Bring Up The PIAT Pt.II

So you may have seen our earlier video looking at the portrayal of PIATs in the 1978 classic A Bridge Too Far! If not check it out.

When I think of Richard Attenborough’s all-star war epic telling the story of Operation Market Garden, I immediately think of the iconic ‘BRING UP THE PIAT’ scene where Anthony Hopkins playing Colonel John Frost commanding 2 PARA calls for the Projector, Infantry, Anti-Tank to take out a marauding ‘Panther’.

But this isn’t the only scene from the film depicting the PIAT! In this video we’ll look at a couple of the other scenes showing the PIAT in action.

We first see the PIAT during the scene when the Guards Armoured Division’s spearhead meets heavy german resistance. Michael Caine’s Sherman’s get a pasting from some Pak 40s. The British infantry deploys and we see a cornucopia of kit ranging from Brens to Vickers to an M2 Browning. But blink and you’ll miss them a pair of PIAT teams also ‘bring up the PIAT’. A two man team can be seen moving forward, the No.1 carrying the PIAT and the No.2 carrying a 3 round bomb carrier, sadly killed by enemy fire.

The second scene in which we see the PIAT finally get to work on some German armoured fighting vehicles is during Gräbner’s attack over the bridge. As the PARAs at the Bridge prepare for the attack we see 2 or 3 PIAT positions get ready – loading bombs into their bomb support trays. One PIAT No.1 can be seen slotting the rear of a PIAT bomb into the projectile guide plates to hold the bomb in place – very authentic.

As the column crosses the Bridge Frost orders his men to open fire, Brens, Stens, Rifle No.4s and PIATs open up and the column is stopped in its tracks. During the scene we see a number of PIAT’s fire and knock out SS vehicles. One PIAT No.2 is hit by enemy fire. The first PIAT round fired hits a lead German vehicle causing it to halt, the second flips a Kubelwagen. We then see a No.2 two load a fresh bomb into the bomb support tray – with a tap to make sure its properly in place. We get a great show of the PIAT firing from the front. It’s worth noting that the PIAT doesn’t recock and the spigot is still seen in the bomb tray just before the camera cuts away. Meaning that that PIAT No.1 will have to recock his weapon before he can fire again!

It’s worth remembering without the ‘Bring Up The PIAT’ scene making a point of naming the weapon, most people would never have known what this unusual weapon that dealt so much damage in the earlier scene was! Of course the attack wasn’t stopped by PIATs alone, there were also airborne anti-tank guns, which the film doesn’t show.

Another little titbit of information I learnt since the first ‘Bring Up The PIAT’ video, thanks to my friend Robbie of RM Military History [check out his channel], is that the PIAT was fired in most of these scenes by one of the film’s armourer Bill Aylmore. The information comes from After the Battle – The Battle of Arnhem – War Film: A Bridge Too Far which describes him as formerly a sergeant with the 50^th Regt. – which might be a reference to the Queen’s Own Royal West Kent Regiment. The book goes on to say that “Aylmore excelled himself during the filming of the battle on the bridge by being the ace shot with the PIAT. During all the various takes he was able to put the bomb exactly where the director wanted it and where it coincided with the special effects explosions.” – Good shooting indeed!

Check out more PIAT scene analysis videos here.

If you enjoyed these videos and this article please consider supporting our work here. We have some great perks available for Patreon Supporters. You can also support us via one-time donations here. Thank you for your support!

Mousqueton Arcelin Modèle 1856

By the mid-19^th century many major militaries were beginning the hunt for a reliable and robust breechloading system. France was no exception with a number of systems trialled during the 1850s, following the Prussian adoption of the Dreyse rifle. Today we’re lucky enough to be examining one of France’s early breechloaders , with some interesting features – the Arcelin.

*Arcelin carbine and bayonet (Danny Michael/CFM)*

Perhaps properly described as le Mousqueton Arcelin 1856, the carbine has the distinction of being the first French breechloader to have a distinct bolt handle. Designed by Charles Arcelin, a graduate of the École spéciale militaire de Saint-Cyr and veteran of the Napoleonic Wars. In the 1820s Arcelin began his ordnance career working in arms factories in Mutzig, Saxony and Starsbourg. In 1839 he became deputy director of the Tulle arsenal and developed a system for the conversion of flintlock muskets to the percussion system in 1842. He subsequently became Director of the Châtellerault arsenal between December 1841 to September 1842 and again from December 1849 to August 1852. It was during this period that Arcelin developed his breechloader.

*Manufacture d’Armes de Châtellerault* (*Châtellerault* museum)

Following his work on developing a percussion conversion Arcelin set about developing a breechloading system, in June 1853 a prototype cavalry carbine was tested at Vincennes. The prototype fired 130 rounds before its action fouled and seized up – despite this observers were impressed, including Emperor Napoleon III.

A letter from the Cabinet of the Emperor, dated August 4, 1856 states:

“The Emperor wants General Arcelin to be responsible for having the Manufacture de Châtellerault make 300 carabiners with a movable breech of the model which has been tested at Vincennes and which gave satisfactory results and in addition 100 reserve cavalry sabers, 100 line cavalry sabers and 100 light cavalry sabers which will be attached at the end of the carabiners. The sabers as well as the carabiners of a new model which was established on the personal indications of the Emperor. These weapons are intended to be tested in three regiments of the Imperial Guard.”

At the beginning of October, the Emperor ordered that production be reduced to 100 rifles. On the 7^th October, it was proposed that Châtellerault would provide 108 carbines and sabers. A manufacturing report dating from 5^th April 1857, signed by Arcelin, specified that 111 carbines and sabers had been produced. Despite this sources suggest that by June 1857, carbines was reduced again by the French war ministry, to 96 – a total of 32 per regiment. The carbine we are examining is marked with ‘108’ in a number of places, this would support the total of 108 and would also make it the last of the trials prototypes manufactured.

*Bolt handle extended with the action partially open (Danny Michael/CFM)*

While some sources refer to the sabres as sabre-lances, this was not their designation or purpose nor were the weapons ever issued to Napoleon’s Squadron des Cent-Gardes as some sources suggest. Instead they were issued to three regiments of cavalry:

The reserve cavalry’s 1st Carabinier Regiment (Cavalerie de Réserve, 1er Régiment de Carabiniers), the line cavalry’s Empress’ Dragoons (Cavalerie de ligne, Dragons de l’Impératrice) and the 1^st Hussar Regiment of the light cavalry, (Cavalerie légère, 1er Regiment de Hussards).

Once the contract for 108 trials carbines had been confirmed Arcelin set about refining and producing the guns at Châtellerault. He recruited a promising young gunsmith, Antoine Chassepot, who had been working at the arsenal since 1851, to work on the project. What Chassepot’s input on the project was is largely unknown although his work with Arcelin clearly influenced his own later designs.

The Arcelin carbine used a paper cartridge with a 21g (or 324 grain), 12mm projectile propelled by 3g (or 46gr) of black powder. It was still ignited by a percussion cap and had a back action lock. The breech locked by a pair of opposing threaded screws and by a lug in the base of the action. The carbine weighs 3.2kg (just over 7lbs) and was 1.18m (46.4in) in length, with a 76.5cm (30in) barrel.

*A close up of the breech with action open (Matthew Moss)*

To operate the carbine first the action is opened, rotating the bolt handle up 90-degrees. A cartridge would then be slide into the breech and the action pushed forward and closed. The percussion lock would then be brought to half-cock, a cap placed on the nipple and then the lock would be brought to full cock and the weapon fired. As the carbine fired a paper cartridge there was no need for extraction of a spent case.

The trial of the carbine was carried out alongside another new breechloader, a pinfire, falling block action developed by Antoine Treuille de Beaulieu, chambered in a 9mm round. General Treuille de Beaulieu is perhaps best known for his rifling system for artillery.

The carbines and sabres were issued and ready to begin trials at the beginning of April 1857. By the Autumn of 1857, following testing by the various units the Arcelin was rejected. The Artillery Commission found that the lack of obturation at the breech lead not only to gas escaping the action and being unpleasant and somewhat dangerous for the user but also the fouling of the interrupted thread which locked the action led to jamming and in a number of cases the folding bolt handles were broken when troopers attempted to force the actions open.

*The Arcelin carbine with a similar but later pattern of sabre-bayonet (Danny Michael/CFM)*

Now for the rather impressive bayonet. We have examined carbines with significant bayonets, like the Durs Egg-made Crespi breechloader. The French had a penchant for sabre bayonets dating back to 1840s and would continue to use them into the 1870s. The sabre seen with this carbine is not the exact pattern which would have been paired with the Arcelin. The 1856 pattern Arcelin sabre which would have mounted on the carbines have a hilt style which is slightly different and the lug under the barrel doesn’t quite interface with the catch on the sabre.

The sabre itself is based on the Mle 1854 sabre, a double fullered, 1m long, straight sword manufactured, like the carbines, at Châtellerault. The sword with this carbine is marked at ‘Dragon Mle 1854’ suggesting it was issued to a dragoon regiment, who only began receiving the Mle 1854 in the mid-1860s, the blade’s markings support this as it is also marked June 1865.

From the final report on the trials of the Arcelin we gain some insight into how the sabre-bayonet was to be used. In their final report, in October 1857, the Hussars noted that when used as a bayonet the sabre could only practically be used on foot describing use on horseback as impossible. They felt that firing the carbine could only accurately be done at short range as the fixed sabre made the carbine ungainly, heavy and unbalanced.

*Right side view of the Arcelin’s back action percussion lock, with its action open (Matthew Moss)*

The units did, however, appreciate the defence the sabre-bayonet offered to a dismounted trooper. A passage from the translated report reads:

“the use of the saber as a bayonet gives man a means of defense which he did not have with the old weapons. This straight saber is light, perfectly in hand and excellent for pointing (…) The firing of the new weapon, saber at the end of the barrel, was carried out with the hussars and did not give place to any important observation. As expected, the shot becomes less fair because the weapon is too heavy and less well maintained by the rider (…) The saber used as a bayonet makes it a powerful weapon.”

It appears that 60 of the sabre-bayonets were later adapted to be mounted on the Saint Etienne-built 1858 Chassepot breechloading carbines which were subsequently trialled. These carbines still used percussion caps but had a fixed bolt handle, a rubber obturating round near the bolt head and the actions was rear-locking. This system would eventually evolve into the Fusil Modèle 1866 – the Chassepot.

Gas obturation was a key issue for many of the early breechloaders and would be for some time. General Arcelin’s carbine can be seen as an important footnote in the development of the Chassepot rifle which would follow it. The general died in 1868, aged 73.

Bibliography:

‘Le Sabre du Mousqueton Arcelin’, Gazette des Armes, #156, Aug. 1986, P. Renoux
‘Le Mousqueton Arcelin 1856-1858’, Gazette des Armes, #77, Dec. 1979, P. Lorain
‘Le Sabres-lances Arcelin Mle 1856 Trois Modeles Particuliers Pt.1’, Gazette des Armes, #397, Apr. 2008, B. Aubry & C. Bera
‘Le Sabres-lances Arcelin Mle 1856 Trois Modeles Particuliers Pt.2’, Gazette des Armes, #398, May. 2008, B. Aubry & C. Bera
‘Le Premier Chassepot – Le System de 1858’, Gazette des Armes, #78, Jan. 1980, P. Lorain
L’Arme a Feu Portative Francaise M. Cottaz (1971)

Book Review: Vickers Guide – SIG Sauer Vol.1

It’s been a while since we did a book review so let’s take a look at the latest Vickers Guide. The latest edition of the successful +P+ coffee table series examines the pistols and submachine guns of SIG Sauer and its predecessors.

Compiled by Leonardo Antaris (a noted author on Spanish Astra pistols), Larry Vickers and Ian McCollum with photography from James Rupely the book looks at every pistol made by the company from its earliest origins through to the P320 and P365. One of the special elements of the book is that we get to see the iterative development of weapons like the legendary P210, the P220, P365 and the MPX.

For me the highlights are the seldom seen prototypes for projects that never came to fruition like the MP320 submachine gun. I believe there will be a volume 2 in the future looking at the various rifles and machine guns that SIG and SIG Sauer have developed over the years.

As with the other Vickers Guide books they are weighty, beautifully illustrated and while they don’t offer an in-depth level of detail they give us a look at some developmental prototypes and rare models which we wouldn’t otherwise see documented. I love the photography and layout of these books, they show angles and detail that – unless you’re handling the weapons – you’d never otherwise see.

Gulf War: Operation Granby Iraqi Weapons Recognition Guide

In this video we’ll be launching a brand new series where we’ll look at period small arms and light weapons manuals and other ephemera like infantry tactics handbooks and recognition guides.

This month marks the 30^th anniversary of what the British Army called Operation Granby, better known as Desert Storm or the Gulf War. So I thought taking a look at a Recognition Guide to Iraqi Ground Forces issued during Granby would be a good place to start!

Chapter page for Main Battle Tanks (Matthew Moss)

Britain deployed more than 53,000 personnel during the operation, which began in August 1990, just after the invasion of Kuwait, with the arrival of 2 squadrons of Tornados in theatre. The first ground forces, elements from 7 Armoured Brigade began arriving in October. With no ready reaction force a division strength force was cobbled together from units deployed in Germany and the UK. Huge logistical constraints were overcome to provide a full armoured division, consisting of two brigades, for the liberation of Kuwait.

The guide’s entry for the AMX 155 F3 (Matthew Moss)

During the ground phase of the operation (Operation Desert Sabre), which began on 24^th February 1991, British armoured and mechanised forces, part of VII Corps, provided the left-hook of the allied assault. The division’s two armoured brigades leapfrogging one another quickly taking successive objectives and sweeping west through occupied Kuwait, towards the Gulf Sea, neutralising Iraqi positions with relative ease. During less than 100 hours of ground combat British forces travelled 180 miles and destroyed approximately 300 Iraqi vehicles while allied forces as a whole captured an estimated 80,000 Iraqi troops. A total of 47 British troops were killed during Granby. A ceasefire was declared on 28 February with Iraqi forces collapsed and Kuwait liberated.

The guide’s entry for the T72 tank (Matthew Moss)

The guide was compiled by the Recognition Materials Cell at the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre (or JARIC). Formed in 1953, from the Central Interpretation Unit and based at RAF Brampton from 1957 to 2013, JARIC was the UK’s strategic imagery intelligence provider – providing analysis of aerial and later satellite photography or enemy assets.

With war with Iraq looking imminent and substantial British forces deployed from the UK and Germany, JARIC were tasked with putting together a recognition guide covering Iraqi and Kuwaiti ground assets captured by Iraq during the invasion of Kuwait.

This included everything from main battle tanks, reconnaissance vehicles and armoured personnel carriers to self-propelled artillery, mortars, artillery and multi-barrelled rocket launchers. It also included anti-tank missiles, surface to air missile systems and anti-aircraft assets as well as engineering equipment. All of which might be encountered during upcoming operations to liberate Kuwait. Let’s take a look.

The guide sadly doesn’t have a scale of issue list so it’s difficult to know how many were printed or which units received them. But the first page does give us some indication of the material’s sources – noting they are from unclassified and restricted sources – giving the book a restricted classification overall.

Bibliography

The Gulf War 1991, A. Finlan (2003)

Hot War, Cold War, C. McInnes, (1996)

‘Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre (JARIC)’, National Collection of Aerial Photograph, (source)

‘Unit History: Joint Air Reconnaisance Intelligence Centre’, Forces War Records, (source)

Warsaw 44: PIAT Scene Analysis

We have examined several on screen appearances of the PIAT previously, in this article we will look at a scene from the 2014 Polish movie, MIASTO 44 or City 44/Warsaw 44. The film follows a group of young members of the Home Army during the Warsaw Uprising.

In the scene we’re going to analyse today a Home Army squad are in a defensive position on the first story of an apartment building when a German Goliath remote controlled mine approaches their position. They immediately open fire on the Goliath with small arms, some rifles, a couple of submachine guns including a Sten, a PPSh-41 and an MP40 as well as a captured MG-42. While they’re pretty well armed, they’re low on ammo.

With the small arms fire ineffectual the squad leader calls for the PIAT. The Home Army had an estimated 70 PIATs at the start of the uprising. The British Projector, Infantry, Anti-Tank was the Pole’s primary infantry anti-tank weapon. By the 12^th September the allies had managed to drop more PIATs bringing the number available to around 250.

What’s so special about this scene is that it depicts the cocking of the PIAT! As the others open fire the PIAT number one can be seen rotating the outer casing to unlock it and then pulling it up until the spring inside is cocked. He then lowers the casing and locks it ready to fire. We don’t see it but the No.2 has loaded a bomb into the bomb support tray and the No.1 places the monopod on the sandbags and takes aim.

*A member of the Home Army Cocking the PIAT*

So not only do we have photographs of the PIAT in use at Warsaw we also have some good accounts of its use, one from Zbigniew ‘Deivir’ Czajkowski, a corporal and patrol leader with the Home Army’s ‘Parasol’ scout battalion describes using a PIAT against a German tank during street fighting. Czajkowski describes how the man about to fire the PIAT had forgotten to prime the bomb, he then describes firing on the tank below their position:

“I press the heavy weapon into my shoulder. The tank is in front of me, as if on a plate. I can see the enormous armour plating and the smoke coming from its muzzle. I set my sights. Slowly… carefully… The tank fires, below us again. I aim just behind the turret. There! I squeeze the trigger. The PIAT recoils, the round flies through the air… nearly there… It misses the tank and explodes to the rear of it. “Fuck!” Now my colleague tears the PIAT out of my hands. I don’t stop him. I load a new round. Two more shots from the tank. Presumably they haven’t noticed us. Suddenly it dawns on me – we’re on the second floor! “Aim lower, much lower, under the tracks. We’re too high up here.” The barrel of the PIAT tilts down. I’m oblivious to everything glued to the gap in the wall. The weapon barks. There’s a flash of light against the side of the tank. Got him! The tank is momentarily covered in smoke.”

While not a tank, the Goliath seen in the film, were used during the fighting in Warsaw. The Goliaths were armoured, remote controlled bombs could be steered from cover. These tracked mines could deliver a 60 to 100kg payload of high explosive. Enough to destroy positions and heavily damage buildings. A pair of Goliaths are also seen in the earlier Polish film on the uprising – 1957’s Kanal – which also features a PIAT, albeit a wooden mock-up, which takes on a German tank.

*A Goliath Remote Controlled Mine in Warsaw (Bundesarchiv)*

In Warsaw 44 the PIAT No.1 manages to land his bomb just in front of the approaching Goliath, the blast apparently is enough to break one of the mine’s tracks – perhaps shrapnel or debris struck it. The victory is short-lived, however, and the Polish position is raked by machine gun fire – killing the PIAT No.1 – and a full German assault follows.

The film’s depiction of the PIAT is quite good, although the PIAT appears to be cocked very easily. The weapon’s recoil seems a little light but is represented with the No.1 being sharply pushed back. There is a short flash as the remains of the bomb’s propellent cartridge are seen as the bomb leaves the spigot. We can also see that the spigot is still visible in the bomb tray, meaning the weapon has not re-cocked itself.

The PIAT gave the besieged soldiers of the Home Army a much-needed weapon capable of taking on enemy armoured vehicles. But a few dozen PIATs weren’t enough to turn the tide and the valiant Poles were forces to surrender after two months hard fighting. The film, Warsaw 44, gives a pretty immersive idea of what the fighting in the city might have been like and is worth checking out.

Bibliography:

Miasto 44 (2014)
Warsaw 1944: An Insurgent’s Journal of the Uprising, Z. Czajkowski, (2013)

British Cold War Missiles – Malkara & Thunderbird

While doing some archival digging I found some interested newsreel footage of early Cold War British missiles. The footage features the Malkara anti-tank missile and the Thunderbird surface-to-air missile.

The Malkara was developed in the early 1950s. It was a wire-guided anti-tank weapon with a 57lb HESH warhead. It had a range of up to 2.5 miles. In the footage we see it guided through a hole in a target net.

*FV1620 Humber Hornet launching a Malkara (ParaData)*

The Malkara was mounted on a number of platforms and vehicles and remained in service into the mid-1960s. It’s bulk and weight saw it eventually replaced by the smaller Vickers Vigilant and the Swingfire.

*Thunderbird, c.1960 (Adrian Pingstone)*

The second missile featured in the newsreel is the English Electric Thunderbird, a British Army SAM with a 75km range and a speed of Mach 2.7. The Thunderbird was replaced by the Rapier in the 70s, which is still in service today.

Hope you enjoyed seeing some of these British cold war missiles in action, it’s amazing what you find in archives when you aren’t looking for it!

Bibliography:

Footage Source: Universal Newsreel Volume 30, 1957, via US National Archives, (source)
Anti-Tank Weapons, T. Gander, (2000)

Cold War British Vehicles – Anglesey Transport Museum

Late last summer we visited the Anglesey Transport Museum in North Wales. They had a great collection of classic and vintage cars and bikes and most interestingly they had a little collection of British military vehicles.

They had a number of trucks and special purpose vehicles from the Royal Engineers, REME and RLC and even a Green Goddess Fire Engine. They also had a couple of pretty cool Cold War British Army armoured personnel carriers.

Alvis Saracen

The Saracen was a six-wheeled armoured personnel carrier (APC) built by Alvis. It entered service in 1952 and was used extensively in Malaya and Northern Ireland. The Saracen could carry an 8 man section along with its 2 man crew. It had a 160HP Rolls Royce engine and depending on when during its service life its turret could be mounted with a .30 calibre M1919A4 or an L37 vehicle-mounted general purpose machine gun.

Humber Pig

Another APC which was in service alongside the Saracen, the ‘Truck, Armoured, 1 Ton, 4×4’, better known as the Humber Pig. Based on a truck chassis, it had a 120HP 6 cylinder engine and room for 6 men on the benches in the back. It could be mounted with an L4 Bren gun. It saw extensive use in Northern Ireland during operation Banner and was in service from 1956 through to the early 90s.

Daimler Ferret Mk1 Scout Car

Next to the Pig in the collection was a Mk1 Daimler Ferret scout car. Fitted out with an M1919A4 and six forward-firing grenade launchers – for smoke grenades. The later Mk2 had a turret but the Mk1 made use of its low profile. This one has its canvas cover over the fighting compartment. The 4×4 Ferret was powered by a 130HP Rolls Royce B60 straight six. Perfect little run-around to do the shopping in.

On the top of the hull is the pintle mounted Browning M1919A4 machine gun. This would have been operated by the Ferret’s commander. We can see the mount allows it to be aimed and fired from somewhat inside the hull. The Ferret entered service in the early 1950s and remained in use into the late 1980s/early 1990s. Just short of 4,500 Ferrets were manufactured.

Bofors QF 40mm Mk1

At the centre of the military vehicle collection was a QF 40mm Mk1, better known as a Bofors. Both land and naval versions of the Bofors were used during the Second World War and after. Capable of firing 120 40mm shells per minute, it was normally manned by a four man crew. It filled the British army’s light Anti-Aircraft gun role and remained in service well into the 1980s.

We can see the gun’s huge recoil spring and to the rear of the gun is a case deflector which connected with a trough which channels the spent cases down below the gun. The gun still has most of its controls and traverse and elevation crank handles in place. On top of the gun are the huge guides for the four-round clips of 40mm shells.

Find out more about the museum here.

John Browning’s 1895 Slide-Action Prototype

By 1895 Winchester had been considering a slide-action rifle for some time, in 1882 William Mason had begun work on one (US Patent #278987) to counter Colt’s slide-action Lightning only to drop it. Finally in 1890, Winchester introduced a slide-action .22 calibre rifle developed by John Browning. The Model 1890 became extremely popular.

Between 1887 and 1895 Browning patented four slide-action rifle designs. The first of these, US patent #367336, was granted in July 1887, this was followed in 1888 by US patent #385238. In September 1890, the Browning brothers were granted US patent #436965, which along with the previous 1888 patent protected what became the Model 1890. Three years later Winchester introduced the Model 1893 pump action shotgun, that would eventually evolve into the famous Winchester Model 1897.

Right-side close up of the rifle with its action open (Matthew Moss)

Finally, April 1895, Browning filed a patent for a design for a .30 calibre rifle which was granted in September 1895 (US patent #545672) This patent covers the rifle we’re examining here. The rifle itself is a slide or pump action in long barrelled configuration which Winchester described as a ‘Musket’.

The September 1895 slide-action design was purchased by Winchester but like so many other Browning designs, it never entered production and Winchester purchased the design purely to secure it and prevent other rival manufacturers picking it up. Winchester instead went with a lever-action design, patented in November 1895 (US #549345), which became the famous Winchester Model 1895.

A left-side view of the rifle’s receiver with Browning’s patent overlaid (Matthew Moss)

The September 1895 slide or pump-action rifle design had a laterally camming locking breechblock. As we can see, externally Browning’s toolroom prototype looks somewhat similar to the contemporary Winchester Model 1895, with a single-stack integrated box magazine but with a pump sleeve rather than a lever.

An action-bar connects the slide/pump to the front of the breechblock/bolt carrieron the right-hand side of the rifle. The slide handle itself is made of a U-shaped piece of metal which wraps around the rifle’s forend. The slide has been roughly cross hatched to improve grip. There is a channel cut into the furniture for the action arm’s attachment point to travel. The slide is attached to the arm by a pair of screws.

A close up of the rifle’s slide/pump handle (Matthew Moss)

However, Browning developed this prototype to allow loading of the magazine from below rather than through the top of the receiver. He added a hinged floor plate, with a spring loaded follower, that allowed loose rounds to be dropped into the magazine and then closed.

As we open the magazine, hinging the cover plate down, we see the carrier flip down against the plate to allow loading. The rifle was designed to be loaded from below with the bolt forward.

Browning’s September 1895 patent (US Patent Office)

In the patent description Browning explained that his aim was to improve breech-loading box-magazine firearms by designing:

“…a simple, compact, strong, highly effective, and safe gun, containing comparatively few parts and constructed with particular reference to provision for charging the box-magazine with cartridges from the bottom of the frame of the arm while the breech-bolt is in its closed position, so that the arm may be charged without operating its action mechanism or disturbing the cartridge in the gun-barrel, if one is there.”

From the original patent drawings we can see the flat spring which acted on the carrier running below the barrel, ahead of the magazine. Inside the magazine are a pair of what Browning refers to as ‘spring fingers’ these act on the cartridges inside the magazine and keep them properly aligned, seen here in Fig.7 of the patent. In Fig.8 we can see what Browning calls a ‘box-like guideway’ which guide the rims of the cartridges, “preventing the cartridges from being displaced while being fed upwards.”

The rifle’s breechblock locked into a recess in the left side of the receiver, tilting at an angle with the rear of the breechblock canting to the left. When the pump handle was pulled rearwards the breechblock cammed laterally to unlock the action, extracted and ejected any spent casing and when the slide/pump was returned forward a new cartridge was picked up from the magazine, chambered the breechblock locked again ready to fire. The rifle’s hammer was cocked by the rearward movement of the breechblock.

A left-side view of the rifle with its action open, note the complex machining on the rear of the breech bolt (Matthew Moss)

Externally, the slide-action’s receiver looks similar to that of the production Model 1895 but internally they are very different. The action is certainly less open than the Model 1895’s but the lateral locking mechanism is less robust. Additionally, with no lever, as in the Model 1895, the slide-action rifle lacks the safety mechanism which prevents the action from opening accidentally.

A view inside the open magazine with the floorplate hinged open (Matthew Moss)

The model is in the white and while externally the machining and tool work is very neat, inside the action we can see where the cuts in the receiver wall have been more crudely made. In terms of design, the slide-action prototype was certainly simpler and had fewer working parts than the Model 1895 lever-action.

Winchester purchased the .30 calibre slide-action design but never produced it, it is believed that only Browning’s prototype was built to prove the concept. The prototype was part of Winchester’s collection and may now be found at the Cody Firearms Museum.

Check out our earlier videos on Browning’s lever-action box magazine-fed prototype and his en bloc clip-fed prototype.

If you enjoyed the video and this article please consider supporting our work here. We have some great perks available for Patreon Supporters. You can also support us via one-time donations here.

Bibliography:

‘Box Magazine Bolt Gun’ J.M. Browning, US Patent #545672, 3 Sept. 1895 (source)

‘Box Magazine Firearm’, J.M. Browning, US Patent #549345, 5 Nov. 1895 (source)

John M Browning: American Gunmaker, J. Browning & C. Gentry (1964)

Winchester Repeating Arms Company, H. Houze, (2004)

PIAT Scene Analysis: ‘The Unbroken Line’ (1985)

Following on from our earlier look at the PIAT scenes from A Bridge Too Far and Theirs Is The Glory in this video we’ll take a look at ‘The Unbroken Line’, a short British Army film, made in 1985. It tells the story of the British Army’s 300 year history with depictions of the battles of Blenheim, Waterloo and Operation Overlord – as well as a depiction of what fighting against a Soviet invasion in 1985 might have looked like.

The PIAT No.1 takes aim (Still from The Unbroken Line)

In this short video we’ll look at one of the interesting scenes that features a PIAT in action! The PIAT goes up against a Jagdpanzer 38 tank destroyer. Set in Normandy after the D-Day Landings we see a section from the Dorset Regiment. When the German Jagdpanzer crashes through the wall the section commander shouts ‘PIAT’, calling on the PIAT team to move up and engage the tank destroyer. The PIAT No.1 take up position and manages to knock out the Jagdpanzer but sadly he’s then the victim of a German grenade. The Dorsets then storm the ruins and capture the defenders and the tank destroyer crew.

For more about ‘The Unbroken Line’ check out RM Military History’s special video where myself and Robbie chat with David Carson, the historical advisor on the film!

If you enjoyed the video and this article please consider supporting our work here. We have some great perks available for Patreon Supporters. You can also support us via one-time donations here.

Screw-Breech Percussion Rifle Prototype

In this video and article we’ll examine a somewhat mysterious screw breech percussion rifle – if you, like me ever wondered what a Ferguson with a percussion lock might look like then you’ll find this one fascinating. If you haven’t seen our earlier video on Patrick Ferguson’s 18^th century breechloading rifle, check that out!

Right profile of the rifle (Matthew Moss)

This rifle likely dates to the mid-1860s and from some research is believed to be based on a design patented by Lewis Wells Broadwell, an American inventor. Broadwell was granted his first patent in 1861, protecting a sliding breech design for artillery. During the 1860s & 70s Broadwell was employed as the European Sales Agent for the Gatling Gun Company. He held a number of firearms and ordnance related patents, granted between 1861 and 1876. With several relating to artillery carriages, ammunition and magazine systems. His screw breech (US #33876) and a gas check (US #167981) designs for artillery were used by Krupp in some of their guns including the popular 68mm breechloading Mountain Gun.

The rifle with its trigger guard rotated forward and its breech open (Matthew Moss)

Like the earlier Ferguson rifle, which drew heavily on earlier screw breech designs, this rifle has a rotating trigger guard which acts as a lever to unscrew the breech. Rotating the trigger guard drops a rectangular breechblock and opens the action. Unlike the Ferguson the threaded piece does not act as the breech plug itself, instead the separate breech block takes the brunt of the cartridge ignition.

The rifle with its breech open (Matthew Moss)

Broadwell filed the patent believed to correspond to this rifle first in Britain, in May 1863, and subsequently in the US in August 1865 (US #49583). The patent protected the breech action and depicts what Broadwell described as a ‘screwed nut’ below a rectangular vertically sliding breech block. This idea of a sliding breech-block builds on his earlier patent for a sliding cannon breech.

Broadwell’s UK patent, dated 1863 (UK Patent courtesy of Research Press)

In Britain, Broadwell used Richard Brooman, of Robertson, Brooman and Company, as a patent agent. At the time Brooman’s company offered a service by which he acted as the inventor’s deputy and was listed as the patent holder, while the inventor was listed as the ‘communicator’. The service cost the not insignificant sum of £45 (at the time a labourer could earn just 3 shillings 9 pence per week – or 15% of £1 – that’s just under a year’s average wages). This initial sum covered the patent for three years. It is likely Broadwell employed an agent because at the time he was living in St Petersburg in Russia, undertaking negotiations with the Russian Government to establish Gatling Gun production. Brooman was also the editor of The Mechanics’ Magazine, a Victorian science and industry journal.

Broadwell’s slightly different 1865 US patent which is also similar to the rifle we are examining (US Patent Office)

The breech plug has a screw thread with a very wide pitch with flat crests. Broadwell’s US patent describes the breech plug as having a ‘three to six threaded screw’. The breech blog falls enough to allow loading after turning the lever around 200-degrees – ensuring a rapid action. Interestingly the British patent shows the lever not attached to the base of the screw plug but instead shows it at the mid-point of the screw. This may be an error in the drawing. It seems that if the rifle we are examining is a Broadwell prototype it was decided to simplify the action by attaching the lever at the base of the plug.

A close up of the rifle’s trigger guard and screw (Matthew Moss)

This rifle itself, has no markings whatsoever, not even range markings on the rear sight. Typically rifles of this period would at least have a marker’s or patent holder’s mark on the barrel or lock plate. This suggests that the rifle is either unfinished or more likely a prototype which did not require extensive markings.

The rifle’s unmarked rear sight (Matthew Moss)

The breechblock is not blued and is possibly case hardened. Much like the Ferguson, and other earlier screw-breech rifles the trigger guard also acts as the breech lever. Which with a rotation of approximately 200 degrees, descends enough to open the breech and allow access to the chamber. The threaded screw is around 0.5 in (1.2cm) thick and acts on a rectangular breechblock which sits above it. This basic layout matches Broadwell’s 1863 UK patent.

The rifle with its breech partially closes, there is no method of extraction indicating it used a combustible cartridge (Matthew Moss)

The rectangular shape of the breechblock ensures a strong action as it butts up against a pair of narrow shoulders (about 1mm in width) at the rear of the receiver. The rifle has a two band stock and a cleaning/ramrod which indicates a military-style rifle but interestingly, there is no obvious provision for fixing a bayonet.

The rifle is believed to be chambered in a cartridge using a .451 Westley Richards projectile. There is no method for extraction so we can safely assume the rifle used a combustible cartridge, ignited by a percussion cap rather than a self-contained metallic cartridge. Interestingly, the UK patent also suggests the use of a “tubular magazine… formed in the hammer, containing self-acting feeding apparatus for supplying ignition wafers or patches to the nipple.” This is not mentioned in the later US patent and the rifle we’re examining has a conventional capped percussion lock.

A close up of the Note rectangular breech with the action closed (Matthew Moss)

The US patent describes a ‘mechanism to prevent the gun from being fired when the breech is open’, this is formed by a lever which disengages with the trigger when the breech lever is rotated. There is a small leather flange in the base of the stock where the screw ascends and descends, this prevents the ingress of dirt and also acts to keep the screw clean.

Left profile of the rifle (Matthew Moss)

Compared to Patrick Ferguson’s action Broadwell’s design simplifies the breech plug using a simpler to manufacture rectangular breechblock and a thinner screw plug. The use of a self-contained cartridge would have sped up loading but the need to cap the rifle’s nipple was still a limiting factor. The screw breech concept became increasingly obsolete with the introduction of self-contained metallic cartridges with integral primers as well as the introduction of faster actions including bolt actions, falling block actions and toggle-locked lever actions.

Lewis Broadwell was born in Cincinnati, Ohio, on 18th July 1820. He is perhaps best known for his drum magazine design for the Gatling Gun. The Broadwell Drum consisted of a series of single stack, gravity assisted magazine columns arrayed around a central pivot point. These columns held between 15 and 20 rounds depending on calibre and typically there were 16 columns of ammunition. Broadwell patented the drum’s design in December 1870. It was used extensively during the 1870s by a number of militaries around the world, including by the British Army. Broadwell was granted his last patent in 1876 and died, aged 86, in May 1906.

Special thanks to the Hayes collection for letting us take a look at this very interesting rifle. Thanks to David over at the Research Press for help finding the patent and to John Walter for his help finding information on Broadwell himself.

If you enjoyed the video and this article please consider supporting our work here. We have some great perks available for Patreon Supporters. You can also support us via one-time donations here.