No4MK1 T

Apparently the "T" series rifle Longbranch made...a lot less have seen action in WW2 than the British produced "T" even though the Brits produced a lot more than their Canadian counterparts. That being said I wonder how many British T's are still kicking around. If you watch footage of the German U boats decimating the merchant shipping vessels in the Atlantic (as I did yesterday) one would assume there must be more than a few at the bottom of the Atlantic. It must have been a treasure trove in it's day!!!!! Between combat losses and shipping losses it would be interesting to see how many Brit "T"'s remain as opposed to the Longbranch ones. Your thoughts or "facts" would be appreciated. regards.

The British No. 4 Mk.I (T) and No. 4 Mk.I* (T) (including those made from U.S. Stevens-Savage No. 4 Mk.I and No.4 Mk.I* rifles) were converted in England. These did not have to travel across the Atlantic, although some may well have been lost in the Med or enroute to the Far East. The Long Branch snipers were converted in Canada and most of these were sent to the UK. They were mostly made in 1944-1945 and by then the tide had turned in the Battle of the Atlantic. Some may well have been lost in transit. My thought is that not a huge number were lost in transit on the oceans.

As for numbers of survivors, the Internet is enabling owners to share serial numbers of rifles and scopes. It seems like every few days I am adding one or more No. 4 T rifles and/or scopes to my database which has hundreds of survivors listed.

I should add that a fair number of sniper rifles were converted after the shooting had stopped in 1945 with some contracts wrapping up in 1946.

In the current huge pile of records I am working through, it appears that the sniper rifles from Canada were shipped "via bomber" and not "on the water" as most common material.
Found that revelation most interesting.

I find that quite incredible Warren especially as the person from H&H who was sent to Canada to expedite said production from a peacemeal, leisurely 'as-you-go' slow plodding process to a proper production line basis went by sea on a returning troopship!

Rather set me back also, but I also believe that the discomfort of an unheated bomber would not be a good way to travel for any personnel.
Sitting in a Deacon flying suit for 15 hours in an unheated bomber over the Greenland route is not my way of travel.
We are talking the 1940's with bombers here and not the 50's and upwards in commercial airliners or later cargo planes.
Perhaps you can check and confirm on it at your end as you have the files as well at Warminister, or are you still volunteering there????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warren

it appears that the sniper rifles from Canada were shipped "via bomber" and not "on the water" as most common material.

---

This would make sense. The B-17 bombers could carry a big payload, but the bombs themselves would travel overseas on an Ammunition Ship especially designed for carrying bombs (I served on the ammunition ship AE-31 -- Chara as a midshipman -- loaded to the gunwales with bombs of every sort).

Many of the B-17s were shuttled across the Atlantic by women pilots who flew Flying Fortresses during the Second World War as "ferry pilots."

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...3/wasp01-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...3/wasp04-1.jpg
Nancy Love at the controls of a B-17 Flying Fortress. She was an American pilot and commander of a squadron that would later become the Women Airforce Service Pilots

The pic of the Queen Bee is interesting as I find that no blast shield next to the muzzle of the 50 cal most unusual when you consider in the Pacific the B-25 Mitchell when armed to the teeth with an armorer's improvement with side mounted on the fuselage 50's they incorporated blast shields. The footage I have seen on gun tests proved that the whole skin flexed under the firing of the HMG's and the fix was another panel of aluminum to stiffen the affected area, here it is just it is right next to a perspex panel and there would be times I am sure it would fire on that line...what say others.

We didn't have that info at Warminster Warren. As a matter of interest, I wasn't a volunteer at the Small Arms School. I was the Technical Officer there, employed there, by the UK MoD. Not quite the same thing I think that you'll agree..........

What I'm saying about the transport of rifles to the UK is that to my way of thinking - going back to the bleedin obvious - then if something is urgent enough to warrant sending by air cargo then you'd think that it'd be better to send the new overseer by air cargo. But no, just a returning troopship and in secret! And in the great scheme of things, I'd argue that a plane loaded with Bren Guns would have been 1000 times more useful that a plane full of rifles

I get the impression from the nose markings that the B-17 "Queen Bee" was a designated training/ qualifying aircraft for WAFS pilots and crews. I doubt such marking would be put on aircraft to be delivered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

I find that quite incredible Warren especially as the person from H&H who was sent to Canada to expedite said production from a peacemeal, leisurely 'as-you-go' slow plodding process to a proper production line basis went by sea on a returning troopship!

---

Lovely story; it seems to grow with the telling. Are there some records to back it up? He doesn't seem to have made much impact on the closeness of the fitting on the front pads, from what we've seen on this forum.

Regardless, production priority at SAL and REL was of course decided by the UK contracts underway and the priorities given them in the UK.

Where Long Branch stood in 1941, there was a field the year before. Mr. Jolley had done an apprenticeship at Enfield; maybe there were a few others as well? Otherwise it was about 5000 untrained women, and the quality of their work needs no defence from me. They did have higher priorities than 1500 sniper rifles I suspect, as did REL.

We all know why there was such a shortage of kit in 1940/41. But if any brains had been in evidence in 1919, they would have actually put away those 1000+ Aldis No3 & 4 scopes, instead of just talking about it and then selling them off to the gun trade.

Nothing much happened for 15 years, although plenty happened in places like Germany and Russia, but after Munich instead of the S.A.C. talking out of one side of their mouths to Col. Acland while pursuing the pie-in-the-sky Ainley rifle, they could have designed a proper scope and mount in 1936-39. It's not like there weren't enough German ones around to copy, optically at least. Col. Acland even offered to order one from Zeiss, who built what he asked for in weeks while Ross and Barr & Stroud said "something might be done in a couple of years"!

The Ainley was quite a rifle, but of course there was not a snow ball's chance in hell of it ever going into production or service, so quite why they were wasting time & money on it I've never understood; someone's pet project presumably. Beside that, what point was there was in building the ultimate magnum sniper rifle, for a cartridge they hadn't worked out in 1914 and then sticking an utterly obsolete Pattern 18 scope on top of it? :rolleyes: But I digress...

As for REL, no doubt the Admiralty Fire Control Predictors they reportedly started out on were a slightly higher priority than No32 scopes: convoys, the Navy, U-boats, 1941-43 and all that.

Still, anyone can see the quality of work and the range of products produced there, again starting with nothing but some help from Chance Bros. and whoever could be found on this side of the pond.

But if they really were filing their nails and doing their hair when the knight in shining armour arrived from H&H, well, let's hear the story by all means!:D

A bit round the houses Rob but are you seriously disputing that an overseer was sent from H&H to get LB sniper production onto a full production line basis? And how does it grow with the telling? It is a H&H fact. I don't recall any mention of nail filing or hairdressing either.

And let's stick to the main protagonists too. Ainley, Jolly, Aldis, Ackland, Zeiss, Chanmce Bros are simply red herrings. H&H became the masters that got No4T conversion down to a fine art/production line basis and it was they who were selected to do the same at LB -. It's nothing to do with making rifles or hairdressing. It's procution lining and upping output.

No, I guess he came alright, but I'm definitely disputing any suggestion that they were engaged in some sort of lackadaisical, go-slow type scenario. They were busy as ----- and they had their thinking caps on the whole time, that is obvious from the products and refinements of products they came up with.

So what this bloke got up to, I don't know; can you tell us how long he was over here, what he actually did and where, and whether there is any record of the same other than his own statements?

Is there anything to show a sudden increase in production? Was there some technical issue he solved? Was quality somehow improved?

I'm not sure the London gunmakers were so clever when it came to telescopic sights anyway; they generally avoided them,and as I've pointed out in the past, Purdey's for example got the recoil forces backwards when they designed their Aldis mounts in WWI! The whole subject was almost entirely neglected between the wars, but for the Ainley rifle, which along with all the flaws mentioned previously was a bad idea tactically, since to have a readily identifiable report peculiar to a sniper's rifle is a fine way of shortening the lives of your snipers.

It's pretty clear they weren't short of brain power at Long Branch and fitting pads to a No4 action is not a terribly taxing task. I dare say if they felt in need of some guidance there were any number of qualified people on this side who could help - Griffin & Howe for a start.

We all know the No32 scope was designed for the Bren and it and it's bracket were massively heavy, presumably to take the shock of automatic fire. Sticking it on the No4 rifle was an expedient "it'll do, use what's on the shelf" maneuver of the kind we know so well.

The pads were not up to the forces imposed by the overly-heavy scope and mount, and fitting them was much more labour intensive than it needed to be. The rear pad has no positive resistance to recoil forces except friction and almost all the load is on that little front spigot, hence the shearing off of same and loosening of the pads you have told us about in the past. A design with two large spigots and matching recesses would have been far better from that point of view.

The whole setup is now hallowed by time and history, but that doesn't obviate the design flaws.

SAL considered the No32 a poor design and got busy producing something better, the C67, same as they did with the Telescope, Observing, Snipers, the Stand, Instrument, C-No.47 to replace those mid-Victorian Telescopes, GS, Signallers, Scout, Regiment and those little wooden tripods etc.. etc. Not to mention the Monte Carlo stocks, 5x scope etc. etc.

Either they learned an awful lot awfully quickly or they didn't need much help fitting a No32 to a No.4!

That none of those improvements were adopted, and indeed that various shabby little dodges were resorted to to avoid adopting any of them, I'm afraid just goes to show that while copying Czech light machine guns or Supermarine copying the He70 was all very well, adopting "colonial" technology was apparently too much of a pill to swallow.

The Thompson was a gangsters gun ( Churchill) but the STEN production was incredible when adopted. The Owen made the grade with the Aussies not the Sten or Austen which both came in behind the Thompson in the choice line up. The COLONIAL COMMENT IS VERY TRUE.

Yep and Herr Hitl*r copied the T-34 in the guise of the Panther and wasn't that a plagued machine to start with much like the Tiger, pity the brittish did not take on the development earlier of a good snipers rifle like the Germans even though the K-98 only held 5 rounds they as a sniper platform pretty darn good. (And before you beat me up I still think the Lee Enfied is a battle winner but Teutonic thoroughness you got to admire their workmanship)
Allot of what happened as discussed before was a knee jerk after Dunkirk and the sheer loss of equipment and men that Britain could ill afford and all I can say is thank god Hitl*r fought a war against Russia.

I am with you Bindi the Owen at close range and full of mud still worked a treat in the jungles I did see the WW footage of Ron Owen dunking the weapon full mag and all into a mud filled hole sloshing it about then firing of a complete mag with no stoppages that's Aussie inventivness

According to Sid Harvey, and of my memory speaking to him, he was suddenly shipped off secretly mid war, so presumably late 42/earlly 43 I'm guessing. The workforce only knew he had gone to |Canada to after his close friends at work were informed by his family. I would imagine that the managers knew but kept it secret. He came back at the end of the war and it was he that told that his job was to get output up and streamlined as they had done/were doing at H&H. Can't be any more accurate than that date wise but continued at H&H until he retired in 1955. Sid Harvey is/was the last of the wartime employers left and has since died.

So we'll agree to differ. I say that he did exactly what he said he did and you say that he was there for some other reason, such as a holiday for good war work....

I appreciate that most of the stuff we make and send our troops to war with is crap and inferior to anything else made elsewhere, including the Owen et-al (Bindi/Cinders, I used both Sten and Owen - and the Sterling). But it's always worth reiterating to those who ain't been there or been in the system, that you go to war with what you've got, not what you want. What you NEED comes later.

But guess what..... The last Sten guns left service slightly AFTER the Owen guns (1968-9 Owen and 1972 Sten) and the really crap, utterly useless No32 scope's in 1988. As for the Tele Scxt Reg, they were still in FRONT LINE SERVICE in 2000. Now what does that say?

And after all the slagging off............, crap kit, better stuff from the colonies, yep.........., worth remembering that while it took a LONG time and a LOT of help, we prevailed with what we had. And we didn't finish paying off our debt until 1998 or so

That is as diplomatic as I can be. If anyone wants to read my first, not so carefully worded reply can PM me

Nice piece here on the aircraft and its long journey to the UK via Iceland:

B-17 41-24386 QUEEN BEE-17

My dad who was British and left England by himself at age 16 to come to Australia in 1929 dad ended up doing 4 years on a paid holiday from '41 - Nov '45 through NG and a few other interesting islands very rarely did he say anything at all about the service he had with the RAAF as an LAC Engine fitter. (Only once about the Jap's bombing the airfields)
I once plucked up the courage to ask him about soldiers as I was considering joining the ADF (Ended up driving cranes for 26 years go figure?) anyway on this occasion he engaged me and we talked a little on them and he maintained that the British "Tommy" was one of the most dogged soldiers who just stuck at it.
I was not there and cannot comment on what Britain went through and I know President Roosevelt drove a very hard bargain on the lend lease issue, but from my dads view it must have made him feel pretty damn sad to see his country punished so, we in Australia though it was a near thing just managed to squeak out and stop a nasty invasion with a determined effort of our Militia, AIF, USA and the Fuzzies.

War expedients dictate that sometimes bugs crop up but in all fairness the Brits did a good job with what they had which was not much, bit like the U S troops on Corregidor nope they did a good job which saw us through a most difficult time, now I must have a look on used guns.............Enfield addiction!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gil Boyd

Nice piece here on the aircraft and its long journey to the UK via Iceland:

B-17 41-24386 QUEEN BEE-17

---

Great Story Gil of how the Queen Bee became a "killer bee" over the Straits of Messina. That is a wonderful story too of courage and commitment in the face of horrible odds so much in the vein of the Old 666 and Heroic Tale of a Tail Gunner that are running on MilSurps threads right now. I personally enjoy these stories as the human side of the armament stories -- it adds the "character" dimension to the "mechanical" dimension of weapons restoration.

In the Queen Bee link, it makes mention of the fact that the German projectile's fuze was set just a fraction off in timing, otherwise the plane would have been eradicated. Several years ago I wrote a case study on British-American cooperation to invent the Proximity Fuze, which completely changed the hit-ratios of ground & sea artillery on German and Japanese aircraft (and V-1 rockets). If anyone is interested in this remarkable story, you can access it at: Dropbox - Proximity Fuse Case Study.pdf

The Proximity Fuze was credited with shortening the duration of the war by 1 year. In reality, it was not just the Proximity Fuze alone, but the very sophisticated development of Radar and Analog (gear driven) Computers, then the integration of these three technologies into a deadly offensive and defensive weapons system that made a massive impact on turning the tide of battle in WWII. In virtually every analysis of the war, this trio is never mentioned.

Sid Harvey and others like him must have had their work cut out for them nevertheless. The pressure was on to deliver, and deliver they did consistantly, as we all know from those who hold a rifle that passed threw their magical hands.
Yes it may have been repetitive, but thats exactly when the professional engineer comes out in those blessed with this art.
Thank God we had them delivering such fine examples through H&H to the those trained in the art of using them, and I am sure helped to shorten the war in its small way!!

Bob,
Good piece there on the fuze. Must have taken a while to piece both sides capabilities in WW2 together to reach the findings?

Not forgetting the tale of the Explosive 20mm Rounds found in a B-17 fuel tanks the reason they did not go off was there was a note inside of them saying "This is all we can do for now they should not have used Jewish labour ?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

According to Sid Harvey, and of my memory speaking to him, he was suddenly shipped off secretly mid war, so presumably late 42/earlly 43 I'm guessing. The workforce only knew he had gone to |Canada to after his close friends at work were informed by his family. I would imagine that the managers knew but kept it secret. He came back at the end of the war and it was he that told that his job was to get output up and streamlined as they had done/were doing at H&H. Can't be any more accurate than that date wise but continued at H&H until he retired in 1955. Sid Harvey is/was the last of the wartime employers left and has since died.

So we'll agree to differ. I say that he did exactly what he said he did and you say that he was there for some other reason, such as a holiday for good war work....

I appreciate that most of the stuff we make and send our troops to war with is crap and inferior to anything else made elsewhere, including the Owen et-al (Bindi/Cinders, I used both Sten and Owen - and the Sterling). But it's always worth reiterating to those who ain't been there or been in the system, that you go to war with what you've got, not what you want. What you NEED comes later.

But guess what..... The last Sten guns left service slightly AFTER the Owen guns (1968-9 Owen and 1972 Sten) and the really crap, utterly useless No32 scope's in 1988. As for the Tele Scxt Reg, they were still in FRONT LINE SERVICE in 2000. Now what does that say?

And after all the slagging off............, crap kit, better stuff from the colonies, yep.........., worth remembering that while it took a LONG time and a LOT of help, we prevailed with what we had. And we didn't finish paying off our debt until 1998 or so

That is as diplomatic as I can be. If anyone wants to read my first, not so carefully worded reply can PM me

---

I didn't say that Peter, but there's no justification for slagging SAL or REL that I'm aware of. This fellow may have said it was all a disaster until he got there; people are inclined say things like that, especially 40 years later when there's no one to gainsay them. Sometimes they even exaggerate a tad I've heard. I think you and I even know of a case where a lovely story was made up to fit an artifact.;)

Without some more details, or corroboration, and seeing what SAL/REL did produce without any outside help, it doesn't quite ring true does it?

I daresay British snipers would have liked to have had a monte carlo buttstock with a recoil pad on their rifles, or a 5 power scope that weighed a pound or so less than a 32. They were certainly enthusiastic about them in 1944. Or even a proper observing scope that wasn't three feet long and didn't fog up in the rain, but they didn't get them, even though the trials results were pretty clear. Not then and not 30 or 40 years later either.

It's not some chap's story, it's all documented in "Without Warning".

I rewrote my post a few times too; it's awfully boring if everyone agrees all the time!:lol:

And here's the rest of the story:

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread....ion#post362178