Tim,
Yes, the saddle cloth is edged in 5/8" russet leather, darkened with age. It is a standard M1908 cloth cover. The body is made of two thicknesses of canvas. The outside layer is tan while the inner layer is a green canvas. Other than the unit markings the piece is unmarked. I would estimate the period of use to the early to mid 1920s'
George.
cavalry machine gun squadrons
-
Tim_McShane
Thanks, George.
All I know of American equipment is what I've glean from the considerable knowledge of the participants of this forum--I know practically nothing of saddlecloths, but the canvas surprises me--I'd have thought the saddlecloths would have been more along the lines of a saddle blanket, which I presume were mostly woolen.
Tim
All I know of American equipment is what I've glean from the considerable knowledge of the participants of this forum--I know practically nothing of saddlecloths, but the canvas surprises me--I'd have thought the saddlecloths would have been more along the lines of a saddle blanket, which I presume were mostly woolen.
Tim
-
Tim_McShane
Thanks, Philip. My poor brain must have glossed over your previous posts making the distinctions between MG Troops and MG Squadrons. Heck, I still get caught up in trying to distinquish between Regiments and Battalions in the CEF.
Tim
Tim
-
throwback
frank thompkins discribes the use of maxims in replusing ole pancho and his pals, and some use during the active parts of the intervention. they seem to have been a lot of trouble and i'm not sure they got a big plus in their overall evaluation considering what they took up in terms of horses and men.
that april 11 (or so), 1941, life magazine cover story on the 1st cavalry division has a great pitchir of troopers ponying their gun hosses at the gallop thru the ft. bliss dust. i'm told that those were long barreled m2s. neat pitchir, sorry i'm to computer disfunctional/unequipped to send it.
i love all the impedimenta that cavalry continued to accumulate in the 20th century (like incredibly bulky radios and batteries, etc.).
i just saw a hero-worshipping reference to the 26th cav (i have no problem with that, all the scouts have a special place in my heart) claiming they had NO antitank weapons to fight with.
i am only speculating, but i'll bet they had at least 37mm antitank guns on their to&e, in either full company strength or at least a platoon. 37mm's were part of the late 1930s new action army (i noticed some in a recent wyoming (?) ng regiment pitchir). i think that that same life magazine spread showed some caissons bouncing along that i think may have been for 37mm's-- whatever they were for, it seemed to be organic to the 8th cav regt.
note that in both instances (raid&punitive expedition/8th cav in 1941 at bliss), the guns were packed on horses. i believe (but don't know) that cav prefered not to integrate mules into their herds/pickett lines, whether just to preserve interchangability (i know, i ride mules too) or from snobbery i don't know. i'm not sure, but the mule-packed guns may have been for the infantry, who we all know are a lower breed.
(i know, because i spent part of my lost youth in the infantry and can assure you i fit right in.)
that april 11 (or so), 1941, life magazine cover story on the 1st cavalry division has a great pitchir of troopers ponying their gun hosses at the gallop thru the ft. bliss dust. i'm told that those were long barreled m2s. neat pitchir, sorry i'm to computer disfunctional/unequipped to send it.
i love all the impedimenta that cavalry continued to accumulate in the 20th century (like incredibly bulky radios and batteries, etc.).
i just saw a hero-worshipping reference to the 26th cav (i have no problem with that, all the scouts have a special place in my heart) claiming they had NO antitank weapons to fight with.
i am only speculating, but i'll bet they had at least 37mm antitank guns on their to&e, in either full company strength or at least a platoon. 37mm's were part of the late 1930s new action army (i noticed some in a recent wyoming (?) ng regiment pitchir). i think that that same life magazine spread showed some caissons bouncing along that i think may have been for 37mm's-- whatever they were for, it seemed to be organic to the 8th cav regt.
note that in both instances (raid&punitive expedition/8th cav in 1941 at bliss), the guns were packed on horses. i believe (but don't know) that cav prefered not to integrate mules into their herds/pickett lines, whether just to preserve interchangability (i know, i ride mules too) or from snobbery i don't know. i'm not sure, but the mule-packed guns may have been for the infantry, who we all know are a lower breed.
(i know, because i spent part of my lost youth in the infantry and can assure you i fit right in.)
-
Kelton Oliver
- Past Society Member
- Posts: 262
- Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2000 1:58 pm
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by throwback</i>
<br />. . . the infantry, who we all know are a lower breed.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Except the airborne infantry, who are positively sub-human! [:D]
Do any of the participants have any Army documentation which would explain why the cavalry used horses as pack animals rather than mules? It would seem logical just from the standpoint of keeping things as simple as possible. However, in one of the other threads, Pat posted a picture of a soldier from the 115th Cavalry watering two mules, so at least some cavalry units must have used some mules.
<br />. . . the infantry, who we all know are a lower breed.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Except the airborne infantry, who are positively sub-human! [:D]
Do any of the participants have any Army documentation which would explain why the cavalry used horses as pack animals rather than mules? It would seem logical just from the standpoint of keeping things as simple as possible. However, in one of the other threads, Pat posted a picture of a soldier from the 115th Cavalry watering two mules, so at least some cavalry units must have used some mules.
Kelton,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Kelton Oliver</i>
<br />[quote]<i>Originally posted by throwback</i>
<br />Do any of the participants have any Army documentation which would explain why the cavalry used horses as pack animals rather than mules? It would seem logical just from the standpoint of keeping things as simple as possible. However, in one of the other threads, Pat posted a picture of a soldier from the 115th Cavalry watering two mules, so at least some cavalry units must have used some mules.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The Cavalry used mules in the 19th Century as pack animals. In the 20th Century, especially after WWI, the Cavalry used horses as pack animals. Mules carried 300 pound loads on a heavier saddle at a walk or an amble. The horses used by the Cavalry as pack animals carried 200 pound loads on a lighter saddle at the same speed as the rest of the Cavalry horses. The loads carried included watering troughs, radios and other communications equipment, 60mm mortars and ammunition; both .30 and .50 caliber machine guns and ammunition; cooking equipment, and pioneer equipment and demolition loads.
I believe that the pack artillery units may also have carried radios and other communications equipment on horses for rapidity of movement.
Couvi
<i>"Cavalier san Cheval"</i>
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Kelton Oliver</i>
<br />[quote]<i>Originally posted by throwback</i>
<br />Do any of the participants have any Army documentation which would explain why the cavalry used horses as pack animals rather than mules? It would seem logical just from the standpoint of keeping things as simple as possible. However, in one of the other threads, Pat posted a picture of a soldier from the 115th Cavalry watering two mules, so at least some cavalry units must have used some mules.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The Cavalry used mules in the 19th Century as pack animals. In the 20th Century, especially after WWI, the Cavalry used horses as pack animals. Mules carried 300 pound loads on a heavier saddle at a walk or an amble. The horses used by the Cavalry as pack animals carried 200 pound loads on a lighter saddle at the same speed as the rest of the Cavalry horses. The loads carried included watering troughs, radios and other communications equipment, 60mm mortars and ammunition; both .30 and .50 caliber machine guns and ammunition; cooking equipment, and pioneer equipment and demolition loads.
I believe that the pack artillery units may also have carried radios and other communications equipment on horses for rapidity of movement.
Couvi
<i>"Cavalier san Cheval"</i>
-
Kelton Oliver
- Past Society Member
- Posts: 262
- Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2000 1:58 pm
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Couvi</i>
<br />Kelton,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Kelton Oliver</i>
<br />[quote]<i>Originally posted by throwback</i>
<br />Do any of the participants have any Army documentation which would explain why the cavalry used horses as pack animals rather than mules? It would seem logical just from the standpoint of keeping things as simple as possible. However, in one of the other threads, Pat posted a picture of a soldier from the 115th Cavalry watering two mules, so at least some cavalry units must have used some mules.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The Cavalry used mules in the 19th Century as pack animals. In the 20th Century, especially after WWI, the Cavalry used horses as pack animals. Mules carried 300 pound loads on a heavier saddle at a walk or an amble. The horses used by the Cavalry as pack animals carried 200 pound loads on a lighter saddle at the same speed as the rest of the Cavalry horses. The loads carried included watering troughs, radios and other communications equipment, 60mm mortars and ammunition; both .30 and .50 caliber machine guns and ammunition; cooking equipment, and pioneer equipment and demolition loads.
I believe that the pack artillery units may also have carried radios and other communications equipment on horses for rapidity of movement.
Couvi
<i>"Cavalier san Cheval"</i>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
So it was primarily a matter of speed?
<br />Kelton,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Kelton Oliver</i>
<br />[quote]<i>Originally posted by throwback</i>
<br />Do any of the participants have any Army documentation which would explain why the cavalry used horses as pack animals rather than mules? It would seem logical just from the standpoint of keeping things as simple as possible. However, in one of the other threads, Pat posted a picture of a soldier from the 115th Cavalry watering two mules, so at least some cavalry units must have used some mules.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The Cavalry used mules in the 19th Century as pack animals. In the 20th Century, especially after WWI, the Cavalry used horses as pack animals. Mules carried 300 pound loads on a heavier saddle at a walk or an amble. The horses used by the Cavalry as pack animals carried 200 pound loads on a lighter saddle at the same speed as the rest of the Cavalry horses. The loads carried included watering troughs, radios and other communications equipment, 60mm mortars and ammunition; both .30 and .50 caliber machine guns and ammunition; cooking equipment, and pioneer equipment and demolition loads.
I believe that the pack artillery units may also have carried radios and other communications equipment on horses for rapidity of movement.
Couvi
<i>"Cavalier san Cheval"</i>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
So it was primarily a matter of speed?
Kelton,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Kelton Oliver</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Couvi</i>
<br />Kelton,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Kelton Oliver</i>
<br />[quote]<i>Originally posted by throwback</i>
<br />Do any of the participants have any Army documentation which would explain why the cavalry used horses as pack animals rather than mules? It would seem logical just from the standpoint of keeping things as simple as possible. However, in one of the other threads, Pat posted a picture of a soldier from the 115th Cavalry watering two mules, so at least some cavalry units must have used some mules.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The Cavalry used mules in the 19th Century as pack animals. In the 20th Century, especially after WWI, the Cavalry used horses as pack animals. Mules carried 300 pound loads on a heavier saddle at a walk or an amble. The horses used by the Cavalry as pack animals carried 200 pound loads on a lighter saddle at the same speed as the rest of the Cavalry horses. The loads carried included watering troughs, radios and other communications equipment, 60mm mortars and ammunition; both .30 and .50 caliber machine guns and ammunition; cooking equipment, and pioneer equipment and demolition loads.
I believe that the pack artillery units may also have carried radios and other communications equipment on horses for rapidity of movement.
Couvi
<i>"Cavalier san Cheval"</i>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
So it was primarily a matter of speed?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is correct.
Couvi
<i>"Cavalier san Cheval"</i>
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Kelton Oliver</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Couvi</i>
<br />Kelton,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Kelton Oliver</i>
<br />[quote]<i>Originally posted by throwback</i>
<br />Do any of the participants have any Army documentation which would explain why the cavalry used horses as pack animals rather than mules? It would seem logical just from the standpoint of keeping things as simple as possible. However, in one of the other threads, Pat posted a picture of a soldier from the 115th Cavalry watering two mules, so at least some cavalry units must have used some mules.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The Cavalry used mules in the 19th Century as pack animals. In the 20th Century, especially after WWI, the Cavalry used horses as pack animals. Mules carried 300 pound loads on a heavier saddle at a walk or an amble. The horses used by the Cavalry as pack animals carried 200 pound loads on a lighter saddle at the same speed as the rest of the Cavalry horses. The loads carried included watering troughs, radios and other communications equipment, 60mm mortars and ammunition; both .30 and .50 caliber machine guns and ammunition; cooking equipment, and pioneer equipment and demolition loads.
I believe that the pack artillery units may also have carried radios and other communications equipment on horses for rapidity of movement.
Couvi
<i>"Cavalier san Cheval"</i>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
So it was primarily a matter of speed?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is correct.
Couvi
<i>"Cavalier san Cheval"</i>
-
Pat Holscher
- Society Member
- Posts: 7545
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
- Last Name: Holscher
-
Society Member
Donation 3rd
Colorado National Guard at Ludlow, 1913-1914
Sergeant with a potato digger:
Potato digger emplacement:
Pat
Sergeant with a potato digger:
Potato digger emplacement:
Pat
-
george seal
- Past Society Member
- Posts: 267
- Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 12:56 pm
Did the potato digger have a version with a vertical box magazine, somewhat like a Lewis?
-
Maj C
Not a Union man myself but interesting to note the history of those Ludlow pictures when the Colorado NG allegedly participated in the "Ludlow Massacre" by opening fire on the Union squatter camps.
on topic - here's a couple pics from the Nat'l Archives showing a MG unit of 10th Cav? (since they're black) 1942.
on topic - here's a couple pics from the Nat'l Archives showing a MG unit of 10th Cav? (since they're black) 1942.
-
Pat Holscher
- Society Member
- Posts: 7545
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
- Last Name: Holscher
-
Society Member
Donation 3rd
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by george seal</i>
<br />Did the potato digger have a version with a vertical box magazine, somewhat like a Lewis?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Not that I'm aware of. I think they always used a belt.
Pat
<br />Did the potato digger have a version with a vertical box magazine, somewhat like a Lewis?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Not that I'm aware of. I think they always used a belt.
Pat
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Pat Holscher</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by george seal</i>
<br />Did the potato digger have a version with a vertical box magazine, somewhat like a Lewis?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Not that I'm aware of. I think they always used a belt.
Pat
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">A canvas belt.
Couvi
<i>"Cavalier san Cheval"</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by george seal</i>
<br />Did the potato digger have a version with a vertical box magazine, somewhat like a Lewis?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Not that I'm aware of. I think they always used a belt.
Pat
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">A canvas belt.
Couvi
<i>"Cavalier san Cheval"</i>
-
Pat Holscher
- Society Member
- Posts: 7545
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
- Last Name: Holscher
-
Society Member
Donation 3rd
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Couvi</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Pat Holscher</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by george seal</i>
<br />Did the potato digger have a version with a vertical box magazine, somewhat like a Lewis?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Not that I'm aware of. I think they always used a belt.
Pat
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">A canvas belt.
Couvi
<i>"Cavalier san Cheval"</i>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
What sort of cyclic rate did they have?
Pat
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Pat Holscher</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by george seal</i>
<br />Did the potato digger have a version with a vertical box magazine, somewhat like a Lewis?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Not that I'm aware of. I think they always used a belt.
Pat
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">A canvas belt.
Couvi
<i>"Cavalier san Cheval"</i>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
What sort of cyclic rate did they have?
Pat
-
Pat Holscher
- Society Member
- Posts: 7545
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
- Last Name: Holscher
-
Society Member
Donation 3rd
Another view of a Potato Digger:
Photograph courtesy of the Denver Public Library, Western Heritage Collection.
Pat
Photograph courtesy of the Denver Public Library, Western Heritage Collection.
Pat
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Pat Holscher</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Couvi</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Pat Holscher</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by george seal</i>
<br />Did the potato digger have a version with a vertical box magazine, somewhat like a Lewis?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Not that I'm aware of. I think they always used a belt.
Pat
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">A canvas belt.
Couvi
<i>"Cavalier san Cheval"</i>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
What sort of cyclic rate did they have?
Pat
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">According to <u>The Machine Gun</u>, George M. Chinn, Bureau of Ordnance, Dept. of the Navy, 1951, pp160-169, the first model was built in about 1889, in .44/40 W.C.F., had a rate of fire of 16 rounds per second. That works out to a zippy 960 rounds per minute! A later gun was built in .45/70 Govt. that fired at a rate of 360 RPM. These were black powder weapons, so try to visualize that smoke!
The first production model, the Model of 1895 or the Navy Mark I Mod I, fired at <b><i>“an uninterrupted rate of 400 rounds per minute for one minute.” </i></b> They were produced in .30/40 Krag, 6mm Navy, later re-chambered for .30/40 Krag, 6mm Remington, 7.65mm Mauser, 6.5mm Mexican and 7mm Austrian. I believe the Mark III (Navy) and the M1917 (Army) guns were the last models and may have been in .30/06.
Couvi
<i>"Cavalier san Cheval"</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Couvi</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Pat Holscher</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by george seal</i>
<br />Did the potato digger have a version with a vertical box magazine, somewhat like a Lewis?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Not that I'm aware of. I think they always used a belt.
Pat
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">A canvas belt.
Couvi
<i>"Cavalier san Cheval"</i>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
What sort of cyclic rate did they have?
Pat
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">According to <u>The Machine Gun</u>, George M. Chinn, Bureau of Ordnance, Dept. of the Navy, 1951, pp160-169, the first model was built in about 1889, in .44/40 W.C.F., had a rate of fire of 16 rounds per second. That works out to a zippy 960 rounds per minute! A later gun was built in .45/70 Govt. that fired at a rate of 360 RPM. These were black powder weapons, so try to visualize that smoke!
The first production model, the Model of 1895 or the Navy Mark I Mod I, fired at <b><i>“an uninterrupted rate of 400 rounds per minute for one minute.” </i></b> They were produced in .30/40 Krag, 6mm Navy, later re-chambered for .30/40 Krag, 6mm Remington, 7.65mm Mauser, 6.5mm Mexican and 7mm Austrian. I believe the Mark III (Navy) and the M1917 (Army) guns were the last models and may have been in .30/06.
Couvi
<i>"Cavalier san Cheval"</i>
-
Pat Holscher
- Society Member
- Posts: 7545
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
- Last Name: Holscher
-
Society Member
Donation 3rd
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Couvi</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Pat Holscher</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Couvi</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Pat Holscher</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by george seal</i>
<br />Did the potato digger have a version with a vertical box magazine, somewhat like a Lewis?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Not that I'm aware of. I think they always used a belt.
Pat
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">A canvas belt.
Couvi
<i>"Cavalier san Cheval"</i>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
What sort of cyclic rate did they have?
Pat
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">According to <u>The Machine Gun</u>, George M. Chinn, Bureau of Ordnance, Dept. of the Navy, 1951, pp160-169, the first model was built in about 1889, in .44/40 W.C.F., had a rate of fire of 16 rounds per second. That works out to a zippy 960 rounds per minute! A later gun was built in .45/70 Govt. that fired at a rate of 360 RPM. These were black powder weapons, so try to visualize that smoke!
The first production model, the Model of 1895 or the Navy Mark I Mod I, fired at <b><i>“an uninterrupted rate of 400 rounds per minute for one minute.” </i></b> They were produced in .30/40 Krag, 6mm Navy, later re-chambered for .30/40 Krag, 6mm Remington, 7.65mm Mauser, 6.5mm Mexican and 7mm Austrian. I believe the Mark III (Navy) and the M1917 (Army) guns were the last models and may have been in .30/06.
Couvi
<i>"Cavalier san Cheval"</i>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
How was their functioning? I'm a bit surprised they disappeared right around WWI. However they don't appear to have a quick change barrel, and they certainly aren't jacketed, so perhaps the barrels could not be cooled.
Pat
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Pat Holscher</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Couvi</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Pat Holscher</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by george seal</i>
<br />Did the potato digger have a version with a vertical box magazine, somewhat like a Lewis?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Not that I'm aware of. I think they always used a belt.
Pat
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">A canvas belt.
Couvi
<i>"Cavalier san Cheval"</i>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
What sort of cyclic rate did they have?
Pat
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">According to <u>The Machine Gun</u>, George M. Chinn, Bureau of Ordnance, Dept. of the Navy, 1951, pp160-169, the first model was built in about 1889, in .44/40 W.C.F., had a rate of fire of 16 rounds per second. That works out to a zippy 960 rounds per minute! A later gun was built in .45/70 Govt. that fired at a rate of 360 RPM. These were black powder weapons, so try to visualize that smoke!
The first production model, the Model of 1895 or the Navy Mark I Mod I, fired at <b><i>“an uninterrupted rate of 400 rounds per minute for one minute.” </i></b> They were produced in .30/40 Krag, 6mm Navy, later re-chambered for .30/40 Krag, 6mm Remington, 7.65mm Mauser, 6.5mm Mexican and 7mm Austrian. I believe the Mark III (Navy) and the M1917 (Army) guns were the last models and may have been in .30/06.
Couvi
<i>"Cavalier san Cheval"</i>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
How was their functioning? I'm a bit surprised they disappeared right around WWI. However they don't appear to have a quick change barrel, and they certainly aren't jacketed, so perhaps the barrels could not be cooled.
Pat
-
BlueTrain
Note the following items in the interesting photo of the Colorado N.G.: the mix of old style blue uniforms and hats with the center crease on some and OD uniforms and Montana peak hats on the others. One free thinker is wearing what appears to be a civilian cap. The one rifle in the photo appears to be a Springfield. Also, the standing man with the binoculars seems to be wearing a civilian (western) style holster worn cross draw fashion, although the handgun is not clear. In the other photo with the man aiming his Colt at what appears to be an aerial target (the man with the visible key ring), the standing figure behind him also appears to be wearing a civilian cartridge belt with belt loops for revolver cartridges. Also notice in all the photos that the ammunition belt is pulled out of the box and draped over the edge, hanging all the way to the ground in the earlier photo.
Regarding other cavalry weapons at the end of the horse era, I found it interesting that .50-caliber MG platoons existed. However, my manual gave a lot of drawbacks for the weapons (terrific blast, hard to relocate, and not suitable for antipersonnel use!). But for all that, they appeared to be easily packed, although the gun has a very long barrel (didn't read far enough to see how it was packed). The gun weighs about 85 pounds but I'm not sure if that includes the barrel. The tripod weighs something like 40 pounds or so by itself. It sounded like the intended uses were the same as the assigned uses of the .50-caliber rifles that are all the vogue now and telescopic sights were even available, or at least it said they were.
One reply mentions the 37-mm gun. I'm pretty sure those were all towed, and in the cavalry, the scout car was the prime mover. There was an earlier 37-mm infantry gun (the short-barrel gun with the rotating breech exactly like the 75-mm French 1897) but I have no information if those were ever used by mounted troops. The towed guns used by horse artillery in the 30's included 75-mm howitizers, which were identical to the pack howitizers used throughout WWII except for the carriage. I will now have to do a little more research on other heavy weapons of cavalry units.
Regarding other cavalry weapons at the end of the horse era, I found it interesting that .50-caliber MG platoons existed. However, my manual gave a lot of drawbacks for the weapons (terrific blast, hard to relocate, and not suitable for antipersonnel use!). But for all that, they appeared to be easily packed, although the gun has a very long barrel (didn't read far enough to see how it was packed). The gun weighs about 85 pounds but I'm not sure if that includes the barrel. The tripod weighs something like 40 pounds or so by itself. It sounded like the intended uses were the same as the assigned uses of the .50-caliber rifles that are all the vogue now and telescopic sights were even available, or at least it said they were.
One reply mentions the 37-mm gun. I'm pretty sure those were all towed, and in the cavalry, the scout car was the prime mover. There was an earlier 37-mm infantry gun (the short-barrel gun with the rotating breech exactly like the 75-mm French 1897) but I have no information if those were ever used by mounted troops. The towed guns used by horse artillery in the 30's included 75-mm howitizers, which were identical to the pack howitizers used throughout WWII except for the carriage. I will now have to do a little more research on other heavy weapons of cavalry units.
Pat,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">How was their functioning? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">They worked well until some bit of debris, the book mentions dislocated primers, dropped deep within the inner workings of the delicate machinery. Then, misfires and miss-loads were common and, due to the design, were difficult to clear without disassembly. There was a lot of discussion about the number of small parts and springs required, remember that this was literally one of the first machine guns to achieve success. The flapping of that significant weight has got to have caused some problems with visibility and the attraction of small bits of the native flora.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I'm a bit surprised they disappeared right around WWI.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">They re-entered manufacture in WWI, and I am not sure about this, but they may have been made in .30/06. By that time there were better, more robust, guns that made WWI such a deadly conflict. They were used as training weapons, probably in both .30/06 and .30/40 Krag.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">However they don't appear to have a quick change barrel, and they certainly aren't jacketed, so perhaps the barrels could not be cooled.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is a very keen observation. They were cooled by the mass of the barrel and the fins milled into it. One of the complaints was that it did not have a replaceable barrel. The Mark III (Navy) and the Model of 1917 (Army), really the same gun, did have this feature on those made during WWI, but by this time there were more and better guns available.
Couvi
<i>"Cavalier san Cheval"</i>
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">How was their functioning? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">They worked well until some bit of debris, the book mentions dislocated primers, dropped deep within the inner workings of the delicate machinery. Then, misfires and miss-loads were common and, due to the design, were difficult to clear without disassembly. There was a lot of discussion about the number of small parts and springs required, remember that this was literally one of the first machine guns to achieve success. The flapping of that significant weight has got to have caused some problems with visibility and the attraction of small bits of the native flora.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I'm a bit surprised they disappeared right around WWI.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">They re-entered manufacture in WWI, and I am not sure about this, but they may have been made in .30/06. By that time there were better, more robust, guns that made WWI such a deadly conflict. They were used as training weapons, probably in both .30/06 and .30/40 Krag.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">However they don't appear to have a quick change barrel, and they certainly aren't jacketed, so perhaps the barrels could not be cooled.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is a very keen observation. They were cooled by the mass of the barrel and the fins milled into it. One of the complaints was that it did not have a replaceable barrel. The Mark III (Navy) and the Model of 1917 (Army), really the same gun, did have this feature on those made during WWI, but by this time there were more and better guns available.
Couvi
<i>"Cavalier san Cheval"</i>