Hythe School of Musketry

[rd72]

Hi all, I hope that this is the most appropriate place for this........

I was wondering if anybody had any knowledge of the types of targets and other information about the Musketry Course taught at Hythe for Regimental Instructors. Specifically, I am curious if targets were used there that differed from the standard musketry targets as found in the Musketry Regs of 1914.

Thanks for any help on this rather obscure topic,

Rob

[centurion]

Given that the standard musketery course introduced across the British Army in 1909 was devised at Hythe it would seem logical that the same targets would be used. Do you have any particular reason for supposing that they might not be?

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Rob,

Although the attached photographs do not answer your question, you may nevertheless find them interesting.

Regards,

LF

2

[Dave1418]

Hi Rob,

I believe that there was no deviation from the targets specified although there a different frames and not just the metal movable Hythe frame which works on a set of rollers by the soldiers in the range butts

regards

Dave

[jhill]

There is a short film at the National Film Board archive site entitled "Canadian Training School at Shorncliffe" or somesuch. Supposedly it dates from 1917. A minute in there is a bit about shooting on a range. I don't know whether or not they ankled over to Hythe to shoot this bit, but one suspects the targets must have been the same.

http://www3.nfb.ca/includes/player/player_full.php?_onfplr_sel=viewfull&film=id=531245&formats=default&speeds=default&use_cc=no&use_dv=no&f=flash&t=normal&s=hv&pm=rtmp%3A%2F%2Fflash.nfb.ca%2FWW1%2Ffilms%2Fhv%2F52410.flv&w=640&h=512&c=http%3A%2F%2Fwww3.onf.ca%2Fenclasse%2Fgrandeguerre%2Ffr%2Fplayer%2Fplayer.css&pp=http%3A%2F%2Fwww3.onf.ca%2Fenclasse%2Fgrandeguerre%2Ffr%2Fplayer%2Fplayer_full.swf&cn=grandeguerre&ct=2500000&ttl=Images+d%27une+guerre+oubli%E9e&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww3.nfb.ca%2Fincludes%2Fplayer%2F&lg=fr&ss=&pmvroot=%2Fvar%2Fnfb%2Fapache%2Fhtdocs%2Fphplib%2F&pmvurl=grandeguerre%2F&pmvsid=%2Fstats%2F&pmvpage=17&pmvglob=1

[Scalyback]

May of been instructors targets as an aid to teaching in a classroom? However to fire on one target at Hythe and use another with the unit has no logic to it. Chance your arm and ring the SASC at Warminster? No unit museum as I'm aware(May be with the AGC) but I'm sure the instructors there have insight to past training.

[centurion]

Out of interest, given LF's first photo, much of the Hythe machine gun doctrine was adopted by the German army. McMahon's 1907 papers on the subject "Machine Gun Tactics" , to be incorporated in the Hythe training manuals, was passed, still in draft, by some "genius" in the War Office to the German military attaché in London in "exchange for other papers" so that the German General Staff saw them before the British General Staff. The principles embodied were included in the German Field Service regulations.

[Scalyback]

Out of interest, given LF's first photo, much of the Hythe machine gun doctrine was adopted by the German army. McMahon's 1907 papers on the subject "Machine Gun Tactics" , to be incorporated in the Hythe training manuals, was passed, still in draft, by some "genius" in the War Office to the German military attaché in London in "exchange for other papers" so that the German General Staff saw them before the British General Staff. The principles embodied were included in the German Field Service regulations.

Why does that not shock me? DIdn't the ratio of rifles to machine guns differ in the regimental scale of the both armies?

[centurion]

Why does that not shock me? DIdn't the ratio of rifles to machine guns differ in the regimental scale of the both armies?

Actually it was the same, it was just that being so much bigger than the BEF the German army automatically had many more machine guns

[Scalyback]

So given the information used the resources in a ​more deadly way. ​ ​ Something roughly happened later with tank doctrine.

[rd72]

HI all,

The question was regarding the discussion here and elsewhere regarding the "mad minute". Much is made of the number of rounds and the size of the target/group. The "standard" claim is of 38 rounds at 300 yds in an group of 8, 12 or 36 inches depending on the unsubstantiated information the proponent is using.

As most of you are aware, I am sure, the "mad minute" referred to the rapid practice at 300 yds in part three (the classification shoot) of table "B" in the musketry regs, which outlined the annual musketry course in the Infantry and Cavalry. I am trying to put this claim of 38 rounds and so forth in a proper perspective. First, the target used. The regs stipulated a "second class figure target" of the type shown in the last part of this video

and in the last part of the video already posted

http://www3.nfb.ca/i...ge=17&pmvglob=1

Although there was a bulls-eye target used for elementary training and also a five round application in the Part Three shoot with an 8 inch aiming mark, a 12 inch scoring ring and a 24 inch scoring ring (shown in the National Film Board clip), this target was not used in any other part of the classification shoot and not at 300yds.

On this target, there is no 8 12 or 36 inch bull...... There is a No 5 Figure (man behind cover) with a 24" and 36" scoring ring... This is the target that was used for this practice and I was wondering of there might have been other, perhaps more conventional (bulls-eye) targets with multiple scoring rings used at Hythe. I am completely in agreement with the logic of using the same targets at Hythe as the Army would use in regimental practice but am trying to link the various details of "the claim" with reality. I have read various versions of the claim all at 300 yds:

1. 38 hits,..... full stop;

2. 38 hits in an 8 inch bull;

3. 38 hits in a 12 inch bull; and

4. 38 hits in 36 inches.

I feel as though time and second hand info has distorted the achievement made in shooting this record. The claim as I see it is two-part. The number of rounds and the size of the target

Various questions I am exploring include:

1. Was the Target on a standard four foot frame as shot in the classification shoot? Indeed was it a standard musketry target or a different one? (the reason for this post in the first place)

2. Was it 38 hits on a target with an 8 or 12 inch bull?

3. As the standard rapid at 300 yds was shot with only 15 rounds was this record shot as a stand alone "feat of musketry" and not part of any qualification shoot?

There is so much sketchy information out there with no reference or original documentation to back it up... A well educated or at least researched guess at what exactly was shot is what I am trying to nail down.

Thanks to all,

Rob

[David Filsell]

Is there a published history of Hythe?

[centurion]

So given the information used the resources in a ​more deadly way. ​

Do we know if that's true? Gun for gun is there any evidence that the German Maxims proved more deadly than the British Vickers? Is it that because the British were more often on the offensive they suffered worse from machine gun fire? Evidence please.

[rd72]

Is there a published history of Hythe?

Good question, I don't know.

The more I read about this the more that I see that the "Mad Minute" or the 300 yd rapid application was just 15 rounds for score and just another practice within the Part Three shoot that was used for the basis of the classification of shot the men would carry forward for the next year. The mad minute that is talked about must've been a "circus trick" type shoot that showed off one's prowress with the rifle. A stand alone practice for sure. There is no mention of such a shoot in the regulations. It does mention, however, that the 25 rounds per man alloted for a reserve (reshoots etc,..) may be used by the CO to "develop marksman".. Presumeably this would mean extra shooting and focused training on certain skills. Maybe rapid shooting was one of those skills? Surely, locally directed at any rate. Regimental soldiers (vs school-based instructors) would not necessarily of had the luxury of practicing rapid shooting with live rounds in a controlled environment.

Cheers,

Rob

[jhill]

Here is a snippet from a training syllabus from December of 1916 at a Divisional range behind Arras. It mentions a timed (fast!) drill as part or the business. I do not know how this relates to the other stuff we are talking about on this thread.

One thing I have noticed from reading scores of War Diaries is the very limited opportunities for musketry practice once in France. Each man was supposed to have passed the General Musketry Course in England before going over (sometimes this may not have been the case!), but once in France, refresher training was difficult. One could not just blast away for practice wherever one was. There was one range per Division, and it seems that the capacity was about three days or so for one infantry battalion. I would not be surprised to learn that the typical infantryman fired his rifle three or four times a year.

I speak only to be corrected.

[rd72]

That is some interesting info. Obviously a very abridged version of a musketry program/refresher. The standard annual course was shot out to 600yds. Not possible near to the lines....

Cheers,

Rob

[centurion]

Good question, I don't know.

The more I read about this the more that I see that the "Mad Minute" or the 300 yd rapid application was just 15 rounds for score and just another practice within the Part Three shoot that was used for the basis of the classification of shot the men would carry forward for the next year. The mad minute that is talked about must've been a "circus trick" type shoot that showed off one's prowress with the rifle. A stand alone practice for sure. There is no mention of such a shoot in the regulations. It does mention, however, that the 25 rounds per man alloted for a reserve (reshoots etc,..) may be used by the CO to "develop marksman".. Presumeably this would mean extra shooting and focused training on certain skills. Maybe rapid shooting was one of those skills? Surely, locally directed at any rate. Regimental soldiers (vs school-based instructors) would not necessarily of had the luxury of practicing rapid shooting with live rounds in a controlled environment.

Cheers,

Rob

The mad minute is very much a pre war phenomena of the regular army and was an attempt by McMahon and others to provide enough fire power for the infantry to stop attacks by overwhelming numbers of the enemy (they correctly surmised that the British army was going to be hugely out numbered and a recommendation of six mg per battalion to compensate had been turned down). An account by a one time Hythe officer instructor says "By about 1910 any soldier who could not fire his fifteen rounds per minute was put back for extra musketry drills, muscle exercises and range practises. By 1912 men who were graded a third class shots were liable to be discharged from the army for inefficiency. By 1914, many men in each regiment could exceed even tweny rounds in the "mad minute" and very high scores were made in firing the firteen rounds practice of the annual course. H.P.S. was 60 and scores of 50 and over became almost commonplace. By now every trained soldier could fire his required fifteen rounds per minute, many of them with astonishing accuracy." This did not last after the war had begun.

[David Filsell]

There are certainly references in books by those who were in the line in 1914 to the effect, "We gave them the mad minute". So more than a circus trick.

[rd72]

Thanks everybody. I was aware of the McMahon connection, talk about "effecting change".....

What I was trying to convey by the "circus trick" statement was the separation of the mad minute as shot in the annual qualification from the mad minute of the record setting effort. The annual course MM was 15 rounds,...... That's all...... On to the next application of 5 rounds deliberate at 500yds. It wasn't "Best effort chaps! Here's a pile of ammo to use.... Most rounds wins!..." .......That is what the record setting shoot was,.. a stand alone feat of marksmanship not part of the annual qualification..

Like was mentioned, HPS 60,... A score of 50, incidentally, is 10 out of fifteen rounds into the No 5 figure..... Which is only 12" high and 8" accross the top......

So please don't think that I am discounting the efforts and skill of period shooters,.... Again just demonstrating the separatation of the two.

If I may tie this back to the original question about targets..... I posed it because the record claim often states 8" or 12" bulls-eyes... If this target is what was shot at, there is no 8 or 12 inch bull..... Military targets by the regulations weren't ringed targets with 10 rings and the like.. Where does the bulls-eye size of the record claim come from if this was the target used?... Was it shot at an elementary target that the 8 inch aiming mark, a 12 inch bull and a 24" inner? Is this where the "8 or 12 inch bull" aspect comes from?

Cheers,

Rob

[David Filsell]

It was accepted that the when the 'mad minute' when fired in action was not fired for accuracy. Tests between highly accurate shots and good at Hythe showed the overall better effect of the 15 round a minute men than those picking their target with care. I'm not certain if the term 'browning the mass' was an official or unofficial term for the objective. And, although I think we can no longer accept the much quoted statement that the Germans though that they were under machine gun fire at Mons because the British fire was so rapid, rifle fore during the fifteen rounds a minute spell was highly effective against mass attacks, not simply in causing death or injury, but in "keeping there heads down". And as has been pointed out many times, many shots could easily exceed 15 rounds per minute (aimed).

[centurion]

It was accepted that the when the 'mad minute' when fired in action was not fired for accuracy. Tests between highly accurate shots and good at Hythe showed the overall better effect of the 15 round a minute men than those picking their target with care.

Can you provide a source for this?

[David Filsell]

From memory Firepower, by Bidwell and Graham

[centurion]

From memory Firepower, by Bidwell and Graham

I have a book called Firepower but not by those authors ~ can you give more detail? Looking at some of the texts I have by Hythe instructors and other contemporaries I can find no support for this view.

[David Filsell]

Centurion

For once, just once, the memory was accurate. I think the passage is pretty clear.

Firepower; British Army Weapons and Theories of War 1904-45, London, George Allen a& Unwin, 1982 (No ISBN) page 27

Having stated that neither the artillery nor infantry had the authority to set fire tactics, the School of Musketry had undertaken careful evaluation of the capability of rifle, machine gun and the “possibilities “ of mortars and grenades between 1908 and 1913

Re 15 aimed rounds it states:

“From a long series of trials ......,” (held at Hythe)

“Marksmen were relatively unimportant in a fire fight. The result was decided by high volumes of fire from average shots trained to hit with the first round somewhere on the target. In one trial 100 elite marksmen had been quickly silenced by 150 second-rate shots. This finding was responsible for setting the rapid rate of fire at twelve to fifteen rounds a minute when other armies were expecting no more than eight. Although there was some loss of accuracy at the higher rate the destructive rate was far higher

The reference given is IWM Bruce Williams Papers

Hope this helps. I suspect the book would make a useful addition to your no doubt extensive library. Copies are scarce however – none listed on Abe.

David