Shooting the War

SWORDS—WATERLOO TO
THE PRESENT DAY
There was no, change in the pattern of swords used by the British Army during the long second period of the Napoleonic wars, which lasted from the reopening of hostilities, after the abortive Peace of Amibns, until the final departure of Napoleon to St. Helena. When the threat from imperial France had been finally removed, however, there was more time for those who meddle with these things to consider the minutiae of military uniform and equipment.
Round about i82o sundry new regulations were published relating to swords. Even the superb light cavalry sword, which had proved its value in action, was not left alone. The old argument was revived as to whether cutting or thrusting was the more important function of a cavalrysword; and because it was not yet appreciated that no sword can be designed which is really satisfactory for both, the weapon which eventually appeared was a compromise which was good at neither.
The new sword was issued to regiments of Hussars and Light Dragoons in 1826. It had the same type of stirrup hilt as the old sword, but the blade was increased in length to thirty-four inches, and was both narrower and considerably less curved. The balance of the sword was quite altered as compared with its predecessor, and this, together with the straighter blade, resulted in a weapon which was far inferior for cutting. For thrusting it was more effective, though by no means satisfactory.
Units seem to have been in no hurry to acquire this new sword, for the 13th Hussars, at any rate, managed to retain the old one until 1829. In 1829 the hilt was changed from the stirrup pattern to a three-bar steel guard, which gave more protection to the hand.
In 1822 the sword of the heavy cavalry received some much needed attention. In contrast, however, to the ill-advised replacement of the efficient light cavalry sword, the only improvement made to the ineffective weapon of the heavy cavalry was the substitution of a sharp point for the original hatchet termination of the blade.
Also in or about :1822 a new sword was introduced for infantry officers. The hilt was a half-basket type of Gothic design, incorporating the Royal cypher, and the half of the guard worn next to the body was hinged to fall downwards, to avoid rubbing the clothing. The inside of the hilt was lined with black patent,leather, and there was a fishskin grip bound with brass wire. The hilts were made of brass, except those of the Rifle regiments, which were steel. The blade was the same length of thirty-two inches as the previous pattern, but it was slightly curved instead of being straight. In addition it was unfullered and had piping down .the back to strengthen it. In spite of the strengthening, however, the blade was weak; and the piping, in fact, prevented it cutting deep.
In 1834 the Highland regiments, which hitherto had worn the same infantry sword as the rest of the Army, were issued with a sword of their own. This had the traditional ‘Highland Basket’ hilt. The blade was the heavy broadsword type similar to that popular in the heavy cavalry in about 1750, (A sword with this type of.hilt is often wrongly called a claymore. The true claymore is a two-handed sword with no other protection than a pair of straight quillons.) The Highland Basket is, not, in point of fact, a very convenient hilt, in spite of the protection it gives. The hand is too confined for the sword to be used very effectively. for thrusting. On the other hand, it was originally designed for cutting;; the body being protected by either the dirk or the targe. Used thus it was a very fine weapon. In addition it was very decorative, and during the reign of the ‘First Gentleman in Europe’ this was frequently of greater importance than efficiency for battle. The hilt was lined with white buckskin and scarlet cloth edged with blue silk, and a crimson silk tassel was suspended from the pommel. Lowland regiments were still armed with the ordinary pattern of infantry sword.
In about 1848 a new sword was at last brought out for the heavy cavalry. It was a vast improvement on the old one. The blade was thirty-six inches long, slightly curved, and tapered to a sharp point. The hilt was steel, and the guard was the first example of the bowl-shell which is fitted to the latest pattern of cavalry sword. On the inside it was lined with leather, and there was a leather covering to the grip.
The new heavy cavalry sword had a very short life, for in 1853 a sword was approved for issue to all cavalry regiments, whether heavy- or light. This signalized official recognition that there was now no difference in the function of the two branches of the cavalry. It i6 unlikely, however, that many regiments, if any, received this sword before leaving for the Crimea; and the great cavalry actions of that war were probably fought with the older pattern swords.
It had at last been realized that all the qualities required for cutting - and thrusting could not be combined in one weapon. The 1853 pattern was primarily a thrusting weapon, and it was so stated in the regulations. At the same time the design allowed for cutting as a secondary function. The blade was straight and thirty-six inches in length. The guard consisted of three bars, of cast iron, and on the opposite side of the sword was a short quillon. ‘The slit for the sword knot was on top of the guard.
The ordinary infantry officer’s sword was improved in 1845. The hilt was unchanged, but the blade was heavier, fallered and without the piping on the back. It was . still slightly curved. Some ten years later there was another change. The blade became a little straighter, and the inner part of the guard was no longer hinged. The design on the guard incorporated the Royal cypher and, in Light Infantry and Rifle regiments, a bugle as well.
A peculiar type of ornamental sword was introduced into the Band and Drums of the infantry in about 1830- It had a short and very curved blade of the type known as Mameluke. The hilts varied in shape and design in accordance with regimental taste. The pommel nearly always figured an animal’s head. The lion was the most often seen, but sometimes a badge of the regiment was chosen. The 17th Regiment, for instance, had the Royal Tiger which had been granted to them as a badge in 1825. The 56th Regiment, which. had been associated with West Kent for many years, bore the Kentish horse. There was no guard other than quillons, and these were straight, curved or counter-curved; and sometimes with brass chains connecting the quillons and the pommel.
In 1854 a new and completely different sword was introduced for the Band and Drums. It had a blade which was longer but less curved than its predecessor and a brass half-basket hilt, incorporating the Royal cypher. Three years later the sword was changed again. Curved blade and half-basket hilt were alike discarded. The new weapon was short and straight in the blade; and the hilt had no guard other than trefoil-shaped quillons. There was a black leather scabbard with brass mounts. For Rifle regiments the hilt was steel, and for other regiments brass. A similar sword, but slightly lighter, was issued to buglers. The only other difference was the absence of a knob on top of the pommel. In 1895 the hilt was simplified and the bugler’s sword was made slightly the heavier weapon. In i goS these swords were abolished.
In 18 56 the sword replaced the musket as the weapon of the infantry Pioneers. The. blade was 22z inches in length, and the back edge was cut as a double-toothed saw. The hilt had a simple knuckle-bow guard. This was probably not the first time that Pioneers had used saw-backed swords, as some seem to have been armed with them in the I 840’s; but this earlier type was not, apparently, official, and may have been made under regimental arrangements.
In 1864 the bowl-shell guard, which had been fitted to the heavy cavalry sword of 1848, replaced the guard with cast-iron bars of the universal cavalry sword of 1853. It had been found that these bars often broke in action, and in any case gave little protection to the hand. The new guard was made of sheet steel and was pierced by four triangular apertures arranged in the shape of a cross. At the same time the blade was shortened by an inch to thirty-five inches, and was curved slightly, presumably to improve it for cutting.
In 1863 an improved pattern of Highland Basket hilt was approved for Scottish infantry regiments. It made no appreciable. difference, however, to the regimental broadsword as a fighting weapon. In fact, later swords of English manufacture were far inferior weapons. Eventually, in 18 7 8, it was decided that basket hilts would have to be removed on active service. The hilt which was consequently approved for wear with Service dress certainly allows the hand full freedom of movement, but the only protection provided is a pair of straight quillons. The basket and cross hilts are made readily interchangeable. The original scabbards had been of black leather with brass or copper-gilt mounts and a chape with trailer. The 1863 scabbard was steel, but the pattern approved later for wear with Service dress and Sam Browne belt was leather. In 1881 the Lowland regiments adopted the Highland pattern broadsword.
A peculiarity in the swords of Scottish regiments is the use of a separate type of hilt for mounted field officers. This is interchangeable with either the cross or basket hilts for dismounted duties, and is lined with buckskin and crimson cloth. The pattern varies with different regiments. In’ The Royal Scots, The Royal Scots Fusiliers, The King’s Own Scottish Borderers and The Gordon, Highlanders the hilt is covered with a design of thistles, and there is a space for the display of the regimental badge. The field officers of The Black Watch, The Seaforth Highlanders, *The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and The Highland Light Infantry have a differently shaped guard with a scroll design. This hilt was also worn by officers of the heavy cavalry from 1857 to 1896, and by officers of the Royal Engineers from -T-8$7 to -1902- Field officers of The Cameron Highlanders have a separate sword with a three-barred and unlined hilt, which is also worn by officers of the Royal Artillery. The Cameronians have the same sword as other Rifle regiments, though for some years the regimental badge was worn in place of the bugle.
In 188o a new sword was introduced for officers of infantry regiments nts; (other than Scottish). It had a straight blade and a half-basket brass hilt. In 1895 a new hilt was introduced, though the blade remained  the same. The hilt was again the half-basket type, but of steel instead of brass. It incorporated a foliated design and the crowned Royal cypher. The following year there was a slight modification: the inside edge of the guard was turned down to safeguard the uniform from damage. The 1896 sword is the pattern worn by officers to-day, not only in the infantry, but in the Royal Engineers, the Royal Signals and other corps.
In 1882 another cavalry sword was produced which had only slight alterations as compared with its predecessor of 1864. The guard was a little smaller and the inner edge was turned down. The sword knot slit was moved from the front to the top of the guard, and the upper part of the guard was raised a little: above the pommel. There was no alteration in the shape and design of the blade, but there were two different lengths: 35-j and 33 inches.
The Egyptian war, which was in progress at this time, brought to light some unsuspected and unfortunate deficiencies in the swords and bayonets of the British Army. There were many reports of blades being broken or bent in action. The fault -was obviously in the quality of the steel; and there was legitimate criticism of the method of testing and inspection. Eventually a Committee was appointed to investigate the matter. Nothing very positive seems to have resulted from its deliberations; but the very fact of the investigation and the evidence which was called must have caused manufacturers to. improve their standards; for no further failure was apparently reported’. In the meantime Enfield was unable to meet the whole of the demand for swords and bayonets, and part of the order, therefore, was placed with German firms at the famous sword-manufacturing centre of Solingen.
The cavalry sword was again modified in 18 8 5. The curve of the blade was slightly increased and made an inch shorter than the 1882 pattern.. In addition, the top of the guard was made level with the pommel. In 18 go a heavier blade was introduced which, except for being thicker, was of the same shape and pattern.
However, in spite of these numerous minor modifications, the old argument as to the type of sword which should be used by cavalry broke out once more: stimulated probably by criticisms resulting from the recent campaigns. The argument was sufficiently intense for the matter to be brought to the notice of Parliament; and, as a result, a .number of experimental swords were made. The arguments were again reflected in the final solution. As in the case of the light cavalry sword of 182o, the cavalry sword of 1899 was suitable for neither cutting nor thrusting; though optimistically intended for both. The blade was reduced in length to 33 inches. The hilt was of the same design as previously, but a slightly enlarged and more bowl’shaped guard gave better protection to the hand. The cavalry regiments which went out to South Africa at the start of the Boer war were armed with either the 1885 or the 1890 pattern of sword; but the unfortunate units in the later reinforcements were issued with the heartily disliked 1899 model.
The obvious failure of the 1899 sword led, in 1903, to the appointment of a Committee to re-examine the problem and to make recommendations for a suitable type of sword for the cavalry. The Committee early decided that the sword must be primarily a thrusting weapon on the grounds that little injury was inflicted by a cut, and that a thrust was always far the more effective. Whereas experience with the light cavalry sword in the Peninsular campaign certainly did not support this conclusion, it was something that the Committee had made up its mind on the purpose which the sword was to serve. However, although numerous experimental swords .were made, all were rejected as unsuitable, and the proceedings of the Committee apparently came to an end.
In 1906 another Committee was appointed; and with such energy did it act that some months later a new sword was ready for trial. In the design of this new model the Committee drew on a wide field of experience. Swords to meet certain specifications were ordered from private firms, and trials were carried out with numerous existing types, both British and foreign.
The firms who were requested to make swords for experi- , ment were Messrs. Wilkinson and Messrs. Mole. It was stipulated that the blade must be 35 inches in length, and have a narrow chisel edge; that the weight should be 2 pounds 6 ounces; that the balance should be between 21 and 21 inches below the hilt; and that the grip should be shaped to ensure that the sword could only be held in the correct fashion.
The existing swords submitted for test were the pre-Boer war cavalry sword of the 18 go pattern; the unpopular model of 1899; a sword which had been adopted for the Household cavalry in x892, with a slightly curved blade 341 inches long and a guard of sheet steel; the French cavalry sword of 1854, which had a straight 381-inch blade and a four-bar brass guard; the French light cavalry sword of 1822, which was a cutting weapon with a curved blade and a three-bar brass guard; the existing sword of the Dutch cavalry; and the light thrusting sword of a Spanish bull-fighter. Apart from these, experimental blades were tried with existing hilts, and to existing blades were fitted grips of various shapes and materials.
The sword which was the outcome of these trials and experiments was the ‘Pattern i 906 Experimental’. This was issued to several units and proved very popular. It had a straight thrusting blade and the so-called ‘pistol’ grip. As a result of the success of this weapon a slightly modified version was approved by the King in igoS for general issue to the cavalry; and this was the last cavalry sword to be designed for the British Army. It was a worthy finish, for it is one of the finest swords ever to have been designed, and it was outstandingly successful in the field in the “First World War. With its straight narrow 35-inch blade it is essentially a thrusting weapon. The guard is of sheet steel, unpierced, and is shaped into a very large and rather ugly-looking bowl, which gives excellent protection to the hand. The pistol grip has been retained, and is so shaped that the hand naturally grasps it in the correct position. The sword is a delight to handle and is beautifully balanced.

Tags: accordance, animal, austrian, badge, brass, british army, broadsword, Cameron Highlanders, cavalry sword, change, cypher, deco, decoupage, design, effect, experience, fashion, final departure, first world war, four inches, freedom of movement, Gothic, hatchet, hilt, hostilities, improvement, infantry, instance, italian, light cavalry, light dragoon, light dragoons, Mameluke, mark 1723-35, method, michael thonet cabinet, michael thonet table, mid 19th century french furniture, mid 20th century oak brueghel table, mid century ambulante table, mid-16th century, mideival gothic furniture, military uniform, ming porcelain, ming style qing dynasty, minor nobility, minton +"cabinet plate", minton animal figures, minton regency vases, mintons animal figures, mintons salt glaze plate, minutiae, mirror cabanit, mirrored 2-tier console table, mixing bedside tables shapes, modern armchairs italian, modern art of woman seated in scrolled arm chair, modern curved corner cabinet, modern harleqin pattern, modern italian sideboards, modernism stile cabinet italy, molds picture frames plaster of paris, money chests, monk chair hand carved, monks chair, monks chair antique 1930, monogram henry simmen, montelupo 17th century candlesticks, montereau bidet, moorish buffet table, moorish cabinet with mother of pearl, mortlake stoneware tankards, most commonly collected porcelain, mother of pearl china made in czechoslovakia, mother of pearl inlay antique d black carved ebony orie, mother of pearl side table antique marble chinese, mother of pearl table antique marble chinese, motifs of chippendale beautiful furniture furniture in , musket, pattern, pommel, predecessor, present day, regimental, reign, rifle, Sam, second period, service, shape, sharp point, South Africa, spice cabinet, steel guard, stirrup, weapon, wear, West Kent, wood, wrought iron, yongzheng period

In 1852 John Bentley took out a patent fora revolver which had a spring safety catch on the hammer to hold if clear of the cap imperial kutani peacocks. Iij the following year he gilded console table.transferred the patent rights to Philip Webley of Birmingham antique silver trays from denmark. On the 29th March 1853, a little over 10o years history of woods ware. ago, Webley patented his first revolver silver entray dishes. A number of different versions of this pilot model were produced in its first year furniture. They varied in such matters as the method of attaching turn tripod into table. the barrel -to the frame, 17th century clocks. and type of bullet-yammer porcelain figures of famous people. These various types were experimental, and by the end of the year four different patterns were decided on for production classic furniture ornaments technical drawing. They were all percussion muzzle-loaders with five-shot cylinders, but three had single-action and one double-action copies of antique furniture. Of the single-action revolvers, one was a pocket weapon with a 4-inch barrel of -420 calibre and a hinged frame art deco palissy dinnerware. The other two were long-barrelled heavy-calibred revolvers with a rifling of three grooves antique cylinder roll top desk china cupboad. One of these had a particularly long spur, or cocking piece, on the hammer, and was known as the ‘Longspur’ 1930 curved arms chair. It became very popular owing to the speed at which it could be fired chicken coop shelving. The double-action revolver was very similar to the Longspur, but not so well finished and without any spur to the hammer deco legs. Bentley’s safety catch was fitted to a number of these first Webley revolvers vintage three leg table base.
The next Webley model came out in 1857 18th century writing table cabriole ball claw feet. This was the Wedge-Frame double-action revolver, which was very popular and of which large numbers were made antique trends. It was followed two years later by an improved double-action revolver with a solid frame cooking utensils in the 17th century. Many of these various types of Webley muzzle-loading revolvers were bought by the Confederacy and used in the American Civil War silver tray with food.
By the time of the great conflicts of the Crimean war and the Indian Mutiny, revolvers were well established in the British Army; particularly as officers’ weapons maiolica cantagalli savona 1600. Many, or most, of these latter were privately bought, and comprised Adams, Colts, Bentleys, Webleys, Kerrs, Tranters, DeaneHardings and Daws (the last being made by the firm of Witton and Daw) guilloche. It is probable that the great majority were Adams antique stanford refectory table with end leafs.
In 1864 John Adams separated from his brother and the London historical development of art deco.Armoury Company; and set up his own establishment, the Adams Patent Small Arms Company, at 391 The Strand, London antique paw dresser and mirror. All the revolvers described so far were muzzle-loaders art deco sofa 1925. That is to say, powder and ball were inserted from the front of the chambers 1820 gateleg table maple. From the early i86o’s there was a gradual change to breech-loading silver plated furniture. The first breech-loaders were made in the United States; and they might have been made very much earlier, but for the all-embracing revolving cylinder patent of Samuel Colt 19th century daybed. This ran out in 1857, and almost immediately Rollin White patented a cylinder with the chambers bored right through for breech-loading spanish sideboard. This patent was made over to Smith and Wesson, with the result that the latter firm, which had already been manufacturing them secretly, was able to put breech-loading revolvers on the market as soon as the Colt patent expired antique silver terrine. The Rollin White patent was valid until 1869, but before that date there were Numerous attempts, to circumvent; or blatantly ignore, the patent hankerchief table mahogany.
Whilst Great Britain was not; of course, bound by the Rollin White patent, it probably indirectly delayed the appearance of breech-loaders on the British market english knife box. It is difficult to say which was the first British breech-loading revolver, but William Tranter had one model in production italian cabinet antique. by, perhaps, 1863 baccarat amberina gold 1840. This was the ‘44 calibre so-called ‘Police’ revolver, which was purchased in small numbers for the Army and other Government services antique bookcase with  trough. It used the rim-fire cartridge, which was already popular in the United States common carpentry joints on tudor houses. The base of the cartridge was of greater diameter than the body, forming a rim or flange http:  newmedicalinfo.com. Inside the flange was the detonating mixture, and it was this portion of the case which was hit by the striker oriental writing bureau cabinet. This Tranter revolver appears to have been the only rim-fire weapon ever issued to the British Army figurines from the pastorals of porcelain. The chief disadvan-
age of the cartridge was that it could be exploded accidentally through being knocked or dropped 1940’s english sideboard. The Police revolver was double-action and had a six-chamber cylinder 12 apostle teaspoons. A few years later Tranter produced his ‘Army’ revolver, which was also purchased in limited quantities by the Government french animal chairs. Like the Police revolver, it was double-action and had a six-chamber cylinder, but the bore had the slightly larger calibre of ‘45 inch, and it used a central-fire cartridge secretaire de roentgen. This had a cap chamber fitted into the centre of the thickened base of the cartridge, and was much safer than the rim-fire italian “lacquered furniture”. All succeeding Service arms had centre-fire cartridges swedish furniture 1930.
In about 1865′Webley produced his last muzzle-loading revolver antique carved gateleg end table. It was a rim-fire weapon with a tip-up break action 1700s brass tea caddy. In probably the same year the first Webley breech-loader appeared fiddleback walnut. This was a single-action rim-fire revolver, with a six-chambered cylinder, a solid frame and a calibre Of ‘45 inch history woods ware wincanton. All succeeding Webleys took centre-fire cartridges french dining draw leaf table stretcher. The first of these was a very short-barrelled weapon with a -calibre Of ‘577 (the same as that of the contemporary Snider-Enfield rifle) best english antique brass beds. It used the new art deco lamp globe. Boxer centre-fire cartridge, of which a description is given in Chapter XVI antique imari porcelain. There were two models: one had a solid frame, and the other had a top fastening and broke open antique kneehole dresser. It was popular on account of its great stopping power antique sideboard 1825.
In the meantime, John Adams, from his new plant in The Strand, had turned out in 1866 the last muzzle-loading revolver to be used by the Fighting Services verlys smoke glass. It was double-action and had a calibre Of king george 1v furniture. ‘45 inch lyre base, sofa table. As compared with his brother’s revolvers, John had succeeded in fitting a six-chamber cylinder painted furniture harlequin diamond. antique vase markings. It appears that it was originally intended to make a breech-loading weapon, and the cylinder was slightly shorter than that normally fitted for muzzle-loading antique furniture ornaments. Only a few were made, and it may be that there was an unexpected Service requirement for a small number of muzzleloaders painter dufy. In any case, whatever demand there was was only short-lived, and in 1868 some of these arms were converted to breech-loaders art nouveau court cabinet. Conversion of the Enfield rifles to breech-loading had started in the previous year, and it was no doubt intended to do the same with the revolvers antique ceramic indian elephant end table. In addition td the conversions, John Adams produced in the same year a number of new breech-loaders which were practically indistinguishable from the conversions pedestals and urns chippendale. Another and larger batch Of 18′72 was similar except for an improved ejector rod 17th century silver soup tureens.
In about 1880 a revolver for military use was designed and produced at the Enfield Small Arms Factory antique shop slovakia. Its particular feature was its mechanism for the extraction of the, empty cartridge case after firing theodore haviland 1958 pattern. ‘Self-extraction’ or, alternatively, `self-ejection’ were facilities for which there was an increasing military demand antique ceramic tambour german mantle clocks. Mr lowenfink. R gillow & waring vitrine glass. Scurfield calls it a ’slightly eccentric weapon’, and adds, ‘It was not a good choice, and I suspect owed its adoption to the fact that its designer, one Owen Jones, was a member of brass mote spoon., the Enfield Small Arms Factory staff, in spite of being of American origin; in fact, the drawings to his patent specifications show the invention applied to single-action pistols of American type’ ornate antique silver roast serving platter.
Mr european cabinet maker tool chest. Scurfield, in his article which has been previously quoted, puts this whole matter of extraction and ejection very clearly antique porcelain and china clocks. He says:
`There were by 1880 a number of quite reasonably efficient and more or less reliable self-extractors and self-ejectors; in the former the empty cases are withdrawn* from the chamber by a fixed extractor, usually by sliding the cylinder forward,
T
and then have to be shaken clear, while in the latter the frame is hinged, and when opened or “broken” an extractor is forced out of the cylinder, throwing the cases clear of the pistol 1920’s antique mahogany tables. The self-extractors have to be loaded through a gate, after the cylinder has been restored to its normal position, like a solid frame arm; the self-ejectors are loaded before the frame is closed czechoslovakia porcelain. Of the two systems the ejector is by far the better, given proper design and proper workmanship-, and the extractors all old fashioned table brass metal claw feet on casters.became obsolete, except for the egregious Enfield, long before 18 go, when that arm also passed into oblivion revolving bookcase.
`The self-extractors were the Galand and Somerville antique desk art moderne.(AngloBelgian, 1868), the Thomas (1869), and the Merwin-Hulbert (American, 1878); there were others (I have a nameless sliding-cylinder extractor,’ beautifully made by Webley), all of which seem to derive from the Galand-Somerville (which was about the best of them, and was itself preceded by a whole array of more or less similar self-extractors, nameless, patentless, and made in Belgium, which used pin-fire cartridges and extracted the cases by the pins); the Galand seems to have lasted longest, and was for a time used officially by the Russian army talavera lustre. It will not stand powerful cordite cartridges, but at least none that I have seen have ever rattled like the Thomas victorian candlesticks.
`The self-ejectors were the Smith and Wesson (American, 1869), the Pryse (1876), and the Tranter (1879)—it was Tranter’s second or third shot at a “break-down” self-ejector german art deco porcelain harlequin. There were a few others, but none to be compared with these, all of which had quite a long life—the Smith and Wesson, somewhat modified, until a decade or so ago if not to the present day hyalith czech glass. Pryse’s revolver was a great favourite with army officers, and has the distinction of being the first pistol to have a rebounding lock (i oak pembroke tables.e serpentine top breakfast table., one in which the hammer, after striking the cap, rises far enough to be withdrawn from contact with it) telescopic table furniture. It was made by Webley antique   urn   spoons. regency secretare. solid mahogany gateleg table imperial. rosewood and satinwood ladies pedestal desk. and indeed is sometimes called the “Chinese Webley”, from the circumstances that london porcelain manufacturers. the Chinese Government bought quite a large number oriental tea tables cherrywood portable furnitur. I imagine that the popularity of this pistol started Webleys, then emerging from the doldrums, thanks to the success of their ” R innovative styles of the 20th century did not include:. I rockingham china 1848.C european cabinetry of art. ” (Royal Irish Constabulary) revolver, on the quest for a really first-class “break-down” self-ejector —which of course, they eventually procured antique lyre table. “antique silver indian furniture”. expensive blue glass bowls. 1930 art deco french armchairs.`The fault of the self-extractors is that after a fair amount of use the fastening of the frame, which is divided to allow the cylinder to slide forward on the axis-pin, becomes worn —whereupon the arm “rattles” and the chambers no longer align properly with the barrel; the fault of the self-ejectors is usually in the fastening of the top strap to standing-breech, which may be susceptible to blowing open, either because it is not properly closed or because it is not strong enough 19th century chinese furniture. The early Smith and Wessons put themselves out of court with the War Office on this account (and I think rightly, for at the time the fastening was not too reliable), and their shortcomings were promptly attiibuted to all “break-down” revolvers antiques lamps made by universal statuary co.. Tranter’s last self-ejector has a better fastening, secured by a long thumb lever operating a hook over the end of the top strap (the parent of the Webley stirrup fastening), but it came under the condemnation passed upon all “break-down” pistols-, besides it was too Lsite, for by 18′79 the Enfield must have been approved, if not actually adopted what is a chamber pot of 1800s. The existing self-extractors were all clearly unsuitable as arms for military purposes, and the self-ejectors were condemned as dangerous on account of the top-strap fastening-, so, with unerring instinct, Owen Jones designed, and the War Office adopted, an arm cunningly combining the disadvantages of both italian neo-classical commode.’
Although, on the whole, a bad revolver, the Enfield became the official pattern for both the antique pine draw leaf table 1920. Army and the Navy, and Mr sideboards. Scurfield thinks that it was the first revolver to be• a general issue to the rank and file of the cavalry 19the century russian furnitrue. There were two patterns: Mark I of i88o had a calibre of ‘422 inch, and Mark II of 1882 one of ‘476 paris exposition candlesticks. The larger calibre was introduced as the ‘422 bullet had insufficient weight to stop a charging man at short range indian interior low seating drawing room. This deficiency was so evident against the Afghan tribesmen that most officers armed themselves with more effective private arms antique mahogany drop leaf work table. The -476 Enfield, however, had a much heavier bullet and was satisfactory in this respect dumbwaiter end tables. The Enfield frame was hinged in front of the trigger guard and opened like the normal ejector type; but instead of ejecting, the cylinder slid forward leaving the cartxidge ‘cases behind, suspended on the extractor paris antique holophane. This was in the form of a star which fitted into the cylinder but did not slide forward antique wurttemberg clocks.
The most famous of • all British Army revolvers is the Webley antique brass chamber candlestick. Further, it has the distinction of being the oldest pattern of military firearm still in production in Great Britain, and probably in the world louis 16th reproduction dining set. Since the Ordnance Board accepted Webley’s Mark I in 1887 (made five years previously) and the present -day there have been only comparatively minor modifications antique italian extendable table. This is a period of some seventy years yabu fruit. Even Brown Bess might require the acceptance of the India Pattern musket as a modification to beat it mallard furniture. The Webley record is the more remarkable, however, as it covers a period during which there has been more scientific and mechanical advance than during the whole of the previous history of the world hyalith glass.
One may perhaps take, as the earliest origin of the firm which made the Webley revolver history of american sideboards., a business which was established by one William Davis in 1790: Davis set up an establishment in Weaman Street, Birmingham, for the manufacture of bullet moulds, gunmakers’ tools and other firearm accessories cream leather chairs with walnut legs. The site of these old premises is occupied by the present Webley factory 19century british armschairs.
Some time early in the nineteenth century James Webley opened a business also in Weaman Street, which was somewhat peculiarly described as ‘Percussioners, Gun Lock &c antique french brass figurative parlor clock. makers’ malard furniture. In 1827 James’s young brother, Philip, then fourteen years old, was apprenticed to a gun-lock filer oak buffet with turned bun feet. In an excellent little brochure, Webley 1790-7953, published by Messrs neoclassical antique table. Webley & Scott Ltd chest of drawers with lots of compartments., and compiled by Messrs czechoslovakian antique porcelain.
C plain sofa table. W silver terrine. Thurlow Craig and Eric G early 19th century french bureau. Bewley, F lambeth ingredients.C scandanavian antique dessert stand.I 19th century english cabinet makers.S goldscheider  mark  vienna  old., the indenture of apprenticeship is reproduced italian wood armchairs. It sheds an interesting light on the working conditions and customs of the time, and is therefore given here in full deco style desks.
`This Indenture Witnesseth that opalescence glass teapot steuben. renaissance tin-glazed.
`PHILIP WESLEY as well bf his own accord as with the advice and consent of his Father, Thomas Webley of Birmingham in the county of Warwick, White Button Turner doth put himself apprentice to Benjamin Watson the younger of Birmingham -aforesaid, Gun Lock filer, to learn his Art, and with spanish cabinets.him (after the manner of an Apprentice) to serve from the day of the date hereof, unto the full end and Term of seven years, from thence next following, to be fully complete, and ended antique “la granja” glass. During which Term the said Apprentice his Master faithfully shall serve, his secrets keep, his lawful commands everywhere gladly do: he shall do no damage to his said Master nor see it done by others: but to the best of his Power, ,shall - let or forthwith give Notice to his said Master of the same: he shall not waste ‘the goods of his said Master nor lend unlawfully to any: he shall neither buy nor sell without his said Master’s Licence : he shall not play at Cards, Dice, Tables nor any unlawful game: he shall not haunt Taverns, or Alehouses, nor absent himself from his said Master’s service Day or Night unlawfully: but in all things as a faithful Apprentice, he shall behave himself towards his said Master and all this during the said Term austria furniture antique.
`AND the said Benjamin Watson the younger in considera•t1on of the faithful services to be performed under this Indenture doth hereby covenant and agree with the said Thomas Webley that he the said Benjamin Watson the younger shall and will teach and instruct or cause to be taught and instructed his said apprentice in the art aforesaid in~ the best way that he can antique french or chippendale coffee table. And also shall and will in lieu of maintenance wearing apparel washing lodging and other necessaries pay unto the said Thomas Webley or to the said apprentice the following wages, that is to say, from henceforth during the first year of the same term the weekly sum of five shillings and from thenceforth to raise one shilling, yearly during the remainder of the said term the same payments to be made on the Saturday in every week and for the considerations last mentioned the said Thomas Webley doth by covenant and agree to provide the said apprentice with all necessaries during the said term portuguese antique library table. And it is hereby covenanted and agreed between the said parties hereto that in case the said apprentice shall at any time•during the said term and the usual working hours thereof, that is to say from six o’clock in the morning till seven o’clock in the evening in the summer and from seven o’clock in the morning till eight o’clock in the evening in the winter absent-himself from or neglect the work and service aforesaid whether occasioned through sickness or any other cause whatsoever (except with the consent of the said Benjamin Watson the younger) then in such case it shall be lawful for the said Benjamin Watson the younger to deduct from the said wages all or so much thereof as shall be in proportion to the time of such absence from or neglect of service mohn beaker with transparent enamel scene. But it ‘is hereby expressly agreed that the power of Deduction shall not extend to prevent hinder or debar the said Benjamin Watson the younger from obtaining any other satisfaction or remedy he will be entitled to before any Justice of the Peace or otherwise on account of such absence from or neglect of service in case such deduction was not made or herein provided for nor shall the same be pleaded in bar thereto silver george foot mask.
`AND for the true performance of all and every the Covenants and Agreements each of the said Parties bindeth himself unto the other of them firmly by these presents antique art deco furniture black lacquer. In WITNESS whereof, the Parties abovenamed to this Indenture have set their Hands, and Seals, the twenty-sixth Day of June in the eighth Year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord George the fourth by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, and in the Year of our Lord, One antique michael thonet no 56. Thousand Eight Hundred and twenty seven what make the bloemenwerf chair more expensive.

Tags: antique wood, apprentice, approval, Birmingham, brother, bullet, cabriole, cartridge, chicken coop, classic furniture, claw feet, Craig, cream, double action revolver, Faith, first world war, frame art, john bentley, leather, long spur, longspur, louis xiv, muskets, muzzle loaders, no doubt, patent rights, PHILIP WESLEY, pilot model, porcelain figures, Power, Queen Victoria, regency, reign, rent, safety catch, stirrup, Swords, technical drawing, time, Tudor, wall, walnut, webley revolvers, william gould 1700's silversmith, william gray purcell antique, william harrison grandfather clock, willow pattern antique pottery markings, willow pattern transfer printed pottery, windsor drop handle brass design background, wine cooler sarcophagus mahogany, wood and marble antique trade scale, wood antique 3 legged table with figure head on front, wood carving patterns scotland 19th century, wood chamber pot cabinet, wood display cabinet circular, wood furniture designs chest photos, wood pyramid dresser, wood screws in antique dresser, wood stool antique sway seat, wood wiener werkstatte, woodcarving producers in germany austria and switzerlan, wooden art deco chairs, wooden bur bold antiques, wooden candlestick gothic lathe, wooden chair+art deco, wooden coffee table with harps, wooden forks and spoons antique, wooden lacquer fans with mother of pearl inlay, wooden novelty butler side table, wooden plates and bowls with inlaid wood pieces, wooden shelves painted with silver foil, woods potters of burslem dragon teapot, woods ware history, woodwork "military chest", worcester 18th, worcester china 1837, worcester fish scale porcelain, word art for cupboard doors, work bench used antique

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.

Tags: aircraft, Allied, ammunition, armour plate, ARMOURED, army, artillery guns, astute observer, bomb, Britain, british government, calibres, cartridge, Commander Davis, explosive charge, first world war, Flak, Germany, grenade, guncotton, heavy artillery, infantry soldier, Lieutenant-Colonel Blacker, Panzerfaust, practical application, prewar, projectile, rifle, Russia, second world war, slabs, tank, torpedoes, velocity, weapon, world, world war one, wwii

The German Super-Guns of the WWII

The German super-guns
The heaviest field equipments seen during the war were the German self-propelled howitzers generically known as ‘Karl Morsers’. These were of two calibres, 540-mm and 600-mm, mounted on the same type of carriage. Six carriages were made and the exact disposition of barrels between them is in some doubt; the carriages were numbered I to VI; Vehicle V was captured by the US 1st Army and found to have a 540-mm barrel, yet photographs captured later showed this same carriage to have a 600-mm barrel. It is probably safe to assume that three of each calibre were made. The date of introduction is also a little vague, but it seems fairly certain that the 600-mm version was introduced in 1942 and the 540-mm in 1944.
The carriage of ‘Karl’ was a simple rectangular box, divided into three compartments. The first held the Mercedes-Benz engine and transmission; the second carried the gun; and the third held the carriage raising and lowering gear. After driving into position on its tracks the engine was used to drive the lowering gear, which rotated the anchorages of the suspension torsion bars so as to allow the chassis to be lowered to the ground until the suspension and track were relieved of the weight. For long-distance moves the gun and recoil system were removed from the carriage, dismantled, and loaded on to spec,a -,a e•s, the carriage was then winched on to a special tank-transpor-er. For very long distances the complete gun and carriage assembly could be slung between two railway flat wagons by means of special trusses.
In the use of railway artillery Germany virtually had the field to herself. This class of weapon is really the prerogative of the Continental nation with a well-developed rail system by which it can readily deploy them to any front. In contrast, Britain and the USA, while possessing railway guns. used them solely as mobile coast defence units, since the problem of transporting two or three hundred tons of railway mounting across the Channel was not a trick to be undertaken lightly. Indeed, the British and American weapons were almost entirely relics of the First World War which had been in mothballs. 1940 saw a few more mountings hastily cobbled together from available spares and hurried to cover the Channel, just as in similar fashion American guns were mobilised and deployed in 1941. In 1944 reports from France indicated that heavy railway artillery might be of use in demolishing strongpoints to be expected in the final assault in Germany, and designs were hastily prepared by the Americans for a number of 16-inch guns, but within a few weeks it was seen that heavy artillery of this class had been rendered superfluous by the quality and quantity of air support available, and the demand was cancelled.
The German army had a vast range of railway guns from 150-mm upwards, but two were really outstanding and deserve closer examination. The first was the 28-cm K5(E)—Kanone, Model 5, Eisenbahnlafette —which became their standard super-heavy railway gun and was probably the finest design of its k;nd in the world. The basic arithmetic and paperwork had been done in the late 1920s and early 1930s, and work began on the gun in 1934. (It is worth noting that every German railway gun was designed and built by Krupp— Rheinmettal did design two, but they were never made.) First, a 150-mm barrel was produced for tests; it had been decided that to obtain the great range demanded, a conventionally rifled barrel was out of the question. A design was prepared with 12 deep grooves and having a shell carrying 12 ribs, or splines, to match. The theory behind this was that the engraving of a conventional copper driving band on the shell gave rise to very high pressure in the gun chamber; by using the spline and groove method to spin the shell, this resistance was removed, and the shell would step off more smartly, allowing a bigger propelling charge to be used without over-straining the gun. The 150-mm test barrel proved that the theory was right, and a full-calibre 280-mm barrel was built.
The mounting was a simple box-girder assembly carried on two six-axle bogies, with the front bogie slung so as to allow the front of the box-girder to be swung across it for aiming the gun. For large angles the whole weapon was mounted on a special portable turntable built at the end of a short spur of track laid at the desired firing point. Each gun was supplied with a special train which included wagons for carrying the turntable, light-antiaircraft guns for local defence, air-conditioned ammunition wagons, living quarters and kitchen for the gunners, and flat wagons to carry their entitlement of motor transport.
By 1940 eight of these complete equipments were in service, and production continued throughout the war, 25 being built in all. The German gunners called them ‘Slim Bertha’, but to the Allies in Italy one at least became famous as ‘Anzio Annie’.
With the 561-pound pre-rifled shell the gun could reach to 68,000 yards. A rocket-assisted shell was later developed which increased this range, with a certain loss of accuracy, to 94,000 yards. Finally, the Peenembride Research Establishment designed a 300-pound dart-like projectile which was fired from a special 310-mm smooth-bore barrel and which ranged to 170,000 yards. Although coming too late for general issue, these ‘PeenemOnde Arrow Shells’ were issued for troop trials in the field, and some were fired against the US 3rd Army at ranges of about 70 miles.
The second railway gun, ‘Gustav’, was the biggest gun the world has ever seen —the Krupp-designed 800-mm Kanone. The idea was conceived in 1937 of a pair of super-guns; they were of quite conventional design, except for their immense size. Too large to be moved in one piece, they were transported piecemeal in special trains and assembled at the selected sites by travelling cranes. When assembled, the mounting straddled two sets of standard-gauge rails, with 80 wheels taking the 1,350-ton weight. An armour or concrete-piercing shell of 7 tons was propelled by a 13/4-ton charge to a range of 23 miles, or a 5-ton high-explosive shell to 29 miles. The first equipment, ‘Gustav’, was proved at the Rugenwalde range in March 1943, in Hitler’s presence. The only record of its use was at the siege of Sebastopol; the gun was sited at Bakhchisary and fired some 30 to 40 rounds. One shot is recorded as having penetrated through 100 feet of earth to destroy a Soviet ammunition dump at Severnaya Bay. The subsquent history of the gun is unknown (it was presumably captured by the Red Army).
The second equipment, ‘Dora’. so far as is known, never left the proving ground, though what happened to it at the end of the war is a minor mystery (some ammunition and a spare barrel were found at Krupp’s proof establishment at Meppen near the Dutch border).
The detachment necessary to man. maintain, and give local protection to Gustav was 4,120 men strong. commanded by a major-general. The actual fire-control and operation of the gun demanded a colonel and 500 men, and the construction or dismantling of the weapon took between four and six weeks. A long-range ‘PeenemOnde Arrow Shell’ was developed for Gustay. but, so far as is known, was never fired. This was to weigh 2.200 pounds and range to 100 miles. There was also a proposition to mount a 520-mm gun on the same carriage to fire rocket-assisted shells and ‘PeenemOnde Arrow Shells’ to a range of 118 miles for cross-channel bombardment, but this never got past the drawing-board.
If it is accepted that it is not a good idea to tamper with a good gun design in the middle of a war, then the only way to render the gun more effective is to improve the ammunition, and this technique was frequently adopted during the war. And in no field is this seen to greater effect than in the battle against the tank. The reason for this is fairly self-evident: personnel targets remain more or less the same—once the anti-personnel projectile is perfected it can stay as it is. On the other hand, once a new anti-tank projectile appears, it is only a matter of time before the enemy put thicker armour on his tanks.
At the outbreak of war there were two types of anti-tank projectile: the armour-piercing (AP) shot, and the AP shell. The difference is basic. Shot are solid, with no explosive filling, and rely purely on their speed to smash through the armour and do damage inside the tank by their impact, the fragments of plate they knock off during penetration, and their own effect when they penetrate the plate and bounce around inside the tank. AP shells, on the other hand, have a small cavity filled with high explosive and are fitted with a fuse in the base. The shell penetrates, similarly to shot, by brute force, but the fuse is activated by the impact and, after a short delay to allow the shell to pass through the plate and enter the tank, the explosive is detonated, shattering the shell into fragments and adding to the shot-like damage already caused. On paper the shell is the better proposition, since there is the bonus of the explosive filling. But paper figures tend to be deceptive, and in fact the shot is probably the more practical projectile, because the high-explosive (HE) cavity weakens the shell, and the fuse is precariously supported against the hammer-blow of impact. Britain held firmly to the shot theory for anti-tank work, though many years of experience in producing AP shells for naval use was available. Several other nations preferred AP shell, bewitched by the HE bonus.
Most of the belligerents entered the war with a plain shot or shell and relied on throwing it hard enough to penetrate the opposing tanks. So long as the target was relatively lightly armoured this was successful; but, naturally, each side began to increase armour thickness on each succeeding generation of tank. The quick answer to this was to increase the gun charge or even the calibre, and thus throw the projectile harder, but there comes a time when the impact is too much for the projectile, and instead of piercing, it merely shatters on the outside of the target without doing any damage.
The answer to this was to protect the tip of the shot or shell with a softer cap, which tended to spread the impact stresses over the shoulders of the projectile, instead of concentrating them into the tip. This preserved the piercing action to higher velocities, and the gun was again winning the battle. The next move belonged to the tank designers who made their armour thicker, and so it went on until the projectile was once more shattering, cap or no cap. At this point the projectile designers were faced with a new problem: if it was futile to throw the projectile harder, might it not be possible to throw a harder projectile? And what was harder than an armour-piercing projectile? Tungsten carbide, a diamond-hard alloy, provided an answer, but it was about one-and-a-half times as heavy as steel, so that it could not easily be made into a projectile. Furthermore, it was expensive and in short supply.
The first application of tungsten to an anti-tank projectile was by the German army in their 28-mm Schwere Panzerbuchse 41, a weapon with a unique tapered barrel. The shot consisted of a small core of tungsten carbide held in a light alloy casing of 28-mm calibre. As the shot was fired down the gun barrel, so the calibre diminished and the light alloy casing was ground down, until it emerged as a 21-mm shot. This squeezing enhanced the velocity and changed the ratio of shot diameter to weight. The velocity reached was 4,000 feet per second, and, on impact with the target, the hardness of the core was impervious to impact shock and penetrated successfully.
About the same time—late 1940—a similar idea had been put forward by a Mr Janacek, a Czechoslovakian weapon designer working in England. While his idea was still under consideration, a specimen of the German weapon was captured in North Africa and flown home for trials: the idea was seen to be feasible. The British version was in the form of a taper-bore adapter to be fitted to the existing 2-pounder gun, together with a special tungsten-cored shot, known under the code name of ‘Littlejohn’, an Anglicised version of Janacek. The advantage here was that the adapter could be removed to permit firing normal explosive shells, but could be refitted quickly for the special shot, whereas the German design required a special pattern of high-explosive shell to be developed, a difficult feat in such a small calibre. The ‘Littlejohn’ attachment and its shot were not used in towed artillery, since by the time they were ready for service the anti-tank units were armed with 6-pounders, but it was used on 2-pounder and American 37-mm guns mounted in armoured cars.
To use tungsten in a conventional gun, a different approach was needed. The first attempt, for the 6-pounder, was the ‘AP Composite Rigid’ (APCR) shot, a tungsten core mounted in an alloy sheath of approximately the same dimensions as the conventional steel shot for the gun. By virtue of its light alloy content the APCR shot was somewhat lighter and thus had a higher velocity when fired. Unfortunately the ratio of weight-to-diameter was unfavourable, giving a poor ballistic coefficient or ‘carrying power’, and while the short-range performance was impressive, the velocity soon dropped, and at ranges over 1,000 yards, steel shot was just as good, sometimes better. Some German weapons were also provided with the same type of projectile, and one was designed for use in the Soviet 76.2-mm field gun which the Germans captured in large numbers and converted into an anti-tank gun. Unfortunately for them, by early 1942 the shortage of tungsten in Germany began to be felt, and in the middle of that year a ban was placed on the use of tungsten in ammunition; what scarce supplies there were had been earmarked for machine tool production, not for throwing about the Russian steppes. After strong remonstrations, the 5-cm Pak 38 anti-tank gun was specifically exempted from this ban, since at that time it was the only weapon capable of stopping a Russian T-34 tank, provided it was supplied with tungsten-cored shot.
Although the 6-pounder APCR shot seemed reasonably successful, it was not the ideal answer. The ideal, in fact, sounded ridiculous: what was wanted was a shot which in the barrel was large-calibre and light, so as to pick up speed quickly and leave the gun at high velocity, but which outside the barrel should be small in diameter and heavy, so as to have good ‘carrying power’ and keep up its high velocity for a long range. These two conflicting requirements were fused into one projectile by two British designers, Permutter and Coppock, of the Armaments Research Department. Even before the 6-pounder had received its APCR shot they were at work, and in March 1944 their ‘AP Discarding Sabot’ shot was provided for the 6-pounder. In this design, the tungsten core is contained in a streamlined steel sheath or sub-projectile; this in turn is carried in a light-alloy framework or ’sabot’ of the full gun calibre. On firing, this sabot holds the sub-projectile centralised in the bore and gives the whole thing the combination of light weight and large area which is wanted for velocity. But firing actually ‘unlocks’ the sabot, and as the shot leaves the gun muzzle, so the sabot is thrown clear, allowing the sub-projectile to race to the target at velocities of the order of 3,000 feet per second. Now, since the sub-projectile’s sheath is virtually a skin round the tungsten core, it follows that the weight is high in relation to the cross-section—the ideal condition for good carrying power and thus long-range performance. A similar projectile for the 17-pounder followed in September 1944, and one was under development for the 20-pounder tank gun when the war ended.

Tags: ammunition, anchorages, armour, ARMOURED, army, artillery, calibre, carriage assembly, carriages, chassis, czechoslovakia, defence units, first world war, german army, gunners, heavy artillery, Krupp-designed, long distance, mercedes benz, railway guns, red army, Shells, tank units, target, torsion bars, trusses, wagons, wwii

ARMOURED BALANCE IN 1939 BEFORE WWII

German, French, British, Americand and Russian Tanks and Weapons Before WWII in 1939

The tank was to be decisive in the coming campaign.
But the Germans did not have more or even markedly
better tanks than the Allies. They just used
them more imaginatively
Although the end of the First World War in November 1918 seemed outwardly to symbolise an Allied victory and total defeat for the German army, it did not in fact reflect the real balance of fighting power at the front nor illustrate the state which the revolution in warfare had reached. For in the last months of that war the Germans were still retiring in good order towards their homeland. Indeed they were beginning to stabilise the front as the offensive power of the Allied armies declined as a result of their losses and of the difficulties they were experiencing in maintaining men and material at increasing distances from their bases. Indeed, it was becoming progressively harder to drive the war-winning weapons –artillery and tanks –to the front, and there maintain them to fight in mass. And without their presence a relatively thin screen of machine-gunners could delay and hold up infantry and cavalry for sufficiently long to enable successive lines of defence to be prepared in the rear. By the beginning of November 1918, the Allied progress was getting slower and more feeble.
Yet the turning point had come in August and September when the defeats inflicted on the Germans signalised the failure of their own offensive, and underlined the war-weariness of the nation and army. The most decisive of these defeats occurred at Amiens on August 8, 1918, when 430 British tanks –in conjunction with cavalry and infantry –broke through the German lines, and thus convinced General Ludendorff, the controller of the German military machine, that the war had to be ended. The British tanks, fighting in close co-operation with the cavalry and infantry, did not penetrate much deeper than the forward German defences, but their employment in such numbers, carrying them forward 5 miles in one day, administered a shock to the German soldiers and their leader from which they did not fully recover.
The tanks of 1918 were neither fast enough nor sufficiently reliable to break through the enemy lines and then penetrate
deep into his rearmost tactical areas. But the tanks under construction for use in 1919 were meant to be capable of doing this very thing, and the Allied plans for that year were based on this kind of strategy. Against these new, faster, and more reliable machines, the Germans would have only been able to deploy conventional artillery, a number of inefficient light anti-tank rifles, and a few clumsy tanks of their own.
For Ludendorff had rejected tanks, thinking it unlikely that the early, slow, clumsy vehicles would ever become viable weapons of war. Anyway, when given new machines, armies take a long time to acquire the techniques necessary to keep them running and to use them to their best effect, so the lead which the Allies had built in two years could not be overtaken in a few months.
Atrophy
Thus the First World War ended at a moment when victory in the field was not clear-cut and its causes not sharply delineated. Many Germans were in no doubt that the surprise use of tanks, in large numbers in the least-expected sectors, had been a paramount factor in their defeat. General von Kuhl, who had been a staff officer in the army group attacked and defeated at Amiens, wrote ten years after the event that, in achieving surprise, the most important and decisive factor had been the tanks.
But the Allies were not similarly convinced and, gripped by inertia linked to their own war-weariness, were content to allow their military thinking to atrophy after 1918. As for the French, for over 20 years they persisted in a policy that compelled tanks to act merely as an adjunct to infantry on the one hand, and as a substitute for cavalry in the scouting role on the other. They envisaged all offensive operations taking place in a manner similar to those of 1918, and so locked themselves behind the fortifications of the Maginot Line, developing a purely defensive mentality. They could not believe that a war of manoeuvre fought by tank
armies would take place on their soil. Their tanks were therefore organised into battalions, the bulk of them (33 of between 45 and 60 tanks each) ordained to work in small groups in conjunction with infantry divisions.
The experiments carried out by the French army, starting in 1932, were based on their existing cavalry divisions. There evolved from these experiments three light mechanised divisions –with a fourth being formed in May 1940–each with 220 tanks, armoured cars, and a brigade of infantry. But this well-balanced force the French threatened to squander because the old cavalry doctrine dictated that it should be employed as a dispersed screen, or advance guard, ahead of the Allied armies when these advanced beyond the frontier to meet the Germans in Belgium.
After the destruction of the Polish army in September 1939, largely as the result of action by German tanks in conjunction with aircraft, the French hastily began to form four new tank divisions in which the machines were heavy ones and the infantry few in proportion to tanks. These were still not proper armoured divisions: their envisaged role was to breach a front through which other conventional formations could pass. They were thus merely an extension of the policy which tied tanks to infantry, and were not conceived as a balanced formation capable of driving deep into the enemy rear to strike at his nerve centres and his supplies–the very heart of his war-making capacity.
The British did not suffer from the same stagnation as the French, but in 1918 the nation that told itself that it had won the war, also persuaded itself that it could rest on its laurels. The heavy losses of tanks in the last few months of the First World War made a case for those who argued that the machine could not replace the horse as the agent of the decisive, mobile arm; the sentiment generated by a lifetime’s comradeship with the horse was strong–and so rejected change. Moreover, the formidable bills incurred in the manufacture and running of tanks, when presented to taxpayers who had had enough of war, were striking deterrents to new construction and expansion.
The ‘Tank Idea’
Nevertheless, real progress was made in Britain. The discovery that tanks and armoured cars offered a cheaper and better way of policing the more turbulent parts of the Empire encouraged experiment. And the persistence of a few enthusiasts projected the ‘Tank Idea’ as an element in warfare that intruded beyond the tactical battle into the realms of strategic decision. The names of Captain Liddell Hart, Generals Fuller, Lindsay, Broad, Pile, Hobart, and Martel appear at the head of the short list of pioneers who envisaged armoured forces becoming the decisive element in war, as well as being a straightforward economy of force when compared with the old horse and foot armies.
These men designed and trained tank units and formations that were unique both in their concept and technical proficiency. By the end of 1934, Hobart, as commander of the 1st Tank Brigade, had conclusively underlined what Broad and Pile had demonstrated in earlier years, namely that a mobile tank force could out-manoeuvre conventional forces by advances of prodigious length. And they showed that tanks could dominate the infantry of the day. These men were not dreamers. They were practical soldiers who based their judgements on the bitter experience gained by witnessing four years of slaughter during the First World War. They were often impatient with those who could not or would not understand, and who, by their slowness of mind, could not keep up with the pace demanded by mechanised forces.
Hobart, above all, with a ruthless driving force that he used to push his ideas ahead, would not permit the speed demanded by tank action to be slowed down by artillery, cavalry, and infantry units that were unable to keep up with his machines and their tempo of operation. By his requests for outstanding efficiency and speed, he frightened his more conventionally minded colleagues.
Eventually, there came about a reaction, accusing Hobart of demanding an all-tank army to the exclusion of the traditional arms. This was not entirely justified, since Hobart and his staff are clearly on record as having said they wanted infantry and artillery suitably mounted in armoured vehicles to go with their tanks; but the impression had been given they wanted an army based on armour, and the forces of reaction were quick to seize on this for use as a brake on the progress of the tank enthusiasts.
The traditionalists were also successful in acquiring political support; the Financial Secretary to the War Office, Duff Cooper,
stated in Parliament in 1934: ‘The more I study them [military affairs] the more I become impressed by the importance of [horsed] cavalry in modern warfare.’ In 1935 Duff Cooper became Secretary of State for War.
The traditionalists also insisted that some tanks should be designed and set aside for work in conjunction with the infantry, rather in the manner of the French. Thus Britain began to develop armoured forces of two kinds: the fast moving, all-arms groups, that were the genesis of future armoured divisions; and tank battalions designed for infantry work, equipped with so-called `I’ tanks.
But by investigating the entirely new problems inherent in mechanised forces, the British did train a small cadre of experts whose knowledge and experience were to be invaluable when war, and the need to expand, came. On the other hand, when at last, and too late, it was decided in 1937 to give tanks to a large number of cavalry regiments —instead of expanding the existing Tank Corps — another temporary brake was placed on improvements in quantity and quality at a moment when time was short in the race to catch up with German rearmament. Thus only a small proportion of the British tank units that went to war in May 1940 were experienced and imbued with an insight into mechanised warfare.
Of the British armoured forces ready for action in Europe in May 1940, there was only one armoured division and this was still training in England. In France there was a formation known as the 1st Army Tank Brigade comprising two battalions of the new ‘1′ tanks designed for close co-operation with the infantry. Of these units —the 4th and 7th Battalions, Royal Tank Regiment—the latter arrived in France on May 1 and was not as well-trained as the 4th. In addition there were with the BEF seven cavalry light armoured regiments mounted in light tanks: Their tasks of reconnaissance and co-operation with the infantry divisions were akin to the traditional cavalry role.
German enthusiasm
The restraints imposed on the French and British after 1918 were totally different from those imposed on the Germans. Because the Treaty of Versailles forbade Germany to have her own tanks, she was reduced to carrying out a few sporadic and subversive experiments, mostly under cover in Russia. But because the Germans had been defeated, as they thought, by the tank as much as any other weapon, they were more anxious than anything else to acquire knowledge of mechanised armoured forces. The same traditional reactions that beset the British innovators held back the progressive German soldiers too, but with the advent of Hitler the political atmosphere became the reverse of Britain’s.
As he cast aside the restrictions of Versailles, Hitler gave his enthusiastic backing to the soldiers whose ideas and experience were devoted to tanks. Those generals who had been associated with the early tank investigations — Guderian, Thoma, Lutz, Brauchitsch, Blomberg, and Reichenauwere now brought to the fore.
These men possessed imagination and insight, the appreciation of the strategic and psychological effect of deep thrusts, and the zest for speed and decision demanded by the nature of armoured operations. They were unanimous and generous in their acknowledgement of the profit they gained after studying, and often copying, the British experiments (Guderian is said to have toasted Hobart’s name in champagne after a successful German tank exercise before the war). They paid little attention to the French—not even to de Gaulle, who had published a short work on the ‘Army of the Future’. As a result, by 1936 the Germans were catching up fast in numbers and quality of machines, and had taken a clear lead in organisation and application over the British and the French, who two years before had been ahead in every department of armoured warfare.

Tags: 1918, allied armies, allied victory, amiens, ARMOURED, artillery, august and september, british tanks, cavalry, first world war, General Ludendorff, General von Kuhl, german army, german lines, germans, infantry, machine gunners, military machine, offensive power, russian tanks, thin screen, weariness