"Beginning" book on the Krag for a magazine article

[Dick Hosmer]

I REALLY shouldn't get into this, but will make a couple of observations:

(1) Not sure Ike should be personally blamed for the shortage of M1s

(2) Not sure anyone deserves thanks for handing out Chauchats

[twh]

Is the book by 5MadFarmers still available and if so where.

[Roadkingtrax]

Is the book by 5MadFarmers still available and if so where.

And for the new guys amongst us, what's the title?

TY

[5MadFarmers]

I REALLY shouldn't get into this, but will make a couple of observations:

(1) Not sure Ike should be personally blamed for the shortage of M1s

Um, what shortage of M1s? I'm not aware of any. Probably because there really wasn't one.

The Great Rifle Shortage of WW1 affected them greatly. They were ready in WW2. Three types of rifles are really wanted:
1) Main battle rifle.
2) Handy wee rifle for mounted troops.
3) Functional rifle for people who like to carry one but really won't be using it. Except on parade. Where they like to hold them in a funny pose.

1) The number of "Infantryman" is limited. Those are the men that want the main battle rifle. There were more than enough M1 rifles for them. 3 million made by that point.
2) The M1 carbine satisfied this need nicely. 6 million were made.
3) The M-1903A3s were used for this. MPs and such. Over a million made.

The production of M-1903A3s was stopped in 1944 off the top of my head. If they really wanted more M1s they'd have had RA and SC switch over to making them. SA could have provided the jigs. RA and SC already had the machinery to make rifles.

No shortage. None. WW1 was a lesson they learned.

(2) Not sure anyone deserves thanks for handing out Chauchats

Why not? You still believe that nonsense about the Chauchat not being a good gun right? Received wisdom from the decades. Why nobody actually goes back and reviews it for validity is a mystery.

Ever notice that, right after WW2, the Brits started bad mouthing the M4 tank? Quite badly. Why? Because the Brit tanks sucked so bad. Awful. If they held a design competition for "design and build the worst tank you can" nobody would beat the Brits and they weren't even attempting that. So what did they do? Bad mouth the M4. Why? Because when you suck really bad at something you blame somebody else. Try to tear them down.

Strangely, reading the period accounts of the men using the Chauchats doesn't show any negatives. So who was harshing it? Two guesses and the first doesn't count. The Ordnance Department was so incredibly bad that they did the only thing they could: try to tear down everyone else. Exact same thing as the Brits harshing the M4. It's a sign that you suck greatly when you try to cover your own ineptness by harshing others.

Strange data point: when the divisions were arriving in the summer/fall of 1918 with their BARs, the AEF had them taken away and they were given Chauchats instead. When quizzed over that Congress was told that it was "due to fear that the Germans would capture a BAR." That's as much bunk as it appears. If the Chauchat was so bad why were they issued instead of BARs? If they were so bad they would not have been.

The Ordnance Department. Trying to tear the others down to cover for their incredible ineptness.

The Chauchat was the right gun at the right place at the right time. Nobody can take that away from it.

Search the operational accounts. Try to find combat soldiers bad mouthing it. You will not find that. I know as I looked for it.

[Rick the Librarian]

I always thought the British tanks were awful (I've even heard Brits say that!) Them and French Firearms.

I believe there WAS an M1 Garand shortage in the early years. By the end of the war, like you said, 3 million M1s and counting. On the other hand, there were more M1 Garands being used than people thought. Most people thought the troops in the Philippines only had M1903s and M1917s; not true - over 7,000 M1s by the start of war.

[Dick Hosmer]

So no mud ever got into the nearly open-sided Chauchat mags, and, if by a miracle any did, it only served as a salubrious lubricant?

If Uncle Sugar had enough M1s, why were there significant numbers of 1903s in use at Guadalcanal?

[13Echo]

I've actually had the pleasure (?) of working on two Chauchat's (legal class 3s). Parts did not interchange without rework. For example the firing pins differed by 0.25" in length and were obviously hand fitted to each weapon. They weren't too badly made and the design looked feasible they were just not well made and are awkward. Finally got one to fire. Would usually go three rounds before jamming. Now admittedly I'm not a trained armorer for the Chauchat but if these were fair examples of the breed it was not ready for combat and that says nothing about the magazine issue.

[Dick Hosmer]

I've actually had the pleasure (?) of working on two Chauchat's (legal class 3s). Parts did not interchange without rework. For example the firing pins differed by 0.25" in length and were obviously hand fitted to each weapon. They weren't too badly made and the design looked feasible they were just not well made and are awkward. Finally got one to fire. Would usually go three rounds before jamming. Now admittedly I'm not a trained armorer for the Chauchat but if these were fair examples of the breed it was not ready for combat and that says nothing about the magazine issue.

My "knowledge" of the Chauchat is pretty much based on "The Machine Gun" by Colonel George Chinn. He didn't like 'em.

Of course, he was BuOrd (OD of the salty persuasion) so already may have two strikes in some circles.

[5MadFarmers]

So no mud ever got into the nearly open-sided Chauchat mags, and, if by a miracle any did, it only served as a salubrious lubricant?

The Garand couldn't be "topped up," it "pinged on an empty clip," etc., etc., etc.,

A quarter million Chauchats were made. It was the most widely used light automatic of the war. If the open sided magazines presented the problem that theory has them presenting, the French would have taken the time to make magazines with closed sides earlier than they did. They finally did in 1918 and that really points to the priority of that.

Theory is all well and good but the Chauchat was in heavy use for years in the trenches and did what it needed to. I'm not saying the BAR is a bad gun but I will state that it's more jam happy than it should be. Experienced it myself. Talked to a myriad of BAR gunners and they never claimed otherwise. One wonders if fear of the BAR performing poorly assisted in late use. Mind you I like the BAR. I like the MG42 better.

The Chauchat wasn't the piece of crap it's claimed to be. The U.S. contracted for Chauchats in .30-06 and provided incorrect chamber dimensions. I wonder who? Those Chauchats sucked. The higher power of the .30-06 didn't do them any good at all either. Most of the bad reputation of the Chauchat can be traced to a single source. The source that presumably provided those chamber dimensions. Not that there has been any evidence of the O.D. basically using sabotage against something they were working against...

The Chauchat was the right gun at the right time at the right place. Every account of the guys who used them is pretty clear that they were incredibly effective.

I wonder which edition Chin used in combat? French cartridge or U.S.?

If Uncle Sugar had enough M1s, why were there significant numbers of 1903s in use at Guadalcanal?

I was unaware that we were arming the French wholesale in 1942. Actually I don't think many were in the assault wave there.... I keed, I keed.

Want to hear a dirty little secret? The O.D. was pissed at the USMC's support of the Johnson and took it out on them. After the USMC agreed to adopt the M1 the Army ensured that all Army units, to include National Guard, had them before they worried about the Marines. You mentioned Guadalcanal, not me. When the Army reinforcements, National Guard troops from North Dakota, came ashore they had M1s. The USMC? Not so much.

By the time we invaded France, and they had access to a pool of military age men, it was 1944. June off the top of my head....

[5MadFarmers]

I've actually had the pleasure (?) of working on two Chauchat's (legal class 3s). Parts did not interchange without rework. For example the firing pins differed by 0.25" in length and were obviously hand fitted to each weapon. They weren't too badly made and the design looked feasible they were just not well made and are awkward. Finally got one to fire. Would usually go three rounds before jamming. Now admittedly I'm not a trained armorer for the Chauchat but if these were fair examples of the breed it was not ready for combat and that says nothing about the magazine issue.

The problem with examples like that, ages later, is it's not really a useful sample size. "I tried to start a GM Yukon once, damn thing wouldn't start." I might very well have taken the only one with problems...

Additionally, failure to feed is, sadly, common to all machine guns of any note right through WW2. The every popular Brownings used in aircraft use jammed like clockwork. And that was a good gun. Nature of machineguns maybe?

I suspect part of the love of Gatlings after the war had to do with the lack of problems from jamming.

Interchange of parts isn't something that other armies worried about greatly in the field. Hence the serializing of parts. Collectors do as collectors generally have a couple of arms laying about. When 20,000 guys are getting chopped apart all around you spare guns are generally not terribly hard to find if you break your gun. That was WW1 right? They ran out of men before they ran out of spare guns.

[5MadFarmers]

I always thought the British tanks were awful (I've even heard Brits say that!) Them and French Firearms.

I believe there WAS an M1 Garand shortage in the early years. By the end of the war, like you said, 3 million M1s and counting. On the other hand, there were more M1 Garands being used than people thought. Most people thought the troops in the Philippines only had M1903s and M1917s; not true - over 7,000 M1s by the start of war.

One of the books, or accounts I happened across, was from a guy who recaptured an M1 on the retaking of the P.I.. The Jap fired at him but the M1 didn't go off. Last trigger pull he got. Why the gun didn't fire likely has to do with Japanese care of an M1 in a tropical environment....

The M1 carbine is single handedly responsible for no gun shortages in WW2. Wonder gun. I'm also going to give due credit to the O.D. of WW2 for getting that right. They learned much from WW1 and were ready on most major fronts. Still screwed up much but at least they were functional.

Enough time has elapsed where modern Brits get that their WW2 tanks sucked. The books of the 1950s and 1960s on the other hand...

Enough time has passed where people don't get so worked up about it.

The Chauchat was the right gun at the right time in the right place.
The M1 rifle was the right gun at the right time in the right place.
The M4 tank was the right tank at the right time in the right place.

I can add.

The Spitfire was the right plane at the right time in the right place.

All of those share something. They were all the right items at the right time in the right place and in some regards that was bad. Gave the owners too much confidence in them. They all stayed at the party a bit too long. Except for the Chauchat. The French, post-war, got serious about MGs. As did the Germans when they got a chance. Well, as did everyone really.

[5MadFarmers]

Interchange of parts isn't something that other armies worried about greatly in the field. Hence the serializing of parts. Collectors do as collectors generally have a couple of arms laying about. When 20,000 guys are getting chopped apart all around you spare guns are generally not terribly hard to find if you break your gun. That was WW1 right? They ran out of men before they ran out of spare guns.

I'm a postbot - not really a human. Quoting myself quoting somebody else....

Spare parts. The O.D. liked to trumpet that as an advantage. As if soldiers were going to be fixing their guns and needed complete interchange of parts. Made sense in DC perhaps.

Two things that absolutely did not happen: stopping for wounded and stopping for a broken gun.

When men are permitted to become instant "wounded helpers" you've got a problem. Forest Gump taking Lieutenant Dan back. That was a shooting offense in many armies. If that kind of thing is permitted one will find everybody looking for wounded to take back to the safety of the rear. Even in the period U.S. manuals it was clear that was a no-no. Same for a broken gun. If broken guns are permitted to be any kind of excuse they'll all be broken. You'd better take care of your gun. Because if it's not functioning you'll be going over the top with a metal and wood stick. Looking for a working one. Which you'll only get from a dead dude. So fix bayonet and hope the for best. Because you're damn well not going to sit in the trench because you're gun is broken.

They were tougher back then. Had to be.

Not as tough as the Soviets though. Gun shortage. So the second row was unarmed. "Take a gun from the dead." In that environment I'd not be able to help it. I'd be running next to a guy with a gun screaming. "Shoot him! I want his gun!"

[Rick the Librarian]

I've enjoyed the discussion (I think we haven't gotten off on just a "rabbit trail" but a rabbit HIGHWAY!!

Now about my original question -- a "nuts and bolts" book on the Krag - is Poyer the only choice for my article??

(P.S. Regarding that M1 - it also could have been a guerrilla rifle. Some of the guerrillas scoured the Bataan peninsula and picked up quite a few discarded firearms, including M1s. Running around the jungle with the Japanese on your tail isn't conducive to firearms maintenance! )

[Dick Hosmer]

I'm afraid that Poyer - with all its' "faults" - probably IS the best source for the guy who basically knows nothing. Nowhere else can you learn so much for $20. 5MF's work - at twice the price - is definitely more accurate, but the somewhat unconventional writing style is, in my opinion, a bit of a turn-off. Mallory and Brophy are expensive for the beginner, and really bring no special value to offset their price. They were the pioneers, but better research by 5MF has rendered them a bit dated. Just my $.02 - YMMV.

[Rick the Librarian]

Thanks, Dick ... that is pretty much the conclusion I came to ...but just wanted to make sure I understood. Thanks to everyone who participated in this thread!