How come British infantry sections don't have binoculars?

[Bulletpoint]

Only the British platoon leaders, snipers and FOs seem to have them... But I guess this is how it was in real life?

[Warts 'n' all]

You've answered your own question.

[Michael Emrys]

I wonder what the story is on that. Was the British optical industry not able to provide them in sufficient numbers?

Michael

[user1000]

I love these threads. Any Brits to answer the question? A shot in the dark but. Allied countries were rationing metal, things made of metal  disappeared from the shelves in US stores. I think Britain did the same.

Germans had the Carl Zeiss lenses still around today www.zeiss.com

Edited April 29, 2016 by user1000

[Tempestzzzz]

I do recall reading American ads from that period requesting people donate their binos for the war effort. I have no doubt The Brits needed every binocular they could get their hand on so that any manufacturing of optics could be freed up for other projects.

[gnarly]

This article is all about WW1, but it may have been true to some degree in WW2 as well?

 

http://www.historicalfirearms.info/post/138818285844/historical-trivia-rubber-for-binoculars-at-the

 

 

[RockinHarry]

I´d assume the allies (russians incl.) scrounged quite a lot from the germans, also considering it´s high quality stuff.

[John Kettler]

Airfix disagrees! Note left hand of section leader.   Still working on finding an actual photo. It occurs to me, though, it might be interesting for BFC to put in a bit of code which would randomly assign field glasses to section leaders, so some would have them and others wouldn't.                                 
 

 

Regards,

John Kettler

[womble]

John, there's a whole platoon (well, a good chunk of one. Certainly more than a single section) of 1:72 soldiers in that box. That's the platoon leader. Section leaders didn't wander about with their Webley out. Mostly because they didn't have one. Or are you saying Airfix asserts that every section had a PIAT, a Bren and four riflemen?

[Warts 'n' all]

Every Army Barracks here in Limeyland had a large carrot patch.

[Bulletpoint]

When playing the British campaign, I find myself mumbling quite a bit in my best attempt at a working-class British accent.

"Ah, sorry sir, missed again... our gear is a bit rubbish".

Ruhbbish or roobbish, that is. Never "robbish".

But when they finally manage to take out that PzIV, I will celebrate loudly with "Oi! It's going up like Guy Fawkes! Look at the flayms".

Edited April 29, 2016 by Bulletpoint

[Warts 'n' all]

I suspect that being from across the other side of the Dogger Bank your attempt will be a hell of a lot better than Dick van Dyke's.

[Michael Emrys]

9 hours ago, John Kettler said:

I notice that the soldier on the far right foreground is holding what appears to be a US M1903 Springfield rifle. I know that quite a few were issued to the Home Guard, and perhaps some to the Army during 1940, but by the time the PIAT appeared in the ranks would not troops in actual combat have been exclusively armed with the SMLE?

Michael

[John Kettler]

womble,

According to this helpful chart, that is a corporal. Since a lance corporal is listed as being in charge of a three or four man team, it seems reasonable to posit a corporal would run an infantry section.

british wwii enlisted rank insigniahttp://tinyurl.com/zlqq85l

This is exactly what Bayonet Strength shows to be the case. As for the Webley, the man's Sten has obviously jammed, and the poor platoon leader on the wrong end of a 7.92 mm Spitzer bullet doesn't need the Webley anymore, does he? This is, perhaps, the most heavily armed section in the British Royal Army, by way of acknowledging your point there! 

http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/toe/BritInfantry/rifle_company.htm

Regards,

John Kettler

[womble]

54 minutes ago, John Kettler said:

womble,

According to this helpful chart, that is a corporal. Since a lance corporal is listed as being in charge of a three or four man team, it seems reasonable to posit a corporal would run an infantry section.

british wwii enlisted rank insigniahttp://tinyurl.com/zlqq85l

This is exactly what Bayonet Strength shows to be the case. As for the Webley, the man's Sten has obviously jammed, and the poor platoon leader on the wrong end of a 7.92 mm Spitzer bullet doesn't need the Webley anymore, does he? This is, perhaps, the most heavily armed section in the British Royal Army, by way of acknowledging your point there! 

http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/toe/BritInfantry/rifle_company.htm

Regards,

John Kettler

Ah good catch re: the insignia. But if he had to Buddy Aid his stricken Lieutenant to get the Webley, then that is also surely where he got the bins, yes?

[Warts 'n' all]

If only General Airfix had been in command, we'd have been in Berlin by Crimble '39.

[user1000]

42 minutes ago, Warts 'n' all said:

If only General Airfix had been in command, we'd have been in Berlin by Crimble '39.

lol

[John Kettler]

womble,

Alas, the field glasses have been reduced to a telescope after the aforementioned Spitzer bullet entered the objective lens and continued through the ocular into the platoon leader's eye, thence brain. Seems the sniper's rifle has Zeiss optics, and he put one well-placed shot in, just as the now deceased platoon leader was looking at the German positions!

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited April 30, 2016 by John Kettler

[Combatintman]

16 hours ago, John Kettler said:

This is, perhaps, the most heavily armed section in the British Royal Army.

The British Royal Army ... sigh ... the correct nomenclature is on the official website ...

http://www.army.mod.uk/

But going back to the OP's question ... because they weren't issued them.

[akd]

23 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

I notice that the soldier on the far right foreground is holding what appears to be a US M1903 Springfield rifle.

That is an Enfield P14.

[LukeFF]

On 4/29/2016 at 0:04 AM, John Kettler said:

Airfix disagrees! Note left hand of section leader.   Still working on finding an actual photo. It occurs to me, though, it might be interesting for BFC to put in a bit of code which would randomly assign field glasses to section leaders, so some would have them and others wouldn't.

Yes, because the cover of a model box should be used to determine whether or not something is rendered correctly. 

[Rinaldi]

I have long suspected this was something that went haywire with a patch around the 3.0 mark; I'm not sure why people are thinking a section leader wouldn't have optics...the British were starved for manpower in 1944, not material.

Further; they have them in Fortress Italy:

1943A formation for anyone curious, not that this should matter whatsoever. British infantry sections should have a pair of 6 x 30mm Binoculars -- quite common across all the armies at this time period and at the platoon-section level. Make differs -- and yes, there definitely were donated civilian models during the emergency years of WWI and WWII, but I digress -- but were usually models like Kershaw, pictured here.

 

50 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Yes, because the cover of a model box should be used to determine whether or not something is rendered correctly. 

Finally, some sanity in this thread.

So far instead of doing a modicum of google-fu the thread has: Dad jokes, a picture of miniature box-art (top kek),  and 'well I'm sure they scrounged from the Germans, those masters of logistics that they were (I'm sure they did, and vice-versa, but that doesn't really answer the question of 'were they issued?').' 

Now I will admit, actually finding TO&E for something so minute is hard, and we all know TO&E doesn't always reflect the reality on the ground, but it seems less than reasonable to conclude a modern western army on lend-lease would be lacking in field optics for something as important as Infantry NCOs...

Edited April 30, 2016 by Rinaldi
Spelling, passive-aggression

[Warts 'n' all]

7 hours ago, Combatintman said:

The British Royal Army ... sigh ... the correct nomenclature is on the official website ...

http://www.army.mod.uk/

But going back to the OP's question ... because they weren't issued them.

And now over to John Motson at Naseby, where it's British Royal Army 0-1 New Model Army

[Michael Emrys]

5 hours ago, akd said:

That is an Enfield P14.

Thank you. I looked it up and learned something new.

Michael

[JonS]

12 hours ago, Combatintman said:

But going back to the OP's question ... because they weren't issued them.

... and I suspect the answer to the wider, implied question is "... and neither were the section commanders in other armies." In other words, the issue isn't with the modelling of UK rifle sections, it's with all the other sections.