what was wrong with the Tommy round mag?

I don't really have much disagreement with your last post, obviously the civlian aspect of A/P mines has taken over in the media but the effect of the 1977 protocol was with regard to military casulaties. As civilian injuries although incidental were already illegal. Re Claymores I specifically said controlled mines.

A major aspect of the ban on A/P mines prevent their use totally because of the move laterly to very small undectectable mines.

I remember the similar thing being said by my instructors about A/T mines but I was also told never to take it for granted as some A/T mines in the Warsaw pact had a pressure weight as low as 25Kg.

Anyway enjoy dinner

Steve

 

These are two instances of the Thompson machine being
used with the drum magazine.

Picture 2 - 4th (Durham) Royal Artillery Survey Regt 1941
North Africa

Picture 1 - "C" Squadron Royal Tank Regiment 1942 North Africa

 

Drew5233
I am aware that their was a wooden stock variant/prototype of the current British Assault Rifle back in the 50's/60's.


The Rifle you are thinking about is the EM2 Rifle No9 1947-51
View attachment 13531

It fired the .280
View attachment 13532

It has nothing to do with the SA80 except that it is a bullpup, the SA80 is a AR18 turn bolt similar to the M16, but I have yet to hear of a Bullpup version of this type to work properly -the Israeli have one the Tavor which also seems to be giving problems.

The EM2 has a reputation of being a missed chance, it underwent a long service trial in 1948-9 along with some trials by the Canadians, and was accepted for service in 1950 but was dumped for political reasons more than anything else.

It had a locking system like the GEW43 -two lugs forced into the receiver wall on closure.

The SLR 7.62 x 52 was overpowered but the damage to limbs by a 5.56 often results in amputation, particularly if bone is involved. There was a case of a squadie in Northern Ireland who accidently discharged his SLR in one of those breeze block housing estates around Londonderry. The round passed through the front fence, the twin block front wall, a inner single block wall a fridge through the twin block back wall and embedded in the coal bunker. The 762 x52 was a standard Nato round. But I agree with you an SLR in FIBUA is no fun- the SLR is not fun at any time, however at least with an SLR you could fire from either shoulder which meant you could get right into doorways on either side of the street. I don't know if they got rid of the reciprocating bolt on the SA80 -certainly some of the troop trial weapons had it and that prevented using it on the left shoulder.

Hope the previous post goes some-where to explain where my opinion comes from. I did get the impression that everyone got some shut eye when we put the Dum Dum film on.

Steve

 

Ok here's my take on this.

{I’ve extracted your specific comments within headers like this, for ease in answering….}

Steve

Steve, I am afraid that I have to disagree with much of what you have said. As background, I have taught the Law of Warfare for many years, and was trained in it by the International Committee of the Red Cross. Further, I have a copy of the agreements (and the protocols) sitting by my side as I write this.

{Protocol 1 1977 of the GC was written specifically to rid an ambiguity in the 1949 GC}

Actually, the Additional Protocols were specifically written to “legalise” wars of national liberation and resistance groups, who otherwise would have been found guilty of violating the laws of warfare. Specifically, this was very deliberately written to ensure that the failure of such groups as the VC to abide by the laws of warfare was not charged as a war crime, and to at the same time tie the hands of the other side. I have read most of the deliberations which occurred at the time of the adoption of the Additional Protocols, and this is very clear from the discussions, no matter what it politically correct to claim now. There are in fact some very good points in the Additional Protocols as well as some very bad ones, but let’s not let political correctness blind us to realistic discussions.

{We were specifically warned that using even a standard weapon (like a rifle) in a way as to cause "specifically" an injury as opposed to an "incidental" injury was a breach of the 1949 protocol.}

This is right—if you stand a guy up and deliberately shoot him in the leg, this is causing unnecessary suffering. On the other hand, if you try to kill him and shoot him in the leg, that is incidental and is strictly OK (except for what it says about your marksmanship). But, if an enemy soldier is running toward me, and I decide to shoot him in the leg to stop him from attacking me, that would not be considered causing unnecessary suffering, since my option would have been to kill him. Lawyers love to argue points like this.

{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" ] }

There is nothing in Additional Protocol I which reads as you said about wounding causing degradation of military medical services, and therefore being bad—It is certainly not found in sections 18-24 of Protocol I or Protocol II. The only prohibition is found in Article 32-2, which prohibits "weapons, projectiles, and materiel.... of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering." HMG may have had an interpretation about this issue, but it is not directly covered in the conventions.

{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). }

Not so-- the MK7 is a full-metal jacketed round. The forward 1/3 of its core is lightweight plastic, so it is unstable and the bullet tumbles when it hits, but that does not make it soft-pointed. There are numerous other rounds (e.g. the Soviet AK-74 round- 5.45x39mm) which have either light-weight fillers at the tip (but inside the jacket) or air pockets-- this has not been decreed to violate the conventions (or even the Additional Protocols, which are NOT yet a part of the normal laws of war as accepted by all nations). I would love to see a citation as to where you think the conventions (or even the protocols) say that non-explosive .45 and .50 caliber are illegal as anti-personnel rounds. I can find no such 11mm maximum size limitation in the Hague or the Geneva Conventions, and given that both have been routinely used in war as anti-personnel weapons since World War I, I suspect that this issue would have been raised in the interim if there were such a prohibition.

{Sorry can't agree, The only weapon so far to be ruled unlawful resultant of the 1977 amendment 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.}

OK, if you are only talking about the 1977 Additional Protocols. However, the overall discussion was about all the Conventions and generally the Law of Warfare. Don't forget the other rules. Expanding small arms bullets are prohibited by the Hague convention of 1899. The anti-personnel landmine is not covered in any of the Geneva Conventions-- The anti-landmine prohibition is a separate treaty (Anti-Personnel Land Mine Treaty of 1997), and again not accepted by all nations. Even there, the use of anti-personnel landmines is permitted by the Additional Protocol-II under certain conditions (e.g. controlled rather than uncontrolled, marked fields, etc.).

{The punji stick has been banned when it is clearly non lethal (although lawyers have attempted to get them clasified as a lethal biological weapon due to faecial material). }

Poison and poisoned weapons are prohibited by Article 23 of the Hague convention of 1907, so punji sticks are outlawed if poisoned, but not otherwise. If you have a reference to the contrary, I would love to see it, since I have been unable to find it.

{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.}

There is a convention prohibiting use of radio-transparent materiels in weapons which cannot be detected by X-Ray. It's not part of the conventions nor the additional protocols, so I don't have a copy. But, it is called the “Protocol on Non-Detectable Fragments (Protocol I), Geneva, 10 October 1980, and it says that “It is prohibited to use any weapon the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-rays.”

I’m really not trying to be argumentative, but I really would like to see the specific references which support your points, as I have been unable to find them. If they really exist, these are points which deserve much more discussion and consideration.

Thanks for the interesting (though long) discussion. Doc

 

How have I managed not to post a photograph of a motorcycle on this thread ?



Post-Dunkirk propaganda as far as I'm aware. I certainly don't think that the Grenadier Guards used these 1938 civilian pattern Model 18 Nortons on active service.

If you ask me, he's about to get a black eye

Rich

 

I understand that the .45 cal Thompson, although a little heavy, had great stopping power and was a favourite with the troops. I believe that Canadian units, coming from Italy, were forced to trade them in for Stens. Anyone know why that unpopular move was made?

 

Yup, as they didn't wear Div shoulder flashes until post-Dunkirk, forget actual date of introduction.
No later than May '41 as they left 3rd Div to form Gds Armd Div then.

A photo from the same series was used on the cover of 'The War Illustrated' in May, 1941

 

I understand that the .45 cal Thompson, although a little heavy, had great stopping power and was a favourite with the troops. I believe that Canadian units, coming from Italy, were forced to trade them in for Stens. Anyone know why that unpopular move was made?

Financial reasons perhaps?

 

Men of the 3rd Infantry Division modelling the latest fashion in long bayonets and Thompson round mags. From a 1942 publication 'Musket to Machine Gun', by Prof. A.M. Low

 

We can date that photo, it's in the IWM collection.

Posed portrait of three guardsmen from 1st Battalion, Grenadier Guards, 23 January 1941.

I thought that I could make out 'Guards' on the shoulder title. It makes perfect sense that it is an official photograph. Thanks for that.

Bod