am not aware of ant personal account of Vickers being used in 14.

[auchonvillerssomme]

Martin that's an interesting and useful response, thank you. David I can't see anything either. There are certainly pictures of the 4th Bn RF shortly before setting off to France, so I'm wondering whether any show training.

Mick

[Stoppage Drill]

I certainly am not aware of ant personal account of Vickers being used in 14.

Perhaps that comment needs some qualification. Dismounted cavalry were using it. There is a famous photo of 10th or 11th Hussars, I think, in trenches, cleaning a Vickers, dated to late 1914. Somebody will find it and post it.

[David Filsell]

Thanks for the correction - I should have said infantry bns. I have just checked the memorial volume to Charles Sackville (Blues) who was MG officer

(KIA 30th October 14 at Zandvoorde) Sadly no detail of of guns given

[SiegeGunner]

There is a famous photo of 10th or 11th Hussars, I think, in trenches, cleaning a Vickers, dated to late 1914. Somebody will find it and post it.

Broomers is probably your man for that, but he's in Belgium for a few days and may not be able to contribute until later in the week.

[Stoppage Drill]

I have found an attributed and captioned copy of that image, and alas! I am a month or two out.

This, with an attribution to Osprey, dates it as "Winter 1914-15"

http://www.historyofwar.org/Pictures/pictures_11th_hussars_zillebeke_1914-15.html

But I find it on the front cover of my paperback copy of "Death of an Army" by Tony Farrar-Hockley with fuller details.
It is an IWM pic, captioned "Machine Gun Section of the 11th Hussars in trenches at Zillebeke, January-February 1915."

[auchonvillerssomme]

No response from their museum.

[Guest]

The iconic 11th Hussars Photo is from Lt Col Pitman's album. He commanded the 11th Hussars in 1914. Thanks to the man with the Extensive Library, I was able to see the album quite recently. In the original album the photo is titled simply 'Machine Gun Trench' and is No.117. Photo No.118 is titled "XI Hussars in Zillebeke Trenches Feb 1915". There are around 30 photos in the sequences showing the regiment in the trenches at Zillebeke.

According to the Cherrypickers' war dairy, the regiment was in billets in Fletre between 1st-22nd Feb 1915 and moved into the trenches on 23rd Feb for a week.

Perhaps more importantly the regiment does not record losing its MGs between disembarking and Feb 1914, so it seems there is a good chance the MG in the photo was one of the two the regiment deployed with in August 1914.

Interestingly the diary also refers to 'our Maxims' (see exctract below). I assume the generic word Maxim was in this case applied to all variants including the Vickers. It is worth noting the word Vickers does not appear in the diary once*, despite the fact that we know they had the Vickers variant. The generic term used was MG or machine-gun or Maxim., or the expression 'our' referes to all the British troops in the vicinity, not just the 11th Hussars:

11th Hussars War Diary, 19th Sep 1914. OEUILLY - CHAVONNE.

1st CAV BDE ordered to relieve the 2nd CAV BDE at CHAVONNE. 5th DRAGOON GUARDS and 11th HUSSARS left OEUILLY at 4:30 am in the dark, and marched via the canal bank to SOUPIR and on to CHAVONNE, where we took over form the 2nd CAV BDE. 5th DRAGOON GUARDS in advanced line of trenches and 11th HUSSARS in support at CHAVONNE. The Brig walked round the trenches, and handing over command of the two Regiments to Col T T PITMAN, returned to OEUILLY, where he is keeping the BAYS and guns in reserve. We spent the day entrenching a strong second line at CHAVONNE, the intention being for the 5th DRAGOON GUARDS to fall back to second line at night, the 11th HUSSARS moving into advanced line.

About 5:00 pm heavy firing in the GUARDS section. From the top of the cliff you could see a German advance, which was checked by our Maxim and Howitzer fire. The OC Howitzer Battery was up in the advanced trenches and signalling down his orders to the guns down in the valley below, the result looked very good. The attack was estimated at two Battalions, the advance party came up all in a cluster of about 30 men; they were all lying in the turnips, apparently all killed, about 900 yards from the trenches. At the same time the 3rd DIV on our left reported that about two Battalions of Germans were advancing across the valley in our direction It looked are first as if they were the same two Battalions that had appeared in front of the GUARDS. It turned out however, that the attack was probably a Brigade.

About 5:30 the 5th DRAGOON GUARDS reported large numbers of Germans advancing on their position; 1 Squadron, 11th HUSSARS sent up to reinforce them, 2 Squadrons remaining at CHAVONNE. Heavy firing all along the line of trenches, attack seems to be going from E to W and bumps into the WILTSHIRE REGT, the right of the 3rd DIV. We saw them advance out of their trenches and heard cheering just as it got dark. Firing continues all along the line for half an hour after dark. The relief of the 5th DRAGOON GUARDS by the 11th HUSSARS was therefore not carried out. Our men slept by their trenches in second line. Good deal of firing in WILTSHIRE REGT trenches all night, otherwise quiet.

MG

* I have a of the whole diary transcription and a digitised copy of the 11th Hussars history - both of which are searchable. Vickers is not mentioned in either. Agian I think this is because they were simply called machine-guns and no differentiation was necessary as they had Vickers from the outset.

[johnboy]

The Royal Fusiliers of the Great War H.C. O'Neill does not mention the make of gun.

In response to an in-
quiry whether any one else knew how to operate the guns
Private Godley came forward. He cleared the emplace-
ment under heavy fire and brought the gun into action.
But he had not been firing long before the gun was hit
and put completely out of action. The water jackets of
both guns were riddled with bullets, so that they were

no longer of use.

The throwing of the gun into the canal is not mentioned. He states the guns were no longer of use because of the holed water jackets.

[Guest]

I have researched Dease and Godley before when trying to establish which bridge they were on (sources differ) and whether they were at the same bridge (ditto) - there is another thread. To save you going down the same blind alleys:

1. Citations in the LG do not mention the gun type

2. Original VC recommendations by Steele does not mention the gun type

3. War diary ditto

4. Published history ditto

5. Stonyhurst College/War Office correspondence ditto - the Rector of Stonyhurst entered into correspondence in the 1920s trying to establish if Dease (ex-Stonyhurst) was the first man (with Godley) to be awarded the VC. Free download from TNA.

6. Royal Fusiliers' Museum article ditto. Incidentally described Godley as throwing parts into the canal. No reference provided.

There were very few surviving eyewitnesses who bothered to record the event. Much hinges on Steel's recommendation. The material relating to this is rather thin. The generic term 'Maxim' for all British MGs in 1914 was almost ubiquitous if the diaries are anything to go by. If it was a Vickers (which I think is highly unlikely) I suspect it would still have been referred to as a Maxim.