Mk1 / MLE / CLLE Question

[Deerhunter]

I've read that units which were deployed in the first part of the War were not always issued the SMLE and frequently had older weapons. I've read that the CLLE was commonly issued, but what about the MLE - was this used extensively in the front line, or was it principally seen in training establishments. Or did the shortage of rifles across the board lead to a mixture of all types in the front line in 1914 and early 1915.

Thanks in advance,

DH

[smleenfield]

I have seen pictures throughout the war of units with MLM's, MLE's and CLLE's. Many of what you could call reserve units, colonial troops and backwater battlefields troops had the Long Lee's and Metfords. Early on at the Western Front many units still had the older weapons and a lot of units objected to the issue of the SMLE.

[TonyE]

The question of which types of rifles actually saw service is quite complex.

The original BEF would all have been armed with SMLE Mark III rifles firing Mark VII ammunition. Units arriving from India and Australasia would have had a mixture of MLEs and SMLEs, but all sighted for Mark VI ammunition.

Territorial Force units went to France mainly armed with CLLEs using Mark VI, but some would probably still have had MLE I*s using Mark VI. Similarly, when the first Kitchener New Army units were equipped for service (not just training) there was a mixture of CLLE and SMLEs, often in the same unit. This was discussed in some detail in a recent thread.

There were also 130,000 MLE rifles still in store in 1914, classed as obsolete and only suitable for drill. Some of these were issued for training the New Armies as is before eventually being converted to CLLMs (although that did not exist as an official designation)

I am sure Chris and others have some thoughts on this also.

Regards

TonyE

[4thGordons]

As TonyE indicates I think this is a complicated and unsettled question. It is also one I have made relatively unsystematic enquiries into on a number of occasions. I have not, unlike Tony, consulted official memoranda and contracts, but I have read a reasonable number of war diaries with an eye to this sort of information, I have made notes when it has popped up as a question here and whenever I look at photos, because of my interest in Enfields, I have tended to do so with an eye that notes such things.

What I have tried to jot down here is my general impressions based on that. A good deal of it, although far from all, is supposition. For the purposes of the comments below I have not tried to distinguish between MkI and MkI* Magazine Lee Enfields(MLEs), nor made any distinction between MkI and MkIII SMLEs. This reduces the types to essentially three MLE (Long Lee-Enfields where the magazine would have to be loaded with individual rounds), CLLE (Long Lee-Enfields fitted with a charger bridge to allow loading of the magazine 5 rounds at a time using chargers) and SMLE (again fitted to allow reloading of the magazine using chargers). In addition to these main types of course there were others. Surviving Metford rifled weapons are going to be largely indistinguishable from MLEs in most pictures and accounts so those would be subsumed under that category) I have seen no photographic evidence and only heard one credible but undocumented account that indicates the use of Lee-Enfield Carbines at the front so I have not considered those weapons. Then there were a number of clearly obsolete weapons types (e.g.Martini-Enfield rifles and carbines) and secondary arms such as Japanese Arisakas, Chilean and Brazilian Mausers, Remington Rolling blocks and Ross Rifles (again TonyE would be the acknowledged expert here) which did not see front line land service but which were used in various training roles (Arisakas) and with Naval Detachments and aboard trawlers etc for mine sinking etc. And I have not considered these. Pattern 14 rifles did not really come on stream early enough to be relevant to a discussion of the first years of the war 14-16.

If those caveats are not enough, the vast majority of the photos I have examined have come from the Western Front. This is a personal bias as this is the area that interests me most. In general I think it would be true to suggest that older and obsolete types are more likely to show up in other theatres than on the Western Front and, all things being equal, more likely to show up in the hands of second line and or locally raised units than units of the British Army. Having said this I would caution against assuming that this would always be the case the Indian Army for example and the arsenal at Ishapore was very advanced in the conversion to charger loading types (approvals being granted for India patterns in 1905 and 1909) and in fact supplied these to the Britain in the early days of the war.

My general impression is that many most of the BEF who went to Belgium in August 1914 were armed with SMLEs. Clearly not all, a mix of weapons has been shown in the Naval Division troops for example in threads on here. It appears to me that many of the first Territorial units that went to France were also equipped with SMLEs immediately prior to deployment or upon arrival (recent example discussed in relation to a bayonet of mine being the 4th Suffolks who went in November 1914). It would then appear that many of the Territorial units that went into the theatre in 1915 carried their pre war rifles mostly CLLEs. This is certainly true of many of the Highland Division units that had been based at Bedford prior to deployment in Feb-May 1915. There are also well known pictures of troops at Gallipoli armed with CLLEs.

To take an example I know a little more specifically about. In 1909 the 1/ 4th Gordons had been armed with MLEs (I have photos of them at camp that year clearly showing that). By the time of their mobilization in 1914 and relocation to their war station at Bedford they were armed with CLLEs. I have not, as yet, been able to pin down precisely when between 1909 and 1914 the transition took place. The battalion fought with CLLEs at Bellewaarde in Sept 1915 (an other Scots TF units were similarly armed at Loos on the same day) The 1/4th reequipped with SMLEs in early 1916 (probably February when they transferred to the 51st Highland Div.) Although this is just one example I think the timeline is generally (and broadly speaking) applicable as a picture of overall service, as reflected in the photographic record, the production/conversion figures etc .

Although there was a shortage of rifles given the massive increase in size of the Army in 1914-15 I think it is easy to overemphasize this, often I think our perceptions are coloured by the experience of 1939-40 when there really was a chronic shortage. SMLE production in the UK and conversion programmes got underway really quite rapidly and efficiently. If one just considered production at Enfield for example in 1913 @30,000 SMLEs were produced, in 1914 @51,000 but in 1915 @272,000, 1916 @418,000 [the figures for BSA are similar 1914-51,000, 1915- 276,000, 1916-435,000] What this means is that I think the vast majority of front line units would have been armed with SMLEs by early 1916. This is supported anecdotally but accounts and discussion on the forum although one unit was reported as retaining its CLLEs until 1917, and also by the photographic record from which CLLEs seem to virtually disappear by mid 1916. One obvious indicator is among the hundreds and hundreds of photographs of the Somme I do not believe I have ever seen a MLE/CLLE. This is of course the cue for someone to post one! As a rule of thumb however I might suggest that if you see front line troops with Brodie helmets you will not see Long-Lees! (again cue photo!). As with anything involving organizations and logistics on this scale all of these comments should be understood as broad general pictures to which there are undoubtedly specific exceptions and anomalies (and mistakes!)

Actually I think this forum is almost uniquely placed to identify and document this process there are experts in all sorts of units and people with fantastic collections of photographs. At various times I have considered trying to pull this together in a thread asking folks to post known dates. So definitively dated pictures showing particular weapons types, war diary mentions of reequipping for a whole range of units, same from unit histories etc.

You will no doubt have noted that I have ignored the complex question regarding the introduction of the MkVII cartridge and the need for resighting and recalibrating of weapons but as this applies to all types involved and as Tony knows more about it than me… that was deliberate!

Just my 2p

Chris

*Production figures taken from SKennerton/Stratton etc

[TonyE]

....and a very well argued 2p as well!

I think it would be a very worthwhile project to try to build a picture (sorry) of the rifle situation on the Western Front from known date photographs. Like you, I do not think I have ever seen a picture of anything except an SMLE being used from the Somme Offensive onwards, but never say never.

Having slogged through the weekly munitions production returns held at Kew for my dissertation I can confirm that Skennerton's figures are about right for 1914, 15 and 16. I have not analysed the 1917-18 numbers in detail as I was only covering the 14-16 period.

It is difficult to calculate how many MLEs and early SMLEs (mainly from India and Australia) were still being re-sighted by the end of 1916 because the records only show a single total for "Repaired and Re-sighted". This was running at about 2,000 per week through the second half of 1914, rising to a steady 5-6,000 per week by the first half of 1915 and continuing at that rate for most of 1916 before a sharp rise to 10,000+ per week in the latter part of 1916. Obviously the great bulk of these were repairs from the 1916 fighting season. (The decision having been taken earlier that all rifles for repair would be returned from France to Enfield where all parts were readily to hand). Thus it is impossible to establish exactly when the supply of older rifles waiting to be converted ran out.

However, it is clear that by the end of 1917 there were more than sufficient SMLEs for current and future operations and plans were put in place to reduce output in 1918, to the extent of closing the Peddled Scheme and reduce the output from other sources. It was only the losses from the 1918 Spring Offensive that required production to be increased again.

Prior to this "over a considerable period preceeding the offensive" of the 25,000 rifles being manufactured per week, 10,000 went to replace wastage and 15,000 were stockpiled. From this it would seem that any suggestion that older rifles were still being fielded in the second half of the war due to shortages is simply not tenable. (Quote for Official History of the Ministry of Munitions, Vol XI, Part IV)

Regards

TonyE