Originally Posted by fantassin

Originally Posted by para_medic

So the Chauchat was a pukka piece of kit?

The worst of the Chauchat-Sutter having been the US version modified for the 30.06 round, most of the contributors here only reading English speaking websites/books, it's normal that youy only get one side of the story, that is the Chauchat was a POS.
Far from being a superlative weapon, the 1915 Chauchat in 8 mm was nevertheless functionning as soon as the gunners took care of it.
The Germans used many Chauchat; had they been such useless weapons, they wouldn't have done so...

Thanks for summing up the French wiki page - I found it rather short, apparently the ShoSho was really nothing to write home about. BTW, you forgot to mention the dirt and heating-up problems which caused it to either not shoot or only in semi-auto.
Fantassin, choose your battles wisely, defending the allyness of the Chasseurs Alpin beret or even more so this piece of junk might not be the best choices. :D

Like it or not, every snippet of information makes its way through even the most obtuse mind...been at it for five years now....

The 74 Grenade ( the sticky bomb) is an excellent example of the dangers of cutting corners with procurement..

The original design was submitted to, and roundly rejected by the Ordnance Board ( the body responsible for ensuring that our weapons are marginally more dangerous to the enemy than ourselves...)

The designers then effectively went round the back door and flogged the design to the SOE who at that time had been given a large budget, but was staffed with what might be described as "Enthusiastic Amateurs". The design was quickly approved for production and passed to industry. Only when the grenade was in full production did its horrific operating difficulties appartantly show themselves. Why it took this long is a mystery to me... why anybody would think that producing what in essence was a high explosive toffee apple was a good idea defeats me!

...Anyway the thing was proving to be so dangerous in use, an approach was made to the SMEs (the Ordnance Board) to try and sort the thing out. They immediately performed a vertical launch sequence (with blowing steam) having rejected the design out of hand some eighteen months previous..

The problem now was that industry had been geared up and was manufacturing the thing at a time when any weapons were in short supply. The SOE decided it wanted nothing more to do with the weapon once they saw it, the regulars would had even less interest, so it was decided to give it to the Home Guard as a way of politically "doing something" - so we put the most dangerous weapon in the inventory in the hands of the least trained and diciplined - the rest is history...

As a minor reflection of recent activities...

1. I am becoming increasingly worried that we are running out of real subject matter experts in areas like the Ordnance Board (now Dos G). This area has become infested with civil servants and engineers, but often lacks relevent service input.

2. Increasingly UOR is bypassing proper procurement. Regrettably the MoD now seems to think it can "do procurement" by breaking lots of well established principals and replacing experienced judgement with management procedures. In some cases this has led to some quite worrying unintended consequences.

... So look forward to a sticky bomb or Chachaut arriving in a location near you real soon now..!

The Mitrailleuse was not a useless weapon, indeed when used effectivily it could decimate enemy formations. Indeed one one occassion a deployed Prussian/Baden Arty Bty was hit in the flank and pretty well destroyed. It was however a weapon of such secrecy that no-one was quite sure how best "tactically" to use it.

Because it had a carriage and big wheels it looked like an artillery piece, so logically was best placed with the artillery, rather than fielded with the infantry to provide intimate support. Needless to say occasionally local French command got it right, moved them forwards so that they could provide intimate support to the infantry. However the Prussians soon realised the potential of them and their Btys would spend time looking for the Mitrailleuse to destroy them before they could be effectivily deployed.

Well if we are going back to home grwon c0ckups the No 76 Self Igniting Phosphorous Grenad is up there with the best of them.

http://www.home-guard.org.uk/hg/gren76.html

It was hand held or could be launched from a Northover Projector

http://www.home-guard.org.uk/hg/northover.html

Don't let Gordo see this or FOB in AFG will be getting new, simple, cheap kit!

Originally Posted by fantassin

Originally Posted by para_medic

So the Chauchat was a pukka piece of kit?

The worst of the Chauchat-Sutter having been the US version modified for the 30.06 round, most of the contributors here only reading English speaking websites/books, it's normal that youy only get one side of the story, that is the Chauchat was a POS.

Far from being a superlative weapon, the 1915 Chauchat in 8 mm was nevertheless functionning as soon as the gunners took care of it.

The Germans used many Chauchat; had they been such useless weapons, they wouldn't have done so...

Now thats interesting. I've seen pictures of Germans using Captured Vickers, Lewis's(Lewis Guns being Prized for their reliability and portability), Hotchkiss's even Danish Madsen's but never seen an image of WWI Germans with Chauchats.

The Chauchat was crap from start to finish. It method of operation for one was wholly unsuitable for a light weapon (Vibration & Oscillation). It's standard of manufacture, the fact that parts werent interchangable between guns without special fitting.

That open sided magazines of the 8mm Lebel chambering. The thiness of those same magazines. The weakness of the bipod,

Canada -

Purchased submarines from the UK second hand.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3721476.stm

Rumour has it they gave us Bowman so fairs fair.

And before anyone mentions it RIP the sailor who died when one sank

Originally Posted by fantassin

Funny how the Chauchat story always comes out and not the French 1897 75 mm cannon (still used during WW2) or the French 155 mm GPF cannon (the basis of the 155 "Long Tom" of WW2), both used en masse by the US Forces during the two world conflicts...not to mention the FT 17 tanks, Spad aircrafts and countless other bits and pieces. The US were equipped by the French when they arrived in 1917 a long time before the opposite became true.

M1897 was Good Kit, as was the GPF, no doubts about them.

Chauchat was a pile of loose bubbling dung, no amount of revisionism to satisfy French Honour will make it into WWI's version of the MG-42 or Bren.....

Originally Posted by stinker

Canada -

Purchased submarines from the UK second hand.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3721476.stm

Rumour has it they gave us Bowman so fairs fair.

And before anyone mentions it RIP the sailor who died when one sank

The Canadians got 4 of the best conventional subs in the world for second hand Lada money. Its just a shame their govt haven't funded them since.

And they sodded about with them to "improve" them

Originally Posted by Bouillabaisse

Originally Posted by stinker

Canada -

Purchased submarines from the UK second hand.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3721476.stm

Rumour has it they gave us Bowman so fairs fair.

And before anyone mentions it RIP the sailor who died when one sank

The Canadians got 4 of the best conventional subs in the world for second hand Lada money. Its just a shame their govt haven't funded them since.

And they sodded about with them to "improve" them

If you read the accident report you'll find out that the real cause was an inexperienced crew. They were inexperienced because there was a gap between the old boats going out of service and the new ones coming in. That was down to lack of funding. But it's easier for a politician to blame the manufacturer than their parsimony.