Long Lee's in WW1

[Woftam]

Now I'm aware that although the British ramped up production of the SMLE as the Army expanded rapidly in the early part of the War they initially were fielding troops armed with older weapons - specifically the Long Lee's.

Did units carry these all the way through the war ? Or were they replaced as a matter of policy as production allowed ? At what stage did production begin to match demand ?

What triggered the question is a book I'm reading (based around recently found RE panoramic photo's) which has a picture of a raiding party of the 1/8 Kings Liverpools in 1916 around Arras and of the 17 rifles on display 16 are Long Lee's.

Some other quite interesting photo's apart from the panorama shots.

[brewstop]

Reading various sources - including Skennerton's account of P14 production and the history of SSA/NRF SMLEs - it seems that, by mid-1916, there were sufficient SMLEs around to keep the Army equipped. The P14s weren't needed, and many contemporary soldiers' memoires during 1915-17 record how they were issued with brand-new SMLEs and bayonets. I imagine Long Lees rapidly fell out of use during 1916 (they were certainly in use dring the Somme battles, as witnessed in photos and finds of 1888-pattern bayonets there), and were relegated to training depots, OTCs, newly-raised colonial militias and the like.

[Mk VII]

The Territorial Force went to France with Long rifles and retained them through 1915. One has been found in the Ancre river and is now in the Ulster Tower museum on the Somme battlefield.

"After [Battle of] Loos it was found that every man in the battalion had exchanged his long rifle for the new short rifle with which the Regular and service battalions were armed. The long rifles were old and to a large extent inaccurate. They would not, moreover, fire all the manufactures of .303 ammunition then coming into France, and it was, in fact, found necessary a month later to sort out the whole ammunition in a trench so that each rifle could be supplied with that which it could fire. Consequently the men were praised for re-arming themselves with up-to-date and trustworthy weapons, but they had neglected, or been unable, to provide themselves with the long bayonets. Indents to the Ordnance met only with queries as to why a Territorial unit should ask for that to which it was not entitled. Remonstrance was unavailing, and the battalion was required to equip itself again with the old long rifle. "

Lt-Col G.A. Brett, 1/23rd London Regiment

[Woftam]

Thank you gentlemen. So the preponderance of Long Lee's in a front line unit in 1916 wouldn't have been unusual. Now that you mention the bayonets Brewstop I recall the display representing No Mans Land, in the Flanders Fields museum in Ypres, had a relic Pattern '88 amongst the other battlefield debris.

[KCLRPC]

This may have some interest, and to be honest I was a tad suprised by this. I've just received a book entitled "Quick Rifle Training for National Defence" by Eustace H. Stone, dated 1915. inside it includes pictures of a Long Lee, P88 bayonet and MkVI cartridge, and on the following page goes on to describe the best method of cleaning Martini actions. Does that seem to tally with the other info people have?

[Tom-May]

"...I've just received a book entitled "Quick Rifle Training for National Defence" by Eustace H. Stone, dated 1915. inside it includes pictures of a Long Lee, P88 bayonet and MkVI cartridge, and on the following page goes on to describe the best method of cleaning Martini actions..."

The rifle supply situation in Britain was a problem in the early days of the Great War. While every effort was made to equip the rapidly expanding army, there simply was not the production capacity, this led to the "New Armies" (the "Kitchener Battalions") training with a mixture of weapons, including Long Lee-Enfields (sometimes, recorded in memoirs as, 'battlefield salvage' recovered, repaired and 'passed back' for training purposes).

I seem to recall photographs showing these "Kitchener men" in France, still with Long Lees, but that may simply be a faulty memory.

The rifle situation was so desperate that many of the K1 Battalions ("First 100 000") were trained with "Arisaka" rifles, supplied by the Japanese government (then our allies).

As for Martini action weapons, it is possible that the "K" Battalions were issued them for training, but I suspect that these went to the Local Voluntary Defence Corps (I think that's the correct name) - effectively the Great War equivalent of the Home Guard - who were even further down the supply chain; or perhaps to Cadet units*.

Regards

Tom

*Somewhere I have a pre/early war drill book for the Boys Brigade which has arms drill using Martini rifles.

[Woftam]

I have seen (somewhere) a couple of photo's of "basttlefield salvage". Involved stacks of rifles, and more coming off the back of a truck. Quite a few Long Lee's among them. Don't recall the date though. Must see if I can find it.

Martini's I would imagine were much more prevalent in the early part of WW1 than they are now and it would make sense to utilise them for basic training.

[Mk VII]

The Volunteer Training Corps purchased a lot of Martinis for their activities (they weren't allowed to purchase service rifles)

[coggansfield]

28 Aug. 2006

5:30pm

Skennerton's first big Lee-Enfield book ("The British Service Lee") has a good photo in it of British troops a Gallipoli armed with CLLEs (and pith helmets!). Unfortunately, the photo is not reproduced in the more commonly encountered "Lee-Enfield Story."

I also once encountered a photo of Jamaican troops in WWI armed with CLLEs.

Finally, last year I came across a phenomenal 1916-dated photo of British, not colonial, soldiers armed with what are clearly Lee-Metford mk. I* rifles, if you please! It was an on-line photo, so I must have downloaded it to somewhere, but I'm buggered of I can find it now. If I track it down, I'll post it.

Coggansfield

[coggansfield]

28 Aug. 2006

5:45pm

Gotcha! Here is the MLM mk. I* photo I was talking about. I have lost the blurb that accompanied it, but I am certain it gave a 1916 date.

Coggansfield

P.S. Now I come to think of it, I think a user on one of the forums posted this originally, saying his granddad was one of the fellows pictured. If any reader was that original poster, can you let us know more about this excellent shot, please?

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y27/co ... "width=700>