what was wrong with the Tommy round mag?

By the way, when it comes to looks, I prefer the Tommy gun with drum mag, forward vertical hand grip and recoil compensator. :m1:

 

Not having any experience on the subject of machine guns, I was wondering if the Large calibre Thompson had more stopping power, than other smaller calibre guns.

My experience is only limited to police issue S+W revolver, but once on requalification at Altcar Camp we were handed a Browning 9mm pistol to 'play' with.
I remember vividly the target board falling as I hit the wooden support behind, breaking it in two.
I thought that I was firing a cannon compared to the old revolver! Fortunately I was never called upon to fire in 'Anger'.

Tom

 

Not having any experience on the subject of machine guns, I was wondering if the Large calibre Thompson had more stopping power, than other smaller calibre guns.

Tom

Absolutely. The .45 stops people much better than does the 9mm, as we learned in the Thompson-Lagarde studies in the early 20th century and are still finding out today in Afghanistan. The reason the .45 was adopted by the US was because of the failures of other smaller cartridges to stop the enemy, and we dropped it in favor of the 9mm only because of NATO politics-- a decision which today is being relooked as the result of recent combat experience. Many of the SOF forces have gone back to the .45 already. Generally, if you are talking about military ball ammunition, it is better for the recipient if he is hit with a smaller round. It is better for the shooter if the target is hit with a bigger round. Doc

 

Doc,

Thank you for the quick and very informative response.

Tom

 

If I remember rightly, one of the reasons for a small calibre round was that if you wounded an enemy but didn't kill him then you would effectively disable 3. 1 casualty + 2 to look after him! don't think it worked

 

Absolutely. The .45 stops people much better than does the 9mm, as we learned in the Thompson-Lagarde studies in the early 20th century and are still finding out today in Afghanistan. The reason the .45 was adopted by the US was because of the failures of other smaller cartridges to stop the enemy, and we dropped it in favor of the 9mm only because of NATO politics-- a decision which today is being relooked as the result of recent combat experience. Many of the SOF forces have gone back to the .45 already. Generally, if you are talking about military ball ammunition, it is better for the recipient if he is hit with a smaller round. It is better for the shooter if the target is hit with a bigger round. Doc


Yep to back up Doc. I was reading that recently in Somalia and other small scale urban envs the 9mm (and other smaller calibres) was found wanting. I guess the Somalia's being out of their minds didnt help either. Its all very well trading stopping power for rounds but if the round is ineffective. There has been recent clamoring for the old .WW1 and ww2 45's. all goes round in circles, in another 50 years be back on 9mm again.

you can only imagine the stopping power of a thompson, It was made to clear trenches and I guess it does the job.

Kev

 

By the way, when it comes to looks, I prefer the Tommy gun with drum mag, forward vertical hand grip and recoil compensator. :m1:


Wasnt really an option. The original Gangster tommy gun was endempic of the 30;'s SMG's really being well made small production police weopens and not suited to mass production.

Some of these did find there way into service with The Brits I think?

I wondor how they compared to the later Mass production varients?

Kev

 

A good pic, See the cocking handlle on the top and the big compensator on the end of the barrel. Clearly see the forstock pistol grip seperated from the barrel, Heat???

Big long barrel on the Tommy eh?

Kev

Search for "Tommy Gun" on IWM site, quite a few like this...


<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top align=left><TD width="100%"><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR class=resheadr vAlign=top align=left><TD>Photo Number: </TD><TD noWrap width="100%">H 5680




</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD><TD></TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=left><TD>

Photographer: Puttnam (Mr)
War Office official photographer

Title: THE BRITISH ARMY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM 1939-45

Collection No.: 4700-37 <!-- [View Collection Summary]-->

Description: A lance-corporal of the East Surrey Regiment poses with a 'Tommy gun', Chatham in Kent, 25 November 1940.

Period:Second World War

</TD><TD colSpan=3><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top align=left><TD class=rectxt noWrap><!--related image-->
<!-- empty-->


</TD><TD></TD><TD class=rectxt width="100%">






</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

Another thing Jack mentioned was that spare round magazines were cumbersome to carry.

If you think about it, the design of it would have "dead space" in the center of the drum, since the rounds couldn't spiral down that tightly, making the drum larger per number of rounds carried than straight mags.

 

Wasnt really an option. The original Gangster tommy gun was endempic of the 30;'s SMG's really being well made small production police weopens and not suited to mass production.

Some of these did find there way into service with The Brits I think?

I wondor how they compared to the later Mass production varients?

Kev

First saw the Thompson with those characteristics, outside Mobsterland, in pictures of Tommies in North Africa; too bad I don´t remember where I saw them...

 

I think the Marlin is deserving of a thread its it own right.



Not just the OSS and Colonial Dutch...SOE ended up with quite a few. Paddy Fermor's raiding party on Crete were equiped with them, and left them behind with various Cretan kapitans as gifts.

Regarding the Thompson drum mag and the problems carrying it; the Vickers' K gun when adapted for ground use created similar problems, with its crew having to carry preloaded drums in a back-and-front "bib" harness like an overgrown respirator haversack...and it was a bloody awkward weapon to use because of its very high rate of fire emptied those magazines quickly. Each crewman could only carry two IIRC. After various unsuccessful trials noone wanted the weapon due to the problems except the Commandos and other Special Forces, who wanted a high rate of fire poured on in a short time. The SAS used them on their jeeps in the Desert and Europe, and Commando Kiefer carried them on D-Day.

 

I've heard that the the 50 round magazine clip was awkward to hold and sort of clumby to carry. If it was me it wouldn't matter how clumbsy it was, if it has 50 rounds I can't argue with that. Clumbsiness is a small price to pay for out "rounding" the enemy.

 

If I remember rightly, one of the reasons for a small calibre round was that if you wounded an enemy but didn't kill him then you would effectively disable 3. 1 casualty + 2 to look after him! don't think it worked

That is one of the main reasons why the British Army started to look at changing from 7.62 to 5.56 after the Falklands War. The war had a big impact on the UK's armed forces as it is today which I think a fair few people forget.

Cheers
Andy

 

Drew5233
British Army started to look at changing from 7.62 to 5.56 after the Falklands War


The British Army in the 1960s were the largest user of 5.56 M16 other than the U.S. and were enthusiastic proponents of going to a smaller size lower weight round from an early time hence the 280 of 1913, the pedersen 276 in inter war years and the 7mm 280 in the EM2 in 1948, none of these got anywhere mainly because of finacial needs rather than military desire. The EM2 was largely political but with a big dollop of economics.

The use of any weapon to specifically inflict casualties to overwelm the medical services of an combatant is outlawed by the current protocols of the Geneva convention.

 

Hi Razin,

I'm no expert by a long shot when it comes to small arms, shooting used to 'bore' (get it?) the pants of me and it was the reason why I did my RMQ to get out of shooting as much as possible. However I am aware that their was a wooden stock variant/prototype of the current British Assault Rifle back in the 50's/60's. I remember seeing the pictures in the past section of the Soldier Magazine a good few years ago which would suggest a small calibre weapon was on the cards after WW2 or Korea.

My understanding (What I was told by the SAS-thats the Small Arms School) was that during the Falklands the SLR was occasionally tearing limbs off the enemy as a result of being hit by it or other quite dramatic wounds to the trunk area were sustained and in many cases soldiers either bleed to death, died from shock or just died straightaway. As a result of this the British Military opted for change and started to look at a smaller calibre main assault rifle. One of the reasonings behind this was to use up the enemies resources very quickly by causing them to care for their wounded and public perception of seeing their soldiers coming home wounded. As a result of this the theory was the enemy would opt to talk peace sooner rather than later. Other key factors in this decision was a requirement for the British Military to have a standard NATO round for all to use. Another reason was the associated problems with the SLR that stemmed from Northern Ireland when entering or clearing buildings, it was a rather long rifle and made performing FIBUA or FISH or what ever the current term is rather difficult, a shorter rifle seemed to make more sense at the loss of range.

The SA80 was first used operationally in Gulf War 1 by the RRF if memory serves me well.

I'm not an expert on the GC but it beggers belief if they would rather have dead soldiers than wounded. Do you have a source for that particular comment by any chance. I know the Human Rights act fairly well and one of the main ones is the Right to Life. A civilian bill but I would have thought the two maybe loosely connected in some ways.

Anyway thats what I was told and possibly more that I missed when I was yawning in classes

Cheers
Andy

ps sorry that this has gone a bit off topic-maybe a move to post war?

 

The use of any weapon to specifically inflict casualties to overwelm the medical services of an combatant is outlawed by the current protocols of the Geneva convention.

Razin, can you please provide a citation for this assertion? The conventions prohibit weapons designed to inflict unnecessary suffering (thus the mandatory use of full-jacketed bullets), but I cannot find any reference to this assertion in them. If you are referring to some obscure part of the "Additional Protocols" of 1977, those are not part of the customary international laws of warfare, as they have not been accepted by many nations (including the US).

I would argue that most of the restrictions on weaponry found in the conventions are designed to ensure more wounded casualties rather than dead casualties (e.g. the ban on soft-point ammo or exploding ammo for small arms), which certainly seems to invalidate your point.

 

Doc and Drew5233


Ok here's my take on this. Protocol 1 1977 of the GC was written specifically to rid an ambiguity in the 1949 GC in that

"It is prohibited to employ weapons and projectiles that cause superfluous injury and unnecessary injury: protocol 1 geneva convention 1977."

I was given a standard lecture on Geneva Convention 1949 in 1970 which was only a few months before the Judge advocates department was absorbed into the Provost marshal department (effectively the military police) and of course this preceeding the 1977 amendment.

We were specifically warned that using even a standard weapon (like a rifle) in a way as to cause "secifically" an injury as opposed to an "incidental" injury was a breach of the 1949 protocol. When we recruits challenged this (as we were encouraged to do -strange for the army as you don't normally discuse things with officers), we were told quite specifically it had nothing to do with causing suffering but had to do with the prevention of disruption of medical services. When pressed on this we were told that this had happened in India and Burma in WW2 the Japanese reasoned that the British prioritised casualty evacuation on single roads which delayed supplied and re-enforcement. - (this is the reason I remember this as my father was shot in the thigh by a Japanese sniper in March 1945).

I think but I could be wrong that it was under sections 18 to 24 of the protocol forbad any action that degrade provision of military medical services, [again this term "specific rather than incidental" ] including specific destruction of infrastructure to the detriment of military medical services, such as electricity generation without prior warning! and supply lines etc)- though it beats me how you can differentiate! To me this is lawyer speak for make sure you win.

So our military lecturer a Major- who was a lawyer, was expressing a legal opinion in accordance with HMG policy with regard to the then 1949 GC. It has to be remembered the context in which the lecture was given, certain countries were after the US for use of 5.56 ammunition, Fletchettes and Naplam etc in Vietnam and as you (Doc) say the 1977 GC is not accepted by the US government.

Incidently I heard similar lectures subsequently on many occasions as I was attached to the unit detailed to lecture about this.

Sorry I can't give a tighter citation as despite the wars since 1949 I am not aware of any inditment on these grounds.

DOC
are designed to ensure more wounded casualties rather than dead casualties (e.g. the ban on soft-point ammo or exploding ammo for small arms), which certainly seems to invalidate your point.


Sorry can't agree, The only weapon so far to be ruled unlawful resultant of the 1977 ammendment is the Anti-personal landmine which is generally not powerful enough to kill outright anti- tank and anti vehicle mines are not banned and will kill outright nor are mines that are controlled for example Claymore mines.

In 1995 the use of laser weapons to permenantly blind opponents was outlawed.

The punji stick has been banned when it is clearly none lethal (although lawyers have attempted to get them clasified as a lethal biological weapon due to faecial material).

An attempt was made in 1965 to ban small calibre super velocity 5.56mm and multiple projecticle SWAP small arms projectiles not because of the lethality of the weapon but because of the incidental damage it caused to the victim. An attempt was made to prohibit plastic and glass fletchettes due to the difficulties they pose to medical treatment not because of their lethality. Both failed.


The British .303 Mk7 is soft pointed. And technically the use of .45cal and 12.7mm MG against personal constitutes a war crime as 11mm is the maximum calibre permitted according to the Hague convention (which outlawed soft point and explosive bullets).

I have specifically avoided anything that has a civilian nature, bomblets, W.P. etc in proximity to civilians.

God that was along post -does anyone want to hear the laywer joke?

Steve

 

Just a quick comment on the mines before I cook dinner.

The restictions on mines are mainly for the protection of civilians not military personel. Claymore is legal as long as its command wire detonated ie some one controls the explosion who is watching where the mine is (typically a ambush). Trip wire ones are illegal due to civilians possibly causing them to explode.

Anti Tank mines are legal due to the surface pressure required to detonate them. I was told on a mine awareness course by an instructor from the Royal Engineers that 'the pressure required to set a anti tank mine off would require a rather *obeist chap carrying rather a lot of weight jumping up and down on it'

* He chose more colourful language.

That said I weigh around 10 stone and wouldn't jump on one to prover or disprove his theory.

Cheers
Andy