Hi Happy New Year to all, would anyone know what type of service revolver would have been issued to a l/cpl in the 10th hussars in 1940? Regards Danny
Don't know about a 1940 issue, but when I joined the 4th QOH in March '45 I was issued with a Smith & Wesson which you can just see in the pic below. Before you ask...... No ! ..... I never got to fire it in action Ron ps Did get to fire a .30 browning but that's another story.
I posted some documents on here from the national archives regarding issued revolvers in 1939/40. The British Army changed them over this period but I can't find it now. One was definately the Webley Revolver. Edit: Found it: http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/weapons-technology-equipment/27783-british-pistols-revolver-mk-1-mk-2-a.html I think the No.2 was an Enfield Revolver. I think the change was facilitated from the Webley to do with Dum Dum rounds. See the other link below: http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/weapons-technology-equipment/31560-british-army-issued-dum-dum-rounds-1940-a.html
In 1943 - I was issued with a Webley 46 - lost it in when the Tank was knocked out - then issued with a Smith and Wesson in 1945. Cheers
Was it standard for armoured units NCO's and Troopers (other than Officers) to be issued with a side arm? Were carbines or Sub MG's issued to armoured troopers?
Cobber Was it standard for armoured units NCO's and Troopers (other than Officers) to be issued with a side arm? Were carbines or Sub MG's issued to armoured troopers? When I joined the 4th QOH I was strictly a lowly "Trooper"............. you couldn't get any lower ! ...... but I was issued with the Smith & Wesson that I can be seen wearing on guard. In action there was also a Thomson Sub Machine gun as part of the Honey's manifest but Busty Thomas, SSM & my tank commander, used to grab hold of that weapon whenever he was out of the tank. Ron
Cobber - all Tank crews were issued with revolvers and every Churchill Tank had two Thompson sub- machine guns - as well as two Besa's and the main gun . Cheers
I got ANOTHER new book today and it says: This trooper wears the 1935 uniform, with a first pattern (Long Strap) tankers holster, identified by its lack of cartridge loops, for his .38in Webley Revolver No.1 Mk VI. The long, easily-snagged thigh strap of the holster proved a life-threatening hazard during emergency evacuation of an AFV, and was eventually removed to provide a belt holster.
I got ANOTHER new book today and it says:.38in Webley Revolver No.1 Mk VI.. Isn't that quite an odd description? .... the 'Webley No.1 Mk VI' was an early 1920's Enfield manufactured Webley revolver in .455 calibre (Webley manufactured was simply the 'Mk.VI'). The .38 calibre was either the No.2 Mk.I (the 'standard' British service revolver at the start of the war), the No.2 Mk.I* (spurless, double action only), the No.2 Mk.I** (simplified version) or the Webley Mk.IV in .38 (which, due to Enfield's inability to keep up with demand , also became a standard issue revolver). I notice that the good old Mk.VI .455 'Webley Wogstopper' also seems to have enjoyed a rennaissance around 1940 too. dave
Pistols issued to armoured vehicle crew were modified from standard by having the toggle to the hammer cut off. this made cocking the hammer more difficult but prevented the 'sticky out bit' getting trapped and perventing a rapid escape from a burning vehicle. See the picture....
http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=372&pictureid=3528 this is the uniform and holster type he would have been using in 1940 (Tank Museum Bovington)
Heres a few answers to some of the questions, Standard pistol for 1940 was the Enfield No2 Mk1 and 1*, the 1* was a pre war mod and wasn't specifically for tank crews as suggested in many books etc. It was a sign of the times, it was believed after ww1 that the normal everyday soldier wasn't sufficiently trained on the pistol to be a marksman and he didn't recieve a good supply of ammo to keep in practice. It was also believed that it would only be used at very close quarters where accuracy wasn't an issue and so the double action was deleted in favour of the single. This meant that the double action bent and comb could be deleted from the hammer as obsolete. The wartime Mk1** included a deletion of the safety stop, which was later reintroduced and retro fitted to the 1** modifying them to Mk1* spec. The Webley MkVI was obsolete standard in 1940, they were around for as long as they were servicable, but were replaced with a No2 when they went U/S. This all changed in late 1940 when we took what we could have, Colt .45 and .455 Autos, Smith .45 and .38 revolvers, Webleys of all types, and many of the small American brands. The Webley MkVI was known as the MkVI untill the 1926? (Cant remember the exact date) change in Nomenclature. The British Government changed the way all weapons were designated from a name and mark to a No. and Mk and from this date, no matter when they were made, they referred to by their No. and Mk. The Short Lee Enfield rifle MkIII (Sht LE MkIII) became the Rifle No.I MkIII and the Webley MkVI became the Revolver No.I Mk.VI. The Webley MkVI was also made by Enfield in the 1920s and these are becoming common on the collectors market at the moment. The Revolver No.2 Mk1 began serious production in 1930 but some tool room examples were made in 1927 and some pre production took place in 1929. There is also a 'Pistol, No.2 Mk1 and Mk1*' which are Canadian made (Inglis) Browning Hi Powers which were used by the British untill the 1967 (Replaced with the FN Mk2 Hi powers). This caused some confusion as they were often just known as the No.2 Mk1. This pic shows some of my revolvers. Theres a 1929 Enfield early production No.2 Mk1, a 1930 Mk1, a 1936 RAF Mk1, a Mk1*, Mk1**, a Albion Mk1* and a Webley MkIV
Spied a 45 Webley while overseas recently, still in good condition. Ex District Officers SI Protectorate pre WW2 issue, now in the possesion of his son.
The mysterys of military high command -1970s somebody came up with an idea, the 9mm HP Browning was not ideal for checkpoints, by the time you had removed weapon from holster pulled top slide back the incident would have already made the news. The .38 revolver was issued and after a few hours reading the manual and pile of amendments for same. we started converting the lads onto a weapon out of service since the early 60s. A well balanced weapon not that powerful but it was quickly apparent the thinking was good draw and shoot. A short lived experiment as I remember reading when back in Germany a NIREP (NI report) that some loony had a negligent discharge with a .38 - the word around the world of weapons was that the army had gone into this and had forgotten that the .38 works better if it has a supply of ammunition a non standard stores. Back into storage! The Webley/Enfield series are attractive bits of kit.
The revolver issued to the RSF officers in 1939 when they shipped to france was the No.2 Enfield. I have an account that during the last stand, he was standing in some woods with Germans running past at about 20 paces away and couldn't hit a damn one of them, until he threw it in frustration. At which point the Germans noticed he was there and took him prisoner. Not sure how accurate that story is, but I've fired the No.2 and I can believe the weapon was even less accurate than the story!
this is the uniform and holster type he would have been using in 1940 (Tank Museum Bovington) I went to the Tank museum in Bovington 2 weeks ago and loved it. Really looking forward to the Tankfest end of June in the Arena. I'm sure it'll blow me away ------------------------------------------------------------------------ museums are my favourite places to visit in the UK
this is the uniform and holster type he would have been using in 1940 (Tank Museum Bovington) Here is an IWM picture, seen in a magazine, of some 4 RTR crews practising with their revolvers at Acq in France in October 1939. I think the holster did not yet have the cartridge loops - they were a later addition. http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=51962&stc=1&d=1307135395 Can you ID the revolvers in the picture? Andrew