"Telescopes, Signallers', also GS"

[MikB]

Hi,

New to this forum, I'm interested in the 'General Service' telescopes issued during the conflict. Since their usual nomenclature is 'Tel. Sig. (Mk.<roman>) also GS', they were presumably designed originally for heliography during late Victorian/Edwardian times. For those who don't know them, they're a 3-draw brass-tubed instrument with leather handguard (barrel cover), lens caps, buckling- and sling straps, a 2" object glass, and 'L'ow and 'H'igh power eyepieces at 15x and 30x respectively. They were used by observer, snipers and possibly artillery spotters, although there was also a 'Field Artillery' type telescope.

I've owned 2 examples of the GS, one of which, a Mk.III by Ross, I still have. Other known makes for Mk.IIIs and IVs are R&J Beck, Negretti & Zambra, Taylor Taylor & Hobson, Broadhurst & Clarkson, Ottway.

One thread of documentation I came across in researching these scopes was an exchange of memos in 1916 between TT&H (then apparently prime contractor for the Mk.IV) and Army inspectors at Woolwich, relating to the TT&H proposed design for a Mk.V.

The idea appears to have been to issue the scope with 4 separate lens inserts located by spring clips, instead of the previous 2 eyepiece assemblies. Without more detailed information to the contrary, this looks ridiculously impractical for a cold, tired soldier up to his neck in muck and bullets. Even if he didn't lose most of the lenses in the mud, he'd end up with 16 apparent ways of assembling the lenses in his mitt, only 2 of which were correct!

Now, there are plenty of Mk. IVs and VIs about, the latter a between-the-wars enhancement of the Mk.IV with sunfilters in the eyepiece shutters - Mk.IVs retrofitted with these are designated Mk.IV** in good old WD style.

But - and here's the question - has anybody ever seen a Mk.V? And is it the unbelievable lemon that the exchange of memos has led me to think? Part of me thinks these chaps were experienced soldiers and couldn't have seriously entertained a design as daft as it appears. But if that's true, why are Mk.Vs so thin on the ground that I've never come across one? Oh yes, and Negretti & Zambra seem to have had the Mk.IV contract from sometime in 1917, and could a failed 'enhancement' from TT&H have had anything to do with that?

Regards,

MikB

[MikB]

Nobody ever seen a Mk. V then?

Regards,

MikB