This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I have removed the line "However the Chauchat machine rifle is also recognized today as one of the least reliable automatic weapons ever issued to armed services." from the article. I agree with the sentiment here, but the question is "Who" recognizes it as the least reliable automatic weapon. A source or justification is easily needed here. Just because this line if often repeated, does not mean that it is verifiable without a source or meets the Burden of Proof criteria.
The removed piece also comes off as NPOV, as the line points out merely opinion instead of fact. Where is the definitive source on all firearm facts that defines the weapon as the least reliable squad automatic rifle produced? Unless a source is provided, or the wording changed, this comes off merely as a subjective opinion.-- Termynuss 19:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I have no doubt that the Chauchat was pretty unreliable. However care must be taken to separate the Chauchats that were chambered in .30-06, that were even less reliable. It must also be put in context of what I've quoted below, there was no comparable light machine gun on the German side and the Germans were compelled to capture Chauchats for their own use. Reliabilty issues nonwithstanding the Chauchat was evidently an important weapon on the battlefield of WWI.-- Sus scrofa 12:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
What is the purpose of the comparison between the Chauchat and other automatic weapons of the time that seemingly have nothing to do with the rifle? Other, more detailed parts of the article cover the subject better than the blocked off area. Furthermore, what is the purpose of the FM Chatellerault piece? The FM 24-29 has little to do with the Chauchat sans replacing it-- wouldn't it be better off if this was added to an article on the FM 24-29, with a passing mention linked to that article?-- Termynuss 19:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, the Republicans used it extensively during the Spanish Civil War. Matt714 06:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
QUESTION: Why the two American soldiers on the picture wear English uniforms?????
America got a lot of its equipment from other countries in WW1. But not all parts of the uniform where made in the UK. Those uniforms are American. Those helmets that they are wearing are called Brodie helmets. They were everywhere. They were used by Canada, America, and various commonwealth countries as the standard helmet during WW1. The helmets were not exclusive to the BEF. Blamazon ( talk) 19:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
The following text was removed by an anonymous user, some many versions ago, among other valid-seeming changes. I'm not about to put it back, as I don't know whether it's true or not. But pictures [1], [2], [3] appear to confirm that it had a box magazine and was not belt-fed.-- Andrew 18:05, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
The main dispute would come from the comparison between the Chauchat and the Maxim gun itself. The Chauchat's employment by France was on a completely separate level than the Maxim gun's use by Germany. Whereas the Maxim was a heavy gun, usually placed in stationary positions or mounts, the Chauchat was an automatic rifle, meant for assault operations and tactical maneuverability. It's 20-round box magazine was the normal size of magazine for weapons in it category, which included the BAR, Madsen, Farquhar-Hill, and the Lewis gun to a lesser extent. The way it is compared in the deleted text is not only unfair, but completely out of context of the weapons purpose and use. This gun is probably the worst gun ever to be put in the hands of American soldiers
It is one of the worst guns in history, PERIOD! AllStarZ 19:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
As early as 1915 the French began to issue other new weapons to the infantry, notably the light automatic rifle and the rifle grenade launcher. These, plus ordinary hand grenades, gave the French infantry more mobile automatic firepower and short-range (up to 150 meters) indirect-fire capability. On 27 September 1916, France reorganized the infantry company to consist of a headquarters, which included communications and pioneer (combat engineer) personnel, plus four platoons of two sections each. Within these twelve men sections, hand grenadiers, rifle grenadiers, and riflemen were organized around the automatic rifleman as the base of fire. Three of these infantry companies, plus a company of eight heavy machine guns and a 37-mm gun in the headquarters, made up an infantry battalion that modern infantrymen can recognize as such. Other armies adopted similar armament and organizations, although the Germans delayed until 1917. The German preoccupation with accuracy of fire by heavy machine guns made them reluctant to accept the relatively inaccurate light machine guns and automatic rifles, until in desperation the frontline German infantry began to use captured French automatic rifles. from: [4] The light machine gun was a different class of weapon that could be used in the offense unlike the heavy machine gun which was suited static defense only. -- Sus scrofa 16:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I've added three solid citations to the end of the lede to support the "worst machine gun" description, and I can easily add a dozen more if need be. Pretty much any book dealing with the Chauchat in any regard tends to include the "worst machine gun" or "worst light machine gun" description applied in various ways, such as "worst designed", "worst in the world", "worst in history", or "worst ever fielded in war". The use of "worst" is about as universal as I've seen for any gun ever written about by firearms experts. Bullzeye contribs 23:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
So, was the American version in .30-06 actually used in combat or not? The article seems to be sending mixed messages in that regard.-- 172.190.50.63 ( talk) 00:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Turn the photo 180 degrees, left to right, right to left. -- hmaag ( talk) 08:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I have removed the line "However the Chauchat machine rifle is also recognized today as one of the least reliable automatic weapons ever issued to armed services." from the article. I agree with the sentiment here, but the question is "Who" recognizes it as the least reliable automatic weapon. A source or justification is easily needed here. Just because this line if often repeated, does not mean that it is verifiable without a source or meets the Burden of Proof criteria.
The removed piece also comes off as NPOV, as the line points out merely opinion instead of fact. Where is the definitive source on all firearm facts that defines the weapon as the least reliable squad automatic rifle produced? Unless a source is provided, or the wording changed, this comes off merely as a subjective opinion.-- Termynuss 19:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I have no doubt that the Chauchat was pretty unreliable. However care must be taken to separate the Chauchats that were chambered in .30-06, that were even less reliable. It must also be put in context of what I've quoted below, there was no comparable light machine gun on the German side and the Germans were compelled to capture Chauchats for their own use. Reliabilty issues nonwithstanding the Chauchat was evidently an important weapon on the battlefield of WWI.-- Sus scrofa 12:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
What is the purpose of the comparison between the Chauchat and other automatic weapons of the time that seemingly have nothing to do with the rifle? Other, more detailed parts of the article cover the subject better than the blocked off area. Furthermore, what is the purpose of the FM Chatellerault piece? The FM 24-29 has little to do with the Chauchat sans replacing it-- wouldn't it be better off if this was added to an article on the FM 24-29, with a passing mention linked to that article?-- Termynuss 19:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, the Republicans used it extensively during the Spanish Civil War. Matt714 06:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
QUESTION: Why the two American soldiers on the picture wear English uniforms?????
America got a lot of its equipment from other countries in WW1. But not all parts of the uniform where made in the UK. Those uniforms are American. Those helmets that they are wearing are called Brodie helmets. They were everywhere. They were used by Canada, America, and various commonwealth countries as the standard helmet during WW1. The helmets were not exclusive to the BEF. Blamazon ( talk) 19:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
The following text was removed by an anonymous user, some many versions ago, among other valid-seeming changes. I'm not about to put it back, as I don't know whether it's true or not. But pictures [1], [2], [3] appear to confirm that it had a box magazine and was not belt-fed.-- Andrew 18:05, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
The main dispute would come from the comparison between the Chauchat and the Maxim gun itself. The Chauchat's employment by France was on a completely separate level than the Maxim gun's use by Germany. Whereas the Maxim was a heavy gun, usually placed in stationary positions or mounts, the Chauchat was an automatic rifle, meant for assault operations and tactical maneuverability. It's 20-round box magazine was the normal size of magazine for weapons in it category, which included the BAR, Madsen, Farquhar-Hill, and the Lewis gun to a lesser extent. The way it is compared in the deleted text is not only unfair, but completely out of context of the weapons purpose and use. This gun is probably the worst gun ever to be put in the hands of American soldiers
It is one of the worst guns in history, PERIOD! AllStarZ 19:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
As early as 1915 the French began to issue other new weapons to the infantry, notably the light automatic rifle and the rifle grenade launcher. These, plus ordinary hand grenades, gave the French infantry more mobile automatic firepower and short-range (up to 150 meters) indirect-fire capability. On 27 September 1916, France reorganized the infantry company to consist of a headquarters, which included communications and pioneer (combat engineer) personnel, plus four platoons of two sections each. Within these twelve men sections, hand grenadiers, rifle grenadiers, and riflemen were organized around the automatic rifleman as the base of fire. Three of these infantry companies, plus a company of eight heavy machine guns and a 37-mm gun in the headquarters, made up an infantry battalion that modern infantrymen can recognize as such. Other armies adopted similar armament and organizations, although the Germans delayed until 1917. The German preoccupation with accuracy of fire by heavy machine guns made them reluctant to accept the relatively inaccurate light machine guns and automatic rifles, until in desperation the frontline German infantry began to use captured French automatic rifles. from: [4] The light machine gun was a different class of weapon that could be used in the offense unlike the heavy machine gun which was suited static defense only. -- Sus scrofa 16:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I've added three solid citations to the end of the lede to support the "worst machine gun" description, and I can easily add a dozen more if need be. Pretty much any book dealing with the Chauchat in any regard tends to include the "worst machine gun" or "worst light machine gun" description applied in various ways, such as "worst designed", "worst in the world", "worst in history", or "worst ever fielded in war". The use of "worst" is about as universal as I've seen for any gun ever written about by firearms experts. Bullzeye contribs 23:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
So, was the American version in .30-06 actually used in combat or not? The article seems to be sending mixed messages in that regard.-- 172.190.50.63 ( talk) 00:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Turn the photo 180 degrees, left to right, right to left. -- hmaag ( talk) 08:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)