Talk:Chauchat

message: 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)
replies: text: Well, it could be reworded as saying: "However, the Chauchat automatic rifle is also recognized today by a number of military and armaments analysts as one of the least reliable automatic weapons ever issued to armed services." One definitive source I can think of which features a military weapons expert's opinion on the Chauchat rifle is the television series Mail Call, whose host, GySgt R. Lee Ermey, once featured the rifle (And Ermey's views on it). Of course, that's just one Marine's opinion. Another source may be needed before this sentence can be put back in. 124.187.68.121 12:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note on Edit

message: 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)
replies: text: I fully agree. What's the point of comparing the Chauchat to the MP18, which was used in a completely different role? If anything it should be compared to the MG 08/15. Unless someone makes a good point I'm going to delete it. 84.152.107.181 15:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I smell someone's trying to make the gun look better than it actually was. Forerunner of the assault rifle concept? Yeah right.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.113.81 (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a bit of information that is fairly widely recognized. Just because it was an awful gun does not mean it was not innovative.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.2.254 (talk) 07:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chauchat is a light machinegun. Period. It uses a full-powered rifle round. It can't be fired from the shoulder while standing. It was never issued on a individual soldier level, like an issue rifle, but on section level, like light machinegun. Please tell me in which way it was a forerunner to the assault rifle concept, apart from the fact that it fires automatically (which many older light machineguns were capable of).84.152.117.218 14:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmmm, I must be some type of buff, Godlike super-being or something.  I can fire the ShowShit from the shoulder no problem.  The 30-06 version, never fired the French version.  You're mistaken.  It's an automatic rifle or squad automatic weapon.  It hardly fits the bill as an LMG. I'll have to say, even the kid-glove treated gun I fired was a POS by any standard. --Asams10 15:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that it can be done physically doesn't mean much. It's not designed to be fired that way and was pretty much fired exclusively from the bipod on all accounts that i have read and on every picture i have seen. Feel free to prove me otherwise, though. There's people that fire MG42s from the shoulder, does that make the MG42 a forerunner of the assault rifle concept? I can agree on automatic rifle. But an automatic rifle doesn't automatically make it a forerunner of the assault rifle. There are even older guns that share more features with the assault rifle than the Chauchat. Despite that, the section at discussion clearly is POV.84.152.117.218 20:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It'd be easier if you didn't put words in my mouth.  I never stated, nor do I feel, that the ShowShit is in any way, shape, form, or incarnation any semblance of an assault rifle. I merely stated it was simple and practical to fire from the shoulder.  That it happened is not in doubt.  That it happened often enough to be notable, I don't really care.  That it was more appropriately placed in the automatic rifle class is a surity.  An LMG should be capable of sustained fire.  The mere fact that the magazine capacity was limited precludes this.  As for it's parity with the BAR, they were roughly the same weight though the BAR was tremendously better balanced. The BAR was quite often fired from the shoulder and I can attest to that second-hand through stories a BAR gunner related to me. I've also seen film and read accounts of the same. Having fired both weapons, I can say the BAR is more comfortable to fire that way, but I wouldn't discount the French Feces Firearm completely in that respect. --Asams10 21:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did I put words in anybodys mouth? If you did actually care to read the discussion at hand, you'd see that the "forerunner of assault rifle"-line in the article is the exactly why I am here on the discussion board. If you don't care whether or not it was fired from the shoulder on a regular basis, that's your thing. For the discussion whether or not it can be described as a forerunner of the assault rifle, it is of importance. So far I have not seen anyone providing any sort of evidence that would make the Chauchat more of a forerunner of the assault rifle concept than any other man-portable, automatic firearm of the early 20th century, bar its select fire capability. From an engineering POV it shares about as many features with the assault rifle as a Hotchkiss LMG. When defining "assault rifle" from the user side it's even clearer, as the gun was never issued on a individual level but on a squad level.84.152.101.209 19:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Useless information?

message: If I remember correctly, the Republicans used it extensively during the Spanish Civil War.
Matt714 06:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spanish Civil War

message: 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 , ,  appear to confirm that it had a box magazine and was not belt-fed.--Andrew 18:05, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
:Among its many problems were the fact that it only accepted 20 round box magazines, which required reloading after only a few seconds of sustained fire, as compared to the Maxim gun used by virtually every other combatant in the war, which used a belt of 500 bullets (or more). The reason for the supremacy of the machine gun on the WWI battlefield was the ability to lay down a constant hail of bullets against the inevitable human wave attacks. Reloading constantly obviously undermined this tactical ability.
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)
replies: text: That's a pretty weird thing to say since Germany was already using the Madsen and had been since 1914. Bones Jones (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

text: How could you fire 20 rounds in a few seconds threw a gun with one of the world's slowest fire rate?Blamazon (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed text 

message: 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)
replies: text: The US expeditionary force seems to have actively avoided using them, but some reached the front lines every so often. Bones Jones (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

text: I think it was used a few times in combat, especially during the first days of that America spent in WW1. But I think they were mostly used for training during their service. That would also explain why there are few pictures of them being used during the Great War.Blamazon (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  .30-06 version 

message: Turn the photo 180 degrees, left to right, right to left. -- hmaag (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo at the top