admin | 
07 18th, 2009| 
They were very similar to their predecessors; except that the metal furniture was now brass instead of iron, and the musket had a new lock with some minor modifications meissen porcelain louis xiv . The Royal cypher, when used, was the ‘A R’ of the reigning sovereign porzellan clock spain . The barrel of the musket was forty-six inches, or slightly longer than the James II pattern computers internet blog .
With the issue of these arms slings were fitted to all muskets for the first time trestle table lyre base .
The universal use of flintlocks in the Army, as well as on private firearms, resulted in the flint industry becoming of prime importance british longcase makers . It was a very ancient industry directoire sofa . The art of chipping, or `knapping’, flints had been practised in neolithic, times, when arrowheads, spearheads, axes, tools, etc cast regency period candlestick ., had been manufactured from the flint deposits at such places as Brandon in Suffolk antique neoclassical furniture side cabinet . For many years, however, there had been little requirement for flint, except for the comparatively low standard stone used for ordinary ignition epergne art deco glass . The arrival of flintlock arms created a new and increasing demand for high-quality flint marc duplantier . Nevertheless the process available was tedious and inefficient, and yielded indifferent flints indian vernacular furniture . Gradually the art was re-learnt, and by the end of the eighteenth century English flints had become famous throughout Europe antique hot water plate warmer . In 1686 a Government factory was established important pieces art deco furniture .at Brandon, and all flints for the Army were made there during the whole remaining life of flintlock firearms drawing ornaments for furniture .
Until the early eighteenth century flints were generally made from the brown flintstone which was gathered from the fields antique tables small . This broke rather easily, for its irregularity in grain made it brittle empire gateleg table . The much superior black flint was subsequently discovered at depths of from 5o to zoo feet, and from about the middle of the eighteenth century all flint was quarried antique paper mache pedestal table .
Flints were divided into different sizes according to the type of weapon sheriton clock . As far as the Army was concerned, these consisted of the musket, the carbine and the pistol; and they were each again divided into ‘Best’, ‘Second’ and ‘Common’ according to their quality, which was assessed by the colour of the stone (the darker the better) and by the regularity of the shape antique kidney table lion ball legs . A good flint knapper could gauge the size of a flint by the naked eye to within a sixteenth of an inch and could trim it to a chisel edge 18th century trestle table .
`Best’ flints could be expected to give from forty to fifty shots, without fear of a misfire, whilst ‘Common’ flints would only give about half this number ornate italy shell spoon . Most musket flints were the cheap ‘Common’ variety redwood trinket box .
Flints were sold by the thousand and were packed in half casks, which held 2000 of t1w musket size, 3000 of the carbine and 4000 of the pistol antique spanish sideboard .
In the seventeenth century it was the practice of both officers and other ranks to wear their side arms when off duty identify antique paper mache trays . When the bayonet was added to the sword it appears that there must have been some temptation to use this handy little weapon in local brawls with the civil population century furniture chinoiserie dining table chair credenza . This is reflected in the following order which was promulgated in 1687:
`For the prevention of mischief that may happen by the carrying of bayonets We hereby strictly forbid all officers and soldiers of what quality soever within Our pay or entertainment to carry a dagger or bayonet at any other time than when such officer or soldier shall be upon duty or under their arms upon pain of being punished at Direction of a Court Martial and the officers and commanders in chief of Our several regiments, troops and companies and Governors of Our Garrisons are hereby required to cause these Our commands to be forthwith read and published at the head of each respective regiment, troop and company that all persons may give obedience thereunto meissen figures on bronze bases .
`Given at Our Court at Whitehall the 4th day of March,
1686/7
`By His Majesties Command antique meissen porcelain .’
It is quite likely that this order was drafted personally by King James II furniture design . It is very like the tone of some of his letters dealing with military organization and administration antique posset pots .
Grenadiers and Musketeers seem to have worn swords throughout Marlborough’s campaigns draw-leaf tables . The armament of a Grenadier was particularly impressive; for it comprised (according to the Exercise of hoot of 16go) firelock, bayonet, sword, hatchet and grenades antique french campaign chair .
There is an interesting hint of regimental insignia on swords in a notice of a deserter in the Post Man in 1703 care of antique oak chest woodworm rot . The man belonged to Lord Lucas’s Regiment (later the 34th Foot) and is described as wearing a sword with brass mounting and an ‘L’ on the shell norman bel geddes desks . How far this was a common practice is not known sarcophagus chests andre-charles boulle . The detail on a sword depended entirely on the taste of the Colonel, and the swords for a regiment were, in fact, purchased by the Colonel out of the money allowed him by the Government for the provision of all clothing, swords and necessaries of the other ranks under his command antique maple drop leaf dining table .
The Duke of Marlborough would allow no weapon other than the sword to be used by mounted troops jupe patent mechanism . The pistol he regarded as the enemy of effective cavalry action antique victorian writing table . Brigadier-General Richard Kane, in his Discipline of Horse of 1745, said:
`They should handle their swords well, which is the only Weapon our British Horse makes use of when they charge the enemy; more than this is superfluous empire revival benches . The Duke of Marlborough would allow the Horse but three Charges of Powder and Ball to each man for a Campaign, and that for guarding their Horses when at Grass, and not to be made use of in action roman tripod table .
`Dragoons should be well instructed in the use of arms, having often occasion to make use of them on foot; but when on horseback, they are to fight as the Horse do sheraton period cutlery urn .’
The type of swords supplied to the cavalry, however, does not seem to have been beyond criticism baroque paper mache plate . In 1691 Sir Albert Cunningham, Colonel of the 6th Dragoons, wrote to the Secretary at War, ‘We want good broad cutting swords with three-barred hilts’ how drop leaf table evolved . In 1706 Colonel J designs for dressing table glasses . Crofts of the Royal Dragoons said in a letter that, ‘It was impossible to get flaming (i antique pembroke tables .e antique dining table stored legs . curved) blades but I pitched upon the best sword for service I could find’ antique duncan phyfe mahogany coffee table with brass claw feet . A year later his successor, Colonel St barrel leg oak dining table .-Pierre, wrote “chest of drawers” +cherry +1840s . ‘The swords are good, but a handfull too short, there is no dealing with the French but with good swords, they have excellent ones antique wooden handle forks . We are resolved, whatever it cost, if we come to Baralina and can find German blades, to buy them and put them upon our handles, which are large enough clarice cliff aj wilkinson teardrop plate .’
It is apparent that there must have been considerable variety in the swords carried by the cavalry japanese tray table w/ folding legs . There is a tantalizing bill of 1689 for a steel horseman’s sword with a rich gilt handle, apparently belonging to the loth Horse secession style furniture .
Towards the end of the seventeenth century there was some improvement in the gunpowder antique wood trestle table with leaves . The proportions were altered to six parts of saltpetre to one each of charcoal and sulphur antique console table carved wood . But the most noteworthy advance was in the quality of the saltpetre goldscheider ceramic figurines+made in austria. 1920 . Previously it had been chiefly obtained by the laborious and probably uncongenial task of washing out earth collected from underneath long-established dung-hills drop leaf table stable base . It was now imported from foreign countries where it could be found in a free state 3 leg drum table with leather top .
BROWN BESS
At some period in the earlier part of the eighteenth century there appeared the most famous weapon that was ever placed in the hands of the British soldier 3 leg drum table with leather top . This was the musket which became popularly known as ‘Brown Bess’ “edwards & roberts” furniture satinwood . The actual date of its introduction is unknown edwardian satinwood combination wardrobe . It*is popularly supposed to have been designed in the reign of Queen Anne 19th century mechanical desks . Nevertheless there is an old tradition that the musket was chosen by the great Duke of Marlborough when he was Captain-General and Master-General of the Ordnance german art deco porcelain harlequin . The earliest one known to the author is in the Tower of London, and bears the date 1717 on the lock plate 1920’s walnut buffet, four drawers .
The origin of the name is as much a mystery as Brown Bess’s date of birth, and there have been many theories to account for it antique gateleg card table . However, the ‘brown’ probably referred to the colour of the weapon, or part of it; and this was most likely the stock, which was of walnut wood stained a reddish brown 17th century drop leaf table . The stocks of all the British Army’s previous firearms had been black sofas . It has been said, also, that the barrel was browned by pickling in an acid bath asian chest with fake drawers . It may have been issued in this condition, but during most of the years when this musket was in use the barrel appears to have been highly polished; in accordance with the British Army’s normal practice with any piece of metal, unless ordered to do otherwise 1800’s library table . Bess’ may have been a mere term of affection; on the other hand it may have been derived from ‘buss’,a German word for a gun and used in ‘arquebus’ and `blunderbuss’ antique english tea tables .
That such a gun should acquire a nickname was, however, almost inevitable french oak, “barley twist” chest of drawers . It was noteworthy in two respects antique card table brass feet folding . It had the beautiful lines of the private fowling-pieces of the day, and, for ease of handling and for performance, it was the finest smooth-bore firearm in any army for the whole of its active existence antique hexagon ladles . These qualities undoubtedly earned the affection of the soldiers who handled it, and if troops become fond of a piece of equipment, maintenance and cleanliness present few difficulties antique wooden pot cupboard .
Of Brown Bess Mr glass front marquetry cabinet . Scurfield in a notable article on ‘British Military Smoothbore Firearms’, which he contributed to the journal of the Society for drmy Historical Research, says: ‘I have seen and handled many muskets of the eighteenth century, and have no hesitation in saying that for workmanship, handiness and appearance (much more important in those days than in these) the Old English musket was, as the armament of the “common soldier”, unsurpassed 1940’s marble tables . Compared with her predecessors and contemporaries, such as the French Model 1717, which was not radically altered until 1754, Brown Bess has the grace of a fowling-piece, the lightest stock compatible with capacity to stand up to a campaign, well-shaped moulded brass furniture, and a lock which had a reputation for giving fewer missfires, “flashes in the pan”, than that of any other military firearm georgian serving tables . Wherein lay the superiority of the English lock is now quite beyond ascertainment; but modern amateurs of historic arms, such as the late Major H vincennes gilded porcelain asian design . R 19th century lion claw pedestal table . S expensive marble tables . Brown, Mr 19th century apostle spoon . Mark Dineley, and others, confirm that it is less unreliable in igniting the charge than any other military lock they have experimented with anitque side cabinet .’
The barrel length of the first model was about 451 or 46 inches malard furniture . The bore was 11, or a shade over •75 calibre 18th c, hot water plate . The bullets vere 131 or 14 to the pound, which would slip easily down a barrel of this diameter a & s smee finsbury . The mounts were brass throughout jean dunand pottery . These comprised the buttplate, small shield (or escutcheon), side plate (on the side opposite the lock plate to receive the latter’s screws), trigger guard and four ramrod pipes apartment for milliner suzanne 1929 . The ramrod was of wood with a brass tip muller freres primavera . The butt-plate was a heavy moulded piece, and, in conjunction with the light fore-end, served to keep the balance of the gun fairly well back in spite of the long barrel small square drop leaf table with 2 chairs . The lock was of an improved type with a steel bearing, or ‘bridle’, to support the tumbler and prevent it from pressing against the lock plate antique wine cooler and stand . The escutcheon, which was on the top of the small of the butt, was primarily intended to take the screw which passed right through the small from the rearward extension of the trigger guard art nouveau cupboard . It was also frequently engraved or stamped with the company letter and individual number antique canning jars with good luck on them . The lock plate, which was of iron, bore the crowned Royal cypher, and, in addition, either the word ‘Tower’ or the contractor’s name empire drum night table . This was to become the standard practice for many years cabriole legs . Previously the Royal cypher had been, as already mentioned, limited in its use king charles silver flatware . The contractor’s name had sometimes appeared, but often the plate was devoid of any inscription gilbert rhode . The word ‘Tower’ indicated that the arm bearing it had been assembled at the Tower of London from parts supplied by contractors 1940’s art deco black and gray lacquer bedroom set prices . At a later period arms were similarly assembled in Ireland at Dublin Castle, and the lock plates were marked ‘Dublin Castle’ century furniture drop leaf table . Those arms made and assembled by contractors sometimes had the date of manufacture after the name of the maker 17th century georgian sideboards .
The bayonet was of the same basic pattern, with triangular blade, as that adopted in the reign of Queen Anne; but it was much improved matthew boulton roast cover . The socket was four inches long; and the blade length was now seventeen inches, and remained so until about z 70 spanish revival italian walnut trestle library table . The scabbard was of leather, and carried suspended from a cross-belt over the right shoulder baroque style depression furniture with walnut and walnut veneers . Another cross-belt over the left shoulder supported a cartridge pouch and two brass pickers for cleaning the vent silver tray with top .
The cartridge used with the Brown Bess musket consisted of a tube of stout cartridge paper, sealed at both ends with pack thread antique scroll maker . It contained six to eight drams of powder and also a lead bullet saxony flowers 1700s . antique octagon table with twelve legs . This type of cartridge had been in use for some time by mounted troops derby porcelain figurines mark r 1762 . The soldier bit off the rear end of the cartridge, squeezed a small portion of the powder into the flash-pan and emptied the remainder down the barrel art deco glass vase . He then inserted the bullet and rammed it with the paper cartridge on top as wadding antique chinese chamber pot . With this method of loading the soldier could fire about two to three rounds per minute; but the loose-fitting bullet ‘limited the range of reasonably accurate fire to some fifty yards making pottery . Various unauthorized methods of loading to ease the soldier’s task and speed up the rate of fire had been adopted with the matchlock musket at least as early as the reign of Charles I wodden chair dining table leaf design . The powder was poured into the barrel and the bullet dropped on top of it without the use of wad or ramrod antique mahogony carved dressing table . The charge was then firmed home by banging the butt on the ground winthrop china cabinet . Range and penetration, of course, both suffered double scroll legs desk art deco .
The same procedure was adopted with the flintlock, but as the powder used was fine enough to be used for both primer and charge, the private soldier, ever a genius at finding laboursaving devices, managed to eliminate another of the normal loading tasks early soft paste teapots . Having shut the pan after firing, he discovered that banging the butt on the ground not only consolidated the charge but also sent sufficient powder through the touchhole into the pan to prime the musket haviland france deco cup . The rate of fire was increased to from four to five rounds a minute, but there was a considerable proportion of misfires owing to insufficient powder reaching the pan, and the fire was horribly inaccurate wood antique tripod table glass top 1950 .
In certain circuirfstances loading with a loose bullet withoui wadding was a recognized practice, and was known as loading with ‘running ball’ antique gateleg table new york . Sentries’ arms loaded with running ball, for instance, could be unloaded by holding the barrel downwards and letting the bullet run out myott son & co blue hanley est: 1880 . If the wadding was inserted the only way of unloading was to discharge the musket gate leg table oak antique round .
Even Brown Bess, the best of smooth-bore muskets, could not compare in accuracy or speed of fire with the old English long bow greek marble console table . Colonel Hanger, in his book To d11 Sportsmen of X 814, said: ‘A soldier’s musket, if not exceedingly ill-bored (as many are), will strike the figure of a man at 8o yards; it may be even at a hundred; but a soldier must be very unfortunate indeed who shall be wounded by a common musket at 150 yards, provided his antagonist aims at him; and as to firing at a man at 20o yards with a common musket, you may as well fire at the moon and have the same hopes of hitting your object a dutch walnut and burr-walnut longcase clock . I do maintain and will prove, whenever called on, that no man was ever killed at 20o yards, by a common soldier’s musket, by the person who aimed at him antique empire table .’
In about 1841 a special test was carried out by the Royal Engineers to find out what Brown Bess could really do primevera crackle glaze bird . The results were not impressive art noveau furniture . The range of the piece was-an), thing from ioo yards to 700, according to the elevation of the barrel antique dining room table rectangle +connected double pedestal . At every elevation tried, however, there was at least a hundred yards’ variation in the possible range, and at some elevations this exceeded 300 yards bronze chair french . At iSo yards a target about twice as high and twice as broad as a man was hit three times out of four art deco writing sets . At any greater range, even with the musket fixed in a rest, this same target was not hit at all regency card table value . At a range of 2 5o yards a target twice as wide again was fired at, but of ten shots none registered a hit and no one discovered where they went goldscheider figures women . This test certainly bore out Colonel Hanger’s contention, In addition to the inaccurate shooting of the flintlock, there were always some misfires; and in a lengthy test carried out in 1834 against a percussion musket these worked out at i in 6-1pL burr walnut art deco dresser bakelit .
Nevertheless, for the close-order fighting, short ranges and volley firing of its day Brown Bess was a great weapon; and few viewed its supersession without regret
It was not till 1794 that any new pattern musket was introduced, but as this event took place during the Napoleonic wars, when firearms were at a premium, there was no question of Brown Bess being withdrawn from service antique walnut tall boys . In fact, the old musket must have been in the hands of a large proportiop of the British infantry until the reduction of the Army after the battle of Waterloo 17 century dining tables .
The modifications which were effected during this long career were comparatively few ” american card table” . The most important was the reduction of the barrel length to forty-two inches somewhere about the middle of the century islamic arts ivory inlaid wood cabinet . However, there was no immediate replacement of the forty-six-inch barrel muskets, and some of these were undoubtedly still in service at the time of the American War of Independence antique music stand london . Mr rent baroque wood carving furniture . Scurfield, irx citing the evidence of American students of military affairs for this, mentions an interesting theory as to the use of the long muskets square walnut and burr elm coffee table . He says: ‘Several such amateurs have informed me that among arms left in the United States after the Revolution are a number of extra long firelocks which they describe as “British Grenadier Muskets” wedgwood forgeries . I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of this statement, except perhaps spanish revival italian walnut trestle library table . that part of it which links the long musket with Grenadiers; although my informants were knowledgeable collectors of arms, it may be a romantic embellishment 1940s enamel chronographs .
MUSKET AND PIKE
An attempt to produce some order in the manufacture of firearms had an odd terminological result. In the army of Piedmont, before the battle of Moncontour in 1569, there were so many sizes of bore amongst the arquebuses that ammunition supply became a difficult problem. To overcome this 7000 arquebuses were ordered of one calibre, and referred to as ‘harquebuze de calibre de Monsieur le Prince’. The type of arquebus which was made to comply with this order had a bore of 10 or 11, weighed 12 pounds and had a barrel length of 42 inches. It became so popular that its use on the Continent became very widespread, and it appeared in England during the last quarter of the sixteenth century.. The original cumbersome reference had been contracted by the soldiers to `Calibre du Prince’, and later simply to ‘Calibre’. This became anglicized as ‘Caliver’, and in 1578 the Tower of London had 7000 of them in store. They were matchlocks, rather. heavier than the previous pattern of arquebus, and about four feet ten inches in overall length. Eventually the term came to mean any firearm which was light enough to be fired without a rest. ‘Arquebus’ was then frequently applied to cavalry wheel-lock arms.
In 1595 the Trained Bands were ordered to exchange their bows for calivers and muskets, and by this time calivers formed part of the armament of every English infantry unit. In fact, in a levy for Ireland of the following year, the ’shot accounted for half the infantry, and of these three-quarters were armed with calivers and only one-quarter with muskets. The days of the caliver, however, were numbered; for, unlike the musket, its shot was too light to pierce heavy armour.
The musket was actually earlier in origin than the caliver, having been invented in about 1546, though its adoption in England was somewhat slow. It was, essentially, an improved form of matchlock arquebus, with a greater g rane and accuracy and firing a heavier
rang
It had a barrel 4 feet long, a bore of 8 or io, and was designed to penetrate the heaviest protective armour. Its weight was 2o pounds, and it was consequently necessary to support the barrel on a forked rest. The first type of musket seems to have been too cumbersome to use for anything except siege warfare, and the Duke of Alva has been stated to have been the first to adapt it for use in the field, in his campaign in the Netherlands in
1567. By the time of the Civil War the musket had been considerably lightened, and it was possible to use it without a rest.
In one respect the musket was destined to achieve undying
FIG. 41. A MATCH-BOX.
fame; for its name came to denote any shoulder firearm, and even ‘rifle’ is merely a shortened form of ‘rifled musket’.
One of the disadvantages of the matchlock was the match. In very wet weather it was liable to be extinguished. To give some protection a ‘match-box’ was introduced. This was a tube of pewter, latten or tin, about a foot long, with holes in the side to let in aif.
It was this difficulty with the .match which was responsible for the development of spark ignition. The first substance to be employed for this purpose was pyrites; a mineral which included a combination of iron and sulphur. The mechanism in which it was used was known as the ‘wheel-lock’, and was invented in Nuremberg about 1517. A fragment of pyrites was held in contact with a steel wheel which had a serrated
FIG, 42. WHEEL- LOCKS.
Top: A Wheel-lock Carbine, Elizabeth I. Bottom: A Wheel-lock Dag, Edward VI.
edge. The wheel was rotated by the release of a powerful V-spring attached to the lock plate. The resulting stream of parks was directed at the priming powder.
The spindle of the wheel had a square end, and the lock was set by fitting a key, or spanner, to the spindle and winding it in a clockwise direction. This pulled a short chain of about three links round the spindle, and tautened the spring. After a three-quarter turn a scear (spring catch), which was fixed on the inside of the lock plate, engaged a slot on the wheel.
The flash-pan was then primed and closed. The bottom of the pan, however, was pierced to admit the top of the wheel. The piece of pyrites, which was held in a clamp at the head of the cock, was next lowered on to the top of the pan cover. Assuming it to have been loaded, the weapon was now ready for firing.
Pressure on the trigger drew back the scear and released the spring, causing the wheel to revolve. An ingenious device then caused the pan cover to open. A cam attached to the wheel spindle struck an arm which was connected to the pan cover. This opened the latter, permitting the pyrites to fall on the wheel. The pan cover was then held open by a spring catch.
The wheel-lock was, as may be imagined, an extremely
FIG. 43. WHEEL-LOCK DAGS.
expensive firearm to make, particularly when compared with the simple matchlock. Its adoption in England was consequently slow, and it never became a general issue to the infantry. It was a very useful lock, however, for a horseman. The management of a matchlock on horseback was a difficult feat, for the match had to be kept alight and any adjustments made to it with one hand.
The first single-handed firearms were intended for the horse soldier. These were the dags or tacks, the forerunners of pistols. The first dags were, in appearance, small arquebuses with wheel-locks. In 1544 they were introduced into England as a cavalry weapon.
The wheel-lock, also known as a firelock, suffered from two disadvantages; the first was the expense, and the second the weakness of the pyrites, which was liable to break into pieces. The demand for a sound and inexpensive method of spark transmission led to the introduction of the flintlock. The name originally given to this new mechanism was ’snaphaunce’. This was derived from the Dutch snaphaan, meaning a pecking fowl, and referred to the pecking motion of the cock.
The sparks in the flintlock were produced by striking a piece of flint against a case-hardened steel plate, with serrated ridges on its face. The flint was held in- a clamp at the top of the cock. The ’steel’, against which the flint was struck, worked on an arm which was hinged to the lock plate and held in position by a V-spring. To fire the weapon the cock -was drawn back, thereby compressing the main spring, which in turn actuated an internal tumbler connected to the cock. The scear engaged the tumbler and held the cock in the fully open position. The steel was then lowered towards the rear of the piece and on to the lip of the flash-pan; bringing it within range of the cock. Pulling the trigger drew back the scear, thereby releasing the cock; with the result that the flint struck the steel, directing a stream of sparks into the pan. This last was uncovered, during the forward movement of the cock, through a tumbler actuating a steel link which thrust against the lower part of the pan cover.
This type of flintlock was complicated and still fairly expensive. It was little used in England, though some of the troops ordered to Ireland in i58o are said to have been armed with it. On the Continent, however, it was in common use for a long time. In England it was superseded in the first quarter of the seventeenth century by the so-called ‘English lock’ flintlock. This was a much better and simpler weapon than the original snaphaunce, and the mechanism remained basically the same for all future flintlock firearms.
In the English lock the steel and pan cover were combined in a single piece which was called the ‘hammer’. This consisted of a hinged pan cover which worked upon a screw set in the lock plate and held in either the open or closed positions by a V-spring. The steel, or striking surface, rose approximately at right angles in a curve from the free end of the cover. When the cock was released the flint hit the steel, causing a shower of sparks, and at the same time pushed the whole member back on the hinge, so uncovering the priming powder to the sparks. The firing mechanism was practically the same as that of the snaphaunce, but the weapon could be put at safety by raising the cock half-way and leaving the pan
FIG. 44. AN ARQUEBUS WITH SNAPHAUNCE LOCK.
closed. This “half-cock’ position was achieved by providing a notch on the tumbler in which the scear engaged.
On some English locks there was an additional safety device. This was a catch on the outside of the lock plate which engaged in a notch on the cock when it was in the `half-cock’ position. This type of safety-catch was called a dog-catch and locks so fitted were known as doglocks.
Although the term `snaphaunce’ seems to have been applied originally to those flintlocks with separate pan covers and steels, it appears to have been soon used, in the early seventeenth century, to denote all flintlocks.
The difficulty of managing a matchlock on horseback has already been mentioned. Nevertheless in about I 53o a modification of the arquebus was produced for this purpose. It was called a ‘Petronel’ or ‘poitrinal’, names derived from the French and signifying that the weapon was intended to be fired from the chest. It was shorter than the arquebus but of a large calibre, and, on account of its weight, was carried on a broad shoulder belt. As a matchlock it was a fairly impracticable weapon, and later -versions were fitted with wheel-locks.
Another horseman’s firearm was the dragon. This was something between a petronel and a pistol. Traditionally it had a. dragon’s head at its muzzle, and it is supposed to have given its name to the French Dragons (Dragoons), first raised by Charles de Cosse, Marechal de Brissac, in 1600. Of the later and similar English troops, Markham, in his Souldier’s
FiG. 45- PETRONELS.
Acidence of 1645, says: ‘The last sort of which our horse troopes are composed are called dragoons, which are a kind of footmen on horsebacks, and do now indeed succeed the light horsemen, and are of singular use in all actions of warre. The armes defensive are an open head piece with cheeks, and a good buffs coat, with deeps skirts; and for offensive armes they have a faire dragon fitted with. an iron works, to be carried in a belt of leather, which is buckled over the right shoulder and under the left arms, having a turnill of iron work with a ring, through which the piece runnes up and downs; and these dragons are short pieces of sixteen inches the barrell, and full musquet bore, with firelocks or snaphaunces, also a belt with a flaske, pryming box, key, and bullet bag, and a good sword.’
In the heavy horse petronel and dag were succeeded in due course by carbine and pistol. The difference between a pistol and a dag is, however, not very clear. Weapons which we should normally call pistols were often called dags in England and tacks in Scotland in the early seventeenth, and, in the case of the latter, eighteenth centuries. Owing to their small size,. and consequent popularity as a personal weapon; pistols from very early days seem to have expressed tastes in design and decoration of different gunsmiths. In addition, there have
FIG. 46. A DRAGON.
frequently .been fashions in pistol design which gunsmiths have met in their own particular style: To describe all the pistols which have been used in war would, therefore, be quite beyond the scope of the present work. Nevertheless there are two special types which must be mentioned. The first of these is the screw-barrel pistol. This had a cannon-shaped barrel ‘which screwed off so that the charge could be loaded direct into the breech piece. These enjoyed a great vogue during the reign of Charles I and for some time afterwards. The second is -one of the most famous pistols, or rather -family of pistols, ever made.. This was the Scottish all-metal pistol, which, as far as is known, was first made towards the end of the sixteenth century. The earliest one on record was manufactured byAlison of Dundee. The principal difference between the Scottish pistol and others was that the stock was made of steel or brass instead of wood. The butts of the earliest models had a fish-tailed end, and they were sometimes made of wood encased in, or mounted with, brass or silver.
The early seventeenth-century carbine, according to a 1630 book on cavalry by Captain Cruso, was the same length as an arquebus but had a smaller bore. It was a flintlock, and it was slung from a shoulder belt by a swivel.
There were two disastrous expeditions during the reign of Charles 1, the failure of which was to some extent due to defective firearms. In the force sent to Cadiz, in fact, the majority of the firearms are said to have been either defective or useless. As a result of these deficiencies a special Commission under the Privy Seal appointed a select committee of gunmakers, arniourcrs, pikemakers and bandolier makers, `being the skillfullest and prime workmen of this land’, to undertake an investigation into the arms of the national militia and Trained Bands and to rectify any deficiencies. The London gunmakers mentioned as being on the Commission were Henry Rowland, Richard Burrowe, Thomas Addis, John Norcott, William Dawstin, John Watson and William Graves. These gunmaker members were temporarily vested with powers of proving and testing firearms.
The Germans concentrated their armour from the start in special armoured divisions comprising a balanced force of tanks, artillery, infantry, engineers, and administrative services. No consideration was given to the idea behind the French and British ‘infantry’ tanks and the doctrines associated with them. The tanks, supported by their own artillery and infantry, were to operate as a concentrated strategic force directed against the enemy’s weakest spots and well ahead of the main, slower, infantry army.
This tank army, trained as a team, consisting of ten armoured divisions by May 9, 1940, contained at all levels a wealth of experience. Many of its officers and men were members of tank units which fought on Franco’s side in the Spanish Civil War. Here they gained battle practice: they tested new techniques and the mechanical capabilities of their machines; and they saw the fate that befell tank forces that were put into battle dispersed in ‘penny packets’. Moreover, intensive peacetime exercises in Germany had been supplemented by the bloodless occupations of Austria in 1938 and Czechoslovakia in 1939. In rapid, long-distance thrusts through these countries, the armoured forces taught themselves essential administrative lessons without having actually to engage in combat.
In September 1939, when the fighting began, the administration worked well and the armoured divisions outfought the old-fashioned Polish army in a matter of days, showing that the quality of the highly specialised, mechanised forces was master of the quantity mustered by the larger, traditional conscript armies. It also confirmed what had been long understood: that the air arm, working in close cooperation with tanks, conferred a powerful element of heavy fire-support on forces operating deep in the enemy rear. The aircraft were in fact a substitute for heavy artillery.
Singers without song
Thus on May 9, 1940, the relative overall condition of the opposing armoured forces can be summarised as follows. The French, saddled with a technique that was 20 years out of date, and with machines operated by men who lacked experience of the pace and scope of modern battle conditions, were partnered by the British, whose techniques were far more up-to-date, but who were attempting to practise them with too few machines, and with a number of officers and men who had not yet had time to grasp the significance of their new role. Indeed, it was this lack of experience that most seriously bedevilled the fighting quality of the Allies. Their armoured formations, either through reasons of policy, doctrine, or lack of machines, had not practised together. Nor was there close co-operation with the air arm in the forefront of the land battle. So they were in fact singers without a song.
Fatally linked with their limited use of tanks was the failure of the Allied command to understand and make adequate strategic preparations to defeat the German attacks when they eventually came. There was a belief, sincerely held, despite warnings from men of practical experience, that some terrains were naturally tank-proof and others could be made secure by the erection of concrete and steel fortifications. It was thought that mechanised armies would not be able to pass through the narrow lanes, forests, and valleys of the Ardennes; that the Maginot Line would be impenetrable, and that the extensions of the Maginot Line along the Belgian frontier, certain inundations, and large built-up areas would also be serious obstacles to tank action.
Therefore the Allies made no elaborate plans for tank counterthrusts in the localities they had classified as tank-proof. The best, mobile armoured portions of the French army were not deployed in a manner permitting them to launch an immediate, concentrated counterstroke —even if their doctrine had envisaged such action. As we have seen, no such doctrine existed and as a result it was quite conceivable —even probable—that the light mechanised divisions and the new tank divisions could be flung in piecemeal (and therefore outnumbered) against superior enemy formations.
Their opponents, the Germans, lacked neither doctrine, equipment, training, nor experience. They were masters of a new war-winning technique that brought speed and mobility to the battlefield. By a combination of speed, thrust, and shock action they could bring a completely new momentum to the battle. The impact of the German armoured divisions could not be compared with that of the basically cavalry- and infantry-oriented methods of the Allies: they had in fact — with their range and striking power —introduced a new dimension to warfare.
Types of tank
Yet inevitably the balance of material was in favour of the Allies, who had more tanks than the Germans and many that were technically superior. In their ten armoured divisions the Germans had only 627 of the good Mark III and IV tanks, armed respectively with a 37-mm and a 75-mm gun, and protected by armour not more than 30-mm in thickness. The remaining 2,060 tanks were lightly armoured machines, mostly armed only with a 20-mm gun — although 381 of these were the sound Czech light T-38, equipped with a 37-mm gun. In addition to the 2,690 tanks with the armoured divisions, there were some 800 machines, mostly light ones, in reserve.
Against this array the French fielded about 3,000 machines, of which 500 were in units in the course of formation, plus older reserve machines. Of these 3,000 tanks, 1,292 were with the light mechanised divisions and the new tank divisions; the remainder were split up among the infantry armies. To this total should be added the British. On May 9 they had in France
210 light tanks in the light armoured regiments, and 100 ‘1′ tanks in the lst Army Tank Brigade. A further 174 light tanks and 156 of the new cruisers, belonging to the Armoured Division, were ready to cross the Channel as the battle started. Thus the Allies could oppose 3,000 German tanks with something like 3,600 of their own — if they chose.
On balance, the quality of the machines possessed by the two sides was about equal. The best French tank, the Char B, mounted the excellent 47-mm gun in a fully rotating turret and had a 75-mm gun mounted in the hull. The 20-ton Somua had a 47-mm gun, too, and was fast. The armour of these tanks was from 40 to 60 mm thick, compared with the best German armour of 30 mm. There were 800 of these new machines and even the older ones compared well with the German lighter vehicles. The 384 light British tanks were certain to be severely outclassed in a stand-up fight, because their guns could not penetrate armour, although their high speed and small size might serve them well when engaged on reconnaissance. But the 100 infantry tanks, of which 23 were the new Matilda, were covered by immensely thick armour (up to 70 mm) and quite safe from the fire of the German tank guns. And the 2-pounder gun, mounted in the thinner cruisers of the Armoured Division and also on the Matilda, was a weapon capable of penetrating any of the German machines at battle ranges.
But while the German and British machines (with one exception) were designed with two- or three-man turrets, the French machines had a single man in the turret confronted with the difficult task of commanding the vehicle, loading and firing the gun, and sometimes controlling the tactics of sub-units. The single British exception was the Mark I infantry tank, and this too presented terrible problems of combat efficiency and command.
This technical factor meant that the German and most of the British crews would be able to fight as teams within the all-embracing organisation of the armoured formations to which they belonged—but would also give the Germans an important advantage when their tank formations clashed with the French. This would make up for the fact that the majority of their tanks were vulnerable to the enemy tank guns, while their own guns would not penetrate the armour of a large proportion of the Allied tanks.
Leadership
The importance of personal command and direction is far more apparent to the fighting man in a climate of military opinion that insists that the generals should remain in the fore-front of the battle, in close touch with the leading tanks both visually and by radio. The Germans practised this method more than the Allies. The French kept their command posts further to the rear in accordance with the practice of 1918, and in any case did not possess a control system suited to high-speed combat. This fact, when combined with the separation of the tank-crew commander from the rest of his crew, would be liable to foster a drop in morale among the French tank units (there is evidence to support this —noted by British tank crews working alongside the French later in the campaign). It was clear, they said, that when faced by German tanks the French crews became cautious and were almost paralysed; and this exaggerated respect for the enemy was a result of the drubbing they had received in their first encounters with the German tanks. Even if the balance of morale between the contestants was equal on May 9, a week later the defects in organisation, leadership, and tactics had swung the scales irrevocably in favour of the Germans.
The overriding superiority of the Germans over the Allies was inherent in their intention to make use of well co-ordinated, massed, all-arms formations, launched into battle at the critical points, commanded by inspired men of vision and determination. Men of the stamp of Guderian and Reinhardt led the armoured corps from the van of the battle (with Rommel leading one of the divisions) — and this wealth of talent could not fail to overwhelm lesser men with old-fashioned ideas. For on the Allied side, none of the generals of 1940 had
• deep knowledge of armoured warfare; with
• startling lack of foresight, those men who had made a study of the subject had been distributed to positions where their talents lay unused. Martel commanded an infantry division; Broad, Pile, and Lindsay had been sent—some say deliberately—to posts unconnected with armoured warfare; and Hobart had been removed from the Active List, though he was ultimately to be recalled. De Gaulle was only just in the process of assembling a brand new and totally inexperienced tank division.
Let it be admitted that men such as these were not easy to live with. They had learned to be ruthless in the face of long-established tradition, that out-dated rules must be broken whatever the personal and immediate consequences, and that these circumstances applied in all armies. Men insufficiently imbued with spirit failed in the face of military ‘vested interests’; those who stood up to them but were unblessed by fortune were removed—as Hobart was; those who fought, and were lucky, followed their stars to success in war in the forefront of the armoured battle.
In 1940, it was the Germans whose spirit and good fortune had combined — and so they dominated. Most of the French armoured commanders were ineffective, and the grossly outnumbered British tank men could not, except on one outstanding occasion, make a decisive contribution.
In numbers the Allies were superior to the Germans; in quality of equipment they were, on balance, about equal; in strategic and tactical application, they were markedly inferior.
The sheer superiority of German armoured technique ensured the certainty of their victory before the frontiers were crossed.
