BEF 1914. Marksmanship, Musketry and the Mad Minute

[Muerrisch]

Martin I will email the original scans for you.

Will look at the queries later.

[Guest]

Martin I will email the original scans for you.

Will look at the queries later.

Thanks.... for the interest of others the 'Badges and Prizes' section shows that the Marksmen who were best in company etc were sorted out from those men firing Parts II and III - which effectively partly confirms the assumption that Part III was for this purpose. Clearly adding Part II (Classification) adds further gravitas to the award.

Who would have guessed that the Badges and Awards section would help solve this puzzle. I sense that this Gordian Knot is slowly being untied.

MG

Edited Parts II for Part III

[dansparky]

http://www.historicalfirearms.info/post/43102565094/the-mad-minute-marksmanship-training-in-the

This article mentions the points awarded for each part of the target as grumpy hughlighted. It also describes each section and distances finishing with a suposed mad minute stage. This however is not referenced, and i have never read mention of a specific mad minute section. This is however, relatively new to me :-)

[Guest]

http://www.historicalfirearms.info/post/43102565094/the-mad-minute-marksmanship-training-in-the

This article mentions the points awarded for each part of the target as grumpy hughlighted. It also describes each section and distances finishing with a suposed mad minute stage. This however is not referenced, and i have never read mention of a specific mad minute section. This is however, relatively new to me :-)

The mad minute is part of the collective field practice. 15 of the 95 rounds from this section. MG

Edit the article ascribes a much lower score for marksmen etc than those shown in the 1905 Regs.... so maybe the 1909/10[??] Regs differed again?

MG

[Muerrisch]

another snippet from 1905

a "fail" at Distance Judging resulted in downgrading the classification of an individual: Mksman to 1st class,; 1st class to 2nd.

This was yet another brick in the wall of improving musketry as opposed to marksmanship ......... each soldier was trained to fight his own battle, select his target, set his sights etc. as a last resort.

[Gareth Davies]

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.

I (just) can see the SASC Museum & Archive from the office I am using in Warminster. I won't get a chance to go up there in the next 2 weeks (I have 2 big deliverables due) but I should be able to go and chat to them the week after. Let me know the exact questions I should be asking for you.

[Muerrisch]

Thank you.

How about:

"1. please provide a detailed worked example of Figure of Merit as calculated for an infantry battalion or cavalry regiment in 1913"

and

"2. please provide the written reference for the above, to include the Authority for the submission of an annual return"

[if you don't ask you don't get .......]

[Guest]

I (just) can see the SASC Museum & Archive from the office I am using in Warminster. I won't get a chance to go up there in the next 2 weeks (I have 2 big deliverables due) but I should be able to go and chat to them the week after. Let me know the exact questions I should be asking for you.

I spoke with them yesterday on the phone....all their reference material is in storage and the helpful chap I spoke to unfortunately didn't know the answers and didn't know who might know. He suggested Royal Armouries in Leeds which I am pursuing.

When you speak with the Skill at Ease Springs Reference Collection can you ask them if they know where the Musketry Returns for 1902-1913 are stored? The National Archives only appears to have Irish Command 1912.

Thanks MG

[Guest]

This might be of interest...

http://www.exhibits1.museums.org.nz/ww1/0000_100_0524_the_musketry_teacher_for_web.pdf

[dansparky]

this may be of interest: musketry regulations part 2 1910, rifle ranges and musketry appliances. https://ia802701.us.archive.org/2/items/musketryregulati02greauoft/musketryregulati02greauoft.pdf

not found part 1 yet or 1912 or 14 ammendments

[Guest]

This has the relevant Tables updated for 1915 Click

[dansparky]

I will have to give that a good read, mentions how many rounds alloted each round and interestingly in individual practice never exceeds 600 yrds. do you know anything about pole targets? do you have a description or any images?

[dansparky]

Thanks.... for the interest of others the 'Badges and Prizes' section shows that the Marksmen who were best in company etc were sorted out from those men firing Parts II and III - which effectively partly confirms the assumption that Part III was for this purpose. Clearly adding Part II (Classification) adds further gravitas to the award.

Who would have guessed that the Badges and Awards section would help solve this puzzle. I sense that this Gordian Knot is slowly being untied.

MG

Edited Parts II for Part III

so the best only participate in section 3. so they are the only ones vying for an individual award. do you have a screen shot of exactly what it says in the badges and prizes section?

[Muerrisch]

My posts were not screen shots but scans from my Manuals collection.

I will try to post Prizes tomorrow.

Incidentally, in saying 1905 was last word I clean forgot that I own both parts of 1910!

Will try to find time tomorrow.

[AlanCurragh]

At the request of DanSparkey, his Mad Minute thread has been merged with this one

Alan

[dansparky]

2. Is marksmanship something that needs constant practice? i.e would good marksmen who went into the Reserves remain good marksmen, or would standards fall over time? And if so how quickly do they fall with time? The reason I ask is that there is a mountain of evidence in sports-science that to remain excellent at a skilled sport one needs to practise, practise, practise. Constantly.

3. Is there any evidence that the Reservists were as good marksmen as the regulars when mobilised?

4. Can a marksman with one rifle easily adapt to another rifle? Some diaries suggest many Reservists were not familiar with the new equipment. How quickly could they adapt?

in reference to some of these questions haldane points out:

RESERVISTS 500 YRDS FIRING. Moderate accuracy. Many men do not know present rifle./instructions on mobilisation. the reserves will be rather rusty as regards Training, it is important to work them with men of their comps so whole shake down together and give COHESION and strength to units which enthusiasm alone cannot do.

it is very unlikely that rerservists will be in as good knick as reuglars, having said that there previous experience having already served a term may have given them steady nerves in actual combat.

Any thoughts on this and reservists ability to shot?

[dansparky]

My posts were not screen shots but scans from my Manuals collection.

I will try to post Prizes tomorrow.

Incidentally, in saying 1905 was last word I clean forgot that I own both parts of 1910!

Will try to find time tomorrow.

fantastic exploring this is very useful for my masters :-)

[Muerrisch]

I prefer mistresses

[dansparky]

how many do you have???

[dansparky]

ha lol, i wish i had a copy

[Muerrisch]

Mea maxima culpa.

First of all, apologies. I remember John Masters writing "never complain, never explain" but I will explain nevertheless.

The first two manuals that I ever bought [of literally several hundreds now] were Musketry Regs 1909 amended 1914, and Infantry Training 1914. I remember it as yesterday, but it was 1981, Nottingham, £5 each. I confused the one with the other so disqualified the mythical Musketry Regs 1914 as being too late.

I have scanned six relevant pages as a peace offering. Still to deal with are: targets/ scoring, and the impact of the pass/ fail of Distance Judging.

Martin I will email all six pages. If others want these as quality scans, please PM with email address.

[Guest]

Grumpy

Many thanks. Initial thoughts based on paragraph numbers;

417. Officers may vary the number of rounds fired in Part II "Instructional Practices". This suggests/reinforces the idea that this is not part of the calculated result and is merely a practice so men can get their eye in.

423. Best shots established by scores in Part III "Classification Practices" only (does not include Part II as in prior Regs)

424. Company averages calculated on scores of participants.

425. Part I is again, simply a qualifying shoot to sort out the men from the boys

426. If a man fails Part I twice he is a 3rd Class shot and will not fire Part III "Classification Practices". Presumably this would simply be a waste of ammunition.

431. Classification is based on Part III "Classification Practices" using 50 rounds (max score of 200)

Marksmen - a score of 130 and above .........implies at least 65.00% of max score

1st Class - a score of 105 up to 130 etc......implies at least 52.50% of max score

In Summary

Part I sorts the men from the boys

Part II is instructional practice

Part III is classification to establish who are Marksmen, 1st Class and Best in Company Best in battalion etc

Part IV Individual Practices - 35 rounds and presumably the scoring is binary: hit or miss - a hit is 1 point, so potential max 35 points

Part V Fire Direction

Part VI Collective Field Practices - 50 rounds. Plus 25 surplus rounds.

My assumption is that the scores from Parts IV and VI are combined to calculate the Company and Battalion FoM.

[Muerrisch]

Guests for weekend.

Will look to clarify your last point asap.

Also targets points.

[Guest]

Some light reading from 1906 click

This late Victorian example from the HLI suggests FoM calculated for different practices click

[Guest]

Thanks to some detective work by Col D I have managed to track down Mr Tom Davies who has recently published

"Instructions of Musketry (Musketry Regulations) 1854-1922 An Illustrated Guide"

We had a long chat. He appears to own every Musketry Regulation published between these dates, including amendments. He was unable to answer the FoM question, however he is going to trawl his archives and see if there is anything that might explain it. His book, or rather booklet is 60 pages long and covers the evolution of Musketry Regulations. It is privately published. If anyone wants his details please PM me.

Interestingly his view on the alleged superiority of the British Musketry had a lot to do with the SMLE's design and something to do with rear locking lugs. At that point we reached the extent of my understanding of the weapon but I suspect someone can expand on this.

MG