What is a "Boys" rifle?

Anyone know what a "Boys" (brand, style, type?) rifle is and what it was good for?

 

I believe the Boyes rifle was an anti tank weapon.
Lionboxer

 

(jimbotosome @ Nov 19 2005, 05:45 PM) [post=41796]Anyone know what a "Boys" (brand, style, type?) rifle is and what it was good for?
[/b]

Lionboxer is correct.

View attachment 1270


"Charley the B*****d" . . .Boyes Anti Tank Rifle was a half inch calibre (13mm) rifle designed to penetrate the armour of enemy tanks. It had such a savage recoil that the troops gave the nick name above and generally disliked using it, particularly as it was useless against most tanks . . .

Extract below from http://www.magweb.com/sample/seuropa/seu55daw.htm

This is an account of the taking of Tobruk by my Fathers 19th Brig / 2nd/8th / 6 Div

O'Connor and Mackay planned to hit Tobruk from the town's southeast corner, relying on the 16th Brigade to punch a hole, the 17th Brigade to follow up, and the 19th Brigade to exploit. Australian gunners prepared their bombardment thoroughly, to make up for the shortage of tanks -- there were only 18 to support the attack.

The assault went in on 21 January, delayed three days by dust storms. At Bardia, the Aussies were weighted down with equipment. At Tobruk they only wore jerkins, and carried weapons and ammunition.

The Italians fought back, relying on barbed wire and booby traps to augment their machine guns. Sgt. F. J. Hoddinott of Queensland hurled grenades to overcome Post S5. After half an hour, it fell. Post 62 fought back under tank and artillery shelling until Lt. F. D. Clark of Adelaide poured a mixture of crude oil and kerosene through the post's windows to silence it. 11 Italians died and 35 surrendered.

The expanding Australian drive became a torrent, as troops fanned out, losing contact with each other. Officers had to send dispatch riders out on captured motorcycles through the dust. Italian defenses collapsed under accurate Australian artillery fire. Again came heavy surrenders -- one company captured 300 men. Another hauled in 1,000 PoWs, including a general.

By mid-day, 19th Brigade's 2/8 Battalion was moving on Fort Pilastrino, the 61st Division's headquarters. The 2/8 came under fire from dug-in Italian tanks, so the Australians charged with bayonet and grenade, destroying the first tank. The rest surrendered. Next, 2/8 captured some mobile tanks, then some machine-gun positions.

The Italians counterattacked with nine tanks and hundreds of infantrymen. Private O. Z. Neall knocked out three Italian tanks with his Boyes anti-tank rifle, a feat that astounded everyone -- the Boyes rifle was noted for its uselessness. But the Italians continued to advance until two British Matildas rumbled up. At that point, the Italians ran, Australian infantrymen charging after them.


Extract from .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle,_Anti-Tank,_.55in,_Boys

Later model Boys rifle / Boys Anti-tank Rifle / Type Anti tank rifle

Nation
United Kingdom

Era
World War II

History


Date of design
1937

Production period
1937 - ?

Service duration
1937 - 194?

Operators
United Kingdom, Empire/Commonwealth,

War service
World War II

Variants
MK I, Mk II

Number built
~62,000

Specifications

Type
Bolt action rifle

Calibre
.55 in (14 mm)

Barrel length
910 mm

Ammunition
Kynoch .55 Boys (13.9 x 99)

Magazine
5 round magazine

Action
Bolt

Length
5 ft 2 in / 1575 mm

Weight
36 lb / 16 kg

Rate of fire
~10 round/min

Muzzle velocity
990 m/s

Effective range
20mm penetration at 100 yards

The Rifle, Anti-Tank, .55in, Boys commonly known as the Boys or often and incorrectly Boyes Anti-tank Rifle was a British anti-tank rifle. There were two main types, an early model (MK I) which had a circular muzzle brake and T shaped bipod, and a later model (Mk II) that had a square muzzle brake and a V shaped bipod. There were also different cartidges, with a later one offering better penetration.

History

The eponymous creator of this firearm was Captain Boys who was a member of the British Small Arms Committee. It was initially called Stanchion but was renamed after Cpt. Boys when he died boys anti-tank rifle as a mark of respect.

Description

A bolt action rifle fed from a 5 shot magazine, the weapon was large and heavy with a bipod at the front and a separate grip below the padded butt. To combat the recoil caused by the large 0.55 inch (14 mm) round, the barrel was mounted on a slide, and a shock absorber was fitted to the bipod along with a muzzle brake on the barrel.

Effective to about 300 yards (300 m) as an anti-tank and anti-vehicle weapon, it was able to penetrate 3/4 in (20 mm) of armour at up to 100 yards (100 m). Its effective range against unarmoured targets (eg infantry), was much further. Although useful against the early tanks, the increases in vehicle armour during WW2 left it largely ineffective for anti-tank duties and it was replaced in service by the PIAT anti-tank weapon. It still saw some use against bunkers, machine gun nests, and lighter vehicles. In the Western Desert the large bullet could throw up splinters from rocks to cause casualties and it continued to be used in the Pacific theatre against Japanese tanks; the Japanese did not replace their older lightly armoured tanks, spread out across the Pacific and South East Asia, with newer ones until later in the war. The weapon had been designed with these lighter tanks in mind.

Usage

Australian Forces - Nicknamed "Charlie the *******" (because of its savage recoil).

British Army

Canadian Forces

United States Marine Corps

Rifles captured after the evacuation of the British Expeditionary Forces in Norway and France were given the name Panzerbüchse Boyes in German service.

The Boys Rifle was sometimes mounted on a Universal Carrier ('Bren Gun Carrier') instead of a Bren Gun.

 

Some more pics for you jim:

 

Apparently the Aussies used them in Nagada New Guinea to shoot crocodiles in the swamps near their camp.

 

So it found its application as more of a "varmint" rifle than an anti-tank rifle? I guess you could still say it was used to penetrate armor just as it was intended.

 

The BEF in France was equipped with the Boys anti tank gun.

It was not effective against what armour the Germans panzer units had at the time.An example of how the British Army went to war under equipped.It must have been demoralising for the British infantry using this inferior weapon against German forces and to find out for real when the Germans broke out on 10 May 1940.

 

What about shooting the armor in the rear? Was it good for that?

 

(jimbotosome @ Nov 19 2005, 11:39 PM) [post=41826]What about shooting the armor in the rear? Was it good for that?
[/b]

Depends on the thickness of the armour and the range, which means as tanks became increasingly heavily armoured it became less and less capable.

It was probably effective against some Japanese tanks throughout the war.

Britain was not the only country to use anti-tank rifles. In 1941, the Red Army had large numbers of them, but they were little use.

 

There was rapid development of anti tank weapons during the Second World War with the introduction on the Western Allies side of the British PIAF weapon and the American Bazooka .However there can be nothing worse for an infantryman who can't put a stopper on a tank charge because the only weapon he can use is a "pea shooter".Such was the Boys anti tank gun.

I suppose the best weapon during the Second World War was the German 88 mm gun which was basically an anti aircraft gun but lacked the mobilty demanded of an infantryman on the battlefield.Neverltheless a superb weapon as both opponents found on the Western Front and the Eastern Front.A real tank buster.

The US Bazooka design was given to the Russians in 1942 and they were able to use it effectively against German armour. The Germans for their part had a similar weapon,the Panzerfaust, which had a shorter range but was a boon to the infantryman and one of its chief advantages was that it required little training in its use and no technical support on the battlefield.It was issued to "all and sundry" in the hour of need of the Third Reich from late 1944.

Innovation, always a requirement on the battlefield.Without real offensive weapons,the partisians behind the lines could always devise a way of neutering a tank by obstructing the tank exhaust by rags or other means.No sooner than later the tank crew would always "come out to play"and find a "kind reception"

 

Anybody know the effective range of the US bazooka? If so, was its range limited by accuracy or by the amount of propellant used to power the charge?

 

As far as I know the Bazooka was not effective beyond around 200 yards against most German tanks. I will be corrected if I am wrong.

 

(spidge @ Nov 19 2005, 03:51 AM) [post=41800](jimbotosome @ Nov 19 2005, 05:45 PM) [post=41796]Anyone know what a "Boys" (brand, style, type?) rifle is and what it was good for?
[/b]

Lionboxer is correct.

View attachment 1270


"Charley the B*****d" . . .Boyes Anti Tank Rifle was a half inch calibre (13mm) rifle designed to penetrate the armour of enemy tanks. It had such a savage recoil that the troops gave the nick name above and generally disliked using it, particularly as it was useless against most tanks . . .

This is an account of the taking of Tobruk by my Fathers 19th Brig / 2nd/8th / 6 Div

O'Connor and Mackay planned to hit Tobruk from the town's southeast corner, relying on the 16th Brigade to punch a hole, the 17th Brigade to follow up, and the 19th Brigade to exploit. Australian gunners prepared their bombardment thoroughly, to make up for the shortage of tanks -- there were only 18 to support the attack.

The assault went in on 21 January, delayed three days by dust storms. At Bardia, the Aussies were weighted down with equipment. At Tobruk they only wore jerkins, and carried weapons and ammunition.

The Italians fought back, relying on barbed wire and booby traps to augment their machine guns. Sgt. F. J. Hoddinott of Queensland hurled grenades to overcome Post S5. After half an hour, it fell. Post 62 fought back under tank and artillery shelling until Lt. F. D. Clark of Adelaide poured a mixture of crude oil and kerosene through the post's windows to silence it. 11 Italians died and 35 surrendered.

The expanding Australian drive became a torrent, as troops fanned out, losing contact with each other. Officers had to send dispatch riders out on captured motorcycles through the dust. Italian defenses collapsed under accurate Australian artillery fire. Again came heavy surrenders -- one company captured 300 men. Another hauled in 1,000 PoWs, including a general.

By mid-day, 19th Brigade's 2/8 Battalion was moving on Fort Pilastrino, the 61st Division's headquarters. The 2/8 came under fire from dug-in Italian tanks, so the Australians charged with bayonet and grenade, destroying the first tank. The rest surrendered. Next, 2/8 captured some mobile tanks, then some machine-gun positions.

The Italians counterattacked with nine tanks and hundreds of infantrymen. Private O. Z. Neall knocked out three Italian tanks with his Boyes anti-tank rifle, a feat that astounded everyone -- the Boyes rifle was noted for its uselessness. But the Italians continued to advance until two British Matildas rumbled up. At that point, the Italians ran, Australian infantrymen charging after them.



[/b]

Jeez, this writing looks awfully familiar....the guy who wrote it should be shot! images/smilies/default/wacko.gif

 

(Kiwiwriter @ Nov 22 2005, 02:18 AM) [post=41887](spidge @ Nov 19 2005, 03:51 AM) [post=41800](jimbotosome @ Nov 19 2005, 05:45 PM) [post=41796]Anyone know what a "Boys" (brand, style, type?) rifle is and what it was good for?
[/b]

Lionboxer is correct.

View attachment 1270


"Charley the B*****d" . . .Boyes Anti Tank Rifle was a half inch calibre (13mm) rifle designed to penetrate the armour of enemy tanks. It had such a savage recoil that the troops gave the nick name above and generally disliked using it, particularly as it was useless against most tanks . . .

This is an account of the taking of Tobruk by my Fathers 19th Brig / 2nd/8th / 6 Div

O'Connor and Mackay planned to hit Tobruk from the town's southeast corner, relying on the 16th Brigade to punch a hole, the 17th Brigade to follow up, and the 19th Brigade to exploit. Australian gunners prepared their bombardment thoroughly, to make up for the shortage of tanks -- there were only 18 to support the attack.

The assault went in on 21 January, delayed three days by dust storms. At Bardia, the Aussies were weighted down with equipment. At Tobruk they only wore jerkins, and carried weapons and ammunition.

The Italians fought back, relying on barbed wire and booby traps to augment their machine guns. Sgt. F. J. Hoddinott of Queensland hurled grenades to overcome Post S5. After half an hour, it fell. Post 62 fought back under tank and artillery shelling until Lt. F. D. Clark of Adelaide poured a mixture of crude oil and kerosene through the post's windows to silence it. 11 Italians died and 35 surrendered.

The expanding Australian drive became a torrent, as troops fanned out, losing contact with each other. Officers had to send dispatch riders out on captured motorcycles through the dust. Italian defenses collapsed under accurate Australian artillery fire. Again came heavy surrenders -- one company captured 300 men. Another hauled in 1,000 PoWs, including a general.

By mid-day, 19th Brigade's 2/8 Battalion was moving on Fort Pilastrino, the 61st Division's headquarters. The 2/8 came under fire from dug-in Italian tanks, so the Australians charged with bayonet and grenade, destroying the first tank. The rest surrendered. Next, 2/8 captured some mobile tanks, then some machine-gun positions.

The Italians counterattacked with nine tanks and hundreds of infantrymen. Private O. Z. Neall knocked out three Italian tanks with his Boyes anti-tank rifle, a feat that astounded everyone -- the Boyes rifle was noted for its uselessness. But the Italians continued to advance until two British Matildas rumbled up. At that point, the Italians ran, Australian infantrymen charging after them.



[/b]

Jeez, this writing looks awfully familiar....the guy who wrote it should be shot! images/smilies/default/wacko.gif
[/b]

Remembered this from that piece of yours we chased up a few weeks ago.

 

(Harry Ree @ Nov 20 2005, 08:18 AM) [post=41848]Innovation, always a requirement on the battlefield.Without real offensive weapons,the partisians behind the lines could always devise a way of neutering a tank by obstructing the tank exhaust by rags or other means.No sooner than later the tank crew would always "come out to play"and find a "kind reception"
[/b]
I guess when it comes down to be clever or die, you see the real "wit" in people. Brains over brawn.

 

(Gnomey @ Nov 20 2005, 06:03 PM) [post=41859]As far as I know the Bazooka was not effective beyond around 200 yards against most German tanks. I will be corrected if I am wrong.
[/b]

Although this link is to a Korean War site, the 2.36" Bazooka described is the WWII version, which was still in service:

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/bazooka.htm

As you will see, it gives the range as 400 yards and effective range 120 yards. This is to do with the length of burn of the rocket motor and accuracy rather than armour penetration.

The Bazooka did not rely on kinetic energy to penetrate armour. It relied on the hollow charge effect from the high explosive warhead. If it managed to hit the aiming point at 300 yards, it would be as effective as at 100 yards, but at this range it would probably miss.

 

(spidge @ Nov 21 2005, 11:21 AM) [post=41899](Kiwiwriter @ Nov 22 2005, 02:18 AM) [post=41887](spidge @ Nov 19 2005, 03:51 AM) [post=41800](jimbotosome @ Nov 19 2005, 05:45 PM) [post=41796]Anyone know what a "Boys" (brand, style, type?) rifle is and what it was good for?
[/b]

Lionboxer is correct.

View attachment 1270


"Charley the B*****d" . . .Boyes Anti Tank Rifle was a half inch calibre (13mm) rifle designed to penetrate the armour of enemy tanks. It had such a savage recoil that the troops gave the nick name above and generally disliked using it, particularly as it was useless against most tanks . . .

This is an account of the taking of Tobruk by my Fathers 19th Brig / 2nd/8th / 6 Div

O'Connor and Mackay planned to hit Tobruk from the town's southeast corner, relying on the 16th Brigade to punch a hole, the 17th Brigade to follow up, and the 19th Brigade to exploit. Australian gunners prepared their bombardment thoroughly, to make up for the shortage of tanks -- there were only 18 to support the attack.

The assault went in on 21 January, delayed three days by dust storms. At Bardia, the Aussies were weighted down with equipment. At Tobruk they only wore jerkins, and carried weapons and ammunition.

The Italians fought back, relying on barbed wire and booby traps to augment their machine guns. Sgt. F. J. Hoddinott of Queensland hurled grenades to overcome Post S5. After half an hour, it fell. Post 62 fought back under tank and artillery shelling until Lt. F. D. Clark of Adelaide poured a mixture of crude oil and kerosene through the post's windows to silence it. 11 Italians died and 35 surrendered.

The expanding Australian drive became a torrent, as troops fanned out, losing contact with each other. Officers had to send dispatch riders out on captured motorcycles through the dust. Italian defenses collapsed under accurate Australian artillery fire. Again came heavy surrenders -- one company captured 300 men. Another hauled in 1,000 PoWs, including a general.

By mid-day, 19th Brigade's 2/8 Battalion was moving on Fort Pilastrino, the 61st Division's headquarters. The 2/8 came under fire from dug-in Italian tanks, so the Australians charged with bayonet and grenade, destroying the first tank. The rest surrendered. Next, 2/8 captured some mobile tanks, then some machine-gun positions.

The Italians counterattacked with nine tanks and hundreds of infantrymen. Private O. Z. Neall knocked out three Italian tanks with his Boyes anti-tank rifle, a feat that astounded everyone -- the Boyes rifle was noted for its uselessness. But the Italians continued to advance until two British Matildas rumbled up. At that point, the Italians ran, Australian infantrymen charging after them.



[/b]

Jeez, this writing looks awfully familiar....the guy who wrote it should be shot! images/smilies/default/wacko.gif
[/b]

Remembered this from that piece of yours we chased up a few weeks ago.
[/b]

Well, in future, when you do that....please indicate where it came from. I spent a lot of time at THC fighting a war on that issue, and wound up being accused of plagiarism and imposture, among other crimes. My wife has had more than enough of that for one lifetime. Without that note, someone might think you wrote it, and that I copied you in my article! images/smilies/default/wacko.gif

 

A little known fact about the Boyes .55 caliber rifle is that the U.S.M.C. Raiders used them in several campaigns, most notably the raid on Tulagi in 1942. A Marine private whose name I cannot remember used one to bring down a Japanese floatplane as it was taking off. Also Marines in Korea used the Boyes along with the M2 .50 as sort of precursors to the modern Barrett M82A1 .50 sniper rifle. The Boyes was very effective in the long range fighting for Korean hills. Also, 120m for the M1A1 2.36" bazooka is a very long shot indeed. When I trained on the 3.5" bazooka in the sixties 120 yards was about as far was we could guarantee a hit on an AFV. So I'd say effective range of the M1A1 and M9 bazooka was about 100 yards. As said before because the bazooka round was a hollow charge the round would penetrate the same at whatever range it hit. The bazooka was very effective against halftracks, PzKpfw I-IV, but Panthers and Tigers were hard to kill. The Panther was near impossible to knock out unless the turret face was penetrated or the rear was hit. The Tiger could be knocked out with flank or rear shots because it's armor was not sloped very well.

 

(Kiwiwriter @ Nov 23 2005, 05:52 AM) [post=41993](spidge @ Nov 21 2005, 11:21 AM) [post=41899](Kiwiwriter @ Nov 22 2005, 02:18 AM) [post=41887](spidge @ Nov 19 2005, 03:51 AM) [post=41800](jimbotosome @ Nov 19 2005, 05:45 PM) [post=41796]Anyone know what a "Boys" (brand, style, type?) rifle is and what it was good for?
[/b]

Lionboxer is correct.

View attachment 1270


"Charley the B*****d" . . .Boyes Anti Tank Rifle was a half inch calibre (13mm) rifle designed to penetrate the armour of enemy tanks. It had such a savage recoil that the troops gave the nick name above and generally disliked using it, particularly as it was useless against most tanks . . .

This is an account of the taking of Tobruk by my Fathers 19th Brig / 2nd/8th / 6 Div

O'Connor and Mackay planned to hit Tobruk from the town's southeast corner, relying on the 16th Brigade to punch a hole, the 17th Brigade to follow up, and the 19th Brigade to exploit. Australian gunners prepared their bombardment thoroughly, to make up for the shortage of tanks -- there were only 18 to support the attack.

The assault went in on 21 January, delayed three days by dust storms. At Bardia, the Aussies were weighted down with equipment. At Tobruk they only wore jerkins, and carried weapons and ammunition.

The Italians fought back, relying on barbed wire and booby traps to augment their machine guns. Sgt. F. J. Hoddinott of Queensland hurled grenades to overcome Post S5. After half an hour, it fell. Post 62 fought back under tank and artillery shelling until Lt. F. D. Clark of Adelaide poured a mixture of crude oil and kerosene through the post's windows to silence it. 11 Italians died and 35 surrendered.

The expanding Australian drive became a torrent, as troops fanned out, losing contact with each other. Officers had to send dispatch riders out on captured motorcycles through the dust. Italian defenses collapsed under accurate Australian artillery fire. Again came heavy surrenders -- one company captured 300 men. Another hauled in 1,000 PoWs, including a general.

By mid-day, 19th Brigade's 2/8 Battalion was moving on Fort Pilastrino, the 61st Division's headquarters. The 2/8 came under fire from dug-in Italian tanks, so the Australians charged with bayonet and grenade, destroying the first tank. The rest surrendered. Next, 2/8 captured some mobile tanks, then some machine-gun positions.

The Italians counterattacked with nine tanks and hundreds of infantrymen. Private O. Z. Neall knocked out three Italian tanks with his Boyes anti-tank rifle, a feat that astounded everyone -- the Boyes rifle was noted for its uselessness. But the Italians continued to advance until two British Matildas rumbled up. At that point, the Italians ran, Australian infantrymen charging after them.



[/b]

Jeez, this writing looks awfully familiar....the guy who wrote it should be shot! images/smilies/default/wacko.gif
[/b]

Remembered this from that piece of yours we chased up a few weeks ago.
[/b]

Well, in future, when you do that....please indicate where it came from. I spent a lot of time at THC fighting a war on that issue, and wound up being accused of plagiarism and imposture, among other crimes. My wife has had more than enough of that for one lifetime. Without that note, someone might think you wrote it, and that I copied you in my article! images/smilies/default/wacko.gif
[/b]
Humble apologies David.

Not intentional, just a lack of thought when one is half asleep.

Article reference edited into post.


Regards


Geoff

 

(angie999 @ Nov 21 2005, 01:03 PM) [post=41912]The Bazooka did not rely on kinetic energy to penetrate armour. It relied on the hollow charge effect from the high explosive warhead. If it managed to hit the aiming point at 300 yards, it would be as effective as at 100 yards, but at this range it would probably miss.
[/b]
That's what I was wondering. So if I understand this right, if you could hit it at any range you could kill it (assuming you could kill what you hit). The issue is that your ability to hit it diminishes rapidly by distance.

Which of the anti-armor weapons (any side or type) were the most effective against the heaviest armor? Was there a standout?