Picture of the day
- Thread starter jwhc
- Start date
Maybe it was this guy:
Speaking of using rough-hewn subguns under a degree of external stress, here's an evocative pic:
October 42, apparently. The beginning of the end of the "good days" for Uncle Adolph's Happy Lads. The available evidence indicates that the PPSh was a fave amoungst the landsers. Everything I've read about them tells me they make a Cooey .22 look the very height of sophistication and refinement. But they worked, and worked, and worked, no matter what, and I guess that's what you're looking for. "Pride of ownership" is for after the war.
Good choice in any conflict. Not pretty but it worked under all conditions very well. Low recoil round in a relatively cheap and heavy weapon which could be a very effective club in close quarters combat. That 50 round drum and the stick mag were easy to carry and load.
I doubt resupply of ammo was much if any problem either. Very good choice for a close quarter struggle in the streets or rubble of buildings. Even better if the precision rifle/subgun you were issued would only work reliably on warm/clean days
When that happens you have most likely lost your position and are about to become a casualty or POW. Historically and practically there are some downsides to using the other side's weapons and equipment incl;
- finding a reliable supply of ammo
- getting captured with the other guy's kit in your possession which causes him to think that you probably killed someone on his side to get it thus increasing the probability that he will kill you rather than take you prisoner
- various weapons have a distinctive sound. When you use the other guy's it can invite fire from your own side
I would certainly put the PPSh in that catagory. A deaf person could tell the difference between, say, a Thompson and a PPSH.
- Location
- Leduc County, Alberta
Maybe it was this guy:
Speaking of using rough-hewn subguns under a degree of external stress, here's an evocative pic:
October 42, apparently. The beginning of the end of the "good days" for Uncle Adolph's Happy Lads. The available evidence indicates that the PPSh was a fave amoungst the landsers. Everything I've read about them tells me they make a Cooey .22 look the very height of sophistication and refinement. But they worked, and worked, and worked, no matter what, and I guess that's what you're looking for. "Pride of ownership" is for after the war.
"Marching up and down the square!?!?!??!"
On another note. It looks like that Landser is utilizing a field made Camouflage cover for his Stahlhelm made from a Soviet "Amoeba" pattern Camo Smock.
Perhaps this particular German soldier collects Soviet gear??
I wonder if he has any nice SVT40's in his collection? LOL
Sporting Lad
Regular
- Location
- Vancouver Island
I need a feggin HAMMER!
Isn't it interesting how much has been made over the years about the lack of sophistication and the crudeness of Soviet weapons, and how many old photos show German troops using captured PPS and SVT! I was talking with a US Army vet/ex-Ranger out at the range the other day and he mentioned how many guys in his unit were tossing away their defective M-16s and picking up the AK-47s. There's a story that never made the news.
And today, with all our fancy electro-gadgets, there are still times when the best tool for the job is a big ol' hammer.
Isn't it interesting how much has been made over the years about the lack of sophistication and the crudeness of Soviet weapons, and how many old photos show German troops using captured PPS and SVT! I was talking with a US Army vet/ex-Ranger out at the range the other day and he mentioned how many guys in his unit were tossing away their defective M-16s and picking up the AK-47s. There's a story that never made the news.
And today, with all our fancy electro-gadgets, there are still times when the best tool for the job is a big ol' hammer.
Sporting Lad
Regular
- Location
- Vancouver Island
Hey, Adolf! How'd you like a some STG-44?
...and for something completely different, watch for local hero BRAD PITT using an STG-44 against the bad guys in upcoming film..."FURY"!
...and for something completely different, watch for local hero BRAD PITT using an STG-44 against the bad guys in upcoming film..."FURY"!
...and for something completely different, watch for local hero BRAD PITT using an STG-44 against the bad guys in upcoming film..."FURY"!
Thats a first i believe , actully using a STG-44 in a WW2 movie, though if memory serves me, there was some STG-44 rifles being carried by the SS troopies in the movie "Downfall", portraiting the last days of Hitler in the "Fueher Bunker", 1945,
I would think that by the time the Axis troops were in the unenviable position that they had to scrounge for weapons/food/ammo and other gear to continue staying alive they picked up what was available and whichever was best for their purposes.
Purple, I am not privy to any of your field experiences other than the bit you have mentioned here.
From my own experiences, in situations when there is a lot of equipment being used by all sides that is similar/captured/scrounged/whatever, all had distinctive consequences under stressful conditions. The thing is, even when equipment is available from friendly supplies, it isn't always optimal for the task. The Axis people were between a rock and a hard place. They took every advantage they could get.
One ploy we used with regularity was to have weapons on hand that were being used by all sides. There were several in my case. We had FN FALs, AKs, SKSs, K98s, Mod 93 and 95s, Lee Enfields, several different sub guns, grenades, mortars and other miscellaneous kit. If we could figure out who we were up against we often started out with the same weapons they were using. At first, it worked quite well. It didn't take very long before that went south in a hurry. But the few times it did work, it gave us an edge we desperately needed.
I can remember my Uncle talking about his experiences in Africa and Italy. Their officers and sergeants raised all sorts of holy hell when they caught anyone stripping the dead of Axis equipment for souvenirs or even for field use. The only thing they were allowed to pick up freely were Panzerfausts. He also told me a blind eye was turned towards hand grenades but that was it. When Winter hit in Tyrol, they didn't have winter clothing. The Axis troops had heavy woolen greatcoats which they had to turn inside out and muddy up before they could wear them. Then, if they came into a town, they had to throw them away before the townspeople saw them. They did this for two reasons, one it was a good way to get a pitchfork in the back because the locals recognized the uniforms and two they didn't want the locals to think they weren't being properly supplied. Like he said, they mostly respected their officers but they were scared sh-tless of their sergeants. Food was another story. They could and did pick up whatever they could find no matter what language was on the label. There was a rule they had about not collecting food from inhabited buildings.
That soldier was doing whatever it took to survive and just maybe get back home. His people in his immediate area were all that mattered to him and to them as well. I sincerely doubt that PPsh was a deterrent in any manner. Especially in a time of so much mixed equipment being used by both sides. You learn to live on a razors edge in a hurry under such conditions. Battle then was much different than it is today. Not that it was any worse or easier, just different.
I have doubts when I hear stories about soldiers "throwing their issue rifles away" and picking up something from the enemy.
Anyone who served will tell you that a soldier signs for his weapons and magazines. Don't have one to turn in? It's gonna cost you big time! First, the cost of the weapon and secondly, for losing it.
When I as serving in NW Europe with our NATO Brigade, a Sgt. had his rifle stolen by a German national. It cost him his stripes.
Any soldier will tell you who he fears, and it ain't the Colonel. I never served under a Colonel or Brigadier who didn't enjoy speaking to grunts soldiers. It's the CSM/RSM and the really good Sgt.'s. They run the Army. The Officers just think they do and sign the papers.
Given a choice of appearing before the CSM/RSM/SSM or God, the average soldier would choose God. Why? Because He would have mercy!
Anyone who served will tell you that a soldier signs for his weapons and magazines. Don't have one to turn in? It's gonna cost you big time! First, the cost of the weapon and secondly, for losing it.
When I as serving in NW Europe with our NATO Brigade, a Sgt. had his rifle stolen by a German national. It cost him his stripes.
Any soldier will tell you who he fears, and it ain't the Colonel. I never served under a Colonel or Brigadier who didn't enjoy speaking to grunts soldiers. It's the CSM/RSM and the really good Sgt.'s. They run the Army. The Officers just think they do and sign the papers.
Given a choice of appearing before the CSM/RSM/SSM or God, the average soldier would choose God. Why? Because He would have mercy!
It made the news big time back in the day when they first started issuing the AR15s and M16s in Viet Nam. There were several reasons for this ranging from an unstable bullet that did to much damage to the target because it started tumbling on impact, unreliability of the weapon under less than perfect conditions, poor troopie maintenance of the weapon and many just didn't believe it was up to the task being asked of it. Some of the people I was in contact with told me they picked up an AK or an SKS if they could and took it back with them to base to clean it and check it over with someone that knew the rifles weak and strong points. One factor they appreciated was that the AK was better balanced and in the case of the SKS, lighter than the M16. They also felt the heavier/slower bullet was more effective in the field. They told me they left their issue rifles at the base and under no circumstances would they even consider throwing away their issued rifle. They even picked up as many rifles dropped by both their own casualties and those of the enemy to keep as many rifles out of enemy hands as possible. Another thing, by far, most troops stuck steadfastly to the rifle they had been trained on and were intimate with. A few were designated to carry captured enemy weapons but weren't ordered to do so.
As the M16 was put through actual combat field conditions modifications were made and it became acceptable to most troops. The ARVNs were issued older US equipment from WWII and Korean vintage. Many of them were familiar with these firearms before the US became involved. The French issued Thompsons and M1 Carbines as well as other US equipment to their troops and Vietnamese counterparts. The French had some pretty good equipment but they took most of it home when they left. The ARVNs were issued Garands, M14s, sub machine guns, machine guns that were now surplus to US needs. The lusted after the "Little Black Rifles" the US troops carried and picked one up every chance they got.
Many here can tell you how good the AR platform is now and was in the late sixties after they chrome lined the chambers and added the forward assist plunger to the receiver to push the bolt home.
You're friend was right though. Especially when the M16s first went into the jungle.
Last edited:
maple_leaf_eh
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I can hear the RSM's voice already, "The Queen issues every soldier a personal weapon for a reason. Not having it means someone else has it. That person might use it on you. So, hang on to your weapon! Pick a number between 10 and 20."
Dark Alley Dan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Darkest Edmonton
That's a fantastic picture. Positively pastoral.
I imagine the thingamawhatzit on the side of the universal carrier is something like these:
I've seen pics of these made up from Ross rifles as well. Military bubba?
I imagine the thingamawhatzit on the side of the universal carrier is something like these:
I've seen pics of these made up from Ross rifles as well. Military bubba?
Yes, those are the items, and there's two more on the turret of the armoured car. They used either SMLE's or Ross's. The idea was to use a .303 'ballistite' round (blank) to fire a 4" smoke pot out the tube.
So...where and when was that pic taken? What are the vehicles?
So...where and when was that pic taken? What are the vehicles?
...and for something completely different, watch for local hero BRAD PITT using an STG-44 against the bad guys in upcoming film..."FURY"!
[/QUOTE
I have always noted the US tanker crew wore their armored crew helmets, interestingly our Canadian tankies , though equiped with US Sherman tank, are rarely seen wearing the US made helmet ,always the black armored corps beret, with the Sherman being supplied from the US , the tanker helmet would have been standard issue ...just my observation
I have seen photos of tank commanders in my dads regiment, "2nd Battalion,Welsh Guards, the armored recce battalion, of the "Guards Armored Division", which was equiped with the" Cromwell" tank wearing the "Brit Airborne helmet" in Normandy , Operation Goodwood
Last edited:
i recall reading a soldiers account of the beach evacuation at dunkirk, he had been separated from his rifle by force of a german bomb that should have also separated him from his limbs by all rights, but survived and was desperately trying to find a SMLE to take back with him, he feared the wrath of the sergeant major more than death. he eventually was handed one that had been smashed up quite badly just in time to get on a small pleasure craft that was his ferry home
Like a lot of things in the Army it depends on the situation. As a matter of personal preference troops would not be allowed to discard their personal weapon because they felt that what the other side used might be better or more suitable to their personal preferences. The Army just doesn't work that way. Command supervision on this is pretty basic and just doesn't evaporate in field conditions. The Army does not run a logistics system to repair or supply ammo for non-standard weapons. In a case of tactical necessity where one's own weapon becomes unserviceable or ammo isn't available, and it becomes a matter of survival, then it's all up for grabs and people will use weapon and ammo that is available and working at the moment, friendly or enemy. In fact troops are often given familiarization training on enemy weapons, both for this contingency and to better understand enemy capabilities.
In our own history there is a lot of discussion of the reliability of Ross rifle in the trenches of WW1 where, in extremis, troops were kicking or hammering the bolts open to try to keep them operational in the face of the enemy. By some accounts the Rosses were discarded and any available Lee-Enfield was picked up. I've always wondered about the extent to which this might have occurred as Cdn and Brit troops fought in separate units which were respectively equipped with the Ross and Lee-Enfield rifles, so Lee-Enfields would not necessarily have been laying around in large numbers to fill the needs of the moment. Tough to say. No doubt more than a few Mausers, Lee-Enfields or whatever else was at hand may have been picked up and used by individuals as necessary to stay in the fight and/or to save themselves from being killed or captured. Use of the other side's weapons is a better choice than hunkering down without a functioning weapon and waiting for somebody else to decide your destiny.
Doing research I found a reference to the Ross rifle. When it was decided that the 1st Canadian Division would replace its Ross's with SMLE's the 'brass' discovered the exchange had largely already occurred. Battlefield pickups had been sufficient. No matter, the same brass had all the 1st Division Ross's collected, cleaned and re-issued to the newly arrived Canadian 2nd Division (which was strictly prevented from any contact with the 1st Division). The 2nd Div. went into the trenches with the Ross with the same result. The Ross was a battlefield failure, and not just "in extremis'.
Sporting Lad
Regular
- Location
- Vancouver Island
Two rifles wounded, one MIA...
OK, when I was attached to a combat engineers company in Germany, they found themselves in a situation where they had too many officers and too few .45s.
Our XO, a brilliant young graduate engineer, came up with a solution: Take one .45 from each of our four tanks, and issue the loaders four M-14s!
That way the four newest Lts. would each have their own pistol. He was a math genius, but he'd never even seen the inside of a tank.
We went and told them having a long gun in the turret was a safety hazard as there was no place to stow it safely. We were told to store them in our 'ready racks' with the main gun ammo. The very next day two M-14s were broken when turrets went slewing around. One had its barrel bent and the other's stock was in splinters. No charges were laid.
A week later they came up with another idea: Sling the rifles on the outside of the turret! This decision was made about two weeks before our annual winter war games were set to begin. On the second night of the exercise a heavy snow began falling. Next morning it was Winter Wonderland.
We soldiered on through the storm, each of our tanks with its M-14 hanging suspended like a Christmas stocking. When we finally moved into our designated lager for the night--one of the rifles was missing. The buckle must've come loose and let the thing drop off into the snow somewhere in
the last...40 km.
There were forms to fill out in triplicate, statements taken, there was an investigation that exposed our (ex) XO as the jackass that he was...
but no charges were ever laid on any of our enlisted men, nor was there ever a Statement of Charges (ie money). But they did make the junior officers give the .45s back to our loaders. Those young engineers had to walk around with empty holsters for about a month.
I suspect that the entire affair was swept under the carpet upstairs someplace. None of the officers involved would want that story going around at the Officers' Club.
OK, when I was attached to a combat engineers company in Germany, they found themselves in a situation where they had too many officers and too few .45s.
Our XO, a brilliant young graduate engineer, came up with a solution: Take one .45 from each of our four tanks, and issue the loaders four M-14s!
That way the four newest Lts. would each have their own pistol. He was a math genius, but he'd never even seen the inside of a tank.
We went and told them having a long gun in the turret was a safety hazard as there was no place to stow it safely. We were told to store them in our 'ready racks' with the main gun ammo. The very next day two M-14s were broken when turrets went slewing around. One had its barrel bent and the other's stock was in splinters. No charges were laid.
A week later they came up with another idea: Sling the rifles on the outside of the turret! This decision was made about two weeks before our annual winter war games were set to begin. On the second night of the exercise a heavy snow began falling. Next morning it was Winter Wonderland.
We soldiered on through the storm, each of our tanks with its M-14 hanging suspended like a Christmas stocking. When we finally moved into our designated lager for the night--one of the rifles was missing. The buckle must've come loose and let the thing drop off into the snow somewhere in
the last...40 km.
There were forms to fill out in triplicate, statements taken, there was an investigation that exposed our (ex) XO as the jackass that he was...
but no charges were ever laid on any of our enlisted men, nor was there ever a Statement of Charges (ie money). But they did make the junior officers give the .45s back to our loaders. Those young engineers had to walk around with empty holsters for about a month.
I suspect that the entire affair was swept under the carpet upstairs someplace. None of the officers involved would want that story going around at the Officers' Club.
