admin | 
07 31st, 2009| 
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.
NINETEENTH CENTURY
During the early part of the nineteenth century most military firearms were still manufactured by private gunmakers; and at the start of the century, indeed, there was virtually no other source drop leaf table three legs make. The Government’s part in production was practically confined to assembling components which had been made by contractors desserts during 18th century england. Actual Government manufacture seems to have been stimulated by a public accusation that in England the art of making firearms was practically extinct porcelain war antiques. Such an accusation was, of course, an unjustified slur on the many brilliant gunsmiths in the country; but nevertheless in 1802 the manufacture of locks, as well as the assembly of firearms, was started at the Tower of London juste aurele meissonnier. It was soon found that accommodation at the Tower was too restricted for any large-scale production; and in 1808 a Government factory was established at Lewisham, in Kent, for the manufacture of locks and barrels victorian commodes.
Lewisham was not the first Government factory connected with the small arms industry palissy tea set art deco style. As will be remembered, the Royal Gunpowder Factory had been established at Waltham Abbey some years previously antique chamber pot chair. Waltham Abbey’s interests were french aristocracy aftername.not entirely confined to gunpowder, for in 1800 large numbers of walnut trees were planted both there and at the adjoining locality of Enfield Lock 20th c. art deco chairs. This latter place lay a few miles north of Enfield, and was so called after the lock of the Lea navigation, which was the most prominent ‘feature of the district antique three-legged ornamental table.
When the assembly of muskets became too large a commitment for the limited resources of the Tower, Enfield Lock was the obvious choice for an armament works yabu fruit. The original Enfield factory was built in 1804, and rapidly became the principal centre for the assembly of India Pattern muskets unglazed dresden figurines.
As compared with Enfield, which had the advantage of the Lea Navigation and a water supply from the River Lea, Lewisham suffered badly from poor communications and a lack of water for power hirado porcelain. After the end of the Napoleonic wars, therefore, it was decided to concentrate all Government small arms manufacture at Enfield “english ironstone” england” marks. Additional buildings were accordingly constructed at Enfield; and first the barrel branch and later the lock and finishing sections were transferred there, and the Lewisham works closed down antique stemware cobalt blue.
Progress at Enfield was slow, and it was not till about the middle of the century that the factory started to manufacture complete firearms what is a chamber pot of 1800s. In his presidential address to the Institution of Civil Engineers in 1868, Mr chambersticks of porcelain. Gregory said that prior to 1852 ‘the construction of fire-arms was really carried on by small manufacturers, who each made only one separate part, one for locks, one for barrels, one for bayonets, etc early cherry drop front desk., the gun-maker being, in fact, little more than a setter up; and the Government, after obtaining by contract the separate parts of their muskets, excepting barrels and some small parts, from separate manufacturers, put them together at their own works at Enfield’ antique dining table detailed carved legs. The number of weapons produced at Enfield by this system was small, and amounted to some 7000 firearms and i 50 swords a year blue glass pheasant. By 1853 this figure had increased to 50,000 firearms and 3000 swords meissen, four continents.
Nevertheless it was apparent that there was considerable room for improvement, and in 1853 a Committee was appointed to investigate the provision of small arms for the Army renown clockmakers in vienna. The establishment of the Committee was apparently due to a report rendered by Mr http: antcollectors.com antique-furniture 19th-century-sideboards-cellarets-tambour-secretary-regency-side-cabinet-desks-worktables-new-trends. John Anderson, Superintendent of the Woolwich Ordnance Factories, who had been deputed to examine Enfield’s capabilities for the manufacture of bayonets meissen porcelain louis xiv.
Two officers, Colonel J valueof1800’slibrarytable. A 19th century wooden round table and persian. Chalmer, R art deco secretaire 1900.A antique pembroke table, floral inlay design., Inspector of Artillery, and Lieutenant-Colonel A english wedgewood. T victorian renaissance revival credenza. Tulloh, R chippendale cutlery urns.A black alvar aalto stool 60 finmar., Inspector of the Royal Carriage Factory at Woolwich, were requested to report to the Committee on the existing methods of providing small arms ironstone china japan pattern. The following statements were included in their report:
`It appears that the system hitherto adopted to procure small-arms is so heterogenoeus in its character, that it could not fail to produce considerable difficulties after dark candelabras. The Government establishment at Enfield Lock is comparatively small and of a mixed nature, some parts of the work being performed by the establishment, some by contractors; many of the lathes and other tools are the property of the workmen; others belonging to the establishment serpentine pembroke table. The men possessing lathes hire them out to other men chinese table with brass top.
`The establishment at Enfield Lock, being small, and forming part of this heterogeneous system, is unable to hold that salutary check or control over the contractors to prevent exorbitant demands and serious delays antique dressers collectors.
`The principal part of the gun trade upon which the Government mainly depends for supply in case of emergency, is carried on in Birmingham and London, and by men working by hand in wretched cellars and garrets, and great evil arises fro-in the extreme slowness of manufacture metal top antique tables with drop leaf.’
Details of the existing capacity of Enfield were’ furnished by Mr antique jasper cabinet chest serpentine. J antique empire mahogany curved buffet with mirror. Gunner, its Superintendent normandy antique clock longcase. He said that Enfield was now producing the barrels, which had previously been supplied from Birmingham in the rolled state, and could turn out from Zoo to 25o a week vintage silver shell dish with fish feet. He also stated that Enfield had introduced a new method of seasoning timber by using hot air chamber pots 1800’s.
The effect of the new process was that gun stocks could be produced from timber about a month after felling, instead of the previous two to three years wolfgang hoffman table. The result of this, lie added, was that 100,000 completed stocks were stored at Weedon to finish seasoning, and a further large quantity at Waltham furniture maker copenhagen art nouveau.
The Committee’s report recommended no radical changes in the existing state of affairs doucai ming porcelain. It considered that manufacture by contractors should continue,, but that machinery should be more extensively used at Enfield so that its production could be expanded in an emergency biedermeier wardrobe vienna.
In this same year of 1854, however, there was a series of troubles in the arms industry antique furniture prohibition bar examples. Strikes amongst the employees of London and Birmingham gunmaking firms coincided with the start of the 3-tier mahogany and brass side table. Crimean war; contractors, possibly taking advantage of the increased demand due to the• war, were charging higher prices; and there were a number of delays in the fulfilment of existing contracts characteristics antique gate leg. As*a result the Board-of Ordnance decided that as soon as it was in a position to do so it would take over the manufacture of firearms and dispense with the services of the contractors queen anne dressing table, 3 mirror. To implement this decision, new buildings and machinery were ordered and- a mission was dispatched to the United States to look into American methods in small arms manufacture epergne ceramic 19th century. As a result of new construction, the installation of machines and reorganization, production at Enfield was increased to 130,000 muskets and bayonets a year antique sheffield piece marked “royal sheffield”.
The first firearm to be manufactured at Enfield in any quantity was, appropriately enough, the Enfield rifle; and it was the appearance of this weapon, therefore, which heralded louis cube. the decline of the contractor small round chippendale center hall table.
Amongst the most eminent of early nineteenth-century gunmakers was Ezekiel Baker antique gilded console tables gesso design. He has already been mentioned in connection with his famous rifle and his book Remarks on Rifle sofa 1920. Guns raphaelle monti. The production of his rifle was by no means the last of Baker’s activities candlesticks juste-aurele meissonnier. In 18 16, at the request of the East paris exposition candlesticks.India Company, he made several improvements to the Company’s firearms loudon florals 1783-1843. These included alterations to the flash-pan to prevent water reaching the priming and a modification to the spring of the bayonet attachment kem weber. In 1821 he invented a bullet mould and clipper for casting bullets, so that the ball was made perfectly round and more solid buy escritoire ‘trestle’. The following year he devised an improved cock for the flintlock, which enabled the flint to be held more securely william kent staffordshire. In 1824 he patented a lock which could be used for either flint or percussion antique napoleon furniture. This last invention was only applicable to sporting weapons, and was intended for sportsmen who, if they found themselves in an area where caps were unobtainables could use their percussion lock arms as flintlocks rectangular mahogany extension table square pedestal base bun feet.
Baker is also noteworthy as being the first gunmaker to own his own proof house, which adjoined his establishment at 24 Whitechapel Road east indian antique silver. Permission was given to him under a Crown Grant art deco walnut black lacquer display cabinet.
A very famous London gunshop in the years after the end of the Napoleonic wars was 17o Bond Street, the London establishment of William Westley Richards thomas hope chairs curule legs. The Richards family had been merchants and silversmiths of Birmingham, and there William Westley was born in 1788 regency secretare. Instead of following the family tradition he became a gunsmith, and in 1812 opened his own shop at 82 High Street, Birmingham antique japanese ko imari. ‘He quickly became prominent in the gun trade and took an active part in the successful petition of 1813 which resulted in the establishment of the Birmingham Proof House louis the 14th chair. Two years later, realizing the importance of the London market, he established a shop in Bond Street; a quarter which he chose as being frequented by the wealthiest classes of the community “liberty furniture”.
Richards was fortunate in his selection of his London agent: a very remarkable character called William Bishop 19th century south african stinkwood antiques. Already well known both in the gun trade and in the shooting field, Bishop had ready access to the type of customer for whom Richards wished to cater art deco brass lamp with women. In addition, he was of enormous size, had an eccentric taste in dress and was always immaculately turned out barker brothers dining table. At the Bond Street shop he invariably wore a swallow-tailed coat and a top hat with a broad brim antique limed oak furniture. On top of the coat a spotless white apron reached to his ankles and the cuffs of his shirt were turned back over the forearms inlaid furniture octagon music table. Presided over by this impressive figure, 17o Bond Street became almost a club, frequented by young officers of the Fighting Services and members of the landed and sporting aristocracy antique furniture art deco chairs. There they would discuss their mutual shooting interests and garner wisdom and advice from ‘the Bishop of Bond Street’ example of 18th century wooden handle silverware. For two generations, and in some cases three, Bishop was the trusted counsellor in all matters relating to
0 antique occasional cabinets. guns and shooting; for he was fifty-six years at 17o Bond Street, eventually dying in harness in 1871 florals in british furniture. During that long period there must have been many officers who went on active service equipped in accordance with the advice of ‘the Bishop’ barker brothers furniture. To Richards, of course, his services must have been invaluable george iii pembroke table.
In 184o Richards received the Royal Warrant and the appointment of Gunmaker to the Prince Consort, and in 1851 he was granted a special Medal Award for, his exhibits at the London Exhibition at the Crystal Palace d-form dining table. In 1855 he was succeeded by his son, Westley Richards porcelain relief herons and swans. The work of the latter on breech-loading weapons and cartridges will be considered in a later chapter antique small oval drop leaf table.
Two of the best-known gunmakers at the end of the eighteenth century and the first quarter of the nineteenth century were the Manton brothers epergnes. The elder, John Manton, had started his gunmaking career as foreman to T french side cabinets. Twigg art deco upholstery fabrics. In 178o he set up on his own at 6 Dover Street in London, and, until surpassed by his younger brother, was probably regarded as the leading gunsmith antique 8 leg table. In his later years he was making percussion holster pistols 18c dutch marquetry bombe front cabinet.
Joseph Manton started his own independent concern some fifteen years after his brother, and opened a gunshop at 27 Davies Street, Berkeley Square, in London dutch style furniture. Joseph’s ventures into percussion locks, and his relations with Forsyth and Colonel Hawker, have already been narrated collector’s table. He was easily the foremost gunsmith of his time, but he is remembered chiefly for his part in the development of the sporting gun antique octagonal tilt top tea table.
James Collins of 12 Vigo Lane, Regent Street, London, catered for officers’ more expensive tastes by making flintlock holster pistols with silver mounts jan van mekeren. In his later days he produced a most peculiar percussion lock pistol, which could fire three shots in succession, and embodied a revolving striker and a folding trigger 18th century brittany cupboards.
Dale, who had a shop in London, was unique amongst British gunsmiths in making the locks for an American military firearm art deco in german. This was the, Model 1818 -69 calibre U 18th century dark wood dining furniture and oriental carpet.S “chateau des tuileries”. Army flintlock dragoon pistol, made “bristol porcelain” for sale 18th century. at the Springfield, Massachusetts, armoury silver candlesticks worth. Dale’s name was stamped on the inside of the lock plate george 3rd italian furniture designer. It does not seem to have been a very popular weapon owing to the terrific recoil, and only i000 were made antique sideboard with desk.
Joseph Davidson, also a London gunsmith, made flintlock pistols under contract for the Honourable East India Company dessoir moon limitless. The Company had its own proof mark which consisted of a heart quartered, with the letters V typical features of britain.E antique butterfly drop leaf table.I stier in arabisch schrift.C 18th century dressing tables., one in each quarter and in that order candelabrum.
George H federal sideboard with eagle brass. Daw of 57 Threadneedle Street, London, appears to have had -the sole rights in England for the manufacture of General Jacob’s firearms antique tables trestle rectangle. He made some very popular single- and double-barrelled sporting versions thomas hope sofa.
Clark of Holborn in London had a Government contract for the supply of muskets fold over tea table antiques. He also made some flintlock holster pistols with double barrels, and pocket pistols with the long popular box locks and cannon barrels antique art nouveau wardrobes.
T sheffield porcelain “herbs and spices”. H early 19th century american rosewood cabinet makers. Potts, who had a shop in Haydon Square, London, secured the (from the point of view of his reputation) dubious advantage of a Government contract for the manufacture of the Brunswick rifle meisen hand painted plates 1920 allegorical. Apart from the appalling Brunswicks, he made presentation firearms; and a number of these special weapons were bought from Potts’ establishment for Indian princes japanese antique round table.
The improvement of the lock of the matchlock musket, which is referred to in this list, and some of the various accessories are discussed later. There are certain other- points worth noting.
The prices quoted show that firelocks (i.e. wheel-locks) -were much more expensive than snaphaunces (the name” applied at the time to any type of flintlock). A pair of wheel-lock pistols are priced at C,3, whereas flintlocks cost only &; and a wheel-lock arquebus was (1 16s. as compared with Cr for a flintlock carbine. The new type of matchlock musket was considerably cheaper than weapons with the spark ignition locks, for it could be purchased for 15s. 6d.
It is of interest that the proving and subsequent stamping of firearms had to be carried.out free of charge. The cost, no. doubt, was borne by the committee of gunmakefs; and it was probably considered that they were amply compensated by the elimination of competition from the sale of cheap and unserviceable arms.
The Commission of 1631 led six years later to the incorporation by Charles I of the Gunmakers’ Company of London as a permanent body. The aims of the Company were to protect the skilled gunsmiths from such unskilled competitors as blacksmiths, and from price undercutting ftom the import of cheap foreign arms; ‘that they may be the better enabled at all times to furnish Us and our-Subjects with good serviceable Handguns for Military Service and otherwise and to settle a better form of Regulation and Government of the said Art and Mystery’.
The original members of the Company were sixty-three in number, starting with ‘Henry Rowland our now Gun-Maker’, who had been the first mentioned of the seven gunmakers of the 1631 Commission.
There were to be ‘two or more of the said Company chosen to assist for the searching viewing gaging proving making trial marking or stamping of Handguns’.
They had the power to punish the ‘uttering of unartificial unmerchantable bad and deceitful Guns or parts of Guns or Guns made of ill materials whereby our Loving Subjects may be damnified or endangered’.
The proof was to be ‘with good and sufficient Gunpowder the weight of d Bullett of Lead sizeable to every several Gun be it greater or lesser according to the Bore of the Piece together with the said sizeable Bullett and rammed with paper before and after the Bullett the Charges of which said Proof and trial in the powder paper Bullett Shot and fraying powder for firing to be necessarily used therein to be always provided defrayed and born by the Makers or Owners of the same Guns’.
The stamp to show that a gun had been proved was to be
Cone Stamp or Stamps to be engraved with the letters G.P. 0
crowned’; and this was to be used to ‘mark or stamp all such Handguns Daggs Pistols and parts of Guns only as upon search view gage tryal and proof shall be found sufficiently serviceable and of good materials’.
The proof referred to above consisted in the gun barrels being fired with the test charge, first in the rough and then in the finished state, The ball was the standard size for the gun, but the powder was double the normal charge. The barrels to be proved were laid in racks with their muzzles towards a bank of sand. From twenty to a hundred were fired at a time by laying a trail of gunpowder which ran down the line of barrels across their touch-holes. After each proof the barrels which had passed the test were stamped with the marks of the Company. The mark’ for the first proof, to show ‘that the barrel had been tested in the rough, was a crown over the letter V. The mark indicating that the barrel had survived the second proof, of being tested in its finished state, was a crown over the letters G.P. (for ‘Gunmakers’ Proof’).
Under the original Charter of 1637 the right of proof vested in the Company applied only to weapons sold within ten miles of the City of London. A great number of arms, therefore, were both made in England and imported from the Continent without having been submitted to the proof; and most loving subjects continued to be damnified by bad and deceitful guns. This omission was subsequently rectified in the reign of Charles II, when a new and amplified Charter was granted in 1672. This forbade the sale of unproved firearms throughout England, and laid down that the only acceptable evidence of proof were the Company’s marks.
In about 1630 improvements were made to the mechanism of the matchlock musket, which was, of course, the standard infantry weapon. The flash-pan, with its cover, and a short shield to protect the eye of the musketeer from the flash of the priming powder, were attached to the lock. In addition, the scear and serpentine (which was now known as the ‘cock) were actuated by a separate trigger, instead of the long crossbow pattern trigger, or ‘tricker’, with its rigid attachment to the scear. These alterations made the matchlock a much better weapon, and gave the English some b advantage over Con- tinental armies, in most of which the old lock was retained till the end of the century. There were other gradual improvements and alterations to the musket during the first half of the seventeenth century. Progressive modifications to the stock eventually resulted in a form which bore some resemblance to the weapons of today. The balance of the gun was brought further back towards the rear, by lightening the barrel and reinforcing.the breech; thereby making it easier to dispense with the rest. The bore of the barrel was standardized at io, and this was designed to provide an easy fit for a i 2-bore bullet. The outside of the barrel was protected against rust by ‘russeting’; an ancient process which had been used to protect the steel-work on hafted weapons, and involved coating with some dark pigment.
Certain accessories were used with the musket at this period. They comprised: a wooden ramrod, with a horn or bone tip; a cleaning tool, known as a ’scowrer’; a tool for extracting bullets, called a ‘worm; an iron-shod musket rest; and a bandolier incorporating a set of twelve wooden chargers, each holding sufficient powder for one bullet. The rest in point of fact was now seldom used, and rarely carried on active service. It was retained as part of the musketeer’s equipment for many more years; presumably because its use added considerably to the accuracy of fire. On the other hand it was a nuisance on the march, and impaired individual mobility in action.
The matchlock was now no longer used for cavalry firearms, and all pistols and carbines were either firelocks (i.e. wheel-locks) or flintlocks.
The design of firearms was, and always has been, intimately connected with the quality of the gunpowder. The first gunpowder used consisted of equal parts of saltpetre (a chemical compound composed of nitric acid and potash), sulphur and charcoal. In the early days this was in the form of a meal, or fine powder.. In the fifteenth century the proportion of saltpetre was much increased, and the respective quantities became saltpetre eight parts, charcoal and sulphur three parts each. The hand-gun now became a practical proposition, whereas the old powder had only been suitable for cannon. At the beginning of the sixteenth century the saltpetre was again increased, the new proportions being four parts of saltpetre to one each of charcoal and sulphur. This change vastly increased the use of the arquebus.
The chief disadvantage of the meal gunpowder was the lack of air space acid consequent slow combustion. In i 52 `corned’ gunpowder was introduced. This was made by pounding the meal powder into a solid cake and then breaking it up into grains. This not only gave the required air space, but it also resulted in a better mixture of the components. The new powder- was still far short, however, of what was required. The grain was coarse and there was still too much charcoal and sulphur. Further, the saltpetre itself was full of impurities. Compared with later gunpowder, therefore, it was still relatively slow burning and a large charge was required. These deficiencies in speed of combustion and propelling power made it necessary to have a long barrel if the full strength was to be developed by the time the bullet left the gun. During the sixteenth century some improvement was effected by increasing the proportion of saltpetre to five parts to one part of each of the others.
The Civil War in England between Ying and Common–wealth was in one respect a turning-point in our military history; for it was the first conflict in which firearms exercised at least as much influence on the battlefield as shock weapons. The infantry arm was still the matchlock musket, with its original barrel length of 48 inches. The bore, however, had been reduced to the so-called ‘English’ bore, or 12.
In addition to the matchlocks there were a certain number of flintlock muskets. Some of these had the English lock with the steel and pan cover in one piece; others had the old snaphaunce lock with separate steel and pan cover. These latter -were almost certainly imported from the Continent. The barrel of both these flintlocks was 421 inches, .or Sl inches shorter than the matchlock.
A third type of flintlock in use was a conversion from the old arquebus. The barrel was only 4o inches long, but it was an unbalanced weapon, mainly owing. to its very light butt.
Cavalry firearms were either flintlocks or firelocks (wheel-locks). Heavy cavalry carried pistols and sometimes carbines. The Dragoons had their dragon, but this peculiar weapon was probably already being replaced by some sort of light musket, i.e. musketoon, carried hooked to a shoulder belt by runner and swivel.
The circumstances under which the Civil War was fought and the inevitable.shortage of arms resulted in a large number of sporting and other private arms being used on both sides. It was owing to the use of these private weapons that rifled firearms were first issued to English troops. Sharpshooters in particular were frequently armed with sporting rifles and the more accurate fowling-pieces. In his account of the defence of Lathom House by the Countess of Derby in x644, Bishop Rutter says:
`Upon the top of the towers were placed the best and choicest marksmen, who usually attended the Earl in his hunting and other sports as huntsmen, keepers, fowlers and the like, who continually kept watch, with screwed guns (rifles) and long fowling-pieces, to the great annoyance and loss of the enemy, especially of their commanders, who were frequently killed in their Trenches, or as they came or went to or from them.’
The first rifled barrel was probably made as early as 15 zo by Augustus Cotter at Nuremberg. The idea of spinning the bullet is believed to have been inspired by the effect of feathering an arrow, with the obvious hope that the appallingly inaccurate firearm of the day might be made to shoot as straight as the bow and arrow. However, although rifled arms were used in Europe during the second quarter of the sixteenth century, there was no real military requirement for them. For the close-order tactics of the day and for another three centuries the smooth-bore firearm gave adequate results. For sporting purposes, however, there were obvious advantages in having the most accurate firearm possible.
The rifles used in the Civil War were probably wheel-locks of German make. The bullets for these weapons were spherical, and were rammed down the barrel wrapped in a greased rag to make them a tight fit in the rifling.
Shortly before the start of the Civil War a breech-loading rifle appeared in England which was destined to be the standard sporting rifle for the next one and a half centuries. It is likely, therefore, that some arms of this type were used in the fighting. The bullet of a breech-loading rifle was cast somewhat larger than the bore, and therefore was gripped more securely by the grooves than the muzzle-loaded bullet in its greased patch. Breech-loading rifles were, however, considerably slower to reload than muzzle-loaders, so that they were not popular weapons for close-order fighting.
There were two methods of breech-loading; one of which was based on a detachable barrel, and the other on a threaded iron plug. In the first method the barrel was unscrewed from a fixed breeching or chamber, and the latter was loaded with the powder and bullet. In the second method a hole was drilled in the breech which was closed by a screw plug. The powder and then the bullet were inserted into the chamber through this hole.
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.
