As long as you keep water in the water jacket and keep the loaded belts coming, it will keep on working as steadily as a sewing machine, only requiring a new barrel every 15,000 rounds; a change that can easily be done in 15 seconds. If a part does break, the Maxim is a modular design that allows the swapping out of the bolt or feed block with a spare to keep on firing. When faced with swarming infantry, this is a life-or-death matter. When the Russians attacked the Ukrainian Bakhmut meat grinder in waves, reminiscent of a WWI-style assault, the Maxim really came into its own, cutting down lines of attackers like wheat before a McCormac reaper.

There have been other ingenious applications of the Maxim, such as mounting telescopic sights and grouping four or six guns together in one mount. This enables 2000 to 3000 rounds per minute to be fired at attacking aircraft. When a modern jet comes in low with all the electronic warfare devices to hide it from sophisticated ground-to-air missiles, it’s still quite vulnerable to a low-tech anti-aircraft position that can raise a curtain of lead with a row of linked Maxims.

As the war drags on, the costs keep mounting and the Ukrainians are hard pressed to get enough ammunition, as they have drained the NATO stockpiles. Only Russia has kept all its WWII production lines intact and modernized and, while they are well-supplied, the cost of artillery shells necessary to deny continuous passage through an area is astronomical. A steady rain of indirect machine gun fire does the same job for a fraction of the cost. This requires a water-cooled gun that does not wear out quickly.

This is a job for a Maxim. Its toggle action spreads out the shock of operation so there is less wear and breakage of parts. When it does wear out, the bearing surfaces on the receiver are riveted on and can simply be changed for new ones while the modular parts are sent back to the ordnance depot for rebuilding. Being recoil operated, it does not have a gas system to foul and jam as the number of rounds fired adds up. The Germans were well aware of this issue with gas operated guns and stated that the gas operated systems had inherent problems. They kept designing recoil operated guns as a result.

TACTICAL USE OF THE MAXIM IN 2024

To get the best use of the Maxim today, you would want the WWI German 08-15 version with the optional Lafitte 34 mount. No one today seems to remember that the 08-15 with its shoulder stock and bipod was just intended as a more mobile heavy machine gun that storm troopers could emplace as they infiltrated the enemy lines and then dominate that sector with sustained machine gun fire. The mobility of the 08-15 eliminated the weakness of the emplaced heavy machine gun under artillery fire as the 08-15 machine gunner could move about like a rifleman, changing firing positions. Even though the weight was 50 pounds with a full water jacket and a 100-round belt in a drum magazine, the weight was so well distributed that many men could fire it from the shoulder like a rifle. This was something almost no one could do with the barrel-heavy Lewis gun, which was a true light machine gun and weighed considerably less. The ability to use a heavy, sustained-fire, water-cooled machine gun in the light machine gun role was a testament to the Maxim’s versatility.

For accurate fire in the heavy machine gun role, many of the remaining 08-15 Maxims were mounted in the Lafette 34 mount in the 1930’s. This ultimate machine gun mount features recoil absorption, telescopic sight, automatic traverse (if desired), and enabled accurate fire out to 3500 meters converting any machine gun mounted in it to a miniature artillery piece. We see these today with MG34’s and MG42’s primarily mounted on them, but they cannot deliver the sustained fire of a water-cooled gun in the Lafette 34.

HISTORICAL PRECEDENCE

The abandonment of the sustained fire machine gun and its replacement with air cooled guns had disastrous consequences. The air-cooled machine gun is a wonderful weapon in its place, but it can never do the job of a sustained fire machine gun. In WWII, the Germans found that the Russian human wave assaults kept coming until the air-cooled guns overheated allowing the Russians to overrun them. The Normandy invasion was admittedly a close-run affair and water-cooled Maxims fully deployed for both direct and indirect fire would have been more than enough to dip the balance in the German defender’s favor.

During WWII, in Burma, the British managed to sucker the Japanese into Banzai charges against WWI-style barbed wire backed by their Vickers machine guns (a Maxim variation) resulting in the annihilation of the attacking Japanese troops.

No machine gun is as reliable or able to fire as long as a Maxim. When John Basilone got his medal of honor defending Henderson Airfield at Guadalcanal with the two machine gun sections he commanded, his commendation stated, “he went from machine gun to machine gun repairing them and keeping them firing.” They weren’t supposed to need repairing! If they had Maxim guns, there would not have been any stopping for repairs. And if there was a problem, the gunner could have swapped out the modular part in a few seconds and kept firing without needing his commander’s help. It seems clear that water-cooled guns would have been a powerful help against Japanese Banzai attacks throughout the war as they could keep on coming long after an air-cooled gun overheated.

In the Korean War, the Chicom human wave assaults pushed back the American troops just as the Russian human wave assaults had done against the Germans in the preceding war. Water-cooled guns properly employed for direct and indirect fire would have foiled these assaults, but they were scarce, and the U.S. military has never wanted to invest the training time and equipment needed for effective indirect machine gun fire.

During the Vietnam War, American fire bases were overrun largely because of inadequate machine guns of modern design and the improper use of them. No one wants to learn the lessons of history if it involves using old ways. Newer is always supposed to be better and anything from the past tends to be dismissed out of hand if not ridiculed as anachronistic and obsolete. What could be more obsolete than the world’s first machine gun? A weapon designed back in 1884! The problem with that line of reasoning is that the inventor got it right and the design was perfected. Once you get to the top of the mountain of machine gun design, all roads go downhill… and the Maxim is the pinnacle. No gun made since has come near its longevity and reliability.

MORE THAN GUNS

Maxim was one of the great geniuses of all time. He patented the electric light bulb and Edison was only able to steal the design when Maxim went out of town and told his plant director to renew the patents… which he failed to do. The patents lapsed and Edison was able to grab the invention and run with it.

Maxim also flew the first airplane in front of England’s elite and the English press. When investors were not forthcoming, he wisely dropped the project. The airplane industry didn’t take off until many years later in WWI. When the Wright brothers wanted to build an airplane, they went to Maxim, and he gave them his notes, enabling them to build an airplane, as well.

When you look up and see an automatic fire sprinkler system in a building you are looking at another of Maxim’s inventions that has remained unchanged, defying improvement.

When you look more closely at the man behind the Maxim machine gun you realize why it has also defied improvement and still reigns supreme as the all-time greatest in its field.

When the tank first appeared on the WWI battlefields at the Somme on September 15, 1916, the British Mark 1 tanks had armor ranging from 6mm to 10mm and, thus, the German armor piercing 8mm S.m.K. ammo was effective against them. The Mark III tank increased this to 12mm, and the Mark IV tank had 14mm armor. This led to the Germans fielding the 13mm Mauser bolt action anti-tank rifle, the Tanksgewehr M1918. It had a 37.8-inch barrel, an overall length of 5.5 feet and weighed 38 pounds with an MG 08-15 bipod. About 16,500 were made and it proved effective, but a machine gun firing the same round would be even more effective and would also work on aircraft with far better results than the 8mm cartridge.

At this time, armor was being added to the vital parts of aircraft and the 8mm round was reaching the limits of its effectiveness. The problem with the single shot, anti-tank rifle was that unless a vital spot was hit, the anti-tank rifle was vulnerable to the return fire of the tank. This problem was so severe that the anti-tank gunner needed to fire and quickly change positions for each shot. A very perilous solution.

The War Ministry put out an urgent request for designs for such a 13mm machine gun in November of 1917 and the design of MG 08-15 producer Manschinenfabrik Augsberg-Nurnberg AG (MAN) was chosen.

Designed by the gifted engineer Konrad Haubner, the gun was an enlarged Maxim 08-15 and Konrad had developed a brilliant method of dealing with the increased recoil. A hydraulic recoil brake took care of the rearward motion of the gun while a recuperator spring brought the mechanism back to battery. This was patented, number 324,485, in early 1918. It worked so efficiently that the gun had a cyclic rate of just 300-rounds-per-minute. The gun was water cooled for sustained firing and also had a heavy barrel formed in two parts like an artillery barrel with an outer sleeve over the inner barrel. This made relining worn barrels much easier, plus the added weight soaked up recoil enabling the gun to be more compact while it also aided keeping the barrel from overheating.

The compactness of this gun for the size of its cartridge is most striking, and, perhaps is best shown by the fact that it could be fitted with the MG 08-15 bipod for use in the anti-tank mode by just one or two men. This enabled it to remain lower and more concealed (or completely under cover) to suddenly pop out and blast an enemy tank. Something virtually impossible to do with a Browning M2 HB .50 caliber machine gun. The gun has the spade grips of the MG08 and weighs in at 81.6 pounds. Its length is 5.25 feet, and its barrel length is 37.8 inches. There was a wheeled carriage enabling this beast to be moved about fast to escape incoming artillery fire. This carriage weighed 189.6 pounds which brought the total weight up to 294.8 pounds when carriage mounted. I would like to have seen a Lafitte 34 mount scaled up to fit this gun, but that is another era. Certainly, a tripod mount would have been added–had the gun stayed in service long enough.

The best thing about the MG18 was the fact that it was the reliable, trouble-free Maxim design that could fire into the millions of rounds only changing barrels and keeping the water jacket filled. No other design of the time had the longevity under sustained firing as the Maxim.

The cartridge was the 13×92 HR caliber. HR stands for “Halbrand mit Rille” meaning semi-rimmed. As such, it would hold its headspace longer than rimless cartridges as the barrels were shot out. Its projectile was made by Munitionsfabrik Polte in Magdeburg. Developed from the 8mm SmK armor piercing round, the bullet had a core of tungsten steel and could penetrate 24 millimeters of armor plate at 100 meters.

Proposals to increase the caliber first to 15mm and then to 18mm followed with the 18mm round capable of shooting through 35 millimeters of armor plate at 100 meters, but the war ended before any were prototyped. Of the 4000 initially ordered, around 50 were completed by wars-end and most of these were hidden from the Allies. The U.S. Army was not able to get its hands on one along with 82 rounds of ammunition until August of 1921. It was shipped back to Springfield Armory where it inspired the Browning .50 caliber machinegun. As the Browning does not hold up under continuous firing anywhere near as well as the Maxim machine guns, they would have done better to just adopt the German gun, but the intense hostility toward any German design prevented anything German from ever being adopted.

By Dean Roxby

Connections in History: Osprey Publishing’s Weapon Series

I have chosen to review these four books together, as the guns themselves are connected by history. The glorious old Vickers served Britain and other Commonwealth countries for over half a century until being replaced by the FN MAG. Likewise, the Maxim MG 08 and MG 08/15 served Germany through World War I and beyond, until the MG 34 and MG 42 introduced the General Purpose MG concept to modern warfare.

Each of these books is complete on its own; they certainly do not need to be purchased as a set. As is generally the way, each of these titles begins with a look back at the development of firearms for war. The book, German Machine Guns of World War I by Stephen Bull starts with a brief look at Sir Hiram S. Maxim, while the Vickers-Maxim Machine Gun title by Martin Pegler goes farther back in time, mentioning the Gatling, Agar, Nordenfelt and Gardner designs and even the goofy Puckle revolving gun (round shot for use against Christians, square bullets for others). These guns all had one thing in common; they were hand cranked.

The Maxim design was the first to harness some of the energy of the round firing to cycle the gun continuously. Maxim the man was a most interesting fellow. He patented many electrical products prior to starting on the gun he is best known for. Maxim was born in Maine, later moved to England, became a British citizen and began work on his machine gun. Most of the 1880s was spent on its design. Later, he was knighted (Sir Hiram) in recognition of the contribution his gun made to the British Empire.

Not only was he a genius at inventing a wide range of items, he was also wildly successful at marketing. Once the design was perfected, he traveled the world selling guns or license agreements to many countries, including Germany. It is interesting to note the short time between the adoption (1908) and the outbreak of WWI in 1914. With his adopted country using an improved version of his weapon, both sides faced off with very similar machine guns.

German Machine Guns of World War I
MG 08 AND MG 08/15
WPN 47
Stephen Bull
©2016 Osprey Publishing Ltd.
ISBN 978 1 4728 1516 3

German Machine Guns of World War I studies the development of the original MG 08 and the later attempt to make a lighter, portable version known as the MG 08/15. Although the idea was sound, the result was not so successful.

The MG 08/15 did away with the cumbersome sled mount, instead using a bipod. It was also reworked to move the trigger from the rear of the receiver box to the underneath. A pistol grip was added to the underneath as well, and a buttstock was attached to the rear of the receiver, thus allowing it to be fired like any other bipod mounted gun. However, it still remained a heavy, awkward, water-cooled gun. Having said that, I was surprised to learn that the MG 08/15 was made in much greater numbers than the MG 08 was—roughly 130,000 versus 72,000, according to the figures given.

The author, Dr. Stephen Bull, is Curator of Military History and Archaeology for the Museum of Lancashire. He credits belt-fed expert and author Dolf Goldsmith with sparking his interest in Maxim guns. Bull often quotes from Goldsmith’s book The Grand Old Lady of No Man’s Land. He also quotes heavily from both German and British manuals and reports from WWI. This gives this particular volume of the series a different “feel,” getting into gun placement technique, etc., during the war. There are also several old-style engravings from an early manual. A modern cutaway section view drawing by Alan Gilliland shows the inner workings of an MG 08/15. Two two-page battlescene paintings by Johnny Shumate are also featured. Many black and white photos from WWI are included, as well as a three-view (left, right and rear view) full-color studio photo with various parts labelled.

The Vickers-Maxim Machine Gun
WPN 25
Martin Pegler
©2013 Osprey Publishing Ltd.
ISBN 978 1 78096 382 2

The Vickers-Maxim Machine Gun, by Martin Pegler, covers the development of the British version of Maxim’s gun, the Vickers, Mk 1. After a brief look at the hand-cranked Gatling, and so on, Maxim’s early prototypes are discussed. A brief look at the company history is also covered. The Maxim Gun Company was formed in London, England in November 1884. In 1888, Maxim merged with Nordenfelt to create the Maxim-Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Company. One of the early investors in the original Maxim firm was Albert Vickers, co-owner of Vickers, Sons & Co. In 1896, the Vickers firm bought Maxim-Nordenfelt, which then became Vickers, Sons and Maxim, Ltd. During the 1880s and 1890s, the gun was continually improved upon, including making it suitable for use with the new smokeless powder becoming popular at the time. After a major upgrade in 1908, Britain officially adopted the Gun, Machine, Mark I, Vickers .303 inch in November 1912. Just in time for the Great War.

Following the “Development” chapter is “Use.” Surprisingly, the majority of this chapter is not centered on WWI. Rather, it mentions some of the colonial battles Great Britain fought throughout Africa. Early Maxims took part in horribly one-sided battles against poorly armed local tribes in places like the Sudan and Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). Of course, the updated Vickers gained its fame in the trenches of France in WWI, and many black and white photos from that period are shown. The Vickers continued to soldier on in WWII and finally into the Korean War.

The book has a wonderful set of three studio-quality photographs that feature a cutaway Vickers training gun. This allows a peek inside the guts of the thing. Artist Peter Dennis provided three color paintings of battlescenes. The first is of the First Matabele War in Rhodesia, October 1893. The British would have used early pattern Maxims then, and the illustration depicts four Maxims on wooden spoke-wheeled mounts.

As revolutionary as Sir Hiram’s device was at the time, the MG 08 and the Vickers were heavy, cumbersome guns. Against masses of troops running across a field, they were viciously effective. But with war becoming more mobile and fast-paced, something far lighter was needed. The German Army noticed the Lewis gun and tried to do similar with the MG 08/15. As noted above, it was still far too heavy to be truly portable. Enter the GPMG concept.

MG 34 and MG 42 Machine Guns
WPN 21
Chris McNab
©2012 Osprey Publishing Ltd.
ISBN 978 1 78096 008 1

The MG 34, and later the MG 42, defined the General-Purpose Machine Gun (GPMG). They were air-cooled, belt-fed and had quick-change barrels. They could be fired from an attached bipod or a separate tripod, were light enough to carry while sprinting, yet stable when fired full-auto from the tripod. This effectively replaced heavy, medium and light machine guns (HMG, MMG, LMG) with one gun, along with various mounts, feed systems and sight systems. This Einheitsmachinengewehr (standard machine gun) concept has since been adopted worldwide.

Following a brief “Introduction” section, Chris McNab’s book discusses the origins of the GPMG in the “Development” chapter. The MG 08 HMG and the not-so-light MG 08/15 LMG are discussed, along with a brief mention of some lesser known designs (MG 13, MG 30s and LMG 32) that led to the famous MG 34.

As successful as the MG 34 was, it was tremendously time consuming to manufacture. The book covers the path that led to the MG 42. It also details the post-war versions that are still in use today. Following West Germany joining NATO, production of guns resumed in 1959. These are known as the MG 1, or MG 42/59, which were chambered for the original 8x57mm cartridge. Germany now uses the MG 3 in 7.62 NATO. Aside from the change of cartridge, the MG 3 is remarkably similar to the MG 42, first seen almost 80 years ago.

The FN MAG Machine Gun
M240, L7, AND OTHER VARIANTS
WPN 63
Chris McNab
©2018 Osprey Publishing Ltd.
ISBN 978 1 4728 1967 3

The FN MAG came far too late for WWII, so it did not face off against the German GPMGs. Instead, it was greatly influenced by them and followed the same design criteria. Fabrique Nationale (National Factory) of Belgium designed the Mitrailleuse d’Appui General (French for GPMG) in 1958, so it is also known as the MAG 58. The FN MAG Machine Gun book by Chris McNab describes the FN MAG 58, from design to global success story. Once again, in the “Development” chapter, a quick history lesson is given regarding early water-cooled HMGs, attempts to create a practical LMG and the MG 34 GPMG concept.

In the chapter “Impact,” it is noted that over 80 countries have now adopted the MAG, with more than 200,000 built. (It must be said that the author also notes that the Soviet PK and PKM family may exceed 1 million guns made.) Also of interest is that during the Falklands conflict, both UK and Argentina used variants of the MAG against each other, reminiscent of the Maxim designs facing off during WWI.
As with other titles from the Osprey Weapon Series, each book features many photographs, several well-done artwork battle scenes and usually a technical-style drawing cutaway of the gun’s internals. As is to be expected, the WWI books have mostly black and white photos, while the FN MAG title has mostly color photos.

All books in the Weapon series are:
Soft cover, 7 ¼” x 9 ¾”, 80 pages, many photographs, plus color battle scene art.
Available as paperback, eBook (ePub) or eBook (PDF) format.
ospreypublishing.com

American engineer and inventor Hiram Maxim, living in London, developed an automatic gun that was presented in Great Britain and in several European countries. On October 20, 1886, a ministerial dispatch advised the Versailles Commission of Experiments that Mr. Maxim was authorized to present a semiautomatic rifle of his invention. On November 4th of the same year, another dispatch informed the commission that Mr. Bariquant, representing the inventor in France, would also present an automatic machine gun. According to the official test report, this weapon shot Gatling cartridges, while the files of Maxim-Nordenfelt spoke about a machine gun No. 129, shooting the .450 Martini-Henry.

11mm Machine Guns

During the first tests, the Maxim machine gun appeared remarkable and the Commission wanted to conduct further tests firing the ammunition of the Gras M1874 rifle. Four machine guns arrived on August 6, 1887 and after some tests, three of them were modified by the inventor and were turned over on August 12th. These weapons carried No. 53, 54, 55 and 63.

Each one of these weapons had a single barrel that moved back at the time of firing and ensured the unlocking of a mobile bolt knuckle. It returned to battery by action of a laterally installed spring. The cartridges are installed in a flexible fabric belt with brass eyelets. Its advance and feeding is the result of a distributor associated with displacement of the bolt. Weapons No. 54 and 63 had a rate of fire from 620 to 650 rounds per minute and were fitted with a water jacket ensuring the cooling of the gun. Machine gun No. 55 was fitted with a regulator that appeared as a glycerine-brake that made it possible to vary the rate from 5 to 500 rpm. It is fitted with the same water jacket. The model No. 53 had a cyclic rate from 620 to 650 rpm. Its water tank, under pressure, is installed in the tripod and is connected by a flexible tube, with a small baffle sleeve that surrounds the barrel. Machine guns No. 53, 54 and 63 could be mounted on the following supports: folding tripod made of steel, wheeled mount with armor-plated shield and crinoline mount made of steel. Weapon No. 55 could be installed on: folding tripod with tubular bronze leg forming the water tank and a conical mount made of bronze arranged as a water tank. The weight of the weapons varied from 24 to 35 kg and that of the mounts from 33 to 98 kg. Machine gun No. 55’s weight climbed with the wheeled mount, three cases of loaded cartridges and armor-plate to 190.8 kg.

During the tests, accuracy was considered to be very poor as the sight graduations did not correspond to the ranges and the mounts were unstable:

* H + L = 0.74 m x 0.69 m at 200 m,
* H + L = 1.95 m x 1.20 m at 400 m.

Between 600 m and 1,000 m, the results were even worse and as the rate of fire increased, accuracy decreased. Though this is not surprising today, at the time when automatic weapons were an innovation, they seemed surprising.

The operational tests were satisfactory and failures to fire incidents were scarce in spite of a significant heating of the barrel. Also noticed was a significant depositing of lead in the bore of the barrel; but this fault was charged to the use of lead bullet ammunition without a jacket. After shooting three 334-round belts (more than one thousand cartridges) in less than three minutes, it was also noticed that the chamber was fouling, though not surprising, with cartridges loaded with black powder.

The tests of model No. 53, fitted with a condenser tank, showed that the cooling of the barrel was not carried out in a reasonable way and involved a deformation of the barrel that was detrimental for accuracy. As for the model No. 55, fitted with a regulator, it was noted that its operation was too sensitive to room temperature and that its system was too intricate compared to the possible advantages which it could offer.

In conclusion, the Commission while recognizing the ingeniousness of the mechanisms present on the weapons tested, wanted improvements to the cooling system, the feed mechanism, safety, the belts carrying the cartridges and more stable mounts. In its final report of September 26, 1887, they encouraged the development of the model with regulator and single tank.

Following that, the inventor presented on June 20, 1888, two new machine guns No. 88 and 89 that comprised the majority of the desired modifications. But the first tests proved to be less than satisfactory and the weapons were returned for repair and then returned for testing on July 20th. Their operation was similar to that of the models presented previously. The barrel is cooled better as it sits entirely in the water of the jacket whose capacity was increased to 2.5 litres. The distributor was simplified, which made it possible to cure the problems of incidents of supply met previously. The regulator appeared to operate randomly. The mounts (model with wheels and tripod) were unchanged, but the attachment device of the weapons was improved.

The majority of the defects in firing were attributed to the feeding attachment and a failing of synchronization between the movement of the bolt and the advance of the belt. In spite of the noted defects, it was recognized that the accuracy of the machine guns were much higher than the various distances with that obtained with a collective shooting with rifle. Finally the French officers, conscious of the advantages had by the machine guns, but also of the stresses driven by their use (consumption of ammunition, training of specialized personnel) wanted the inventor to propose to them a new weapon fitted to fire the 8mm Lebel cartridge.

8mm Machine Guns

May 8, 1889, the Versailles Experiments Commission took delivery of two 8mm Lebel Maxim machine guns, carrying numbers 169 and 173. These weapons were fitted with an easily dismountable barrel enclosed in a bronze water jacket of 2.7 litres capacity. The system of waterproofing around the jacket was simplified. The actuating lever was improved, the bolt was lightened and the feeding system modified. These machine guns were then installed on a lighter mount with wheels.

The weapons worked well at the beginning of the tests, but thereafter there were many failure to fire incidents and the breaking of several parts were noted. The rates of fire lay between 550 and 600 rounds per minute. The endurance tests were concluded up to 1,300 rounds. Accuracy was lower than that of a Lebel rifle, with:

* a H + L of 66 x 48 cm at 200 m,
* a H + L of 90 x 70 cm at 200 m,
* a H + L of 100 x 120 cm at 400 m.

After that, the Commission asked that many modifications be carried out.

Following that, Misters Bariquant and Marre, representing the inventor, asked the Commission to test four other 8mm machine guns: No. 174, 612, 613 and 614. These weapons were subjected to tests similar to those carried out previously. The results obtained were compared with those obtained with other machine guns also put to the test at the same time:

* Hotchkiss machine gun,
* Colt-Browning machine gun,
* APX 1895 machine gun, gun made at the Puteaux Arsenal near Paris, it was a Gatling type gun with mechanical repeater system.

The final conclusions were rather severe. While they recognized the ingeniousness of the mechanism, which was judged complex, the many-times improved mechanisms had suffered much from the tests and did not support any more the comparison with a new weapon. And it was recommended that the water cooling system be abandoned in favour of air cooling. This report, dated February 27, 1899, finally rejected the Maxim machine gun that was specifically conceived for the French Army. However, an ultimate model in 8mm Lebel (No. 9646) was presented in 1909, but by then it was too late.

Visionaries such as Billy Mitchell and Jimmy Doolittle saw the potential of the aircraft as a weapon of war. The evolution of aircraft weaponry went from bricks, to pistols, to rifles and eventually to machine guns and bombs. As a fledgling, the military saw the airplane as an eye in the sky for observations only. The first machine gun fired from a plane was on June 7, 1912, when Captain Charles De Forest Chandler fired a Lewis light machine gun from a Type B Wright pusher, flown by Lt. T. Dewitt Milling. The field and test areas were at College Park Maryland within sight of the Nation’s Capital.

As the character of aircraft changed from a defensive/observation role to one of offensive capabilities, airborne weaponry consisting of machine guns and bombs soon led to a need to combat the threat of air power.

This article is a photo journey from a unique historic document provided by Dr. James Alley, Ph.D which shows the evolution of anti-aircraft deployment during the World War I years of 1914 to 1918 that include a Hotchkiss mounted on a wagon wheel to a large Maxim “Pom Pom” gun mounted on a truck for mobility.

All of these photos, except were noted, were copied from an Army Ordnance 1917-1919 manual, No. 1941, titled; History of Anti-aircraft Guns by W.N. Dickerson, dated Washington, 1920

With the advent of the Aeroplane as an offensive weapon in WWI, countermeasures against aircraft inevitably were developed. In this photo album is a cross section of Allied and German anti-aircraft weaponry. It has always been a futile habit of infantrymen to fire at enemy planes more for morale than effectiveness. It has been speculated that a Canadian rifleman brought down the “Cursed” Red Baron of the German Flying Circus. Foot soldier ingenuity being what it is, more effective means of anti-aircraft fire were developed.

One of the first and simplest advancements in increasing firepower was the 1914 French Hotchkiss machine gun in 8mm Lebel mounted on a wagon wheel attached to a post. It allowed for a relatively stable platform that permitted a high degree of elevation with a 360-degree field of fire, fed from a rigid 30-round feed strip. Later, they developed a four shot strip section that was attached in groups to form an articulated belt in any desired length; particularly for anti-aircraft use. This became the primary combination for use against low flying aircraft or observation balloons.

Advancements in cartridge design led to larger calibers, most notably the 11mm “balloon buster” capable of carrying an incendiary or tracer charge. This vastly increased the kill ratio.

Several attempts were made to apply the BAR in an anti-aircraft mode. First, the Allies doubled the magazine capacity from 20 to 40 rounds. There are pictures in the British Imperial War museum, dated April 1918, depicting this. There is further documentation in brochures and a letter written by British Col. R.A. Helmer to confirm this. It is apparent that this magazine could only be used on a mounted BAR due to the elongated protrusion from the bottom of the weapon.

A second attempt was made by joining two BARs together with a common trigger. A photo exists of this “Rube Goldberg” type device, though it seems to have been a one-time attempt. It would have taken a very nimble operator to drop two forty round magazines and replace them.

Another weapon employed was the Hotchkiss Revolving Cannon. It was originally developed by an American, Benjamin Berkley Hotchkiss, for use by the Navy. Its unique feature was that each of the five barrels was rifled differently so that the shells projected in an elongated, rectangular pattern designed to impact the length of a large ship. The most common deployment was off the back of a truck, adding mobility.

Another innovation was the development of the 37mm shell, which was an ideal vehicle for an explosive charge. All one would have to do was deliver the shell in close proximity and the plane would be taken down.

The Pom Pom gun was the largest Maxim machine gun made in 1.1 inch caliber fed by a very large belt spool. The gun was not utilized by the Allies, but by the Germans, who were greatly impressed by the firepower.

Eventually, all sorts of machine guns from both the Allied and Central Powers were used in the anti-aircraft role: most utilizing makeshift mounts. These included German MG08 and MG08/15s, French Hotchkiss 1914s and 1907 St. Etiennes, British Vickers and Lewis guns, Austrian 07/12 Schwarzloses, Italian 1914 FIAT Revellis and US BARs and Marlins.

Ultimately, when enemy aircraft were overhead, the eager and undisciplined soldier would fire anything to try to bring it down. This photo selection provides a unique insight into WWI anti-aircraft efforts. It also illustrates the transition of warfare from the end of the 19th Century to the early 20th Century.

Themed “Freedom’s 2nd Army,” the 135th National Rifle Association Annual Meetings & Exhibits will take place May 19-21, 2006 at the Midwest Airlines Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. More than 300 exhibitors representing every major firearm, ammunition and accessory manufacturer, as well as hunting outfitters from around the world, will be set up at the show. Seminars, business meetings, special interest sessions, fund-raising auctions and banquets will occur throughout the weekend. 45,000 people are expected to attend this major weekend event.

In addition to the huge array of commercial displays, an extremely popular show area are the exhibits of some of the finest and rarest firearms in the United States shown by NRA affiliated collectors associations. Collecting firearms of all types is an integral part of the National Rifle Association membership and the opportunity to see some of these rare and historic firearms is, in itself, worth the visit.

Collecting rare and historic automatic weapons has, unfortunately, been a stepchild to the larger collecting community for many years. The good news is that is finally changing and is beginning to be accepted as a legitimate collecting discipline.

In the last several years, the Thompson Collectors Association (TCA), an NRA affiliated organization, exhibited rare and historic Thompson submachine guns a number of times at the annual NRA shows. The exhibits were extremely popular and well received, winning a number of prestigious NRA Gun Collector Awards for their exceptionally professional presentations. But more importantly, they led the effort to break the “barrier” and underserved “stigma” of collecting Class III weapons. They were the leaders in helping to establish the legitimacy of historic Class III collecting within the arms collecting community and have demonstrated that collecting historic automatic weapons is just as reasonable, and important, as collecting Colt Single Action Armys, Winchester repeating rifles, Revolutionary War muskets, or anything else in the historic weapons collecting repertoire. They followed up on their mission of legitimizing the collecting of automatic weapons by putting together and sponsoring a Thompson exhibit at the William B. Ruger Gallery of the National Firearms Museum in Fairfax, Virginia (see Small Arms Review Vol. 8, No. 1, October 2004). So popular was this exhibit, it was extended for another four months beyond its original run.

In their efforts to continue this legacy of promoting Class III collectibles, the Thompson Collectors Association board of directors have voted to sponsor, along with the Dallas Arms Collectors Association, an exhibit at this year’s NRA show in Milwaukee. The title of the exhibit will be The American Genius of Sir Hiram Maxim: Father of the Modern Machine Gun. The theme of the exhibit will be the brilliance of American Sir Hiram Maxim and his invention of the world’s first truly automatic weapon. This groundbreaking 10×20 exhibit will feature six different historic models of the Maxim gun, along with rare accessories, highlighting the genius of Hiram Maxim and the contribution he made to the arms world. The foresight and dedication of the Thompson Collectors Association and the Dallas Arms Collectors Association in their continuing efforts to make Class III collecting acceptable to the wide-spread firearms collecting community should be commended and applauded for their hard work that benefits all of us.

So modern and revolutionary in its design and operation, Maxims were used by many countries throughout the world at the turn of the twentieth century. Efficient and reliable, some models were made, under license, by manufacturers in other countries. To the layman, the words “German Maxim” are one and the same. In reality, Hiram Maxim was an American, living and producing his guns in England, and licensing manufacturing around the world, including Russia, Switzerland, the United States, and, of course, Germany.

A thumbnail history of the six featured Maxims that will be on display at the NRA show in Milwaukee follow.

Argentine Maxim Model 1895

Argentina was an early user of the Maxim and began by ordering 50 Maxims from the Maxim Nordenfelt Co. in England in 1895. In 1898, a second order of the Model 1895 was placed with Deutsche Waffen und Munitions Fabriken (DWM), a licensed Maxim manufacturer in Germany, for another 150 guns. Even though most South American countries adopted the French Hotchkiss machine gun, by 1902, Argentina had 200 of these early Maxims in their inventory. Beautifully made with its water jacket, feed block, fusee spring cover, receiver floor plate and rear grip plate made of brass, the Model 1895 was a stunning, and lethal, piece of the firearm maker’s craft. This model had the early straight style of crank handle, an 1889 style lock and wooden roller belt assist located within the brass feed block. The gun also has provisions for attaching a commercially made 2×12 optical sight made by Carl Zeiss of Jena, Germany and a shoulder brace made of steel and wood. The gun was mounted on an Ackland tripod that was manufactured by VSM (Vickers, Sons & Maxim) in England.

All 200 of Argentina’s Maxims were originally chambered in the 7.65x53mm 1891 Belgium Mauser caliber and the long sight bar affixed to the upper receiver was calibrated for this round-nosed, high trajectory bullet. Each gun was fitted with a brass data plate on the top cover over the feed block reading, “Cartoucho Mauser Argentino 1891” indicating the use of the 1891 Mauser cartridge. In 1909, Argentina adopted the new 7.65x53mm Spitzer round with the pointed bullet and flatter trajectory. All of Argentina’s Maxims were then rebarreled for the new cartridge and the long sight bar was shortened for the high-speed, flatter trajectory of the new cartridge. The brass cartridge data plate had the “1891” milled out and “1909” engraved in its place to reflect the change. Because of the restamped “1909”, the gun is often mistakenly identified as a Model 1909.

Though well equipped, Argentina did not participate in any major conflicts during the period that the Maxim was in their inventory. In the late 1950s, Argentina decided to sell some of their now obsolete weaponry and 91 Model 1895 Maxims were exported to the United States. Those that remained in Argentina were used to decorate various officers’ clubs, donated to museums or sold to Argentine collectors. Of the 91 guns imported into the US, 8 were exported, 28 ended up in government custody for museums, storage or destruction, and the remaining 55 are now mostly owned by collectors.

U.S. Maxim Model 1904

The US Maxim Model 1904 was the first rifle caliber heavy machine gun approved for use as the standard service type by the United States Army in 1904. The army was interested in the new Maxim gun as early as 1887 and procured examples of the “World Standard” Maxim Model 1889 and Model 1900 for testing. After sporadic testing, the Chief of Ordnance finally gave approval for adoption in 1904. The first order for 50 guns and tripods were manufactured by Vickers, Sons & Maxim (VSM) in England in the US caliber .30-03.

The Ordnance Department wanted the Maxim to be made in the United States and enlisted the Colt’s Patent Fire Arms Company to manufacture the gun. Problems arose and it was several years before Colt’s could begin production. In the meantime, the Ordnance Department ordered another 40 guns from VSM. When Colt finally began production in 1908, they continued with the serial number sequence for the model type. The first Colt produced Maxim Model 1904 began with serial number 91. By 1908, the service cartridge had changed from the .30-03 to the .30-06. The 90 guns produced by VSM were all converted to the new service cartridge while all the Colt guns were manufactured in .30-06.

In all, there were a total of 287 Model 1904 Maxims produced. The first 90 guns (serial number 1-90) were made by VSM in England. The remaining 197 guns (serial number 91-287) were made by Colt.

Colt had no desire to produce tripods or wheeled mounts for the gun. All of the tripods were made by VSM in England and wheeled carriage mounts were produced by Rock Island Arsenal (RIA). The tripods and wheeled mounts were ordered separately from the guns, and though serial numbered, they were thus not numbered to a specific gun. VSM produced 176 tripods and RIA produced 111 wheeled carriages.

The US Model 1904 Maxim was issued to US infantry companies and to cavalry troops. Mules were the primary means of transport. The gun was well made and reliable but was not popular in the field. The Model 1904 Maxim had the distinction of being the heaviest Maxim ever produced weighing in at a total of 145 pounds (gun with water – 65 pounds, tripod 80 pounds). Besides the normal heavy brass and steel make-up of the gun, the Model 1904 Maxim had an oversized water jacket holding 9.5 pints of water instead of the normal 7 pints. Nevertheless, the gun was widely used and saw service in such distant outposts as the Philippines, Hawaii, Mexico, Central and South America. Yet, it never saw active combat service, being relegated to training purposes. The gun was not used overseas in World War I but remained in the United States as a training weapon where it was ultimately replaced with the Colt Vickers Model 1915 and the Browning Model 1917.

Few of these historic US machine guns have survived. They saw a brief service life, quickly being declared obsolete and scrapped for their metal and brass components. Of the 287 guns made, there are less than 10 Model 1904 Maxims being registered as transferable to private individuals with another 4 or 5 in museums. Additionally, there are even fewer original 1904 tripods that have survived, again, being scrapped to salvage their large brass content, making the tripod even rarer than the gun.

Swiss Maxim MG11

In the interest of maintaining their peaceful neutrality, Switzerland has a long history of fielding the finest equipment available and was quick to realize the advantages of rapid fire weapons. They acquired Gatling guns in 11mm in the 1870s and Gardner guns (in the then prototype Swiss 7.5x55mm cartridge) in the 1880s.

In 1887, Hiram Maxim arrived in Thun, Switzerland to compete in the long-range shooting trials with his “World Standard” Model of 1887 machine gun in 11mm. The Model of 1887 “World Standard” was a massive weapon chambered in the rimmed .45 caliber/11mm black powder cartridge. The Swiss were impressed and placed an order but they wanted the gun chambered in the new and experimental 7.5mm Swiss cartridge. Maxim thought he could just “tweak” his large gun to accept the smaller, rimless round but encountered major reliability problems with many malfunctions. Ultimately, rather than convert the 11mm Maxim, he redesigned the gun specifically to accept the 7.5mm rimless cartridge. This resulted in Maxim’s first “Reduced Caliber” (approx. .30 caliber) machine gun. This gun was tested in 1889 and the decision was made to adopt the Maxim into the Swiss army.

The Swiss began by purchasing 72 Maxims from Maxim Nordenfelt in England in 1894 and designated as the MG94. Then, with some improvements, another 40 guns of the improved model were purchased from Maxim’s new company Vickers, Sons & Maxim (VSM), as well as Duetsche Waffen und Munitions Fabriken (DWM) in Germany in 1900 and designated them as the MG00. When DWM introduced their new Commercial Model in 1909, which was substantially lighter than the previous Maxims, the Swiss tested it and adopted it in 1911, designated it as the Maschinengewehr 11 (MG11) and ordered 167 guns.

When World War I interrupted their source of supply in 1914, they began to produce their own Maxims, under license, at Waffenfabrik Bern in Switzerland. Production began in 1915 and continued to 1946 with 10,269 Maxim MG11s being produced.

The MG11 was mounted on the DWM designed Commercial Model 1909 tripod which was also produced at the Waffenfabrik Bern factory. This tripod was more stable than any other tripod in use at the time and was considered the finest mount available.

There were a number of optical sights used with the MG11 for both direct and indirect fire. The more common early style direct fire sight used with the MG11 was made in Germany by Carl Zeiss of Jena. There was also a specialized long-range telescopic sight used in mountain fortresses.

The Maxim MG11 as made by the Swiss at Waffenfabrik Bern is rightly considered the finest Maxim ever made. The quality of workmanship, fit and finish surpasses any other Maxim made and is worthy of the dependability inherent in all Maxim guns. Because of its neutrality, Switzerland has a stringent policy concerning the export of its military weapons and thus Swiss maxims are exceptionally rare outside of Switzerland. There are only six Swiss MG11s in the United States making it one of the rarest types of its kind in US collections.

German Maxim MG08

In 1892, the Maxim Nordenfelt Co. of England entered into an agreement with Ludwig Loewe & Co. of Berlin granting them the rights to produce Maxim guns in Germany for Germany, the entire German Empire and her allies. Maxims were produced by Ludwig Loewe under that name for several years until, because of a growing anti-Semitic movement, Loewe changed the name of his company to Deutsche Waffen und Munitions Fabriken (DWM) so that the name of Loewe would not be connected with it. DWM then became a public company owned by, but administratively separate from, the Loewe engineering firm.

The German army adopted the DWM Model 1901. After observations gained from the Russo-Japanese war, the German army suggested changes in the Maxim; particularly addressing the major problem of weight of the gun and mount. The government arsenal at Spandau, working alongside DWM, began to implement the suggested changes by redesigning the heavy parts of earlier guns with lightweight steel. Thus the water jacket, trunnion block, feed block, fusee spring cover and backplate assemblies became much thinner and lighter resulting in a 17 pound weight reduction from 57 pounds to 40 pounds. A bracket for mounting an optical sight was added to the receiver and the cocking handle knob was increased in diameter to provide a better grip. The sledmount was redesigned with lighter materials and the wheels were removed. This mount provided unequaled stability with resulting incredible accuracy, though it later proved difficult to set up on uneven terrain. The improvements were completed in 1908 and the new gun and mount became standardized and adopted by the German army as the Maschinengewehr 08 (MG08) and the Schlitten 08 (sled 08).

At the outbreak of World War I in 1914, Germany had approximately 5,000 Maxims and was the only country that truly recognized the value and importance of the machine gun on the battlefield in terms of firepower and strategic advantage in both attack and defense. This resulted in an aggressive armament of machine gun companies within regiments and battalions. Tens of thousands of MG08s were eventually produced by the government arsenal at Spandau and DWM to equip the German army. Training in operation and tactics was crucial to the operational success of the MG08 and machine gunners were all hand picked, particularly personnel for the “marksman” units. Woefully, hundreds of thousands of Allied soldiers were slaughtered in the fields of France and Belgium in the futile old-world massed assaults against the well dug-in German machine guns. The ultimate defense to this onslaught was the inevitable trench network to shield the foot soldier from the fusillade of bullets.

Warfare of the past five thousand years abruptly changed with the new weapons of war as developed during the industrial revolution of the late 19th and early 20th century. No longer were the massed attacks with foot infantry or swift assault with cavalry capable of overwhelming an enemy equipped with the modern tools of war. As with all advancements, the eventual downfall of the emplaced heavy machine gun came about with the advent of mobile warfare, most notably with the development and advancement of the tank and airplane. But the heavy machine guns of the early twentieth century epitomized the state-of-the-art martial development of firearm design and function.

German Maxim MG08/15

The British were able to gain a small tactical advantage over the emplaced German heavy machine gun by issuing large numbers of lightweight, air-cooled Lewis and Hotchkiss machine guns. Man-portable and prized as the ultimate front-line weapon, these light machine guns in rifle caliber proved extremely valuable on the battlefield. So highly were they valued that the Germans went to great lengths to capture and use them. They even printed a field manual on the Lewis gun for their troops.

In 1915, Germany established a large group of engineers to develop a light machine gun to counter the Lewis gun. With a relatively large number of designs to work with, they ultimately decided to stick with the Maxim action as it would be the least disruptive to current production facilities and training. The result was a hybrid “light” machine gun called the Maschinengewehr 08/15 (MG08/15). The MG08/15 went into production in late 1916 and was first issued generally to troops fighting in the Verdun sector in early 1917.

The MG08/15 was a lightened MG08 fitted with a bipod, shoulder stock and pistol grip. The reduction in weight was achieved by making the receiver walls thinner and reducing the size, and thus capacity, of the water jacket. Further weight-saving changes included a smaller feedblock, cutouts on the top of the rear and bottom front of the receiver sideplates to eliminate enclosed “dead” space, and eliminating the use of the cartridge ejection tube and spring in favor of a simple hole in the lower front of the stepped receiver. The recoiling parts of the gun – barrel, barrel extension, crosshead, connecting link and lock – were kept the same as the MG08 except a muzzle sleeve was screwed on to the already threaded muzzle end of the barrel. The only other interchangeable parts were the feed slide and belt holding pawls, roller and pin. All otherMG08/15 components were somewhat smaller and lighter than their MG08 counterparts. Additionally, since this was now a portable “light” machine gun, the MG08/15 receiver was fitted with a bracket to accommodate the affixing of a special spooled 100-round ammunition drum. Two of these drums were fitted in a wooden transit box and accompanied each gun.

Wanting to quickly supply the German Army with light machine guns, seven factories produced about 130,000 MG08/15s – making it the most common German machine gun of World War I. Manufacturers included: Gewehrfabrik Erfurt; Rheinische Maschinen & Metallwaren Fabrik, Sommerda; Maschinen Fabrik Augsburg-Nurnberg (M.A.N.) Nurnberg; Siemens & Halske (S&H) Berlin; J.P. Sauer & Sohn, Suhl; Gewehrfabrik Spandau; and Deutsche Waffen und Munitions Fabriken (D.W.&M.F.) Berlin.

The MG08/15, like its big brother the MG08, was extremely reliable and fired at about the same rate of 500 rounds per minute. It is interesting to note that the steel used in both guns was very hard and designed to withstand denting from shell fragments and other small low velocity projectiles. Only a well placed rifle bullet or direct shell fragment to the receiver could be sure of putting it out of action. British snipers were instructed to shoot at the receiver casing of the gun, rather than at the gunner, as the theory being that the gun was harder to replace than the man behind it.

While the MG08/15 was a reliable weapon, it had the distinction of being the heaviest “light” machine gun ever made. It was big, bulky and not easily controllable on its small bipod; it was designed to be a “trench broom” by a walking operator equipped with a large leather sling for support. Fully loaded with water and the 100-round drum, the gun weighed 49 pounds. Not an easy load to carry “over the top” under fire and in the muddy fields of no-mans land.

Russian Maxim M1910

Since 1865, Russia purchased and used a large number of Colt Gatling guns; even later manufacturing their own version called the “Gorloff.” With his success with sales to Italy, Switzerland and Austria, Hiram Maxim traveled to Russia in 1889 to demonstrate his new invention in St. Petersburg. The Russians had no concept of what an automatic gun was and thought the crank handle on the side of the Maxim gun was manually operated. This “little” gun could never replace the Gatling. Maxim fired an entire belt in half a minute and the Russian officers were, indeed, truly impressed. The Russian army and navy began purchasing Maxims from Maxim Nordenfelt in 1889. In 1899, Russia purchased more Model 1899 Maxims from DWM in Germany.

The Russo-Japanese war (1904-1905) was the first major conflict in which both sides used machine guns. The Japanese used the French designed Hotchkiss and the Russians used their heavy brass Maxims. Though relegated defensively to the rear along with artillery firing over the heads of their advancing troops, the Russian Maxims performed exceptionally well; most notably at the battle of Mukden repelling seven strong Japanese attacks.

The heavy brass Maxims were mounted on high, wheeled artillery-type carriages exposing the gunners to concentrated fire. With exceptionally high loses sustained by Russian machine gun batteries at the Yalu River battle, Russian Maxims were then mounted on heavy tripods with armor shields.

The Model 1905 was the first Maxim actually manufactured in Russia and was produced at the Tula Arsenal. This was the basic Model 1899 that still had the heavy brass water jacket, feed block, trunnion block, etc., but incorporated a few of the improvements found it the “new pattern” 1901 commercial Vickers-Maxim that included the “S”-shaped crank handle and easily-stripped lock.

By 1908, VSM (Vickers, Sons & Maxim) and DWM were producing guns that were lighter in weight, replacing the brass parts with steel. The Russians acquired some samples of VSM’s “new light” Model 1906 with the steel fluted water jacket and adopted it as the Model 1910. The Model 1910, as produced in Russia, now weighed in at just 44 pounds, producing a weight savings of 16 pounds over the Model 1905.

Wheeled transport was popular due to the weight of the gun but a new distinctive low wheeled mount with a small armor shield was developed by Colonel Sokolov soon after the adoption of the Model 1910. It featured a cradle designed to slide forward and back on curved rails allowing large adjustments in elevation and depression. The early mounts were quite heavy at about 100 pounds and included two folding legs that could be swung down to form a tripod raising the wheels off the ground. Sine the entire platform was so robust, the legs were later eliminated.

Production of the Model 1910 continued through the World War I years until 1917 when production dropped of considerably due to the disruptive Russian Revolution in 1917. Production picked up again in late 1918 and all through the interwar years. During World War II, production went into high gear and it remained the standard heavy Russian machine gun. An interesting modification was made in 1943 by the addition of a large, distinctive “snow cap” incorporated to the top of the water jacket to allow the insertion of snow (water) into the water jacket. The Russians actually copied this feature from the Finns who used such a contrivance on their own Maxims during the Russo-Finnish War of 1941-1944.

The Russian Maxim soldiered on for over four decades and more Maxims were built in Russia than all the other countries in the world combined. Production estimates indicate that over 600,000 guns were produced, including those given to the North Koreans, Chinese and others who received assistance from Russian armament programs after World War II.

As early as 1889, Imperial Russia ordered for trial purpose 12 Maxim machine guns chambered for the black-powder “4.2-line” 10.6x58R Russian Service Berdan cartridge. These early weapons were imported from the British company Maxim Nordenfelt Gun & Ammunition Company Ltd (MNG&ACL). Following these trials, the first Maxim machine guns adopted for operational service were for the Imperial Russian Navy, and were still chambered for the 10.6x58R cartridges.

According to the other contemporary Maxim belts, the fabric belts for the Russian Navy should have had a total capacity of 334 rounds, although the author has so far not examined any complete specimens. The belt is composed of two strips of webbing fixed together by means of riveted brass spacers, thereafter generating the pockets to accommodate the cartridges. A long spacer is installed after every three pockets to insure maintaining a correct seat of the ammunition when the belt is stacked in its transport crate. Both ends of the belt are fitted with starters composed of two flat brass tabs riveted together and are intended to facilitate the introduction of the belt into the feed mechanism.

The very rare specimen observed is a 13-round sample belt kept for reference purposes by the Vickers Company and, hopefully, still survives today. Markings are “RUS V” suspected to mean “Russian Vickers” as well as an inspection mark of the Crayford facility (C/8).

The early Model 1895 machine guns in caliber 7.62x54R.

Immediately following the adoption in 1891 of the “3-line” 7.62x54R Russian cartridge loaded with smokeless powder, the first five Maxim machine guns chambered for that new caliber were tested as early as 1892. In May 1895, the Maxim machine gun chambered for the 7.62x54R cartridge was officially adopted for service as fortress armament bearing the designation of Model 1895. These early machine guns were fitted on a heavy wheeled carriage with large armor shield. In 1896, the Vickers Sons & Maxim Company (VSM) received an order for 174 Model 1895 machine guns chambered for 7.62x54R. This order probably corresponds to the entries in the Vickers Register of Guns for 1897 where 179 guns are referenced with the caliber denoted as “RSB”. Although it has been previously suspected among knowledgeable researchers that this should stand for “Russian Service Berdan” and therefore be in caliber 10.6x58R, Russian sources indicate these were in caliber 7.62x54R. In that case, it is supposed that the “RSB” reference could rather stand for “Russian Service Board.”

According to the size of the early standard wooden ammunition box that can accommodate a 334-round belt with 10.6mm cartridges, the new capacity of the belts for the smaller 7.62x54R rounds was extended to 450 rounds. Unfortunately, the author has never managed, so far, to come across any of these early British-imported 450-round belts of the Russian contract, and accordingly their particularities and markings remain unknown.

In 1897 a first batch of 224 additional machine guns were ordered from the German company Ludwig Loewe, which later became the Deutsches Waffen und Munition Fabrik (DWM). In total, approximately 1,500 weapons were imported from Germany between 1897 and at least 1903. It is supposed that the accompanying ammunition feed belts were probably the standard German capacity of 250 rounds only.

The Russian Model 1905 and 1910 machine guns in caliber 7.62x54R

The first Maxim weapons locally produced in Russia under Vickers (VSM) license are referenced as Model 1905. It is during that year that the first batch of 28 machine guns locally made in Russia came off of the production lines, followed in 1906 by another batch of 73 weapons. In March 1906, a comparative trial was conducted between 3 ammunition belts imported from England and the very first 4 prototype fabric belts assembled in Russia. These first tests showed that the Russian belts were woven too close, which led to misfires. Further investigations finally concluded that the best material suited for the manufacture of the belts was a braid from a Riga textile factory. It is suspected that the early Russian belts had a capacity of 250 rounds only according to that of the belts already imported with the weapons from Germany and also according to the length which became standard among other contemporary Maxim users. In the period 1905-1908, a total of 1,376 machines guns of Model 1905 were produced. While the improved and lightened version of the weapon was adopted under the designation of Model 1910, the accompanying ammunition belts are suspected to have remained unchanged. So far, the earliest belt of local Russian production examined is dated 1910 and the author would be grateful to any reader who might report any earlier date.

The belts of early Russian production are fitted with both starter tags and spacers made of brass. According to the size of the Russian 7.62x54R cartridge, the total length of the long spacers installed every three pockets is 58.5mm. The starter tags are marked with the year of production (expressed with 4 digits) and the Imperial Russian Coat of Arms. The numbering of the cartridge pockets every 10 rounds is printed in tens with usually purple ink (markings ranging from 1 to 25). This cartridge numbering feature is less systematically observed for belts manufactured after the revolution of 1917. The assembly of the two brass plates of the starter tags is made only with a single rivet situated at the end of the tag.

A scarce German DWM belt has been examined bearing most of these Russian unique features and is suspected of having been imported to Russia around 1906-1910 while complying with the official Russian patterns. Both spacers and starter tags are made of brass. The long spacers have a total length of 58.5mm and are assembled by a hollow rivet, which complies with the Russian patterns. This has never been observed on any other DWM production which always relied on solid steel rivets. The assembly of the starter tags fitted at both ends of the belt relies on the German pattern with three hollow rivets; whereas the Russian pattern only involves one rivet. The starter tags are marked with the manufacturer’s initials D.W.M. and are not dated. The cartridge pockets are numbered every 10 rounds, with only the value of the tens (numbers ranging from 1 to 25) being printed with black ink on the fabric. The style of the figures inked does exactly correspond to that found on contemporary DWM belts issued to the German Army. As a matter of summary, for belts with DWM marked starter tags, the total length of the long spacers, the hollow rivet assembling the end of the long spacers and the numbering of the cartridge pockets every 10 rounds are all key features that enable to tell apart these German belts intended for export to Russia. It is suspected that these DWM belts might have been part of an export contract to Russia which also involved the delivery of 7.62x54R Model 1891 round-nosed ammunition from Germany around 1906.

The geometric constitution of these 250-round fabric belts remained unchanged until the latest productions observed up to 1947. Only variants in markings or in the materials used have been examined.

After the revolution of 1917, the first productions of the Soviet era remain fitted with brass spacers and brass starters. The markings are obviously devoid of the Imperial Coat of Arms and only show the year of manufacture expressed with the last 3 digits only. The earliest post Imperial-era belt observed so far is dated 1920 (marking 920).

From the middle of the 1930’s on, the brass starters were replaced by zinc-coated steel ones, which proved mechanically more resilient. The spacers remained, however, usually made of brass. This standard pattern has been observed at least up to 1947 production.

Wartime production belts (1939-1945) are sometimes found with both starters and spacers made of gray phosphated steel. Starters are often undated and bear various small inspection stamps and sometimes a manufacturer’s logo. For example, a belt marked with a “3” in a triangle has been observed, which denotes production at the Tula arsenal. An unusual specimen which seems dated 1944 has been observed with brass spacers and copper plated steel starters, but its origin remains uncertain.

The career of the Model 1910 Maxims continued well after the end of the Second World War. From the end of the 1940’s on, continuous metal belts have been standardized for use with Maxims, SG-43 and RP-46 machine guns. These belts with a capacity of 250 rounds are composed of metallic pockets joined together with coiled steel springs. Each end of the belt is fitted with a long starter tag with curved end to facilitate the gripping. Although similar metallic belts were tested as early as 1940 for use with the DS-39 machine guns, and were also used in some combat with SG-43s since 1944, it seems that large scale production did not begin before the end of WW2. Russian sources indicate that although a modified feed-block for the Maxim Model 1910 was designed during WW2 to cope with both fabric and metal belts, the quantity of fabric belts available in stock was so huge that this modification was finally not made on wartime weapons. World War II dated photographs showing Model 1910 Maxims fed with metallic belts have not been observed so far by the author.

The air cooled Maxim-Tokarev Model 1925 light machine gun.

In the middle of the 1920’s an air cooled light machine gun in caliber 7.62x54R was designed at the Tula arsenal and was adopted as the Maxim-Tokarev machine gun Model 1925. Standard production of the weapon started at Tula in November 1925 and, by 1927, a total of 2,500 weapons had been manufactured. These light machine guns were designed to use the same 250-round fabric belt as those for the heavy water cooled Model 1910 Maxims. However, following the principle used by the German MG 08/15 during the First World War, the Russians also designed a belt drum which accommodates a 100-round belt for these Maxim-Tokarev guns. Only very few photographs depict these belt drums and it remains unclear as to how the drum is fastened to the gun itself. It also seems that these drums are fitted with an internal spool around which the belt is wound up and therefore took example on the design of the German Gurttrommel of MG 08/15. Photographs however state that both drums are externally different. Russian sources indicate that the 100-round belts used with those drums were simply shortened 250-round standard belts. Although very large quantities, if not all, of those Maxim-Tokarev light machine guns were exported to Spain during the Civil War in 1937-1938, it seems that the belt drums were not included in the shipments since no such item has ever been commonly reported from Spain so far.

The air cooled aircraft Maxim PV-1.

An air cooled fast-firing aircraft machine gun was investigated at Tula arsenal since 1923. This weapon was formally adopted by the air force in 1928 as PV-1 and a total of more than 17,800 weapons were produced between 1926 and 1940. This aircraft weapon was primarily designed to be fed with disintegrating metallic links. Although the design of the very first prototype links developed before 1930 is not known, in the later years the disintegrating metallic links used with the Maxim PV-1 were the same as those used with the ShKAS aircraft machine guns. Two major variants are identified: one seldom encountered which is completely smooth, and the most common bearing a set of ribs. Some of these aircraft Maxim PV-1s also found their way into the Spanish Civil War and some photographs show them heavily reworked and reissued for ground use fed either with metal disintegrating links or fabric belts.

Acknowledgements :

Special acknowledgments are due to the late Herb Woodend who spent hours searching through piles of Russian fabric belts to retrieve some of the variants presented in this article. The author is also very grateful to Mr. Kooger and Wanting (the Netherlands) and Bob Faris (USA) for their useful comments.

As I walked down the line, the size and concentration of weapons became apparent. The total count for the shoot was 251 crew served weapons plus 12 antitank guns. Out of the 251 crew served weapons, 24 were .50 caliber Brownings. In one section alone, 10 of them were side-by-side, and were all fired on command at specific targets. This mass fire produced spectacular downrange results.

Another point of interest on the line, was the large assemblage of anti-aircraft mounting systems. This was due to the usage of remote controlled airplanes flown as aerial gunnery targets. Twenty-five such airplanes were flown throughout the shoot. Seeing the variety of anti-aircraft systems-from the big M3 .50 caliber to the twin .30 caliber Bell mounts to the twin MG42 AA mounts- and everything in between- was very impressive.

Upon close inspection, I saw that most of the crew served mounts were sand-bagged to provide the most stable and accurate platforms. The 1800-yard range allowed those weapons to be utilized as they were intended and to fulfill their capabilities. It was evident by the expanse of weapons secured that the shooters were very serious in accepting that challenge.

Dry Creek supplied a substantial number of targets throughout the shoot. These provided a real test for the shooters at this machine gunners mecca. Among the targets were 1100 reactive targets, placed from 300-yards out for both day and night fire. In addition, 50 steel gong targets of varied sizes were located throughout the range. Special 3”, 4” and 5” thick armor plates were set up from 800 yards to 1300-yards for the antitank guns. The remote controlled airplanes, flown throughout the shoot, kept the gunners on their toes. Hundreds and hundreds of chem lights attached to the reactive targets at night, created an eerie glow to a surreal scene.

Some of the automatic weapons represented were rare and exotic. The first to get my attention was a Spanish ALFA M-1944 that was producing a steady, sustained rate of fire. I was surprised to see an Italian Breda M-37 being put through its paces. This beautiful gun did everything but make pizzas. Another Italian gun was the odd looking Revelli model 35. I watched a steaming German 1892 MAXIM during a heavy firing session. There was a unique Schwarzlose 07/12 on the line. Enjoyable to watch was a 1914 Colt Potato Digger and a German MG 13. Also drawing attention was a Swedish M36 water-cooled Browning and a belt fed Aircraft Madsen. A rare baby (short) Argentine Vickers that was made to be mounted on the Presidential Guard motorcycle sidecars, was shooting off of an anti-aircraft mount. An unusual sight was the owner of a Japanese Type 100 sub gun challenging the shooter of a German MP 18 submachine gun on the range. After shooting, both carefully policed their rare type 100 Nambu brass.

Throughout the shoot, Dry Creek staged a number of informal shooting competitions. These were strictly fun events. No trophies or ribbons were involved, but the winners held the bragging rights for their weapons and shooting skills. Each competition centered around one type of firearm. Included were matches for Thompson submachine guns, M-3 grease guns, 40m/m grenade launchers, Browning Automatic rifles, suppressors and M-1 Garands. The most popular were those of the Thompson machine guns and the M-1 Garands. Both speed and accuracy were required in the matches. Considerable amounts of ammunition were needed, as rapid reloading was necessary to engage multiple targets. Each match ended with a mass volley fire by all participants. All of these matches were very popular and thoroughly enjoyed by non-participants as well as participants.

Dry Creek made safety a top priority. It was maintained in a very laid-back manner in order to make those attending feel comfortable. I have been to other shoots where the line officers were unbearable. However, this shoot was conducted in an atmosphere that was firm and efficient, but at the same time relaxed and friendly. Each morning, a compulsory shooters’ briefing was held to review regulations and safety. Emergency services were always on hand and available, with persons properly experienced in their use.

Saturday night was the zenith of the shoot. After shooting all day, a mandatory cease-fire was called in order to prepare for a spectacular night shoot. During the break, crews were busy setting out 450 reactive targets with chem lights attached to each, producing a sea of green dots. During this time, dinners were cooked and enjoyed and ammunition supplies were checked. As everyone waited for total darkness, anticipation built to frenzied pitch. Once the command was given to commence fire, the line erupted in a deafening roar as a sea of tracers searched the valley for the reactive targets. The constant “thump” of these targets being hit could be heard over the automatic weapons fire. Often I stopped firing and stepped back to watch the scene as heavy concentrations of tracer fire danced across the range with the ever-present parachute flares falling to the earth. Throughout the evening, flights of remote controlled planes added to the display. They were followed by heavy concentrations of anti-aircraft fire. Determined pilots struggled to make their planes as difficult as possible to hit, as the gunners were equally determined to destroy them. The scene resembled a Gulf War air raid on downtown Baghdad or a kamikaze raid in the Pacific in World War II. This onslaught continued for 3 1/2 hours until finally all targets were neutralized and gunners were exhausted. What a memorable night!

Due to the remoteness of the area, the majority opted to camp out for the duration of the shoot. It was a fantastic experience to be so removed from civilization in such a scenic setting. A certain spirit was generated as persons sat around campfires sharing food and experiences, knowledge and information. This camaraderie was one of the major elements of the entire weekend. The opportunity to meet old friends and make new ones was the highlight. The shoot officially ended after 3 days of excitement at noon Sunday. When departures began, it was evident that a special bond had been forged with everyone looking forward to the next shoot.

For further information contact:

Dry Creek, Inc.
P.O. Box 12403
Scottsdale, AZ 85267
(480) 948-0175/(602) 279-9150

By Bob Naess

“Floyd Pope and the rest of the squad stayed off the ridgeline, but Firebug walked on top of it. The entire 3rd Battalion was strung out behind us like a long snake slowly moving up the ridgeline. As we neared a right angle turn in the ridge, the Chinese opened up on Firebug with a machine gun at close range but missed. He hit the ground but started sliding backwards to get off the ridgeline. Unfortunately he straddled a tree and they fired at him again. I ran forward to Pope to see if he knew where the Chinese were located. He said they were right in front of us. We both popped up hoping to get a shot at them. Then we charged their emplacement. They were gone when we reached their position. We could hear their wheeled Maxim machine gun bouncing off rocks as they retreated down a brushy draw.” – From “Misfit Squad” by Sergeant Jack Dean; 17th Regiment, the Buffaloes, Korea, 1951

Only a few years from the end of WWII in 1945, the obsolescent water-cooled 1910 Russian Maxim was back in front line action as a mainstay HMG of the Chinese and North Korean Communist forces in their effort to unite Korea under Communist control. The Yalta Conference in 1945 prescribed that, north of the 38th parallel in Korea, the Communist Soviet Union accept the surrender of the Japanese, who had occupied Korea since 1905, and the US accept their surrender south of that demarcation. From 1946 to 1949, more than 10,000 North Koreans undertook military training in Russia, while North Korea obtained large quantities of Russian small arms and equipment.

The former Korean Volunteer Army, which had fought with the Communist Chinese in their civil war from 1945 to 1949, returned to North Korea as trained, war hardened infantry veterans. Well trained and equipped by the Soviet Union, and with unconditional support from the Chinese, North Korea stepped up its guerilla insurgency into South Korea with a major invasion across the 38th parallel in June of 1950. Once again, the 1910 Russian Maxim was dragged into combat by infantry on foot, tugged along on its wheeled Sokolov mount.

At the close of WWII, the Soviet Union was well supplied with 1910 Maxims. Starting in 1905 and continuing through 1945, Russian arsenals, the only producer of the 1910 Maxim, manufactured close to 600,000 of both the 1905 and 1910 patterns, with only very minor changes in the overall design of gun and mount. Although many of these weapons were destroyed or left Russia during and between the World Wars, the majority of serviceable 1910s remained there after WWII, and they were readily provided by the Soviet government to the North Koreans and newly Communist Chinese military. The successor to the 1910, the Goryunov designed, aircooled SG43 HMG, produced and fielded by the Soviet Union during the latter part of WWII, was also available to North Korea, but the mainstay HMG of the North Korean forces was the 1910 Maxim.

The water-cooled 1910 Russian Maxim, or SPM, embodied the characteristics common to Russian small arms; simplicity, ruggedness and ease of maintenance. The principal virtue of these characteristics was the ease with which unskilled soldiers could learn the use and maintenance of the weapon. The initial production of the 1905 Maxim and its successor, the 1910, incorporated the best features of several earlier Maxim HMGs. The most efficient improvements were the simplified ‘S’ shaped charging handle, a simplified lock that could be easily disassembled without special tools and easily headspaced using shims, and a very simple muzzle booster. The ‘S” shaped handle was much sturdier, involved fewer parts and one less spring, which reduced breakage and helped reduce manufacturing time and materials. The lock was robust, of simpler design, and the mainspring of very high quality and strength. Quick disassembly of the simplified lock was facilitated by the use of split pins to hold pivoting parts. A small cup cut into the end of the ‘T’ handle of the backplate retaining crosspin could be used to compress the split pin ends for their removal and quick disassembly of the components. Adding or removing shims in increments of .002” or .003” under a nut at the point of attachment on the crank spigot greatly aided in maintaining headspace tolerances through changes of locks or barrels. The efficiency and reliability of the piston effect on the muzzle of the barrel in the booster was increased by using a barrel with the muzzle flared to 3/4”.

Among the small number of tools and accoutrements provided for maintenance and cleaning was a reamer on a combination headspace/booster wrench to clean combustion reside from the inside of the booster body. The removable orifice in the front of the booster allowed use of orifices of different diameters to vary the rate of fire of the gun through a range of approximately 450 to over 700 rpm. The box receiver was rigidly held to the trunion/ waterjacket by tapered dovetails, as was the backplate/grip assembly, and a heavy riveted bottom plate unified and strengthened the structure. The waterjacket , fabricated from light gauge steel, was fluted to enhance rigidity and increase surface area for heat dissipation, and these were often “tinned” on the interior surface to reduce corrosion. From early 1943 through the end of production in 1945, rapid filling of the waterjacket was achieved by the addition of a 3” diameter port capped and latched with a stamped hinged tractor radiator cap. This adaptation, copied from the Finnish Maxims, allowed the fast injection of snow and ice into the jacket during winter use, a very practical feature in Korea’s severe winter weather. A sled apparatus could be affixed to the wheels in snowy conditions, and anti-freeze mixed with the water in the jacket prevented the guns from freezing up solid. Use of a hose fitted to a port on the waterjacket delivered steam to a condensing can, eliminating the potential signal of the guns location due to the steam plume from boiling water during continuous fire.

The 1910 Maxim, firing the Russian issue 7.62X54R (rimmed) rifle cartridge, used a fabric belt that was identical to that used in the German MG08, with extended fingers every three rounds to align the belt in the feedway. The reliability of fabric belts is compromised when they are wet, or wet and then frozen, and the Korean climate, often foggy and wet in the warm months and alternately wet and severely frozen in the winter, no doubt tested the patience of the gunners. However, although it is speculation, the continuous 200 round steel link belts used in the Goryunov air-cooled SG43 HMG, also widely used in Korea, would function well in the Maxims and may have been used, eliminating the problems with the fabric belts.

The Russians found during the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 that HMGs on high mounts exposed the gunners to enemy fire, but they did not abandon the practical wheeled mounts. The 1905 Maxim was prepared with a low wheeled mount, designed by A. E. Sokolov, that was continued with the 1910 version. The heavy, wide turntable on which the gun cradle rode, combined with the weight of the gun, wheeled mount, and heavy steel shield made an excellent, very sturdy platform for the 1910. The stability of the mount enhanced the long range accuracy of the gun, which was used effectively by the well trained North Korean infantry.

Early in the war, due to the weight of the guns, mounts and ammo and the necessity of moving them long distances and over mountainous terrain by foot, they were used rather sparingly in defensive positions. Often the guns were used at great ranges, over a mile or more from their targets, to aid in concealment. Using the MGs from long distance to rake the forward slopes against advancing US troops, the North Koreans registered their mortars behind the US soldiers who would fall back when they took too many casualties from the long range MG fire, only to discover they were under mortar fire. As the war continued, it developed into a contest of many fixed positions in mountainous areas which were traded back and forth between the combatants. As with the static trench warfare of WWI, the thoroughly dug-in emplacements of 1910s in defensive positions were very effective in retaining ground gained by the North Koreans.

The Korean War was not the last theater of combat in which the 1910 was fielded, as reports of their use in Vietnam attests to their practical value despite their age and the shortcomings of their weight and rather cumbersome mount. There are still many 1910s in the arsenals of countries scattered worldwide which could well be used long into the future.

The image of the Maxim or Vickers has played a key part in many of South Africa’s insignia. From cap and collar badges to shirt and beret badges, arm flashes and patches and breast badges, it is an integral part of South Africa’s history.

In World War I, South Africa, as part of the British Empire, used a lot of Imperial British insignia as well as specific South African regimental badges. One interesting cap badge belonged to the South African Horse Machine Gun Section (1916-1919) which featured the Maxim gun on a flaming bomb. They operated in German East Africa during the war.

On April 1, 1934, under the First Nationalist Government of General J.B.M. Hertzog, the first five Citizen Force Regiments were formed in South Africa as part of the South African military modernization program. What made these units unique is that they were named after South African folk heroes rather than members of the Royal Family or their Colonel in chief as was typical in Commonwealth countries up to that time. This was quite a departure in terms of naming units and provided quite a bit of national pride to have these units reflect South African history. What is particularly interesting is the image and use of the venerable Vickers gun and Maxim gun as part of the design on three of the five units that were machine gun regiments.

The first unit formed, an infantry regiment, was Regiment Botha. Louis Botha was the Boer War Commander in Chief and was the first Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa. He was also responsible for taking South Africa on the side of the Allies in World War I and defeated an Afrikaaner rebellion that then led to the campaign to eliminate the Germans from South West Africa. During World War II, the Regiment served in the East and North Africa campaigns where they suffered terrible casualties as well as in Italy.

The second unit formed, a machine gun regiment, was Regiment President Steyn at Bloemfontein. President Steyn was the President of the Orange Free State Republic from 1896 to 1902. This Regiment also served in North Africa and Italy during World War II. Because of the high number of casualties suffered by both Regiments Botha and President Steyn in the North Africa campaign, the two units were amalgamated during the Italian campaign. The Vickers machine gun is the central figure of their badges.

The third regiment formed, a machine gun regiment, was Regiment Louw Wepener. He was the Orange Free State Commandant who lost his life in 1859 during the second Basuto war while storming the hilltop fortress of Moshweshwe at Thaba Bosigo. (He also gave his name to a town, the battle at which resulted in the bar ‘Wepener’ on the Queens South Africa Medal.) The volunteers of this regiment were drafted to Regiment President Steyn during World War II. Their badge, with a central image of the Vickers, is a stylized view of the mountain fortress at Thaba Bosigo.

The fourth unit formed, also a machine gun regiment, was Regiment De Wet. De Wet was the Boer General who confounded the British in the Orange Free State. The volunteers of this regiment were also drafted into Regiment President Steyn during World War II. The old Maxim gun sits squarely in the center crest.

The fifth regiment formed was an infantry regiment named De la Rey after the Boer General known as the “Lion of the Western Transvaal”. In World War II its men served in the Union until 1943 when they were amalgamated with the Witwatersand Rifles, serving in Italy.

The next batch of “Named Units” occurred on January 1, 1954. While Afrikaaners of all sorts were honored, the only unit to use the image of the Vickers machine gun was Regiment South Western Districts (R.S.W.D.) which then changed its name to Regiment Langenhoven. Langenhoven was an Afrikaaner poet and author of the South African national anthem. The crossed Vickers can be seen on both of their badges behind the Protea, South Africa’s National Flower.

In the 1960s, the South West Africa Territory Force was formed and included Regiment Erongo whose badge was crossed Vickers behind a snarling leopard head. This unit was disbanded in 1989 when South West Africa became Namibia. In the late 1960s the Military Gymnasium was created. The Military Gymnasium is what South Africa calls their All Arms School for the three primary services. The insignia features a pair of upraised wings representing the Air Force, and in the center is a Vickers machine gun representing the Army superimposed over an anchor representing the Navy.

The old Vickers finally succumbed to its obsolescence and the image of the AK-47 and Armscor R4 and R5 replaced it as the machine gun image of modern times. (The Armscor R4 is the South African version of the Israeli Galil.) Nevertheless, South Africa’s long association with the value of automatic weaponry in its arsenal continues to this day.

(My sincere thanks to Steve Seargent who provided much of the historical background for this article.)