RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-26-2011, 09:00 PM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,894
Default OT: Recruiting for a T2K game, in a different setting

I'm gearing up for a T2K game set in 1919.

The German 1918 offensive was started early and ended in a brilliant success. Paris was occupied by the Kaiser's own and France has agreed to a humilating peace.

The BEF has withdrawn back to England and a Cold War has started as the British try to form a new alliance against the Germans as Russia falls into civil war and France disarms.

The AEF has returned to the United States to find President Wilson killed by assassination and a weak, isolationist government in power. To make matters worse, several South American countries (Mexico, Brazil and Chile among them) have joined forces with a German Expeditionary Force and invaded the Southwest US.

The southern front is crumbling under the pressure and Pershing has issued a "hold until the last man" order in an attempt to slow the German juggernaut.

And the 2nd Division has splintered trying to hold a defensive line and its survivers are making their way northwards to rejoin their comrades.

I'm looking for 4-8 players to join the game. Let me know if anyone is intrested and I'll post the link to the game site.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-26-2011, 09:22 PM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 4,347
Default

Bet that the use of poison gas is routine in that setting.
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-26-2011, 09:59 PM
Adm.Lee Adm.Lee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 1,386
Default

That's tempting. I have often said that I want to run a 1918-19 game, but in Siberia or Central Europe.

If I may offer a detail or three, I recently wargamed the 1918 Western Front campaign, and that resulted in a French surrender. The key was that the German spring & summer offensives soon concentrated on breaking the French, not both French and British. Too many French casualties caused them to fall behind on the morale and replacement curve, and the Americans showed up too late.

I think I will pass, though. PBEM isn't my thing for RPGs, and I've got limited time. Do please keep us posted on progress.
__________________
My Twilight claim to fame: I ran "Allegheny Uprising" at Allegheny College, spring of 1988.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-27-2011, 07:40 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,894
Default

The German 1918 offensive was always one of the great "what ifs" of the war. I've always felt that if it had been focused on the French only, that it was Germany's last, best chance of knocking France out of the war.

To be sure, when the BEF was hit, the German's enjoyed moderate success, but it was nothing like what happened to the French. It is widely believed that the actions of the AEF's 2nd Division at Belleau Wood and 3rd Division's at Chateau Thielly that really slowed the Germans down long enough for the French to get reserves into the line.

So what would have happened of the German's had focused on the French from the start? Or if the AEF was just a little bit slow in moving up?
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-28-2011, 02:46 PM
Adm.Lee Adm.Lee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 1,386
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragoon500ly View Post
So what would have happened of the German's had focused on the French from the start? Or if the AEF was just a little bit slow in moving up?
Or if they'd stayed after the British exclusively, after shattering the Fifth Army in the first round.

The game I mentioned (HMSGRD's Over There), has really intricate rules for an operational-level game. As it happened, French morale collapsed on the very last attack of the German player-turn of the 2nd half of July 1918. If it had stayed above 0 just that much longer, the arrival of more Americans would have boosted it up significantly. By that time, there were at least 3 US corps in the line, and at least that many more training up. A lot of US divisions were sent over there with barely basic training, with the expectation of finishing training under Allied assistance.
__________________
My Twilight claim to fame: I ran "Allegheny Uprising" at Allegheny College, spring of 1988.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-29-2011, 09:06 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,894
Default

And the American losses in their early combat actions reflect the lack of training. Belleau Wood, just to name one, had the 5th Marines lauch their initial attack in four waves, right into interlocking machine gun fire. According to German reports, they never bothered to call in artillery support, just trench mortars and machine guns.

Considering how oversized US units were (platoon strength was 62!), afterwards, the average platoon strength was 20.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-27-2011, 07:43 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b View Post
Bet that the use of poison gas is routine in that setting.
True. But the story arc is planned to start just after the 2nd Division has been shattered by repeated attacks...the players may not have to endure poison gas attacks, but they will have to cope with the aftermath.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-02-2011, 05:57 PM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,894
Default Service Rifles "This is My Rife, This is My Gun..."

The weapon most intimately associated with the infantryman was his rifle. From the first day of basic training until he was required to turn in his equipment prior to his discharge from service, the rifle was his constant companion. In training and non-combatant situations, the rifle was often viewed as a burden to bear on forced marches or a magnet for dirt and grime when viewed during inspection by the all-seeing eyes of the first sergeant. In combat, however, the rifle was truly a matter of life and death to the infantryman.

M1903 Springfield: The standard service rifle at the time of the declaration of war was the “U.S. Magazine Rifle, Caliber .30, Model of 1903” Better known as the “Springfield ‘03” or “Springfield” or simply the “‘O3“. This was the replacement for the .30-40 Krag-Jorgenson bolt action magazine rifle of Spanish-American War fame. The Springfield used a modified Mauser action and was chambered for a .30-caliber rimless cartridge. The new cartridge was designated the “Model of 1906” and was soon more widely referred to as the “.30-06.” The new round had a muzzle velocity of 2,800fps. The M1903 weighed in at 8.69 pounds and had an overall length of 43.5-inches and a barrel length of 24-inches. Most external metal parts were rust blued. It used a 5-round charger to reload and was fitted with a magazine cutoff that allowed for single rounds to be loaded and fired, while maintaining the 5-rounds in the magazine for emergencies. The stock and hand guard were made of quality black walnut. The metal butt plate had a hinged door that held an oiler and thong case and other cleaning implements. Sling swivels were fitted to the lower band and stock. The M1907 leather sling was the standard issue and served well into World War Two. The M1903 rifle’s rear sight was a folding leaf adjustable for elevation and windage. It was mounted forward of the bolt. A removable stamped metal cover was also used to product the front sight from damage.
The ‘03 was made with a craftsmanship never before or since used for a military rifle. The rust bluing and quality walnut wood were equal to many fine sporting rifles. It was a superbly crafter and supremely accurate rifle. The ‘03 successfully competed against the finest target rifles of other countries in Olympic and other prestigious shooting events. There is no doubt that the US military entered World War One with the finest bolt action military rifle of all time. And that was the problem.
In order to meet the production demands of the sudden expansion of the military, the Springfield had to be modified for easier mass production. The checking on the trigger and stock was eliminated; the metallurgy of the receiver was changed from the old case-hardened to a stronger double heat-treated type. Parkerizing replaced bluing. A second reinforcement bolt (AKA the lug or stock screw) was added to strengthen the stock to withstand the shock of firing rifle grenades. The new modified version was known as the M1903 Mark I rifle. All told, the US entered the war with 600,000 ‘03s available, another 312, 878 were produced during the war with some 145,000 Mark I new production rifles built as well.

Two cartridge belts were issued for use: the M1910 cartridge belt was made of canvas and held ten pockets, each holding a single 5-round charger. The M1912 Cavalry Belt had a leather boot that held the ‘03 across the trooper’s shoulder and held nine pockets, each with a charger and a pistol magazine pouch holding two M1911 magazines.

M1917 “U.S. Enfield” Rifle: As splendid as the Springfield was, the 600,000 that were available at the start of the war, were just barely enough to arm the small prewar force. And while production was stepped up, it quickly became apparent that another source of rifle production would be needed. At the time, three plants were busy building the “Pattern 1914” rifle under British contract. This was a modified Mauser design re-chambered for the British .303 cartridge. During the three years of their contract, Winchester, Remington and the Midvale Steel & Ordnance Company produced 1,235,298 Pattern 1914 rifles by the end of the contract in July, 1917.
With three major factories, with a trained workforce, ready to produce weapons, the War Department was faced with the choice of converting the plants to build ‘03 rifles; to adopt the Pattern 1914 rifle as is; or to re-chamber the P14 rifle for the U.S. .30-06 and then adopt the weapon to be issued concurrently with the M1903 rifle.
The need for minimum amount of disruption resulted in the P14 being chambered for the .30-06. Minor changes to the sights and rifling had to be made, but the change over to the round was fairly simple.
The M1917 rifle weighed 8.18 pounds and had a 26-inch barrel and was 46.3-inches in overall length. It had a 6-round capacity, but could use the standard 5-round charger used with the M1903 rifle. There was no magazine cutoff. The rear sight was a folding leaf adjustment for elevation, but not windage and was mounted on the rear of the receiver. The stock was black walnut with an oil finish, all external metal parts were rust blued.
One major difference in the two rifles lay in the “crooked” appearance of the bolt handle.. When operated, this crook allowed the user to use his middle finger to fire the weapon, allowing for a more rapid reload.
To be sure, there were soldiers who hated the M1917, it weighed a pound more than the Springfield and was three inches longer. While not as accurate as the M1903, the M1917’s sights were superior for battle purposes. While not the preferred weapon, the M1917 was a sturdy, reliable and robust weapon. And in the end, the M1917 equipped 75% of the AEF.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-02-2011, 05:58 PM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,894
Default Supplemental Rifles "In the event of combat, place your head..."

The M1898 Krag Rifle: This was the final variant of the Krag-Jorgensen rifle of the Spanish American War and was, at best, obsolescent. The Krag was 49.1-inches in overall length with a 30-inch barrel. It weighed 9.3 pounds. It was chambered for the U.S. .30-40 cartridge. This fired a 220 grain bullet at 2,000fps. The Krag also could not be loaded via a charger and its 5-round magazine had to be loaded, one round at a time. At the start of the war, some 160,000 M1898s were stored at various ordnance depots. In order to free up M1903 and M1917 rifles for the front, the Krag was issued to training camps. While most recruits would have preferred a Springfield or an Enfield, the Krag certainly beat training with a broomstick! As soon as enough M1903 and M1917 rifles were available, the M1898s were sent back into storage. Records indicate that some 2,000 Krag rifles made it to France but there is no evidence that they were used in combat. The Krag also served with various US Navy units in France. Not bad for an obsolescent rifle!

The Canadian Mark II Ross Rifle: When the War Department was scrambling for rifles to be used for training, the Canadian government advised that they had some 100,000 Mark I and II Ross rifles for sale. The Ross had recently been withdrawn from front-line service by the Canadians due to problems with operating its bolt in the mud-encrusted environment of the trenches. The Ross weighed 9 pounds, 14 ounces and was 50.25-inches overall in length with a 30.5-inch barrel. It was chambered for the British .303 cartridge. The U.S. purchased 20,000 Mark II Ross rifles, along with bayonets, scabbards slings and cleaning kits at the cost of $12.80 each. 4,629,470 rounds of .303 ammo was also purchased (at $20.00 per thousand) and a quantity of spare parts and ($7,814.78) as well as 2,000 rifle manuals. These were sold, at cost, to the states of New York (10,000 rifles), Massachusetts and Ohio (5,000 rifles each). The Ross was used for training purposes and never saw combat.

The M1891 Mosin-Nagant Rifle: This Russian design was 51.3-inches in overall length with a 31.6-inch barrel. It weighed 9.63 pounds and was chambered for the 7.62mm cartridge. When Russia entered the war, the quickly approached Remington and Westinghouse with a contract to produce M1891 rifles as quickly as possible. With the fall of the Czar, the contracts were cancelled, both companies had produced 1,500,000 M1891s of which 469,951 had been shipped to Russia. Since the companies had not been paid for most of the work and wanting to keep the two factories viable, the US purchased 280,000 M1891s at a cost of $20.00 each. Both companies were soon retooling for the production of the M1917 machine guns, the M1917 rifles and the M1910 military shotguns. They were used as training rifles and many equipped the US troops sent to North Russia and were later turned over to the White Russians.

The French Lebel and Berthier Rifles: The M1886 Lebel Rifle weighed 9.75 pounds and was 51.4-inches overall in length, with a barrel length of 31.5-inches. It was chambered for the 8mm and featured a 8-round tubular magazine under the barrel. The M1907 Berthier Rifle was a modification of the Lebel but fitted with a one piece stock and a Mannlicher-inspired box magazine. It weighed 8.38 pounds, had an overall length of 51.4-inches long with a 31.4-inch barrel. The rimmed 8mm round prevented a standard charger from being used and the Berthier used a 3-round clip. It was later modified to hold 5-rounds, but many 3-round versions served until the end of the war. Both rifles were considered to be very inaccurate and clumsy to handle. In US service, the Lebel’s claim to fame: this was the Rifle that Rick O’Connell used in the opening scenes of The Mummy.

The British Short Magazine Lee-Enfield Rifle, No.1 Mark III: Better known as the SMLE this was the standard service rifle of the British military. It weighed 8.62 pounds, was 44.5-inches long with a barrel length of 25.2-inches. It used a 10-round magazine. Initially, the British felt that the SMLE was inferior to the Mauser and there were plans to replace it with a Mauser design. As subsequent events proved, the SMLE was a reliable and effective rifle that served until the 1950s. While issued to the US Army for training in France, several US regiments were attached to British divisions and were armed with the SMLE; while derided as being heavier and clumsier than the M1903, the SMLE was respected.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-02-2011, 10:12 PM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,749
Default

Good Lord dragoon500ly! All the info in this thread and the "OT Navies in WWII" thread, are you writing this all from memory, or are you posting excerpts of material you've written before, or are you sourcing it from somewhere? Because if it is coming straight from your memory you are not only an excellent writer but also some kind of savant!
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-03-2011, 08:00 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Targan View Post
Good Lord dragoon500ly! All the info in this thread and the "OT Navies in WWII" thread, are you writing this all from memory, or are you posting excerpts of material you've written before, or are you sourcing it from somewhere? Because if it is coming straight from your memory you are not only an excellent writer but also some kind of savant!
The short from is "Yes", a lot of this is from memory, the exact details such as weights and measurements comes from various small arms magazines/books; Some of the details on furnishings comes simply from me getting off my butt and opening my gun safe. I collect military firearms as a hobby. My grand-father collected a lot of US military weapons and left me over 60 rifles and 40 pistols of various makes and models. My dad added another 40 some odd rifles and I've carried on the family addiction.

I don't pretend to be an expert like Kevin Dockery or Bruce Canfield, but I do enjoy collecting, restoring and firing these classic military weapons.

And yes, I've published articles in Armor Journal and the Infantry Journal, even had one published in American Rifleman.

And if I am a savant...then its an idiot savant !!!

__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-03-2011, 10:13 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,894
Default Sniper Rifles “One Shot, One Kill!”

Rifles fitted with telescopic sights were used long before The Great War. During the American Civil War, some very amazing feats were reported using the target rifles of the day. But these were civilian production weapons and were never officially adopted.

The very first “official” sharpshooter rifle were three M1892 Krag which were fitted with telescopes manufactured by the Cataract Tool & Optical Company. These three rifles were the first in the US Army’s tradition of sniping. Further development was delayed as the Krag was going to be replaced by a new rifle.

Instead of discussing the M1903 and M1917 rifles, I will be discussing the optical sights that were used.

Soon after the M190s entered service, the Small Arms Firing Regulations of 1904 and 1906 stated that “to properly equip a special class of shots who shall not only be designated as expert, but, who, in action shall be employed as such, the telescopic sight is adopted,” there was just one problem with this, there were no telescopic sights in service.

The first real sight was the Warner & Swasey Musket Sights, Model of 1908. This was a prismatic design that allowed for a wide field of view for the high power (6X) of the scope. It was fastened to the M1903 by a dovetail base fastened to the left side of the receiver. A spring-loaded plunger held the scope and allowed it to be easily removed from the rifle. This placement allowed the rifle to be loaded and fired in the normal manner as well as allowing the iron sights to be used. The only alterations to the standard rifle was the removal of a small amount of wood from the left side of the receiver and the attachment of the receiver base. It was made from steel and brass and weighed a hefty 2 ¼-pounds. Two brass plates containing firing and sight adjustment data were mounted on the scope. The sight had a cross hair reticle and three stadia lines for estimating range. The short eye relief of the sight required a rubber eyepiece to properly position and protect the shooter’s eye. At first the sights were stamped with a serial number that matched the rifle it was intended for, but this practice was soon discontinued. The M1908 was carried in a leather carrying case with cartridge belt hooks and a shoulder strap. In spite of its initial impression, the M1908 was not a good design. Among the problems was that its prismatic design meant that any flecks of paint or dust that found their way inside the scope were magnified six times in the sight picture. The short eye relief, rubber eyepiece and awkward shooting posture did not make for good marksmanship. Still, some 2,075 were purchased.

The next design was the Telescopic Musket Sight, Model of 1913. The main difference between this one and the M1908 was the lowering of the power to 5.2X to improve light-gathering characteristics. The outside configuration were modified but everything else was identical to the M1908...right along with the same problems. Some 5,000 were purchased.

The Warner & Swasey musket sights were the most common scope issued, but by no means were they the only ones issued. The Winchester A5 scope was introduced in 1910 and was very popular on the civilian market. The USMC acquired several samples and fitted them to M1903 rifles.

The A5s front scope mount was attached to the barrel, which required that a hole be routed in the hand guard in order to provide the necessary clearance. The rear mount was screwed directly to the receiver. Since the modifications were done by marine armorers at various facilities (basically on a individual basis), there is quite a bit of variance from one rifle to the next. The A5 was a long steel tube and provided 2X power with a narrow field of view. It could be dismounted, in which case it was carried in a leather carrying with a shoulder strap. The exact numbers of A5s purchased by the Marine Corps is not known with any certainly, many appeared to have been purchased with unit funds and hence there is little or no paper trail. Best estimates place the number at roughly 1,000. There is very little mention of Marine use of the A5s in France. Army Ordnance records do show that 400 were purchased prior to the Armistice, but again, their use is not widely known.
Although superior to the Warner & Swasey sights, the Winchester A5 sight is basically a civilian sight and was considered to be too fragile to be an effective military sniper telescope.
The M1903 sniping variants coupled the superb accuracy of the ‘03 with a telescopic sight. There are many reports of AEF snipers taking up positions in no man’s land and harassing the Germans to great effect.

While the M1903 served as the primary sniping platform, the M1917 was also selected for modifications. The Model of 1918 Sniper Rifle combined the Enfield with a new Telescopic Rifle Sight, Model of 1918. This was a 2.6X power scope and was considered to be superior to both the Warner & Swasey and Winchester sights. Sadly, out of a contract for 57,742, only 189 were built before the contract was canceled in January, 1919. None ever saw combat.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-03-2011, 10:14 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,894
Default The Trench Periscope Rifle “What the *ell is that!”

The mere act of raising your head above the parapet of a World War One trench could often be your last act on earth. The various militaries were well aware of this threat and sought various means to reduce this threat. On of the most promising was a device that allowed the standard service to be fired above a parapet while the rifleman was concealed below.

When the US entered the war, two Ohio rifle enthusiasts; James Cameron and Lawrence Yaggi, developed an experimental concept that consisted of a M1903 rifle (fitted with a 25-round extension magazine), clamped to a metal framework that would rest on the shoulder and hold the weapon above the shooter’s head. Extension levers allowed the shooter to manipulate the bolt and trigger and the rifle was sighted via a periscope attached to the framework. Now this idea was not unique, several service rifles were modified to allow the user to fire over the parapet, but the Cameron-Yaggi device allowed the firer to use a periscope and fire at what he saw. The entire mount was surprisingly accurate, during one test, ten rounds were fired at a 200 yard target, with a total spread of 1.3-inches. The users also reported that the recoil “gave less kick than a normal service rifle. The whole framework, rifle and all, just seemed to rock back a little.” Another advantage of the Cameron-Yaggi was that the periscope would rock away from the shooter’s eye upon firing, rather than back with a rifle-mounted periscope.
When put together, the Cameron-Yaggi added 6 pounds to the weight of a
‘03, and it was certainly more cumbersome than a standard service rifle, but it was never intended to be carried a great distance and was intended for the defense of a trench. This, perhaps, was its greatest drawback. You see, the Cameron-Yaggi was never purchased, nor was it formally rejected by the Ordnance Department (this hints that the military saw its potential but also had unreported qualms about the device as well). Total production was perhaps a dozen or so, all hand made and thus varying to some degree.
Still, it was a fascinating idea.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-03-2011, 10:16 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,894
Default Miscellaneous Rifles “The Army never bought that!”

One of the oddities of The Great War is that the Army purchased civilian firearms and issued them to troops. This was due, for the most part, to the shortfall in production of service rifles and the need to insure that all available service rifles went to the fighting front. This left those service members in the states with a problem…they didn’t have any firearms with which to perform their duties. The government purchased 1,800 Winchester Model 1894 rifles in caliber .30-30 with which to arm Signal Corps troops serving in the Pacific Northwest. The duties of these troops were to guard the spruce trees of the region. Spruce was the preferred wood to build aircraft during the time and was thus a vital war material. The area experienced labor trouble in 1916-1918 and the Signal Corps troops had the mission of insuring that there were no problems with the delivery of spruce. The contract to buy the M1894 rifles is the only know written document confirming the purchase of lever-action firearms. However, there are numerous photos of soldiers carrying a variety of civilian bolt-action and lever-action rifles and carbines, since these were official photos (one photo shows a formation of soldiers armed with three different types of civilian rifles), this hints that the use of civilian firearms was much more widespread than the written record indicates.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-03-2011, 10:18 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,894
Default The Penderson Device “The Great What If…”

The Penderson Device was designed as a “Top Secret” infantry weapon and was intended to play a key role in the Grand Offensive of 1919. However, the end of the war prevented the issue of the weapon and it never saw combat.

The Penderson was designed to address two problems shared by all military service rifles of the era; the bolt action mechanism was slow to operate and the rifle cartridges were overly powerful for some combat applications. In other words, it was not always necessary for an infantryman to have a full-power cartridge and a self-loading or semiautomatic rifle was extremely desirable. John Penderson came up with an imaginative and innovative way to solve these two problems.

Penderson worked on his device until the summer of 1917 when he contacted the Ordnance Department to request a secret demonstration of his device. Such was his reputation that his request was granted, even though the ordnance people had no idea at to what his invention was. On October 8, 1917, the Chief of Ordnance, General William Crozier, along with a select group of officers and a few congressmen (all sworn to secrecy) met at the Congress Heights rifle range in Washington D.C. General Crozier’s own words describe what happened next…

“Mr. Penderson started his demonstration by firing the Springfield rifle which he brought with him. After firing a few shots in the ordinary way, he suddenly jerked the bolt out of the rifle and dropped it into a pouch which he had with him, and from a long scabbard which was on his belt he produced a mysterious looking piece of mechanism which he quickly slid into the rifle in place of the bolt, locking the dive to the rifle by turning a catch provided for the purpose. Then he snapped into place a long black magazine containing forty small pistol size cartridges whose bullets were, however, of the right diameter to fit the barrel of the rifle. All this was done in an instant and in another instant Mr. Penderson was pulling the trigger of the rifle time after time as fast as he could work his finger and each time he pulled the trigger the rifle fired a shot, threw out the empty cartridge and reloaded itself.”

The assembled onlookers were amazed by Penderson’s demonstration and the device was eagerly examined at length afterwards. It is known as an “automatic bolt” (even though it is only capable of semiautomatic fire and essentially operates in the same manner as a “blow back” pistol. The barrel of the device was rifled and was the same configuration of a .30-06 cartridge case. This enabled it to fit into the ‘03’s chamber and place the bullet in close proximity to the rifling of the standard ‘03 barrel. It was locked in place by means of the ‘03’s magazine cut-off. A small projection on the rifle’s trigger moved forward with each pull to trip the device’s firing mechanism. Each time the rifle’s trigger was pulled, the device fired.

The device was fitted with a 40-round magazine that attached to the right side of the device at a 45 degree angle. It was held in place by two spring-loaded “fingers”. This position allowed the rifle to be sighted in the normal manner. Fired cartridge cases were ejected through a hole milled into the left side of the receiver.

The round itself was based on the Colt .32 ACP pistol cartridge with the bullet modified to fit a .30-caliber weapon. When fired it had a muzzle velocity of 1,300fps.

The outfit of the Penderson could be attached to the standard cartridge belt. It consisted of a canvas pouch to carry the Springfield’s bolt; a metal scabbard that held the Penderson Device when it was not in use; and two magazine pouches (each holding five magazines). The device itself weighed 2 pounds, 2 ounces. A loaded magazine weighed a pound.

To say that the Penderson Device astounded the witnesses at its first demonstration is to understate the effect. It was felt by all present that the device would be an enormous asset for the US Army in both offensive and defensive warfare. The War Department was so impressed with the device, that an officer was sent to France to deliver an example of the weapon to General Pershing, and the device was quickly classified TOP SECRET.

General Pershing convened a board on December 9,1917 that consisted of four high-ranking officers who tested the device for its accuracy, penetration, rapidity of fire and its endurance. If anything, this board was even more excited about the device than the War Department. A confidential memo from General Pershing stated:

“…Board recommends adoption of the Penderson attachment for rifle and the initial purchase of 100,000 of same. Great secrecy urged in connection with this device. Initial supply of ammunition 5,000 rounds per gun with a daily supply of 100 rounds per gun. Strongly approve of device and believe it will materially increase efficiency of our infantry.”

A follow up memo from Pershing stated that:

“Desire 25,000 Pederson attachments be held in reserve. Replacements 50% per year on devices and 200% on magazines. Request 40 magazine be shipped with each device. When will shipments be made?”

In order to maintain the desired secrecy, the Penderson Device was officially adopted with a misleading name, the Automatic Pistol, Caliber .30, Model of 1918. Needless to say, the War Department was criticized for adopting a new pistol in such a small caliber, when the M1911 was performing so well!

With the large number of M1917 rifles in service the Penderson was modified. The Mark I device was intended for the M1903 and the Mark II for the M1917 rifles. Unfortunately, the end of the war meant that only a handful of Penderson Mark IIs were ever built. By the time the contract was canceled in March of 1919, 65,000 Penderson Mark Is were built along with 1,600,000 magazines and a bit over 65,000,000 cartridges.

After the war, the War Department couldn’t decide what to do with the Penderson device. All of the post war tests agreed that it would unlikely to be used in future wars, citing the low power of the cartridge, the added weight of the device and its gear and the cumbersome changing back and forth of the device and the bolt. With no future use, the government made the decision in April of 1931, to destroy all devices, magazines and ammunition in order to save the cost of further storage. Most of the devices were scrapped and only a handful were saved for museums and reference collections.

So what would have been the impact of the Penderson Device. To be sure it would have surprised the Germans and have had a real impact in the maneuver warfare that the 1919 Offensive was designed to create. Instead, the Penderson Device is a nothing more than a footnote in history…But What If…
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-09-2011, 09:41 AM
Sanjuro Sanjuro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 288
Default

I was going to challenge the assertion that US forces were equipped with the Belgian Lewis machine gun... then I thought I'd better check!
Sure enough, I found that when Colonel Lewis could not find a buyer in the US, he went off to Belgium in 1913. (I'm learning just how accurate dragon500ly can be!)
However, it saw most service in British hands.
For the most extreme example in history of a man's life depending on his weapon, just do a Google search for "Louis Strange."
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-03-2011, 08:04 PM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,749
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragoon500ly View Post
When the US entered the war, two Ohio rifle enthusiasts, James Cameron and Lawrence Yaggi, developed an experimental concept that consisted of a M1903 rifle (fitted with a 25-round extension magazine), clamped to a metal framework that would rest on the shoulder and hold the weapon above the shooter’s head. Extension levers allowed the shooter to manipulate the bolt and trigger and the rifle was sighted via a periscope attached to the framework. Now this idea was not unique, several service rifles were modified to allow the user to fire over the parapet, but the Cameron-Yaggi device allowed the firer to use a periscope and fire at what he saw.
That is indeed a great idea. It wasn't done by Americans first though. Similar contraptions (with periscopes) were used by Commonwealth troops during the Gallipoli campaign.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-03-2011, 08:40 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Targan View Post
That is indeed a great idea. It wasn't done by Americans first though. Similar contraptions (with periscopes) were used by Commonwealth troops during the Gallipoli campaign.
Where they proved extremely effective both during the campaign and the withdrawal. As the shooter could not be seen by the enemy, it was relatively simple to rig up string tied to tin cans into which water, sand, etc would slowly drip. Once the can got to a particular level it would fall over, pulling the trigger and firing a shot in the general direction of the enemy, giving the impression there were still troops manning the trenches.
A few brave souls stayed until the last to reload and reset the rifles. Apparently the withdrawal was a stunning success (unlike the landing) and the Turks didn't know the Anzacs were gone for hours (maybe even the next day according to some sources).
This is what happens when you let Australians and New Zealanders use their intiative.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-04-2011, 08:22 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,894
Default

I'm the first to admit that my area of expertise is the US military, that having been said, the British, French, Germans and Italians all tinkered with the idea of the trench rifle, for the most part, these seem to have been rigged up by the soldiers themselves, to be sure, some people did try to develop and sell to the various militaries, such a device, but I have not been able to turn up any paper trails showing where such a device had been demonstrated to, or the military had started talking about puchasing such devices.

The C-Y device has such a paper trail.

I also have a friend now living in Italy, who came across a mention of such a version, demonstrated to the War Ministry, but he is still reseaching for any paper trails.

Finally, there exist about a dozen photos from British (and Commonwealth) and French sources that show these various "home made" trench rifles.

I'm certainly not saying that they didn't exist! It really was a wonderful idea, and it had to have had a more extensive use than the handful of fading photos and yellowing documents, however, a lot of the records for critical portions of military history have been discarded or otherwise destroyed, a very fustrating point for the historian!
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.