It's 1902 and the Boer War has finally ended. This has been a huge embarrassment to the British Army, who got shot to pieces by a militia of Dutch farmers, and who's organisation and generalship was at times shown to be at best amateurish and at worst disasterous. You have been appointed to a committee tasked with ensuring the faults shown up in the war are put right and that the British Army can justly claim to be the best led, best trained and best equipped in the world. Nothing is off limits from the committee, even the possible introduction of some form of conscription.
Post Boer War British Army Recommendations.
- Thread starter Peg Leg Pom
- Start date
The war revealed that we have two really conflicting needs for our ground forces: territorial defence and colonial service. The obvious solution is to create two organizations, each focused exclusively on one role. Consolidate the Militia, Volunteer Force and the Imperial Yeomanry into a single garrison force for the UK itself, and establish a training regime that allows these units to serve as a training cadre of reservists.
The main Army will continue to serve colonial and imperial needs, and thus needs to be flexible. Increase joint planning cooperation with the Dominions to share the economic burden better. Stabilize the budget so that there will be less need for drastic wartime spending, and so that reforms can be concluded in a rational fashion. Get the political parties involved and committed to imperial defence, and improve the public image of the Army to promote the need for funding to the voters.
Establish more local garrisons to potential flashpoints and areas of unrest, so that we'll have senior officers with good knowledge of the local conditions at hand in all potential threat zones in Africa and Asia.
As for infantry doctrine, rapid and accurate rifle fire from dispersed formations and entrenched earthworks is clearly the way for the future of infantry. NCO training, camouflage, spade work and marksmanship are to be emphasized in the reformed future training regime. Conduct live-fire tests for the maximum range our infantry fire will be effective, and estimate the best possible future cartridge for our infantry from this analysis. Increase the number of machine guns, as they serve as excellent area denial and garrison weapons.
The artillery will need to refocus on long-range fires with heavier-caliber pieces. Once again difference for colonial needs of mobility and flexibility and the garrison needs for firepower will have to be considered.
Cavalry will have to abandon her traditional role as a shock force, and instead emphasis mobility as mounted riflemen. Armored cars will make a fine addition to her traditional scouting role.
The main Army will continue to serve colonial and imperial needs, and thus needs to be flexible. Increase joint planning cooperation with the Dominions to share the economic burden better. Stabilize the budget so that there will be less need for drastic wartime spending, and so that reforms can be concluded in a rational fashion. Get the political parties involved and committed to imperial defence, and improve the public image of the Army to promote the need for funding to the voters.
Establish more local garrisons to potential flashpoints and areas of unrest, so that we'll have senior officers with good knowledge of the local conditions at hand in all potential threat zones in Africa and Asia.
As for infantry doctrine, rapid and accurate rifle fire from dispersed formations and entrenched earthworks is clearly the way for the future of infantry. NCO training, camouflage, spade work and marksmanship are to be emphasized in the reformed future training regime. Conduct live-fire tests for the maximum range our infantry fire will be effective, and estimate the best possible future cartridge for our infantry from this analysis. Increase the number of machine guns, as they serve as excellent area denial and garrison weapons.
The artillery will need to refocus on long-range fires with heavier-caliber pieces. Once again difference for colonial needs of mobility and flexibility and the garrison needs for firepower will have to be considered.
Cavalry will have to abandon her traditional role as a shock force, and instead emphasis mobility as mounted riflemen. Armored cars will make a fine addition to her traditional scouting role.
Efforts to improve the Officer corps are clearly needed, the bravery of the common soldier and NCO's was superb, but the Senior Officers who performed poorly should either be drummed out, or put into non-important areas. Additionally, courses at RMA Sandhurts should be updated and overhauled to represent the changes in military tactics and technology. The German 'General Staff' system seems to be very effective and could be immitated. The shameful performance of the Boer War, the Zulu War and even the poor leadership and lack of understanding of the Crimea war should be washed away.
The Army is no good if it lead by Gentlemen of 'High Breeding' who only know how to look good riding a horse and do not know what a machine gun is.
The Army is no good if it lead by Gentlemen of 'High Breeding' who only know how to look good riding a horse and do not know what a machine gun is.
Last edited:
The chief purpose of the army is repression. Of Irish, Indians, Africans and Malays. While there are some issues with repressing white people the army is broadly fit for purpose. Ensure the politicians don’t enter a land war in Europe with anything other than loans. Get my dumb son a cavalry position.
Royal Commissioner Flashman with advice from Melchit (Col.).
Royal Commissioner Flashman with advice from Melchit (Col.).
Last edited:
Realise that close study of events gives lessons on future doctrine and so pay close attention to, not only the limited warfare in South Africa, but go on to do the same for the Russo Japanese War; which gives more peer conflict lesson such as machine guns for support fire not long distance rifle marksmanship, larger field artillery calibres and more suitable ammunition for them, field entrenchment and the maintenance of reserve training and marching fitness with the new TA built into continental war planning.
P.S. Fear not General Melchett. Your son has been assigned to defend our Embassy in Paraguay to the last round.
P.P.S. Please supply him with the last round.
P.S. Fear not General Melchett. Your son has been assigned to defend our Embassy in Paraguay to the last round.
P.P.S. Please supply him with the last round.
Regarding Mr Karelian's ideas about armoured vehicles, surely this would be a bad idea, considering that the automobile is still a very new thing, and that their poor performance off roads, inability to cross rough terrain and maintenance requirements that would be done by specialists is simply too much. The Cavalry's role should no longer be one of shock and on this we agree, but I fear the automobile is a step too far. Perhaps given time to develop and grow in say, ten years, if they last that long and are not just a passing curiosity.
They might specifically want to keep developing a field gun in the 152 mm/6 inch class as a replacement for the QF 6-inch gun used in the Boer War. This would give them a heavier field gun than the BL 60-pounder and QF 4.7-inch guns, which were retained and developed after being improvised in the Boer War.
However, it's entirely possible that they will be forgotten just like they were in OTL, making better decisions moot. OTL the British Army abandoned the lance in field use after the Boer War showed its uselessness, but in 1908 it was reauthorized for field use, along with a thrust-optimized cavalry sword due to a desire to return to older traditions. That initial decision was the right one and the decision any of us would make, but it didn't stop a reversion later on.
Actually if the artillery reforms result in 1917-era or later tactics then it would be clear from tests that all defensive tactics are useless against combined arms and newer artillery tactics. Any defense, no matter how strong, would fail with heavy losses against them, so offensive combined arms tactics would be the only ones used. All defensive tactics and training, like spade work, entrenchments, would be eliminated.
Then again, this may have to wait until tanks are developed (the tactics might not make defense completely obsolete without tanks).
The last part is the most important, the tactics of 1917 also made extensive use of aircraft and tanks, and in 1902, the Wright brothers flight is a year away and so can be discounted, and with the machinery of the time, even an armoured car of any actual value is a huge stretch. So machine guns, accurate, rapid firing rifles, spade/trenchwork and the like will be needed and needed to be improved. One might even look at rapid firing pistols or the like instead of the traditional revolver, a clip loaded pistol, perhaps even a shotgun for clearing an enemies earthworks and the like.
I assume you mean to look at things like General Staff and leadership stuff?
Basically those were the findings in real life. Infantry fire was to be increased by the adoption of a semi-automatic rifle, machine guns. Artillery fire power to be increased as well. Cavalry was to be utilised as mounted riflemen. Or so it was claimed. Unfortunately both local interests and world events chose to intervene. Local interests weren't willing to foresake cavalry as cavalry. World events such as the outbreak of WWI prevented the adoption of new rifle or a new calibre round.
Last edited:
Greater funding for rifles like the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farquhar–Hill_rifle could have been a huge game changer. I do belive there was a story started here featuring the Farquhar Hill rifle but it kinda died.
You can read it here - https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-maddest-minute.414703/
You can read it here - https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-maddest-minute.414703/
Last edited:
That was kind of the point - the OTL reforms were all rather sensible for a colonial police force. Too bad that what was needed was a mass army capable of grievous attrition and siege warfare.
The Browning Auto 5 merits a look, obviously modified for the .303. Granted it will need a vertical magazine so the spitzer bullets can be used safely.
Talk to Mauser to came up with a long-barreled C96 semi-auto, to be used predominatly with stock, and make a deal for a full licence (manufacturing, sale, further development) for the whole Commonwealth. Once the carbine is cleared for production in the UK, start developing full-auto version.
Make sure that you have miltary observers with Japanese in 1904/05.
Talk to Mauser to came up with a long-barreled C96 semi-auto, to be used predominatly with stock, and make a deal for a full licence (manufacturing, sale, further development) for the whole Commonwealth. Once the carbine is cleared for production in the UK, start developing full-auto version.
Make sure that you have miltary observers with Japanese in 1904/05.
Last edited:
They did, but it was mostly at sea, which is where the UK's strength was. Captain Percy Scott was an observer aboard an IJN battleship and set up shop during the battle of the Yellow Sea by sitting there with a deckchair and some bino's watching the battle as the ship he was on was shelled. I'm not sure there was any ground force observers. This would have to be fixed and should be quite easy as the UK and Japan were allies at the time.
Deleted member 1487
I'd say instead of trying to create a 7mm magnum bullet they just also adopt the 6.5mm Mauser and adopt a boat tailed bullet for it like the 140 grain Swedish spitzer bullet. I still don't get their obsession with flat base bullets for long range use.
They needed a rimless cartridge, just not a magnum one and one with a smaller, lighter caliber bullet that was more aerodynamic.
Also getting the BL 60 pounder in wider service pre-WW1 would be a big help. They did sort of IOTL, but were forced to use improvised carriage 4.7 inch naval guns from the Boer war in 1914 and beyond due to the lack of 60 pounders.
They needed a rimless cartridge, just not a magnum one and one with a smaller, lighter caliber bullet that was more aerodynamic.
Also getting the BL 60 pounder in wider service pre-WW1 would be a big help. They did sort of IOTL, but were forced to use improvised carriage 4.7 inch naval guns from the Boer war in 1914 and beyond due to the lack of 60 pounders.
Last edited by a moderator:
Deleted member 1487
More reliable magazine feeding and push forward belt feeding in machine guns instead of pull back and out of the belt. This was the British conclusion IOTL:
.276 Enfield - Wikipedia
More reliable magazine feeding and push forward belt feeding in machine guns instead of pull back and out of the belt. This was the British conclusion IOTL:
"The .276 Enfield was also rimless to ensure greater reliability in magazine-fed weapons, a problem with the older .303 British round. ".276 Enfield - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Last sentence is not sourced.
We know well that rimmed cartridges worked just fine in magazine-fed weapons, as well as in belt-fed weapons.
Deleted member 1487
Eventually they were made to work if loaded properly, but at the time they caused problems plus required rather extreme magazine taper and generally speaking why have a rim in a modern rifle?
Besides, why has everyone in the world but the Russians moved to rimless cartridges if it weren't an issue?