BEF 1914. Marksmanship, Musketry and the Mad Minute

[4thGordons]

Undoubtedly this high standard of shooting was noted by higher authority. In 1912 a new pattern of rifle was introduced throughout the Army—Mark III HV But in the spring of 1913, the Regiment, along with two infantry battalions, was selected by the War Office to carry out trials with the experimental -276 rifle. Possibly, had the Great War not intervened, this rifle would have been adopted.

The MkIII HV was not I think, strictly speaking, a new pattern of rifle it was the ShtLE MkIII (introduced 1907) resighted for the MkVII (High Velocity) round

The .276 rifle was the "Pattern 13" (which later rechambered for .303 served as the Pattern 14 and in .30-06 as the US rifle .30 M1917

[Guest]

The MkIII HV was not I think, strictly speaking, a new pattern of rifle it was the ShtLE MkIII (introduced 1907) resighted for the MkVII (High Velocity) round

The .276 rifle was the "Pattern 13" (which later rechambered for .303 served as the Pattern 14 and in .30-06 as the US rifle .30 M1917

Interesting. Everything in italics is a direct quote from the historian.

[4thGordons]

Interesting. Everything in italics is a direct quote from the historian.

The LoC reference for this is LoC para 15638 issued Oct 1 1911 (but actually approved earlier in July of the same year) which details the resighting of rifles in the hands of troops and modification of magazines to improve feed (also to be applied to future manufacture.) Such rifles were to be marked HV on the barrel immediately behind the back sight.

[dansparky]

Hi guys i could not find a thread on this. It's not specifically about the mad minute and its achievability, rather i am wondering if anybody has any idea how to interpret musketry results? As part of my research into this question, i am trying to interpret some musketry results from shoncliffe from 1912-onwards. if anyone does i can post picture of the musketry data :-)

[Guest]

I would be very interested in seeing the data. Is it musketry returns by any chance?

MG

[Moonraker]

Google "mad minute invisionzone" for, apparently, a couple of dedicated threads and a couple more that may mention the "mad minute". I don't know if one of these is what Martin had in mind?

Moonraker

[dansparky]

the data comes from the diary of the then brig-gen James Aylmer Lowthorpe Haldane. It chronicles the training of the 10th Brigade. i will enter it

[dansparky]

thanks for info, i tried searching man minute before i posted thread but could not find at the time

[dansparky]

musketry results 1912

firstly 1/rif marksmen 89 % 17.5

1st cl. shots 243 4.7.9? could be 47.9

2 " 139 27.45

3" 7.1

"g" best company 115.4

regtl aggregate 111.0

[dansparky]

2/seaforth high marksmen 80 % 15.2

1st cl. shots 217 41.4

2 " 197 37.6

3" 5.5

"d" best company 111.5

regtl aggregate 106.0

2kkrc marksmen 130 % 25.7

1st cl. shots 224 44.3

2 " 141 27.9

3" 1.9

"d" best company 121.7

regtl aggregate 115.01

2 r dub f marksmen 44 8.2

1st cl. shots 195 36.15

2 " 245 45.9

3" 9.11

"h" best company 105.4

regtl aggregate 102.1

[Guest]

musketry results 1912

firstly 1/rif marksmen 89 % 17.5

1st cl. shots 243 4.7.9? could be 47.9

2 " 139 27.45

3" 7.1

"g" best company 115.4

regtl aggregate 111.0

Many thanks. Are these the Irish command musketry results for 1912 by any chance? And if so how many units do you have and lastly is the last the Figure of Merit? MG

[dansparky]

there are other results, these are the most extnesive but i don't know how to interpret??

[dansparky]

these are the musketry results for the 10th brigade 1912, 1/royal irish fusilliers, 2 seaforth highlanders, 2 kings royal rifle corps (before was replace by royal warwicks), and 2 royal dublin fusilliers

can you tell me what they mean?

[Muerrisch]

The Figure of Merit is a dark mystery beyond the wit of mortal man.

Seriously

[Guest]

these are the musketry results for the 10th brigade 1912, 1/royal irish fusilliers, 2 seaforth highlanders, 2 kings royal rifle corps (before was replace by royal warwicks), and 2 royal dublin fusilliers

can you tell me what they mean?

The scores are aggregated from a series of musketry tests that combined make the Annual Musketry Return which was a compulsory annual test. The numbers passing as 3rd class seem to be missing in some cases as the % number is a % of all those taking the Musketry Test. The final two figures for the best Company and the Battalion score are called Figure of Merit and are fairly arcane calculations. Few know exactly how these figures were constructed and a few of us on the forum have been trying to clarify the Figure of Merit for some time.

Do you have more data beyond 10th Inf Bde? And can I ask the source? An area of great interest. Thank you for posting. MG

Edit. It is interesting as this was when the British Army was pioneering the science of musketry rather than marksmanship. The other thread will explain in detail. MG

[dansparky]

the source is the shorncliffe diary of briadier general James Aylmer Lowthorpe Haldane commanding 10th brigade (unpublished). i do not have any other data for any other unit, other than the 10th Brigade, but there are more musketry results in the diary, they are less comprehensive. AH so percentage is those taking test , so the other figure before percentage is figure of merit. Hmm, so at present no idea how this figure achieved? so does not really help with our understanding of musketry rate.

[dansparky]

another interesting entry

rifle range 2 krr field practice. 15 rounds fired 4 rows of targets exposed for 30 secs. each row diff ranges about 1,000 yrds upto less.

[Guest]

the source is the shorncliffe diary of briadier general James Aylmer Lowthorpe Haldane commanding 10th brigade (unpublished). i do not have any other data for any other unit, other than the 10th Brigade, but there are more musketry results in the diary, they are less comprehensive. AH so percentage is those taking test , so the other figure before percentage is figure of merit. Hmm, so at present no idea how this figure achieved? so does not really help with our understanding of musketry rate.

Only the Best Company and Regtl Aggregate scores are 'Figure of Merit'. The others are simply the number and % who passed as Marksmen, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Class shots. The layout of the scores is fairly standard. For some unknown reason the number passing as 3rd Class shots is not given but the % is. It is of course possible to reverse the missing numbers out of the other numbers and %.

The figure of merit is a very long-winded calculation that is built on the average distance of shots from the mean point of impact (MPI). It is complicated as there are a number of score sheets from each stage of the musketry test and many hundreds of scores to aggregate over a battalion. So far we have not been able to establish the exact methodology.

We know that British Army doctrine was to raise the average scores rather than maximise the number of marksmen. Soldiers were financially incentivised to become better shots up to 1st Class. The mad minute was a very small part of the annual musketry test.

MG

[dansparky]

hmm, very intersesting reading thankyou very much. . so the figures before best company and reg aggrgate are number taking test then percentage passed, they seem quite low percentages. how do i attach images?

[Guest]

2/seaforth high marksmen 80 % 15.2

1st cl. shots 217 41.4

2 " 197 37.6

3" 5.5

"d" best company 111.5

regtl aggregate 106.0

in the example above from your prev post my reading is as follows:

80 marksmen..............= 15.2% of total [Calc check: 80/525*100= 15.2]

217 1st Class shots......= 41.4% of total [Calc check: 217/525*100= 41.3]

197 2nd Class shots.....= 37.6% of total [Calc check: 197/525*100= 37.5]

29 3rd Class shots.....= 5.5% of total [Calc check: 29/525*100= 5.5]

2 failed...................= 0.3% of total [Calc Check: 2/525*100= 3.8

Total 525......................= 100% of total

Best Company 111.5 (Figure of Merit)

Regtl Aggregate 106.0 (Figure of Merit)

The figures/words in red are not shown in the original but can be deduced. The failures were typically in low single numbers in other examples. I think the Marksmen, 1st and 2nd Class shots are shown simply because these are the scores that mattered the most. my speculation. MG

Edit. By way of comparison this is how the OBLI laid out their Musketry returns for 1913

From The Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry Chronicle for 1913:

2nd BATTALIONRESULTS OF MUSKETRY FOR 1913.

"A" Company: Part 1: Commenced: 115; Failed: 0; Part 2: Commenced: 115; Marksmen: 14; First Class: 48; Second Class: 51; Third Class: 2; Figure of Merit: 103.9

"B" Company: Part 1: Commenced: 133; Failed: 0; Part 2: Commenced: 133; Marksmen: 14; First Class: 52; Second Class: 61; Third Class: 6; Figure of Merit: 102.4

"C" Company: Part 1: Commenced: 112; Failed: 1; Part 2: Commenced 112; Marksmen: 18; First Class: 54; Second Class: 37; Third Class: 3; Figure of Merit: 106.4

"D" Company: Part 1: Commenced: 86; Failed: 0; Part 2: Commenced: 84; Marksmen: 18; First Class: 39; Second Class: 27; Third Class: 0; Figure of Merit: 110.1

Overall Classifications: 64 Marksmen, 193 First Class Shots, 176 Second Class Shots, 11 Third Class Shots. Overall Figure of Merit: 105.7

[dansparky]

Ah so the majority are 1st class shots with a high percentage of second class shots indicating overall probably very capable marks men. The problem is defining exactly what each class means in terms of proficiency. Eg the distance and point of impact for each class. I attempted to add a screenshot of the page but it would not alllow. This data possibly backs up Spencer Jones somewhat(from boer war to world war),markmanship was a matter of pride for the British Army.

What is your felling the mad minute debate? Zuber and max hastings assert that that rate if possible for a prolonged time is impossible, and that casulties claimed are erroneous as it was simply Germans hitting the deck.

[Guest]

Ah so the majority are 1st class shots with a high percentage of second class shots indicating overall probably very capable marks men. The problem is defining exactly what each class means in terms of proficiency. Eg the distance and point of impact for each class. I attempted to add a screenshot of the page but it would not alllow. This data possibly backs up Spencer Jones somewhat(from boer war to world war),markmanship was a matter of pride for the British Army.

What is your felling the mad minute debate? Zuber and max hastings assert that that rate if possible for a prolonged time is impossible, and that casulties claimed are erroneous as it was simply Germans hitting the deck.

As the musketry test was executed over different ranges (distances) the scores are aggregate scores i.e. not for one specific range (distance). It was the British Army's view of what mattered but by no means definitive. The Mad Minute was a very small part of the test (6% of the rounds fired in the annual test if memory serves) and had taken on an almost mythical status in British military history, particularly for 1914 and the battles of Mons and First Ypres. The British Army's alleged superiority in musketry was a complex mixture of weapon, individual skill, group skill and perhaps most importantly, fire control and discipline.

It is important to remember that there is no absolute 'proof' that skill on the ranges translates to skill in battle conditions. That said every Army clearly believed this otherwise there would not have been musketry practices and tests. The British Army in particular put enormous resources into revolutionary changes in musketry during the inter-war years (Boer war- Great War).

The British had (arguably) a better weapon in the SMLE, but the massive emphasis on musketry training in the interwar years was in my view the critical factor. Historical musketry returns show a steady and relentless improvement across the board for the British Infantry (and Cavalry) up to the eve of the Great War - as measured by improving musketry test scores. It was by no means just individual expertise, rather the expertise of the collective group. The Battalion 'Figure of Merit' attempted to measure this. Critical skills such as fire control and judging distances (also part of the test) were extremely important. One example: when judging distances or range finding, the Musketry Regulations stated that only Marksmen and 1st Class shots should engage. The discipline of the commanding officer(s) down to Junior NCOs on the ground were important factors in fire control. As one observer commented it was often about preservation of ammunition rather than the ability to fire 15 rounds a minute.

The casualty debate is intractable as no-one can agree on the numbers. The figures in the British OH have been debated for years and there is no consensus on which figures are correct. It is also impossible to know whether the casualties were inflicted by rifle fire or artillery. I would not recommend pursuing this line.

Zuber is famous for his counter-arguments that German casualties were not as high as British authors thought. His arguments have triggered much counter-debate and the relaibility of German casualty data. Both British and German histories appear keen to 'prove' the casualty exchange rate was in their favour. Most British estimates have relied on the British OH estimates which some (including me) believe are unreliable. There has been much debate on the OH numbers with more heat than light. Emotions can run high. I would recommend reading Jack Sheldon on this aspect of the debate.

The mad minute (15 aimed rounds within 60 seconds) was easily achievable. Few authors claim that the BEF was blazing away at 15 rounds a minute continuously; this idea could not be supported in detail. Some simple maths taking into account ammunition scales and resupply would suggest that the average infantryman would run out of his personal scale ammunition in less than a quarter of an hour at that rate. Interestingly the British unit war diaries barely mention their own musketry prowess or alleged superiority. Much of the mythology and misinformation is inextricably tied to claims made in the British OH by Edmonds; it was based on selectively quoting and mis-quoting the German 'Ypern 1914' and making specific claims that the Germans said things that they in fact didn't. The idea that Germans mistook 15 rounds per minute as machine-gun fire had no supporting evidence in my view. The English translation was done by a British Officer who was captured at Le Cateau.

MG

[Ron Clifton]

The figure of merit is a very long-winded calculation that is built on the average distance of shots from the mean point of impact (MPI). It is complicated as there are a number of score sheets from each stage of the musketry test and many hundreds of scores to aggregate over a battalion. So far we have not been able to establish the exact methodology.

MG

Para 126 of the Musketry Regulations sets out in detail how to calculate the "Figure of Merit", but it refers only to the figure for a particular rifle. Presumably the company and battalion figures were calculated as averages of the dozens/hundreds of rifles involved.

Ron

[Old Tom]

Interesting information. Also that KRRC seem to have been good shots. How could 130% be marksmen? Was that qualification awarded for each practice?

Old Tom

[Guest]

Para 126 of the Musketry Regulations sets out in detail how to calculate the "Figure of Merit", but it refers only to the figure for a particular rifle. Presumably the company and battalion figures were calculated as averages of the dozens/hundreds of rifles involved.

Ron

Figure of Merit has multiple meanings and was used in Victorians times to describe what we would nowadays call a performance score or an average score for something measured in a variety of ways. The FoM varied depending on the context. In testing weapons in fixed rests the British Army had a specific calculation for the FoM. Whether this same methodology was used to calculate the FoM for an individual soldier's musketry is something I am not sure.

In musketry the calculation for the FoM of a rifle in a fixed rest included two initial steps;

1. Establishing the Mean Point of Impact (MPI) of the shots

2. Measuring the radial distance of each shot from the MPI and taking the average. This figure, measured in inches is known as the Mean Radial Deviation (from MPI). In some Victorian musketry literature this is also known as the Figure of Merit or FoM.

This effectively measures the grouping regardless of where the MPI falls.The calculation of the MPI and average radial distance to MPI does one important thing: It eliminates windage. If a group of marksmen fired at targets in perfect conditions, all the shots would be tightly groupd around the centre of the taget. If they did the same in high winds, the groupings might be shifted to one side. All other things being equal, by measureing the average distance from the MPI simply eliminates the windage as no matter where the MPI is (left, right, up or down from centre) all shots are measured from this point. It is (I think) simply a way of measuring the accuracy of the rifleman by eliminating some major factors that are beyond his control. My speculation.

It is unclear to me how one gets from this step to a 'score' for the FoM. Similarly it is unclear to me whether individual musketry tests also included calculating MPIs and average radial distances. Some of the reference material I have seen suggests it does. Others are non-descriptive. Depending on exactly what FoM means in the Musketry Test I can see two possible scenarios:

1. The Musketry Test involved MPI and average radial distances for each target. If this is the case then the calculations might be long-winded as each participant's FoM needs to be calculated. The musketry returns I have seen nearly always show the best short's numbers and they are in the same order of magnitude as the FoM number, but obviously higher. e.g A battalion with a FoM of say 118 might have a best shot with 156. This might suggest that the Company and Battalion FoMs are calculated as the average of the individual scores (read individual FoMs). Given the evidence I have assume this is the most likely scenario.

Or..

2. The FoM simply means what we might nowadays term average score; It simply lthe number of rounds on target per individual and averages them per Company and Battalion.So an individual score of say 120 would simply be the number of shots on target and no MPI or mean radial deviation was calculated for each man. The results would be far easier to calculate

The Musketry Test involved shooting at a number of targets at different ranges from different positions/stances with a varying number of rounds. Calculating the FOM for a Company of 200 men would involve at least 200 calculations. Added to this each individual fired around 250 rounds at targets from varying distances an from various stances (standing, lying, kneeling etc). I assume they used more than one target per man otherwise the target would be shredded (happy to be corrected on this) which means that even the individual's FoM might have involved a series of calculations. Cumulatively the number of calculations ran to hundreds.

I would be interested if anyone had the detail on how a Battalion or Company FoM was calculated. Is it the average of hundreds of FoMs or is it simply a way of saying average score, where 'score' is simply the number of rounds on target.

MG