admin | 
07 31st, 2009| 
THE BREECH-LOADING RIFLE
From 1857 breech-loading rifles began to appear experimentally in the British Army. These, the first military breechloaders since the Ferguson rifle, were in fact all carbines and were issued for trial to certain cavalry regiments. There were four different patterns: the Terry and the Westley Richards, which were of British design, and the Sharps And the Greene, which were American.
The Terry carbine was made by the firm of Callisher & Terry of Birmingham and 28 Norfolk Street, London. It was a new firm, for it was only established in 1855, and the mechanism invented by the junior partner was patented in 1856. It is of particular interest in that it introduced into the British Army the bolt action, which was later to become almost universal for non-automatic military rifles. The Terry bolt had a coned head which fitted into the correspondingly shaped rear end of the chamber. The bolt was opened by a hinged handle, fitted at its rear end, which was pulled, outwards to withdraw it. When the bolt was closed part of the handle filled up the loading aperture. The bolt was held in position by rear locking lugs (foreshadowing later British practice) which bore against shoulders on the standing breech.
The Terry was of the type known as a ‘capping breechloader’. That is to say, the cartridge used with it contained only the charge of powder and the bullet, the detonating mixture being contained in a separate percussion cap. The Terry cartridge was made of nitrated paper and had a wad of greased felt behind the powder charge and attached to the base. After the discharge of the cartridge this wad remained in the breech and the following round was loaded behind it. After the next shot it was thrust forward in front of the bullet, cleaning and greasing the barrel.
The Terry carbine was a very successful weapon. It was purchased extensively by the Confederacy during the American Civil war and was known as the ‘door bolt’ breech-loader. The famous Confederate cavalry leader General Jeb Stuart had one.
The American Sharps carbine was a much earlier design, having been invented by Christian Sharps in 1848. Its most noteworthy .feature was a ‘falling’ breech block. This opened vertically when actuated by a trigger guard, hinged to move forwards and downwards; but it also fell open when the carbine was held muzzle down. The cartridge case was made of treated linen; and the breech block had a sharp forward edge which, as the block was closed, sliced off the end of this case to expose the powder. The linen was consumed on the explosion of the charge. The first models had separate percussion caps, but the later ones, including those supplied to the British Government, were fitted with the Maynard tape primer, which was rather similar to the strip of caps made for toy pistols, and which was invented by an American dentist. (It almost seems as if Maynard was more interested in ammunition than he was in teeth, for in 1856 he patented a metallic cartridge with an expanding case.)
The Sharps carbine had an interesting, if somewhat disreputable, history in the years before the outbreak of the American Civil war. The admission of Kansas as a State of the Union was the occasion of a bitter struggle between those who wished to see slave labour introduced and those who were opposed to it. In Massachusetts the New England Emigrant Aid Company was formed to send settlers to Kansas who were opposed to slavery. Many of these were established in the Kansas town of Lawrence, and here armed clashes occurred with slave-state supporters from Missouri. Considerable damage was done in Lawrence both to the homes of the settlers and the public buildings. In revenge the famous, or infamous, John Brown (depending on one’s point of view), in company with a small body of settlers and four of his own sons, seized five of the principal advocates of the slavery movement and killed them. The New England Emigrant Aid Company had supplied the settlers with Sharps carbines-, and a further twenty-five were presented on behalf of the Congregational Church of Plymouth, Massachusetts, by its minister, the Reverend Henry Ward Beecher. From this latter source of supply the Sharps carbines acquired the colloquial name of `Beecher’s Bibles’.
In 1859 John Brown, in command of a motley detachment of eighteen men, including his sons, his brother-in-law and six negroes, seized the Federal Arsenal at Harper’s Ferry, Virginia. Armed with Beecher’s Bibles they then held off attacks by the local militia, until finally forced to surrender by Colonel Robert E. Lee in command of a small force of Marines. John Brown was hanged, but his name has been immortalized in a great Union song which has become one of the most rousing military marches of all time. The far greater man who captured him was to become the brilliant leader in the field of the forces which John Brown had opposed. In the meantime, amongst the relics of this episode is a Sharps ‘Beecher’s Bible’ carbine on which is engraved the name ‘John Brown Jr. .
The Greene, the other American carbine, had an entirely fixed breech and a barrel which rotated and moved forward for loading. The breech and the barrel’were locked’ together by lugs. The principle was not a new one, and the Greene does not seem to have been favourably received; for although 2000 were bought it appears that many were never issued.
The Westley Richards carbine was made by the famous-firm, the early history of which has already been given. As stated in Chapter X111, Westley Richards succeeded his father in 1855, and the name of the firm became Westley Richards & Company. Three years later he patented his capping breech-loader carbine. The mechanism of this, though rather complicated, was the most efficient of the four carbines. The breech was opened and closed by means of a long arm, the forward part of which was hinged to the rear of the barrel. When the breech was closed the rear end of the arm rested in a recess cut along the top of the small of the butt. Raising the arm vertically opened the breech. Attached to the under part of this arm was an elongated plunger, at the forward end of which was a brass breech plug. When closed, the rear end of the plunger butted against an iron shoe, which held it in position against the breech pressure. The plunger had a little free movement ‘fore and aft’ on the arm to ease the action of opening and closing. From its distinctive arm the Westley Richards acquire the nickname of ‘Monkey-Tail’. The cartridge was the same as that used with-the Terry carbine.
The Westley Richards was far the most successful of the four carbines under trial, and in 1861 it was approved as the firearm for the cavalry of the Army. Even when n the Snider was approved for all arms of the Regular Army, it was not entirely displaced; for it was issued to the Yeomanry and was the ‘Standard carbine of the second-line cavalry for many’ years. Abroad the Portuguese Government took a fancy to it and adopted it for use in the army.
Although the cavalry now had a breech-loading rifled firearm, the rest of the Army was equipped with the muzzle-loading Enfield, or (in the case of the Royal Engineers) Lancaster. Breech-loaders were, however, already a commonplace amongst sporting weapons, and it was clear that the muzzle-loader was obsolescent. Several foreign armies were now equipped or partially equipped with breech-loading rifles. Although the American Civil war had been mostly fought with muzzle-loaders, many units in the Union armies had been equipped with Sharps rifles, and several other makes were in use on both sides. On the continent of Europe the Prussian Army had adopted the bolt-action needle gun in 1848, and its superiority over the weapons of opposing armies was evident. in the wars against Denmark in 1864 and Austria in 1866.
In 1864, therefore, a Select Committee was appointed to consider the equipment of the whole Army with breech-loaders, and to study designs for this purpose. The Committee decided that the only practicable method of doing this quickly was to select a mechanism which would permit the conversion of the Army’s large stock of comparatively new muzzle-loading Enfields. Conversion could only be regarded as an interim measure, but it was considered that the selection of the best type of breech-loading rifle for the Army was of less urgency than the provision of some form of breech-loader.
The breech-loading mechanism which was chosen by the Committee was designed by Jacob Snider of New York. The breech was closed by a block which was hinged laterally on the right, and fitted into a recess behind the barrel. To open the breech a thumb piece was pressed which caused the block to swing over to the right. At first it was intended that the Enfield cartridge with its separate cap should be used, and the cap holder and ignition hole formed part of the block.
This was not, however, a very satisfactory answer, for it introduced certain weaknesses. It was decided, therefore, to use a cartridge which incorporated its own detonator. The original Enfield lock and hammer were still retained, but in. place of the nipple the block was pierced obliquely for a striker, the head of which protruded in the part of the block which had been occupied by the nipple. A centre-fire cartridge was adopted, and a claw extractor was fitted to the breech mechanism. This pulled the cartridge case partially out when the breech was opened, and it was then thrown clear by turning the .rifle upside down.
The first cartridge used had a cartridge paper body and a brass base. This was disappointing, and finally the brass-bodied cartridge devised by Colonel Boxer was adopted. This final development took place in 1.867; but in the meantime issue to the troops of the Snider-Enfield, already modified to take a centre-fire cartridge, had started in 1865.
The story of the self-contained cartridge is interesting. The first one seems to have been produced by the inventive Genevan gunsmith of Paris, Jean Samuel Pauly, whose invention of a pellet detonator in 1812 was mentioned in Chapter X. Some time between 1812 and 1815 Pauly produced a centre-fire paper cartridge, affixed to the base of which was a metal rosette containing the detonating mixture. The paper cartridge cannot have been very satisfactory, for shortly afterwards he tried a brass cartridge. The brass, however, was too thick and heavy for the casing t6 expand sufficiently to make a gas-tight seal.
It seems likely that little was required to make a success of Pauly’s invention; and yet, surprisingly, nothing further was apparently attempted for another fifteen years. In 1831 Moser, a foreign engineer, took out a British patent for a muzzle-loader which had a needle-fire cartridge. In 1836 rem Dreyse, a Prussian gunsmith. who had worked under Pauly, produced a breech-loading needle gun; and this was the bolt-action weapon which was adopted by the Prussian Army in 1848. The cartridge was made of combustible paper, and a pellet of fulminate was inserted between the powder charge and the bullet. Fitted to the bolt was a long needle-like striker which penetrated the base of the cartridge and went forward through the powder to pierce the doonator. Though successful in action, the needle gun was a dirty weapon. The needle got badly corroded and the breech became blocked with fouling.
The next major development was the invention by a Frenchman named Houillier, in 1846, of the pin-fire cartridge. The casing was made of thick coiled paper with a base of copper or brass. - Protruding at right angles from the side of the cartridge case, and at the base end where the wall was of metal, Was a pin. This pin was struck by a hammer, which drove it into a detonator inside the cartridge. The following year another Frenchman, Flobert, produced the first rim-fire cartridge. The principle of this has been explained in Chapter XIV, and it differs little from the rim-fire cartridges which are used to-day; chiefly for -22 calibre weapons.
In 185z Lancaster, who, it will be remembered, designed the muzzle-loading rifle which had been adopted for the Royal Engineers, brought out a breech-loading rifle which took a centre-fire cartridge of his own design. Inside the cartridge case, and a short distance from the base, was a perforated metal disc. Between this disc and the base was the detonating mixture: base, disc and detonator forming a sandwich. When the striker hit the base, it was indented, compressing the detonator and causing an explosion. The flash from the detonator passed through the perforations of the disc to the powder charge. The success of the Lancaster cartridge led to the adoption of a centre-fire cartridge for the Snider,
Some years previously, probably about 1839, another Frenchman, Pottet, invented a tapered expanding cartridge made of rolled paper with a metal base. In the centre of the base there was an aperture, and on the inner side of this was fixed a chamber containing a detonator, and having a small hole communicating with the powder charge. In 1857 Pottet patented his invention, but there was apparently no machinery available to manufacture it and hand manufacture would have been too expensive.
Yet another Frenchman, F. E. Schneider of Paris, patented an improved version of the Pottet cartridge, and this was introduced into England by the gunmaking firm of Witton and Daw (the successors to George H. Daw). This was the centre-fire cartridge which was selected for the Snider-Enfield. As has already-been said, it was not a complete success. The problem was then tackled by Colonel Boxer, Superintendent of the Royal Laboratory at Woolwich, with the result that he produced his very successful modification of 1867-
The Boxer cartridge hadacase made of thin sheet brass, coiled and covered with paper, and mounted on a separate base which was a disc, first of brass and later of iron. The hollow rivet which secured the cylinder to the base was the cap chamber. Oddly enough the Boxer principle was subsequently adopted by the United States of America, whilst the present bottlenecked type of cartridge now used in the British Army originated in the 187o design of Colonel Hiram Berdan of the United States Ordnance. Department.
The immediate requirements of the Army having been provided for, consideration was now given to the type of breech-loading rifle which should replace the Snider-Enfield. Eventually,.in 1871, the Martini-Henry was selected. This rifle combined the falling breech mechanism invented by an Austrian, von Martini, and the rifled barrel with seven grooves which had been designed by an Edinburgh gunsmith named Alexander Henry.
The Martini breech mechanism consisted of a block which was hinged at its rear end, and in which was a coiled spring to actuate the striker. Behind the trigger guard was a lever, which, when it was pulled down, lowered the front end of the block to uncover the breech, extracted and ejected the cartridge case, and cocked the striker. The loaded cartridge was then inserted by hand into the chamber. In its simplicity and efficiency the Martini action is one of the best that has ever been designed, and it is still the most popular for small-bore competition shooting. From a military point of view, however, it suffered from two very serious defects. Firstly, sand was liable to jam the mechanism, and this gave great trouble in the Egyptian campaign of 1882. Secondly, it was a single-shot weapon, and it was therefore doomed once the demand for magazine rifles arose.
Another defect in the Martini-Henry was Henry’s barrel. The grooves of the rifling were deep and square cut, with the result that fouling lodged in them very readily. The bore was smaller than that of the Snider-Enfield, being only -450 instead of -577.- In spite of this the Snider-Enfield was the pleasanter weapon to fire, for the Martini-Henry had a vicious kick of a recoil.
After some experimental models had been tested in 1972, the Martini-Henry Mark I was issued to the troops in 1874. The Mark II of 1876 and the Mark III of 1879 embodied minor modifications. In 1886 a Committee, convened as a result of the troubles experienced in the Egyptian campaign, recommended certain. improvements in the rifle, including a bore of ‘402- Some experimental models were made, known as the Enfield Martini; but as magazine rifles were already under investigation nothing came of them, and they were converted to Martini-Henrys of the normal pattern and designated Mark IV.
A great student of the science of rifling, William Ellis Metford, was born in Taunton in 1824. He became a civil engineer, and at an early age worked under the famous Isambard Kingdom Brunel on the construction of the Great Western Railway. Later he went to India as a railway engineer, but returned to England when his never very robust health broke down.
Metford had been interested in shooting both in practice and theory from his youth, and after he had been forced to give up his Indian career he had more time to devote to this hobby. From notes which he has left it is apparent that he was carrying out experimental work on rifles at least as early as i85o; and in 1852 he was firing rifles at i2oo yards’ range in pursuance of his experiments. By 1854 he was satisfied that, contrary to the general belief, the expansion of a bullet into the rifling -occurred immediately after the explosion of the charge and before it started to move forward. He also discovered that the explosion caused a rifle barrel to bend, so that when the bullet left the muzzle the barrel was pointing in a slightly different direction to the original point of aim.
Metford evolved a most ingenious method of testing his theories. He fired bullets into a long box filled with sawdust, and was thus able to recover them in the condition in which they had left the barrel of the rifle. From subsequent examination it was possible to tell whether there had been any leakage of explosion gases past a bullet, and the manner in which it had taken the rifling. From such experiments Met-ford found that the common practice of constructing very deep grooving in a rifled barrel was unnecessary, and that a longitudinal bullet with a good bearing surface would not strip, or ride over, the lands even when the grooves were very shallow. He also found that the generally held theory that a bullet must be made of pure .lead to be soft enough to be expanded by the explosion into the grooves was incorrect; and that, on the contrary, a much harder bullet of lead and an alloy would do.
Metford next constructed a rifle and bullets in accordance with his ideas. The grooves were only a few thousands of an inch deep, and the lead and alloy bullet had a shallow hollow ire the base and was protected from friction by a thin paper wrapping. A great friend of Metford’s, Colonel Halford, had his own private range at Wistow in Leicestershire. Here experiments were carried out with the new rifle. They were sufficiently successful for Metford to have a special rifle made in 1865 for match shooting. This had seven grooves of a depth of four-thousandths of an inch. Armed with this weapon, a muzzle-loader, Halford, entered the-competition held by the Cambridge University Long Range Club, which included practices at i 000 and i i oo yards. To the astonishment of the many critics-of the design, Halford won the cup presented for the best score on the two days’ shoot.
Metford’s ideas had come to stay, and they were soon being copied by all gunsmiths. For military rifles, unfortunately, Henry’s barrel had been adopted before the implications of Metford’s success had been really appreciated. In due course his rifling replaced Henry’s in the weapon of the British soldier, but before this happened there was a new development in bullet design. The bore of the Martini-Henry rifle, even though considerably smaller than that of the Snider-Enfield, was still very large. A reduction in the size of the bore would allow a smaller cartridge, and this in turn would result in the soldier being able to carry a greater quantity of ammunition in his personal equipment: an important consideration in view of the increased rate of fire which would be possible with the advent of the magazine rifle. With the existing muzzle velocity of the bullet, however, its size, which was dictated by the military requirement for stopping power, could not be reduced any further. If the velocity could be increased the same stopping.power could be obtained with a smaller bullet, but the lead bullets then used were too soft to be propelled at a faster rate down the barrel. The difficulty was solved by a Swiss, Colonel Rubin, who found that if the lead bullet was encased in a covering of a harder metal it would stand up to much greater velocities.
As a result of Colonel Rubin’s discovery the calibre of British Army rifles was reduced to -303 inch in 1888, and this is still the standard for all full-bore bolt-action rifles. The increased velocity was at first obtained by using a charge of compressed black powder. In the meantime a Committee was established under the presidency of Frederick Abel, an expert in the manufacture of explosives, to devise a smokeless propellent. A solution was found in a preparation based on the discoveries of the great Swiss engineer, Alfred Nobel. It was hardened into a long cord and given the name ‘cordite’. From 1892 it was used in all Service small arms ammunition. Cordite increased the velocity of the bullet from the i 800 feet per second of the compressed black powder charge, to 2000 feet per second. This was further increased to 2440 feet per second in 1911 when a still lighter pointed bullet was adopted.
The new rifle which was introduced into the British Army in 1888 was the Lee-Metford. It had Metford’s design of rifled barrel with the ‘303-inch calibre, and a bolt-action breech and magazine, both invented by a Scottish watchmaker named James Paris Lee. Lee’s bolt is a development of the breech mechanism which had’ first appeared in the Prussian needle gun of 1848 and subsequently in the French Chassepot of 18 66. The Lee action is still in use in the British Army, and is only now, some seventy years after its first introduction, being replaced by a semi-automatic mechanism.
The function of the bolt, briefly, is to push the cartridge into the breech, close the breech, fire the cartridge, and extract and eject the empty case. The cartridge is fired by a pin which is held back by a spring inside the bolt, and which projects through a hole in the bolt-head when the pressure of the trigger releases the spring. The Lee bolt was strongly criticized by leading British gunsmiths because it is held in position when closed by lugs at the rear of the bolt. Whereas, theoretically, in order that the minimum amount of metal should be under stress at the time of firing, front locking lugs should be used, as in the German Mauser and the. American Garand. However, the Lee rear locking lugs permit the use of a separate bolt-head, which facilitates cleaning and adjustment. Moreover, the Lee action is the fastest bolt-action ever to have been devised, and its retention in the Army after the Boer war and the two World Wars is a testament to its efficiency in action.
The Lee magazine is a separate box which is inserted under the breech mechanism and held in place by a spring clip. Inside is a platform which is pushed upwards from below by a spring in the base of the box. The cartridges are inserted on top of the platform and press it downwards, so compressing the spring. As one cartridge ‘is pushed forward by the bolt from the magazine, so the spring pushes another one upwards into place. The first magazine held eight rounds of the black powder ammunition. This was increased to ten rounds when the cordite ammunition was introduced.
From 18 go a number of the Martini action rifles were given the Metford barrel instead of the Henry. These conversions were known as Martini-Metfords. Between 1891 and 1892 a large number of the Martini-Henry Cavalry carbines and. Artillery carbines were similarly converted.
In x895 the Metford barrel was modified at Enfield by reducing the number of grooves in the rifling from seven to five. The new rifle was called the Lee-Enfield. Further rifle and carbine conversions from the Martini-Henrys received this barrel and became Martin i-En fields.
No bolt-action carbines were made until 1896, when a magazine Lee-Enfield Cavalry carbine was produced. All Artillery carbines, however, continued to have the single-shot Martini action. In addition, Colonial troops at the start of the Boer war were armed with the Martini-Enfield, and the Indian Army was equipped with it until i goS.
At the time the retention of single-shot weapons did not appear as such a disadvantage as it would now; for the magazine was regarded as a reserve, and the rifle was fitted with a cut-out which slid across the magazine so that it could be cut off from the chamber. This was the normal position for firing, the rifle being reloaded by hand with a single round after each . shot. It was probably considered that ammunition supply in the field would present difficulties if the high rate of fire, which the magazine made possible, were used too freely. The comparative effectiveness of the new magazine rifles was demonstrated, however, at the battle of Omdurman. The British troops opened fire on -the charging dervishes at a range of 2000 yards and stopped them Soo yards from their position. The Egyptian and Sudanese troops, who had Martini-Henrys, opened fire at moo yards and stopped them 300 yards away.
The limited use of the magazine was found to be a handicap in the. Boer war. Once the reserve of rapid fire had been used there was no means of re-charging the magazines quickly. Lee had, indeed, invented a charger in 1892 by means of which five rounds could be loaded simultaneously. This was not considered necessary at the time but was eventually adopted as a result of the lessons of the Boer war.
The Boer war showed that fire power by mounted troops was at least as important as shock action, and the Martini carbine, with which most of the cavalry were armed, was a very ineffective weapon compared with the magazine Lee-Enfield of the mounted infantry. After the war it was therefore decided that carbines should be abolished and that there should be one pattern of rifle for the whole Army. In order to make it suitable for use by mounted troops the Lee-Enfield was reduced in length and entitled the Short Magazine Lee-Enfield (known to generations of soldiers as the S.M.L.E.). In compensation the bayonet was slightly lengthened.
Artillery Guns of the WWII
Running parallel with this unfolding story of piercing projectiles was the development of the hollow-charge principle into a viable weapon. This illustrates the adaptation of a well-documented scientific phenomenon to a weapon of war: almost 200 years ago a Norwegian engineer had observed that hollowing out the face of an explosive charge made it cut deeper into rock when blasting. In the 1880s an American experimenter, Monroe, found that when firing guncotton slabs against armour plate, the initials ‘USN’ engraved in the guncotton reproduced themselves in mirror-like form in the face of the armour plate. From his observations and reports the phenomenon became known as the ‘Monroe Effect’ and was a scientific curiosity for many years. Just before the First World War one or two inventors toyed with the idea of employing this effect in mines and torpedoes, but since no one really understood why it did what it did, it was difficult to engineer the idea into a practical form.
Just before the Second World War broke out, a Swiss consortium approached the British government to offer a ‘new and powerful explosive’ for anti-tank use—at a high price. The inventors refused to divulge any information until cash was forthcoming, but were prepared to demonstrate their projectile being fired. An astute observer from the Research Department of Woolwich Arsenal went to Switzerland to watch the firing; being a well-read expert on ammunition development and history, he realised that what he was watching was not a new and powerful explosive so much as a practical application of the Monroe Effect. Upon his return to Woolwich he duly reported this, and, since it appeared that the Monroe Effect could be made to work, research immediately began into applying it to a light anti-tank grenade which the infantry soldier could fire from his rifle. Before the outbreak of war, this ‘68 Grenade’ had been perfected and was in production, and carries the distinction of being the first weapon ever to reach the hands of troops which relied on the Monroe Effect, or as it came to be known, the Hollow-Charge Principle.
What is this Hollow-Charge Principle? Put simply, it consists of forming the forward surface of the shell’s explosive charge into a cone or hemisphere and then lining this with a thin metal liner. The shell is then fitted with a suitably shaped nose, for ballistic effect and also to give the vital ’stand-off’ distance. This is the distance from the target—a matter of a few inches—at which the explosive must be detonated in order for the hollow charge to work effectively. On detonating the explosive at its rear end, the detonation wave exerts an immense pressure on the metal of the liner; the cone shape virtually’focusses’the explosive energy and causes the metal of the liner to be shaped into a jet of finely-divided metal and explosive gas, shooting toward the target at speeds of up to 20,000 feet per second. The stand-off distance is necessary in order to allow this jet to form and accelerate. When the jet strikes the target plate, the pressure exerted is so great as to blast a hole through the armour, blowing splinters of metal from the inside and permitting the white-hot jet to pass into the tank where it will set fire to fuel or ammunition, and, of course, kill or injure the crew.
The great virtue of the hollow-charge shell is that its performance is always the same, irrespective of the velocity at which it strikes. Even if the shell were standing still when detonated, the penetration would be the same. Because of this, it could be fired from guns too small to fire the large cartridges needed to give the necessary velocity to normal piercing projectiles. As soon as the 68 Grenade was seen to be successful, design began on other hollow-charge projectiles. A great deal of work went into producing one for the 25-pounder, though in the end it was never issued, since the AP shot issued for that gun was quite satisfactory and there was no real need for a hollow-charge shell. Then came a request from India to produce an anti-tank projectile for the 3.7-inch Pack Howitzer, the modern version of Kipling’s immortal ’screw-gun’. This gun, a small and portable weapon, could not be made to fire a piercing projectile at anything like the velocity needed to defeat even Japanese tanks, and a hollow-charge shell was designed and placed in production. The same shell was used in the 95-mm howitzer, an abortive infantry support gun which never saw service as a towed weapon, though it was employed as a self-propelled support weapon by the Royal Marines in Normandy and by the Armoured Corps.
By 1944, though, sufficient basic research had been done into this principle for it to be seen that a spinning shell was not the ideal method of employing hollow charges, since the spin tended to spread the jet out and give poor penetration. Finned projectiles were more effective, and consequently no more artillery shells were designed around the hollow charge; it was extensively employed, instead, for infantry weapons such as the PIAT, the Bazooka, and a variety of rifle grenades.
The Germans, and later the Russians, embraced the hollow-charge shell wholeheartedly. The Germans began issuing shell in late 1940 and eventually almost every German field and tank weapon had a hollow-charge shell, thus giving every gun or howitzer an anti-tank capability. Indeed, so short were the Germans of anti-tank guns after the Russian invasion got under way, that they hastily collected up all the French army’s 75-mm guns and assembled hundreds of them on to redundant anti-tank gun carriages of German design. A hollow-charge shell was produced and these makeshift weapons were deployed in Russia to stem the advancing Soviet tanks until 75-mm and 88-mm anti-tank guns were in sufficient supply. Judging from appearances, the Soviet hollow-charge shells were developed as virtual copies of German designs which had been captured.
In addition to artillery shell Germany also used the principle for infantry weapons such as the Panzerfaust, rifle grenades, and even a small shell which could be fired from a signal pistol. They also employed the principle in an ingenious attempt to prolong the life of the prewar 37-mm anti-tank gun, whose piercing projectile was, by 1942, no longer effective against current tanks. A large hollow-charge bomb was fitted with a hollow tail carrying fins; within this tail was a stick which fitted snugly into the barrel of the 37-mm gun, allowing the tail and fins to slide over the barrel. A blank cartridge completed the outfit, and this was used to fire the stick bomb to ranges of 300 to 400 yards. The bomb’s warhead was about 6 inches in diameter and carried about 8 pounds of explosive, giving a devastating effect at the target. In all fairness, it must be pointed out that Lieutenant-Colonel Blacker, inventor of the PIAT and the `Black Bombard’ of Home Guard fame, had proposed a similar 60-pound stick bomb in 1940, to be fired from the 25-pounder, but the idea was turned down on the grounds that it might lead to misemployment of the gun as a purely anti-tank weapon. (This misemployment theme was not confined to the British side: many German Flak commanders bewailed the loss of their valuable 88-mm Flak guns as they were whittled away to provide anti-tank defences.)
The third subject is the application of new principles to gun design. The first of these to be unveiled was the taper-bore antitank gun, which has already been touched upon. This was the child of a German engineer called Gerlich, who, advocating his principle of attaining high velocity without attracting any buyers, had been stumping the world for several years. He was briefly employed by both the US War Department and the British War Office at various times, but his ideas on improving shoulder arms were felt to be impractical. He eventually settled in Germany and saw his idea accepted as an anti-tank weapon. The 28/21-mm came first, then a 42/30-mm and finally a 75/50-mm. Unfortunately, the lack of tungsten carbide for the special projectiles spelled the demise of these weapons, but experiments continued with coned bores and coned muzzle-adapters for guns of various calibres up to as large as 280-mm, in order to boost velocity and range. These were intended to use high-explosive shells, which were more practical in the larger calibres, though the development of a shell which would stand up to being squeezed down the gun barrel was no easy task.
The second, and more widespread, new line of thought was the recoilless gun. Like most weapon ideas, there was nothing really new about it: Commander Davis of the US Navy had produced a recoilless (RCL for short) gun during the First World War which was adopted by Britain as an anti-Zeppelin aircraft weapon. The virtue of an RCL gun is that by having no recoil one needs no complicated hydraulic buffer system to absorb the firing shock: one need only make the gun-carriage strong enough to take the weight of the gun, instead of being strong enough to withstand being fired from—an ideal state of affairs for an aircraft weapon, particularly in the stick-and-string era. Davis’s idea is worth looking at, although outside our time scale, since it is the classic recoilless weapon. He simply provided the gun with two barrels, one pointing forward which fired a normal shell, and one pointing rearward which fired an identical weight of grease and buckshot. When the central cartridge was fired the shell and countershot departed at equal speed in opposite directions and cancelled each other’s recoil. From this it can be seen that if you make the countershot (say) one-fifth of the weight of the shell and fire it out at five times the speed, then the gun will still be in balance. Taking this idea to its logical conclusion one finishes up firing out of the back of the gun a fast, light stream of gas, still balancing the recoil since the weight times speed of the gas is the same as the (greater) weight times (slower) speed of the shell.
Cutting down the recoil
This was the principle which the Germans revealed in Crete when their troops appeared armed with a 75-mm RCL gun. The shell was the standard 75-mm shell, but the cartridge case had a frangible plastic base which held for long enough to allow pressure to build up and start the shell moving, then blew out through a hole in the breech-block, releasing the balancing stream of gas. The all-up weight of the gun, on its ex-machine gun tripod, was only 320 pounds, whereas the weight of the standard 75-mm field gun was about 11/2 tons—no mean saving for airborne carriage. A 105-mm version soon followed, weighing 855 pounds as opposed to the 105-mm 1E FH18’s 4,312 pounds, and many more developments began in this field to provide light weapons for mountain troops and infantry, particularly for anti-tank use. (It ought perhaps to be pointed out that the Panzerfaust was in fact a recoilless gun, and not, as generally supposed, a rocket launcher). Eventually RCL guns of up to 380-mm calibre were under development, including many for slinging beneath aircraft to carry artillery aloft for the battle against the Allied bombers, but none of these came to fruition.
n Britain, the RCL gun development during the war is a scarcely-known story of one man’s persistence. Sir Denis Burney, airship designer and prolific inventor-engineer, began to be interested in the recoilless principle early in the war. In order to prove his theories he converted a four-bore gun into a recoilless weapon and proceeded to fire it from the shoulder with ease; it must have been the world’s most comfortable duck gun. Having proved his point he proceeded to design a series of RCL guns ranging from 20-mm to 8-inch calibre. In addition to designing the guns, he expanded his theories and designed special ammunition to take advantage of the ballistic peculiarities of the weapon. He argued that since the rearward blast was taking place, the pressure within the gun would be less than with a conventional type, and the shell would be subjected to a more steady thrust. In which case it would be possible to make shells with thinner walls, which would carry greater charges of explosive than previously possible. He then went further, and reasoned that, since the shell walls were thin, if the shell were to be filled with the then new plastic explosive, it would spread on to the surface of the target like butter; a fuse fitted in the base of the shell would then detonate this plaster and blast in the target. His envisaged target was either the concrete emplacements of the European coast, or the palm-reinforced Japanese bunker, and he called his shell the Mal I buster’.
In 1944 his designs were accepted and a 3.45-inch (the same calibre as the 25-pounder) shoulder-fired gun, a 3.7-inch towed gun, a 95-mm towed howitzer, and a 7.2-inch towed howitzer were prepared for production. The 95-mm was also jeep-mounted—the first application of what has since become a standard method of carrying these guns. The 7.2-inch soon fell by the wayside, since it had been intended solely as a means of defeating the Atlantic Wall emplacements, but other weapons were found to do all that was needed. The 3.45-inch was intended as an infantry weapon in the jungle, enabling one man to carry what was virtually a 25-pounder punch on his shoulder. The 3.7-inch was proposed as the future infantry anti-tank weapon, and the 95-mm was contemplated as the airborne field gun to replace the US 75-mm howitzer and the 25-pounder. However, before the guns were produced in sufficient quantity for issue, the war came to an end; some 3.45-inch and 3.7-inch guns were issued to selected infantry units to obtain their reaction to RCL guns as a general thing, and the 95-mm was abandoned altogether.
The principal difference between the Burney guns and the German type was that the Burneys had much longer barrels, and used cartridge cases which, instead of the plastic blow-out base, used many perforations in the sidewall to release the gas into a surrounding chamber, from whence it was passed back to a number of vents around the breech.
Concurrently with Burney’s work in Britain, American designers began on similar weapons. A 105-mm howitzer T-9 was developed on similar lines to the German 105-mm, having a blow-out base to the cartridge. Another team developed 57-mm and 75-mm weapons which used perforated cases similar to the Burney pattern but having more and smaller holes, and also had the shell driving band pre-engraved in order to reduce the pressure inside the gun. Both these latter weapons were accepted for service early in 1945, saw service with the US Army in the Pacific theatre, and remained in service for many years. A third team, this time under the auspices of the National Research and Development Council, developed a 4.2-inch RCL mortar, an unlikely-sounding weapon which so as to be able to fire direct at the target at low angles, carried a small rocket on the nose of the shell to push it down the barrel’and fire the propelling cartridge in the usual mortar fashion. Due to the blast of the rearward jet, it could only be fired at low elevations; there was a certain amount of enthusiasm for this weapon but it never entered service.
Perhaps the best summing up of all wartime development on RCL weapons was made in a wartime report: ‘Undoubtedly a number of effective recoilless weapons have been developed, but they are being accepted with reserve, and will only be considered as supplementary to older and more orthodox weapons which have proved their accuracy and reliability in service.’
There is, unfortunately, no space here to delve into more recondite stories of research and development: the British 13.5-inch gun linered-down to 8-inch calibre which, fired from Dover, reached a range of over 100,000 yards; the British and American development of flying artillery, which culminated in the mounting of a 32-pounder anti-tank gun in a Mosquito; the German V-3 multiple-chamber gun which was intended to shell London; the American 36-inch mortar ‘Little David’, designed to batter Japanese strong-points; the German rocket-assisted and ramjet-assisted heavy artillery shells which promised vast increases in range; or the Anglo-American development of the electronic proximity fuse which proved the answer to both ‘Doodlebugs’ and kamikaze pilots. These and similar stories may only interest the specialist, but they, together with what has been written here, serve to illustrate the incredible range of inventions brought into play in the war waged between the designers and inventors of each side, each endeavouring to get one step ahead of the other, if only temporarily.
EVERYONE HEARS about “The Three Graces” immediately upon reaching China. However, it is only slangy Americans who would dream of calling them that. To the rest of the world they are the Soong sisters: from eldest to youngest, Madame Kung, Madame Sun Yat-sen, and Madame Chiang Kai-shek.
The names of all three of their dazzlingly eminent husbands are treated with deserved and justifiable reverence throughout China. This does not prevent some of the resident Americans, who admire the ladies but still are not easily overawed, from referring to the two younger sisters as, respectively, the widow of God and the bride of Christ.
Madame Kung, the eldest of the three, is the wife of Dr. H. H. Kung, Minister of Finance and Executive Vice-President of the Bank of China. Madame Kung is said to keep a guiding iron hand on the finances of her wealthy family. Her understanding of industry is rather remarkable, and she holds the position of Adviser of the Chinese Industrial Cooperatives. The second sister, Madame Sun Yat-sen, is head of the China Defense League. Although both these ladies are very active, their executive positions had an absentee character until the fall of Hong Kong sent them on to Chungking. During our visit to Hong Kong, they had residences there, where they held in effect the odd position of refugee guests of the British government.
Madame Kung is self-effacing almost to the point of invisibility. She is rarely seen and almost never photographed. When I heard that the last time she had consented to sit for a portrait was twenty years ago, I was especially eager to make a new portrait of her.
It was through Madame Sun Yat-sen that I finally reached her. Madame Sun is not very accessible either, but her interest in her China Defense League made her listen to my arguments that submitting to have her portrait taken was the best way to publicize her cause in America, since Americans take such an interest in personalities. I found her plump, jolly, and gracious, and so shy that I think the very fact that she had overcome her timidity sufficiently to be photographed made her willing to talk her elder sister into doing the same thing. The next day, Erskine and I received an invitation to dine at the home of Madame Kung. Madame Sun would also be a guest, and I was allowed to bring my camera.
I had heard various guesses as to the age of the eldest Soong sister, ranging from fifty to a little over sixty. When I saw her, I thought she looked hardly forty. She had that smooth, enameled slimness which makes many Chinese women ageless. She wore the typical dress which the women of China wear like a uniform—a straight-cut tube, slit up the side, of identical cut for rich and poor, and made of fabrics ranging from the faded blue cotton of the coolies to heavy black silk embroidered in pearls. Madame’s was embroidered in pearls. As she walked into the room I was startled to observe that even this modest lady’s dress showed the expanse of well-shaped slender leg, from ankle to a bit above the knee, that flashes out through slit skirts all over China.
During the portrait, she was so bashful that all the servants and even my husband were sent from the room. I was grateful that she allowed her sister to stay, for I needed someone to help me hold reflectors, a job which Madame Sun Yat-sen performed with evident pleasure at the novelty of the operation and with many exclamations over the miraculous quickness of flash bulbs. Madame Sun powdered her sister’s nose at intervals and straightened her coiffure, although it was already as sleek as polished bakelite. When I had finished, the two promised to write letters to “little sister Mei,” so that on arrival in Chungking I should be able to make portraits of her and of her husband, the Generalissimo.
Then Erskine was permitted to return, and we were led in to what appeared to me, in my inexperience, to be an unusually well-loaded table. As we took our seats, Madame Kung expressed regret for the inadequacy of the meal.
