No publication will be noticed under this head, unless a copy to be deposited in the library of the Institute is sent to the Corresponding Secretary, at Annapolis, Md. All reviews must be signed by the writer.
The Nordenfelt Machine Guns (Palmcrantz's System). Journal of the Royal United Service Institution, No. CVIII.
In these days of many men of many arms, when—as a rule—no inventor thinks any other arm is in any way to be compared with his own, it is quite remarkable to find any machine gun authorities agreeing in a comparison, even in a general sort of way.
In a pamphlet on the Gatling gun, published in 1874, it is stated that "The same class of men who doubted that the railway would ever take the place of the stage coach, . . . . .; the spinning jenny of the time honored spinning wheel, . . . . ., may dogmatically decide in the negative" anent the necessity of using machine guns; and last June (1880), Mr. Nordenfelt in a paper read before the Royal 'United Service Institution stated that "Machine guns are to the art of war what Arkwright's spinning jenny was to weaving". When we come to inquire which one of the machine guns most nearly answers to this description, we are met by so many very different and equally emphatic assertions, both as to points of comparison and as to what constitutes excellence, that we are in self-defense forced to accept the dicta of someone authority, or form our opinions in accordance with procurable evidence. This last is found to be almost impossible because the best evidences, official reports of both service and proving ground tests and trials, seem to vary with an, as yet, undetermined function of the longitude of the place of such tests and trials. If, however, we accept Mr. Nordenfelt as such an authority, it would appear from his paper that the Palmcrantz system of machine guns is better adapted to fulfil the requirements than either the Gatling or the Gardener. But in regard to this it may be well to consider some of the points presented.
We learn that the "supposed difficulty of supplying ammunition for a machine gun in the field is not great—always granting that the gun uses the same ammunition as the rifle; because, the total ammunition fired from the machine gun would probably not exceed what would have to be fired by the corresponding number of rifles before the same object were gained".
Evidently the "corresponding number of rifles" does not mean the number corresponding to that of the barrels of the machine gun; for, if a Nordenfelt five barreled gun could not, under favorable circumstances, gain a greater object than five riflemen, there would be no earthly excuse for its existence; the meaning would seem to be that the amount of ammunition used, by a machine gun on the Palmcrantz system, to gain a certain object would probably equal that used by rifles to attain the same object, and could be just as readily supplied; so that if the machine gun fired—as it should to be efficient—as fast as one hundred riflemen, who march loaded down with cartridges, it could be readily supplied by one hundred men carrying ammunition; but it is difficult to understand just where these hundred men are to come from when we are told that "six or eight men" constitute a gun's crew; nor is it plain how ammunition, ready for firing, can be more easily transported in the bulky and heavy Nordenfelt magazines than in the light, compact, cartridge-factory pasteboard packages for use with the Gardener and with the Gatling when the feeder is employed.
"I hope", says Mr. Nordenfelt, "that Dr. Gatling will excuse my saying that his revolving gun with movable breech supports, is tied down to the first part of my second basis of division, viz., that his gun can only fire rifle [musket calibre] ammunition with advantage". The application of this remark is not quite clear in face of the fact that for more than a decade Gatlings of 1" calibre have been in use, in many parts of the world, have fired their projectiles with more or less "advantage", and have never, it is believed, killed any one standing in rear of them. Nor is it easy to understand why the breech supports of the Gatling are more movable than those of the Nordenfelt; for if by "breech supports" the action block and breech pins are meant, they must be movable as are the Gatling locks, in order to allow the chambers to be loaded. Mr. Nordenfelt himself says "when the block [the action block] is moved forward, these [the breech pins] push forward the cartridges etc,"—just as do the Gatling locks; but, at the moment of firing, the Gatling system receives the shocks of the successive explosions upon the solid recoil piece fixed upon the immovable cam, while the Palmcrantz takes up the recoil of a whole volley upon the action block which "is moved forwards and backwards by the action of the firing handle."
It is curious to note that Mr. Nordenfelt's remark, "The Hotchkiss gun is a development of the Gatling idea," is almost an ,exact expression of Dr. Gatling's opinion, were we to substitute Nordenfelt for "Hotchkiss" and an arrested for the indefinite article; and indeed, if one compares the plan of the Palmcrantz system with that of the Gatling, developed upon a plane, as shown in a Gatling Gun publication -of 1874—the date of the appearance of the Palmcrantz system—it is not very difficult to understand upon what the Doctor bases his impression, an impression it may be mentioned in passing, quite different from that of in American naval officer, who, being asked upon the appearance of the Palmcrantz what it was like, said, "Why, it's just the old Requa battery, that Gilmore used at Charleston, a dozen years ago, with a slightly improved feed."
When Mr. Nordenfelt said "I would, however, hardly class the Gardener gun with machine guns, because the single barreled gun Mr. Gardener himself especially recommends is rather a clever repeating rifle, while it at the same time requires the full service of men and equipment of a machine gun," he was probably not aware that at the time he spoke, the Gardener system was being applied to four and five barreled guns, or that the system was particularly applicable to two barreled weapons, which, with less than half the number of barrels and with a corresponding decrease in weight have equaled what Mr. Nordenfelt calls the "tremendous rapidity" of fire of his light five barreled gun, viz., five hundred rounds per minute. He was, however, quite correct in stating that this "clever [double barreled] repeating rifle" would require the full service of men and equipment of a machine gun; but it is not clear why this should be considered an objection to the aim as compared with the Nordenfelt, since "the full service of men and equipment" can with equal ease transport ready for firing at least twice as much ammunition in the Gardener packages as in the Nordenfelt magazines.
We notice in regard to the working of the Palmcrantz that "one single gunner can fire without any assistance, with his right hand rapidly, an entire hopper full of cartridges, while his left hand is free to attend to the elevating and traversing gear," and that "with the comparatively slow movement of the mechanism no jams nor hitches are likely to be caused by the mechanism." The first of these considerations would seem to be of questionable desirability, since the average man has sufficient occupation in either pointing or firing; and since, unless the mount be very awkward, the man who fires cannot get his eye down to the line of the sights while iii position to exert his full power on the firing lever or crank—but both points are common to all machine guns of any prominence.
By the "regulator" for the Gatling, Mr. Nordenfelt evidently means the adjusting nut; but that the use of it "requires great judgment on the part of the gunner" is not, in the light of experience in our Service so evident. The writer once assisted in firing sixty four thousand cartridges, in a single day, from an old model Gatling—which was not regulated or wiped out during the trial—but failed to note that the regulator gave trouble: with the rear adjusting nut that has been in use some years, it is hard to conceive what the "trouble" Mr. Nordenfelt speaks of could possibly be.
We can understand Mr. Nordenfelt's arguments in favor of the use of mitrailleuses—by which term he designates musket calibre machine guns in general—because we have been accustomed to hear them from machine gun admirers for the last fifteen years; but when he illustrates the superiority of his particular gun, the light five barreled Nordenfelt, by saying that it fires "about five hundred rounds per minute, or, for spurts of one hundred shots at a time, at the rate of nearly eight hundred shots per minute", we are again hopelessly adrift as to the point of supremacy; for the two barreled Gardener, as made in the United States, is fired with equal rapidity, while the light navy Gatling fires fully one thousand 'rounds per minute, or, for spurts of forty shots at a time at the rate of fully twenty four hundred shots per minute.
The following table shows the comparative weights and rapidities of five of the Nordenfelt and Gatling systems according to figures furnished by Mr. Nordenfelt, and from United States Official sources.
10 Barreled Guns.
System | Weight | Rapidity |
Nordenfelt | 280 pounds. | 110 rounds in 5 sec. |
5 Barreled Guns
System | Weight | Rapidity |
Nordenfelt | 110 to 135 pounds | 70 rounds in 5 seconds |
The short ten barreled navy Gaffing fires more rapidly than either of the army guns above mentioned ; the model was determined upon as that which would give the best results for general use aloft, on deck, or ashore, and is apparently fitted for all the kinds of work that Mr. Nordenfelt assigns to both his light five barreled and heavy ten barreled musket calibre guns for naval uses.
Mr. Nordenfelt assumes that 1" solid shot are the proper projectiles for anti-torpedo boat guns in opposition to the generally received opinion which seems to favor 1."5 calibre shells; but we can readily follow his reasoning upon the point in question, and when he says, after clearly giving the probable conditions under which the guns would be needed, "it is the volley, with the slight spreading caused by the vibration of the weapon, which gives me the best chance of bitting," it is clear that he is right—provided that we are considering the chance of a single shot to a volley. But if we are considering the chances of making a hit in a given time during which a certain number of rounds can be fired, and at all instants of which the chances are equal that adverse circumstances shall render futile any single attempt, the volley fire does not seem to have all the advantages over the continuous; and, indeed, it would even seem that the supremacy of the four barreled 1" calibre, solid projectile throwing Nordenfelt gun could be granted only on the hypothesis that among the varying conditions of practice at sea, which Mr. Nordenfelt so clearly describes, the Palmcrantz system shall always be fired at the right instant, while the revolving system gun shall be fired at the wrong time, three times out of four. This as regards the 1" calibre solid projectile guns; but if we compare the chances of bitting when the revolving system gun throws 1."5 calibre shells, even if we limit the number of shell fragments to four, the superiority of the volley fire would seem to disappear when considering only a single instant and single attempt; and therefore we can easily understand how in the United States, in France, in Germany, in Denmark, and in many other countries, there might be held the theory that the 1".5 Hotchkiss was a better anti-torpedo boat gun than the 1" Nordenfelt; a theory that is proved to be all wrong by the reports of official trials off Portsmouth last year, published by Mr. Nordenfelt, and all right by the reports of official trials in the Helder the year before, published by Mr. Hotchkiss. The following extracts from these reports will illustrate the general way in which longitude, as stated above, affects the action of machine guns.
Results of firing against Torpedo-boat Models at Sea during a Single Run. Guns in both cases mounted side by side and worked for the same time and under exactly identical circumstances.
Gun | When | Where | Shots | Hits |
Nordenfelt | 1880 | Off Portsmouth | 118 | 62 |
Hotchkiss | 1879 | The Helder | 132 | 54 |
If by repeated trials Mr. Nordenfelt proves that 1" calibre solid shot are the proper projectiles for anti-torpedo boat guns, the Gatling Gun Co. will probably begin to manufacture its 4 barreled 1" caliber solid steel projectile gun of three and a half hundred weight, designed some half dozen years age but never manufactured because the demand for guns using such projectiles did not warrant the expense of change of model and plant.
The lack of detail in Mr. Nordenfelt's mention of his 1.5" caliber single barreled gun makes it difficult for one not familiar with its merits to understand in what way it is superior to the service 1.45" Hotchkiss or the single barreled Gaffing of that calibre.
Having followed Mr. Nordenfelt thus far, it may be well to notice the points of superiority claimed for other systems of machine guns. Admirers of the Gatling system claim that for musket calibre guns, it is superior to the Palmcrantz in that it furnishes greater rapidity of fire; is lighter; less awkward in shape for work in tops, boats, and other confined spaces; protects its mechanism better; is more enduring; furnishes continuity of fire at such a rate that all the good effects of a volley may be attained without undue recoil; allows the piece to be kept constantly bearing on the object while the fire is constant for an appreciable time, even in spurts; uses ammunition from a neat feed case, easily handled aloft and in confined spaces, or from cartridge factory packages.
The supporters of the American Gardener system claim that it is superior to the Palmcrantz in furnishing double the rapidity of fire per barrel; in giving a continuous fire; in being neater, lighter, and better protected in its mechanism; in being more enduring, since it is not strained by volleys; and in not requiring its ammunition to be stowed in magazines, in order to have it ready for firing.
The service Hotchkiss among other claims for superiority over the 1" calibre Palmcrantz has the following: continuity of fire; greater ease of pointing, and consequent greater chance of hitting, other things being equal; capability of being kept bearing on a swiftly moving object and not being thrown off by volley firing; greater safety to gun's crew, and more practical mount; while in general, in the words of a Danish officer who reported on a competitive trial to the Minister of Marine, "The Palmcrantz gun was proved by the trials to be in action far inferior to the Hotchkiss revolving cannon."
But if Mr. Nordenfelt was so confident of the supremacy of the Palmcrantz system last June, how much more so must he be now, since it has so cleverly won nearly all the laurels of last winter's trials at Shoeburyness ; trials which really ought to teach something as they were made without the use of the wrapped metal cartridge. Under the circumstances it is natural that he should exclaim, "I cannot speak too highly of the trials in England"; while it is perhaps not unnatural that Dr. Gatling with his gun, possibly feeling the malign influence of the longitude, should remark, "From information I have obtained, I judge that the late trials of the machine guns at Shoeburyness were poorly conducted and that great injustice was done the Gatling gun."
The official reports of these trials must be very favorable to Mr. Nordenfelt's guns, but whatever they are to be, it seems that they will not decide the adoption of any particular system in England, for already a new machine gun committee has been appointed to institute renewed trials.
From what little information the writer has been able to gather, it would seem to him that the Nordenfelt guns are very excellent weapons and that they are growing in excellence; as, for example, in the matter of the locking of the trigger comb, which will, it is thought, tend to prevent a repetition of the embarrassing and disagreeable occurrences, which took place on board H. M. Ships "Comus" and "Northampton." It does not appear, however, that they are in any respects superior to the machine guns adopted for use in our Navy. W. W. KIMBALL, Lieut. U. S. N.