Talk:M1919 Browning machine gun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.


This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Excuse me all, I came here to see if the M1919 sucked (forgive me for using the technical term). While I understand NPOV and all that, how did this LMG compare to others of the era? Paul, in Saudi 16:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Getting shot by one sucked about as much as getting shot by an MG42. Or - well, getting shot in general.Michael Dorosh 14:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
True enough ! The M1919 had a much lower rate of fire than the MG42, but so do most machineguns. It was comperable to other belt-fed guns of the era. The ability to link together many metallic belts, as on the MG42 and most modern MGs, is a really nice feature the M1919 lacked with its cloth belts. DMorpheus 16:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Feed system

In the 'History' section, last sentence, it states: "The weapon originally fired the 30-06 or the M2 rifle cartridge in either woven cloth or disintegrating metallic link belts fed from left to right". The picture at the top of the article clearly shows the weapon feeding from right to left. I assume this means the image is the wrong way round, but I don't know how to correct it.


RASAM 22:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There are pictures showing it feeding from both sides. I know the M2 50 cal, also a Browning design from the same time, can be converted to load from either direction, the M1919 might be the same way


I haven't seen other photos like that - I too thought the lead photo was reversed. DMorpheus 16:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign Variants

Up to now, The Sweedish Ksp m42 was a totally different variant of the M1919A4. Was there any other foreign variants that were totally different like this one?

User:Jetwave Dave 18:04, 23 March 2007

Similarly, the RAF aircraft gun was 'not' just a Browning chambered for .303 Owing to problems with the cordite propellant in British small arms ammunition, there had to be a lot of changes to it (the first trials aircraft had suffered a cook-off), including the open-bolt lock.
"The same basic weapon was also chambered for the British .303 round, and was used as a basic fighter aircraft gun in fighters such as the Supermarine Spitfire"
is really Just Plain Wrong for an article at this level of detail. Does anyone have any thoughts on whether to either add a fairly large section under Variants, or to start a whole new article as the British .303 Browning? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
How large does it need to be? I would think sentence mentioning it would be enough, but if you can make a larger article out of it feel free to. How these things have generally gone, however, has been the creation of perpetual stubs that would be better incorporated back into this article. The Ksp m/42 is a perfect example of it. The user that separated it is now permanently blocked and even if the page were to be expanded the amount of detail available would probably make for a very short article. Be bold. If you can do the thing justice or know that people will split it off, otherwise, just add a relevant amount of detail here, maybe even creation a subsection of the foreign variants. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
As it was the major Allied weapon of the Battle of Britain, it wouldn't be unreasonable to claim that it was the single most historically influential development of the M1919 (US aircraft largely used .50 cal, and although important to US ground forces it hardly won the Bulge single-handed). That seems like enough notability to justify an article.
Mainly though, I'm just saddened by the British aircraft articles that insist (and revert corrections) that they used ".303/7.7mm" and "M1919 MGs". This is a gross, and widespread, inaccuracy. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

Some citations would be nice (and indeed, are required for a better classification. The article also really needs expandind. Carom 13:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M1919A2 Question

I know this variant was used by the US Cavalry in the 1920s, Was it ever used in World War 2/Vietnam War?. Myself, I think it should have been becouse it had a shorter barrel and would be well suited to Infantry units, especially Paratroops and Marines. User:EX STAB, 14:18, 23 March 2007.

No, the M1919A2 was specifically for cavalry units. When the shift from horses to vehicles was made, the M1919A2 soldiered on for a short period between the wars on these vehicles, but by the time WWII had rolled around the M1919A4 had taken the show. It might've been well suited to infantry units, but the structure of US infantry units and their associated tactics to this day are not suited to such a weapon. The M1919A4s were held in a weapon platoon, while M1917s and .50 caliber M2s were held at company level. The possibly mobility afforded by the M1919A2, even at platoon level, is sort of irrelevant as these weapons were supposed to provide supporting fire, not be used as an assault weapon. The BAR provided suppressive fire capability at squad level and during assaults. -- Thatguy96 17:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hand-Carrying

In the movie Death Wish 3, Charles Bronson's character is shown carrying and firing a Browning M1919. Is it possible to do this? 158.123.160.2 15:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible, yes, possible to do so comfortably or accurately or for prolonged periods of time, not likely. A modified M1919 with a shoulder sling and side-mounted pistol grip made from a cocking handle was also featured in the movie Terminator 3. -- Thatguy96 23:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, considering the M1919 was recoil-driven, it may also cause stoppages from failure to feed if the weapon is allowed free movement in the direction of recoil. Deathbunny 01:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What about the Browning M-1917 or the .50 caliber Browning M2? 24.250.1.196 22:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention a burned left hand. DMorpheus 16:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some troops used to carry the M1919 as a 'GPMG' since it was the only belt fed weapon to match the likes of the German MG34/MG42. The M1919A6's were used by the South Vietnamese army as they were rid of in US service since they had the M60. Some troops also thought it was 'macho' to carry the M1919 by hand.

Link Here

There's nothing on that link that suggests that anyone ever fired an M1919 "from the hip" in combat, and while I'm sure it happened in select instances, it was never accepted doctrine. Neither the M1919 or M60 were ever used at squad level in standard infantry units, and the M240 isn't either. You don't see people running around with them, and its not part of tactical doctrine. -- Thatguy96 18:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fielded when?

I have found that pinning down a date when the M1919 was purchased in bulk and distributed to U.S. units is not as obvious a question as one might think. Does anyone know an authoritative date? A deployment date is conspicously missing from standard references.

Photographic evidence indicates the M1919 was first deployed sometime around 1941 -- M2 combat cars, M2 and M3 light tanks provided to Great Britain are shown with the MG. 1940 photos of the U.S. Army show M1917 water-cooled MGs mounted on vehicles. W. B. Wilson 10:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Depends on what variant. The M1919A4 was likely purchased en-masse around when you're talking about, but the M1919-A3 were definitly purchased before that. Photographic evidence supports this:
[1] -> Picture shows T1 Light Armored Car with what pretty clearly seems to be 2 M1919A2, vehicle first developed 1928
[2] -> Picture even more clearly shows a long barreled M1919, vehicle first developed 1930
[3] -> The hull MG and co-ax MG do not appear to be water-cooled .30 caliber MGs, vehicle first developed 1932
So there are already these examples from one site, and I'm sure I've seen more. I would think it more likely to say that the M1919A4 was introduced between 1940-1941. The adoption of the M1919A4 is generally regarded as when the weapon entered more wide-spread service. Note the M1917 continued to be used in fairly large quantities right through Korea. -- Thatguy96 15:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Also note that the Field Manual (FM 23-45) for the M1919A4 ([4]), is dated 1940, and there should have been manuals for the M1919-A3 printed before then. -- Thatguy96 16:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Lastly (at least for the time being hehe), here are some following introduction dates for vehicles for which the M1919 was a part of the basic armament):
Combat Car M1 (fitted with either the AN/M2 or M1919A4): 1935
Combat Car M1A1/A1E1 (fitted with the M1919A4): 1938
Light Tank M1 (fitted with the M1919?): 1928
Light Tank M2/A1/A2 (fitted with the M1919A4): 1935
Light Tank M2A3 (fitted with the M1919A4): 1938

From AFV Database

From here we can quickly see that the M1919 was definitly introduced before 1941. -- Thatguy96 16:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I recall reading a version used by the cavalry was already in service between the World Wars. I meant the A4, although I didn't specify this. Are you sure about A4's being on those vehicles in 1930's -- I thought the vehicular version was the A5 or some other different version? Cheers W. B. Wilson 17:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
There were two purpose built vehicle guns, the M1919A4E1 and M1919A5. However, the M1919A4 did have fixed version, which was used interally on vehicles. The M1919A4E1 and A5 were responses to more cramped confines in various newer tanks, which mainly required the fitting of the extended charging handle (common to both variants). I am almost 75% sure of A4s being on those vehicles I mentioned (the AFV Database is relatively well cited and sourced). The pictures from WarWheels.net I have no exact idea what models those are or when. -- Thatguy96 17:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
One more note -- the M1917s on vehicles I saw were on halftracks IIRC. Perhaps the cavalry and armor units got the M1919s first, followed by the infantry? Hmm, makes me want to check photos from the Phillipines campaign and Wake Island to see if I can spot any M1919s with the infantry! On M1917s in the KW, my father told me his unit had some 'artists' who fired the M1917s with an indirect trajectory, guided by spotters with radios, to beat down the reverse slopes of hills. Thanks for all the comments. W. B. Wilson 17:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
On reflection, the USMC on Wake Island might not have had them yet. Photos from the Buna Campaign ought to show them, though. W. B. Wilson 17:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
On quick look at the photographic sources I have, I can find in the Squadron-Signal book on the M2/M3 Halftrack (M3 Halftrack in Action, Armor in Action #34, Squadron Publication #2034) one picture of the T7 armored car (circa 1930s) with what appears to be 2 M1919A2s, as well as, the 1938 T7 half track car prototype fitted with one .50 caliber M2HB, and what appears to be a pre-1919A4 long-barreled gun (barrel jacket is not the same style as that on the A4). However, I've also found pictures from as late as 1945 showing the M1917 being used (even in conjunction with the M1919A4), so when one officially supplanted the other at least in this role is unclear. They definitly continued to soldier on together right through Korea in the infantry, but I'm not sure about vehicular uses. -- Thatguy96 18:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The M1917A1 was used as a heavy machinegun, which makes sense given its sustained fire rate. Thus it was not truly 'replaced' by the M1919. DMorpheus 16:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image gone?

It seems to have disappeared (the infobox image that is) --Tom of north wales 18:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And if you click on the link to the image location you can read why. -- Thatguy96 18:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture with girl

Can we please replace it with something else, it seems silly to have a picture of a machinegun and then ahve a lil girl next to it(ForeverDEAD 19:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

Agreed. This article looks like a scrap-book. Remove redundant photos and expand the technical description if possible. Koalorka (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)