What rifles did the royal naval division use in Antwerp october 1914?

[mikeyc]

hey all, I am doing research on the royal naval division for personal interests! wondering, I read often that they used "ancient charger loading rifles" I understand they weren't the typical rifle use throughout WW1. Whats the name of the rifle? How did it work? Supposedly they were untrained for the rifle... ty.

[TonyE]

hey all, I am doing research on the royal naval division for personal interests! wondering, I read often that they used "ancient charger loading rifles" I understand they weren't the typical rifle use throughout WW1. Whats the name of the rifle? How did it work? Supposedly they were untrained for the rifle... ty.

Hi

Perhaps I can help.

The normal rifle used by the infantry in WWI was the Rifle, Short, Magazine, Lee Enfield, or SMLE as it is always known. The short rifle had originally been introduced in 1902 and the Mark III in 1907. This featured charger loading, whereby a charger of five rounds could be inserted in a bridge across the receiver and the cartridges stripped into the magazine. The SMLE was meant as an all arms rifle that replaced the long Lee Enfield of the infantry and the carbine of the artillery and cavalry. Neither of these had the facility to charger load.

By 1914 the regular army was equipped with the Mark III version of the SMLE but the Territorials and the Royal Navy still had the long rifle. They had been modified to accept the charger loading system by a complex modification to the bolt head and were known as the Charger Loading Lee Enfield (CLLE). These are the "ancient" rifles you refer to. If you do a Forum search for "CLLE" I am sure you will find plenty of information.

I hope this helps,

Regards

TonyE

EDIT: Sorry, wrong picture posted. This is not a CLLE, but a Magazine Lee Enfield. See posts below for the CLLE

SMLE

[4thGordons]

The first means of charger loading the SMLE - a sliding guide mounted on the bolt head

Here is another view of a CLLE (the charger bridge added over the action to allow loading rounds in blocks of 5 as TonyE described) slightly different version from that posted by Tony

and a 1907 MkIII SMLE (which has now had the US sling replaced!)

Chris

[mikeyc]

hey guys this may sound like a daft question (well I don't know a lot about WW1 weapons)... but what was charger loaders? You attach it to the rifle and it automatically loads into the CLLE after you fire off a round? Or did you manually have to put in the rounds into the chamber? And blocks off 5, I persume thats what the CLLE had when it was attached? thanks for all your help so far.

[4thGordons]

hey guys this may sound like a daft question (well I don't know a lot about WW1 weapons)... but what was charger loaders? You attach it to the rifle and it automatically loads into the CLLE after you fire off a round? Or did you manually have to put in the rounds into the chamber? And blocks off 5, I persume thats what the CLLE had when it was attached? thanks for all your help so far.

Chargers are sometimes referred to colloquially as "Clips" or, particularly in the US, as "Stripper Clips". They were spring steel clips in which 5 rounds were held together to aid in more rapid loading (charging) of the magazine. Although the CLLE/SMLE magazine is removable in normal circumstances it would not be. Instead it would be "recharged". The bolt would be moved fully rearward and charger holding the 5 rounds to be loaded was slipped into the guide from above then, using your thumb, the rounds were pushed ("stripped") down into the magazine and the empty charger removed.

Does this make sense?

This was usually done twice as the magazine capacity of the CLLE/SMLE was 10 rounds . In this way the rifle could be reloaded far more rapidly than introducing the rounds one at a time.

The pouches in the 1903 bandoleer equipment and the 1908 webbing (standard in the Great War) were designed to hold ammunition in these 5 round chargers. I have been meaning to take some pictures to illustrate this for another purpose for a while so I will see if I can do it tonight to supplement my very poor description of a very straightforward process!

Chris

So while I am developing the photos! (here is one I prepared earlier)

[4thGordons]

The design of charger used here is a later one - earlier patterns had rectangular holes but the principle is the same!

[4thGordons]

MODS: Given the content - this thread might be better moved (with original poster's permission) to the "Arms" section under "Paraphernalia"

[Old Tom]

A fine set of pictures. I note the reference to the 'up down' sequnce of rounds in the clip. My experience of the No 4, which I believe is the same from the loading point of view, is that the sequence was not important as the angle of the magazine and its spring sorted the rounds out as the were pressed down. Some soldiers would load the rounds in the charger so that they were in the position they would adopt in the magazine.

Old Tom

[mikeyc]

thanks a lot from your help, if the topic needs my permission to be moved then you have it.

[jhill]

There is a 1930's publication, "The First World War - A Photographic History" which contains a photo captioned "Ostend: British Marines Have Landed", from which I post this detail. I know that it is difficult to see very much of their rifles from this grainy image, but perhaps these fellows are carrying the same weapons you are interested in.

This is about the maximum resolution I can get. Sorry!

[4thGordons]

As you say - a bit difficult to see but these look to me to be SMLEs. (judging by the shape of the muzzle)

I am pretty sure I have some pics from "war illustrated" that show the RND - I'll see if I can dig them out.

Chris

Edit - did an online search for images:

IN THIS PICTURE - they appear to have long (CLLE) enfields. However lower on the same page is a hand coloured version of the group reproduced above which appears to show at least one clearly carrying a SMLE.

my suspicion therefore is they had a mix - much like the rest of the army in 1914/15. Although the SMLE MkIII had been introduced in 1907 (and the MkI earlier) there were still large numbers of the longer rifle in service. (there have been a number of nice threads on this that a search should show up)

[TonyE]

I think it is fairly safe to say that the regular amy was fully equipped with SMLE rifles by 1914, and that there were sufficient in store to arm the Special Reserve and Reserve units. Whether the latter were all Mark III of course cannot be certain. The Territorial units would have had mainly long rifles and some earlier SMLEs.

The following figures are taken from the War Office files in the National Archives.

Rifles on hand in August 1914 were:

Rifle, SMLE,

With troops 335,000

In store 140,000

TOTAL 475,000

Rifle, MLE

With troops 220,000

In store 100,000

TOTAL 320,000

Grand Total

With troops 555,000

In Store 240,000

TOTAL 795,000

In addition to these there were 130,000 obsolete Lee-Metford rifles in store that were condidered only fit for drill, but which could be converted.

Regards

TonyE

[Desmond7]

There is some very good footage of Antwerp with RN carrying these rifles in the BBC Great War documentary series.

[bob lembke]

I am presently reading and writing about Antwerp 1914, and just read an appraisal of the Naval Division by an experienced American war correwspondent (E. Alexander Powell) who was there, and watched them arrive, and he drew a sharp distinction between the Marine Brigade, which arrived first, and the two Naval Volunteer Brigades, which arrived a couple of days later. He thought that the first were fine, well-equipped troops, while the Volunteers did not appear to be first rate troops. He observed that the latter were equipped with a jumble of types of kit, or missing kit (I think he mentioned that many did not have ammunition pouches) which he remarked was like a typical American peace-time national guard unit. Perhaps their rifle situation was similar. Wasn't those two brigades (Like the nearby German Naval Division within III. Reservekorps), only formed a week or two before?

I am interested in the situation as my grand-father was the Id of the Generalkommando of the III. Reservekorps, the unit that was attacking Antwerp.

Powell was present and tried to advise the officers of the Naval Division when they passed across the border and went in to Holland and internment, but they ignored his advice. If this is of interest to anyone I can pick up the book, refresh my memory, and report what he said. I generally do not pay a lot of attemtion to war correspondents or news reports as sources, but Powell seems on the whole reliable and knowledgable.

Bob Lembke

[bierlijn]

I do recommend a visit to the Antwerp fortress ring. They are mostly intact and showing ww1 damage. Fort 4 (Oude Gods) was only vacated by the Belgian Army a couple of years ago, and is very interesting. It was occupied by elements of Drake Battalion on October ...7th 1914 (If I remember rightly). A lonely volunteer guide waits there every Sunday to see if anyone would like a free tour.

In the large graveyard near fort 9 (I'd have to check) are the CWGC grave markers of those killed in this 'engagement'. Mostly RM, but there was a senior Naval Brigade casualty and an OR. I have all written down and photographed somewhere.

The photograph is my grandfather Claude with his friend Eddy. They are Drakes and have managed to get back to a channel port (Ostend?). They are wearing there five day stubble, and unusual headgear. Claude is wearing a German private's cap. What is Eddy Wearing?

What is Eddy Wearing? What is Stuart Hall? I'm very confused.

Hugh

[4thGordons]

Hugh

I can't answer your question regarding headgear (is that a German Ulan's helmet perhaps?)

However - apropos the title of the thread, to judge by the rifle muzzles and overall length they appear to be armed with CLLEs rather than SMLEs.

The rounds in the bandoleer also look to me to be the earlier MkVI rounds with a round nose bullet rather than the Great War standard MkVII with the pointed bullet - although the picture is not clear enough for me to be definitive on that - Long Lees however certainly.

Chris

[bob lembke]

The photograph is my grandfather Claude with his friend Eddy. They are Drakes and have managed to get back to a channel port (Ostend?). They are wearing there five day stubble, and unusual headgear. Claude is wearing a German private's cap. What is Eddy Wearing?

What is Eddy Wearing? What is Stuart Hall? I'm very confused.

Hugh

The unusual headgear, superficially, looks like the helmet of the German Ulans (or perhaps any other Polish-style light cavalry), but the stuff on the front does not seem German. Could they have pinched a helmet from a Belgian lancer? But I am not a uniform expert. (My family's traditional unit was Ulan=Regiment (1. brandenburgische) Nr. 3.)

Bob Lembke

[bierlijn]

I hope it's OK, but I've redone the photo and I hope it is clearer. You can see the German cap better here. I've always assumed the hat worn by 'Eddy' to be a Uhlan helmet. But a Belgian Lancer is possibly more likely. The cap must be a trophy handed to them by Belgian soldiers or Royal Marines. Maybe the helmet too.

They do seem to be dressed as Jerrold described, with random bits of kit.

This snippet of the same photo (Of which my Grandfather Claude was very proud) also exists....

Hugh

[bob lembke]

The lancer helmet, on second glance, certainly is not German. The top feature is much too flat, the German version curves up to the flat top gradually, and the front detail is quite different. I am not even sure if the Mutze is really German, as I think it, if German, should have two cockades on the front, not one; one for the German Empire, and one for the state, such as Prussia or Bavaria. Again, not a uniform junkie.

Bob

[michaeldr]

The Royal Naval Division was composed of two elements available to the Admiralty; the Royal Marine and the Naval. The Royal Marine element had been inexistence for centuries, and had a well established depots and stores network. The Naval Battalions were formed (in the first instant) from reserves, and only after the beginning of the war. By the time they got to Antwerp the RM Battalions had been more or less properly kitted out, but the Naval Battalions were still in a bad state of unpreparedness. Very few men had the full inventory of kit and what little they did have was of the old naval pattern.

These same remarks apply to their rifles and this latter problem continued well into 1915.

The following is from W S Churchill [First Lord of the Admiralty] to Vice-Admiral de Robeck [naval commander Eastern Mediterranean] and to the A.G., R. M.

1 "Three battalions of RND and drafts total strength 3,700, are being sent. Only possible to supply from here 2,000 short charger-loading mark IV rifles. As opportunity offers during the next fortnight all charge-loading short rifles in the possession of marines on board the ships of your fleet excluding of course the Marine Brigade, should be surrendered and collected at a suitable depot. These should amount approximately to 2,000. The seaman's rifles, of which you should have an equal number, will be considered available for the marines. The 3,700 reinforcements coming out will bring with them 2,000 short charger-loading rifles and approximately 1,700 long non-charger-loading. These long non-charger-loading can be distributed among the ships to take the place of the surrendered 2,000 short rifles. The 2,000 marines' short rifles must be all ready and waiting for the reinforcements when they arrive, as men cannot be employed on shore without charger-loading weapons. This transaction is the only means by which our needs can be met and the reinforcements properly armed.

2 A.G., R.M., will at once transfer 1,500 short charger-loading rifles to the three battalions at Blandford, 500 to each battalion, receiving back 1,500 of their existing rifles, which he will use in the marine depots. Thus the battalions will embark with half their outfit of short rifles. On the voyage, all the men are to be familiarized with the comparatively small difference due to the introduction of the charger system, so that they are ready immediately on arrival to go into action with the short rifles which will be waiting for them there.

A.G., R. M., will also provide 500 rifles for the marine draft 500 strong. The 200 details may take their existing rifles and exchange them on arrival. Thus there should be 4,000 short rifles, 2,000 from home and 2,000 from the fleet, available for arming 3,700 men; this will leave a slight margin for accidents.

3 A.G., R. M., will thus have 1,000 approximately left in his possession. These he is to hand over to the War Office as part of the existing arrangements for exchanging Japanese and short rifles. No more rifles are in any circumstances to be sent to sea; if Japanese rifles are not available for any drafts for sea, then long rifles will be taken.

S.O.S. will explain to the War Office that, owing to the needs of equipping the reinforcements for the Mediterranean, we must hand over to them 10,000 long and 10,000 short instead of 8,000 long and 12,000 short as originally proposed.

Please take all necessary action to effect these changes at the earliest moment, and report upon the state of our supply of rifles as it will be after they are completed.

4.5.15."

From an article by Capt. C.L.W. Page RN, as it appeared in Len Sellers' magazine 'RND' issue No.21, June 2002.

[cdr]

The flat cap is probably Belgian to. The infantry " bonnet de police" was dark blue (with a Belgian cockade) with a red band (with a regimental number). The lancer cap could be a Belgian undress " lanciers" cap.

Carl

[TonyE]

I am also intrigued by the bandolier worn. It is not a British bandolier (unless one of our uniform experts can help) and the rounds, though out of focus, do not look like quite right for British .303 mark VI.

I wonder if it is also Belgian and the rounds are the 7.65 x 54mm?

Thanks Michaeldr for the Churchill memorandum. It shows the level of detail he knew and fits quite nicely with this earlier memo of November 1914.

THE RIFLE SHORTAGE

The following course is to be adopted:-

1. As soon as the War Office are ready to hand over the 50,000 Japanese rifles, the whole of the rifles, long and short, whether used by sailors or marines, on board H.M. ships at home and abroad, will be collected and brought on shore to the Royal Naval Ordnance Depots. The Japanese rifles will be issued to all ships in their place; there will be no rifles of any sort on board H.M. ships other than Japanese.

2. From the British rifles surrendered by the Fleet, 15,000 short .303 charger loading rifles will be set aside for the Royal Naval Division, i.e. one rifle for each of 12,000 men, plus 25 per cent for reserve and training. All the rifles now possessed by the Royal Naval Division will then be surrendered to the Ordnance depots for the 15,000 short British .303, and no more.

3. There will then be handed over to the Army 57,800 rifles, of which 9,000 will be short charger loading.

4. The 50,000 Japanese rifles will then be issued to the Fleet in the following proportion:-

One rifle for each marine and one rifle for every five sailors, ships on foreign service receiving one rifle for every three sailors. The rest of the rifles will be issued as required to trawlers and auxiliaries, and kept in the Royal Marine and Royal Naval Ordnance depots.

The Fleet will thus be completely re-armed with the 50,000 Japanese rifles, and the Royal Naval Division with .303 short rifles ready for field service.

Let me now have calculations worked out on this basis; and draft a letter accordingly to the War Office.

November 25, 1914 W.S.C.

Regards

TonyE

[michaeldr]

This bandolier looks like part the old (Victorian?) Naval webbing which was issued to some of the men in the Naval Brigades

Have a look at the chaps here

http://images.google.co.il/imgres?imgurl=h...DN%26start%3D20

 

I don't think that the caption in my link above is correct in speaking about belts for maxims

[4thGordons]

I don't know what " short charger-loading mark IV rifles." are. TonyE?

The charger loading "short rifles" were MkI, MkI*** MkIII and post 1916 MkIIII* (and some India Pattern conversions all designated IP)

the only "short MkIV" of which I am aware was the no2 MkIV .22lr conversion.

Has Churchill got his roman numerals in a mix or am I missing something?

Chris

Edit: still thinking - is this some form of Naval nomenclature?

[TonyE]

Thanks Michael. I was thinking army bandoleers, but I know even less about naval uniform/accoutrements than I do about the army ones!

I agree they are not Maxim belts as they are far too wide and also there are no spacers showing every third round.

Regards

TonyE