The Lewis Gun in the Punitive Expedition

Pat Holscher · Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:41 am

I read last night, in the most recent issue of The American Rifleman, that the Army purchased .303 Lewis guns and used a few in the Punitive Expedition. The article was by Bruce Canfield, who writes a lot of military weapons articles for the Rifleman.

I'd never heard of that, anybody know more about it? Which troops were they issued to?

The article was interesting, and detailed some of the internal politics that lead the Army to go with teh Chauchat rather than the much better Lewis gun. And it detailed Marine Corps use, which I was not aware of. On the Punitive Excpedition use it gave very few details, other than noting that they were .303s and, therefore, must have come from Savage production for the UK. The article criticized the Berthier in an offhand way, although I've always really wondered if criticism of the Bertherier is warranted.

Pat

Philip S · Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:56 pm

The machine gun troop of the 1st PA Cavalry (Boal Troop) had Lewis Machine Guns on the Texas Border in 1916.

Pat Holscher · Fri Nov 19, 2004 10:21 pm

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Philip S
 The machine gun troop of the 1st PA Cavalry (Boal Troop) had Lewis Machine Guns on the Texas Border in 1916.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Philip,

I recall you mentioning that about the Boal Troop now that you mention it. I had forgotten it. I recall they were at least partially privately funded, is that correct?

Did they use .30-06 Lewis guns?

I'd bet this is an angle Canfield missed in his story.

Pat

Joseph Sullivan · Sat Nov 20, 2004 8:19 am

WIll go back and look, but just last night was reading in Chasing Villa that in one of the later fights, a "machine gun" was set on the point of a hill that extended towards the village under attack and used to cover a large area. The mention did not which type of machine gun.

Joe

Pat Holscher · Sat Nov 20, 2004 8:22 am

I can't recall if the Boal Troop carried the Lewis Guns around via horse. Did they?

The Lewis, fine gun though it was, was big and heavy. I'd think it would have been a tough weapon for mounted troops to cart about, although it was probably more robust that the later BAR, which didn't seem to hold up to being packed about by horse, as tough as it was.

Pat

Couvi · Sat Nov 20, 2004 8:43 pm

Pat,
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Pat Holscher
 I read last night, in the most recent issue of The American Rifleman, that the Army purchased .303 Lewis guns and used a few in the Punitive Expedition. The article was by Bruce Canfield, who writes a lot of military weapons articles for the Rifleman.

I'd never heard of that, anybody know more about it? Which troops were they issued to?

The article was interesting, and detailed some of the internal politics that lead the Army to go with teh Chauchat rather than the much better Lewis gun. And it detailed Marine Corps use, which I was not aware of. On the Punitive Excpedition use it gave very few details, other than noting that they were .303s and, therefore, must have come from Savage production for the UK. The article criticized the Berthier in an offhand way, although I've always really wondered if criticism of the Bertherier is warranted.

Pat
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">The Chief of Ordnance, Crozier, I think, and COL Lewis did not get along; therefore the US Army did not use many of Lewis’ guns. They were infinitely superior to the Chauchat, then again, so was the stick. I think I have seen a .30/06 Lewis machine gun somewhere, but where? The Marine Corps did use them to a much greater extend than the Army.

Does anyone out there have a copy of COL Chinn’s work on Machine Guns?

I am not sure the Army used Berthier machine guns. I thought it was the Benét-Mercie?

Couvi

"Cavalier san Cheval"

Pat Holscher · Sat Nov 20, 2004 9:45 pm

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Couvi
 I am not sure the Army used Berthier machine guns. I thought it was the Benét-Mercie?

Couvi

"Cavalier san Cheval"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That's correct, I had a slip of the typo there.

Pat

Camp Little · Mon Nov 22, 2004 2:27 pm

Yes indeed they did use the Benet-Mercie. There is one on display at the Pancho Villa State Park museum. Neat looking weapon and it worked well when loaded correctly.

Couvi · Tue Nov 23, 2004 8:07 pm

Pat's question on the Lewis machine gun prompted me to do some research. This reference made no mention of the use of the Lewis in during the Punitive Expidition, but it isn't that type of book.

The Machine Gun: History, Evolution, and Development of Manual, Automatic, and Airborne Repeating Weapons, LTC George M. Chinn , USMC, Volume 1 of Three Volumes, Prepared for the Bureau of Ordnance, Department of the Navy, Washington, 1951

Models of the Lewis Guns

(1) Ground

U.S Test Model 1911 (one, handmade) .30/06

U.S Test Model 1912 (4 manufactured) .30/06

Belgium Model 1913, Liége ( A few were made in Belgium during this year, before the contract was transferred to Birmingham Small Arms.) .303

Belgium Model 1914, B.S.A. (This was called “The Belgian Rattlesnake” by the Germans.) .303

Belgium Mark VII, B.S.A. .303

Belgium Mark VIII, B.S.A. .303

Great Britain Mark I (Model 1915, B.S.A. (Between the World Wars all of these were modified to Mark I except those sold as surplus.) .303

Great Britain Model 1915 (Savage) (Between the World Wars all of these were modified to Mark I except those sold as surplus.) .303

Great Britain Model 1916 (Savage) (Between the World Wars all of these were modified to Mark I except those sold as surplus.) .303

Great Britain Model 1916 (Mark VII, B.S.A.) (Between the World Wars all of these were modified to Mark I except those sold as surplus.) .303

Portugal Model 1917 .303

U.S. Army Model 1916 .303

U.S. Army Model 1917 .30/06

U.S. Navy Mark VI (also Mark VI Mod I) .30/06

Honduras Ex-U.S. M1917 .30/06

Nicaragua Ex-U.S. M1917 .30/06

Commercial Model 1919 .303

Holland Model 1920 6.5mm

France Model 1922 8mm

Russia Same as British Mark I 7.62mm

Japan Model 1932 7.7mm

(2) Aircraft

Great Britain Mark VII Model 1916 .303

Great Britain Mark II .303

Great Britain Mark III .303

France Model 1916 (Darne) .303

U.S.A.F. Model 1917 .30/06

U.S.A.F. Model 1918 .30/06

U.S.A.F. Model 1919 .30/06

U.S. Navy Mark X .30/06

Italy Same as British Mark II .30 & .303

Russia Same as British Mark II 7.62mm

Japan Model 1929 7.7mm

Japan Model 1932 7.7mm

There are a lot more .30/06 models than I thought there were.

Couvi

"Cavalier san Cheval"

Pat Holscher · Tue Nov 23, 2004 10:37 pm

I'm surprised by the variety.

While I knew of them, I'm also surprised by the late Japanese models. The Lewis gun was a good machinegun, but it is surprising to see anyone adopting them that late.

Pat

Couvi · Thu Nov 25, 2004 7:18 pm

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Pat Holscher
 I'm surprised by the variety.

While I knew of them, I'm also surprised by the late Japanese models. The Lewis gun was a good machinegun, but it is surprising to see anyone adopting them that late.

Pat
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I am more surprised that the French, in spite of the dismal failure of the Chauchat, had some excellent designs by Hotchkiss and later makers. I am even more surprised by their adoption of a .303 cartridge.

The Japanese tended towards almost obsolete designs in a lot of their weapons systems. I don’t think there was a lot of forward thinking in that Army. They tended to stick to tried and true.

Couvi

"Cavalier san Cheval"

Pat Holscher · Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:22 am

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Couvi
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Pat Holscher
 I'm surprised by the variety.

While I knew of them, I'm also surprised by the late Japanese models. The Lewis gun was a good machinegun, but it is surprising to see anyone adopting them that late.

Pat
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I am more surprised that the French, in spite of the dismal failure of the Chauchat, had some excellent designs by Hotchkiss and later makers. I am even more surprised by their adoption of a .303 cartridge.

The Japanese tended towards almost obsolete designs in a lot of their weapons systems. I don’t think there was a lot of forward thinking in that Army. They tended to stick to tried and true.

Couvi

"Cavalier san Cheval"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The French adoption is surprising. I think that cartridge might be a French one, however, rather than .303. I wonder if it had a narrow use that would explain it?

Japanese arms are an interesting topic. They're really a mix. Some were actually very good. Their version of the 98 Mauser, going under more than one model number, for example, was technically excellent and had very good manufacture up until the end of the war, when they began to decline. So in rifles, they were really basically on par with everyone but the US. They adopted a variant of the Bren for a lightmachinegun, so they did well there too. But heavier machineguns were based on the old Hotchikiss designs, which while servicable, were getting obsolete.

Their pistols were worthless, althought they weren't really designed for combat use. And they never seem to have caught on to submachineguns, oddly, even though they would have been quite useful in many of the places the Japanese fought. They did design one, they just made very few.

They didn't really pioneer anything very new, but they were pretty good at developing some of the things they picked up elsewhere. On the other hand, some of their heavier equipment, for the Army, was quite far behind in terms of design.

Pat

Pat Holscher · Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:26 am

Related to the last item, I once read a very interesting quote taken by John Toland of a Japanese veteran of the Phillippines, that is the US reconquest of it. You don't see all that many interviews of Japanese troops, so it is interesting to see what their reactions were, as opposed to what we typically think they were.

Anyhow, this fellow stated that the Japanese troops had been taught that everything about their army was superior to the American Army. When they went into combat they were shocked to learn that the US equipment was so good. Uniforms, oddly, in particular impressed them as they US uniforms were so practical. Most surprising to the Japanese, however, was to learn that the US troops would fight so hard, which they were not prepared for. To learn that the US Troops were at least as dedicated as they were was very upsetting to them.

Pat

Couvi · Fri Nov 26, 2004 5:58 pm

Pat,
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Pat Holscher
 Related to the last item, I once read a very interesting quote taken by John Toland of a Japanese veteran of the Phillippines, that is the US reconquest of it. You don't see all that many interviews of Japanese troops, so it is interesting to see what their reactions were, as opposed to what we typically think they were.

Anyhow, this fellow stated that the Japanese troops had been taught that everything about their army was superior to the American Army. When they went into combat they were shocked to learn that the US equipment was so good. Uniforms, oddly, in particular impressed them as they US uniforms were so practical. Most surprising to the Japanese, however, was to learn that the US troops would fight so hard, which they were not prepared for. To learn that the US Troops were at least as dedicated as they were was very upsetting to them.

Pat
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">The Japanese army was very well equipped to fight in Manchuria, where the terrain was a great deal more open. The only advantage they had for fighting in the jungle was the exceptional tenacity of their troops. The submachine gun remark is particularly accurate. Thousands of good submachine guns would have been a great deal better in the jungle that those exceptionally long rifles. Their small arms production was rather good until the exigencies of war caused production values to slip.

Their heavy machine guns were rather good, if somewhat antiquated, and they had one that used standard rifle clips fed into a hopper, rather than a strip, something of an interesting innovation that made logistics a bit easier.

I once toured a Japanese Colonel who had been a 2nd Lieutenant in WWII and I asked him, somewhat hesitantly, how the modern Japanese Army stacked up to the WWII Army. His response was that the Army was just as good, “. . . but, the equipment we have now is so much better!”

The entire Japanese population was being told, and convinced, that they were winning the war and if they just held on a bit longer they would triumph. It is hard to beat a force that thinks they are a hair’s breath from victory.

Did you know that Mexico adopted an Arisaka at some time in the 1930’s? Got to wonder what the plan was there! It wasn’t like there weren’t a numerous good Mauser derivatives already on the market at that time.

Couvi

"Cavalier san Cheval"

Pat Holscher · Fri Nov 26, 2004 9:54 pm

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Couvi
 The Japanese army was very well equipped to fight in Manchuria, where the terrain was a great deal more open. The only advantage they had for fighting in the jungle was the exceptional tenacity of their troops. The submachine gun remark is particularly accurate. Thousands of good submachine guns would have been a great deal better in the jungle that those exceptionally long rifles. Their small arms production was rather good until the exigencies of war caused production values to slip.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

On the submachineguns, the Japanese lack of interest in them is all the more amazing when a person considers they were exposed to the British Sten, the Australian Owens, and various US machineguns, and continued to have a lack of interest. The Owens, Sten, and Austen were all cheap to make, and would have been really easy to copy, but they didn't do it. Odd.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Did you know that Mexico adopted an Arisaka at some time in the 1930’s? Got to wonder what the plan was there! It wasn’t like there weren’t a numerous good Mauser derivatives already on the market at that time.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I did know that. Another oddity that's difficult to explain. And Mexico manufactured it's own 98s, actually adopting a final variant in the 1950s, one of the last 98 variants to be adopted. To add to the odd story of Mexican arms, a Mexican engineer designed a semi automatic rifle that was used in small number by German aerial observors in WWI. It's strange to think that a nation fighting a civil war, as Mexico was, managed to produce a design that was exported for use in a war elsewhere. I can't recall if Mexico actually produced them, or if they were produced in Germany to the Mexican design.

Pat

Pat Holscher · Fri Nov 26, 2004 9:58 pm

On the Lewis, I see where it is generally acknowledged that the Army didn't adopt it due to personal disagreements between the designer, who had been an Army officer, and some senior US officers.

Hard to imagine how whatever it was operated to deprive US troops in WWI of what would appear to be, or at least arguably was, the best light machinegun of the war.

Pat

Couvi · Fri Nov 26, 2004 10:50 pm

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">To add to the odd story of Mexican arms, a Mexican engineer designed a semi automatic rifle that was used in small number by German aerial observors in WWI. It's strange to think that a nation fighting a civil war, as Mexico was, managed to produce a design that was exported for use in a war elsewhere. I can't recall if Mexico actually produced them, or if they were produced in Germany to the Mexican design.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">The design was the Mondragon and it was made in small quantities in Germany. It was designed by LT (later Gen) Mondragon, who also introduced Mexico to the French 75, which he studied as an exchange student in France. He was brilliant.

Couvi

"Cavalier san Cheval"

Pat Holscher · Fri Nov 26, 2004 10:53 pm

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Couvi
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">To add to the odd story of Mexican arms, a Mexican engineer designed a semi automatic rifle that was used in small number by German aerial observors in WWI. It's strange to think that a nation fighting a civil war, as Mexico was, managed to produce a design that was exported for use in a war elsewhere. I can't recall if Mexico actually produced them, or if they were produced in Germany to the Mexican design.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">The design was the Mondragon and it was made in small quantities in Germany. It was designed by LT (later Gen) Mondragon, who also introduced Mexico to the French 75, which he studied as an exchange student in France. He was brilliant.

Couvi

"Cavalier san Cheval"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Thanks. I take it he must have been a career Mexican office, and that his career managed to survive the revolution, making him not only brilliant, but lucky!

Pat

Pat Holscher · Fri Nov 26, 2004 11:00 pm

Found this net article on the Mondragon. I hadn't realized it was quite as early as it was. When you click on the article, it is miscaptioned with a caption for a Soviet machinegun, complete with Soviet flag, for some odd reason:

http://www.cruffler.com/historic-february01.html

Pat

Couvi · Sat Nov 27, 2004 8:18 pm

Pat,
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Thanks. I take it he must have been a career Mexican office, and that his career managed to survive the revolution, making him not only brilliant, but lucky!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
This is very much off topic. Mexico, under GEN Mondragon, built seacoast forts on the west side of the country, but none on the East side. For years everyone wondered why heavy seacoast construction on one coast, but not the other. When the General died, it was discovered in his papers that the Japanese had approached him for free passage through Mexico to attack the United States. It seems that he may have been a better friend that we thought.

Couvi

"Cavalier san Cheval"