rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 12:22 pm

Yesterday I happened to come across a magazine which showed some pictures of signaling by soldiers. A raised rifle with a helmet on it apparently signalled the fact the enemy was sighted. When the rifle was raised horizontally above the head it meant I believe that soldiers were engaged. Just wondering was there perhaps a publication given to the rank and file so they knew the signalling conventions? Also, I guess it would be tough with this kind of signalling if the weather say wasn't cooperating.

Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 2:11 pm

Rich

I don't know about publications, but these sorts of signals (sign-language)are fascinating, the best example I've seen lately, being used in 'Saving Private Ryan' by the sniper in the bell-tower to his officer standing on the ground below, describing the enemy forces approaching.

It would be interesting to know of 19th Century techniques, including the circling of scouts on horseback as a warning, etc.

Coll

Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:13 am

I am currently pursuing a copy of the 1877 handbook which has mention of signals for use by infantry. In the interim, here is a link to a few.........perhaps that is all there was at the time.

http://www.victorianmilitarysociety.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&I'd=26:1877-infantry-signals&catid=10:articles&Itemid=9

Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:32 pm

That's it Kiwi...thanks for that. And I'd figure that there wouldn't be that many signals since too may could possibly put much presuure on the soldiers to remember them all.

Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:22 pm

Rich

I will check with the heads of Printed Books and Archives at the NAM, if we have and handbooks or publications on signals in our achives we may be able to publish them through Naval Military Press.

Jon

Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:45 pm

Thanks sillymajor...hmmmm..any functioning heliographs used in the war hanging around??

Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 8:01 pm

If we are to believe Wikepedia, the Heliograph was first used in 1877 Here is a link to that statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliograph

Sir Henry Christopher Mance (1840�1926), of British Army Signal Corps, developed the first apparatus while stationed at Karachi, Bombay. During the Jowaki Afridi expedition sent out by the British-Indian government in 1877, the heliograph was first tested in war.

So, to extrapolate, seeing the Mance unit was in use in 1877, the design remained unchanged, and it remained standard equipment for military signallers in the Australian and British armies until the 1960s, where it was considered a "low probability of intercept" form of communication, the type is still around. Canada was the last major army to keep the heliograph as an issue item. By the time the mirror instruments were retired they were seldom used for signalling. Still, the army hated to see them go as, "They made damn fine shaving mirrors."As recently as the 1980s, heliographs were used by Afghan forces during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

It is possible that an actual unit used during the period of interest, may still be "lurking" somewhere. Perhaps in the depths of some, as yet undiscovered Nepalese storage cavern..........However, I do consider it unlikely as the earliest of my collection of four plus operational units is of WW 1 period.

To conclude, an 1886 unit,as shown in Manual of Instruction Army Signaling 1886 is almost exactly the same design as the WW 1 and WW2 units I have . Here is a link to a site with extracts from the 1886 Manual showing the unchanged design

http://www.smecc.org/heliograph_-_signaling_by_the_sun.htm

The models I own are all Mark V. This implies that there have been 4 variants but , but they show minimal differences from that shown on the 1886 manual;(varaint unknown). i.e. a solid arm for the sighting rod and duplex mirror as opposed to skeleton; A tube shaped connector at the top of "J" as opposed to a ball; etc)

Even today, nutters such as I collect, restore and use them for the amusement of fellow nutters.

Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:12 pm

kiwi sapper...

Those pix are great. "Low probability of intercept". I did note that quality when reading up on the helios. But nevertheless there is some probabilty of an enemy picking up the signals. I'm not aware of any refs indicating the Zulu were "hip" to British signalling but being that the helio uses the sun I'd bet that they saw signals at times. The next thing would be though whether or not they had the wherewithal to interpret the signals.

Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 6:15 pm

Rich

I'm not at all technically minded but wouldn't the enemy have to be in a roughly similar position to the receiver to be able to pick up the flashes, because of the angle of the mirrors? Say, comparatively close to or directly behind him, as it were, to see the same angle? Right behind the bowler's arm, as we would say over here ("pitcher's" for you!) Or could they pick up the flashes right out at right angles? We can presumably be sure the Zulu or Pathan didn't know Morse in any case!

The successful helio operation at Eshowe in the AZW was, I believe, an ingeniously improvised arrangement in the absence of the Mance unit.

Peter

Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:54 pm

Bearing in mind that light travels in a straight line, (but we all understand that it will gradually spread unless it is light generated from a laser which is pretty B. direct and parallel), it is possible for an "non connected party" to be aware of the dit dahs being flashed via a heliograph. My copy of the "Signal Training (all Arms) 1938 Army manual contains the following statement........"The reflected beam of light from the heliograph is visible for eight yards on either side of a station at a distance of one mile"........ A station being an receiving point. Now as arithmetic was my most hated subject and when I reached Geometry, Rolling Eyes

I despaired, I am quite unable to calculate the spread of reflected light from a 5 inch mirror, which starts at 5 inches at point of origin to eight yards at receiving point and develop the calculation to work out how wide the "visible" area would be at , say 10 miles, or "........a range of 70 miles under the best atmospheric conditions......." (Makes my brain hurt) Perhaps some maths wiz can do it for me?
Any way, I would imagine at 10 miles the spread would "probably" be somewhere about 80 yards and therfore, any person wishing to eye drop, would have to be located within a 80 yard wide "channel" to be able to observe the dit dahs. That, I imagine would be jolly difficult to achieve.

In conclusion, it is interesting to note that the British and Commonwealth Armies in WW 1 and WW2 used short range and long range daylight signalling lamps which use a battery and a bulb. The "Visible" area at one mile for those is 40 yards for the short range and 30 yards for the long range.....So OLD IS BEST.......... Very Happy

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 7:39 pm

Thanks kiwi for that..

I don't think there was a helio at Isandhlwana, correct? If so, it entertains my mind if it could've perhaps been a game-changer perhaps in making
Chelmsford aware of hat was happening at the camp much earlier.

Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:30 am

There was no heliograph at Isandhlwana or with Chelmsford's force on the Mangeni.

Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:15 pm

Thanks julian...no helio with Chlemsford? With the GOC? Perhaps a tactical mistake or simply they were in short supply? I'd think that communication arguably is lifeblood with an army in the field especially near a possible enemy.