Tank Crew Sidearm Holsters

Why were the sidearm holsters used by tank crews worn slung down and tied to the leg?
I would of thought that would have made it even easier for it to catch against the interior of the tank than if it was worn close to the hip, or was there another reason?

 

Dave

The main reason was that they were a bloody nuisance inside the Tank .....so we didn't wear them .....outside of course the C.O. liked to see us wear them

Cheers

 

Dad, REME, Italy 1944 displaying "leg holster - drivers, for the use of"

Much more comfortable when sitting down and more importantly, easier to access while seated.

 

I can understand tank Crew not wanting weapons to wear weapons inside the tank, but the leg holster was the best if worn when sitting down.

The Americans had both shoulder Holsters and side Holsters.

I know that the early front Drivers and Co Driver/MG gunner hatches on the Sherman were not easy for the Crew to get in and out of as they had to Twist their Body to get through the hatch! Later Versions used a larger hatch.

Regards
Tom

 

That's just prompted the rather grim thought of how useful that might be if you couldn't get out.

 

Dad said his was an American Automatic, better than the British revolver he had earlier, which he said only came in handy if he couldnt find his hammer!

 

I certaily wouldn't like to use a side arm as a hammer!

Regards
Tom

 

In May 1945, during our stint of running a POW camp for the SS Div who had just surrendered we used to do our guard duty with just our pistols for weapons.

Ron

 

There was also a special version of a .38 revolver designed without a protruding hammer so that it wouldn't catch on stuff getting in and out. Thread started by Danny Harrison on this topic http://ww2talk.com/forums/topic/26918-service-revolver-1940/

 

A mans hips are usually the widest part of his body, so the thought was that a holster on one's legs would make it easier to get in and out and move about in the vehicle. in the event, a large number of tank crew ended up with the standard 'hip' holster.

 

It wasn't a 'special version' it was the standard army pistol and was the pistol officially adopted for use by the army.

 

From the thread I referred to earlier, posted by Croonaert - someone who knows better than me:

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).

As far as I'm aware, there were a number of 'standard' pistols adopted by various service arms and that's what the thread discussed - the 'spurless' appears to have been a variant. I'm getting my info from Ian V Hogg, the God of armourers - I'll dig it out when I've got time.

 

Ian Hogg was an artilleryman, a Master Gunner in fact, he was never an armourer.

His books on artillery are excellent, but he should never have been persuaded to write on small arms. Those books are awful.

Regards
Tonye

 

The No2 Mk1 was the version with the hammer spur. Nothing to do with Tankies, the decision was made to make it double-action only. This version became the No2. Mk1* and was adopted as the pistol the British Army would use. Next came the No2 Mk1** in which a safety block was omitted to speed up the production. This, it was realised, was a bad idea and so many were converted back to No2 Mk1*.

The issuing of Webley Mk IVs was through official channels, but was not officially adopted, hence the 'WAR FINISH' stamped on the side of the frame - this was Webley looking after their commercial interests in the event of these weapons being released onto the public market following the war. They were issued but not officially adopted, neither was the Smith & Wesson 0.38/200 (commonly and wrongly referred to as the 'Victory').

I hope this makes sense.

 

Tony/Combover - mea culpa, I did know he was a master gunner from the book jacket blurb, but as my knowledge of such things goes not much further than being able to tell the nice end from the naughty end, I couldn't tell you in a million years that he wasn't some sort of expert on small arms. Indeed, he goes into some detail about the demand from the RAC for hammerless pistols. I went to the Small Arms collection in Warminster recently to see and handle 1940's infantry weapons and while the gentleman there didn't tell me that was a 'standard' weapon, he did repeat the line about the requirement for tank crews.

So, going on the premise that there's no smoke without fire, where does that really come from then. Several times in my interviewing career, serving officers have told me that their pistols went off accidentally or when dropped, or being replaced in the holster and no-one has said they trusted them to hit anything more than a few feet away as the trigger pressure interfered with the aim - they were for 'waving and scaring' as one veteran put it.

And of course now comes the question, what book should I be buying to find out about WW2 small arms - I confess, I bought the Hogg in a job lot, but I hate having dodgy reference material.

 

Brian

My advice would be to listen to the chaps who did the fighting in Tanks who didn't wear pistols inside a Tank as they were a bloody nuisance whether worn on the hips - legs or around their necks

all very well showing a REME sporting a very sexy leg holster BUT the REME did NOT fight in Tanks-- they fixed TANKS when they were broken

Cheers

 

Brian,

My first comment on this to people who state the Tankie theory has always been the same (and backs up what Mr Canning says):

If you can catch the hammer spur on a projection inside the tank and THEN manage to discharge the thing, you're probably waving it around, or t***ing about with it. You've clearly got bigger problems than a hammer spur... In reality, they weren't even handled when on the inside of an AFV.

Think about it logically, if this was such an issue, why weren't they issued with closed pistol cases, just like everyone else was? It makes no sense to use the Tankie theory. Besides, I have an original long-drop holster - with the retaining strap over the back of the pistol, it's damn-near impossible to 'accidentally catch' the hammer spur and even more impossible to pull the trigger after having done so.

I genuinely believe that the removal of the hammer spur was to aid training, by speeding it up. Instead of teaching people how to cock the thing and take the trigger pressure and aim etc, making it DAO (Double Action Only) meant there was only ONE way of firing it:

1. Point weapon in direction of enemy.
2. Pull trigger.
3. Run.

The latter point is quite important as these pistols were for self-defence only. If you had to use one, something had gone a bit awry elsewhere! They are for keeping someone's head down whilst you make a speedy 'exit stage left'. Even if someone fired a measly .22" at me, I'd duck - probably long enough for them to get away. On this last point, the penetrative capability of a 0.38 is mostly a moot point.

 

Tom - thanks for that - my dad was an RE AVRE gunner and they didn't have pistols, I think his driver was RAC and didn't wear his either. The manifest for his AVRE said 5 stens, and he didn't remember them being in there either, but then again, by the time they got to transferring to Buffaloes, there was all sorts of stuff in that tank that there shouldn't have been.

Combover - what you say is much more in line with what the gentleman at the SASC in Warminster was saying. My interest in the subject arises because one version of the death of Joe Small - (the book I'm writing about a relative in the 10th Hussars who died in 1940) was that he was wearing a pistol on some kind of lanyard when captured and was shot after he shot a German soldier who was trying to take it off him - inside a house in the village where he died in June 1940.

I had no real reason to disbelieve that but then I found that he had been fighting 'dismounted' for some two weeks leading up to this incident and therefore, if he had ever worn the pistol - and there are tales of Hussars soldiers shooting Germans in trenches with .38 revolvers at Huppy, he probably wasn't by then as they were issued with rifles and Bren guns. That story was told to me by a very old soldier who had no reason to lie to me, but I haven't found any corroborating evidence in the village, in any records or archives or accounts - but the gentleman swore by the story. Now I don't mind that because that's what the book is about, but I need to know what might have happened in an ordinary everyday situation, rather than what the handbook - or a gunner pretending to be an armourer) says.

This is indeed what I joined the forum for and my profound thanks to you and everyone who gets involved in such discussions as it really is grist to the mill and keeps me interested - and makes what I'm writing about fascinating.

 

If fighting dismounted, they would have taken the pistol with them, would have worn it and would have used it. At very close ranges i.e. inside a house, the accuracy is perfectly adequate as the effective range is about 12-15yds - it's difficult to miss at such a short range. Contrary to what some 'experts' will tell you, the 0.38 pistol (in whatever guise) was accurate enough for the job it did...but little more.