Naval Historical Society of Australia

Preserving Australia's Naval History

You are here: Home / Archives for Article topics / Publications / Naval Historical Review

Naval Historical Review

Letter: Villers Bretonneux Museum – Garden Island Dockyard crest

Dear Editor,

Some years ago when I was serving in the office of the Naval Historical Society a letter was received with a copy of a photograph of a Garden Island Dockyard crest taken at the Villers Bretonneux Museum. The question was how did it get there? We had no idea so the topic lapsed.

Recently a previous General Manager of Garden Island Dockyard, Rear Admiral Nigel Berlyn, contacted me by telephone with a query about the time when we were both on the Island in the mid-1980s. As matter of passing interest I mentioned the above photographic query and the Admiral told me that during his time as General Manager a group of former French naval personnel from the Villers Bretonneux district had visited the Dockyard when he had presented them with a Naval Dockyard crest. Presumably in older age one of this group donated the crest to the museum.

Should the crest still be on display this explanation might be of interest to Australian visitors.

Kind regards

Norman Rivett

 

By Editor: Have any members who may have recently visited this museum noticed the GID crest?

 

Letter: What’s in a Name – Cumberlege

A few emails have been received from learned members regarding the spelling of a family name used in the June 2018 edition of this magazine on Rear Admiral Claude Lionel Cumberiege and his influence on the RAN. There are a number of spellings to this ancient name which appears to derive from the parish of Cumberbatch in Cheshire, England.

Bowing to the superior knowledge of the informants and, thanking them for their contribution, your Editor agrees that the spelling Cumberlege as used in the Dictionary of Australian Biography should have been used throughout this article. Well spotted to all concerned.

Book Review: Tobruk and Beyond: War Notes from the Mediterranean Station 1941–1943.

 By Albert Lawrence Poland, Published by Halstead Press, Canberra, 2018. Hard cover, 176 pp with b&w illustrations, maps and portraits. Available from booksellers at about $33.00.

Peter Poland, the editor of this intriguing story, relies upon the notebooks and naval messages kept by his father, Albert Lawrence Poland, during his service in WWII between April 1941 and January 1943 when serving as the Senior Naval Officer Inshore Squadron (SNOIS) and subsequently as Captain (D) of the 14th Destroyer Flotilla. Given the war-torn nature of the operation to which this information refers, it is miraculous that it has survived.

Captain Albert Poland had travelled around the Cape to take command of the cruiser HMS Liverpool, but it was extensively damaged before he could join her and he had to be found another job. The C-in-C Mediterranean Fleet, the formidable Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham, knew Poland from destroyer service in the 1930s, and found him a new appointment as SNOIS in charge of an assortment of ships and small craft keeping the Army supplied at its bases along the northeast African coast, most notably Tobruk. Somethingtokeep his hand inuntil a real job turned up.

Captain Poland had no staff, no office and very little in the way of instruction, just a title, and he was on his own. Poland demonstrated his ability to quickly get to know people, assess their needs, and where he could, provide invaluable assistance. He developed and maintained good contacts across the three branches of the armed services and was well respected. Starting with nothing he achieved much with the aid of such resources as the Aussie ‘Scrap Iron Flotilla’ that helped the ‘Rats of Tobruk’ in getting the job done.

This is not a volume for the faint-hearted. Reading through notes with excessive amounts of abbreviations calls for a wide understanding of military and naval terminology, although the author provides an excellent glossary. The book is divided into two parts, with the second part being easier to digest. In reading through Poland’s notes they demonstrate a disciplined mind providing a well ordered supply of facts and figures. Here is someone who, perhaps sub-consciously, knows he was part of an history-making epic.

The continuation of Captain Poland’s important wartime service is recognised by awards and elevation which is worthy of another story. He retires as Vice Admiral Sir Albert Poland, KBE, CB, DSO, DSC. The editor and his brother Patrick both served in the Royal Navy from where they retired as Commanders.

Reviewed by Arcturus

The Hospital Ships Buenos Aires Maruand Wah Sui

Was the sinking of hospital ships isolated incidents which could be put down to mistaken identity or were they deliberate acts of destruction by those who had thrown away the rule book? With twenty-four hospital ships recorded as being sunk by enemy action during WWII it is difficult to reconcile that these were all accidental. These covered vessels of most belligerents, in numerical order losses were: Italy (7) Britain (5) Greece (4) Japan (3) Germany (2) and Australia, Norway and Russia one each. The most infamous was the loss of the Russian hospital ship Armenia when bombed and sunk by German aircraft in 1941 after evacuating civilians and wounded soldiers from Crimea, with over 5,000 deaths and only eight survivors. Remarkably the United States of America lost no hospital ships in this conflict. By comparison the Australian Hospital Ship Centaurat 3,222 tons was a small ship but with a large number of persons aboard including 75 crew, 55 medical staff and 192 passengers from the 2/12th Field Ambulance on passage to New Guinea. When torpedoed and sunk on her maiden voyage as a hospital ship she carried no patients but 268 lives were lost.

There is plentiful information on the tragic sinking of Centaur by a Japanese submarine in the early hours of 14 May 1943 and that of our greatest maritime tragedy, in terms of lives lost, the sinking of the Japanese transport Montevideo Maru when taking Australian POWs from Rabaul on 01 July 1942, but other related incidents have gone unreported.

Wah Sui

One of the great Allied tragedies of WWII was the fall of Singapore in February 1942. Because of suspected vulnerability to enemy aggression a few days before the surrender a decision had been made to evacuate as many European non-combatants as possible. Of special concern were women and children and patients from service hospitals, including female nursing staff. Just about anything that floated was used in this evacuation from Singapore to the then relative safety of the Dutch East Indies. Overall it was not a success with the majority of vessels being sunk with great loss of life amongst the 5,000 evacuees.

With no hospital ship available three small flat-bottomed Yangtze river boats were hastily converted into makeshift hospital ships and painted white with red crosses on their sides. They were not internationally registered hospital ships and it could be argued by disregarding international regulations they brought registered ships into jeopardy.

One of these ships, Wah Sui, came to Singapore. When fully laden with 450 passengers, mostly Australian and British wounded tended by six Australian Army nursing sisters, she sailed from Singapore on 12 February bound for Tandjong Priok in Java which could be covered in about three days steaming.

Prior to her sailing Japanese authorities had advised the local British command to move the Wah Sui further away from the main shipping channel as she was in danger of being accidentally bombed. After sailing she was buzzed by Japanese aircraft but unmolested. Later she was challenged and stopped by a Japanese cruiser who sent a boarding party to examine her. She was again allowed to proceed and safely made Tandjong Priok where her passengers were disembarked and hospitalised awaiting other opportunities to make their way home. In this instance the six Australian nurses were transferred to the troopship Orcades and reached Adelaide a few weeks later.

Buenos Aires Maru

Surprisingly we also know little of the sinking of the Japanese Hospital Ship Buenos Aires Maruin what might be regarded as Australian waters, off the Mandated Territory of New Guinea on 27 November 1943.

Buenos Aires Maru was a passenger-cargo ship similar to Montevideo Maru, both vessels requisitioned to help the Japanese war effort. Built in 1929 for the Osaka Shosen Kaisha (OSK) Line the Buenos Aires Maru was a 9,627 ton passenger-cargo ship, accommodating 1,200 passengers, and was mainly employed in the pre-war immigrant trade between Japan and South America. In November 1941 she was requisitioned as a troop ship plying between Japan, China, Korea and the Philippines. In October 1942 she was converted to a hospital ship and on 21 November 1942 the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs notified warring powers that Buenos Aires Maru is now a protected hospital ship.

Notwithstanding her new status, when in the South China Sea on 25 April 1943 this relatively large ship was damaged by torpedoes fired by the submarine USS Runner. The ship’s hull was slightly damaged and seven men were wounded. The ship was taken to Hong Kong for repairs.

On 17 August 1943 en route for Rabaul in New Britain she was attacked by an unknown American aircraft but escaped undamaged. The following day she arrived at Rabaul where she is described as being painted white with a green stripe around her hull, with large red crosses on either side of her hull and funnel. A black and white photograph exists from this time showing her hospital ship markings. She makes several more voyages between New Britain and the Philippines.

Hospital Ship Buenos Aires Maru – IJN

 

Bombing of Japanese sub-chaser by USAAF Liberator off New Ireland taken from an accompanying aircraft February 1944            USAAF

On 22 November 1943 she arrives at Rabaul where she embarks 1,129 sick and wounded servicemen, plus a small number of servicemen being repatriated to theirhomeland. In addition she carried 63 nursing staff and an unknown number of crew. The total number of passengers on board is estimated at about 1,300 personnel.

At about 0800 on 27 November when off the northern coast of New Guinea province of New Ireland the ship was subjected to low level bombing by an American Army Air Force B-24 Liberator. The raid was conducted in broad daylight in clear weather with the aircraft flying at low altitude. A bomb struck the port side of the ship, opening up the hull and flooding the engine room. The ship sank bow first about 50 minutes later. Remarkably in this relatively short space of time the survivors were taken off in lifeboats and two motor boats. The Liberator left the scene shortly after the sinking and is said to have strafed the area with machine gun fire, seemingly with little effect.

A small Japanese Navy submarine chaser squadron of three ships was based at Kavieng in northern New Ireland. Some days later one of these sub-chasers rescued about 1,000 survivors but 158 men and nurses were missing assumed killed in the bombing, sinking or dying later in the lifeboats.

This went unreported by Australian media who may well have been unaware of the incident. However the Australian War Memorial (AWM55 6/6) does have an unpublished interrogation report taken from a Japanese soldier (JA 147007) who was discovered in a life raft off the north coast of Bougainville and rescued by American soldiers on 16 December 1943. He had been aboard Buenos Aires Maru and was being transported back to Japan because of sickness. He was subsequently able to tell of conditions aboard the ship prior to, and during, her attack and evacuation.

Brigadier General Dr. Percy Carrol, the Command Surgeon, United States Army in the Southwest Pacific recommended an apology be made for this unfortunate mistake. However, General McArthur vetoed this recommendation and no apology was made.

In contrast Prime Minister John Curtin made a clear statement to the Australian Parliament in respect of the attack on Centaur which he said: …bore all the marks of wantonness and deliberations. The deed will shock the conscience of the whole civilized world. It will demonstrate to all who have any lingering doubts the unscrupulous and barbarous methods by which the Japanese conduct warfare.

A report of a subsequent United States Government investigation into the sinking of the Buenos Aires Maru was issued from Washington on 5 February 1944 through the Spanish Embassy, which was in charge of Japanese interests in Continental United States. It was stated that at the time of the bombing the identity of the hospital ship was not evident until after the attack was made. Regarding the alleged machine gunning of drifting lifeboats it was again stated that their identity was unknown. While the United States Government expresses its sincere regrets it emphasises the accidental nature of the attacks.

Summary

The Buenos Aires Maru tragedy underscores that such attacks are perpetuated by warring nations and alleged mistakes can be evenly divided by both sides in conflict. The story of Wah Suialso shows that the Japanese were conscious of international regulations regarding hospital ships and in this instance observed these to the letter.

 

Naval Cutlasses – an Overview

By John McGrath

This article is a complement to that on officers’ swords which appeared in the March 2018 issue of the Naval Historical Review. Like that article, it does not pretend to give an exhaustive coverage of the subject but to offer an introduction to the types of cutlasses that have been used. Perhaps it is as well to dispel some popular misconceptions over the origin of the name. You may hear that it comes from ‘cut lash’ or ‘cut lace’ but it is far simpler. It is related to those familiar words ‘cutler’ and ‘cutlery’ and derives from the Latin ‘cultellus’ meaning knife.

One aspect of the cutlassthat is often overlooked is its dual function; not only was it a weapon but it also served as a damage control tool useful for cutting away cordage, etc. This accounts for the substantial weight of cutlasses. In this respect it complemented the naval tomahawk or boarding axe with its primary role of damage control and its secondary purpose as a useful weapon.

Early days

In the early years of the eighteenth century, officers are often illustrated with one or other of two types of swords. Now distinguished by collectors as hangers and hunting swords, the only real difference was that the former had curved blades and in the latter they were straight, Fig. 1. Some collectors theorise that the cutlass derived from the hanger and the dirk from the hunting sword but there is little evidence in support of that theory and quite a bit to refute it. As the century progressed, a cutlass with either a straight or a curved blade and a figure-of-eight (double-disc) guard developed. Early specimens had handles made from antler but this would have been expensive and later this was replaced by a simple iron tube, Fig. 2. Although cheap, this would have afforded a very poor grip making it difficult to direct the point and edge of the weapon accurately. The quality of these swords, produced by many different suppliers without quality assurance supervision was very variable, with the worst being very poor indeed.

Fig. 1. Brass-hilted hunting sword dated 1732

 

Fig. 2. Cutlass with figure-of-eight or double-disc guard and grip of sheet iron. GR stamped on the blade to denotes Government ownership

 

The 1804 Pattern Cutlass

This state of affairs could not be allowed to continue so, in 1804, the first official pattern cutlass was introduced. This had a straight, flat blade that was about 28¼ in (730 mm) long; it retained the figure-of-eight guard with a vestigial quillon but the unsatisfactory cylindrical grip was replaced with one of cast iron, shaped to the hand and provided with 17 circumferential and 6 longitudinal groves, Fig. 3.

Fig. 3. The 1804 Pattern cutlass showing details of guard and grip

The blade was engraved with the Royal Cypher; a crown above the letters GR. It was carried in a brown leather scabbard with a frog hook but no top locket, and a brass chape. There was no pommel; the guard being riveted in place on the grip by peening over the tang of the blade. In common with all official patterns it was provided with a slot in the guard for a sword knot. This is curious as the RN never issued a sword knot with its cutlasses. This slot may reflect the fact that naval weapons were supplied by Army, until 1854 by the Board of Ordnance and thereafter by the War Office. The Army issued sword knots to cavalry troopers. Although sometimes referred to as the Trafalgar Pattern, it is uncertain how many would have been on board ships at that action and many were produced under later contracts.

The 1845 Pattern

The end of the wars with France and the USA and the subsequent reduction in the size of the RN meant that there was no imperative to seek a better weapon. Despite this, experimental designs continued to be evaluated and in 1842 the RN accepted a new pattern. A major fire at the Tower of London delayed its introduction and bulk supplies seem to have become available around 1845. This is why this date has been chosen rather than the more usual 1842; it is all rather irrelevant except to anoraks. The new sword, Fig. 4, differed in many respects from its predecessor.

Fig. 4. The 1845 Pattern cutlass; note where the absence of a top locket has resulted in the loss of the frog hook.

This new pattern had the longest blade of all the uniform cutlasses, 29½ in (750 mm), was slightly curved with a flat back and an acute spear point well suited to thrusting. It is the first cutlass to reflect trends in cavalry swords and this influence on the design of cutlasses was to remain right up to the final pattern. The bowl guard, which lacked any form of quillon, tapered towards the pommel close to which there was a slot for a sword knot. This weak area of the guard was reinforced by being turned downwards, away from the grip. The grip remained cast iron but only had 12 circumferential grooves. A small pommel, technically described as a burr, was fitted.

The Enfield cutlass/sword bayonet, Pattern 1859

In the years following the 1845 Pattern, the RN made the transition from muzzle loading smooth bore muskets to breech loading rifles. This started with the muzzle loading Enfield rifle of 1859 which was converted to breech loading using the Snider mechanism in 1867. The concept of a bayonet, which could also serve as a cutlass, gained traction. The Enfield cutlass/sword bayonet of 1859, Fig. 5.

Fig. 5. The Enfield cutlass/sword bayonet Pattern 1859. 

This weapon had a flat, slightly curved blade which was 27 in (686 mm) long, 1½ in (38 mm) wide at the shoulder and terminated in a double edged spear point. The hilt assembly consisted of a sheet steel guard with a slot for a sword knot close to the pommel where it is reinforced by folding outwards. Inside the guard there is a muzzle ring/quillon with an internal diameter of 13/16 in (21 mm). On the opposite side is a reinforcing plate. A mortise to attach this weapon to the rifle runs the length of the grip. The pommel has a catch operated by a leaf spring on the right hand side and a stud on the other. The tang is riveted over a small burr. There are two types of grip. The earlier, sealed on 18 April 1859, is leather covered wood with six circumferential grooves. This grip must have been too slippery because on 1 May it was replaced by a knurled leather grip. The scabbard was black leather and fitted with a top locket carrying a frog hook, and a chape; both these fittings were made of steel.

The Martini-Henry cutlass/sword bayonet, Pattern 1871

Introduction of the Martini-Henry rifle started in 1869 and two years later came its version of the cutlass/sword bayonet, Fig 6. This new weapon had a straight blade, 25½ in (650 mm) long and 1¼ in (32 mm) wide at the shoulder. The muzzle ring had an internal diameter of 0.71 in (18 mm). Many of these were provided by straightening and shortening the 1859 Pattern and bushing the muzzle ring. The new blade profile could not be produced directly by grinding down the blades of earlier weapons; hot forging was required. Following this, an expensive quenching and tempering heat treatment was needed to restore the properties. Contractors avoided this and supplied blades which had not been heat treated with the result that they bent when used in anger. This was one of a number of such ‘sword scandals’ during the nineteenth century which affected both the cavalry and the RN. The specimen illustrated is one such, bearing ‘S’ stamps for manufacture at Solingen and ‘E’ stamps dating from its conversion at Enfield in 1878. It is not stamped ‘R’ and therefore was not heat treated after conversion. Like its predecessor, the scabbard was black leather with two steel mounts.

Fig. 6. The Martini-Henry cutlass/sword bayonet, Pattern 1871, details of hilt.

The 1887 Pattern

Meanwhile, many modified versions of the 1845 Pattern were tested, usually in small batches and with blades which could not be formed from the original without hot forging. These variations are too numerous and too badly documented to cover in detail but one is described later. In 1887, a blade was finally designed which could be produced from the 1845 Pattern by grinding alone. The resulting weapon had a blade that was 26½ in (680 mm) long and 17/16 in (37 mm) wide at the shoulder. It is compared with the earlier pattern in Fig. 7.

Fig. 7. The Pattern 1845 (top) and Pattern 1887 (bottom) cutlasses compared

Pressure from multiple sources forced the authorities to act and introduce proper tests for edged weapons taken into Government service. This development was reported in The Engineerof 8 March 1889. This coincided with the appearance of a completely new pattern of cutlass.

The 1889 Pattern.

This represented a step change in design and closely mirrored developments in the swords of cavalry troopers that had started in 1882. The new cutlass, Fig. 8, was a complete break from earlier designs. It had a straight, flat blade which was 28 in (711 mm) long and 13/16 in (30 mm) wide at the shoulder. It had a double edged spear point. The sheet steel guard was innovative with an everted rim to the bowl. As well as providing added strength to the guard, it would have acted as a stop rib, a common feature in the design of armour that was intended to catch the point of a weapon glancing off a curved surface and guide it harmlessly away. The cast iron grip looks to be rather too cylindrical in cross section to afford a really secure grip. This sword was carried in a black leather scabbard with two steel mounts, the locket being fitted with a stud for use with a belt frog. 

Fig. 8. The 1889 Pattern cutlass.

The 1900 Pattern

Yet another pattern of cutlass was introduced in 1900, Fig. 9. This differed from its predecessor because a shallow fuller ran along each face of the blade for about one third of its length. The bowl guard from the 1889 Pattern was retained but the grip was different. Perhaps the smooth grip had generatedcriticismandit was replacedbya much more rectangular cross section faced with black leather cheeks. An innovation was the small concave insert between the heel of the grip and the guard adjacent to the pommel. This finger rest which was intended to cushion the little finger of the sword hand was copied from the 1890 Pattern sword for cavalry troopers. The scabbard was the same as for the previous pattern.

Fig. 9. The 1900 Pattern cutlass, details of the hilt

This was to be the last pattern of cutlass in the RN. The order withdrawing the cutlass from service was issued on 22 October 1936.

May and Annis state that these last two patterns were issued with bright steel guards. However, many examples of both these patterns are to be found with blackened mounts. ‘Shiny cutlery’ was certainly being used for ceremonial purposes as late as the start of the 21st century, so it is possible that both blackened and bright mounts were issued or that cutlasses were blackened on board to reduce the amount of cleaning necessary.

Some other cutlasses

A few other cutlasses that are outside the direct line of evolution of the naval weapon are worth mentioning. Three of these will be examined here.

The ex-Army saw-backed cutlass

Towards the end of the nineteenth century some of the stocks of the Army’s 1856 Pattern saw-backed pioneer swords were taken into naval service, see Fig. 10.

It had a blade which was 22½ in (571 mm) long by 1⅜ in (35 mm) wide at the shoulder. The back of the blade had a double saw edge commencing ¾ in (20 mm) from the guard and terminating 7¼ in (184mm) from the point. The blade was two edged for the final 6¾ in (172 mm) and ended in a spear point. The all brass hilt had a stirrup hilt with a quillon and an oval slot for a sword knot close to the pommel. The grip consisted of a pair of brass scales, each with 12 transverse grooves. The black leather scabbard had two brass mounts, the top locket being fitted with a frog stud.

Examples of this weapon with Army markings are quite common but those taken into naval service and marked to indicate this transition are scarcer. Fig. 11 illustrates the naval ownership mark, N, while there is another example (not shown) with the date on which it was transferred to the RN, 4’ 92, for April 1892.

According to May and Annis (see Bibliography), some of these swords were transferred to the Navy because in the organisation of Naval Brigades each rifle company had attached to it a pioneer armed with this weapon. They mention a report of one being seen in use ashore during the Boxer Campaign of 1900. Withdrawn from Army use in 1903, this sword remained in naval use for a few more years.

 

Fig. 11. Saw-backed cutlass showing the N marking for naval ownership

 The Coastguard cutlass

Following the passing of the Coastguard Act of 1856, that organisation came under Admiralty control. It remained so until after WWI when was civilianised. It was, again, placed under the Admiralty during WWII. Its uniforms and weapons usually closely followed RN patterns but there were exceptions, one of which was a cutlass, Fig. 12.

It had a curved blade 25 in (635 mm) long measured in a straight line from the shoulder to the point of the back edge which curved by 1⅜ in (35 mm) from the straight. It was 17/16in (36 mm) wide at the shoulder and terminated in a very acute point. A single, narrow fuller ran along each side of the blade from the shoulder to within 7½ in (190 mm) of the point. The brass guard was a stirrup hilt with a quillon with additional protection afforded to the hand by a loop on the outer side. The cast iron grip was shaped to fit the hand and had 19 grooves cast into its surface. (The countersunk hole was probably made to mount the sword in a wall display). The sword was carried in a brown leather scabbard which had a brass frog hook but no top locket and a brass chape.

Fig. 12. The Coastguard cutlass

Experimental cutlasses

A combination of scientific curiosity and the profit motive meant that efforts were always being made to design better weapons and then persuade the authorities to accept them. From time-to-time examples of these experimental weapons turn up. The specimen illustrated, Fig. 13, is one such, combining features of the 1845 Pattern with novel elements such as an ergonomic grip and a bowl guard where the weak point associated with the redundant slot for the sword knot has been removed.

The blade for this sword was made by F&W Deakin and it carries no Government markings suggesting that this was a private venture by Francis S. Deakin, who traded in Birmingham from 1840–1850, and an unrecorded member of the same family. These dates would fit the blade, bowl guard and burr that have been used. A very similar weapon but with a cast iron grip is illustrated by Comfort, EW171 (see Bibliography).

Fig. 13. Experimental cutlass with an ergonomic grip 

What does the dictionary say?

The most authoritative definition might well be that in the Oxford English Dictionary:

A short sword with a flat wide slightly curved blade, adapted more for cutting than for thrusting; now esp.the sword with which sailors are armed.

This probably agrees with the general public’s ideas about this weapon but how accurate are the descriptors: short, flat, slightly curved, and adapted more for cutting? In fairness, it does state that this entry, first published in 1893, has not yet been fully updated.

One feature common to all the uniform cutlasses of the Royal Navy seems to have been overlooked. All the blades were single edged, with the back of the blade being flat. Ideally, any definition would mention this design feature. Although the term cutlass is correctly applied to the swords that were worn by members of the customs and police services, it is accepted that this is a specialised use of the term and that, nowadays, it is generally reserved for the swords of naval ratings.

Retaining the structure of the current entry, it is suggested that a more accurate definition would be:

A short sword with a wide, single-edged, flat-backed blade that may be either straight or slightly curved, flat or grooved; now esp. the sword with which sailors are armed.

Select Bibliography

1.A Manual of Gunnery for Her Majesty’s Fleet, London, Printed for Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, by Harrison and Sons, St. Martin’s Lane, 1873.

  1. Comfort, Sim, Naval Swords & Dirks, London: Sim Comfort Associates, 2008.
  2. Gilkerson, William, Boarders Away with Steel – Edged Weapons & Polearms, Lincoln, Rhode Island: Andrew Mowbray, 1991.
  3. Instruction for the Exercise of Small Arms and Field Pieces, etc, for the use of Her Majesty’s Ships,London, Harrison and Sons, 1859. A modern facsimile version is available: Uckfield, The Naval & Military Press Ltd, n.d..
  4. May, W.E., Commander RN and Annis P.G.W., Swords for Sea Service,London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1970.
  5. May, WE, and Kennard, AN, Naval Swords and Firearms, London: HM Stationery Office, 1962.
  6. McGrath, John and Barton, Mark, British Naval Swords & Swordsmanship, Barnsley, Seaforth Publications, 2013.
  7. Oxford English Dictionary, on-line version.
  8. Verity, Liza, Naval Weapons,London: National Maritime Museum, 1992.
  9. Wolfe, Sarah C, Naval Edged Weapons, London: Chatham Publishing and Pennsylvania: Stackpole Books, 2005*-

 

 

Facebook