Opinion wanted: Need and Selection of DP Vickers

[todd]

I’ve gotten into the middle of an interesting intellectual discussion about the need for and selection of DP Vickers guns. I value your opinion and experience on these issues.

Reference the need for DP guns, one postulate is that “Drill Purpose Vickers mitigated wear and damage to serviceable guns since, while performing crew drill, everything that could be taken apart was taken apart many, many times.” The opposing view is that "Extensive wear from assembly/disassembly is an overstatement compared to firing.”

Reference the selection of DP guns, one line of thought is that “that once WW2 Vickers production reached capacity, most of the WW1 guns were pulled back and relinquished to drill service without any real issue with the guns save they weren't current issue.” The second line of thought is that “excessively worn guns were removed from active service, marked DP so that they would not be fired, and used exclusively for crew drill to save the serviceable guns.”

Your comments, thoughts, and experience is very appreciated.

[Richard Fisher]

Todd,

I am sure there is a an Army Council Instruction and / or List of changes reference that identifies how DP guns were to be selected. I will see what I can look out for you.

In the meantime, the Technical Handbook No. 1 (War Office, 1940) identifies that they are "Assembled from unserviceable guns or components". This favours the first theory.

Discounting the second even further, it must be remember that nobody knew when the Second World War was going to end so they would not have withdrawn serviceable weapons just because newer items were being produced. They were all the same stores code as far as the paperwork was concerned.

Hope this is of use.

Richard

[andrewupton]

Feb 27, 2010 11:44:03 GMT 1 Richard Fisher said:

Todd,

I am sure there is a an Army Council Instruction and / or List of changes reference that identifies how DP guns were to be selected. I will see what I can look out for you.

In the meantime, the Technical Handbook No. 1 (War Office, 1940) identifies that they are "Assembled from unserviceable guns or components". This favours the first theory.

I thought that as well - the idea that firing causes more wear than repeated training of assembly/disassembly isn't backed up by what was recorded of the firing of 5,000,000 rounds over 7 days and 7 nights in 1968. Reference British Army Sergeant TR Ashley's account of the event, published in Goldsmiths "Grand Old Lady" page 188:

"At the end the gunpit was surrounded by mountains of boxes, belts, cases, debris; a large cleft had appeared in the stop butts where the bullets had destroyed the butts. We took the gun off its tripod and back to the workshop. We inspected and guaged. No measurable difference anywhere. It had eaten barrels, they were changed every hour to 1 1/2 hours, but mechanically [the gun] was unchanged."

[todd]

Feb 27, 2010 11:44:03 GMT 1 Richard Fisher said:

I am sure there is a an Army Council Instruction and / or List of changes reference that identifies how DP guns were to be selected. I will see what I can look out for you.

Richard,

Your help is greatly appreciated in determining how DP guns were selected. Thank you in advance.

Todd