Post Boer War British Army Recommendations.

[marathag]

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

1916 autos(discounting the Jefferys 4X4 and such) were hardly more capable than 1903 models, as because there were so few of what people today would call road.
The best surfaced road of 1900 would be considered a midwestern 'Maintenance Level B Dirt Road, enter at your own risk' today.

Model T were surprisingly good at off road movement.
High ground clearance, and lots of suspension travel.
Later I will post a T on an modern articulation ramp scored over 1000, while most 4x4 have a RTI rate of 300-400. That's when one wheel goes up a ramp, how long all four wheels have contact with the ground. Higher score the better.

 

[marathag]

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.

Same long recoil of the Remington Model 8, patents dating to 1900. Remington's shotgun version of the Auto 5 was Model 11.
Power wise, the Model 81, mostly unchanged, was good for the 300.Savage, that was the basis for the 7.62 NATO cartridge.

 

[Sam R.]

>It was a very sharp mango
That it was.
But you are missing the point entirely about reforming the volunteers. We do not conscript men in England and Wales because of the very real risk of chartism. We do not arm and train members of the working class. We do not give our greatest enemy other than papists the capacity to overthrow our institutions of government.

There is a reason we maintain so many cavalry units in England.

BAAAAAAAAA
Melchit (Col.)

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Re the circular firing squad about the rifle caliber rounds.

Stop it, we can discuss whatever we want here.

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.

You don't think that rifle rounds would have bearing on MG design, weight, performance, etc? A 6.5-7mm Mauser with a boat tailed bullet would increase performance of MGs and allow for better designs than the pan fed Lewis Gun. A magazine fed Lewis gun would probably be equal to the Bren in performance and reliability. Plus troops could carry more ammo, not have as much heat build up, have lower recoil rounds, etc. that would all enhance the performance of the infantry.

 

[Schlock]

The problem with adopting the 6.5mm Mauser round isn't quite as clear cut as people seem to think it is.

The British army used cordite as their small arms propellant, which is less energetic and required a larger case, as demonstrated in the experimental 6.5mm RL 16007 trials round, which performance wise was a close approximation of the 6.5x55 Swedish had a 56.9mm long case and the base diameter of 13.2mm to the Mausers 12.2mm.

This was developed into the 7mm RL 16515A using the same 56.9mm case necked out to fire a 150 grain spitzer bullet at 2799 fps, just a hair short of the target 2800 fps that was the requirement for the new service round.

If the British Army had called it a day and decided to go with that round for their new service rifle in 1909, it might have actually reached service prior to the outbreak of the war.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

We know that the British Army wanted a 7mm rimless round after the Boer War. The question should be does Britain spend the money developing a new round or take the simple option of just adopting the 7mm Mauser and use the development money on weapons to shoot it. The biggest priority should I think be developing a more portable Machine Gun for the Infantry and Cavalry than the heavy Maxim Gun. Do they want one gun for both, or separate guns optimised for each branch.

 

[Schlock]

Actually, the initial requirement in 1908 was for a 6.5mm round, but trials with the smaller diameter round fell short of the required muzzle velocity of 2800 fps (the RL 16007 reached 2767 fps with a 150 grain bullet) and by 1909 the requirement had shifted to a 7mm round.

 

[steamboy]

Wasn't the Mauser requirement basically the wrong one though, wanting to get a long range, powerful round because of experiences with the Boers?

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Okay the next thing I would add is more Staff officers capable of performing at a Corps and Army level

If the British wish to deploy a multi Corp Continental army of at least 20 Infantry Divisions + 20 Cavalry Brigades in the opening months of the war then they need to have the ability to create Corp and Army level staffs without robbing units of their senior and experienced officers and learning on the job

So each Regular Division and Each Regular Cavalry Brigade will 'parent' 2 or 3 TA Infantry Divisions or 2 or 3 TA Cavalry Brigades (there would be some overlap required) and once a year each 'Infantry Corps' and 'Cavalry Division' would perform a large 'war game' as real operational 'Friction' cannot be simulated.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

One thing the recent South African War has made clear is that General Officers cannot continue to just "make it up as they go along" the establishment of a General Staff and the drawing up of concrete plans for possible future wars is essential.

 

[AJE]

I still don't get their obsession with flat base bullets for long range use.

Probably mass production difficulties with boat tail bullets (Even in WWII the US modified the .50 BMG's boat tail to make it easier to manufacture), or higher chamber pressures.

The British army used cordite as their small arms propellant, which is less energetic and required a larger case, as demonstrated in the experimental 6.5mm RL 16007 trials round, which performance wise was a close approximation of the 6.5x55 Swedish had a 56.9mm long case and the base diameter of 13.2mm to the Mausers 12.2mm.

Cordite was double-base and as energetic as anything used by the Swedes.

A 6.5-7mm Mauser with a boat tailed bullet would increase performance of MGs and allow for better designs than the pan fed Lewis Gun.

They don't need rimless to build better designs than the Lewis, that can be done just fine with rimmed cartridges.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

They don't need rimless to build better designs than the Lewis, that can be done just fine with rimmed cartridges.

But still the British Army decided DURING the Boer War that they wanted a rimless round rather than the existing rimmed, originally black powder round they were currently using. They were also less than enthused with the performance of the Lee rifles and carbines which largely due to manufacturing issues had shown inadequate accuracy.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Probably mass production difficulties with boat tail bullets (Even in WWII the US modified the .50 BMG's boat tail to make it easier to manufacture), or higher chamber pressures.

Were boat tails that problematic to make?

Cordite was double-base and as energetic as anything used by the Swedes.

Energy wasn't the problem as much as the resulting heat.

They don't need rimless to build better designs than the Lewis, that can be done just fine with rimmed cartridges.

At the time though? Seemed like a more serious engineering challenge that wasn't fully worked out in magazines until the 1920s-30s.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

One thing the recent South African War has made clear is that General Officers cannot continue to just "make it up as they go along" the establishment of a General Staff and the drawing up of concrete plans for possible future wars is essential.

They did IOTL.

 

[BlackDragon98]

7x57mm "Spanish" Mauser seems pretty good.

And develop commandos ASAP. They will benefit you a lot in the near future.

 

[AJE]

Were boat tails that problematic to make?

Depending on the exact shape and the level of mass production desired for the bullet, it could be, particularly earlier on.

 

[Ian_W]

I cant think of anything more irrelevant for the British Army and it's failings between 1902 and 1914 than their rifle cartridge.

Except maybe gentlemen who have read too much HG Wells and want to make up small forces to deal with problems that don't exist.

 

[BlackDragon98]

Fritz Joubert Duquesne.
I wonder how much trouble he caused the UK in the Boer Wars and WW1...

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Fritz Joubert Duquesne.
I wonder how much trouble he caused the UK in the Boer Wars and WW1...

How did they not make a movie about that guy?

 

[Ian_W]

First, we need artillery that is both longer ranged to prevent the disaster at Ladysmith, and something that is lighter and handier than the 15 lb gun that comprises the majority of the Royal Artillery.

Our first artillery recommendation is that the Royal Horse Artillery be expanded to provide one 6 gun battery of quick firing mobile guns to each infantry division, with a gun along the lines of the French 75 or the Vickers QF naval gun. This gun is to provide the RHA attachment to the Cavalry divisions as well.

Our second artillery recommendation is that the Royal Foot Artillery be re-eqipped with the QF 4.7 inch gun already used by the Royal navy, with the existing stock of 15lb guns to go to the Yeomanary, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and Indian Armies.

Our first cavalry recommendation is that two squadrons of Cavalry be assigned to each infantry divison, to enhance their ability to do reconnisance, support lines of supply and scout in general.

Our second cavalry recommendation is that half of the Cavalry squadrons are to retrain as Dragoons ie mounted infantry who move by horse and fight by foot, and are to be equipped with the same weapons as the Infantry. Cavalry squadrons that remain Cavalry are to use the same carbines, sabres and so on as they do at present.

Our first Infantry recommendation is that marksmanship training be emphasised, with one day per month being allocated to practice of rapid and accurate shooting. Officers should ensure that the various regiments compete against each other in marksmanship, marching, boxing and sporting events, to ensure regimental pride. Divisions should compete against each other in similar manner.

Our second Infantry recommendation is that Divisional scale maneuvers be done at least once in every seven years, so officers get experience in handling bodies of men beyond a single peacetime regiment.

Our final recommendations is that officers spend one month per year at the Imperial War College, with particular emphasis on working together with the Engineers, Artillery and Cavalry. Every officer must understand what each arm can and cannot do, and ideally should have spent time on secondment to another arm.