Dear Smith and Wesson Forum i have a military question. what would be the basic combat load for an infantryman carrrying a Thompson submachine gun and a 1911A1 .45 caliber pistol. any and all help in answering this question will be greatly appreciated sincerely and respectfully mg357 a proud member of the Smith and Wesson Forum

230 gn. fmj ball is the common round and military issue. Was that the question?

I think he is asking how much ammo was typically carried. For the 1911 standard would be one mag in the pistol and a two mag ammo pouch. For the Thompson it gets trickier. Was the soldier issued 20rd or 30 rd stick mags? Or was he issued drum magazines? I've seen magazine pouches that 3 mags, 5 mags, or 6 Mags. Did the soldier wear one mag pouch or two? Depends on what other equipment was carried.

Also probable depended on how much threat the particular soldier felt he was under. I knew one man who acted as an Army courier in the Pacific Theater who mentioned he carried a M1 Carbine. I once asked how much ammo he carried and he said "Only 30 rounds usually, one in the carbine and one in the mag pouch." He explained that in the other compartment of the mag a pouch he carried a civilian type can opener. Being able to open a rations can quickly and safely seemed more pertinent to getting him home safely than an extra 15 rounds of carbine ammo.

I think few or no drum magazines in WWII.
In Korea mostly I saw one 30 rd in the gun and I think, a 4 mag web carrier, still a heavy load. I only really knew one guy who used a Thompson; he gave it away and started using a “burp” gun (PPSh-50) that he picked-up. For inspections he had a Carbine hidden away. The burp gun and the ammunition were lighter and he said very reliable.

__________________
Ipsis Rebus Dictantitbus

I can't answer that, but can shed some light on the mag/drum issue. At first only the 50 rd. drum and 20 rd stick mags were available, there was also a 100 rd drum, but to the best of my knowledge, these were never adopted or issued. Generally, the drums were only used in an initial invasion, assault, etc, assuming the soldier/Marine/sailor was using the 1928 which would accept the drum mag, and then switch to the 20 rd. stick mag. The drums were heavy, made a helluva lot of noise, etc, not something that you'd want on patrol. By the time the M1/M1A1 was adopted, they would not accept drums, the 30 stick was the primary mag used.

Like I said, not an answer to your question, but a bit of TSMG info.

I used to have a couple of Thompsons, and shot them quite a bit. The issue-type magazine carrier for the 20 round mags held 5 of them, and went onto any type web belt by sliding over. The issue-type carriers for the 30 rounders were for 3 mags each, and they also slid onto any web belt. You could carry one of them or two, usually one on either side of the belt. If you carried the 2 30-round carriers (6 mags in total), your belt got pretty heavy.

Add a .45 automatic and a canteen and you'd pretty much want some sort of suspenders to keep the belt in place. Add the 5 mag 20-round mag carrier right along the small of your back and you kinda started to waddle when you walked. Add a couple of mags in a pouch for your .45 and a single 50-round drum carrier mounted on the left side to counter-balance your pistol and that belt was full and you didn't want to have to run anywhere too fast.

But, I suppose if you wanted to know the maximum you could conveniently carry on a belt, that would be about it. At least, for my energy levels, it would be about the max for me -- even when I was younger. And remember, the Tommy Gun itself wasn't exactly light.

No, I do not have a photo of myself "duded up" that way, but I have photos of the guns of course. I had to part with them when the laws in Canada changed, and anyway, I decided to move somewhere warm.

Just a 50 round drum or two could really make your belt sag. However, before 1943, it was pretty much either the drums or a pile of 20 rounders, because the 30 rounder wasn't really available earlier -- Christopher George in the Rat Patrol to the contrary.

Steave, having watched Combat growing up I never understood the lack of enthusiasm some WW2 vets had for the Thompson, until I actually handled one myself. My Dad had told me that he traded into a Thompson when he was in the Solomons but didn't like it. Thought it too heavy and at the time they could only get 20rd magazines. I assume it was a 1928 because he referred to it as having the "gangster" style vertical fore grip. While issued a M1 Carbine the combo he ended the war with was a M3 and a 1911A1.

Another friend was in Ordnance in the ETO and claimed he traded the Thompson for a Carbine the first chance he got. The ammo and weapon were both substantially lighter. These are just two examples of the many stories I've heard over the years. I wonder how much the USMC affection for the Thompson in the Pacific was prior to the Garand being readily available. Given the choice between a TSMG and a '03 the choice is much more clear than between a TSMG and a Garand.

Nope, here is a photo of a British troop using a drum magazine in 1940.

The US Marines also had some in the early days of WWII

calmex, good to see you post, I remember the thread several years ago regarding the .357 you had that had been in the PTO, a very interesting read. Quick question for you, and it may be immaterial since you moved to Mexico, but when the laws changed in Canada, I thought you guys were able to keep legally owned machine guns, but they just couldn't transferred. Basically, if you legally owned it, you could keep it, but you would keep it until you died or surrendered it to the gov't.

walnutred, I imagine TSMG's were like most anything else, some guys loved 'em, some hated 'em. The Reising was a different story, though, you never hear anything positive about them as they were almost impossible to keep running under combat conditions.

There is also a photo of Churchill holding a Thompson with a drum and a vertical foregrip, and I've seen a photo of a Ghurkha soldier carrying the same in Burma.

But the drum was noisy, and British troops soon discarded it.
Churchill wanted drama for the photo, and he was probably a leading reason why the Commonwealth began issuing Thompsons, before the US entered the war. He also created the Commandos, naming them after the similar Afrikaans- speaking citizen soldiers whom he had fought in the 2nd Boer War. He knew the value of these irregular troops, who struck unexpectedly and with great loss of morale to the enemy.

BTW, the Commandos retained the Thompson long after most troops had to accept the Sten in exchange. And their standard handgun was the Colt .45 auto, a favorite of Churchill, himself. He often carried his own, bought in 1916, before he went to the trenches in France.

The outline of his Colt shows plainly under his white suit coat in a photo of him taken in North Africa, maybe at Yalta. I think the year was 1943.

When I was a boy in the late 1950's, a TV show about Churchill in WW II had some guy who used to be one of his detectives show the sort of guns that the Prime Minister had at his personal disposal, I guess for use in event of German paratroopers attacking, or if the Germans had ever invaded.

Besides his .45 auto, Churchill had a Webley MK IV .38, a Mannlicher-Schoenauer 6.5mm carbine and the Thompson.

I once read a book by an officer named Raleigh Trevelyan. It was about fighting the Germans in Italy. His first kill was from him spraying a bush with a Jerry hiding in it. He later walked over and found the body. He used a Tommy gun.

Another officer complained in his memoirs that his unit had to exchange their Thompsons in Kenya for Stens before deploying to Burma. He protested, but was forced to accept a Sten.

In, "The Hundred Days of Lt. MacHorten", an officer wounded and left behind in Burma had to find his own way back to the British lines in India. He found the Thompson too heavy to carry in his condition and left it behind, relying on his Colt Official Police .38 and a Ghurkha khukri knife. Of course,he was trying to avoid Japs, not to fight them, at that stage.

I've definitely see pics of US Marines using drum mags in the Pacific, although they had Reising .45 submachineguns on Guadalcanal. You can see them in the photos in Richard Tregaski's, "Guadalcanal Diary", one of the most famous books to come of the war. Tregaskis, BTW, bummed a .45 auto for personal protection as he covered the war as a civilian correspondent. Can you imagine one of today's liberal newsmen doing that?!

T-Star
P.S. The Reising's great problem was probably that the parts weren't totally interchangeable from one to another. When the Marines stripped them for cleaning, some of the parts got mixed up, and functioning issues arose.

I suppose that we ought to note that under combat conditions, troops carried however much or little ammo as they wanted or could get. Commanders tend to disregard formal standards under those circumstances. Combat photos reflect that, so be guided accordingly.

Patton may have been an exception. He made his men wear neckties and shine their boots even under battle conditions.

But he also liked fighting sprit, and might not have griped if he saw captured weapons in use or a soldier with "too much" ammo. He wanted to see dead Germans and Italians, and if a man had extra ammo, he might credit him for his wish to inflict harm on the enemy more than criticize him. But, who knows? Probably depended on his mood. He was volatile much of the time.

T-Star

There was also an over the shoulder bag for ammo mags, I forget the model number. It carried around a half dozen or so mags for either a grease gun or Thompson. Some guys never bothered with ammo pouches and just stuck ammo in their pockets. (In the Pacific, some soldiers reportedly just carried fish hooks or smokes in the ammo pouches.) Other units, particularly Paras would have specialized "rigger made" pouches to carry ammo on their suspenders.

SLA Marshall wrote that many draftee soldiers carried very little ammo, finding other things far more useful. Back then most soldiers didn't even fire their weapons either.

In the Navy 1911 mags were downloaded to five rounds, this was standard practice for years. I don't know if the Marines did this too or not.

There are photos of drums on Thompsons even on Iwo Jima. If people wanted something or thought it was useful, they'd tend to obtain it if possible.

Guys with a Thompson were often experienced NCOs, some would have opted for comfort and carried little ammo, others would have been paranoid and carried a lot.

If there was an average, somewhere under 200 rounds in most cases and as few as 60 in others.

In the 1960's SOME USAF bases issued just five rounds to cops on stateside bases, whether they had a .38 or a .45. I doubt that this was the practice in combat areas, or in WW II.
The same may apply to other branches of the military, and it may well have been a local matter in Denver, Lowry AFB.

When I was transferred to Newfoundland, no one cared how many rounds we carried, unless one hung a bandolier on himself. I even got away with carrying my own Colt Gold Cup .45 for about 7 months, until some stickler objected. However, even when I had to wear an issued M-1911A-1, I loaded my mags with the proper 7 rounds. No one knew, or cared. I sometimes used commercial ammo, bought at the BX at Harmon AFB, fairly near our isolated radar site. I did use FMJ ammo, but preferred the new Winchester and Remington ammo to the aging govt. supply.

BTW, the non Air Police personnel there were about useless as emergency combat auxiliary personnel. Most couldn't recall how to operate the .30 carbine, and some new men only had brief training on the AR-15...of which we had precisely NONE at that base. Moreover, none of the radar men, etc, even cared to learn how to shoot weapons. They seemed to have no zeal for combat. Had we been hit with Spetnaz forces from a Russian sub, we'd have been toast!

That still bothers me.

T-Star

[QUOTE=Steave;135579025]calmex, good to see you post, I remember the thread several years ago regarding the .357 you had that had been in the PTO, a very interesting read. Quick question for you, and it may be immaterial since you moved to Mexico, but when the laws changed in Canada, I thought you guys were able to keep legally owned machine guns, but they just couldn't transferred. Basically, if you legally owned it, you could keep it, but you would keep it until you died or surrendered it to the gov't.

QUOTE]

Thanks Steave. My dad and I had a fair collection. I wanted to move to the warmth, and we heard that the law was going to change grandfathering the guns. However, we ALSO heard that there was a good chance that the guns would be grandfathered to your HOUSE and they would no longer permit you to take them to the range. Dad and I had a "fireside chat" and decided to dump almost everything while the dumping was good. It was a seller's market, as there were lots of people looking for stuff BEFORE the law changed, and anyone who could buy usually was and few people were selling.

We did good and came out alright. The 1928/A1 sits in a Museum as we never sold it, and my old Uzi is in the Shilo Museum, and I think a Sten is there as well. Damned near everything else went and gave me the seed money to come here and end up in my Ice Cream Store.

I am glad I got to own those guns, all the full-autos. The Thompsons were two of my favourites -- mind you, I never had to walk very far with them.

I used to like setting Pepper Poppers all the way forward so that they wouldn´t fall down, and then stand at a slight angle to them so I didn't get hit by splash and "walk 'em over" with a long ripping burst out of one of the Tommy Guns from about 15 yards back. Ah, those were the days.

I have posted this before, but I know Texas Star loves the photo, so here it is again. You can kiss the butt of a Thompson on full auto, with a bit of practice, so holding them on a menacing Pepper Popper is just too easy once you get the knack.


AND, I still have Phil Roettinger's gun, although it's well hidden these days. Things are a little hairy in Mexico right now and I don't want to lose it in some stupid "spot check" of my house. The .357 marking on the barrel is a no-no here, although the gun is registered as a .38 Special. It is safely hidden awaiting calmer times, and an old Victory with (amazingly enough) the same numbers sits in it's spot in the safe. Thanks for asking.

Circa 2000, and it may have changed since, USAF OTS for non flight/non technical folks (such as aquisitions managers) involved only six hours of firearms training, that being a non pass/fail session of being instructed on how to operate an M9 and then shooting at some human shaped targets.

The assumption seemed to be that to do more would be a waste of training time and effort for a bunch of technicians and pencil pushers. This was before 9/11 of course, so it might have been updated.

I think the last time air crew had to fight a pitched battle was when some Japanese diehards over ran some AAF crew tents during the closing stages of the fighting on Iwo Jima.

Anyway my father who was an officer in the engineers in WW2 ( I don't know the unit, he was attached to an amored division that was under Patton's third army), said that his men only carried 48 rounds with them, presumably a single bandoler for their Garand. As I recall, my father didn't bother with web gear but wore his pistol and stuck spare magazines into the pockets of his field jacket. The rest of the ammo sat it in the jeeps. I don't think he even liked carrying a pistol.

My maternal grandfather by contrast served in the Pacific, finishing the war on a punishment detail of sorts of being the security element for flamethrower teams. His job was to use a Thompson and shoot the Japanese as they'd come running out on fire. He'd picked up a 1911 on Guadalcanal from a dead or wounded officer and kept it for the rest of the war somehow. I remember that I asked how much ammo they'd have for their rifles, and he said about a hundred rounds and mentioned "about" a half dozen mags for a submachine gun.

Gator-

You may be correct about flight personnel having to fight as a group, although I'm pretty sure that some who bailed out had to use their sidearms. I think the guy who was portrayed in the book and movie, Bat 21, had to shoot a Viet with his sidearm.

Scott O'Grady was glad to have his Beretta during his adventures in Bosnia, although he complained that the gun rusted. The only weapon that he actually used was a Swiss Army knife, to gather food. He had the issued survival knife, but didn't like it, and it also rusted. The Swiss job impressed him!

But police and security sorts saved the day when the North Viets attacked Ton Son Nhut air base during the Tet Offensive of 1968.

And they now protect convoys in Afghanistan and Iraq. They may very well need small arms skill! And there is always the jerk who commits crimes and gets shot for the effort. Remember the SP who shot a guy with an AK-47 at Fairchild AFB a few years back? The bicycle cop had only his M-9, but killed his foe at about 75 yards with a couple of shots. One hit the mass murderer in the head.

T-Star

[QUOTE=calmex;135579365]
Thanks. That is fun to see, although there are items that I'd rather kiss. Certain models come readily to mind.

T-Star

That's a great photo, Steave.

The late Jeff Cooper, teaching at Gunsite, used to do that with the butt of his Thompson against his nose, as a demonstration to classes about the "myths" of the .45 ACP. The two most common myths were, "The .45's got so much recoil, it'll bust yer haid!" and "You can't hit anything with that .45..."