QWR Maxim Guns October 1914

[DeMorgan]

Hello,

The photograph above shows the Machine Gun Section of the Queen's Westminster Rifles and the photo was almost certainly during the last week of October 1914 outside a barn at Leverstock Green in Hertfordshire. It is very probable that the barn was situated at Wells Farm, as this was where the section was located.

Can anybody tell me which model of Maxim Gun it was?

The officer, 2nd Lieutenant John Baber refers to them as being Boer War vintage in his letters.

Is this true?

In September 1914 the regiment was presented with new Tripods purchased with privately raised funds. Are these the tripods in the photos? Are they standard Maxim tripods or where they perhaps made specially for the guns?

Regards

Nick Balmer

[TonyE]

The gun on the right looks like a normal .303 inch Maxim Mark I which had been adopted in July 1893. The one on the left may be the same, although it is difficult to tell on the small picture. It looks like it may have the muzzle booster which suggests it is a "Converted Mark II", i.e. a .45 inch Maxim that has been converted to .303 inch ammunition.The muzzle booster was found necessary for the smaller .303 cartridge to operate the heavy .45 inch mechanism. It was known as the "Ball Firing Attachment".

If you can post a close up of that gun it may be possible to tell. Either way, they are probably both Boer War vintage, although the .303 inch maxim was still in limited production at the start of the war. The Vickers had been adopted in 1912 but initial deliveries were very slow and there were I think less than one hundred in service when war broke out.

If those are standard Maxim Mark IV tripods the guns are mounted backwards it seems. as the curved elevation quadrant which can be seen at the front of the tripod should be under the breech of the gun. Again a close up would be helpful.

Regards

TonyE

[DeMorgan]

Hello Tony,

I have attempted to post a large version of the left hand gun. I hope it works.

From inspection of a scan of the original photo it is clear that you are right in suggesting that the left hand gun has a larger muzzle than the right hand gun. Something that I had failed to notice.

I think the Corporal is Richard du Rupe Roche who had been a very fine rifle shot before the war at Bisley, and who would was Mentioned in Despatches when he and 2nd Lt Baber captured the first two German prisoners taken by a Territorial Battalion on November 30th 1914, during a night patrol at Erquinghem.

He was killed at Houplines on the 8th January 1915 at dawn as he tried to fetch water from an exposed ditch in a field behind the barricade for machine gun cooling.

http://www.limpsfield.net/limpsfield/history/memorial/memorial.html

Thank you for the information.

Nick Balmer

[DeMorgan]

Tony,

Here's the right hand gun for comparison

Nick Balmer

[Andrew Upton]

If those are standard Maxim Mark IV tripods the guns are mounted backwards it seems. as the curved elevation quadrant which can be seen at the front of the tripod should be under the breech of the gun. Again a close up would be helpful.

From the close-ups, not MkIV tripods, but blowed if I know what they actually are!

[TonyE]

Thanks for the more detailed pictures. I would say that the left hand gun is definitely a converted .45 inch Maxim fitted with the "Ball firing attachment" (or muzzle booster).

As for the tripods, they are not Mark IVs so I will have to go away and look at some pictures before giving an opinion. If Richard Fisher is looking in he might be able to give a quicker identification.

Regards

TonyE

[Richard Fisher]

They look like Commercial class tripods. They seem to be the Maxim version of either the 'B' or 'J' Class tripods.

Lovely photo.

Richard

[TonyE]

Thanks Richard, I knew I could rely on you!

Cheers

TonyE

[Andrew Upton]

They look like Commercial class tripods. They seem to be the Maxim version of either the 'B' or 'J' Class tripods.

Having had a chance to go through Grand Old Lady, would have said the Vickers Mark 'F' tripod, pictures from Dolf Goldsmiths Grand-Old-Lady, 1994, pgs 26 and 31:

http://postimage.org/image/10hqwlymc/

http://postimage.org/image/13imh06x0/full/

http://postimage.org/image/2x9d5viqs/

[dycer]

I do not question the QWR's Maxim Gun Section in October 1914.

But for comparison,of the Maxim Guns and tripods, available to the TF,in late Summer 1914.

Can I refer you to John Duncan's web-site "Newbattle at War"particularly "the 8th Royal Scots at War" where you will find a period photograph of the Battalion Maxim Gun Section,complete with guns and tripods,before "its great adventure"

George

[Richard Fisher]

Mark F looks right. I was only going from memory the other night.

Rich

[TonyE]

The picture you reference is of a Mark I .303 inch Maxim on a Mark IV tripod. Both these were standard issue items. The point about the tripods in quaetion is that they were a private purchase and so did not necessarily correspond with the issue store.

Regards

TonyE

[Andrew Upton]

The picture you reference is of a Mark I .303 inch Maxim on a Mark IV tripod. Both these were standard issue items. The point about the tripods in question is that they were a private purchase and so did not necessarily correspond with the issue store.

If they are Vickers Mark 'F' tripods, Dolf actually describes them as "probably the most expensive tripod VSM ever produced", so not a cheap alternative to the MKIV tripod either!

[DeMorgan]

Hello,

Thank you very much for the identification of these tripods.

The Queen's Westminster Rifles history by Major Henriques says, "October 11th.[1914] Presentation of new machine-gun tripods to the Battalion. The Commanding Officer desires to offer his grateful thanks to Lady Howard Vincent, Mrs. Wilkin, Mrs. Cohen, Frederick Shoolbred Esq. and Colonel G. H. Trollope, V.D. D.L.., for their kind and generous help by which the Battalion has obtained these new tripods."

Page 10.

Our recent wars are not the only ones where many bits of essential kit had to be bought be the troops themselves. My great uncles letters are absolutely full of requests to his parents to supply thinks for his unit like torches, protractors (for working out fixed line fire angles) pullovers for his entire section, and even gas masks in 1915.

The book says that the battalion had also made arrangements to supply its own uniforms. The ones supplied by the War Office were so bad that where men had their pre-war uniforms, even where it had had to be patched up, it was superior to the new WO issued kit.

Regards

Nick Balmer