No4MK1 T

[bros]

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.

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.

[Seaforth72]

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.

[Warren]

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.

[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!

[Warren]

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????

[Seaspriter]

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."



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

[CINDERS]

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.

[Peter Laidler]

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

[breakeyp]

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.

[Surpmil]

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? 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!