[Shahril Dzulkifli]

This is a British P1908 Cavalry Sword used by the 2nd Dragoons (Royal Scots Greys). I think this sword was also used by the Canadian cavalry back in WWI. Opinions, everyone?

[Robin Palmer]

I believe that the Canadians were armed with the current British sword of the time which would be the 1908 the pictures I have seen all show them with 1908 pig stickers.

For what it is worth I personally consider the 1908 to be a total abortion the hilt was designed to force the user to thrust the idear was in the charge the sword was held like a lance. Reality the German Uhlans used lances which out reached the 1908 once at close quarters where the edge is far more use the 1908 s lack of edge reduced to little more than a club. As far as I am aware both France and Germany retained cut and thrust weapons for their troops. I apologize for digressing.

[Peter Busch]

[Robin Palmer]

Hi peter I have tried to use the 1908 to fight it is almost impossible the grip shape makes any proper cutting stroke extremely difficult. My main objection is based on George silvers observation that in the true fight there is place for both point and edge he also held that any style which pressed purely point edge or purely edge was at fault. George was a veteran soldier with considerable experience so his views are worthy of note I suspect most good swordsmen will agree with him. The opposite complaint was leveled at the 1885 heavy cavalry sword which was considered to lack a decent point.

[Ken Speed]

Robin wrote "For what it is worth I personally consider the 1908 to be a total abortion the hilt was designed to force the user to thrust the idear was in the charge the sword was held like a lance. Reality the German Uhlans used lances which out reached the 1908 once at close quarters where the edge is far more use the 1908 s lack of edge reduced to little more than a club. As far as I am aware both France and Germany retained cut and thrust weapons for their troops. I apologize for digressing."


Well, why am I not surprised? The political and military leadership in WWI was awful. Worse, hard as that may be to believe, than we here in the U.S. are dealing with at present. Why would anyone think that they would devise a good cavalry sabre?
My grandfather was lucky that they had wised up to the fact that cavalry doesn't do well in trench warfare or against machine guns. That and the war ending when it did probably saved his life. There is a reason that Barbara Tuchman wrote a book about WWI entitled WAR OF THE DONKEYS.

Best regards,



Ken Speed

[Robin Palmer]

Hi ken I would point out that the US army 1913 pattern sword was based on the 1908 which questions the US armies system if it was so bad why copy it. In fairness it must be said that historically the sword was not highly used by the US army it is a fact once the colt revolver was developed the sword lost ground rapidly. US cavalry in the plains wars abandoned the sword almost completely on active service.

historically British cavalry were on the whole well provided with swords the 1908 was the last pattern to see active service and as i said in my opinion the worst so judging British swords on one bad design is a little harsh.

As to the political and military leadership I can only say hind sight is a wonderful thing nobody planned to have a war yes the Germans had the schefan plan but the real cause was the series of treaties signed in the 1800 s designed to prevent war. The problem was once things went bad everyone was trapped in a domino effect once started nobody could stop it I would point out that many commentators held that the war was inevitable a direct result of the Franco Prussian war of 1870. That war unified Germany and set it on a path which was going to bring it into direct confrontation with the colonial powers for colonies and influence.

The British were well aware of the threat of machineguns and outside of a couple of operations British cavalry on the western front spent most of it's war clogging up the armies rear lines serving little purpose. Else where they did do better I would point out that German cavalry on the western front was equally useless.

As to the donkeys charge I would point out that the first war was a shambles which was largely beyond the power of the generals on either side to change. Machine guns and rapid fire artillery all relatively new and untested weapons shifted the balance of power firmly into the hands of the defender a situation which was not broken until the tank came along. Add extensive well developed rail networks and the involvement of the most powerful industrialized nations in the world and the results were going to be a slaughter. Neither side could find the magic key gas massed guns nothing worked the technology of defence had overwhelmed the technology of offence. It took four bloody years before the balance was restored by the time the US became involved Britian and france had developed the tank and the tactics which finally broke the stalemate and bought victory. We also payed the price in blood to learn the lessons the war happened the way it did because technology provided the means. Never before had nations had the capacitys they had in 1914 the military leaders faced a rate of development unknown before. Nobody had any real idear of what the new weapons were capable of nobody had fought a war with them. In 1912 an influential group published a book covering the arms and equipment of the worlds nations. many of the writers were well known military figures is interesting to note that nowhere in the pages is there any indication that any of them had any idear of what the weapons were capable of.

[Jonathan Hopkins]

[Jonathan Hopkins]

Since the P1885 Cavalry Trooper's Sword was mentioned, I thought this thread from SFI might be enlightening: Parliament report on failing swords of the Pattern 1885.

Some fun sharpening P1885 and/or P1890 swords:


Best,
Jonathan

[Ken Speed]

Robin wrote, " I would point out that the US army 1913 pattern sword was based on the 1908 which questions the US armies system if it was so bad why copy it. "

I agree, allow me to point out that more recently the U.S. Army spent an incredible amount of money to develop a floating APC. It was made of aluminum and, A. didn't float & B. the aluminum was flammable!" There is also a vertical takeoff and landing plane that has a disturbing tendency to crash and there was a tank cannon sight that didn't work right either.

WWI was an unmitigated disaster and among other things it laid the groundwork for WWII. The Canadians suffered terribly as did the French. I know less about Britain in that time but I am sure they did too.

Look, everybody makes mistakes. Generals seem to keep repeating theirs. Massed charges against fortified trenches with artillery and machine guns? How many of those would you have to see before you figured out that there had to be a better way?

Diplomacy failed hence WWI and hence the failed League of Nations and then WWII and then the U.N ( a partial failure) the Cold War, Korea and Vietnam (which was a result of WWII. The people of the world have paid dearly.

I'm not saying French or British military or political leaders are more stupid than those in the U.S.. After all, we have Tommy Franks, the man who let Osama get away. We gave him a medal and let him retire.

You wrote, "In 1912 an influential group published a book covering the arms and equipment of the worlds nations. many of the writers were well known military figures is interesting to note that nowhere in the pages is there any indication that any of them had any idear of what the weapons were capable of."

Gee, What if these Donkeys had had the Atomic Bomb?



Best regards



Ken Speed

[Jonathan Hopkins]

I think that perhaps the swords are not your style, but they were not "bad". The P1908 and M1913 were not considered bad in their day. Perhaps they were anachronistic on the battlefield, but that does not mean they were ineffective weapons for their intended purpose. The P'08 was designed for the thrust, so no, it would not be a good cutter. Please read my posts above for some information on the P'08 and accounts of its use.

Jonathan

[Robin Palmer]

Hi Johnathan Thanks for the quotes I had not seen them before. Since I posted I have been chasing an article I read some time ago on the development of the 1908 I am afraid I cannot find it. Off the top of my head I believe the gist was that the design was in part influenced by the fact that it was easier to make a blade of the shape of the 1908 than to make one of the more traditional sabre design. The 1908 is a rigid steel rod the traditional sabre was far more flexible a fact shown graphicly in a film clip on cavalry swords I saw some time ago. The 1908 was shown being used against target also a 1796 LC sword showing the degree of flex generated in cutting through a cabbage the point is a cut and thrust sabre of the ' Traditional' style takes more effort than the 1908. As in any weapon cost has a bearing on the selection process and the 1908 was no exception.

I note that most of the incidents mentioned involved infantry the 1908 is fine so long as you are moving and have room to either line your target up or thrust at him. I have read several articles down the years that indicate that a lot of old soldiers did not like the 1908. Their main complaint was while excellent in the charge once things got close the lack of edge was a problem these were experienced regular soldiers who had served all over the empire.

[Jonathan Hopkins]

IIIRC, they did not want troopers to cut with the sword at all. The P'08 was completely designed around the thrust, which at the time was thought to be superior to the cut. If you find the article you mentioned i would be very interested in reading it.

Thank you,
Jonathan

[Robin Palmer]

Hi Ken With regard to the donkeys who wrote the book all I can say is generals base plans on available information and in 1912 nobody had any real idear of what the weapons could do.

Machine guns had been around since 1860 in one form or other the maxim since 1891by 1900 all the major powers had some sort of machine gun. Britain used them in the Boar war in 1906 but the tactical usage was still being worked out. The British ones in South Africa were fitted to light carts. The key was nobody had used the machinegun on mass British issue was I believe six machineguns per 750 man battalion in 1914. The same with artillery the various colonial nations nations had the odd uprising but no major conflict since the Franco Prussian war in 1870 which was fought with single shot black powder breech loaders. The men were experienced officers but none of them had any comprehension of the war ahead its sheer scope was beyond anything ever seen before 2 million men marched to war in 1914. The writers lived in a world of colonial war involving thousands of troops they had nothing to compare to. Perhaps you judge them to harshly the first war rewrote the book in ways nobody could have foreseen.

[Shahril Dzulkifli]

I have a question -
Which donkey are we referring to?

[Ken Speed]

Robin Palmer wrote, ".... all I can say is generals base plans on available information and in 1912 nobody had any real idear of what the weapons could do."

OK, I can buy that. I do, however, think that they should have been able to learn. I mean dogs can learn; why can't generals? Unless, of course, you accept the premise that "military genius" really is an oxymoron! A quick trip to Wikipedia will tell you that there were 20 million deaths(military and civilian) and more than 20 million wounded in WWI. The death rate of WWI was twice what it was for WWII. You will also learn that the genocide of 800,000 to as many as 1.5 million Armenians by the Turks was directly caused by this war as was the Influenza epidemic which killed I don't know how many people worldwide.

You may be interested to know that the reference to "Donkeys" derives from the saying. Lions led by donkeys" and refers to the valor and sheer guts of the British Infantryman, the lions, and the sheer brutal insanity of their commanders, the donkeys. Personally I'd expand the donkey status to the political and military leadership of both sides.

Best regards,



Ken Speed

[Robin Palmer]

The generals did learn their problem was how best to interpret what they learned often data can be interrupted several different ways all valid. unfortunately in war the price for learning how to deploy new weapons and apply new tactics is dead men. The only way for armies and troops to learn what their new weapons were capable of was to use them for real no amount of field excersises or time on ranges will teach that. All armies train but as any soldier will tell you training ammunition allocations are never enough and even the best modern simulation range is no substitute for the real thing. 1914 saw armies loosed on each other with what was effectively a new generation of weapons many as yet untested in a major conflict. Plus nobody had ever fought a war on that scale before given the situation I challenge anyone to say they would have done better.

A majority of the generals were men who had started joined armies equipped with single shot black powder breech loaders some even muzzle loaders. Many German ones had fought in the Franco Prussian war of 1870 the last major war in Europe until 1914. British generals were largely veterans of numerous colonial wars as were French most were competent officers but none had ever faced anything like the situation in 1914.

One last point I believe the British army alone lost 43 generals killed in actions on the battle field 1914-18 along with a large number of staff officers who wee trying to get accurate information of what was going on.

[Jonathan Hopkins]

I found this page and thought it might be of interest: 1902 Universal Pattern Saddle. It shows the P1908 as it would have been carried: on the saddle.

Jonathan

[Ken Speed]

Robin,

What part of twenty million dead don't you understand? Man, that has got to be a record for the flattest learning curve of all time! It seems evident to me that the generals and political leaders were masterful at killing soldiers. It just doesn't seem to have made much difference to them whose side the soldiers were on. You seem to think no one could have done better under the circumstances and I think lots of people could have done better. I would hazard a guess that a fair number of the generals from either side of the American Civil War could have done better and, in fact, faced some of the same challenges as the generals of WWI. I know that the European powers had "observers" with the military of both sides in the Civil War, why then didn't the European generals learn from the American Civil War? Because they thought they were better than Americans, thats why. You said, "A majority of the generals were men who had started joined armies equipped with single shot black powder breech loaders some even muzzle loaders. Many German ones had fought in the Franco Prussian war of 1870 the last major war in Europe until 1914. British generals were largely veterans of numerous colonial wars as were French most were competent officers but none had ever faced anything like the situation in 1914." 1870 is just a few years after the end of the American Civil War, The European generals were just too arrogant .

You continued, "One last point I believe the British army alone lost 43 generals killed in actions on the battle field 1914-18 along with a large number of staff officers who wee trying to get accurate information of what was going on." WOW, pardon me for being unimpressed. Britain lost a total of almost 996,000 dead. How many of those lives could have been saved if those general had been smarter?

I have to give the British generals this, at least they were where they could get killed. Tommy Franks stayed in the U.S., Florida if I remember correctly.

Best Regards,




Ken Speed

[Ken Speed]

Jonathan,

Thanks for the link. It certainly looks like a better saddle than the McClellan.


Best regards,


Ken Speed

[Robin Palmer]

I take your point 20 million dead is nothing for anyone to be proud of my grandfather survived but two of his cousins didn't my point is given the situation and the technology available options were very limited. It is a small point that after the war when general Haige died some 100 000 plus men turned out to attend the funeral all ex soldiers. Not bad for a fool who didn't learn anything?