Talk:Lewis gun

}}

Untitled
The article mentions a nine-yard belt, but then goes on to describe two drums as the feed devices. Which is correct? Chris Thompson

Was it used by the Home Guard as per Dad's Army? Rich Farmbrough 08:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not in great numbers - there were not enough. I believe they armed some aircraft in the early part of the war and considerable numbers of ships throughout 217.81.56.150 16:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think Home Guard use depends on just when you look. Early on, they were using US-calibre weapons: .30-06 rather than .303 The way my grandfather told the story, the only Lewis gun he saw while in the Home Guard was set up for AA defence at a searchlight.Zhochaka 10:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What are the sources for this information? There's only one and it's hard to believe all that information came from that one source, and even so, it's not exactly a scholarly source.

Image:12th Royal Scots Lewis gun 04-01-1918.jpg has a clear side-view of the gun, if anyone wants another image. Shimgray | talk | 18:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've made a couple of minor edits, such as changing "It could fire 550 .303 rounds per minute" to It had a cyclic rate of approximately 550 rounds per minute.

Star Wars
In the Star Wars movies, Imperial troops were armed with weapons based on the Lewis gun design, not actually the Lewis gun. I ain't never seen a Lewis Gun that could shoot lasers :-\ --Jquarry 05:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Like Han Solo's pistol? What was used on the set could easily have been as real a Lewis gun as you'd see in any movie: it looked real enough on film. But from the fictional POV of course they're not Lewis guns. Zhochaka 10:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What Han Solo had looked like an M1896 Mauser pistol with a telescopic sight. The Imperial Storm troopers carried what looked like MG42's or M-60's. Probably MG-42 replicas; so all the guns, and the Imperial troops, looked like Nazis. How anyone can mistake Lewis guns for these, or pistols, is beyond me.68.231.189.108 (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Lucas used a lot of old war movie props, (including both the Lewis Gun and MG-42), which he obtained cheaply for his films. The Lewis Gun's cooling shroud is unmistakable in a number of instances in Episode IV.-137.244.215.56 (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

In the view of the Janes Information Goup, the Lewis Gun is Belgian/British. No doubt the designer was American, but only prototypes were produced in America. The Benet-Mercie machien gun was also designed by an American but produced in France, as was the 1874 Hotchkiss Revolving Cannon, but this website describes them as French weapons. Had Belgium not been invaded, it is likely that mass production would have started there, but as it happens, the first mass produced guns were completed in Britain and used by the British Army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.187.100 (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The Imperial Storm Troopers carry Sterling SMGs - the standard British Army SMG at the time of filming. Notreallydavid (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Usage in WW1 tanks
The page states that the Lewis Gun was briefly used in tanks, until a better magazine system on the Hotchkiss machine gun caused that gun to be used instead. The link that is used in the article goes to the Hotchkiss M1909 Benet-Mercie machine gun - surely it should be the much heavier Hotchkiss M1914 machine gun instead. Can somebody confirm? Singe onion (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's the light Hotchkiss. WWI tanks, even the females, carried a number of LMGs and they were carried in little more than a swivelling loophole.
 * MG provision for the tanks was very poor: although MGs were one thing that WWI was infamously well supplied with, their provision for British tanks was never both well chosen and well supplied. Magazine feed was unwieldy, these simple mounts were tiring to use (often poorly placed too, so that gunners were at an awkward stretch upwards in order to depress their guns) and no thought was given to fume extraction. Devil's Chariots is probably the best starter read on this issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

General Purpose Machine Gun?
Should this weapon be considered a general purpose machine gun? I know that it was used in many different roles (such as SAW, aircraft weapon, and anti-aircraft weapon). MCTales (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-write and Overhaul
As part of the WikiProject Military history/World War I task force/Centenary drive, I'm embarking on an extensive re-write, copyedit, and reference addition effort on this article. There's a lot of work to do, so it's going to take some time, but I'd be glad for any help that can be offered, especially in regards to formatting and MoS issues- my strength is the information in the article itself, rather than the formatting stuff.... Commander Zulu (talk) 05:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Open Bolt?
I was redirected here from "open bolt guns." Lewis' are definitely Not "open bolt". The article does not mention they were closed-bolt. Also, it should mention the low recoil and ease of handling of this gun, with minimal stoppage and an automatic gas regulator; very advanced for its time.68.231.189.108 (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Emu War
Just thought I'd point out that the Lewis gun saw service in the emu war in Western Australia. Their effectiveness at a crucial point was called into question when the guns jammed during an ambush. Fortunately though, Major Meredith, the commanding officer reported no casualties from this lapse in performance.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

What was the caliber of the Belgian-issue Lewis gun?
The standard round of the Belgian Army at the time was 7.65×53mm Mauser, but that's not listed in the article as one of the rounds the Lewis gun has been chambered in. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 06:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Fusil-mitraileur 'Lewis' Mle 1924
I've redirected Lewis automatic rifle here because that name is overwhelmingly used in sources to mean the original Lewis gun. However, that page had an interesting link to a German book describing a "Fusil-mitraileur 'Lewis' Mle 1924". It appears it was a French modification of the Lewis gun built under license at St. Denis, chambered in 8mm x 50R Lebel and/or in 6.5mm x 55 Mauser. (Based on Machine guns, World War II fact files by Peter Chamberlain, Terry Gander Arco Pub. Co., 1974, ISBN 0668036087, pp. 44-45 it was definitely a Lewis gun derivative. Also, the Germans gave it the captured arms number 107(f), which being below the 115(f) number given to the actual FM 24 suggests it was an older gun.) More details on the French builds of the Lewis guns would be interesting, but they don't seem available in the English literature. A discussion can be found at forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?209355-Lewis-automatic-rifle. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

First Use and "Belgian Rattlesnake"
Lewis and his factory moved to England before 1914, away from possible seizure in the event of a German invasion. The Belgian Army acquired only a handful of his guns, probably only just in double figures. They were not on general issue in the Belgian Army. They were used only in a few forays by motor vehicles, south of Antwerp, against the flank of the invading German Army.

Without going into why it is barely credible that such a nickname would be given to this weapon in the first place, let us just say that attempts to find a contemporary German source are not known to have been successful. This has all the familiar hallmarks of a writer making up a fearsome nickname for dramatic effect, as in the "Ladies from Hell" case. The earliest reference to the Belgian Rattlesnake appears to date from the 1970s. I hope my edit both reflects the situation and observes the requirements of Wikipedia. Hengistmate (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Gun"
IMO, the article should be entitled Lewis gun (compare Vickers and Sten guns). I'd like to move the page, but WP:MILTERMS recommends seeking consensus first. All the best,  Mini  apolis  17:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Adopted/perfected. Edit October 9, 2016.
"Following precise wording of source unnecessary - original word in this context more relevant."

I don't understand the objection to the word that precisely describes what happened, which is that the gun was perfected in Britain. Wikipedia's remit is to accurately reflect what reliable sources say. "Adopted", with no further qualification, is not more relevant, since it implies that the gun was accepted without modification. It wasn't. It was perfected and then mass produced.

"It is thus a recorded fact that the Lewis gun was perfected in Europe, not the United States." The Belgian Rattlesnake; The Lewis Automatic Machine Gun, William M. Easterly, Collector Grade Publications, 1998, p71.

It may be relevant to say "adopted", but why is it "more relevant"? To include this word at the expense of "perfected" is a distortion of the historical facts. I can't detect any obviously partisan reason for this unwarranted insistence. What is, then, the reason for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.156.181 (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lewis gun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090807035340/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_3_46/ai_59281217/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_3_46/ai_59281217

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lewis gun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161220090154/http://www.marlinforum.com/images/8/8/3/1108a-633536159139359986-6.jpg to http://www.marlinforum.com/images/8/8/3/1108a-633536159139359986-6.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227162331/http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg66-e.htm to http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg66-e.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The Lewis and the Belgian Army
"In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence." — Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95. There is no mention of the Lewis in the Handbook of the Belgian Army, nor in the WWI Sourcebook, nor in any of the books that Pierre Lierneux has published or edited, nor in the Militaria series of magazines published by Histoire & Collections. There is evidence of the pre-1918 Belgian Army using or trialling the Maxim 1910, tne Madsen, the Hotchkiss M1909, the Berliet, the Colt, and even the Schwarzlose, but no Lewis. Since the subject is small enough to allow in-depth scrutiny, one can reasonably expect that the Lewis would have shown up at some point, but it hasn't. It's worth pointing out the minor paradox that the country in which the Lewis was created did not issue it to its own army. If you can demonstrate otherwise, I'll be happy to amend the article. Hengistmate (talk) 12:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Page 11 : "Five of the original prototypes (chambered for the 7.65×53mm Belgian cartridge) were supplied to the Belgian government the day after war broke out, followed by another 15 prototype guns in .303 British, and by 15 August they were being used by the Belgian forces defending Namur."--Le Petit Chat (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Page 11 : "Five of the original prototypes (chambered for the 7.65×53mm Belgian cartridge) were supplied to the Belgian government the day after war broke out, followed by another 15 prototype guns in .303 British, and by 15 August they were being used by the Belgian forces defending Namur."--Le Petit Chat (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

"Die Klapperschlange"
I deleted the sentence which claims that the Germans in WW1 used to call the Lewis gun "rattlesnake".

I am German and I have never read any German WW1-reports where this gun is called "Klapperschlange", the translation of rattlesnake, although I have read many reports where the Lewis gun was mentioned. Ernst Jünger mentions the Lewis gun many times in his war diaries, but never as anything else but "Lewis gun".

It is also logical that they didn't call this gun Klapperschlange, because in 1914 the average German didn't even know what a rattlesnake was.

There are no rattlesnakes in Germany.

Maybe someone read about rattlesnakes in some book, yet he most likely never saw a rattlesnake in motion or heard it rattle. This is so obviously one of the many just-so stories of WW1.
 * That is what | the source says. Loafiewa (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The source is some American who wrote an article for "Guns Magazine". This is not really high standard historical research.

I gave two reasons why this is nothing but an american just-so story: 1) There is no German source for this 2) there is no reason why any German soldier would have called it "belgische Klapperschlange"

I call on you to delete it, UNLESS anybody finds a German source for it. You know: a German source for what Germans allegedly said, not some american gun nut-magazine writer. Or someone can at least explain why Germans in 1914-1918 should have called it "Klapperschlange" when nobody of them could have known what a "Klapperschlange" was. 2003:D1:B70A:EC01:38AF:E766:3ADB:5D80 (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've put a second source in there, so it's not just a "gun nut-magazine" that's making the claim. I don't speak German, so I wouldn't be able to find any German sources for it, but there's nothing that says if a piece of information is about a specific country, you're only allowed to source it to works from that country. Loafiewa (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)



Ok, you made the decision to keep something in the article which is a ludicrous and totally unfounded claim, even though I gave you good reasons why it shouldn't be included. The problem is that it is very difficult to proof that something "isn't". Where can I get a source for the non-existence of something?

If German soldiers would have called it "rattlesnake"; it would be in memoirs like "Storms Of Steel" by Ernst Jünger, novelizations like "All Quiet On The Western Front", German WW1-movies like "Die Somme" from 1930 or "Stoßtrupp 1917" from 1934, tactical treatises like "Infantry Attacks" by Erwin Rommel, reports, or German books about military history. But it's not there.

And "Not there" is not a source. Yet, Wikipedia should be critical about the informations provided in their articles.

So I can only appeal to your judgement. 1) The author of this book does make the claim that Germans called it "Belgian Rattlesnake", but does not provide any source for it.

2) The Author also states:

''During the war, around 145,000 Lewis guns were produced, compared with just under 74,000 Vickers guns, making it by far the most numerous machine gun  in  British  service''

...When the Wikipedia-article has an entirely different number for the Lewis Gun-production: 50,000. So who makes the decision which numbers to take? Apparently you can't take everything in that book at face value.

Last point: 3) Here is another quote from Neil Grant: Third, and perhaps most importantly, it was the only Allied machine gun to have registered sufficiently with the German soldiers for them to give it a nickname, the ‘Belgian Rattlesnake’,  which  does  imply  that  they  saw  it  as  a  more  significant threat than other weapons they faced.

As a German in 2021 I can assure you: "Belgische Klapperschlange" does not sound threatening. It sounds odd. We only know "rattlesnakes" from Western movies made long after WW1 was over and "threat" is not associated with it.

It is simply a ludicrous claim.

The most likely version is that the americans called it "rattlesnake". Then it got retold several times, until it became the current version. But I am at the end now. I can't proof that nobody ever said something. 2003:D1:B70A:EC01:38AF:E766:3ADB:5D80 (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a nickname, an unofficial name that not everyone will use. Correspondingly, in A Rumor of War, the author refers to the M60 several times, but never calls it 'The Pig', and in A Moment of War, they refer to a Maxim gun, which they never call The Devil's Paintbrush, whereas I found in With the Old Breed they said both Thompson and Tommy Gun. As for the production disparity, that appears to be an example of WP:SYNTH, The World's Greatest Machine Guns does mention that Lewis guns were produced in a 3:1 ratio compared to the Vickers, but does not say they made 50,000 of them, no specific WW1 production figure is given. Loafiewa (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

You will find that this point was made in 2013. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lewis_gun#First_Use_and_%22Belgian_Rattlesnake%22 The idea is ludicrous but verifiable, as with many things in Wikipedia. See George S. Patton and the Battle of Cambrai. Hengistmate (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)