If it operates without any mechanical issues it's about as dangerous as any other machine gun. The lethality of firearms hasn't really changed in 100 years. Small lead pebble moving quickly hits soft target; does damage.
[...]
I know this is gay bait but in case any tourists stumble across this post, both sides have been using PM1910s because they eat easily accessible ammo, are sturdy as frick, nobody cares if you lose it or break it, and there are tens of thousands sitting in warehouses. It'd be dumber not to use them for emplacements if you're only expecting to go up against infantry.
I know this is gay bait but in case any tourists stumble across this post, both sides have been using PM1910s because they eat easily accessible ammo, are sturdy as frick, nobody cares if you lose it or break it, and there are tens of thousands sitting in warehouses. It'd be dumber not to use them for emplacements if you're only expecting to go up against infantry.
Idk how effective would a tripod pkp, be that doesn't need to be cooled off every 400 rounds? >the answer is more effective than a pkp that does need to be cooled off every 400 rounds.
Effective enough to completely turn warfare on its head. Armies went into WWI with a TEMPO TEMPO TEMPO mindset but were forced to stop by first machine guns and then indirect fire artillery. The Maxim is perfectly fine as an emplaced weapon to this day. The main improvement we've made over it in the last 130 years is reducing the weight.
We encountered an unfortunate engineering limitation wherein you can't actually make a giant reservoir of water weigh less than a giant reservoir of water. Being a water-cooled machinegun this is an intractable structural limitation of the Maxim. It can fire for days but it's intended for use in a fixed position.
It's weighs about as much as a modern HMG while only having the effective range of a MMG/GPMG. If you're in a situation where those aren't an issue though, it'll run like an engine so long as you feed it fuel (ammo) and coolant.
does anybody have access to this article in the economist?
https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2022/05/11/why-ukraines-army-still-uses-a-100-year-old-machinegun
Good. Very good sustained fire with a wide beaten zone. If it has enough food and water it can shoot all day and the beaten zone just widens as rifling disappears.
id say its effective within its role as an HMG
heavy and with low rate of fire, it pintle does not have a wide range of adjustment
just dont be in a hurry to move about that's all
that machine gun in the pic and what both ukrainians and russian mobiks use is not the "first" machine gun, these are all a much later ww1 variant of that
Let's just say it's not prone to mechanical failure.
>https://vickersmg.blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/20190416-1millionrounds-postprint.pdf
Vickers might have been based on Maxims but they are not a Maxim.
isn't it just an upside down maxim with a muzzle booster?
why is the text on the sign blurred out?
If it operates without any mechanical issues it's about as dangerous as any other machine gun. The lethality of firearms hasn't really changed in 100 years. Small lead pebble moving quickly hits soft target; does damage.
thanks for interesting posts anons
I know this is gay bait but in case any tourists stumble across this post, both sides have been using PM1910s because they eat easily accessible ammo, are sturdy as frick, nobody cares if you lose it or break it, and there are tens of thousands sitting in warehouses. It'd be dumber not to use them for emplacements if you're only expecting to go up against infantry.
Idk how effective would a tripod pkp, be that doesn't need to be cooled off every 400 rounds?
>the answer is more effective than a pkp that does need to be cooled off every 400 rounds.
This, for a stationary gun position a watercooled gun has few drawbacks and big advantages as long as you have water and ammo.
Effective enough to completely turn warfare on its head. Armies went into WWI with a TEMPO TEMPO TEMPO mindset but were forced to stop by first machine guns and then indirect fire artillery. The Maxim is perfectly fine as an emplaced weapon to this day. The main improvement we've made over it in the last 130 years is reducing the weight.
Why not make it man-portable?
the weapons that replaced it are
it can't really be beat in its intended role as a stationary weapon though
Good news...
Shame that arrived too late to catch on with other countries.
that's still gotta be mad heavy with the water jacket
i still want one. local war museum better watch out
We encountered an unfortunate engineering limitation wherein you can't actually make a giant reservoir of water weigh less than a giant reservoir of water. Being a water-cooled machinegun this is an intractable structural limitation of the Maxim. It can fire for days but it's intended for use in a fixed position.
It's weighs about as much as a modern HMG while only having the effective range of a MMG/GPMG. If you're in a situation where those aren't an issue though, it'll run like an engine so long as you feed it fuel (ammo) and coolant.
not very. humans have evolved since then so the bullets just bounce off.
does anybody have access to this article in the economist?
https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2022/05/11/why-ukraines-army-still-uses-a-100-year-old-machinegun
if its in 7.62x54r and they have ammo for it why not use it, its also impossible to overheat the barrel if you have a steady water supply
In static positions, they're fine.
If you're in an entrenched position and have no intention of leaving anytime soon, it'll chop down motherfrickers like nobody's business.
Good. Very good sustained fire with a wide beaten zone. If it has enough food and water it can shoot all day and the beaten zone just widens as rifling disappears.
does it fire smokeless powder ammo?
Yes. The very first prototypes were black powder but they didn't work too good. All production Maxims were smokeless guns.
7.62x54r, homie
>They're literally using water cooled machineguns in the Ukraine AT THIS VERY MOMENT
God why is every conflict in the East so absurd.
M2 is 100 year old too, if it werks, it werks. The main question is does the maxim werk?
It'll kill men just as well as it had 100 years ago. I would imagine the slow firerate and weight might make it pretty good for static defenses.
>how effective
Considering it completely changed the paradigm of warfare and made horse calvary obsolete I'd say pretty fricking effective.
id say its effective within its role as an HMG
heavy and with low rate of fire, it pintle does not have a wide range of adjustment
just dont be in a hurry to move about that's all
that machine gun in the pic and what both ukrainians and russian mobiks use is not the "first" machine gun, these are all a much later ww1 variant of that