SMLE Wire Breaker Drawings

[Peter Laidler]

According to the Ord Board reports, the CUTTER type were worse than useless and only operated if the wire was very tight - which, by definition, barbed wire entanglement wasn't! It was always laid loose and pulled out, as a roll. Mind you, the bullet type weren't a whole lot better against barbed wire entanglements. Not unless you had a LOT of bullets to cut a LOT of wire

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Alan de Enfield]

According to the Ord Board reports, the CUTTER type were worse than useless and only operated if the wire was very tight - which, by definition, barbed wire entanglement wasn't! It was always laid loose and pulled out, as a roll. Mind you, the bullet type weren't a whole lot better against barbed wire entanglements. Not unless you had a LOT of bullets to cut a LOT of wire

I've read that the cutter-types' main problem was that they were designed to work on the British barbed wire, but the German wire was of a thicker strand size, & was hardened
Basically the cutters had no chance of working against the German wire - but would have been useful for any German 'pick ups' when attacking the British lines.

The main manufacturer was 'Pugh' but great numbers were never produced :

C.H.Pugh Ltd, Whitworth Works, Tilton Road, Birmingham
Teleg: Accuracy, Birmingham.
Tel: Victoria 161

Rifle SMLE Mark.III, Cutters, Wire: 5,500 ordered under contract 94/C/1667 dated 11 May 1916 - Completed
Rifle SMLE Mark.III, Cutters, Wire: 39,300 ordered under contract 94/C/1667 dated 11 May 1916 - Completed
Cutters, Wire, S.A.No.1 Mark I: 60,000 ordered under contract 94/C/2849 dated 28 August 1916 - Completed
Cutters, Wire, S.A.No.1 Mark II: 50,000 ordered under contract 94/C/4625 dated 7 March 1917 - ongoing
Breakers, Wire, S.A.No.1 Mark I: 15,000 ordered under contract 94/B/2997 dated 21 October 1917 - Completed
Breakers, Wire, S.A.No.1 Mark I: Continuation ordered under contract 94/B/3486 dated 4 December 1916 - 2,000 per week.


Cutters, Wire, S.A., No.1 Mark I fitted the SMLE and P.'14 rifles,

Cutters, Wire, S.A., No.2 Mark I fitted the Ross Mark III

Cutters, Wire, S.A., No.3 Mark I fitted the Ross Mark IIIB (the British contract model)



Cutters, Wire, S.A., No.1 Mark II fitted the SMLE,

Cutters, Wire, S.A., No.4 Mark I fitted the Pattern '14,

These (No1 MkII & No4 Mk1) were introduced in LoC Para. 18,516 dated January 1917 and differed from the previous patterns in that they pointed forward, had longer horns and were operated by pushing forward against the wire. There was no corresponding pattern for the Ross as it had been withdrawn from front line service by then.

[Flying10uk]

I seem to recall seeing that other nations tried something similar?

[Melanie_Daniels]

France:
https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/...bayonet-m1886/

Copies are awayable around 60 $ in France and UK.

[Melanie_Daniels]

And I forgot Russia:
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthoped...wwi-1915748826

And they made in WW2 another for the SMG PPsh.

[Melanie_Daniels]

Andf here are the photos for the PPsh:

[Melanie_Daniels]

And the drawings for a simillar for the PPD: