1895 colt

[frankd]

Would it be stretching the truth to equip my USMC group (5th marines) with a Colt 1895 machine gun? (Just say we picked it up fighting alongside Canadians or british?). ;D

I love the look of it but I want to be able to justify it's use for our display.

Frank

[1886lebel]

The M1895/14 Colt-Browning in .303 Inch saw some usage in France by some Canadian infantry formations in 1915 such as the 21st Canadian Light Infantry Battalion. They did see some significant combat but were soon replaced by Vickers machine guns in 1916. Those were then given to equip formations of the Belgian Exile Army.
The vast majority of AEF units, especially USMC, were equipped with French machine guns and automatic rifle machine guns such as the Fusil Mitrailleur Modèle 1915 CSRG (Chauchat) and Mitrailleuse Hotchkiss Modèle 1914.
AEF units who served along side of the British formations were equipped with the Lewis Automatic Machine Gun or Vickers Medium Machine Gun.

You could justify the weapon if you were to say you were back in the USA at a training camp where they were used for that role there but not in France I am afraid.

Patrick

[1886lebel]

The first twelve AEF divisions that arrived in France did not bring any of thier light or heavy machine weapons with them and this included the 2nd Division of which the the 5th Marine Regiment was part of. They were to be supplied by both the French and British with such weapons as needed.
*reference from the book 'Honour Bound; The Chauchat Machine Rifle by Gerard Demaison and Yves Buffetaut; 1995'

And to say that we got this from the Armée Belge would be a super long shot as AEF units were not even close to them during the war, they stuck to the coastal region in thier little part of the country they had held since the end of 1914.

Patrick

[oskar2ndchev]

Basically, it all comes back to the Chauchat if you want to create a credible impression.

[frankd]

Chauchat's are relatively expensive and rare, how do you guys cope with this? I liked the colt because of it's interesting design and I figured it'd be easy to replicate. Does anyone reproduce the Chauchat?

Thank you for the informative replies.

Frank

[oskar2ndchev]

Patrick may have some ideas on that. In the past, people have converted SKS's but I'm not sure about the details. In any event, the heavy weapons are never cheap and probably best left until the unit gets up and running.

[1886lebel]

CSRG's are not all uncommon here in the US but are getting expensive now especially with the 100th coming around but like all firearms of that period are.

There were a few replica CSRG's made out of Yugoslavian SKS's, about 6 if I remember correctly, awhile back (2002) by someone in the GWA them but will not make any more of them as they were a little expensive to be made to look like one with all the work. These all were blank-fire adapted, but are no longer bieng offered anywhere, I got one just reeenacting in CA.
There was a U.S. Marine here in the GWHS who made one from a SKS as well to look like the Model 1918 CSRG in .30-06.

Patrick

[1886lebel]

I got pictures of mine but for some reason they will not post up here on this forum.
I will try again though but I have a feeling someone will have to re-post them up.















Walking Fire ... you will notice how the weapon is held close to the body and using my arms to support the weapon as you move across the field


Video of me firing the weapon
smg.photobucket.com/albums/v119/1886lebel/?action=view¤t=P1000465.mp4

[frankd]

Fantastic photos! An SKS? Interesting conversion, I wish people would record the steps of such processes for future generations.

Thanks again gentlemen!
Frank

[1886lebel]

There was a reason the person who had theses made did not want any more done of these.
He did not want every single person having one of these at a reenactment were they were using it as a primary firearm in thier impression as the vast majority of men in the ranks were RIFLEMAN not machine gunners, he wanted to keep these as squad weapons supported by those RIFLEMAN who carried a rifle.
We do not want to end up like WWII where everyone wants to have a machine gun type firearm and no rifles in the ranks, it just was not done that way originally and should be kept that way, we strive for authenticity in WWI reenacting.

Patrick

[polarbear]

The problem with WW2 is there is not enough automatic weapons.
Now I have heard the Fritz squad was a squad leader, machine gunner, and seven ammo bearers for the MG34/42. In the US squad, some time in 1942 the BAR squad was eliminated and each of the three rifle squads got a BAR(Auto rifle) section. The BAR was still controlled by the platoon leader, but it also served as a base of fire for the rifle squad.
The book solution was Scouts find the enemy, the BAR engages them, and the rest of the squad attempts to destroy the target. I have not seen BAR squads that often in reenacting (I rented them a couple times myself) but due to the rules of engagement they really didn't serve much of a purpose (IMHO) other then marking where the Yanks were.
Auto weapons in WW2
On one side you have the Red Army burpgun platoons with everyone armed with a sub machine gun. The British squad included a sub gun and a Bren. The US squad had a BAR. The Germans, IJA, Red Army, Brit/CW and US all had at least one automatic weapon in their squads. In WW2 the US Army did not rotate units off the line so at the end of the Hurtgenvald operation the 4th ID had companies coming off the line with two platoons instead of four (Three rifle and one weapons)with each platoon having only two squads each. All the heavy weapons (BAR, M1919) would be rolled into the two platoons.
So each platoon would have a 1919 light MG and four or more BARs. Depending on TO&E they could also have up to 11 grenade launchers.

TO&E seems to be a common problem in the age of smokeless powder. The U.S. Civil war being able to generate the needed bodies to field a unit (Battalion or higher). I have never seen or been in a company size unit in ww2 reenacting or platoon size for that matter. Everyone went with their patch as it were. You could create a Forward Observation team which is like four guys, but they would not be attached to another four to six guys.
The WW1 US Infantry platoon has more people in it then what shows up to lot of WW2 reenactments. The current battle site would probably be manned by just two US platoons.

Problem is, squads don't operate on their own (I know OEF, but that is different), platoons don't operate on their own. That is a stumbling block to everything else.


simon

[oskar2ndchev]

Well, most of that is pretty moot since we're doing WWI. :-)

[polarbear]

The problem of too many autos I think would be valid if the person was making 1918 Automatic rifles (BAR) or the Fedorov auto.

simon

Looking at the photos I don't think Simonov would recognize that SKS baby.

Who ever did it looks like they did a great job. There are a few real 1915s at the Marine museum in San Diego. Watching them on UTube with that slow rate of fire (Seems like you could finger flip it with a semi auto) I would guess it would be pretty accurate.