BEF 1914. Marksmanship, Musketry and the Mad Minute

[Guest]

I suspect that the famous maximum 38 aimed shots a minute can only have been accomplished by lining up pre-loaded spare magazines (not, of course, a normal issue)- not by loading with chargers through the action. On the 'machine-gun under every hedge' quote at Mons, I thought the original German comment was 'too many 'automatische gewehre' rather than 'maschinen-gewehre'. Perhaps the ten-round staggered row box magazine and turned down bolt handle of the Sht. L.E. looked like a (semi) automatic to a soldat used to the integral magazine and right-angled bolt handle of the Gew.98. RC

The men who fire 36 rounds and later 38 rounds were Instructors at Hythe. The account in Pridham's 'Superiority of Fire' (page 57, footnote) implies it was under test conditions as range, target size and shape and colour are all given and 'hand-loaded' is mentioned. An instructor in the 1920s consistently fired 35-36 with all his shots in the inner ring at 300 yards. The pre-war records was SM Wallingford of 36, surpassed by Sgt Instr Snoxall in 1914 who fired 38 with all shots in the inner ring. I assume the 'record' was under Test conditions given the detail. MG

[Bombadier]

I suspect that removal and replacement of the magazine would have taken longer than loading 10 rounds via charger although I have no evidence of this.

Nigel

[Muerrisch]

Drat!

I wish I had seen #199 before I finalised my articles for Stand To! on Reserves and Reservists.

[4thGordons]

I suspect that removal and replacement of the magazine would have taken longer than loading 10 rounds via charger although I have no evidence of this.

Nigel

Well I just tried it a couple of times and on the basis of this very unscientific test if everything goes perfectly with removing and inserting/seating the magazine, it is nearly as fast as charger loading but it is much harder to do in the prone position (I nearly have to roll onto my side to do it) The charger loading appears more reliable and as a result quicker and requires much less movement of the rifle/rifle and subsequent readjustment to continue firing.

The lips on the SMLE magazine are rather easily distorted which would undoubtedly happen with repeated insertion/removal to say nothing of the exposure of the whole underside of the action to dirt/grit etc.

As MG indicates I believe the record number of shots (Snoxall etc) utilized charger loading both because that was specified in the test conditions and was service practice.

[salesie]

So far no one has mentioned "palming" the bolt - indeed in all of the video clips everyone is opening and closing the bolt with thumb and forefinger, and, although fairly fast, it's somewhat erratic.

"Palming" was shown to me on ACF annual camp in the summer of 1965 or maybe 1966. We were being instructed on the SMLE by an old regular close to retirement. He told us that British regulars always "palmed" the bolt i.e. opening and closing it with the palm of the hand (the SMLE's downward angle on the bolt handle made this possible), which led to a smoother/slicker reload (and thus quicker) and also minimised disruption to the aiming stance. After demonstrating this technique he made us practice with drill rounds - and it does work.

As far as I know, trained British regulars always "palmed" when using the SMLE and never used thumb and forefinger.

Cheers-salesie.

[rd72]

1.....I would be very interested to hear what you think are the small but critical techniques you have used to improve speed; grip on the bolt and trigger, reloading etc......

2...... I would be interested to hear what your thoughts are on how the British infantryman refined technique to maximise the rate of fire.

3.....I would also be interested to hear any thoughts on the trade-off between rate of fire and accuracy

4... (from a later post) ..... implies it was under test conditions as range, target size and shape and colour are all given and 'hand-loaded' is mentioned. ....

Martin,

Some answers to your questions...

1. The technique used in both clips was to grip the bolt with thumb and forefinger and work the trigger with the middle finger. I think that it would be safe to say that this is a commonly accepted if somewhat "unofficial" technique as it regards "super-rapid" fire. It does not bear mention in the 1914 musketry pam (that I have noticed, anyway) but has been demonstrated as a possible way to increase the cycle time. It obviously is not as firm a grip as if the hand were on the small of the butt but it can be surprisingly comfortable and with a bit of practice, can be firm enough to "make it work". The main difference between the first and second clip was that I adjusted my position so that the cheek did not have to be removed off the butt while the bolt was worked. This is perhaps the biggest improvement as it allows for a much reduced re-aquisition of the sight picture. Most of the time one's cheek is out of the way anyway and lifting it off the butt while working the bolt is more "I think I need to" rather than actual requirement... The chargers were slightly "eased" by gentle flexing and they were somewhat polished by running them in the case tumbler for a while. This greatly reduced the resistance on loading. They were, however, a bit on the sloppy side and only "just" held the rounds in.. No good for field service... In my experience, Mk VII rounds in chargers are held with a certain degree of firmness. This, in my mind, would reinforce a difference between "record attempt" shooting and normal rapid fire in field conditions. The loading was also changed between attempts. In the first instance, I just went ahead and loaded the magazine to capacity after emptying it. In the second attempt I used a technique that I stumbled upon reading somewhere. It was probably a modern source. 10 rounds in the mag and 1 up the spout. Fire 6 load five, fire six and load five,... etc... This seemed to work well and had the benefit that as one progressed through the different reloads, charging got easier as the amount of rounds in the magazine (and the resistance from the spring) was gradually reduced.

2. Spoken to this point a bit already. On one hand there is shooting for some, stand-alone record and on the other there is shooting from a ditch or trench or lying in the mud or cowering behind a less-then-satisfactory hay stack or wall, at an enemy who is also trying to survive and not be hit himself while the guns rain down shrapnel and corruption all around.... all this with ammunition that was drawn from a box, in a bandolier and hurriedly stuffed into an ammo pouch. I think that rapid shooting has these two realities. It stands to reason that any record for number of rounds in a minute was shot with only the best of conditions with the best kit and used all the "allowed" tricks of the trade. Were his chargers modified in any way or were they right out the box that had been packed in 1911? Did his bolt have the attention of the school armourer-sgt for a little TLC? Was his rifle's bedding the best that could be found? What did he shoot from? Prone unsupported or was he shooting from a prepared firing point with a sandbag rest and elbow braces. Did he use a sling? Field firing vs target shooting... So the question "what did British soldiers do to increase their rate of fire?" should be made with this context in mind. I am sure that they knew all the tricks for when they were on the range. Were these things done in France or while field firing at Hythe? Something like the bolt handle trick, probably. Obviously the benefit of a sandbag or a 1 of 1000 rifle, not so much.

3. Simply put, no matter how good the shot, a man's accuracy will go suffer the faster he fires... Anybody will improve with practice but this his rapid will always be sub-standard in accuracy to his application fire.

"....My sense is that he has substituted accuracy with speed and it is not working. I thought I was a bad shot......"

Oh and don't get down on yourself if you think that you are a "bad shot", there is always someone worse off, eh?.... :-).

4. I was wondering if you might paraphrase what these details are for those without the benefit of reading the actual text?

[Guest]

Watching the video demonstrations of people firing 10, 15 rounds rapid, was interesting. There was a lot of consistency in terms of the number of rounds put down in a specific time frame and a lot of consistency in the time taken to reload. If the BEF held their fire and then let rip in unison, presumably everyone would be reloading at the same time. The receiving end might experience long concentrated bursts of fire, a short pause of a few seconds followed by another long burst of highly concentrated fire. Bear with me....

Depending on the source, a Vickers MG could fire between 450 and 700 rpm in 200-round belts. Lets assume 600 rpm as a middle-ish point, That would mean a belt could be fired off in about 20 seconds...pause for reloading...and another belt fired off. This seems a similar amount of time for the men in the videos to fire off 10 rounds, reload, fire off another 10 rounds with the SMLE Mk III. Following the maths it would only need 20 men ( a weak platoon) to fire the equivalent number of rounds of a Vickers in the same period. If all 20 men were blazing away for 20 seconds, all pausing at the same time to reload with 10 rounds and letting loose again, could this by any stretch of the imagination be conflated for MG fire? I am assuming that during the alleged massed attacks the Vickers crew would simply keep firing until the belt was finished rather than fire in shorts bursts.

To my mind the distinctive steady cyclic rate of an MG is unmistakable. A similar volume of fire in similar periods from 20 men would lack this sound signature. The experience (sound) would be very different. Clearly the trenches of Ypres had rather a few more things going on and a lot more noise and confusion, and a lot more fear that most psychologists would agree disrupts the process of forming memory. I am trying to understand how Germans might conflate the two and how British fire control and rates of fire, or indeed the Mad Minute might add to that possibility. I realise MGs were usually paired, but the arguments by the OH are that the British had lost many of them at Ypres, so I am assuming single MGs were not unusual. In fact the diaries tell us this. If one looks at the frontage held and the theoretical number of MGs, they had rather a lot of area to cover and would in theory be spaced rather far apart - particularly in 7th Divs area at Ypres.

MG

[4thGordons]

Here is the comparison of rifles and machine guns from wo2052 "Infantry Training" I mentioned above:

Chris

[Guest]

Martin,

Some answers to your questions...

rd72

Many thanks for your informed reply. I am most grateful and I am sure the others on this thread are too. It is simply fascinating to hear from you and others who had fired this rifle and attempted to replicate the rates of fire discussed. The practical experience clearly far outweighs the theory for sure. By way of (dis)qualification, I was a terrible shot, but I knew a lot of men who could shoot extremely well and in my day I was as qualified as one could possibly be on ranges for the Barmy so I have a very very small amount of knowledge. That said, I own a deactivated SMLE and had no idea it could be loaded from the top, so what do I know. ... If I might respond using numerics.

1. Your points on 'record' attempts v real conditions are noted. I assume the British Army was simply exploring the limits of the SMLE in the hope that the process would improve knowledge and possibly show ways of improving technique or design. In my limited time in the army, all the senior instructors had 'non-issue' methods of speeding up just about everything, so I can empathise with the men at Hythe. If one's life depended on speed, human nature will always find a way to improve. Your comments on technique are very interesting. I noticed on one video made at Warminster the rapid-fire technique did not always work as the middle finger sometimes ended up on the wrong side of the trigger guard, so clearly practise was required to perfect the technique. One wonders about Section D. I wonder if you have any thoughts on Salesie's 'palm' method he was taught in the 1960s.?

Secondly, the detail on the method of reloading in increments of five is interesting as it also reduces the down-time between loading. I wonder if this is why the Test specifies reloading in increments of five rounds rather than ten.

2. All your points are noted with interest. We know from the diaries that there was much time spent in the reserve trenches and even in the front line there was some down time. I assume the old soaks might have taken the time to 'prep' their ammunition in these relatively quieter times. The video clips I have seen on staggering or stepping the rimmed ammunition made complete sense and I assume they did not come from the factory in that configuration..It would be interesting to find any contemporary evidence of the level of preparation men could or would go to in order to reduce risks of stoppages etc.

3. The Warmisnter guys said it was less to do with the weapon and more to do with the man behind it. This would support the view that the SMLE's needed the revolutionary Musketry Regs, as well as the iron discipline and training of the British Army, no matter how stale it was among the Reservists. Your comments on accuracy v speed make complete sense. I wonder if there was a limit to the rate of fire before the costs (high ammunition expenditure and lack of accuracy) outweighed the benefits (volume of 'aimed' fire within a defined period of time). The concept was that the Mad Minute had a time and place on the battlefield. In close proximity, when the enemy might cover short distances in a short amount of time clearly the Mad Minute would be the optimal response. I fear the Mad Minute is seen (by authors) as the standard technique rather than just one 'tool' in the toolbox of a rifleman that was used only when necessary. The debates recorded in Hansard (our Houses of Parliament) in 1912 allude to this trade-off. Anyone who has had the misfortune to carry boxes of ammunition for days will perfectly understand the benefits of controlled rates of fire. Logistics has as much to do with this as the man pulling the trigger. As for your accuracy, I can safely say you are a better shot that I am : )

4. I will transcribe and post. I ususally digitise my books and I will send you a scanned copy of Pridham if you would like. It will take a few weeks given the Xmas period.

Thank you again for your huge contribution. I hope it will draw out others with similar experiences and enthusiasm. Likewise to 4thGordons. Thank you both. We are in your debt.

MG

[David Filsell]

Except Snoxall apparently (post 206) Does anyone know any details of his Great War service?

[Gareth Davies]

At the risk of interrupting the flow (or at least obscuring the sight picture), how often did soldiers re-zero their weapons? This question of course makes the assumption that one did zero the SMLE and that it had adjustable sights. And if it didn't have adjustable sights, how did a soldier work out teh difference between his aim point and his fall of shot/point of impact?

[4thGordons]

At the risk of interrupting the flow (or at least obscuring the sight picture), how often did soldiers re-zero their weapons? This question of course makes the assumption that one did zero the SMLE and that it had adjustable sights. And if it didn't have adjustable sights, how did a soldier work out teh difference between his aim point and his fall of shot/point of impact?

The rifle was zeroed at the factory (I described the process in one of the posts above)

The front blades came in varying sizes (heights) and were also fitted on dovetail block which could be drifted left and right with a special tool. Once the rifle was zeroed (correct blade height and left/right setting of the foresight) it was pin punched in place. In part the heavy (one might even say iconic?) foresight protecting ears on the SMLE were to prevent this being knocked off zero, the foresight on the MLE was not movable (nor is it on the GEW98) and thus was not protected. When an adjustable one was fitted on the CLLE, protective ears were added.

One point, many SMLE foresights, correctly set, are actually slightly (but noticeably) off-center - the technicalities for this escape me (perhaps Beerhunter or someone else may chime in but I think it is to do with ballistics of the MkVII round)

The rifle sights are adjustable for range (obviously) and early rear sights were adjustable for windage (left/right) this refinement was later discarded (but is the reason why even on rifles without this feature the rear sight protectors are offset on the right hand side - to allow access to this windage adjustment) The centre point on this adjustment is marked on the rear sight so if the rifle is returned to the original settings.

With the possible exception of marksmen and snipers (who may have been using non-standard sights anyway), I am fairly certain individual soldiers would have been permitted (nor would they have had the tools) to make any adjustments to the foresight, if a soldier suspected his rifle was "off" I suspect it would have been checked by the unit armourer.

Chris

[rd72]

Martin,

You made a reference to a Warminster video. Is it available somewhere? As for the the palming method, it was evidentially taught as a bonafide technique. In my mind the advantage to the holding onto the bolt and working the trigger with the middle finger in that it does away with the requirement to move the hand back and forth between the bolt and the small. That said, in these two clips, though both out of the Great War time frame (1950s), show rapid fire with (in this case) the No 4. These guys are "Small Arms" types and it could be reasoned that they are (or at least should be) somewhat expert in what they are doing. In both examples, they are using what is simply a conventional grip on the bolt and butt. They are, however, doing it quite quickly. Also notice that in the EM2 clip, that as part of a rapid fire application, the shooter reloads with only five rounds, a point already brought up in our discussion.

As far as the old boys doing certain things to their ammunition and the like, I would say this: In the Army, it is safe to say, there are those who are "into" certain things... Some like looking natty and all pressed-like, some are into shooting and musketry, some are into boozing and girls,.... (well everybody's into the that,....) and some just get by with the minimum.... I am sure you know what I mean. I am also sure that there were some who would have done what you describe, fastidiously checking their ammo and rifle for optimum performance... but I would wager that they were in the minority.. Most being content with things "as issued"... That said, a cursory check of ammo and rifle would be part of every mans pre battle ritual, but the tensioning of some 30 chargers plus whatever he was carrying on a bandolier and polishing their insides for the slickest functioning is definitely the preserve of the small minority. In the end, 303 chargers work as advertised. They have to be firm enough so that the rounds stay where they belong and firm pressure is the order of the day when using them.

Ammunition was supplied to the front in bandoliers of 50. 5 pockets with two chargers in each. So yes, they came "that way" from the factory. There prescribed method of loading them, in the event of that requirement, was, while looking and the base of the rounds in the charger, three up and two down. This way the charger could be inserted either way. It would appear that there might be a chance of a rim lock with this method but surprisingly, this doesn't happen very often. In both of my clips I used the "one way" version with the rounds stepped in sequence. This seems to work too but it makes the charger lopsided and hard to fit into the pouches on the P08 webbing.

".......The Warmisnter guys said it was less to do with the weapon and more to do with the man behind it....."

I agree, generally. I think that this taken as a general statement, and as such, it is completely correct. As it pertains to "the record" I would say this: A great driver can only go so fast in his street car.... If he wants to drive the fastest he can, then he needs a race car..... Taking the achievements of a very few expert marksman and using them to paint a broad picture of the BEF might be a little fanciful. The opportunity for dozens of men to blast off many rounds in work-ups and then competitions to see who can shoot fastest, I would say, the preserve of "rifle teams" and School Instructor types not the lions share of a battalion. Just look at the Musketry manual and there is absolutely no reference to "shooting-as-many-rounds-as-you-can-in-a-minute" kind of stuff. Just the prescribed 15 rounds at 300yds into a second class figure target for a HPS of 60... Were there many men who were good at it? Of course. Was half the BEF 30-round-a-minute types? I would wager no. Were they better shots then the Germans or French? I might say yes, but that is an unqualified answer.

As much as I would appreciate the text of Pridham, this is a large job and I wouldn't ask you to do it for me. A quick para-phrase of the details surrounding the "record",...... target type, conditions etc,... Is what I was wondering about, if you could manage it.

David, could you put your comment in context for me, I don't understand what it is referencing. Many thanks.

Thanks to all for a continued great conversation.

Rob

[salesie]

Both videos show the palming method - compare them to the fairly erratic thumb/finger method used in all the previous videos to see a much smoother/slicker action for quick reloads and less disruption to the aiming stance leading to speed AND accuracy (the standard was a minimum of 15 AIMED shots a minute, not blast away for speed). Also with this method there is no need for third finger triggering, both regulars in the videos are using their "Saturday night finger" on the trigger. Compare them to the thumb/finger/3rd finger shooters and decide who you'd rather face?

Cheers-salesie.

[paulgranger]

It's nothing to do with the thread per se, but the second of Rob's film clips above reminded me of the pretty severe recoil the SLR had. Judged on the other film clip, both the SMLE and the EM1 (2?) had far less recoil. Failing to grip the SLR correctly on a range day cost me a spectacle lens, as my rifle shot back off my shoulder, and the rear sight hit my glasses. Luckily no other damage done.

[David Filsell]

Rob

Copies of Pridholm readily available on abe at the moment starting at £8.00.

David

[Guest]

Footnote to page 57 of "Superiority of Fire" by Pridham

"Sergt-Major Wallingford's original Hythe record of 36 rounds in 60 seconds with the SMLE rifle stood until about 1914; when Sergt-Instructor Snoxall fired 38 rounds in one minute, at 300 yards with all his shots in the inner ring. This probably stands as a world's record for a hand loaded rifle. In each case the target used was a 4 ft figure target with a 12 inch figure 5. Lower half of the target was coloured green or brown, upper half grey or green. The bull's eye figure was coloured brown. Since 1925 CSM Instructor C Mapp on numerous occasions has fired 35 and 36 rounds in one minute with all his shots in the inner ring at 300 yards range".

Separately, a footnote on page 58 a quote which appears to originate from McMahon:

"There can really only be one rate of fire - the best rate of every man for combining rapidity with accuarcy"

Hythe carried out many experiments and I would not be surprised if they explored the trade-off between rapidity against accuracy. I wonder if the 15 rounds per minute was considered the optimal rate for a groups of trained men. From the videos I have seen, 20 rounds a minute appears to induce a considerable amount of movement. I suspect there is not a straight linear relationship between speed and accuarcy and at some point (possibly just beyond 15 rounds a minute?) there might be a sharp deterioration in accuracy for the average shot.

It is worth considering the range of this part of the training too: 300 yards. Clearly battlefield conditions don't always present targets at that range. The anecdotal evidence at Ypres 1914 suggests massed targets at much closer ranges with many men claiming it was impossible to miss. This might suggest even loosely aimed shots in certain circumstances were going to find a target. In some situations at Ypres there were opportunities to increase rates of fire without losing accuracy - simply because of the nature and range of the target that was presented. It is easy to see how a large group of riflemen could justify much higher rates of fire than 15 rounds a minute, and be effective, given the circumstances.

MG

[rd72]

"........In each case the target used was a 4 ft figure target with a 12 inch figure 5........."

Right then, thank you for this. This is the kind of information that I was interested in. The internet being as is it is, gargantuan inflation and massive misinterpretation are rampant. Never having read any of Pridam's book, I have come to my own conclusions about the type of target used for this feat. Why would anything other than a regulation target be used for this?

Interestingly it also states the rough grouping size... all inside a 2 foot circle (the inner)... another element often misunderstood in online talk of this, with claims of "all in a 12 inch bull" and other misunderstood details. Thank you. Now, I wonder what position he was using? A sling? A rest?

"........I wonder if the 15 rounds per minute was considered the optimal rate......"

Given the apparent impetus for a standard higher rate of fire being a decision not to adopt more machine guns, I might suppose that it was the rate chosen to have the desired effect that then had to be trained to, rather than some sort of human limitation that drove the number. What do you think?

salesie,

I after looking at the clips up close, it does appear to me that they are using their thumb and fingers to work the bolt and not their palm... That said, the nomenclature, might mean different things to different people.

Maybe a quick clip to illustrate...

http://vid19.photobucket.com/albums/b166/RobDeans/Shooting%20Pics/Bolt%20Manipulation_zpsabixlbxy.mp4

Sorry, couldn't embed it....

As a point of interest here is the paragraph on Rates of Fire from the 1914 book... Pardon the resolution.

And here is Part III of Table B (the annual qualification)

And the standards....

So to say that the "standard" (as it pertains to scoring) was 15 rounds at 300yds in 60 seconds (serial 22) would not be completely accurate. A man could tube in serial 22 and do well in others and still pass, as the qualification was an aggregate and not based on any one serial. It would seem that the "line" was made at the 2nd class shots... 3rd class shots were "sub standard" and had to do remedial training. I also might suggest that the "standard" had nothing to do with a minimum of 15 rounds as it was also the maximum that could be fired.... To say this would indicate that if a man did not achieve 15 rounds a minute he did not achieve the standard and therefore failed... This is not the case according to the documentation. Again it was an aggregate score for Part III. The only standard here was the 70 (or 55) points to make second class.

This was standard of the Army of the day and, I feel, be separated from the record attempts and uber-shots when referencing the Musketry of the BEF.

David, thank you for the heads up on the Abe Books source..... I just made an order last week, too........damn.....

[Muerrisch]

Pridham's book is very poor in my opinion.

There is superficial and there is very superficial, and Pridham is out at the end of the scale.

[Guest]

Pridham's book is very poor in my opinion.

There is superficial and there is very superficial, and Pridham is out at the end of the scale.

The content in parts is interesting but his writing style is quite over the top. It would be interesting to get some other source material on Hythe and in particular McMahon. For example it would be interesting to see if any of the decision making for the new musketry standards were minuted. The discussion on what Hythe was aiming (excuse the pun) to achieve would be interesting. MG

[Guest]

There is some very interesting material in Shelford and Bidwell's "Fire Power: The British Army Weapons & Theories of War 1904-1945". The relevant chapter is Chapter 2: The Tactics of Separate Tables.

"From a long series of trials [The School of Musketry] made some unpopular recommendations. 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 quickly been silenced by 150 second-class 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 in accuracy at the higher rate the destructive effect was far greater....rapid fire was preferable to deliberate because of its shock effect and because it concealed the numerical strength of the defence as well as the precise location of the firers. But if maintained for more than three minutes at a time at the high rate of fifteen rounds a minute, wood smoke, barrel mirage, oil vapour and fatigue affected results adversely. Because of its wider beaten zone individual rifle fire was relatively more effective against an extended enemy than machine-gun fire"

It goes on to state that the old Maxim machine guns in 1908 equated to 25 rifles and the new Vickers of 1912 with 40**. There is some interesting commentary on the Mark VII ammunition and new sights (1910-12) used in trials. The more powerful ammunition flattened the trajectory as well as extending the effective range of infantry weaponry from 600 to 800 yards. They also observe during a General Staff Conference of 1910, McMahon, then Chief Instructor at Hythe -

"... pointed out the importance of high volumes of fire and spoke against the fetish of marksmanship and rifle competitions. The crack shots at Hythe had again proved only marginally more effective than average regimental shots in field conditions"

A number of the references cite the Bruce Williams Papers held at IWM which contain tactical material and the results of some of the trials from 1908. My sense is that the School of Musketry at Hythe and its scientific approach to the debate on musketry, marksmanship was the key factor. Having the SMLE was not enough. Having an understanding of its capabilities and developing optimal doctrine and tactics through scientific means seems to have been the killer - literally and metaphorically speaking. Reading between the lines it appears that higher rates of fire were achievable, but the degradation in accuracy was an offsetting factor. MG

* It is not clear how the 100 elite marksmen were 'silenced'. One assumes that they mean the 150 second-class shots had better scores than the 100 elite marksmen.

** From memory an MG Section (2 guns) required 26 men (Edit: 18 men). The 40:1 ratio only compares rates of fire rather than the logistics required to create the fire.

[Guest]

Musketry Regulations Part II (1910) here

[Muerrisch]

Even more economical:

MG section was one subaltern, one sergeant, 16 privates/LCpls,

total 18.

If the MGs were out of action, the 18 men were a little less effective than their equivalent in a rifle company in that the range-taker [if appointed] was armed only with a pistol.

[bootneck]

As an aside it has just been brought to my attention that the Surrey History Centre has received a collection of various army regulations, pamphlets and the like, which includes various editions of the Musketry Regulations between 1905 and 1914. This material is in the process of being catalogued, packaged and located.

One of which is the Musketry Regulations, Part I, 1909 (reprinted with amendments, 1914), which includes addendum no.4, issued by the General Staff in July 1918. There is also a Sequence of Musketry Training (HMSO, 1915); Notes on Musketry Instruction, to assist in the training of recruits. Collected by a Company Officer (Privately published, 1916) and a Scoring Book for recruits course of musketry and judging distance (Regular Forces and Special Reserve.(Gale & Polden, 1915). There are also a number of booklets on machine guns.

Bootneck

[Guest]

Some compelling evidence in the levels of improvement in the inter-war years. This example is from the Eleventh Hussars (PAO) 1908-1934 - the percentage of ORs classed as Marksmen jumped from 5% in 1910 to 25% while the number of 3rd Class shots dropped to zero.

" For many years past the Eleventh Hussars had had a record that was almost unique in musketry. They had won the Queen’s Cup for Cavalry five times since its first institution in 1896 and when in Ireland had carried off a very large number of shooting prizes, as is shown in Appendix I of Captain Williams’ History.

When they came to England this high standard was continued. If they did not win so many prizes, it was because the standard of their competitors had risen and not that their own had fallen off. In fact this period was marked by a notable improvement in the shooting of the rank and file ; the high standard of the crack shots was spreading throughout the Regiment.

Much of this improvement was due to Lieutenant E. L. Spears, who was posted to the Regiment in 1910 from the 8th Hussars and was appointed musketry instructor ; he, personally, passed everyman through a special test, and was ably assisted by SSMIM T G Upton.

They took great pains to make the instruction interesting for everyone. There had always been plenty of encouragement for the good shots, who could win prizes, butte chief object now was to promote efficiency throughout the whole regiment. The results soon began to show in the increasing number of good shots and in the decrease in the number of 3rd Class shots. The results of the annual musketry courses for the years 1910 and 1913, though influenced possibly by weather conditions, reveal something of this improvement.

1910 1913

Marksmen 26 114

1st Class Shots 175 262

2nd Class Shots 280 80

3rd Class Shots 37 0

Regimental Average 101.5 118.1

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."