- Joined
- 25 July 2007
- Messages
- 3,873
- Reaction score
- 3,176
Rifles Anti-Tank (Training Pattern)
This is esoteric but I'm looking for more information about an anti-tank training weapon created at Esquimalt, British Columbia in 1941-42. This training device was created by modifying a service rifle to mimic the shape of a Canadian-made Rifle, Anti-Tank, .55in, Boys Mk.I* (then in production with John Inglis and Company of Toronto, Ontario).
The only online reference to these curious devices seems to be two images attached to a page entitled The Enfield designed BOYS ANTI-TANK RIFLE in .55 calibre on the Rifleman UK website (Historic Arms Resource Centre/Miniature-Calibre Rifles Research Site). In a contemporary official document, this weapon is referred to as the 'Rifle Anti-Tank (Training Pattern)'.
-- https://www.rifleman.org.uk/Enfield_Boys_Anti-Tank_Rifle.html
Two images are mounted - with no accompanying text (or image source noted). I'll link to those images below (since rifleman.org.uk is rather firm about its copyrights).
-- https://www.rifleman.org.uk/Images/Boys-Ross Training Rifle conversion.gif
The first image is a parts diagram illustrated with photos of the 'Rifle Anti-Tank (Training Pattern)' conversion showing it from both left and right sides. Some of the labelling is a little hard to make out, so I've recreated these on the attached reconstruction artwork. Those parts letters correspond to the list below:
Part A = Extended butt
Part B = Rear grip hoop
Part C = Rear grip handle
Part D = Cheek pad
Part E = Butt extension plate (R)
Part F = Pistol grip
Part G = Bipod mount clamp
Part H = Bipod legs
Part I = Bipod feet
Part J = Dowel for Butt extension
Part K = Butt extension plate (L)
As will be seen from the reconstruction, the 'Rifle Anti-Tank (Training Pattern)' wasn't a slavish imitation of the shape of the Boys. Most likely, it was just a matter of getting a rough shape onto the range as quickly as possible (the Pacific Coast being in a bit of an invasion panic at that time).
The second image is a copy of a 23 Jan 1942 letter from Capt. (soon to be Major) A. Barnes at the Directorate of Ordnance Services (Technical Stores) in Ottawa. [1] The letter is a response to a request for the supply of training anti-tank rifles from a District Ordnance Officer on the opposite side of the country from Esquimalt - Military District No.7, Saint John NB.
-- https://www.rifleman.org.uk/Images/Boys ATR MLE adaptation letter.gif
The main point of the letter seems to be reassuring the District Ordnance Officer in New Brunswick that supplies of 'Rifle Anti-Tank (Training Pattern)' - Issue Order 4-2861 - would not be counted against distribution of actual Boys Mk.I* AT rifles. But a few other, minor details stick out in that letter.
First is that Capt. Barnes says that five 'Rifle Anti-Tank (Training Pattern)' were already being shipped to Military District No.7. So, these training rifles had been 'productionized' to some degree. But 'how?' leads us to the second issue ...
Second is the statement "These weapons are a conversion of Rifles M.L.E. Mk.I to simulate Boys A.T. rifles.". That sentence raise a couple of questions.
- 1: "Rifles M.L.E. Mk.I" refers to the Canadian Army's obsolete Lee–Metford bolt-action rifle. But the first of the rifleman.org.uk images clearly shows the conversion of a straight-pull Rifle, Ross Mk III. It would be hard to mistake the two rifle types - visually or in a written description.
- 2: Does Capt. Barnes' reference to the MLE Mk.I mean that, in 'productionizing' the 'Rifle Anti-Tank (Training Pattern)', a switch was made from the Ross to Lee-Metfords as the 'base' rifle? [2]
- 3: Would this switch suggest that the illustrated 'Rifle Anti-Tank (Training Pattern)' was a prototype conversion?
Third is the statement "The work in carrying out this con-version is being done in the Ordnance Workshops at Esquimalt." The thing is, the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps (RCOC) only had a handful of official 'Ordnance Workshops' in Canada during WW2. And, as far as I can tell, there was no actual RCOC "Ordnance Workshops at Esquimalt". [3] But this may be being too pedantic. Perhaps, Capt. Barnes only meant to refer to whatever workshop arrangement was available to the 'tiffies' at Esquimalt in late 1941/early 1942.
So, can anyone provide more on the 'Rifle Anti-Tank (Training Pattern)' conversions? Or about RCOC activities at Esquimalt towards the end of 1941?
______________________________
[1] The DOS (TS) was on of several directorates dealing with procurement and maintenance of Canadian Army equipment.
[2] This would be curious. The Lee-Metford MLE Mk.I was doubtless obsolete but its action was identical to that of the in-service Lee-Enfields. That would seem to make the MLE Mk.I useful for training riflemen in a way that the traight-pull Ross simply was not. But, perhaps, it was simply a matter of which obsolete type was readily available for conversion at Esquimalt?
[3] In January 1942, there was no RCOC Base Workshop in Esquimalt. Nor did Pacific Command have any Divisional Ordnance Workshops. There is mention of an "11 Ordnance Company, Esquimault [sic] in the 1930s". However, such a unit would have largely been stripped of artificers to man the overseas deployed Army Field Workshops in 1939-40.
Canada?s Craftsmen at 50!: The Story of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering in the Canadian Armed Forces, Col Murray C. Johnston, EME Officier's Fund (CFB Borden, ON), 1997, page 1.
-- https://rcemecorpsgemrc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Canadas_Craftsmen_at_50_Feb2010.pdf
This is esoteric but I'm looking for more information about an anti-tank training weapon created at Esquimalt, British Columbia in 1941-42. This training device was created by modifying a service rifle to mimic the shape of a Canadian-made Rifle, Anti-Tank, .55in, Boys Mk.I* (then in production with John Inglis and Company of Toronto, Ontario).
The only online reference to these curious devices seems to be two images attached to a page entitled The Enfield designed BOYS ANTI-TANK RIFLE in .55 calibre on the Rifleman UK website (Historic Arms Resource Centre/Miniature-Calibre Rifles Research Site). In a contemporary official document, this weapon is referred to as the 'Rifle Anti-Tank (Training Pattern)'.
-- https://www.rifleman.org.uk/Enfield_Boys_Anti-Tank_Rifle.html
Two images are mounted - with no accompanying text (or image source noted). I'll link to those images below (since rifleman.org.uk is rather firm about its copyrights).
-- https://www.rifleman.org.uk/Images/Boys-Ross Training Rifle conversion.gif
The first image is a parts diagram illustrated with photos of the 'Rifle Anti-Tank (Training Pattern)' conversion showing it from both left and right sides. Some of the labelling is a little hard to make out, so I've recreated these on the attached reconstruction artwork. Those parts letters correspond to the list below:
Part A = Extended butt
Part B = Rear grip hoop
Part C = Rear grip handle
Part D = Cheek pad
Part E = Butt extension plate (R)
Part F = Pistol grip
Part G = Bipod mount clamp
Part H = Bipod legs
Part I = Bipod feet
Part J = Dowel for Butt extension
Part K = Butt extension plate (L)
As will be seen from the reconstruction, the 'Rifle Anti-Tank (Training Pattern)' wasn't a slavish imitation of the shape of the Boys. Most likely, it was just a matter of getting a rough shape onto the range as quickly as possible (the Pacific Coast being in a bit of an invasion panic at that time).
The second image is a copy of a 23 Jan 1942 letter from Capt. (soon to be Major) A. Barnes at the Directorate of Ordnance Services (Technical Stores) in Ottawa. [1] The letter is a response to a request for the supply of training anti-tank rifles from a District Ordnance Officer on the opposite side of the country from Esquimalt - Military District No.7, Saint John NB.
-- https://www.rifleman.org.uk/Images/Boys ATR MLE adaptation letter.gif
The main point of the letter seems to be reassuring the District Ordnance Officer in New Brunswick that supplies of 'Rifle Anti-Tank (Training Pattern)' - Issue Order 4-2861 - would not be counted against distribution of actual Boys Mk.I* AT rifles. But a few other, minor details stick out in that letter.
First is that Capt. Barnes says that five 'Rifle Anti-Tank (Training Pattern)' were already being shipped to Military District No.7. So, these training rifles had been 'productionized' to some degree. But 'how?' leads us to the second issue ...
Second is the statement "These weapons are a conversion of Rifles M.L.E. Mk.I to simulate Boys A.T. rifles.". That sentence raise a couple of questions.
- 1: "Rifles M.L.E. Mk.I" refers to the Canadian Army's obsolete Lee–Metford bolt-action rifle. But the first of the rifleman.org.uk images clearly shows the conversion of a straight-pull Rifle, Ross Mk III. It would be hard to mistake the two rifle types - visually or in a written description.
- 2: Does Capt. Barnes' reference to the MLE Mk.I mean that, in 'productionizing' the 'Rifle Anti-Tank (Training Pattern)', a switch was made from the Ross to Lee-Metfords as the 'base' rifle? [2]
- 3: Would this switch suggest that the illustrated 'Rifle Anti-Tank (Training Pattern)' was a prototype conversion?
Third is the statement "The work in carrying out this con-version is being done in the Ordnance Workshops at Esquimalt." The thing is, the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps (RCOC) only had a handful of official 'Ordnance Workshops' in Canada during WW2. And, as far as I can tell, there was no actual RCOC "Ordnance Workshops at Esquimalt". [3] But this may be being too pedantic. Perhaps, Capt. Barnes only meant to refer to whatever workshop arrangement was available to the 'tiffies' at Esquimalt in late 1941/early 1942.
So, can anyone provide more on the 'Rifle Anti-Tank (Training Pattern)' conversions? Or about RCOC activities at Esquimalt towards the end of 1941?
______________________________
[1] The DOS (TS) was on of several directorates dealing with procurement and maintenance of Canadian Army equipment.
[2] This would be curious. The Lee-Metford MLE Mk.I was doubtless obsolete but its action was identical to that of the in-service Lee-Enfields. That would seem to make the MLE Mk.I useful for training riflemen in a way that the traight-pull Ross simply was not. But, perhaps, it was simply a matter of which obsolete type was readily available for conversion at Esquimalt?
[3] In January 1942, there was no RCOC Base Workshop in Esquimalt. Nor did Pacific Command have any Divisional Ordnance Workshops. There is mention of an "11 Ordnance Company, Esquimault [sic] in the 1930s". However, such a unit would have largely been stripped of artificers to man the overseas deployed Army Field Workshops in 1939-40.
Canada?s Craftsmen at 50!: The Story of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering in the Canadian Armed Forces, Col Murray C. Johnston, EME Officier's Fund (CFB Borden, ON), 1997, page 1.
-- https://rcemecorpsgemrc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Canadas_Craftsmen_at_50_Feb2010.pdf
