BEF 1914. Marksmanship, Musketry and the Mad Minute

[Muerrisch]

The 1898 Musketry Regs are the last which detail how to calculate FoM for a company or unit.

Given it was the wrong weapon and for an army with a very different ethos, I am not at all confident it would be in use in 1914.

The attached clearly invites further questions of course.

Standing by ..................

[Guest]

The 1898 Musketry Regs are the last which detail how to calculate FoM for a company or unit.

Given it was the wrong weapon and for an army with a very different ethos, I am not at all confident it would be in use in 1914.

The attached clearly invites further questions of course.

Standing by ..................

In this example (and incidentally the same methodology was used in 1871) the FoM is written as a ratio.

In other regs I have seen, the FoM adds the two numbers together. The critical point here is that they are different methodologies to get the two parts; the first part is an average individual 'score' whereas the second part (the Group part, sometimes called Volley) was the per cent of hits/shots fired.

I have seen other earlier examples (1850s) where the FoM also add the percent of excess Marksmen and 1st Class shots to 3rd Class shots. Example: If 60% were 1st Class shots or better and 5% were 3rd Class shots, the excess of 55 (per cent) would be added to the overall score. This third element does not appear to have laste lthough the Antipodean scores (typically far higher than British) might have used a variation of this Victorian methodology.

All this really demonstrates is that the methodologies effectively consolidated two (or three) different scores derived from two (or three) methodologies. I am not sure what 'score' means in part 1 - possibly the absolute number of hits rather than %. None appear to include the arcane MPI and average radial distance used in calculating FoM for a weapon.

Like Grumpy I am still in the dark as to how FoM was calculated in 1902-1913.

I called the Small Arms School Corps Reference Collection at Warminster today. They didn't know either and their reference library is packed away. The helpful man on duty told me they had just received a new book:

Instructions of Musketry (Musketry Regulations) 1854-1922 an Illustrated Guide by G T Davis published in Nov 2015.

I tried to find it on Amazon with no joy. Also tried to track the author down. Ditto.

I am told the Leeds Armoury might be wable to solve the issue as they have all the proof patterns of the original weapons and a mass of reference material....MG

[Muerrisch]

It gets worse. Table B "trained men" has a lot of points allocated for volley fire. It never mentions hits per se. Figure of Merit definition does.

The specified targets carry separate values,bull,inner,outer.

Perhaps a hit is any of these.

[dansparky]

wow guys extremley informative, thanks for all that info & thanks especially to MG. How do i attack images on this forum??? i wish to share some screen shots on this subject

[Guest]

wow guys extremley informative, thanks for all that info & thanks especially to MG.

Credit where it is due;

"If I have seen further it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants. "

That giant is Grumpy. MG

[dansparky]

i extend my thanks to Grumpy too , how do i attach images? i pasted directy and it would not send, tried my media bt it would not search???

[Guest]

Edit. Full edit. Files are limited to 250kb.

[dansparky]

here is a snapshot with the musketry results, thanks :-)

[dansparky]

The next screenshot makes interesting reading. it offers an explanation for the calculation of the figure of merit, taken from the history of the snider ifle 1867.

[dansparky]

will keep my eyes peeled for that book. so in sum perfectly possible to achieve 15 rounds a minute, but cannot sustain due to fatigue and ammo. Whlst the British prized their efforts on accuracy it is hard to ascertain the likely accuracy at speed in battlefield conditions. It would also be hard to acertain how accurate they could be at speed at different distances under these conditions.

In this example (and incidentally the same methodology was used in 1871) the FoM is written as a ratio.

In other regs I have seen, the FoM adds the two numbers together. The critical point here is that they are different methodologies to get the two parts; the first part is an average individual 'score' whereas the second part (the Group part, sometimes called Volley) was the per cent of hits/shots fired.

I have seen other earlier examples (1850s) where the FoM also add the percent of excess Marksmen and 1st Class shots to 3rd Class shots. Example: If 60% were 1st Class shots or better and 5% were 3rd Class shots, the excess of 55 (per cent) would be added to the overall score. This third element does not appear to have laste lthough the Antipodean scores (typically far higher than British) might have used a variation of this Victorian methodology.

All this really demonstrates is that the methodologies effectively consolidated two (or three) different scores derived from two (or three) methodologies. I am not sure what 'score' means in part 1 - possibly the absolute number of hits rather than %. None appear to include the arcane MPI and average radial distance used in calculating FoM for a weapon.

Like Grumpy I am still in the dark as to how FoM was calculated in 1902-1913.

I called the Small Arms School Corps Reference Collection at Warminster today. They didn't know either and their reference library is packed away. The helpful man on duty told me they had just received a new book:

Instructions of Musketry (Musketry Regulations) 1854-1922 an Illustrated Guide by G T Davis published in Nov 2015.

I tried to find it on Amazon with no joy. Also tried to track the author down. Ditto.

I am told the Leeds Armoury might be wable to solve the issue as they have all the proof patterns of the original weapons and a mass of reference material....MG

[dansparky]

two interesting links on the subject: the video coming from the main site itself

Victorian Accuracy Measuring - Figure of Merit Calculator : http://britishmilitariaforums.yuku.com/topic/12136/Victorian-Accuracy-Measuring-Figure-of-Merit-Calculator#.VlZgq0bPwZw

and the accompanying video:

A Figure of Merit: Measuring the Accuracy of the Enfield Muzzleloader : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAntq2M0o30

[Guest]

The author of these informative videos posted his thoughts on the other thread.

In the first Victorian example the FoM is an accuracy measurement simply based on Mean Radial Deviation* from the MPI. It is a distance measured in inches. We know from Grumpy's reference material that the FoM for a unit was calculated in a different way and is based largely on the number of shots on target. And the ratio of hits/shots. It seems very clear that FoM is a generic term for a score or measurement and is not based on one specific methodology.

The Holgy Grail we are seeking is the methodology for calculating the FoM for a battalion. MG

* also in some earlier examples a circle with centre at MPI with a radius equal to the Mean Radial Deviation.

[Ghazala]

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=221759&hl=marksmen

[Muerrisch]

here is Table B, trained soldiers, 1898.

NB it is in two separate parts, left and right side.

[Muerrisch]

and for completeness, the targets referred to in Table B

and

Please note that I DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW TO CALCULATE THE F.O.M. 1898 EVEN IN POSSESSION OF THE SO-CALLED FACTS!

[Guest]

Grumpy

Things seem to becoming slightly clearer. For starters we can see from the 1898 example how the shots on target were scored - Bullyseye 4, inner, 3, outer 2 (for the individual shoot and 1 each for the Collective shoot). This is extremely useful as it at least solves one small but critical part on how a shot on target was converted into a 'score'.

Table B is split into two parts.

Part I - Individual shoot: the individual had 6 exercises each with 7 rounds - total 42 rounds. The scoring system was:

Bullseye - 4

Inner - 3

Outer - 2

Ricochet - nil

So the potential maximum score in the 1898 example would be 42 x 4 = 168. Interestingly this is in the right order of magnitude for individual best shot scores that I have seen. Typically high 150s or low 160s. The caveat is that this assumes the number of rounds allocated to each part of the test stayed constant between 1898 and the introduction of the SMLE. If the number of exercises and the number of rounds per exercise changed, and the scoring system changed, clearly the potential maximum score would change too.

The obvious thing is that the Individual best shot can only be calculated from Part 1 of the test.

Part II. Collective Shoot: Each man would have an additional 8 exercises of 7 rounds plus a single exercise of 21 rounds in Part II (Sectional) - total 77 rounds. The scoring system was:

Bullseye - 1

Inner - 1

Outer - 1

Ricochet - 1

If the section was , say 8 men, the maximum 'score' would be 8 x 77 = 616 however to enable scores from varying sized sub-units to be compared, they needed to be measured as a per cent. If the 8 man section scored 402 hits, the score would be converted as a per cent of 616 or 65.26%

To calculate the sub-unit FoM the average of the individual's scores in Part 1 would be combined with the % score in Part 2. Earlier examples simply added the two together.

If we can find Table B for the immediate pre-war years it might help.

[Guest]

An online source claims that the individual maximum score for Table B was 200 points, implying only 50 rounds allocated to the individual test (assuming bullseye =4). If a Marksman required 130 points it implies this standard was achieving a minimum of 65.00% of the maximum score. A 1st Class shot needed to score at least 105, implying 52.50% of the potential maximum score.Looks like a difficult test.

A thought: If the average of the individual shoots was expressed as a per cent, and if, say on average a Battalion were all just 1st Class shots, their average score would be 52.50...and if this level of consistency was achieved at the Collective Shoot and the two results were added together..... 52.50 + 52.50 = FoM of 105.00....we would be in the right order of magnitude.

My speculation. MG

[Muerrisch]

Martin, well done, I believe you are nearly Home.

Herewith more ammunition as it were.

Musketry Regs [Provisional] 1905

[dansparky]

hmm interesting, it would seem Grumpy has found another piece in the puzzle. Could the methodology of calculating from for a battalion involve measurements and points awarded for section of target hit?

[Muerrisch]

and

and

[Muerrisch]

and one more to come in a moment

herewith

1905 would be current in 1913 unless AOs had amended the rules I believe.

[dansparky]

the following screenshots come from comments on 1912 musketry scores : march 1913

[dansparky]

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

there is a remark that the krrc are particularily strong at musketry and signaling coming home at about 550.

[seaJane]

. The helpful man on duty told me they had just received a new book:

Instructions of Musketry (Musketry Regulations) 1854-1922 an Illustrated Guide by G T Davis published in Nov 2015.

I can't find it either. Most unusual. All I can suggest is that they had a pre-publication copy and that it may yet hit the bookshops in the remaining few days of November 2015.

I'll keep an eye open for it.

sJ

[Guest]

Grumpy - many thanks. A bit difficult to read the small print but I am nearly there... my reading is

Table B

Part I - Preliminary Practices................................................................5 Practices.........40 rounds ....potential max score 160

Part II - Classification Practices..........................................................19 Practices........95 rounds......potential max score 380 (Marksman = 210 or more, 1st Class = 175 up to 210 etc)

Part III - Marksmen's Practices (for Infantry and cavalry only)............6 Practices..........35 rounds......Combined with Part II above this establishes Best shots in Company/Battalion

Part IV - Individual Field Practices...................................................................................50 rounds....potential max score 200 points

Part V - Collective Field Practices...................................................................................75 rounds....potential max score 75 per rifleman

Total rounds.................................................................................................................295 rounds

I note;

1. as soon a man has scored 95 in Part I he discontinues.

2. Practices to be performed - Cavalry and Infantry - ALL

3. Classification (para 6) outlines the classification (Marksman, 1st Class, 2nd Class etc) will be based on Part II. Presumably then only Marksmen do part III?

4. Qualifying as a marksman requires scoring 55.26% of the total potential maximum score.

I have one main question:

1. What part constitutes the Annual Test? All of it or just Parts IV and V? i.e. are the other parts simply to get some practice in and establish who the Marksmen, 1st Class etc are.....

Part I looks as if it simply sorts the wheat from the chaff. Anyone not passing this part gets more training....those who get 95 stop shooting so it is a way of seeing if the man is simply good enough to start the proper test. Part II looks as if it is simply aimed at categorising the men into Marksmen, 1st Class etc...Part III looks as if it is simply to establish the best shots (for badges) and parts IV and V look like the proper test that is used to score the unit in the Annual Test. Any thoughts?

The more I see of this the more I am now convinced that the FoM is simply a way of describing composite total scores. I don't believe the MPI and MRD are calculated for the Battalion FoM. A Home Battalion of 500-600 men would require days of work to calculate MPI etc for all the target shoots. It is simply impracticable.

If I am correct the FoM will be a composite of at least Parts IV and V, and possibly Parts I, II and III. Regardless of how many parts are involved, I am very sure FoM is simply the sum of the Parts where each part is expressed as a % of the possible maximum score.

If you don't mind the reference, I am happy to be shot down on this. MG

Edit. What is also very telling is that the cavalry and the Infantry did exactly the same test. It paid the BEF back at first during the Retreat from Mons and at First Ypres for sure.