Maxim machine gun

[jay dubaya]

I've seen a few photos of German troops carrying the gun on their backs and was just curious as to the weight. Also I have read stories of them being carried on a stretcher covered with blankets, was this to protect the gun or mearly to appear that they are stretcher bearers thus decieving watchful eyes, cheers, Jon

[SiegeGunner]

Jon,

This thread was posted recently by pal Chris Boonzaier, who is fortunate enough to own one of these beasts. http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...showtopic=64114

As he evidently manhandled it out of his study into his garden, he can presumably tell you how heavy it is.

Regarding the 'stretcher' stories, I believe these arose from sightings of MG 08 crews moving their guns around on their sled mounts (see Chris's photos).

Mick

[Chris Henschke]

Which Maxim?

From 'SS 153 Notes on the 08 German Maxim Gun' issued by the General Staff, April, 1917.

08 German Maxim Gun

Gun, filled with water, no armour, about 48 3/4 lbs

08/15 German Machine gun (Light Pattern)

weight of Gun (with 5 pints of water in barrel casing) 34 1/2 lbs

Chris Henschke

[TonyE]

MG 08

Weight of gun without water, 40.5lbs

Weight of tripod, 65.5lbs

Weight of sled 83lbs.

MG08/15 was of course lighter,

Gun 30lbs

Tripod 51lbs

Bipod 2.5lbs.

This picture shows a captured MG crew removing their sled mounted MG08. You can see why these were often confused with stretchers from a distance.

Regards

TonyE

[TonyE]

You beat me to it whilst I was typing!

Regards

TonyE

[bob lembke]

I have seen a figure of 140 lbs. for the MG 08 on the full sled mount. I do not know if this included a full or an empty water jacket, or the water can.

It was usually transported with four crew members each grabbing a corner of the flattened sled mount. The sled mount in the excellent picture seems narrower than some I have seen, perhaps earlier ones. Possibly they were modified as the war went on as to make it easier to keep them in a dugout during a bombardment and then quickly carry it up and set it up before the attacking infantry got too close. I don't think that the original design pre-WW II anticipated many of them being kept underground.

As to the stretcher/blanket stories, assuming that they are not malicious propaganda (I have read a lot of contemporary American material that encouraged US troops to kill rather than capture enemy soldiers, in particular machine gunners), the Germans often threw blankets and even parts of uniforms over a MG to protect it from dirt blown on it by near shell hits jamming the gun; if you then transported the MG what better place to carry the blanket than throw it on the MG to be carried?

Again, re: the frequent "German machine gunners chained to their guns" stories, some of the crew often wore a broad leather carrying harness diagonally from one shoulder to the other waist, with a large clip, perhaps these were confused with chains. But the propaganda explaination is strong. Both the UK and the Americans had very large and organized propaganda operations that still serve to distort the history of WW I. In the American sources, going from book to book, I keep seeing the same stories, almost as if there were standard themes and stories centrally produced and distributed. Deborah Lake, in her recent book on the Zeebrucke raid, has discussed the British effort a bit, and a recently discovered document that gives information on the way this material was commissioned and published on a great scale, heavily subsidized.

Bob Lembke

[jay dubaya]

Quite a heavy piece of kit then. Thank you all for a speedy response, cheers Jon

[Pete1052]

The difficulty of moving machine guns forward during infantry attacks was the main reason for the later development of the so-called "assault" category of weapons or rifles. They were weapons that could be carried by one man that had high-capacity magazines as well as selector switches that permitted fully automatic or semiautomatic fire.

The designation assault rifle is a direct translation of the German term Sturmgewehr, a name said to have been coined by Adolf Hitler in World War II for the StG44, also called the MP43.

[Chris Henschke]

"I have seen a figure of 140 lbs. for the MG 08 on the full sled mount. I do not know if this included a full or an empty water jacket, or the water can."

Bob, what's the reference?

Chris Henschke

[bob lembke]

Chris;

Have to admit that I cannot remember. I am pretty careful about who I believe about things, but, although I like, own, and shoot firearms, I don't consider this an "important" question. Let's just say I saw it in a believable source. I am sure that there was a fair amount of variation; what I seem to observe in pre-war MG 08's having a broader sled mount, whether the water can is included, whetther it and the water jacket was full, half empty, telescopic sights mounted, etc.

The important fact was that they were heavy suckers, which had advantages and disadvantages. The early German MG company only had six, I believe; although the MG coy. was smaller than an infantry coy., there were a lot of guys to hunk these about. (The later MG coy. went up to 12 MG 08s, I believe.) In tactical use, later in the war, when lighter alternatives were at hand, these seemed to be usually situated well back, often a couple of hundred meters behind the first line. MG 08/15s might have been more prevelant in the first line. There also were the Muskqueten (sp?) detachments, first armed with the Madsen LMG, and when these ran out, they were replaced with captured Lewis Guns. Of course there never were many of these units. In my father's unit, the top brass above the regiment had allocated two Maxims to a flame company, but they wanted two per Zug (platoon), so the unit itself offered the men a bonus for every French LMGs of a certain type they brought in, which they then used in the assault roll. He never told me which LMG, but after talking with lots of guys who know more about French MGs than I do, it probably was the Chauchalt. This seems surprising, this gun has been described as the worst MG ever made, but they could keep them clean, test-fire them and the magazines, and probably have examples that could be expected to work (for a while). They hung them from the shoulder on a pair of rifle slings clipped together and to the barrel and to the stock or receiver group (probably the former, for stability). I think that these guys did not weigh much more than 20 lbs., probably w/o a magazine. They were useful for holding on to a position after you took it (the flame thrower is an awful defensive weapon), and in a pinch there often was French ammunition lying about if you got stuck in a serious defensive situation.

Bob Lembke

[TonyE]

If you look at the figures I posted, 140 lbs is about right. 40.5lbs for the gun plus 83lbs for the sled is 123.5lbs, then add a full load of water and a can of ammo and it is easily 140lbs.

Regards

TonyE

[bob lembke]

To date myself, the belt-fed MG I used in training was the Browning M1919A4; the receiver group weighed 34 pounds, and the tripod was 34 lbs. (They showed us an example of the new M60. We also fired the BAR, very nice shooting, due to its weight.) I remember we had an all-night march, and one guy broke down, and I carried his receiver group, as well as the rest of my kit. a bit of work. We had a half-hour halt, had to chase down the guy with the tripod, lay down on the road to nap, and they blew up a simulated atom bomb, 30 sticks of dynamite and 55 gallons of gasoline, and I did not hear it.

Bob Lembke

[Pete1052]

Well, Bob, had I been on that field training exercise I would have given you a hand and carried your M1 Carbine for you.

[bob lembke]

Well, Bob, had I been on that field training exercise I would have given you a hand and carried your M1 Carbine for you.

Well, I had my pack, which we were told were 64 pounds (they may have been gilding the lily a bit!), and the good ol' M1 Garand, and steel pot, and were out for a 3 1/2 day exercise with no time scheduled for sleep, although if you had any sense you found time to cage a nap or two. I don't know if I kept my M1 (9 1/2 lbs.). When each cadet company got back to the barracks area each company was met with a band to march them in, at six in the morning (I bet the enlisted men hated that duty!), and when we draggled in there was no band, it was their day off, a real bummer.

Recently there was some noise in Congress about making some sorts of rifles off-limits, and, as usually happens when such things are uttered, Of course it was hot air. I and 10 million other people ran out and got the threatened sort of weapon, as I did not have a nice rifle. I bought something called a Mini-30, which is a variant of something called the Mini-14. It looked a bit familiar, and then I realized that it was my dear old M1 Garand, but cut down a bit to close to carbine size, supposedly a few problems corrected, the floorplate taken off so it can take a five, (or 20 or 30) round magazine, and, in this variant, chambered for the AK-47 round, rather than the M-16 round. As the French supposedly say, "the more things change, the more they remain the same."

Bob Lembke

[Chris Henschke]

Anyway, to get back to the topic.

Here is the complete information I have from a contempory source. I should have posted it in full before.

From 'SS 153 Notes on the 08 German Maxim Gun' issued by the General Staff, April, 1917.

"08 German Maxim Gun

Gun, filled with water, no armour, about 48 3/4 lbs

Sledge Mounting, with Acessories 77 lbs

Box containing one filled belt 25 1/2 lbs

Box containing two filled belts 41 lbs"

"08/15 German Machine gun (Light Pattern)

Weight of Gun (with 5 pints of water in barrel casing) 34 1/2 lbs

Weight of Bipod 1 1/2 lbs

Weight of Belt Drum Holder complete with belt drum and filled belt 7 lbs

Total weight 43 lbs

Weight of Belt Drum Holder complete with belt drum and filled belt 4 1/4 lbs

Length over all 4 ft. 7 ins.

Length of Butt 1 ft. 0 ins.

Height of Axis above ground 11 ins."

Chris Henschke

[Simon Jones]

Also I have read stories of them being carried on a stretcher covered with blankets, was this to protect the gun or mearly to appear that they are stretcher bearers thus decieving watchful eyes

Before 1/7/1916 the British issued an order warning troops to beware of this practice - I came across it recently in the National Archives and will find my snapshot of it if anyone is interested.

S

[bob lembke]

Simon;

That raises the question of to what extent were stretcher-bearers exempt from being shot at.

I have just posted in another thread an account of how after a German night-time flame thrower attack completely over-ran an American bridgehead at Fismette, the Germans formed up 250 American prisoners and marched them out of town. Then German stretcher-bearers started down to the village, presumably many or most of the wounded were Americans (about three American companies were shattered in the attack, one Flamm=Pionier fell in the assault). The Americans right across the tiny river called in artillery fire on the stretcher-bearers, and they took cover.

Then the Germans forced some of the American POWs to pick up the stretchers and head down to the village to pick up their wounded, and the Americans halted their artillery fire.

I got this from a private letter from a Yank soldier who was in the command post where this was observed and from where the artillery fire was called in from. The letter was recently provided by the soldier's family.

Bob Lembke

[Chris Henschke]

And the 08/18 (air cooled) light machine gun (M.G. 08/18) was about 8 1/2 lbs lighter than the 08/15.

Chris Henschke

[bob lembke]

That was the great trade-off, weight vs. sustainability of rapid fire. In the mass attacks on the Western Front, the water-cooled Maxims sometimes fired off astonishing amounts of ammunition; I have seen specific amounts, I think I saw several of these statistics in Jack Sheldon's (big) Somme book, can't remember the specific figures, but certainly tens of thousands of rounds fired by a unit of only a few MGs. I have also read of firing till the water in the jacket and the can was gone, and then the men urinated into the jacket, and when that was boiled off they raided the officers' dugout for a few bottles of wine.

One can imagine the numbers of men that such a device, manned by well-trained troops, could sometimes shoot down in a mass attack by men trying to pick their way through the wire.

But these suckers were really heavy, and that of course created problems.

On the other hand, the light MGs such as the Masden or the MG 08/18 would quickly get so hot as to become inoperable. (I am not familiar with the MG 08/18. Does the designation indicate parentage back to 1908? It sure does not look very Maxim-like. One can see the MG 34 emerging from the mists of the future. Did the design allow a quick exchange of barrels? I believe that this problem was partially served by issuing MG 34 and 42 crews a second barrel in a carrier and an asbestos glove.) I have read of the frustration of crews when their weapons became inoperable during an attack. The fact that you may have killed 20 or 30 men would be scant comfort when you were over-run and killed by the rest.

So the use of heavy water-cooled MG 08s even a couple of hundred meters behind the front line was very useful. The weight, the stable sled, and perhaps the telescopic sight would provide great accuracy at considerable ranges. The use of traverse stops and pre-set fields of fire would allow effective fire even through morning fog or a smoke barrage. This would be complimented with lighter MGs in the front line that could be quickly be brought up from dugouts and could be readily brought along in a forced dash for the second line.

Another advantage of placing MG 08s in individual positions far behind the front line was that an extensive bombardment that might even obliterate the first line might leave these MG positions intact.

My father, although a pioneer, had two MG courses that I know of, one a three week course on the MG 08 and MG 08/15 recorded in his Militaer=Pass, and one a one week course associated with training to fight tanks. This was done even though he was back in Berlin training new Flamm=Pioniere, as he was by then rated unfit for flame thrower combat, from a severe arm wound from Verdun, as also recorded in his Pass. (It stated, in translation, "fit for combat, but not with flame throwers".)

Bob Lembke

[bob lembke]

Looking again at the illustration of the MG 08/18 that Chris kindly posted, the receiver block does indeed look a bit more Maxim-like on second glance, although the distinctive cocking lever cannot be seen due to the perspective.

Bob Lembke

[Borys]

Ahoj!

Bob - if you ever visit Warsaw, drop by the Army Museum.

They have an 08/18 on display.

Borys