roqf77 Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 well yeah part f the tank kit. but the crews were expected to use the smg first. there was account of a cromwell tank commander winnig a bravery award in normandy by fighting off a german infantry squad swarming his tank. i doubt tha he did it with a pistol. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 Originally posted by roqf77: well yeah part f the tank kit. but the crews were expected to use the smg first. there was account of a cromwell tank commander winnig a bravery award in normandy by fighting off a german infantry squad swarming his tank. i doubt tha he did it with a pistol. I wasn't disputing what the crews were expected to fight with; I thought the subject of the thread was standard issue of pistols. Nothing you've posted so far has anything to do with that subject. Yes, SMGs were used by vehicle crews, no, they weren't the issue personal weapon of same. Guess I'm not seeing your point. Your first post in the thread implied that tank crews were issued SMGs instead of pistols, which they were not. Unless you have evidence pointing to the contrary? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by roqf77: he he. well in the books ive read. uk tanks crew were issued with either stens or thompsons. Were they actually issued to the crews, or were they part of vehicle kit? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 Originally posted by Mike: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by roqf77: he he. well in the books ive read. uk tanks crew were issued with either stens or thompsons. Were they actually issued to the crews, or were they part of vehicle kit? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 I've also read of tank crewmen who wouldn't wear their pistols out of fear that they would hang up on the hatch combing and delay them exiting a tank that was ready to blow. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I found that bit interesting; wonder how much .45 calibre ACP got shipped to Russia, or if it was ever produced locally. Probably shipped. I doubt they used enough to justify opening a production line. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rleete Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: I've also read of tank crewmen who wouldn't wear their pistols out of fear that they would hang up on the hatch combing and delay them exiting a tank that was ready to blow. Michael One of my uncles (driver, Sherman, Patton's third) said the same thing. He said you never wore anything on a web belt (canteen, first aid kit, etc.), becuase when you bailed, the hatches were too tight, and you wanted to get out now. Not sure how true it was, but stories circulated about drivers and bow gunners getting their legs burned (or worse) because they spent an extra second grabbing gear or getting unstuck. He said it wasn't worth finding out the hard way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 Originally posted by rleete: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys: I've also read of tank crewmen who wouldn't wear their pistols out of fear that they would hang up on the hatch combing and delay them exiting a tank that was ready to blow. Michael One of my uncles (driver, Sherman, Patton's third) said the same thing. He said you never wore anything on a web belt (canteen, first aid kit, etc.), becuase when you bailed, the hatches were too tight, and you wanted to get out now. Not sure how true it was, but stories circulated about drivers and bow gunners getting their legs burned (or worse) because they spent an extra second grabbing gear or getting unstuck. He said it wasn't worth finding out the hard way. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roqf77 Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 DOROSH YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE PERSONAL GRUDGE AGAINST ME. I THINK WE NEED TO LEAVE EACH OTHER ALONE. OTHER PEOPLE BROUGHT IT UP, AND YOU DIDNT HAVE A GO AT THEM. SO CHILL. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 Originally posted by roqf77: DOROSH YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE PERSONAL GRUDGE AGAINST ME. I THINK WE NEED TO LEAVE EACH OTHER ALONE. OTHER PEOPLE BROUGHT IT UP, AND YOU DIDNT HAVE A GO AT THEM. SO CHILL. Had a go? We were discussing how commonly pistols were issued. You said he he. well in the books ive read. uk tanks crew were issued with either stens or thompsons.I asked if they were really issued these weapons and suggested that perhaps they were vehicle kit and that the standard personal issue was in fact the pistol. The whole point of the thread was to determine how commonly pistols were issued, after all. If every tank crewman is getting one, that's going to be a huge amount of pistols needed. Mike posted further evidence that the Thompson was vehicle kit, not a personal issue (that's how I read it, anyway - please correct me if I'm wrong.) rleete and Michael Emrys posted further info that confirms that tank crews - in their reading and experience - were issued pistols. So I guess I'm wondering how your anecdote about the Cromwell tank man relates to the discussion? It would appear he used one of the vehicle's SMGs to win an award for bravery. Is this somehow evidence that he wasn't issued with a pistol? If so, can you explain it for me, as I'm not understanding what your point was with relation to the discussion. I didn't think asking for clarification was "having a go" so apologies for your ruffled feathers; just trying to understand what you're trying to contribute to the discussion - I fear the point may be sailing over my head. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roqf77 Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 well considering you an other people have posted in this discusionon other things that dont entirely relate to pistols, i think it is kind of relevant. especialy as it has come about that the majority of tank crew didnt bring them with them. etc. so again take a chilll pill. i get it you dont like me, just let it be. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 Stuart Hills' "By Tank into Normandy", page 69 (referring to having to bale out of his Sherman on the approach to the beaches on D-Day): "But I was not even that strong a swimmer and, weighed down as I was by my sodden battle-dress, boots, gaiters and revolver, I would not have gone ten yards in the water on my own, let alone if I had been trying to help someone else." Stuart Hills was a tank commander (later troop commander and recon company commandeer) with the Sherwood Rangers. Further on in the book Hills refers to tank commanders in his company using sten guns to suppress enemy infantry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 George Forty's "British Army Handbook" has this to say about the service pistol "It was carried by all officers, despatch riders, most tank crewmen and some NCOs (sergeant and above)." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throwdjohn Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 Mike, Iraqui freedom is over? Thank god for that, but what are those oinkers in DC calling it now "Operation Freedom from Extremism in Iraq and the Surroinding Arabic Countries (But Only If You Have Oil)"? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tagwyn Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 Roqf77: Dont be upset with Mr. Dorosh. It doesnt avail you anything. He is above reproach. Tag 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 This is a Canadian armoured car crew, just posted at my own forum. Interesting that they aren't wearing the drop holsters. I actually thought I read that the drop holsters weren't popular. This is a Staghound crew, not a Sherman crew, so perhaps the holster on the belt wasn't such a concern to them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 as soon as I saw that there I thought of this thread. BTW, linkie is brokie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 Originally posted by JonS: as soon as I saw that there I thought of this thread. BTW, linkie is brokie I wondered if Network54 would let me remote link. Apparently not - thanks for the heads up. Well, y'all can see it at this forum thread 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wisbech_lad Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 Jary in his book "18 Platoon" talks of how he buys a Colt automatic in London to replace his Webley, then has to scrounge ammo from US soldiers he meets. But then again, he carries an umbrella as his main weapon - figuring that he is such a bad shot that he might as well have something useful (and not dangerous to his own troops) in battle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 Originally posted by Wisbech_lad: But then again, he carries an umbrella as his main weapon - figuring that he is such a bad shot that he might as well have something useful (and not dangerous to his own troops) in battle. Since he survived the war, it seems to have been a successful tactic. Perhaps they should have issued more umbrellas. Michael [ August 02, 2005, 03:03 AM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merkin Muffley Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 Arthur Marshall - for those unfamiliar with him think of the most caricatured mild-mannered and rather droll English gentleman - was near the frontline in his jeep in WWII. I think he was an Intelligence officer. When warned that there were "Jerries about" and that he ought to take care he prepared to drive on. "But what will you do if you run into some Jerries?" "My dear, I will just give them a very severe look". Probably more effective than a Sten, except at very short range. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 I am nearly positive that SMGs were issued to German vehicles, not individual crewmen. They had special brackets to accomodate at least one SMG. Not sure if some vehicles had more than one SMG station. Remember that the MP40 has a special lip on the end of the barrel specifically designed for firing out of AFV "pistol" ports. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpitfireXI Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 A version of the Webley pistol was also produced that left out the cocking handle in order to prevent snagging. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: I am nearly positive that SMGs were issued to German vehicles, not individual crewmen. They had special brackets to accomodate at least one SMG. Not sure if some vehicles had more than one SMG station.Steve, I'm not really sure that the existence of brackets can - by itself - be taken as evidence one way or the other. Most mil vehs I've been in have weapons brackets, but I've not yet come across a case where - in one of these - the wpns were issued to the veh rather than the driver/crew. Regards JonS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Hi Jon, Sorry, I didn't mean to blend the two together. TO&E evidence I came upon suggested that SMGs were not issued to crew members. Since vehicles did in fact have them, as evidenced by things like brackets, it is a fair assumption that they were issued to the vehicle instead. The SMG, therefore, is no different than a roof mounted AAMG. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.