Recently I have been thinking how Finland, back in the 30's, could have prepared better for the Winter War. The exercise is not to do it in hindsight, but with the logic of the times.
In this context, I decided to create this post and see what you fellows think about it.
1.Links
2.General idea
3.Technical considerations
1. Links
Some links about the subject, for those interested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauchat
Chauchat and Finland (5000 weapons & 10 million 8mm rounds aquired in haste during Winter War, too late to see action)
http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/LMG2.htm
Merits and defects of the weapon
http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=76137
Schematics of how the weapon works
http://armesfrancaises.free.fr/FM Chauchat.html
2. General idea
in 1939, when Winter War started, the Finnish army did not have enough of everything. Regarding LMGs, they developped their own model (7,62 mm Lahti-Saloranta M/26 ), but it took time, it was expensive and therefore limited numbers could be bought. It also had some shortcomings.
How then to compensate for the great lack of LMGs in this context ? Finns developped the submachinegun as a tactical replacement, which makes sense given the finnish terrain (dense woods). Still, it wasn't an equivalent.
In the late 20's and in the 30's, Chauchat LMGs could have been purchased at very low prices (perhaps even at scrap value) and would have filled the LMG gap. (In hindsight : they would aquire 5,000 of them eventually anyway...)
To streamline logistics, it would have needed to be converted to the finnish standard ammunition of the time : 7,62x54R. See more on this below.
I consider the Chauchat to have been a somewhat acceptable weapon at the time. It had been extensively used in WW1 and performed acceptably (if not well) outside of trenches. Although more of an automatic rifle than a LMG, it would have bridged the gap.
3.Technical considerations
The .30-06 version of the Chauchat had been very bad, due to shoddy manufacturing and wrong specifications.
This could have been a good study for finnish engineers on what not to do. I guess these american weapons would also have been very cheap to get for Finns. As a side note, I wonder if the best time of purchase would have been prior to the 1929 crisis or after.
Here is a question I have : have weapons in .30-06 been converted to 7,62x54R before ? I guess the barrel would have to be reamed (from .308 to .311) and the bottom of the barrel (on the chamber side) shortened.
This would have been a very economical way to get the project started.
For french weapons, the 16-round magazines would have to be dismanteld (to retrieve the spring) and smelted into new ones. New magazines wouldn't have any of these silly side holes and would be sturdier (flimsy magazines were a majot cause of the Chauchat's malfunctions)
Same for the barrel, they would have to be switched with new ones in 7,62x54R and smelted.
How does this sound to you from a technical perspective ?
In this context, I decided to create this post and see what you fellows think about it.
1.Links
2.General idea
3.Technical considerations
1. Links
Some links about the subject, for those interested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauchat
Chauchat and Finland (5000 weapons & 10 million 8mm rounds aquired in haste during Winter War, too late to see action)
http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/LMG2.htm
Merits and defects of the weapon
http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=76137
Schematics of how the weapon works
http://armesfrancaises.free.fr/FM Chauchat.html
2. General idea
in 1939, when Winter War started, the Finnish army did not have enough of everything. Regarding LMGs, they developped their own model (7,62 mm Lahti-Saloranta M/26 ), but it took time, it was expensive and therefore limited numbers could be bought. It also had some shortcomings.
How then to compensate for the great lack of LMGs in this context ? Finns developped the submachinegun as a tactical replacement, which makes sense given the finnish terrain (dense woods). Still, it wasn't an equivalent.
In the late 20's and in the 30's, Chauchat LMGs could have been purchased at very low prices (perhaps even at scrap value) and would have filled the LMG gap. (In hindsight : they would aquire 5,000 of them eventually anyway...)
To streamline logistics, it would have needed to be converted to the finnish standard ammunition of the time : 7,62x54R. See more on this below.
I consider the Chauchat to have been a somewhat acceptable weapon at the time. It had been extensively used in WW1 and performed acceptably (if not well) outside of trenches. Although more of an automatic rifle than a LMG, it would have bridged the gap.
3.Technical considerations
The .30-06 version of the Chauchat had been very bad, due to shoddy manufacturing and wrong specifications.
This could have been a good study for finnish engineers on what not to do. I guess these american weapons would also have been very cheap to get for Finns. As a side note, I wonder if the best time of purchase would have been prior to the 1929 crisis or after.
Here is a question I have : have weapons in .30-06 been converted to 7,62x54R before ? I guess the barrel would have to be reamed (from .308 to .311) and the bottom of the barrel (on the chamber side) shortened.
This would have been a very economical way to get the project started.
For french weapons, the 16-round magazines would have to be dismanteld (to retrieve the spring) and smelted into new ones. New magazines wouldn't have any of these silly side holes and would be sturdier (flimsy magazines were a majot cause of the Chauchat's malfunctions)
Same for the barrel, they would have to be switched with new ones in 7,62x54R and smelted.
How does this sound to you from a technical perspective ?
Last edited: