Volunteers using dum dum bullets in 1916

TerrorFirmer

So, did they, or didn't they? Hard to find many sources, other then a few scant references to Nursing staff claiming that the wounds were clearly a sign of hollow ammunition being used. Also, you have The Plough and the Stars making reference to use of such ammuntion - now I know it's just a play, but perhaps taken from the general consensus of the time! Also I suppose since they got nearly all of their ammuntion from Germany, and alot of the rifles were from the 1870's, it seems quite possible.

any opinions, or hopefully, anybody with any good sources?

Shutuplaura

Short answer is yes, according to Tim Pat Coogan they were sold unsheathed rounds by the same Hamburg arms dealers they got the mausers from. These didn't have the full metal jacket of most modern rounds and mushroomed on impact. This was contravention of the 1905 Hague convention. Read in his picture book on the Irish Civil War, shows an image of a box of these cartridges. He implies they were purchased unwittingly.

TerrorFirmer

Excellent, thank you. Just the sort of info I was looking for. I'm making up for all those lost years of Irish history.

Fratton Fred

Shutuplaura wrote: »

He implies they were purchased unwittingly.

I would imagine that was the case. If I was planning a revolution I don't think I would pay too much attention to detail, my main concern would be to just get whatever weapons I could get my hands on.

Tankman

i don't think they did when they unloaded the guns from howth pearse or one of the other leaders wouldnt allow them distribute bullets becuase they were dumm dum and against the rules of civilised warfare. it seems to me largely propaganda that says theywere used.

TerrorFirmer

Yeah, there's also the fact that the British never made any light of their potential use, and surely, had it been used, they would have exploited it to maximum effect?

Shutuplaura

Yeah, I agree with Fred, gun running revolutionaries wouldn't be to choosey. I reckon that the story of Pearse not allowing some bullets to be issued could just as easily be a fiction put about by people who felt uneasy about their use. Even if its true, Pearse wasn't everywhere at once so couldn't have stopped them being used. I'm also not so sure it wasn't mentioned in newspapers at the time. Hence the story of Pearse finding a few but not allowing the boys to use them.

On the wider issue, I don't see it as much of a big deal. Soldiers in every army made dum dums themselves by filing off the tips. For instance the Australians at Gallipoli were notorious for using them - if any officer cared to ask they would claim it was to help destroy an enemy paraphet (dumdums really rip a sandbag apart aparently) so it would be easy turn a blind eye. They were more concerned about the supposed adverse effects on the bullets balistics than its effects on the victim.

Jackie laughlin

This is an interesting debate and throws light on the mindset of the rebels and perhaps their concern with what would become known as PR. Dublin turned into a battlefield by military incompetents, rebels, soldiers, police, civilians - men, women and children - dead in the streets but Pearse may have been opposed to "the boys" using ammunition considered to be too cruel.

Shutuplaura

Jackie, it shows us nothing anyone didn't know already. And I think you are being harsh on the British army - their incompetence was understandable given most of their trained troops were over in France.

Jackie laughlin

Well, the rebels certainly made allowance for their absence by avoiding any semblance of thought or sophistication.

Shutuplaura

Because they were all morons eh? If only you had been around to give them a good talking to and convince them to stop acting up and head on home.

PHB

I'd go with Tim Pat on this one, although to what extent they were used is open to much debate

Jackie laughlin

Laura,
Not at all. I think there were more than enough people at the time - indeed, the vast majority - willing to tell them that. My point is a bit different. I lack the arrogance of the zealot. I'm perfectly aware of my own ignorance and military tactics would certainly be covered there! However, I think even I would have said, "Ah for Jaysus sake, they'll go up in the buildings opposite and make ****e of us!", if asked to occupy St. Stephen's Green.

(The asterisks aren't mine!)

Shutuplaura

When I said you lacked imagination in your insight what I meant is that you seem to look at actions in isolation when events never actually occur in isolation at all. The 1916 rising was a culmination of events around the political struggle for home rule that had been on going for years. Some of the leaders moved towards the more extreme position they died for becasue they saw how the government had been ringing its hands over the introduction of Home Rule. They acted undemocratically but then so did the officers involved in the mutiny at the curragh in 1914. So also did the UVF when it set up the first paramilitary organisation. MacNeills call for a similar organisation down south was entitled 'The North Began'. Given the context a rising was only the latest in a series of risky games of brinksmanship indulged in by all sides.

The rising as it occured was no more that a romantic hopeless cause but up until a few days before it held very real prospects for greater success. The leaders didn't expect MacNeill to scupper things and their plans were based on having far more men. They also anticipated that the arms sent from Germany would arrive. At Mount Street Bridge 17 volunteers armed in many cases with single shot Mausers casued almost half of all British casualties in a single day. The Aud contained modern Russian rifles, ammunition and machine gins so its likely that with these they could have caused far more serious defeat on the Army. Also, while the rebels in many parts of the city adoptede naive tactics, in other areas their tactics were imaginative and caused serious problems for the military. Besides mount street bridge, North King street was an area of fierce fighting which caused the military serious problems. Officers in some cases had to force their men out of the armoured cars to engage at pistol point. Ten of course there was the ambush at Newbridge.

Going ahead in light of the capture of the Aud and the confusion of the countermanding order of MacNeill was also understandable when you consider what the mindset of the leaders must have been. They had allied with Germany which seemed to be getting the upper hand over Freance at the time in Verdun and was still favourite to win the War at this stage. If they lost but Germany won then Ireland could have expected to gain their independace at the conference which followed a German victory. Finally, Pearse also reckoned correctly on the publics reaction to a brutal British crackdown after their deefeat. in 1917 the Irish Volunteers (As opposed to the Redmondite Volunteers) enjoyed far more support and were able to think about rebuilding for the next stage in their rebellion.

You seem to think it was a couple of lads sitting at home who decided on a spur to go out for the craic and casue some trouble when it was more of a measured response to a series of events, had at least a reasonable chance of immediate success and the likely chance in the event of a German victory be completely successful.

Jackie laughlin

Laura,
Thank you for the detailed reply.

No, I don't think it was a couple of naive lads who made a spur-of-the-moment decision. I think it was the action of a group of well-educated zealots who should have known better. Turning such dross into national heroes does not reflect well on us as a nation and may have contributed to the motivation of later zealots.

I'm certain that some of the engagements with the British army were militarily competent. I'm certain too that Mount Street was not one of them. The slaughter of the Georgius Rex or the Gorgeous Wrecks, as they were known, can hardly be described as a great victory.

I realise too that Home Rule delayed gave the zealots their opportunity and that 1916 was part of a pattern of disenchantment with constitutionalism going back to the dragging down of Parnell. However, the destruction of my home town and the murder of so many of her citizens is unforgiveable in the circumstances.

Shutuplaura

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Laura,
Thank you for the detailed reply.

No, I don't think it was a couple of naive lads who made a spur-of-the-moment decision. I think it was the action of a group of well-educated zealots who should have known better. Turning such dross into national heroes does not reflect well on us as a nation and may have contributed to the motivation of later zealots.

I'm certain that some of the engagements with the British army were militarily competent. I'm certain too that Mount Street was not one of them. The slaughter of the Georgius Rex or the Gorgeous Wrecks, as they were known, can hardly be described as a great victory.

I realise too that Home Rule delayed gave the zealots their opportunity and that 1916 was part of a pattern of disenchantment with constitutionalism going back to the dragging down of Parnell. However, the destruction of my home town and the murder of so many of her citizens is unforgiveable in the circumstances.

They should have known better? Easy to say that with hindsight.

I was refering to the slaughter of the Sherwood Forresters in Mount Street specifically. The GR were IMO legitimate target, being armed and in uniform. The vol's weren't to know that they didn't have any ammunition. They could also be forgiven to not knowing the GR's intentions and opening fire on what could possible have been a counter attack.

The government forces are also the ones who used Machine guns and artillary in the densely populated centre of Dublin. No attempt at negotiate on the governments part, just a reaction with extreme voilence. Perhaps you should look further afield to apportion blame for the destruction of your home town. (And I realise you must have such fond memories of prominading down Sackville St before the GPO was destroyed!)

Calling them dross for surrending to spare further lives is also unfair. they discussed a breakout and reckoned it could be dont but the cost in human life would be appaling so they surrendered to what they knew would have been death or imprisonment. Hardly the actions of a murder gang?

Jackie laughlin

All condemnation of crime is done with hindsight. Yes, I think the 1916 leaders were a disgrace to their country. I called them "dross" not because of their surrender (It was a very late conversion to concern for human life!) but as an antidote to the more extreme labelling of them as heroes and - God, help us! - role models.

I would be as critical as you of the British reaction in 1916. However, to exonerate the rebels on the basis of British reaction is just not plausible.

Ah Sackville Street! Such fond memories! Don't forget Dan Lowry's. I resent too the naming of train stations after these so-called patriots: Pearse, Connolly, Heuston and Sydney Parade.

Shutuplaura

Fair enough Jackie I guess its pointless for the two of us to argue over our respective opinions of the rising!

Jackie laughlin

Laura,
I didn't mean that last sentence to be dismissive. It was merely an attempt at wit. OK, I plagiarised an old joke.

It's never pointless to argue. Remember, I'm a revisionist and if compelled by argument, I will change my views.

Shutuplaura

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Laura,
I didn't mean that last sentence to be dismissive. It was merely an attempt at wit. OK, I plagiarised an old joke.

It's never pointless to argue. Remember, I'm a revisionist and if compelled by argument, I will change my views.

I didn't take it that way, don't worry! having two discussions with you was getting a bit much for me though so I figured I'd bail on this!

Snickers Man

Shutuplaura wrote: »

They should have known better? Easy to say that with hindsight.

I was refering to the slaughter of the Sherwood Forresters in Mount Street specifically. The GR were IMO legitimate target, being armed and in uniform. .

I think that the Georgius Rex incident and the Mount St Battle were two different events. Weren't they?

Jackie laughlin

I'm not an expert and open to correction but I thought they were the same.

Shutuplaura

Snickers Man wrote: »

I think that the Georgius Rex incident and the Mount St Battle were two different events. Weren't they?

Not the same but happened at the same place and the same rebels were involved - and I think it may have been earlier the same day so its open to some confusion. The GR were Dads Army types but the 'battle' of mount street involved regular (though badly trained) British Soldiers

Jackie laughlin

Yes, that's my understanding of what happened. After the G.R. sustained so many casualties, the best available troops were deployed.

Snickers Man

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Yes, that's my understanding of what happened. After the G.R. sustained so many casualties, the best available troops were deployed.

I am quoting here from an unlikely source, the Story of Irish Rugby by Edmund van Esbeck. There's a sad irony in it to which he refers. Apparently the leader of the Georgius Rex (Gorgeous Wrecks) that day was the president of the IRFU Frederick Browning.

"Browning was tragically killed when his unit of the Veterans Corps, returning to Beggar's Bush Barracks after a route march on Easter Monday 1916, was fired upon by outposts from Commandant Eamon de Valera's garrison in Boland's Mills, under the mistaken impression that the advancing men were combat troops. It was a sorrowful incident and a grim quirk of history that the president of the union should have lost his life in a confrontation, however remote and undesigned, with another man who played and loved rugby football."

McArmalite

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

The slaughter of the Georgius Rex or the Gorgeous Wrecks,

The "slaughter". This is the 'socialist' then who has to ridicule the 1916 executions, one of them ( James Connolly) been tied to a chair before been shot. Brilliant.:rolleyes:

Jackie laughlin

This socialist has never ridiculed the 1916 executions.

meathstevie

Most likely dumdum's or soft point ( high expansion and energy transfer ammunition ) were used. The bulk of the rifles used were 1860's - 70's vintage ( French- German War ) Mausers and that particular sort of ammo was very common for use in these things. By the way, the Boers were quite fond of those Mausers and their succesor the Kar98 as well for reasons of accuracy. In the end I think it all doesn't matter that much. Machine gun bullets, bayonets and artillery shells don't create a feeling of gently passing away in your sleep either... . To an extent playing devils advocate now but think about this way : being hit by a high energy transfer bullet causes such shock and trauma that death quite often would have been instantanious a harder round or full metal jacket can quite easily travel through one's body causing fatal injuries but not immedeate death prolonging agony.

McArmalite

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

This socialist has never ridiculed the 1916 executions.

16-10-2007, Remember - " How many of those executed in 1916 were Normans? " . As I said in another thread, their's no one better at undermining and contradicting your own posts than yourself .

Jackie laughlin

Would you have a bit of sense, there's no possibility that that could be construed as ridicule. It was a point made in relation to the diverse pedigree of the Irish.

Fratton Fred

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Would you have a bit of sense

you may be asking a lot there:D