- Thread starter Downtown
- Start date
Well, round dog tags went out in WW2.
Original photo was B&W. Supposed to be AEF in France circa WW1. I wonder how they choose colors when they colorize old photos. I can understand known items like a uniform. But, how did they determine what the camo colors would have been?
Likely a guess based on surviving material and pieces. The colors are similar as to camo on tanks and such of the era.
The guy who did that can be contacted through his website:
I believe that pic was taken in France in 1918. Amazing color restoration.
An amazing documentary was done with color restoration of WWI footage back in 2018, Google “They Shall Not Grow Old trailer” if curious.
An amazing documentary was done with color restoration of WWI footage back in 2018, Google “They Shall Not Grow Old trailer” if curious.
They use pieces from museums and collections. While I am not a fan of colorizing... I do know that the folks who are doing it at the 'high end' are really, really thorough on their research. The "Making of" the movie "They Shall Not Grow Old" was a brilliant example of using color that was very heavily-researched. And done really well. The movie was great. The 'Making of" was incredible.
One museum collection that is fantastic is the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa. And, of course, the Imperial War Museum (and annex) in the UK. Where the 'displayed' collection is perhaps 5 percent of the total holdings.
Very neat photo!
Cheers,
Sirhr
Canada officially authorized camouflage rifles and sniper scopes in WW 2.
I will see if I can locate my copy of the directive and post it.
NICE photo....
I will see if I can locate my copy of the directive and post it.
NICE photo....
^^^ Ok, come clean... do you HAVE a Fosberry .455?
Because if you do... pictures please! I have only shot one once. I so lust after a real Fosberry
Sirhr
Paging @cplnorton
The camo in Belgium is unreal.
Even today they use some "odd" combinations...
I have a camo German M1918 coal scuttle helmet in camo and the colors are similar.
Thing is colors in nature are much more "vibrant" than camo typically is designed.
Still these colors have to be influenced by the WWI experience thinking fresh turned clays and an underground fighting experience.
Marines were moving in this direction when considering sniper rifles....If I had to bet @cplnorton actually owns the rifle in this photo...
Edit/Add.....My work campaign hat took the shape of this Marines and I was digging it. Trying to explain to a Sgt why I didnt give any fucks didnt result in my being able to keep that cover.
The camo in Belgium is unreal.
Even today they use some "odd" combinations...
I have a camo German M1918 coal scuttle helmet in camo and the colors are similar.
Thing is colors in nature are much more "vibrant" than camo typically is designed.
Still these colors have to be influenced by the WWI experience thinking fresh turned clays and an underground fighting experience.
Marines were moving in this direction when considering sniper rifles....If I had to bet @cplnorton actually owns the rifle in this photo...
Edit/Add.....My work campaign hat took the shape of this Marines and I was digging it. Trying to explain to a Sgt why I didnt give any fucks didnt result in my being able to keep that cover.
Last edited:
Pretty sure the British Scouts that helped us wreck Vancouver ~2004 had round tags...
Sure this isn't a WW2 photo of a British soldier? We did send 'em a lot of shit both times.
I saw an interesting documentary somewhere, sometime ago about camo and how contemporary art drives the colors and designs. So in WW1 it would have been the impressionists.
Dazzle camo was, I think, the Cubists. And it had some real applications. On ships, submarines could not tell range, which direction they were going...
This is a pretty good Wiki entry on it.
Dazzle camouflage - Wikipedia
Wonder what a battleship painted by Picasso would sell for today?
One of the best uses was by the nascent Luftwaffe... the "Flying Circus of Richtofen (and Goering)" got its name because of its wild camo patterns which made spotting them difficult... and estimating range, velocity, etc.
WW1 was the first real use of camouflage, in part because it was the first war where mechanization, telegraphs and, later, wireless, let commanders coordinate armies from a distance or NLOS. Prior to that, the bright uniforms, plumes, banners, etc. gave the generals and commanders a 'visual' that showed their battlefield laid out like a game of Risk. Easy bright colors and seas of movement controlled by flags and spyglasses led to maps and orders sent by radiotelephone, motorcycles and runners... and sometimes spotted by balloons and aircraft. No more need for bright uniforms and 'visuals' to coordinate.
Suddenly camouflage had a purpose! Though some units marching to war early in WW2... did it in plumes and bright uniforms. In a well-thought-out plan.
Sirhr
I always enjoy reading this thread. It's a blend of personal experiences, history and an appreciation of our past.
Firm believer the learning process never stops. All that's required is you keep an open mind.
Dazzel Camo: Interesting nugget
Firm believer the learning process never stops. All that's required is you keep an open mind.
Dazzel Camo: Interesting nugget
Dazzle camo was, I think, the Cubists. And it had some real applications. On ships, submarines could not tell range, which direction they were going...
This is a pretty good Wiki entry on it.
Dazzle camouflage - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Wonder what a battleship painted by Picasso would sell for today?
One of the best uses was by the nascent Luftwaffe... the "Flying Circus of Richtofen (and Goering)" got its name because of its wild camo patterns which made spotting them difficult... and estimating range, velocity, etc.
WW1 was the first real use of camouflage, in part because it was the first war where mechanization, telegraphs and, later, wireless, let commanders coordinate armies from a distance or NLOS. Prior to that, the bright uniforms, plumes, banners, etc. gave the generals and commanders a 'visual' that showed their battlefield laid out like a game of Risk. Easy bright colors and seas of movement controlled by flags and spyglasses led to maps and orders sent by radiotelephone, motorcycles and runners... and sometimes spotted by balloons and aircraft. No more need for bright uniforms and 'visuals' to coordinate.
Suddenly camouflage had a purpose! Though some units marching to war early in WW2... did it in plumes and bright uniforms. In a well-thought-out plan.
Sirhr
Yeah, this one would have been a good one to help revive "Military Jeopardy"!
But how are we sure it's WW1 and not WW2? Everyone seems convinced it's WW1, how can you tell? FWIW, there are a lot of documentaries with images from the wrong period, only way to tell was that I'd seen some before in books where it's a lot less likely something like that can happen.
Oh I wish I could remember the documentary about art and camo, you'd like it for sure, right up your alley. It really went indepth on the subject, it was really neat and covered it all --pretty sure they mentioned dazzle camo and its purpose for disrupting range (and azimuth) too. It may be worth searching for on Amazon Prime and/or Youtube. I find a lot of obscure military and historical related documentaries on there, it probably makes up the bulk of their listings actually. There's another about Vietnam gun trucks --I think that may even be the title. But be careful, I went into it satisfied with my M2HB and came out of it convinced I need a pair of GAU16's and a five ton to go with it...
Completely off topic, but they now bottle (can) the best beer in 50 states and most of the English speaking world, Mac & Jack's "African Amber" --I'll PM you so I can send you a sixer, I know you'll appreciate it and I seriously doubt you can find it there.
It's WWI or that time period.
W-S scopes were pretty much abandoned even before WWI ended.
Heard a story Marines would piss on the rail to rust the mount to the receiver in order to help keep the zero wandering........don't believe it but I think it speaks to the efficacy of the W-S scope.
I have read that Herbert McBride jammed a razor blade in the mount and pissed on it to rust the whole thing together. Have yet to acquire his book.
I actually do believe it. McBride in Rifleman goes to War talks about mixing up salt solution from their rations and putting it on the set screws of their scopes so they would no walk. Marines were likely even more field-expeidient.
Cheers,
Sirhr
I've had the original picture of this in my hands at the National Archives at College Park. On the back it's labeled the date and location. I think I even have that info copied somewhere, but it's from the AEF in 1917 or 1918. I'm pretty sure the date is 1918 though. It was published in a book of pics in Jan 1919 if I remember right.
But anyways even if I didn't know that. Pmclaine already touched on this. The Warner Swasey was obsolete even before WWI. In fact the US Army never liked the Warner Swasey scope at all. Even before the 2nd variation of the WS scope came around, the model of 1913 musket sight, the Army had no desire to stay with the WS scope, but they didn't have any other options so they continued with it.
The Army actually as early as 1911 was focused on the German scopes, the Goerske and Carl Zeiss. I hope I'm spelling those right. I didn't go back to check the spelling. They mounted them on the M1903 rifle and the Carl Zeiss was by far their favorite. If it wasn't for the fact that everyone knew the war was coming, you would have seen the Army have Zeiss scoped M1903's.
But anyways because war was on the horizon, the Army couldn't buy the scopes off the Germans. So they actually took the only Goerske scope they received as a test piece and handed it off to the Frankford Arsenal optical shop who tried to build a clone of it. By 1916, Frankford had a working model that was close but need more help to make it handle the recoil of 30 CAL. So Ordnance struck up a deal with Winchester in 1917 to copy the Frankford Scope, which was the copy of the German Goerske scope. So it was a copy of a copy and now going to be produced by Winchester as the Model of 1918 Sniper scope.
So, it even gets more complex as WRA new in 1917 they they had way oversold their ability to get this scope up and running, as Winchester had a huge contract for them. So Winchester offered to sell their Winchester A5 scopes to both the Marines and the Army, even though in 1917 WRA knew the A5 was outdated and lacking.
I don't think any books cover this, but the A5 scope was adopted and used by both the Marines and Army in the AEF. So everyone thinks of the A5 scope as only an Marine Scope. It wasn't, it was also adopted by the Army in 1918.
Well Winchester never got the Model of 1918 scope to perform correctly and the war ended with not much more than just the trial scopes produced. So WRA nixed the idea and it once again was taken by Frankford who made several different trial scopes, all of which never made it past the trial stage.
Finally the US Army around 1922/23, gave up on the idea of snipers and pretty much scrapped the whole program. Most of the rifles were converted back to regular service rifle M1903's which most likely ended up with the receivers scrapped in rebuild post 1928. Since they were low number rifles. Most of the scopes were broken and sold as surplus.
To speak of the Warner Swasey, I don't see many mentions past 1919 in the Ordnance docs other than them being in storage. The Warner Swasey was basically dead in the water past the summer of 1918. It was just outdated and Ordnance was very happy to kill the program.
Very few real Warner Swasey rifles hit the open market. Even though they did sell some of them as surplus. Most of them had the mounts on the side cut off and became standard service rifles. Which most ended up being being scrapped post 1928.
Almost all the Warner Swasey rifles you see are restorations at best. Most are complete fakes. I have only ever seen a few Warner Swasey rifles that are real and original. About the only way you could ever find a real original rifle is if someone stole one, or it was one of the few that were sold in the early 20's.
An original rifle is very, very rare.
I have only ever seen one real, unrestored, original rifle in person. It came out of a closet of someone who passed and they knew no history of it unfortunately. I bought it. But it's one of the very last ones made in the Summer of 1918. The only reason these even exist is Ordnance had ordered some scopes very early in the war and it took forever for Warner Swasey to deliver them, because of a shortage of lenses thru the kodak company. So Springfield Armory made one final run of them in the summer of 1918. Even though they had adopted the A5 by that point.
But if you are looking at buying a WS, remember almost all are fakes or restorations at best.
Last edited:
The Marines were very fond of gasoline and water to make a screw rust. They would clean both with gasoline and dip a screw in water and screw it in. They said by the next day the screw was rusted in and would not move.
Now I have seen the account of the razor blade to tighten a WS mount. The Mounts on these scopes were all custom fitted, that is why the scopes were numbered to the rifles. You could not slide one scope off one rifle onto another rifle. Which created a huge problem in the field as scopes broke and needed replaced. Also the directive by Pershing was that the scope was to be taken off and carried in the leather case when not being used, so the constant on and off made the scopes sloppy on the rifle as they wore every time you take them on and off.
Even though I've hears of the razor blade, there was a field mod done in the AEF. They actually made it really simple. They drilled and tapped a hole in the side of the base and put a set screw you could tighten by hand on the mount to the base. This fixed the problem and was a simple as drilling and tapping a hole.
My rifle's scope has the field mod. Frankford Arsenal actually set up an optical repair shop in the AEF. Frankford sent employees to France to work on this stuff over there.
I don't have a good pic on my computer and I'm too lazy to go take one. But I drew a blue arrow to the set screw. Like I said they just drilled and tapped it, and then you twist it with your fingers to tighten it. It was a simple yet very effective modification.
Now I have seen the account of the razor blade to tighten a WS mount. The Mounts on these scopes were all custom fitted, that is why the scopes were numbered to the rifles. You could not slide one scope off one rifle onto another rifle. Which created a huge problem in the field as scopes broke and needed replaced. Also the directive by Pershing was that the scope was to be taken off and carried in the leather case when not being used, so the constant on and off made the scopes sloppy on the rifle as they wore every time you take them on and off.
Even though I've hears of the razor blade, there was a field mod done in the AEF. They actually made it really simple. They drilled and tapped a hole in the side of the base and put a set screw you could tighten by hand on the mount to the base. This fixed the problem and was a simple as drilling and tapping a hole.
My rifle's scope has the field mod. Frankford Arsenal actually set up an optical repair shop in the AEF. Frankford sent employees to France to work on this stuff over there.
I don't have a good pic on my computer and I'm too lazy to go take one. But I drew a blue arrow to the set screw. Like I said they just drilled and tapped it, and then you twist it with your fingers to tighten it. It was a simple yet very effective modification.
Attachments
Another interesting fact many Warner Swaseys had Maxim Silencers on them. My Warner Swasey you can see on the barrel that it at one time had a Maxim Silencer on it. In fact I think it was found with one still on it, and the family got nervous and probably threw it away. 
But here is a pic of a WS with a Maxim Silencer on it.
Also this is Winchester Model of 1918 Scope, which was a copy of the Frankford Arsenal scope, which was a copy of the German Goerske scope. They were going to put them on sporterized M1917's and Ordnance had orders for like 59,000 of these rifles, and like 30,000 extra scopes.
Can you imagine that the US Army planned on having that many of these rifles, what role would that have played in the war? If the war would have have continued into 1919, it would have happened.
Now this rifle is by far the most rare US Sniper. I've never seen a real one, or even a real scope. They didn't make many and most were scrapped because they broke in testing. Then you factor in if someone even found that rifle, it would be called a sporterized rifle and someone would sell it for 300 bucks. lol
I don't know if any of these exist. One prototype is in the Cody Museum. The rifle that is, I don't know of any scopes that exist. I don't think any scopes exist anymore.
All these pics are from WWI.
This is the Model of 1918 Sniper by WRA.
But here is a pic of a WS with a Maxim Silencer on it.
Also this is Winchester Model of 1918 Scope, which was a copy of the Frankford Arsenal scope, which was a copy of the German Goerske scope. They were going to put them on sporterized M1917's and Ordnance had orders for like 59,000 of these rifles, and like 30,000 extra scopes.
Can you imagine that the US Army planned on having that many of these rifles, what role would that have played in the war? If the war would have have continued into 1919, it would have happened.
Now this rifle is by far the most rare US Sniper. I've never seen a real one, or even a real scope. They didn't make many and most were scrapped because they broke in testing. Then you factor in if someone even found that rifle, it would be called a sporterized rifle and someone would sell it for 300 bucks. lol
I don't know if any of these exist. One prototype is in the Cody Museum. The rifle that is, I don't know of any scopes that exist. I don't think any scopes exist anymore.
All these pics are from WWI.
This is the Model of 1918 Sniper by WRA.
@cplnorton Thank you. Great info. I believe that the German optics maker you are talking about was CP Goertz, reputedly the largest optics maker in the world at the start of WW1. I understand that they suffered badly post war and that in the 1930s had been reduced to one facility in or near Vienna. That manufactory built the first production batch of gun sights for the Hurricane fighter as a subcontractor to Barr and Stroud who were simply too busy to tool up at that time.
Though we didn't go with the German scopes they tried to adopt a mount from a man accused of being a German spy and later a German army veteran.
"Schott glass" worship was a thing back than I guess.
Those rascally Germans.
"Schott glass" worship was a thing back than I guess.
Those rascally Germans.
Bet you learned the hard way the number of fucks you give is inversely proportional to the number of fucks given by SNCO’s
I managed to get hands on with a Warner & Swasey a few years ago, it was like looking through a cataract. Really cool though, fascinating setup. I think this one was genuine but I’m no expert. Guy wanted £6000 for it and the rifle. Check out the top plate.
Bet you learned the hard way the number of fucks you give is inversely proportional to the number of fucks given by SNCO’s
I managed to get hands on with a Warner & Swasey a few years ago, it was like looking through a cataract. Really cool though, fascinating setup. I think this one was genuine but I’m no expert. Guy wanted £6000 for it and the rifle. Check out the top plate.
View attachment 7610652
The whole tech of the WS from about 5-10 feet distant looks amazing.
Its like an mini computer.
If you only didnt have to use it........
There is a tutorial on how to take one of them apart and clean it on the internet......I thought it very cool the castings, the machinings, the work it took to put these together.
Its a poor result brought about but not by lack of effort.
I've torn several apart. They are very simple inside. The crosshairs are actually etched on the glass, which I thought was sort of neat.
I keep on saying I'm going to shoot mine, and I haven't. This summer It's going to be shot.
I keep on saying I'm going to shoot mine, and I haven't. This summer It's going to be shot.
I've torn several apart. They are very simple inside. The crosshairs are actually etched on the glass, which I thought was sort of neat.
I keep on saying I'm going to shoot mine, and I haven't. This summer It's going to be shot.
Yep interior was a prism with the need to manufacture a sleeve like tool to complete some disassembly.
But look at all the bronze/brass alloy casting and the machining that went into it.
Then the cam action style elevation adjustment.
Looks to me like they hired the guy that came up with the multifunction M1903 rifle sight.
Yes, as a matter of fact they did! It was not the same kind of precision fire we think of today, but think it it as a “beaten zone” with plunging fire that could wreak havoc on an artillery crew, in a trench, dropped on an advancing squad, etc.
The British were still very much stuck on their volley fire tactics. Including with Vickers and Enfield’s.
snipers might drop dozens of rounds into a beaten zone at 3k yards and hope to hit meat with just a few. But it kept the enemy down and destroyed morale. And was cheaper than 75mm shells.
The WW1 sniper duels are far less common than using “precision” firing more as a psychological weapon. And a cheap mission kill if you could scatter an artillery crew, etc.
And when trenches were close enough, you nailed sentries, officers, anything that moved. But often No Mans Land was hundreds or thousands of yards apart. So using your Enfield or Ross was like using a little mortar.
Damn straight that the Americans were having none of that, BTW. Pershing was about American marksmanship. Not about massed fire by untrained cannon fodder.
Sirhr
I found that pic looking for old suppressor configuration.
I have an Savage 1899 made in 1913 that is threaded for a suppressor with a notch in the barrel for a crossbolt.
It wasn't just the Army, it was the Marines too. I see it all over the Army and Marine docs they thought technology would get them to 3000 yards.
But there was the 2750 notch on the standard M1903 sight and the Marines did fire at a 1000 yards with open sights in training.
Here was a press release from the Marines to newspapers in 1917 talking about shooting 2000 to 3000 yards.
But there was the 2750 notch on the standard M1903 sight and the Marines did fire at a 1000 yards with open sights in training.
Here was a press release from the Marines to newspapers in 1917 talking about shooting 2000 to 3000 yards.
Do you suppose the 3000 yard bit had anything to do with their use on whatever that machine gun thing was?
Absolutely! MG fire at that range, especially from a battery, was quite literally steel rain. And the .303 had more than enough energy at that range to kill or seriously wound.
My WW1 Maxim has a scope. It was quite common for the Germans to fit them. Less so for the British.
And it those guys in the machine gun corps could do it, the infantry was darn sure not getting left out!
Cheers, Sirhr
Very few understand that one of the uses of the MG is as a bullet hose to "bring rain" upon troops behind cover.
Much more common to think of it that way back in the day.......30 caliber artillery.
Now everyone just thinks zombie hoards and direct fire.
Well that is our day and age.....Joy Bahar doesnt even understand the function of gravity upon a bullet and the idea "That which goes up, must come down".
Much more common to think of it that way back in the day.......30 caliber artillery.
Now everyone just thinks zombie hoards and direct fire.
Well that is our day and age.....Joy Bahar doesnt even understand the function of gravity upon a bullet and the idea "That which goes up, must come down".
Iraqi wedding parties haven't grasped the concept either
Which brings us back to McBride's other book "The Emma Gees".
And there are a more than a few who end up split like bananas from descending boolits in Baghdad each year.Iraqi wedding parties haven't grasped the concept either
Background noise... in a place where death comes cheap.
Sirhr
For those who don't have McBride's books, there are copies of "The Emma Gees" available in electronic form. Sadly I can't find "A Rifleman Went to War". Both have long been in the public domain which is why you can still find them in print.
As Sirhr stated you should have both on your bookshelf.
Here are some links to whet your appetite for The Emma Gees:
If I find a digital copy of the other I will update this thread.
Changed my search parameters and found a scan of the first edition, I'd just attach it but is over 200 MB.
As Sirhr stated you should have both on your bookshelf.
Here are some links to whet your appetite for The Emma Gees:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Emma Gees, by Herbert Wes McBride
www.gutenberg.org
The Emma Gees : McBride, Herbert Wes, 1873-1933 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
This book currently has no description
archive.org
If I find a digital copy of the other I will update this thread.
Changed my search parameters and found a scan of the first edition, I'd just attach it but is over 200 MB.
Milsurps Knowledge Library - A Rifleman Went To War (by Herbert W. McBride)
A Rifleman Went To War (by Herbert W. McBride)
www.milsurps.com
Last edited:
A Rifleman Went to War by Mcbride - AbeBooks
A Rifleman Went to War by Wes McBride, Herbert and a great selection of related books, art and collectibles available now at AbeBooks.com.
www.abebooks.com
Easy to find either. Abebooks.com
Sirhr
Camouflage is over-rated...what is war without wimsy?
Similar threads
