The British Army and the politics of rifle development, 1880 to 1986

مرکز و کتابخانه مطالعات اسلامی به زبان های اروپایی

منو

" The British Army and the politics of rifle development, 1880 to 1986 "
Ford, Matthew Charles

Document Type	:	Latin Dissertation
Record Number	:	1098361
Doc. No	:	TLets540222
Main Entry	:	Ford, Matthew Charles
Title & Author	:	The British Army and the politics of rifle development, 1880 to 1986\ Ford, Matthew Charles
College	:	King's College London
Date	:	2008
student score	:	2008
Degree	:	Ph.D.
Abstract	:	This thesis is concerned with the design and development of British infantry rifles. Thespecific weapons considered are the Lee-Metford (LEME) first introduced in 1888; theShort Magazine Lee-Enfield (SMLE) brought into service in 1904; the ExperimentalModel No. 2 (EM2) briefly designated the Rifle No. 9 MkJ in 195 1; and the Section SmallArms Post 1980 (SA80) issued to troops in 1986.Over the past twenty years academic literature has demonstrated that technologicaldeterminism has persistently crept into accounts of technical change. By consistentlyleaving human agency out of the equation, technology has appeared to evolveautonomously and to have determinate effects. Whilst studies of civilian technologieshave shown that this way of seeing has serious flaws, very little has been undertaken toshow how the same issues arise in a military context. The approach adopted hereexplicitly aims to highlight and avoid problems of technological determinism by puttinghuman choice back into the story of British rifle design.This is achieved through the identification of key personalities and social groups who hada perspective on, and an interest in, the development of the various systems. Havingidentified the key actors, their views on each artefact are explored. What emerges is thatdifferent groups see a particular technical solution differently. The arguments about whatmust be included in, and what is irrelevant to, a design of rifle are as a result exposed forfurther examination. The eventual weapon that emerges from these debates can be seenas a negotiation among the various parties: an artefact around which various perspectivescoalesce. What transpires is a detailed picture of the tactical problems each weaponattempts to resolve. This not only indicates how various groups see the battlefieldproblem but also describes how these same actors want the infantry to fight.-
Added Entry	:	King's College London