Post Boer War British Army Recommendations.

[Cryhavoc101]

Haldane reforms of OTL are a good start

The reforms between 1906 and 1912 pretty much streamlined the somewhat confusing collection of Regular, Volunteers/Yeomanry and the militia into a Regular force that could rapidly be deployed as a small continental force of 6 Infantry Divisions, 1 heavy '4 Brigade' Cavalry Division and 2 mounted Recce Brigades and then the Volunteers/Yeomanry reorganized into a TA force of 14 Infantry Divisions and 14 Cavalry Brigades.

Funding must be allocated to allow those TA formations to have as full a scale of equipment as possible and as far as possible to match the Equipment used by the Regulars

To this I would add a compulsory reserve - all able bodied men between 20-22 who are not already in the armed forces or in a reserved occupation must attend a 2 week camp each year for some 'proper soldiering' and rifle training, a weekly parade night and 1 Saturday a month for more technical training with the reserve units parent regional TA Division / Brigade.

I do not think that the UK population would react well to conscription so think of this as conscription 'lite' and probably will not be extended to Ireland.

Haldane actually saved millions with the reforms - so plough these savings back into the system to provide more modern equipment.

As for the bullet - I suggest a 7.7×56mmR using the 10 round Lee magazine system in a common use short pattern rifle (adapted using the P13 Backsight)

Rim lock will get you killed like

 

[Deleted member 1487]

As for the bullet - I suggest a 7.7×56mmR using the 10 round Lee magazine system in a common use short pattern rifle (adapted using the P13 Backsight)

Rim lock will get you killed like

Why fight for rimmed rounds? The Brits wanted to get rid of them IOTL apparently for a reason, same with everyone else but the Russians.

 

[tomo pauk]

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?

.303 worked properly, so did the Russian round.
If the British army is supposed to to move to rim-less cartridge just so a new cartridge is without a rim, that's a waste of taxpayer's/Goverment's money. "If only our cartridge is rimless" said no British/CW soldiers (not my sentence, but I agree with it).

Besides, why has everyone in the world but the Russians moved to rimless cartridges if it weren't an issue?

This has a bearing on this thread?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

.303 worked properly, so did the Russian round.
If the British army is supposed to to move to rim-less cartridge just so a new cartridge is without a rim, that's a waste of taxpayer's/Goverment's money. "If only our cartridge is rimless" said no British/CW soldiers (not my sentence, but I agree with it).

It could be made to work, but every military wanted to get rid of it for some reason. The Russians kept theirs because of cost and failure to get into service the planned replacement before the USSR fell.

No one is advocating for the same cartridge but just rimless. I said 6.5mm Mauser, which was already a developed round they could get into service quickly, though it would help if they developed a boat tailed bullet like the Swedes. Well that or the FABRL bullet (in 6.5mm, not 5.56 as in the picture), which I think would be beyond the ballistic understanding of the day:

In 6.5mm Mauser that would have been a ballistic dream.

Plus IOTL the Brits were about to adopt the 8mm Mauser pre- and post-WW2 but certain things got in the way. They also were going adopt their own 7mm design pre-WW1 if not for the war getting in the way and then the 7mm Pedersen if not for the Great Depression getting in the way (same for the US).

This has a bearing on this thread?

Yes, because it indicates that there is a reason it happened. Otherwise everyone would still use rimmed cartridges.

 

[yulzari]

Yes, because it indicates that there is a reason it happened. Otherwise everyone would still use rimmed cartridges.

The Russians still use rimmed. However the OTL experience suggests that the existing .303 and Short Magazine Lee Enfield was a practical choice. Not the best in most individual ways, but a very sound compromise. Although a simplification, lightening and production engineering job would do no harm for mass production in a continental war. Doubtless someone will say some quasi modern assault rifle thingie should be chosen but Britain still needed rifles that can engage over open ground at long ranges, e.g. the NW Frontier, SA veldt etc with the same rifle across the Empire. The Lee was a Rolls Royce in being a triumph of development over design. It was adequate in all necessary areas and weak in none of those necessary things.

 

[tomo pauk]

I could be made to work, but every military wanted to get rid of it for some reason. The Russians kept theirs because of cost and failure to get into service the planned replacement before the USSR fell.

It is not 'could be made to work', but 'it worked'.

No one is advocating for the same cartridge but just rimless. I said 6.5mm Mauser, which was already a developed round they could get into service quickly, though it would help if they developed a boat tailed bullet like the Swedes. Well that or the FABRL bullet (in 6.5mm, not 5.56 as in the picture), which I think would be beyond the ballistic understanding of the day:
In 6.5mm Mauser that would have been a ballistic dream.

I agree that 6.5mm Mauser would've been a very good idea, if it was outfitted with the 'spitzer' bullet, that it didn't have until 1940s?

Plus IOTL the Brits were about to adopt the 8mm Mauser pre- and post-WW2 but certain things got in the way. They also were going adopt their own 7mm design pre-WW1 if not for the war getting in the way and then the 7mm Pedersen if not for the Great Depression getting in the way (same for the US).

8mm Mauser does not buy anything to the British Army, apart from having to find the money to make a switch from a working round. 7mm can offer better ballistics and lower recoil than the bigger full-power cartridge, plus more can be carried for same weight - that's what mattered, not presence or absence of a rim.

Yes, because it indicates that there is a reason it happened. Otherwise everyone would still use rimmed cartridges.

There is probably a reason. In early 1900s, the same reasons might not be there. British army would've bennefitted far more with adoption of semi-automatic rifle in ~1910 in .303, than with adoption of a rimless full power cartridge.

 

[Canuck Wingnut]

For logistics, clearly the way forward is the Fowler Armoured Road Train. Steam-powered armoured road trains are the future!

More seriously, I think that with the number of different armored cars proposed any reform effort should at least consider whether there's a technological breakthrough to be had there; although it's unlikely that anyone without benefit of hindsight could develop the vehicles needed to actually create one from first principles without benefit of combat experience in 1902.
(If they're really clever, they could make development of armored car tactics somebody's responsibility, and slowly develop improved designs until a war breaks out or appears near, then mass produce or better yet mass convert civilian vehicles to the role.)

 

[Deleted member 1487]

It is not 'could be made to work', but 'it worked'.

Yes, but not as well as rimless cartridges.

I agree that 6.5mm Mauser would've been a very good idea, if it was outfitted with the 'spitzer' bullet, that it didn't have until 1940s?

The Brits developed one IOTL:

British Military Small Arms Ammo - .256 & .276 inch Ball

One of the many lessons learned during the Second Boer War in South Africa was that the .303 inch cartridge was lacking in terms of velocity and accuracy compared to the 7x57mm Mauser round used by some of hte Boers. The .303 inch Short Magazine Lee Enfield had been adopted in 1903 but was not

sites.google.com

8mm Mauser does not buy anything to the British Army, apart from having to find the money to make a switch from a working round. 7mm can offer better ballistics and lower recoil than the bigger full-power cartridge, plus more can be carried for same weight - that's what mattered, not presence or absence of a rim.

Why did they adopt it IOTL?

Besa machine gun - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

SLEM-1 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That said I'm all for the 6.5-7mm Mauser cartridge instead. The rimless part of it was a bonus.

There is probably a reason. In early 1900s, the same reasons might not be there. British army would've bennefitted far more with adoption of semi-automatic rifle in ~1910 in .303, than with adoption of a rimless full power cartridge.

Yet one of the design goals of the .303 replacement was a rimless cartridge, which is mentioned repeatedly in the 1913 Enfield rifle article:

Pattern 1913 Enfield - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

RIA: Pattern 1913 Enfield Trials Rifle

www.forgottenweapons.com

In fact they even developed a rimless .303:

British Military Small Arms Ammo - .303 inch Rimless

There were a number of different .303 inch rimless cartridges designed in the period 1917 to 1938 which were all strictly experimental in nature and will be described in the section on experimental ammunition. One however was made in considerable quantity and so is described here. In 1918 there

sites.google.com

 

[yulzari]

I do note that Britain fought in several campaigns and two world wars without grossly suffering from rimlock. The Russians also fought in two world wars without suffering from rimlock either. The French had no problems with rimlock through WW1 and changed to the 7.5mm to get away from the Lebel grossly tapered case. The rimless choice was incidental. I am sure that careless folk at assorted times and assorted places did occasionally get a rimlock but it was not either usually disastrous nor impacted upon the army's performances.

Rimmed cartridges made some sense when first chosen and you would not choose them a bit later on but, except for the British Empire, Russian Empire/Soviet Union/Russian Federation and the French Empire and two world wars, what could possibly suggest that rimmed rounds could be made to work at all?

Really the .303" worked fine and could meet all needs even if there were better choices. Ammunition design was not an issue worth worrying about. Nor the rifle. There were far more important and urgent things to be worked upon.

 

[tomo pauk]

Yes, but not as well as rimless cartridges.

Rimmed cartridges worked 100%. That rimless cartridges will work 110% is a moot point.

The Brits developed one IOTL:

British Military Small Arms Ammo - .256 & .276 inch Ball

One of the many lessons learned during the Second Boer War in South Africa was that the .303 inch cartridge was lacking in terms of velocity and accuracy compared to the 7x57mm Mauser round used by some of hte Boers. The .303 inch Short Magazine Lee Enfield had been adopted in 1903 but was not

sites.google.com

Too bad they didnt adopted that.

Why did they adopt it IOTL?

Besa machine gun - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

SLEM-1 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That's easy.
Besa - 'doh, we don't want (or we can't have?) .303 Brownings RAF is buying, we didn't developed the Vickers MG with heavy barrel, and war is coming'
SLEM-1: not adopted.

Yet one of the design goals of the .303 replacement was a rimless cartridge, which is mentioned repeatedly in the 1913 Enfield rifle article:

Pattern 1913 Enfield - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

RIA: Pattern 1913 Enfield Trials Rifle

www.forgottenweapons.com

In what article was said that .303 was bad 'cause it had a rim?

In fact they even developed a rimless .303:

British Military Small Arms Ammo - .303 inch Rimless

There were a number of different .303 inch rimless cartridges designed in the period 1917 to 1938 which were all strictly experimental in nature and will be described in the section on experimental ammunition. One however was made in considerable quantity and so is described here. In 1918 there

sites.google.com

Thanks.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Why fight for rimmed rounds? The Brits wanted to get rid of them IOTL apparently for a reason, same with everyone else but the Russians.

Until it can be replaced with a better round it (.303) will serve

The .276 Enfield round was not mature in 1913 and was unlikely to be until chemistry improvements could provide superior propellant (OTL mid 30s)

Also in trials it was found to give much higher felt recoil than .303 and the muzzle flash could be seen from space

It was also found to create a great deal of fouling compared to .303 to a level that impacted performance.

The rifle however was great - the P14 and the later M1917 'Enfield' which would arm most of the dough boys in the AEF - are probably 2 of the best Bolt action Battle rifles ever made.

 

[steamboy]

Lets not get caught up in the minutea of what round is better, this is a common subject here so lets try and stick away from that one as it becomes a Star *insert your favorite Sci-fishow/film series here* is better than Star *insert the other one here* argument.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Until it can be replaced with a better round it (.303) will serve

The .276 Enfield round was not mature in 1913 and was unlikely to be until chemistry improvements could provide superior propellant (OTL mid 30s)

Also in trials it was found to give much higher felt recoil than .303 and the muzzle flash could be seen from space

It was also found to create a great deal of fouling compared to .303 to a level that impacted performance.

The rifle however was great - the P14 and the later M1917 'Enfield' which would arm most of the dough boys in the AEF - are probably 2 of the best Bolt action Battle rifles ever made.

I didn't say I suggested the .276 Enfield. I said 6.5-7mm Mauser with a better bullet design. That was a mature design before the .276 Enfield even started development. Why reinvent the wheel, but worse?

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I didn't say I suggested the .276 Enfield. I said 6.5-7mm Mauser with a better bullet design. That was a mature design before the .276 Enfield even started development. Why reinvent the wheel, but worse?

....well.....why didn't you say so then......

Moving swiftly on....

I still maintain that the 'issues with being out shot' by the Boars was not .303 verse Mauser as the Boers were armed with an eclectic smorgasbord of rifles and calibers (and this included Imperial weapons in .303) and were generally very good shots but instead the real issue was the European style field tactics being used in an insurgency style war.

Said tactics might work well against the Whirling Dervishes armed with half a sharpened coconut off their tits on drugs running at you (or other European field armies using the same tactics) but not against determined skirmishers shooting from cover.

The SMLE in .303 was a mature weapon system and introducing a new weapons system in 6.5-7mm Mauser (assuming a similar period of development) is going to give Ross Rifle like issues that would take time to resolve.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Lets not get caught up in the minutea of what round is better, this is a common subject here so lets try and stick away from that one as it becomes a Star *insert your favorite Sci-fishow/film series here* is better than Star *insert the other one here* argument.

Just so that you all know that show is 'The Expanse'

Okay Ill leave it.....

 

[Deleted member 1487]

....well.....why didn't you say so then......

I did:

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 maintain that the 'issues with being out shot' by the Boars was not .303 verse Mauser as the Boers were armed with an eclectic smorgasbord of rifles and calibers (and this included Imperial weapons in .303) and were generally very good shots but instead the real issue was the European style field tactics being used in an insurgency style war.

Said tactics might work well against the Whirling Dervishes armed with half a sharpened coconut off their tits on drugs running at you (or other European field armies using the same tactics) but not against determined skirmishers shooting from cover.

Agreed.

The SMLE in .303 was a mature weapon system and introducing a new weapons system in 6.5-7mm Mauser (assuming a similar period of development) is going to give Ross Rifle like issues that would take time to resolve.

Sure, but by adopting an already mature cartridge any adaptation with the Ross will be much quicker and ready pre-WW1.

 

[steamboy]

Re the circular firing squad about the rifle caliber rounds.

There's bigger things to discuss than endlessly going round in circles about rifle rounds. What about machine guns? How about training? What about X Y Z.

 

[mudhead]

Make sure that you have miltary observers with Japanese in 1904/05.

They did, but it was mostly at sea, which is where the UK's strength was.

There were 13 British & Empire observers with the Japanese forces, and three with the Russian army, one with the navy. My source for this: Richard Connaughton's Rising Sun And Tumbling Bear (2003 pb rev ed of 1988 original), p69-70. More than anyone else.

Ian Hamilton, MA in Tokyo, accompanied the Japanese army in Manchuria.

Connaughton quotes (p 348) Philip Towle:

The British armed forces tried harder to learn from the Russo-Japanese War than from any other foreign war before or since, as the number of officers sent as observers and the number of official histories clearly demonstrated. But each observer tended to draw lessons which reinforced his own belief and the interests of his regiment or corps.

This is presumably from Towle's 2006 book From Ally to Enemy: Anglo-Japanese Military Relations 1900-1945, though there are no footnotes, and the work itself doesn't appear in the bibliography.

Edit: No, a 2003 edition wouldn't have anything from a 2006 book. obviously an uncredited article/monograph.

Brig James Jardine, commanding the 97th Brigade (32nd Div), had been an observer with the First IJA; pre-Somme, he told Rawly he wanted his men to be within 30-40 yards of the barrage - "that's what the Japanese did". The 17th HLI utilised this tactic on 1 July, and successfully got into the Leipzig Salient. (P 350-51)

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Don't forget this is also a time of very rapid advances in technology, and the committee would probably be in place for a number of years. A conclusion about mechanical transport that's perfectly valid in 1903 will be looking decidedly shaky in 1910. The same is true of communications, in 1903 the best they can possibly do is field telephones and heliographs, in 1910 the new wireless has to be considered, at least for fixed locations.

 

[Riain]

To the Haldane reforms I'd add that when formed into divisions the machine guns be taken from the battalions and formed into MG brigades like IOTL 1915. Further, the BEF had 2 higher HQs available to command operations at higher than divisional level but no Corps or Army level command. I would create an Army command with the cavalry division and 6" howitzers and 2 or 3 Corps and remove the 60pdr guns from the division and allocate them to the Corps, perhaps with a 6" battery as well.