Water Cooled Vickers MG in "Light" role

Discussion around the Second World War.
dadlamassu
Posts: 207
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:13 am
Location: Bonnie Scotland
Contact:

Water Cooled Vickers MG in "Light" role

Post by dadlamassu » Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:26 am

I was looking for details of a veteran who served out in Singapore with the 2nd Battalion Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and found the usual pictures of the rare Lanchester Armoured cars. Then, in the smae photos noticed that the Jocks were equipped, not only with armoured cars but also with water cooled Vickers MGs in the "light" role.
Image

Image

Image

from WW2 FACT FILES MACHINE GUNS (Peter Chamberlain and Terry Gander)(1974)

'.303" Vickers Tank Machine Guns
The Marks of the Vickers Machine Gun developed for use in AFVs were the 4B, 6, 6* and 7. The 4B and 6 entered service in 1934 and the other two after 1938. They were all very similar adaptations of the basic Vickers design, with the main change being that pistol grip and trigger were fitted in place of the usual spade grips. The water jacket was retained and connections provided on the Mark 6 for an internal header tank for coolant water. The mountings differed from mark to mark but they were all rather heavy, bulky and expensive. Most British AFVs carried a .303in machine gun between the wars and the gun served mainly as a co-axial gun on cruiser and heavy tanks and as the main armament of many light tanks and armoured cars. They were eventually replaced by the 7.92mm Besa guns.'

DATA (Mark 7)
Calibre 7.7mm 0.303 in
Length 1100mm 43.3 in
Barrel Length 790mm 31.1 in
Weight 21.4 kg 47.2l lb
M.V. 744 m/s 2440 ft/sec
Rate of Fire 45-500 rpm
Type of Feed 250 round fabric belt

ianrs54
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Birkenhead
Contact:

Re: Water Cooled Vickers MG in "Light" role

Post by ianrs54 » Sat Jun 08, 2019 7:46 am

I have a major problem with the description of a vickers as "light". :)
Any thing bigger than 6 is TOO BIG

Richard B.
Posts: 574
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:54 am

Re: Water Cooled Vickers MG in "Light" role

Post by Richard B. » Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:22 am

I`d seen Vickers with pistol grip and shoulder stock mounted on LRDG type patrol trucks, but these were always pintel mounts, never seen one with a bi-pod before :o

"light" - yeh right........... :lol: :lol: :lol:
"“Sir with the compliments of my officer, your shooting was excellent – you killed four of our men”!
Un-named Traillieur to an artillery officer at R`Fakah, Morocco, Feb. 29th, 1908

dadlamassu
Posts: 207
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:13 am
Location: Bonnie Scotland
Contact:

Re: Water Cooled Vickers MG in "Light" role

Post by dadlamassu » Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:40 am

ianrs54 wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 7:46 am
I have a major problem with the description of a vickers as "light". :)
Of course - that is why it is in quote marks. :lol: I suspect the weapon was removed from or part of the equipment of the armoured car.

ianrs54
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Birkenhead
Contact:

Re: Water Cooled Vickers MG in "Light" role

Post by ianrs54 » Sat Jun 08, 2019 11:34 am

Looks like the hull gun is missing from vehicle in the background, so you could well be right.

IanS
Any thing bigger than 6 is TOO BIG

dadlamassu
Posts: 207
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:13 am
Location: Bonnie Scotland
Contact:

Re: Water Cooled Vickers MG in "Light" role

Post by dadlamassu » Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:37 pm

Spoke to a WW2 veteran at our Veterans Brunch today who happened to be from 2/A&SH he said they had "quite a few" Lanchesters and his granddaughter pointed me to this website (Smart phones are more useful than I thought)

http://overlord-wot.blogspot.com/2017/1 ... sters.html

He was wounded and evacuated before Singapore fell.

bannockburn bhoy
Posts: 425
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:07 am
Location: Glasgow

Re: Water Cooled Vickers MG in "Light" role

Post by bannockburn bhoy » Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:02 pm

Can you imagine firing that on a bipod .
Theres a Lanchester in a museum in Hong Kong ...at least there was before we handed HK back.

There has been a great deal of criticism of British High Command over Singapore and indeed of the officers commanding on the ground in particular Lt Gen Percival.
Nearly 140,00 Allied troops 130,000 of which went into captivity, defeated by 65,000 Japanese. The greater part of those that went into the bag were Indian troops ,half of which ,allegedly joined the Japanese Burma Army.
Anyone got any thoughts on where it went wrong was Percival rightly blamed .

dadlamassu
Posts: 207
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:13 am
Location: Bonnie Scotland
Contact:

Re: Water Cooled Vickers MG in "Light" role

Post by dadlamassu » Sat Jun 08, 2019 8:38 pm

An article in UK DEfence Journal gives a point of view https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-fal ... tastrophe/

Another perspective https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/fall- ... -campaign/

There are many more

David Reasoner
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:18 am

Re: Water Cooled Vickers MG in "Light" role

Post by David Reasoner » Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:11 pm

Found a scanned copy online of the applicable training manual (1936 edition) for the Vickers tank/AFV machine gun. Use of the bipod field mounting and the shoulder piece is covered on page 23 of the manual. These were accessories to permit the dismounting of vehicle machine guns for field use when the situation required it.

https://vickersmg.files.wordpress.com/2 ... -04-36.pdf

David

Richard B.
Posts: 574
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:54 am

Re: Water Cooled Vickers MG in "Light" role

Post by Richard B. » Sun Jun 09, 2019 9:36 am

bannockburn bhoy wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:02 pm
Can you imagine firing that on a bipod .
Theres a Lanchester in a museum in Hong Kong ...at least there was before we handed HK back.

There has been a great deal of criticism of British High Command over Singapore and indeed of the officers commanding on the ground in particular Lt Gen Percival.
Nearly 140,00 Allied troops 130,000 of which went into captivity, defeated by 65,000 Japanese. The greater part of those that went into the bag were Indian troops ,half of which ,allegedly joined the Japanese Burma Army.
Anyone got any thoughts on where it went wrong was Percival rightly blamed .
Percival seems to have totally given up all hope.

I fully accept most of the defences faced the sea, and a land based attack wasn`t expected (before the war obviously). But freshly landed Aussies and Indians virtually walked into captivity without firing a shot - quite bizarre??
"“Sir with the compliments of my officer, your shooting was excellent – you killed four of our men”!
Un-named Traillieur to an artillery officer at R`Fakah, Morocco, Feb. 29th, 1908

Post Reply