Suggestion: Combat Shotguns

[Maestro]

NOTE: This is not a suggestion for CMBB, but for future releases of CM, or for CMBO.

I have done some research on Allied weapons of WWII, and discovered that soldiers, especially American, sometimes armed themselves with shotguns. While I do not know if they used them to any great extent in Sicily (part of the next game), the book did mention that they were used to great effect in the Pacific, for the suicide charges made by the Japanese.

Upon further research, I found a list of weapons used:

Ithaca Model 37 Trench/Riot guns

Remington Model 11 Riot gun

Remington Model 31 Riot gun

Stevens Model 520-30 Trench/Riot guns

Stevens Model 620A Trench/Riot guns

Savage Model 720 Riot gun

Winchester Model 97 Trench/Riot guns

Winchester Model 12 Trench/Riot guns

(found on www.wwiitech.net)

So, has anyone else considered this, or am I the only one, or, is it that the information I got is innacurate. If it is innacurate, then it should be ignored, but if it is accurate, then perhaps it could be taken into consideration, either for the next release (if applicable) or for the Pacific Theatre.

[Bengal6]

Weren't they banned by the Geneva Convention after WW1?

And also considering the very small number that were used, would it be a fair reflection of "typical" units to include them?

[SgtMuhammed]

Whether they were widely used in the Pacific or not is moot as BFC has already stated that they will do a Pacific Theater version when hell freezes over.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Bengal6:

Weren't they banned by the Geneva Convention after WW1?

And also considering the very small number that were used, would it be a fair reflection of "typical" units to include them?

Cue John Salt...

[Doodlebug]

Originally posted by Bengal6:

Weren't they banned by the Geneva Convention after WW1?

I sort of had the feeling that they were banned before then but that never stopped the Doughboys from using them in the trenches.

[aka_tom_w]

I had no idea they were banned :confused:

were they?

Didn't US chopper pilots in Vietnam use sawed off shot guns all the time?

I thought the sawed off shot gun was the weapon of choice for chopper pilots in Vietnam?

Maybe that is just some crap I picked up watching too many war movies.

-tom w

[ May 27, 2003, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Ant]

I don't think that shotguns themselves were banned by the Geneva convention, the home guard utilised them in Britain during the war, AFAIK the Geneva convention mainly applies to ammunition types. ie. no soft lead or dum dums.

[Heide]

How did they get them? Were they issued or did you have to acquire one personally?

[Warmaker]

They can be issued, at least that's how it is currently in the US military. They're not generally issued to say the average infantryman. MP's, security units, react units, or high profile units will get them issued.

[Doodlebug]

Originally posted by Ant:

I don't think that shotguns themselves were banned by the Geneva convention, the home guard utilised them in Britain during the war, AFAIK the Geneva convention mainly applies to ammunition types. ie. no soft lead or dum dums.

That might be what I'm thinking of. It's not the gun but the ammunition that was banned and frankly if you're firing a solid round out of a shotgun then you might as well have a rifle.

[Engel]

AFAIR, military use of shotguns is banned by the Hague convention of 1899 (not the Geneva convention), which the US has never ratified, so it doesn't apply to their troops. And incidentally, it also doesn't apply to any one who the US enters to war with ("The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them"), so they are quite free to use expanding and exploding bullets, along with shotguns etc. weapons against the US, and vice versa.

Later texts may have modified this, but I've never checked into them. And the Brits called them "trench rifles", presumably to whitewash the fact that they were using them against the Convention, as they were too handy in clearing trenches to not use them.

[ May 28, 2003, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: Engel ]

[Ant]

The Hague convention does not specifically ban shotguns, and this claim that the British called them Trench rifles to get round the convention appears to be nothing more than a myth. The Germans complained about trench rifles during WW1 claiming that they breached article 23

Art. 23.

To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;

The only other clause that I could find in both Hague and Geneva accords which may possibly refer to shotguns is

Hague II July 29 1899

The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.

Other (later) sections that I could find covering land weapons appear only to specifically refer to poisonous gas and biological weapons.

The trouble with the Geneva convention, and earlier Hague conventions is that, similarly to the US constitution, there's a lot of myth, heresay and confusion about what precisely is actually in it. You can read the conventions in full at the website of Yale university:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/20th.htm

As you might expect it's all very long winded and takes some getting through. I didn't find anything specifically banning shotguns but that's not to say that I didn't miss something. If anyone knows or finds the article that actually deals with this please feel free to correct me.

[Engel]

You're right, the conventions are worded rather vaguely, so there's a lot room for interpretation. You can argue that shot causes unnecessary suffering in a similar manner as expanding bullets, or on the other hand, say that the article doesn't apply since the shot expands outside the body.

Probably nobody thought that shotguns would be considered for weapons of war at the time, since repeating shotguns were rather new and no one had paid much attention to trench warfare, house-to-house fighting or other such close quarters situations, where a shotgun has its uses.

As for why shotguns were seen mostly used by US soldiers, one reason is that repeating shotguns (pump-action, lever-action, etc.) were mostly US phenomenon; European shotguns were then (and even now) mostly double-barreled, which limits their use in CQ combat.

[ May 28, 2003, 05:40 AM: Message edited by: Engel ]

[junk2drive]

Someone was asking about this recently...

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Cue John Salt...

(Inebriated thespian bustles on from STAGE LEFT and begins declaiming in a fruity Donald Sinden voice:)

If there is any international law prohibiting the use of shotguns, I don't know what it is. The Germans tried, in WW1, to claim that US use of shotguns was illegal. They made a formal diplomatic protest dated 15th Sept 1918 through the Swiss chargé d'affaires in Washington, claiming that the use of shotguns violated the Hague Convention by causing "unnecessary suffering", and threatening to execute any American prisoners taken in possession of shotguns or shotgun ammunition. This nonsense was soon settled by a robust US response from the Judge Advocate General, which pointed out that shotguns were not mentioned in the convention (although numerous weapons are detailed), that the US delegation at the Hague conference had argued for a more precise definition of the exact weapons covered but been overruled by other participants (including Germany), and that shotgun wounds produced no greater suffering than bullets or shell fragments. He concluded that the German case was entirely without legal merit, and that the US would carry out effective reprisals if the German threat of executions was carried out. The Germans then wisely let the matter rest, and no such executions ever occurred.

To return to the original question, there have been designed a variety of multi-barrel, rotary-feed, mag-fed and even belt-fed shotguns capable of rapid rates of fire, including full auto, and variously known as assault shotguns, automatic shotguns, sub-machine shotguns and machine-shotguns. Given the short range and relatively small number of projectiles one could fire in an engagement, none AFAIK have ever had changeable barrels or bipods built in to them, but shotguns capable of automatic fire most certainly exist as a weapon type.

For more information on the topic than a reasonable person could want, see my source for all this, "The World's Fighting Shotguns", by Thomas F. Swearengen, Chesa Ltd., 1978.

(Exit STAGE RIGHT slapping the flat to encourage audience applause.)

All the best,

John.

[Cannon-fodder]

To be honest, when you're in the army, it doesn't really matter what the Geneva Convention says on small arms. It doesn't really matter what the army itself thinks either - officers will just turn a blind eye, as long as the troops are happy.

For instance, an awful lot of British vets carry shotguns (often Police-Issued shotguns at that) rather than standard pistol sidearms. In the same way, combat shotguns would have made their way into the ranks of the ordinary soldiers in WW2. However, I do not think that it was nearly common enough to simulate in the game.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Cannon-fodder:

[snips]

For instance, an awful lot of British vets carry shotguns (often Police-Issued shotguns at that) rather than standard pistol sidearms.

What evidence do you have of any British troops carrying shotguns in prefrence to issue pistols?

What shotguns do you believe are issued to British police?

All the best,

John.

[imua 06]

Well, for what it's worth, my infantry company has 6 (12 gauge pump) shotguns in its MTOE today.

[flamingknives]

Maybe he means Vetinary doctors. A shotgun with soild rounds has to be better for dispatching a horse than a pistol. Especially as pistols are largely illegal.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Cannon-fodder:

To be honest, when you're in the army, it doesn't really matter what the Geneva Convention says on small arms. It doesn't really matter what the army itself thinks either - officers will just turn a blind eye, as long as the troops are happy.

Bull****.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cannon-fodder:

To be honest, when you're in the army, it doesn't really matter what the Geneva Convention says on small arms. It doesn't really matter what the army itself thinks either - officers will just turn a blind eye, as long as the troops are happy.

Bull****. </font>

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Ooo. well spotted, Dorosh.

Seconded.

Thirded.

For the sake of the honorable Defense Force that us Finns have. :cool:

[John Kettler]

ABC Evening News tonight featured a U.S. soldier

in an early morning raid indoors in Mosul firing a pump shotgun repeatedly. Unfortunately, the camera angle was such that it was impossible to determine whether the weapon was being used in a breaching role or to shoot someone.

Regards,

John Kettler

P.S.

Who's the guy John Salt mentioned?

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

[snips]

Who's the guy John Salt mentioned?

Which one?

Thomas F. Swearengen is a retired USMC Chief Warrant Officer.

Donald Sinden is a veteran actor famed for his "rich, plummy" voice:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/faces/donald_sinden.shtml

All the best,

John.