Is they any difference between different editions of Clive Law's "Without Warning:"?
It's on my shortlist to pick up but I noticed that there were a few different printings of it over the years. Were there any additions to the later printings?
Printable View
Is they any difference between different editions of Clive Law's "Without Warning:"?
It's on my shortlist to pick up but I noticed that there were a few different printings of it over the years. Were there any additions to the later printings?
I have the 2004 edition. There are many errors, reputedly due to the the manuscript having to be recreated on short notice after a computer crash. However it is the only study of the subject, reflects much research done with primary sources, and is essential reading for the student.
"many errors" ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
Other than several of the photos being miscaptioned, I'm not sure "many errors" is justified?
Perhaps you can point a few out for discussion?
Certainly:
p. 5 photo caption: "...and an Aldis on a SMLE." It is a PPCo.
p. 6 photo caption: "Warner & Swayze...." It is Warner & Swasey; this error is repeated throughout the text also.
p. 8 "In the field snipers were known to have used elastic bands to hold the scope to the rifle". Curious as on the preceding page Fig. 9 is captioned: "...responsible for the need for a rubber band to hold the sight in battery" Not correct, the sight is held "in battery" by the detent plunger and the corresponding slot in the rail. The rubber bands were used to actually slightly 'crank' the top of the sight over toward the bolt handle side of the rifle in an attempt to eliminate the play between the dovetails of the mounting. As anyone who can visualize the dovetails in cross section will realize, merely pulling the scope toward the rail and rifle would not eliminate the slop but actually accentuate it, but that's incidental.
p.8 "...These were usually discarded by removing the six retaining screws. Inexplicably the holes were not covered, thereby defeating the seal..." Four screws not six, and the holes were blind. This is an old canard repeated by numerous authors since Lt. W. H. Tatum first propounded it in the 1960s.
p. 15 "After consulting with Col. Sclator, Officer Commanding [the Canadian Corps] Sniper School..." He was a Major at the time. Capt. N.A.D. Armstrong reputedly became O.C. Canadian Corps School of Sniping in 1916, but there's no sign of him in photos taken there in mid-1916; later in the year perhaps. Maj. Sclator was well over age by then.
p.16 "However, many snipers at the front chose to retain their Ross rifles, most shooting with the W&S sight...." Not from the existing photos: the Winchester A5 predominated and Frank Iriam says the same. Clearly the numbers of scoped rifles were under-reported, no doubt in the hopes of getting more issued!
p. 16 "...from H. E. Parker & Company, of Birmingham." Presumably A. G. Parker.
p.18 "A peculiarity of this sight is that it would sometimes 'stick' - after firing the recoil would throw the sight back again to its fullest extent and it would stick against the lateral screw." The scope is thrown forward by the recoil, as it is designed to do, and is pulled back again by the shooter before the next shot. The sticking in the forward position is the reason, together with shock damping, that similar scopes later had springs fitted to push them back into the firing position instantly. (Something that probably occurred to some snipers at the time, given the rubber bands that were on hand, but that is just conjecture. It would have been easy enough to wire a rubber band onto a scope ring and the scope tube to achieve a similar effect. We read of rapid second shots with the Ross by virtue of the straight pull bolt; that cannot have been with scopes that had to be pulled back by hand. The other advantage of the Ross with A5 or B4 scope was that with the scope pushed forward the rifle could be charger loaded. This doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone at the WO, despite the fixation on offset mounts to avoid obstructing charger loading! :rolleyes:
p. 18 "Other telescopic sights, such as the Periscope Prism Company (PPC) and Aldis sights, were acquired through the British War Office. Both of these sights can be mounted centrally of off-set on both the Ross and the SMLE...." No evidence seen yet of the WO supplying sights for fitting to Rosses, nor any examples extent save the one PPCo. fitting in the CWM collection, which is a remount from an SMLE and may or may not be genuine, as they display also a Ross with a post-WWI Lyman(?) scope, apparently in simulation of the Winchester A5 fitting! And of course PPCo. scopes cannot be mounted centrally on the SMLE or Ross with the mounts supplied.
p. 18 "It can be seen that the decisions to take into service telescopic sights of various makes and models were made with little or no thought given to standardization, maintenance or training." Odd comment as it is well known that it was a case of 'take whatever you can get' in 1914-16, and at least in the Canadian case, the issue was at first entirely standardized, and even included detailed instructions on use! The problem was W&S pretending they had no glass to supply the second 250, and dragging their heels on the first 250, which was undoubtedly deliberate obstruction by individuals at W&S sympathetic to the German cause. (For those who don't believe it, read up on German sabotage and espionage in the USA in WWI)
p. 19 "...East Greenwick" East Greenwich.
p. 19 "In some cases the work was done by Divisional Amourers (sic)." It is stated earlier on that battalions were allowed to purchase and fit their own scopes and Iriam recounts having a scope fitted by a battalion armourer.
That's it for today.
Thanks gents.
Now that I have read it, I did notice that there were quite a few basic editing and syntax errors or omissions and problems with the captions which might tie into the rewritten draft backstory, but it was still very interesting.
I did wish there was more though, 80 odd pages flew by.
Among other things I noticed that he seemed to be mixed up in his P '14s. Besides the misplaced information I wondered specifically if mentioning the No 3 Mk 1* (T) A was relevant. Did Canada receive any of them or even end up using any of them from pooled military stores?
On page 59 there is a photo of a Canadian sergeant slinging a cut down No.4(T) over his shoulder which is oddly identified as one of the experimental SAL sniper rifles with a "sporting" stock and 3.5x sight. It's clear as day what it is, and I can only assume this was a bit of "artistic license" that was expected to pass undetected by the casual reader.
The Canadian Army in England may have received some of the Alex Martin converted P14s, the inventory of sniping rifles in the UK in late 1943 which is reproduced in the book does show some hundreds of those conversions still on issue.
But all in all, a heck of a lot of work and research no doubt went into the book, and it remains THE source on the subject.