Landships II

I have some in the "spares box" and they are well detailed but aren't they meant for planes? What are the diffrences between them and those used by the troops,apart from the water cooler thingme !!!

As I understand it the Lewis jackets (which were air-cooling jackets) were "off" for aerial use and "on" for land use.

Hi guys, just to clear up, yes the water jackets were taken off for aircraft - originally they weren't, then they were but often you still see the 'vanes' down the side (the aluminium cooling fins that ran the length of the barrel), and then various types without any of the cooling equipment, either very skeletal looking or with a bit of a 'jacket' running down most of the barrel

PDA looks like that's the ticket, many thanks

Rob wrote:

---

Hi guys, just to clear up, yes the water jackets were taken off for aircraft - ...

---

Thanks Rob but they were air cooled - the (apparent) "water jacket" was just a shroud for the barrel which was supposed to draw in and direct cooling air over the barrel by a sort of venturi action in the wake of the muzzle blast. The stepped-down diameter of the shroud at the bitey-end and the actual shape (profile) of that reduction is designed to increase the velocity of exiting muzzle gases, creating a partial vacuum behind, which sucks air down the length of the barrel from the rear of the shroud to the front - the venturi effect. The shrouded models had aluminium radiator fins inside the shroud which actually started to the rear of the shroud, underneath the magazine when fitted, cut away at the top to give clearance for the magazine.

Here's an image that shows both the tapering of the shroud at the front and the protrusion of the fins at the rear = https://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu87/86RamChargerTenFour/lewis.jpg. The "water-cooled" Lewis LMG (light machine-gun) is a pernicious myth and an oxymoron (no water-cooled MG was ever "light").

Rob, glad I could help. I have quite a few of the Aeroclub guns and they are all nicely detailed. If Hannants still has them I suggest you get in quick. (I am sorry to hear of the sculptor's death.)

Wasn't the "back-fire of the 'venturi principle'" the biggest complaint the tank crews made about the Lewis (it sucked cordite fumes back into the tank)? And the main reason why they should have used Hotchkiss (or Madsen), and switched to it in the later Marks?



-- Edited by PDA on Sunday 5th of September 2010 02:29:42 PM

Glad there is a possible source of the suitable (shrouded) Lewis. I did notice, searching around, there was some guy scratch-building his own at about 1/200 scale or something ridiculous. But they were the unshrouded type.

Also stumbled across the WH Smith & Son The Machine Gunners' Handbook, Including the Vickers, Maxim, Lewis and Colt Automatic Machine Guns, 8th Edition, 9th November, 1915 at scribd.com, original price half a crown, yours free through the magic of the interwebz. Lord on high, not only did we send our barely-pubescent youth to the front to fight and die for us but their hardly older leaders had to buy their own instruction manuals, did they?

Well, anyway, a wealth of detail on all sorts of arcane matters of machinegunnery in that volume, including drawings of the Lewis in a few pages near the back. 1915 was a time when the shrouded version was used in aircraft, apparently. But anyway, if you need to know the difference between horse and mule packs for the Maxim or how to set up up an MG pit, this is where it is to be found. As well as a bit on the Lewis.

And yes, they called the Vickers a "light" machine gun in those days. That's only because the poor sods didn't know what light was. In later terminology it was, of course, a "medium" (and later still a "heavy"). Ah, we are but shadows of our sturdy forbears, stunted in stature though they were. Just thought I'd add that in view of my earlier assertion that no water cooled MG was "light".

Kieffer, PDA, interesting comment about the shortcomings of the Lewis 'ventilation'. I'm sure it worked as advertised in still air (though the air volume might have been marginal-to-insignificant for the purpose of actual barrel cooling). But with any sort of headwind (as encountered by a forward-facing gun on a tank moving at even the modest rates they then did) ... easy to understand how it might indeed 'backfire'.

-- Edited by Rectalgia on Sunday 5th of September 2010 07:56:02 PM

Rob wrote:

---

...i've taken apart and reassembled more than my fair share of real ones over the past few years, and have a replica un-shrouded one!

---

Hey, cool! I would love to have done that and to have a replica (though preferably shrouded). But they don't let me get close to such things these days. Oh well, in theory I could emigrate to somewhere that isn't such a "nanny state". Or volunteer to work at the local army museum. It's only 40 mins away by car. I'm not sure they have much in the way of early MGs though. It's hard even for museums here.

Rectalgia wrote:

---

Just thought I'd add that in view of my earlier assertion that no water cooled MG was "light".

 

Hi Steve, the 'light' Maxim 08/15 still weighted a proudly 17.7 kg. Light in comparison with it's heavy brother which was approx 57 kg (with sledge). 17kg doesn't sound much but I guess carrying the weight, on rough ground etc. must have been a hell of a job. Carrying 17 1-litre bottles of mineral water home from the mall, on the double...

08/15 or 'null acht funfzehn' is a german expression for rubbish, still used. Wonder were that came from though. But I am digressing again...

 

Or perhaps it was not quite so depreciative - I'm picking up up more of the sense of Null-acht-fünfzehn meaning more like "plain-vanilla", "stock-standard", "unexceptional", "nothing-out-of-the-ordinary" which could be explained by the progressive preponderance of the 08/15 on issue and maybe just a little of the dissatisfaction soldiers always feel towards new weapons.

LMGs are better suited to lightning advances than to static defence so the old, heavier model was no doubt a little better suited to the middle stages of the war - and the new light model was unavailable in the earlier stages when they would (probably) have made a real difference. "Where were you when we needed you?" sort of thing.

But surely they (08/15s) would have been appreciated in the final counter-attack and retreat phase when 90 divisions were pulled back in near-chaos conditions, saved largely from total annihilation by the organisational and co-ordination skills of 38 year-old Major Ludwig Beck, frantically working away in the background.

But, as said, wondering a little off topic now.

kieffer wrote:

---

...still can't figure out if there was another type of jacket.

---

I'm sure you're right Kieffer, there was. Called by some the Mk 3, here is a picture of a replica - http://www.repligun.com/RepliGun-LewisGun/LewismkIIdispbase/LewismkIIdispbase03-800.jpg (don't know why they call it a Mk II as well). Clearly shown is the reduced shroud covering the barrel and the gas return tube/cylinder. There was also the "naked" type (no shroud at all) and the standard infantry type. All three types were used in aircraft in WW1, it seems. We would need the appropriate Skennerton SAIS booklet, or something similar, to know more.

But the standard infantry type is the one associated with use in tanks. This other one might have been a good idea in view of the reported problems with gunpowder fumes. But, operating in a WW1 battlefield with some sort of negative pressure (sucking in air), gunpowder fumes might have been the least of the problems.

Steve

Kieffer,

I don't think there was provision for quick-change barrels (haven't noticed in any of the manuals - here is another Van Nostrand's Lewis Gun Manual 1917 - Operation and Tactical Use of the Lewis Automatic Machine Rifle). That one has an introduction by Colonel Lewis himself.

With the above, you needn't worry about replicas - full drawings of all the parts are included, you could build your own working copy. The barrel looks like it is threaded so usually an artificer's job to change it by the looks (and nothing mentioned in the training side on performing the task except to mention not taking the radiator assembly off unless changing barrel and making that sound like someone else's job).

Steve

I think referring to the wingnuts or nuts on MGs was mostly in jest (though there was a "barrel retaining nut" or somesuch on the Bren, I seem to recall - part of the quick-change barrel arrangement on the receiver group - well, that was 50 years ago, but I think so, and we never got to practice that bit very much because the bloody Kiwis stole all our spare barrels). Anyway I mentioned the great oath for the Royal Military College at Duntroon before - at http://www.activeboard.com/forum.spark?aBID=63528&p=3&topicID=36193376&page=1#lastPostAnchor, a line of which isI swear by the nuts on the Hitchcock and Lewis, - where "Hitchcock" is the Hotchkiss. It was just a self-mocking pseudo dilettante sort of thing as used there. There were undoubtedly nuts on the mounts of the things, maybe even wingnuts.

Yes, there is much to marvel at in Van Nostrand's Lewis Gun Manual. On the human side, I was particularly taken by "V. Invulnerability" on page 69. This is a most important characteristic. ... The greatest care should be taken to avoid unnecessary casualties. Good machine-gunners are not quickly or easily trained.(http://www.fenrir.com/free_stuff/lewis/045.htm)

Umm ... yes, well, on behalf of the LMG crew, thank you sir. We think.