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.
The first revolvers produced by Philip Webley have already been mentioned greak modern firnuture. For some, years he seems to have manufactured revolvers on a modest scale, most of which were sold through dealers, who put their own names on both the weapons and their cases wash stands for center bowl. A number of them achieved the distinction of being purchased as Presentation pieces fiddle shape antique silverware. The following year saw the appearance of the first firearm which was to make the name of Webley so well known rockingham porcelain. This was the so-called R furniture by charles ashbee.I seventeenth century english stoneware.C arc design in drawing room. revolver, which was used to equip not only the Royal Irish Constabulary, after which it was named, but also several Colonial military and police forces, including the Cape Mounted *Rifles collecting clarice cliff. The barrel was short, being only 41 inches, with a calibre which was nominally ‘45o but actually ‘4′12, It had a solid frame, a six-chamber cylinder and took a centre-fire cartridge swan kandler plate. It established a considerable reputation for reliability, and was subsequently made in a number of different patterns and calibres pewter armchairs. It was still in active use in -many, parts of the world at the end of the nineteenth century antique english oak sideboard grape engraved.
A modified version of this revolver of rather lighter build and with a very short barrel of only 22 inches and ‘450 calibre was made in 1883 gueridon tripartite base table. It was adopted by the Metropolitan Police and various other police forces in Great Britain multipurpose dressing table. In Webley x7go—x953 there is the following interesting account of a remarkable feat by Henry Webley using this weapon:
`With this stubby weapon, designed purely as a short-ranged man-stopper, Henry Webley gave a demonstration of shooting that has probably never been surpassed with a similar arm antique china furstenberg. It was reported antique german furniture for sale.in many papers of the day, including The Standard, The Shooting Times, The Birmingham Daily Gazette, and the Birmingham Daily Mail wheat shaped dining table base. The following account is taken from the last paper, dated 21st May, 1884—” art deco furniture germany. antique japanese tea table. antique american tilt top pedestal table. In demonstrating to his police pupils the manner in which the revolver ought to be used, Mr antique game bird dinner plates. Webley fired five shots at nine yards at a target having a bulls eye two inches in diameter british dining table 19th century. The result was that the bullets were lodged in a space 2J in comtoise clocks longcase. by il in french chairs black leather. Then the range was increased to fifteen yards, and five shots were fired at a similar target, the bullets in this case being put into a space 21 in antique dining table with carved x shaped legs. by il in bugatti sideboard. The next move was made to a distance of twenty-five yards from the target, and at this range five shots were fired by Mr table octagon inlaid drawer european austrian. Webley indian interior low seating drawing room. The same undeviating accuracy was maintained, a surface 21 in 19th century louis xv mahogany french chest of draws floral inlaid wood with marble top and glass cabinet with cabriole legs. by 31 in 17th century painted cassone. being eugene gaillard chair. riddled, Having wit-, nessed the expertness of their instructor, the police sergeants had a little practice to themselves, - and soon satisfied Mr antique rotating dumbwaiter. Webley of their ability to make good use of their weapons at long and short ranges napolean empire furniture. The sergeants who took part in the experiments will in turn act as instructors to other members of the force marcel breuer pel. victorian draw leaf table. meissen dot period. papier mache tray-c19th.”‘
A very similar revolver with the same short barrel had been introduced in 1878 antique thonet wien 3 legged chair. It had a short rounded butt and was made in two calibres: ‘450 and -422 nabeshima antiques. This little weapon was very popular and was known everywhere as the ‘British Bulldog’ construction of antique teaspoons.
The success of the firm was established by the purchase, in 1877 of the patent taken out in November 1876 by Charles Pryse (of C american made ceramic french figurine. & J borghese lamps. Pryse & Co antique scandinavian raised panel flower painted & mirrors cabinet.) for a ‘break-open’ revolver with a barrel latch and a self-ejection system dining room sideboards that look gaudy. This, as shown in the quotation from Mr sheffield plate candelabra. Scurfield, was an extremely popular weapon wooden upholstered arm chair. It had a double-action lock and the first models had a calibre of •38 art nouveau, armchair stained wood and glass,1904. Later an Army pattern was produced with a calibre of ‘45 spanish revival sofa. This Webley-Pryse was the, forerunner of Webley’s Army revolvers, and its main features were embodied in the first of them,
In 188o the Webley-Kaufman appeared 19th century french shaving basin. This was a break-open revolver with a double-action, a five-chamber cylinder and a calibre of -45-
In 1882 Webley constructed his first revolver with both a break-open action and a simultaneous self-ejection system sheffield plate candelabra. This was basically the same method of opening and ejecting which has been retained by the firm of Webley ever since early 19th century french bureau. There followed in 18 86 Webley’s Mark I, which was virtually the 1882 revolver with some standardization of parts antique drop front desks. This was submitted to the Government, and after very thorough tests by the Board of Ordnance it was accepted as the official revolver for the Army “art deco dresser” and “marble top”. The calibre was -45 and the length of the barrel four inches art deco wooden chair.
The initial -order for the Army was io,000 revolvers, and a copy of the original letter is reproduced in Webley z7goz953• It reads as follows:
WAR OFFICE, PALL MALL, S what style of furniture is a kidney desk characterized as?.W tilt tea table chinoiserie.
`Gentlemen,
`In reply to your letter of the 25th ult art deco examples., I have to inform you that this Department undertakes to give you an order for io,000 Webley pattern revolvers at 61 — each on your completing a pattern for approval, delivery to be made at such times as may be agreed upon hereafter rectangular mahogany extension table square pedestal base bun feet. It is probable that from 2000 to 3000 could be taken before the 3 Ist March 18 8 8 hand of fatima with arabic writing.
`A formal contract with the necessary clauses shall be concluded directly the pattern is sealed antique new england drop front desk.
`I am, Gentlemen,
`Your obedient Servant, 18th century english crescent marks. painted sideboard pine maryland.
Two years later an improved model, the Mark II, was introduced dutch lion paw dining table. This had a larger hammer and an alteration to the shape of the grip bugatti sideboard. In the same year Webley made a special target model, the W sphinks wall tiles holland.G antique wooden commode with chamber pot. (or Webley-Green) german antique throne chair. It had a calibre of ‘476, and was made with two different barrel lengths, 6 inches and 71 inches 18th and 19th century silversmithing. The front and rear sights were both adjustable potters stoke on trent empire rococo.
A modified W telescoping table.G 1920’s antique mahogany tables. known as the ‘455 476 Army Model was produced in 1892 maggiolini and cabinet maker from the 17th century. It had a flared butt, six-inch barrel and was without the adjustable sights putti on dutch delftware. It was never an official revolver but was very popular with Army officers, and was in treasured use by many of them until -455 pistol ammunition ceased ‘to be an official issue antique blue glass desert. The writer had a gorgeous model, which, with a magnificent disregard for the modern vulgar craze for camouflage and concealment, was completely covered in nickel plate antique talavera for sale. Beautifully balanced and earning its fortunate owner many antique walnut writing table with pillar (post) legs. a bottle of beer on the revolver range, it was reluctantly retired when the ‘38 weapon finally replaced all the official large bore Webleys king george 1v tankard sheffield plate.
A modification of the standard Webley of 1889 was produced to meet the requirements of the Wilkinson Sword Company leg design for small tables. This `Wilkinson-Webley’ had a six-inch ribbed barrel, a modified grip, a bead foresight and a special cam lever antique tray. Most of the Wilkinson modifications were retained as permanent features, and the Mark III Webley of 18 93 was substantially the same as the Wilkinson-Webley, but with a four-inch barrel brass drum tables.
Meanwhile, in 1887 Webleys had taken over the firm of Tipping & Lawden, of Constitution Hill, Birmingham antique victorian wedgewood pottery smaa jug. In 1897 there was a further expansion owing to the amalgamation of Webleys with W jiajing ming porcelain. & C antique ivory and silver tableware. Scott & Son, and Richard Ellis & Son commodore perry corner cabinet. As a result the concern became a Public Company which was registered under the name of the Webley & Scott Revolver and Arms Co istoriato china., Ltd petite french mantel antique clocks.
The french 17th century furniture gentleman’s dresser.firm of W johann carl schoenheit meissen. & C lady’s bureau: henry van de velde. Scott & Son had been founded in Birmingham by William Scott, who set up an establishment in Bath Street in 1834 antique drum shaped table. He was later joined by his two sons, W “chest of drawers” cherry 1840s. M porcelain spanish dancers. Scott and James C queen chamber pot. Scott drop leaf tea table spanish. In due course the business was transferred to a new building in Lancaster Street, Birmingham, entitled the Premier Gun Works czechoslovakian quality porcelain.
The Mark IV Webley was produced just before the Boer war, and was the standard revolver issued to the troops for the campaigns in South Africa antique 17th century dresser. There were two different lengths of barrel: four inches and six inches; and the hammer was smaller than that of its predecessors crockery cabinet design. The Mark IV was manufactured until 1914- It was succeeded by the Mark V, in which the cylinder diameter was increased by -on inch for nitro powder english column candlestick creamware. A few of these revolvers had six-inch barrels, but they were practically all four-inch czechoslovakia antiques. The short-barrelled model of both the Mark IV and the Mark V was used to equip the- mounted troops in the First World War antique glass epergne.
Twenty thousand of the Mark V were ordered, and with the completion of this contract in 191 5, a new weapon for the Army, the Mark VI, was introduced antique mahogany tea table. This, the best known of all etruscan pottery olive. Webley revolvers, became the universal short range weapon spanish cabinets. It had a six-inch barrel (though a few were made with a four-inch one), altered sights and a modified grip bureau plat charles boulle. The contract stipulated a weekly delivery o•,25oo; and, in all, some 300,000 were delivered france antique collectors.
10 1921 Enfield took over the manufacture of the Mark VI, under the official name of the Pistol, Revolver, Webley, Mark VI 16th century florentine italian credenza. In 1700 french fashion pattern book. 19,26 it was renamed the Pistol, Revolver, No collecting antique brass candlesticks. r, Mark VI; though it was still known universally as the Webley revolver for the remainder of its official career crackle glaze jazz figures 1920s.
Already mercury barometer. in 1922 it had been officially decided that a lighter revolver of smaller calibre was required, if one could be produced with equal, or nearly equal, stopping power french neo-rococo marble top table. Webley & Scott Ltd tea table with gated legs. (the name which the Company had adopted in 1906) were requested to carry out’ experiments antique wales footed dessert platter. The result was a -38 calibre revolver which was in all essentials a smaller version of the Mark VI, and modelled in part on the ‘38 police model Webley which had been produced in 1897 charles mackintosh wardrobe. Like the previous Webleys, the new ‘38 had a lead bullet, and the cartridge charge gave it a greater muzzle velocity than had been achieved with any previous cartridge of the same length in this calibre walnut armchair josef urban art noveau. The lead bullet, to comply with the Geneva Convention, was ultimately replaced by one with a nickel cover japanese mother of pearl furniture.
In 1929 russian oak parquetry refectory table. production of the new revolver was put in hand, but it was made at Enfield as the Pistol, Revolver, No bugatti furniture range. 2, Mark I, and differed slightly from the original Webley conception antique book ends. The firm of Webley, in the meantime, went ahead with the manufacture of their baroque table clocks of gilded brass 17th century.own Mark IV ‘38 (the earlier police revolver having been Mark III) inlaid refectory table. Large numbers of these ‘38 Webleys were produced for the Army in the Second World War; and this explains the appearance of two apparently similar weapons; one called ‘Enfield’ and the other ‘Webley’ value of apostle teaspoons’.
The introduction of the ‘38 was much criticized at the time, since it was antique spanish candlesticks. held that the smaller bullet could not compare in stopping power with the old heavy lead ‘455 bullet space saving rectangular drop leaf tables. It is certainly a lighter revolver and easier to handle, but whether it permits any more accurate shooting in the hands of the trained shot is a moot point art deco burr walnut - antiques. The writer, in any case, could never make such good practice with it as he could with his old W epergne glass dish.G burr antique table. During the War, for a reason as yet unexplained, some Enfield ’38’s were made which could only fire double-action-, cocus wood oyster veneered. and were designated Mark I* rococo music. The only modification was the removal of the single-action bent “chinese screen” and “mother of pearl”.
A large number of American Smith and Wesson revolvers Of ‘38 calibre were made for the British Army during the Second World War brass frame girandole. As a ‘455 calibre weapon the Smith and Wesson had always been popular and had been purchased extensively as an officers’ private weapon 17th century tea tray. Instead of breaking open, the frame is solid and the cylinder swings out to the left louis xiv antique dining table designs. Ejection has to be carried out as a separate operation by pushing a rod attached to the front of the cylinder neoclassical sheraton style butlers sideboard.
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.
MUSKET AND PIKE
An attempt to produce some order in the manufacture of firearms had an odd terminological result. In the army of Piedmont, before the battle of Moncontour in 1569, there were so many sizes of bore amongst the arquebuses that ammunition supply became a difficult problem. To overcome this 7000 arquebuses were ordered of one calibre, and referred to as ‘harquebuze de calibre de Monsieur le Prince’. The type of arquebus which was made to comply with this order had a bore of 10 or 11, weighed 12 pounds and had a barrel length of 42 inches. It became so popular that its use on the Continent became very widespread, and it appeared in England during the last quarter of the sixteenth century.. The original cumbersome reference had been contracted by the soldiers to `Calibre du Prince’, and later simply to ‘Calibre’. This became anglicized as ‘Caliver’, and in 1578 the Tower of London had 7000 of them in store. They were matchlocks, rather. heavier than the previous pattern of arquebus, and about four feet ten inches in overall length. Eventually the term came to mean any firearm which was light enough to be fired without a rest. ‘Arquebus’ was then frequently applied to cavalry wheel-lock arms.
In 1595 the Trained Bands were ordered to exchange their bows for calivers and muskets, and by this time calivers formed part of the armament of every English infantry unit. In fact, in a levy for Ireland of the following year, the ’shot accounted for half the infantry, and of these three-quarters were armed with calivers and only one-quarter with muskets. The days of the caliver, however, were numbered; for, unlike the musket, its shot was too light to pierce heavy armour.
The musket was actually earlier in origin than the caliver, having been invented in about 1546, though its adoption in England was somewhat slow. It was, essentially, an improved form of matchlock arquebus, with a greater g rane and accuracy and firing a heavier
rang
It had a barrel 4 feet long, a bore of 8 or io, and was designed to penetrate the heaviest protective armour. Its weight was 2o pounds, and it was consequently necessary to support the barrel on a forked rest. The first type of musket seems to have been too cumbersome to use for anything except siege warfare, and the Duke of Alva has been stated to have been the first to adapt it for use in the field, in his campaign in the Netherlands in
1567. By the time of the Civil War the musket had been considerably lightened, and it was possible to use it without a rest.
In one respect the musket was destined to achieve undying
FIG. 41. A MATCH-BOX.
fame; for its name came to denote any shoulder firearm, and even ‘rifle’ is merely a shortened form of ‘rifled musket’.
One of the disadvantages of the matchlock was the match. In very wet weather it was liable to be extinguished. To give some protection a ‘match-box’ was introduced. This was a tube of pewter, latten or tin, about a foot long, with holes in the side to let in aif.
It was this difficulty with the .match which was responsible for the development of spark ignition. The first substance to be employed for this purpose was pyrites; a mineral which included a combination of iron and sulphur. The mechanism in which it was used was known as the ‘wheel-lock’, and was invented in Nuremberg about 1517. A fragment of pyrites was held in contact with a steel wheel which had a serrated
FIG, 42. WHEEL- LOCKS.
Top: A Wheel-lock Carbine, Elizabeth I. Bottom: A Wheel-lock Dag, Edward VI.
edge. The wheel was rotated by the release of a powerful V-spring attached to the lock plate. The resulting stream of parks was directed at the priming powder.
The spindle of the wheel had a square end, and the lock was set by fitting a key, or spanner, to the spindle and winding it in a clockwise direction. This pulled a short chain of about three links round the spindle, and tautened the spring. After a three-quarter turn a scear (spring catch), which was fixed on the inside of the lock plate, engaged a slot on the wheel.
The flash-pan was then primed and closed. The bottom of the pan, however, was pierced to admit the top of the wheel. The piece of pyrites, which was held in a clamp at the head of the cock, was next lowered on to the top of the pan cover. Assuming it to have been loaded, the weapon was now ready for firing.
Pressure on the trigger drew back the scear and released the spring, causing the wheel to revolve. An ingenious device then caused the pan cover to open. A cam attached to the wheel spindle struck an arm which was connected to the pan cover. This opened the latter, permitting the pyrites to fall on the wheel. The pan cover was then held open by a spring catch.
The wheel-lock was, as may be imagined, an extremely
FIG. 43. WHEEL-LOCK DAGS.
expensive firearm to make, particularly when compared with the simple matchlock. Its adoption in England was consequently slow, and it never became a general issue to the infantry. It was a very useful lock, however, for a horseman. The management of a matchlock on horseback was a difficult feat, for the match had to be kept alight and any adjustments made to it with one hand.
The first single-handed firearms were intended for the horse soldier. These were the dags or tacks, the forerunners of pistols. The first dags were, in appearance, small arquebuses with wheel-locks. In 1544 they were introduced into England as a cavalry weapon.
The wheel-lock, also known as a firelock, suffered from two disadvantages; the first was the expense, and the second the weakness of the pyrites, which was liable to break into pieces. The demand for a sound and inexpensive method of spark transmission led to the introduction of the flintlock. The name originally given to this new mechanism was ’snaphaunce’. This was derived from the Dutch snaphaan, meaning a pecking fowl, and referred to the pecking motion of the cock.
The sparks in the flintlock were produced by striking a piece of flint against a case-hardened steel plate, with serrated ridges on its face. The flint was held in- a clamp at the top of the cock. The ’steel’, against which the flint was struck, worked on an arm which was hinged to the lock plate and held in position by a V-spring. To fire the weapon the cock -was drawn back, thereby compressing the main spring, which in turn actuated an internal tumbler connected to the cock. The scear engaged the tumbler and held the cock in the fully open position. The steel was then lowered towards the rear of the piece and on to the lip of the flash-pan; bringing it within range of the cock. Pulling the trigger drew back the scear, thereby releasing the cock; with the result that the flint struck the steel, directing a stream of sparks into the pan. This last was uncovered, during the forward movement of the cock, through a tumbler actuating a steel link which thrust against the lower part of the pan cover.
This type of flintlock was complicated and still fairly expensive. It was little used in England, though some of the troops ordered to Ireland in i58o are said to have been armed with it. On the Continent, however, it was in common use for a long time. In England it was superseded in the first quarter of the seventeenth century by the so-called ‘English lock’ flintlock. This was a much better and simpler weapon than the original snaphaunce, and the mechanism remained basically the same for all future flintlock firearms.
In the English lock the steel and pan cover were combined in a single piece which was called the ‘hammer’. This consisted of a hinged pan cover which worked upon a screw set in the lock plate and held in either the open or closed positions by a V-spring. The steel, or striking surface, rose approximately at right angles in a curve from the free end of the cover. When the cock was released the flint hit the steel, causing a shower of sparks, and at the same time pushed the whole member back on the hinge, so uncovering the priming powder to the sparks. The firing mechanism was practically the same as that of the snaphaunce, but the weapon could be put at safety by raising the cock half-way and leaving the pan
FIG. 44. AN ARQUEBUS WITH SNAPHAUNCE LOCK.
closed. This “half-cock’ position was achieved by providing a notch on the tumbler in which the scear engaged.
On some English locks there was an additional safety device. This was a catch on the outside of the lock plate which engaged in a notch on the cock when it was in the `half-cock’ position. This type of safety-catch was called a dog-catch and locks so fitted were known as doglocks.
Although the term `snaphaunce’ seems to have been applied originally to those flintlocks with separate pan covers and steels, it appears to have been soon used, in the early seventeenth century, to denote all flintlocks.
The difficulty of managing a matchlock on horseback has already been mentioned. Nevertheless in about I 53o a modification of the arquebus was produced for this purpose. It was called a ‘Petronel’ or ‘poitrinal’, names derived from the French and signifying that the weapon was intended to be fired from the chest. It was shorter than the arquebus but of a large calibre, and, on account of its weight, was carried on a broad shoulder belt. As a matchlock it was a fairly impracticable weapon, and later -versions were fitted with wheel-locks.
Another horseman’s firearm was the dragon. This was something between a petronel and a pistol. Traditionally it had a. dragon’s head at its muzzle, and it is supposed to have given its name to the French Dragons (Dragoons), first raised by Charles de Cosse, Marechal de Brissac, in 1600. Of the later and similar English troops, Markham, in his Souldier’s
FiG. 45- PETRONELS.
Acidence of 1645, says: ‘The last sort of which our horse troopes are composed are called dragoons, which are a kind of footmen on horsebacks, and do now indeed succeed the light horsemen, and are of singular use in all actions of warre. The armes defensive are an open head piece with cheeks, and a good buffs coat, with deeps skirts; and for offensive armes they have a faire dragon fitted with. an iron works, to be carried in a belt of leather, which is buckled over the right shoulder and under the left arms, having a turnill of iron work with a ring, through which the piece runnes up and downs; and these dragons are short pieces of sixteen inches the barrell, and full musquet bore, with firelocks or snaphaunces, also a belt with a flaske, pryming box, key, and bullet bag, and a good sword.’
In the heavy horse petronel and dag were succeeded in due course by carbine and pistol. The difference between a pistol and a dag is, however, not very clear. Weapons which we should normally call pistols were often called dags in England and tacks in Scotland in the early seventeenth, and, in the case of the latter, eighteenth centuries. Owing to their small size,. and consequent popularity as a personal weapon; pistols from very early days seem to have expressed tastes in design and decoration of different gunsmiths. In addition, there have
FIG. 46. A DRAGON.
frequently .been fashions in pistol design which gunsmiths have met in their own particular style: To describe all the pistols which have been used in war would, therefore, be quite beyond the scope of the present work. Nevertheless there are two special types which must be mentioned. The first of these is the screw-barrel pistol. This had a cannon-shaped barrel ‘which screwed off so that the charge could be loaded direct into the breech piece. These enjoyed a great vogue during the reign of Charles I and for some time afterwards. The second is -one of the most famous pistols, or rather -family of pistols, ever made.. This was the Scottish all-metal pistol, which, as far as is known, was first made towards the end of the sixteenth century. The earliest one on record was manufactured byAlison of Dundee. The principal difference between the Scottish pistol and others was that the stock was made of steel or brass instead of wood. The butts of the earliest models had a fish-tailed end, and they were sometimes made of wood encased in, or mounted with, brass or silver.
The early seventeenth-century carbine, according to a 1630 book on cavalry by Captain Cruso, was the same length as an arquebus but had a smaller bore. It was a flintlock, and it was slung from a shoulder belt by a swivel.
There were two disastrous expeditions during the reign of Charles 1, the failure of which was to some extent due to defective firearms. In the force sent to Cadiz, in fact, the majority of the firearms are said to have been either defective or useless. As a result of these deficiencies a special Commission under the Privy Seal appointed a select committee of gunmakers, arniourcrs, pikemakers and bandolier makers, `being the skillfullest and prime workmen of this land’, to undertake an investigation into the arms of the national militia and Trained Bands and to rectify any deficiencies. The London gunmakers mentioned as being on the Commission were Henry Rowland, Richard Burrowe, Thomas Addis, John Norcott, William Dawstin, John Watson and William Graves. These gunmaker members were temporarily vested with powers of proving and testing firearms.
The pike was quickly followed by a number of other shafted weapons, all of which owed their origin to it, and all for the use of the foot soldier. The linstock was intended for the artilleryman. It consisted of a pike with the addition of lateral branches on each side of the head, sometimes terminating in bird’s or serpent’s heads. These latter were intended
FIG. 12. PARTIZANS.
Edward IV; C. 1500., Henry VIII; German, c. x61o; James 1.
to hold the match for firing cannon. Previously the cannoneer had had to discard his pike in order to apply the match to the touch-hole, and was frequently slain in the process. The linstock ensured that he remained armed.
The partizan was originally something like a pike with lateral projections at the base of the blade. The blade later became longer, flatter and more ornamental, and often gilt and covered with elaborate engraving. As a mediaeval weapon it had a comparatively short practical life. After the reign of Henry VIII its use seems to have been confined to ceremonial occasions and for the arming of bodyguards.
The spontoon had a flat blade like the partizan, but it did not have the projections at the base. It had a much shorter staff than the pike, and was intended for use in closer combat,
FIG- 13. SPONTOONS.
Tower of London.
The halbert was more akin to the bill than the pike, and it has been suggested that its name is derived from the German Halb-Barthe, meaning ‘half battle-axe’. In form it was something like a pike with an axe-head mounted immediately below the pike blade; so that it could be used either for cutting or thrusting.
Swords were, of course, used at Hastings. It would be difficult to cite any pre-twentieth_century battle in which they were not carried into action. They are, by tradition, the most honourable weapon of all. the very symbol of the profession of arms.
Saxon swords were of two kinds, both being of iron; about three feet in length, and straight. One of these was double-edged and very sharp. It had no guard, not even a simple crosspiece. The other was very similar, but it had a cross-piece as a
FIG. 14. HALBERTS.
Henry VII; Henry V111; Edward V1-, Mary.
guard, and a pommel which was sometimes foliated. The hilts of these swords were generally of wood covered with leather, horn or bone. The sword hilts of some of the greater or wealthier nobles, however, were frequently covered with plates of gold or silver.
The Norm in swords can be seen on the early Royal and baronial seals, and a very similar type was used throughout the mediaeval period. The blade was long and tapering, double-edged, with a simple cross-piece guard to the hilt, either straight or curving towards the blade; the pommels being round or of various ornamental shapes. In the latter half of the fifteenth century the blades tapered to a very fine point, and the upper part was often gilt and engraved. These mediaeval swords were intended for either cutting or thrusting. The many carved effigies which remain in churches throughout the country afford abundant examples of the swords which were in fashion at different periods.
FIG. 15. SWORDS.
Henry V; Edward VI; Henry VII; 1495, engraved by
Albrecht Mirer; Henry VIII.
Saxon and Norman sword scabbards were generally of wood covered with leather, sometimes with bronze mounts. Later, scabbards of metal and cuirbouilli (boiled leather) made their appearance. From about the thirteenth century the mounts and chapel, or metal tips to the scabbard, were ornamental in shape and often heavily engraved.
FIG. 16. SWORD-BELTS.
Top row: A Septvans, Chartham Church, Kent; Brian Lord Fitzalan of Bedale, from Bedale Church, Oxford; Brass of Sir John de St. Quentin, Bransburton Church, Yorkshire. fiddle row: Sir Walter Arden, Aston Church, Warwickshire; Detail of Belt in previous illustration; Brass of a Knight in Laughton Church, Lincolnshire. Bottom row: Mode of fastening Sword-belt, fifteenth century, from• Viollet-le-Duc; Brass of John Cray at Chinnor, Oxfordshire. Ann. 1390. Sword-belt, Queen Elizabeth.
FIG- 17- SWORDS.
Top row: Edward IV-, Henry VI; Henry VII; Henry VII; Henry VIII; Queen Elizabeth. Middle row: Queen Elizabeth; Queen Elizabeth; Queen Elizabeth; Queen Elizabeth; Henry VIII. Bottom row-. Queen Elizabeth; Henry VIII; Henry VIII; Henry VIII-, Queen Elizabeth-, Sword of Wolfgang Wilhelm, Count Palatine of the Rhine, 1614-
The bow was well known, of course, to the Saxons, but it was used by them far more for hunting than for war. It was the Normans who showed on an English battlefield what a formidable weapon it could be. Nevertheless, even for the Normans the bow was very much of an auxiliary weapon, and it is surprising what a small part it played in warfare for two and a half centuries after the battle of Hastings.
The bows of the eleventh century Thirteenth century;
were short, stretching only from head Fourteenth century.
to knee, and they had nothing like the power of the later bows which were to make the English archers so famous. It was Edward III who raised a disciplined force of archers, probably owing to a shortage of heavy horses for men-at-arms, and thereby revived infantry as a factor on the battlefield. The shooting power of these new troops was demonstrated to an astonished Continent at the battle of Crecy in 1346.
The English archers were armed
with a bow measuring six feet or more,
and made chiefly of yew, but sometimes
of ash, elm or witch-hazel. The bow-
string was of hemp, flax or silk. The
standard arrow, the ‘cloth-yard shaft’,
was made of ash, oak, birch or one or
two other woods. The point was of
burnished steel, and it was winged
with feathers from the grey goose; or sometimes the peacock,
the swan or other birds. The bow was generally carried in a case to protect it from the weather and to stop it from warping.
That bows and arrows were adequate both in quality and numbers’was always of concern in mediaeval times. In 1405, for instance, it was found that faulty heads had been made for arrows and quarrels. As a result a statute was promulgated directing that, ‘All the Heads for Arrows and Quarrels after this Time to be made, shall be well boiled or brased, and
FIG. 20. CRAPES.
Henry VIII, Dagger Sheath; Henry VIII, Sword Sheath;
1321 Sword Sheath from effigy in Hereford Cathedral,
hardened at the Points with Steel’ ; and also that, ‘E very Arrow head and Quarrel be Marked with the Mark of him that made the same’. During the latter part of the fifteenth century there was apparently a constant shortage of bowstaves. In 1472 it was decreed that any merchant ship coming from a foreign city, town or country, which had at any time sent bowstaves into England, was to bring four bowstaves with every ton of merchandise. In 1483 there was some trouble with the Lombards, who had been guilty, apparently, of supplying very poor bowstaves, and of profiteering in them as well. They were cnsequently required to include ten good bowstaves free of charge with every butt of wine imported into England.
It was a long time before hand firearms replaced the long bow in England. In the hands of the English archers the latter was a far more accurate weapon than the early and primitive firearm; and it excelled it, too, both in range and rate of discharge. It was not till the sixteenth century was well advanced that the bow was finally superseded; and this was due more to the shortage of trained archers than to superiority in the firearms of the day. It took practice from youth up to train an archer, and in the hey-day of archery it was practised on every village green. But the spread of firearms and their use for sport inevitably resulted in a growing dearth of young men who could draw the long bow. Henry
VIII did his best to keep up.
the standard of archers. In Left: Steel Sheath, Henry VIII. a statute of i Sog he forbade Right: Copper Sheath, Elizabeth I.
the use of gun or crossbow except under special licence from the King; and in a further statute of 15 11 he required every man under the age of forty to provide himself with bow and arrows and to practise shooting with the long bow.
At the battle of Flodden the bow was still the principal missile weapon of the infantry, but the use of firearms was already increasing rapidly. In 1537 Henry VIII recognized the inevitable, and granted a patent to the overseers of the Guild of Saint George (now the Honourable Artillery Company) by which they and their successors were authorized to establish a perpetual fraternity or guild of artillery and ‘to exercise themselves in shooting with the long-bow, crossbow, and hand-guns’.
The lance was, of course, the weapon specially associated with the knight. At its head, in the great days of chivalry, it bore the small flag which indicated the knight’s rank and. status. A baron or knight-banneret had a square or rectangular banner emblazoned with its owner’s arms. A knight commanding in the field had a swallow-tailed pennon, also
FIG. 6. BATTLE-AXES.
2, Henry VIII; 3 & 4, Elizabeth I; 5, James I; 6, Dutch.
emblazoned with his arms. If, for his distinguished conduct in action, he was made a knight-bannerct on the battlefield, his pennon was converted technically into a banner by cutting off the swallow tails. An ordinary knight, fighting in the ranks, carried a triangular pennon, or pensil, on which might be either his badge or arms, and frequently depicted so that they were the right way up when the lance was horizontal. In the reign of Henry VIII all this gay individual heraldry was swept away, and the lances of the cavalry bore the white pennon and red cross of St. George.
There were a number of other shafted weapons which had their origin in mediaeval times; some of them lasting until a
FIG. 8. BATTLE-AXES. From the Bayeux Tapestry.
much later period of history. The oldest of these was probably the battle-axe, which was used by the Normans at Hastings, and it had some affinity with the Saxon bill. It had, however, a much shorter shaft, and was essentially a weapon for the mounted man. Another early weapon was the guisarme, which was a form of lance with a hook at,its side, and which was known to the Normans in the eleventh century. It was probably derived from the peasant’s ox-goad.
FIG. 9. MACES.
Top row: Quadrelle, temp. Edward IV; Massuelle, temp. Richard III; temp. Henry VII with hand-gun; Henry VIII; Philip & Mary. Middle row: Mace, temp. Henry V-, Henry VI; Henry VI, Edward IV; Henry VII; Henry VII; Henry VIII. Bottom row: Henry VIII; Henry VIII; Henry VIII; Edward VI.
The guisarme appears to have been little used in England, but from it came a derivative which was very popular in Wales. It had a broad, heavy, pointed blade on the end of a long shaft, and could be used either for cutting or thrusting. Presumably experience of it in the Welsh wars had impressed its value on the English, for in the first year of Richard III’s reign one Nicholas Spicer is recorded as having issued an order for the impressment of smiths to make Zoo Welsh glaives. Chaucer gives a hint at its formidable nature in a line: ‘And
FIG. 10. PIKE HEADS.
Left to right: Henry VII;’Henry VIII; Edward VI; Elizabeth I;
James 1; Charles I; Cromwell; Charles II; Charles II.
whet their tongue as sharp as sword or glaive’. In the sixteenth century the glaive was fashioned in all manner of decorative shapes, and generally richly engraved.
The baston is another of the shafted weapons of the Bayeux Tapestry. At its best it was an iron-tipped staff, but was sometimes merely a wooden bludgeon or a knotted club. It was succeeded by the similar but much more decorative mace. Maces became very popular with the many war-like prelates of the Middle Ages; since by using this arm in battle they were able to persuade their elastic consciences that they were evading the condemnation of all holding office in the Church who fought with the sword. Maces were made in all sorts of decorative and fantastic shapes, and they were the weapons of the King’s Serjeants-at-Arms as early as the fourteenth century. There was a smaller kind of mace called a masuel. This must have been a cheap, handy and dangerous little weapon, for it was included in the list of arms which Edward 1, in the first year of his reign, forbade his turbulent London subjects to carry.
The pike, which from the time of its introduction until the coming of the bayonet was to be the main shock weapon of the British infantry, did not reach England until the reign of
FIG. II. LINSTOCKS.
Early Italian; Elizabeth I; Elizabeth I; Charles 1.
Edward IV. It could not claim to be an original weapon; for it was merely a modification of the cavalry lance adapted to the needs of infantry, and a reintroduction in a slightly different form of the earlier short and light infantry spear. Nevertheless, its appearance on the continent of Europe in the hands of well-disciplined infantry revolutionized military tactics. For the first time for centuries infantry had a shock weapon with which they could face and repel cavalry. For 400 years mounted troops had dominated the battlefield. That place was now to be taken by the infantry until armoured formations arrived to-redress the balance some 5oo years later.
This is the story of the weapons used by the British soldier throughout the ages, and the many developments in personal arms during the course of history, and the reasons which influenced their design. It starts at the Battle of Hastings in which the seeds of the British army were sown, and it ends with the short magazine Lee-Enfield rifle which served the British Army through half a century and two world wars.
It is interesting to learn that in the days of chivalry the weapons of the aspirant to the order of Knighthood were placed at the altar and were never to be used save in defence of honour, virtue and justice. The hilt of his sword was the emblem of Christianity, and to this day the pressure of his lips on the Cross is commemorated in the officer’s salute. It is facts such as these which help to explain the fascination which hand weapons have for so many.
From military arms have descended their counterparts in the chase, in sporting combat and on the range. These too form an interesting study, both in the multiplicity of their design and types, far exceeding the recognized weapons of war.
The craftsmanship shown in the manufacture of these weapons, of which many fine examples are illustrated in this volume, will appeal to both the connoisseur and the collector, besides the fascinating story of how they came into use.
During his long vigil through the hours of darkness the weapons of the aspirant to the order of knighthood were placed at the altar. He was taught that these weapons must never be used save in the defence of honour, virtue and justice. The hilt of his sword was formed in the shape of the emblem of Christianity; and to this day the pressure of his lips on the Cross, as he draws his sword, is commemorated in the Officer’s salute.
It seems probable that it is this tradition of the higher symbolism of weapons that has been largely responsible for the care and attention which, throughout his history, the British soldier has been exhorted to bestow upon his personal arms.
It is no doubt the glamour of ancient chivalry which explains in part the fascination which hand weapons have for so many. This is not, of course, the sole reason. The skill and craftsmanship so often shown in their manufacture, and the fact that they are of a convenient size for handling and display, invite the attention of the collector.
From military arms have descended their counterparts in the chase, in sporting combat and on the range. These too form an attractive study, but in the multiplicity of their type and design they exceed by far the authorized weapons of war; and to deal with them adequately would be beyond the scope of any one book.
This, then, is the story of the weapons which have been used by British fighting men, and of such developments which have influenced their design. It starts, since it must start somewhere, at the Battle of Hastings, in which the seeds of an eventual British Army were sown; and it ends with the supersession of the Short Magazine Lee-Enfield rifle, which served the British Army through half a century and two World Wars.
If one takes the battle of Hastings as a starting-point in a history of weapons, one must logically start with the bill; for this was the principal weapon of the armies of the Saxon kings. It consisted of a heavy axe-type blade, sometimes hooked or curved, set at the end of a long staff or handle. It was wielded with both hands as an axe, and a trained man became remark-7 ably skilled in its use. Few troops could face the steel wall of
FIG. I. SAXON BILLS.
the English household infantry with its line of flashing and cleaving bills. Even the Normans failed to break them by direct shock attack; and to the last they remained formidable as they died in compact groups round their fallen King.
William the Conqueror was too able a soldier to contemplate changing the infantry weapon of his new subjects, and the bill remained as one of the principal arms of the English foot soldier for many centuries after the Conquest. In any riot or tumult in mediaeval times the cry would be heard of, ‘Bills and Bows I Bills and Bows V
FIG. 2. TnE BOAR SPEAR. From ajourtrenth-centuiy MS.
It was not until the introduction of the pike in the fifteenth century that the bill began to lose its pre-eminent place as the infantry shock weapon. Even then it was by no means
0
Ij
FIG. 3. THE SPEAR IN BOAR HUNTING.
From the Cotton MS., ninth century.
replaced, for the Italian Daniel Barbaro, writing in ISS 1, notes the billmen as one of the elements of the’ English infantry. He says that their weapon was ‘a short thick staff, with an iron, like a peasant’s hedging bill…. With this, they strike so violently as to unhorse the cavalry; and it is made short because they like close quarters.’
As late as 1584 there were still a substantial number of billmen in the English forces; for a muster of the troops oil the Scottish border showed that out of about 7400 infantry, 2500 were armed with bills.
From the Bayeux Tapestry it will be seen that both sides at the battle of Hastings were armed with shafted weapons which
FiG. 4. Baas.
Left to right -. Henry IV, Edward IV, Henry VII, Elizabeth I,
Seventeenth century.
appear to be of identical design and something of a cross between lance and javelin; for they are depicted as used by both horse and foot for either throwing or overhand thrusting, and by the mounted knights in the ordinary fashion of a lance.
The spear had been used from very early times in these islands, and it had always formed part of the equipment of the Anglo-Saxon forces. At the time of the Norman invasion it was carried by the English household troops, probably as a secondary weapon, for use either in close combat or to be hurled as a javelin. In defence the latter method was the more likely, in order to break up the ranks of the attackers before they came to close contact with the steel wall and its formidable bills
The early Norman lance was of light construction and very similar to the Saxon spear. It underwent little change during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, though it may have been lengthened and -was probably eventually about thirteen or fourteen feet. The shaft was originally of ash, but in Chaucer’s day it seems to have been more commonly made of cypress wood. In the fourteenth century some protection was given
FIG. 5. SPEAR & LANCE HEADS.
1-3, British, 4-8, Anglo-Saxon, Norman; 9 & io, Fifteenth century;
i i & 12, Sixteenth century.
to the hand by fixing a small round plate (the ‘vam-plate’) to the shaft. In the fifteenth century the shaft of the lance was tapered. Instead of being comparatively narrow and of the same thickness throughout, it was increased in diameter from the point downward and a grip was made for the hand. Towards the end of the century, in the time of Edward IV, the shaft was fluted and the butt ends were shaped to various designs. The fourteenth-century tilting lance was extremely thick and was frequently painted spirally with the distinctive colours of its bearer.
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.
