Paladin's recent thread about Reising SMG's reminded me that the Marines on Guadalcanal hated them partly because the parts weren't fully interchangeable and reliability suffered due to armorers not being aware of that and keeping parts separate with the gun from which they came. I don't know how bad they were, otherwise.


Does anyone here KNOW (not guess) whether the Marines also had any Thompson guns?


Now that I think of it, I've seen a pic of a M3 light tank crew with Tommies, but am not sure where it was taken, or the exact year. I THINK it was on Guadalcanal. I think the magazine was the old drum style.


What proportion of SMG's on Guadalcanal were Thompsons before the Army arrived? I don't think soldiers used Reisings at all, just Marines.

I've read more than a few accounts by members of the US Army complaining about US marines lifting their Garands and Thompsons if they ever set them down & walked away to use the latrine/shower, chow line or while they slept...especially during the early part of the war in the Pacific theatre.

__________________
be safe,enjoylife,journey well

That sounds a lot like the Marines in my family!

Ivan

Marines had Thompsons clear back in Bannana Wars, but didn't
have them in the numbers to support numbers needed early in
war. I have a book that has all kinds of secondary issue weapons
purchased during WW2 as stop gap measures by allies when they
were caught short of issue weapons. Marines had some Johnson
LMGs that they prized. They weren't happy when they had to
turn them in.

As someone who has maintained Thompson's. The parts are totally interchangeable within the two basic models. Field stripping and parts replacement are pretty easy and straight forward. IMO: It would take something like a bulged barrel or cracked receiver to require an armorer to do the repairs.
Jim

You seem to have misread. It was the Reising, not the Thompson that had the parts issue.


Can someone post the photo of the Marine tank crew with a Thompson, referred to above? I'm sure that many of you have seen it.

Yes, Marines used Thompson SMGs on Guadalcanal before the arrival of the Army's 164th Infantry Regiment. How many they had as compared to the Reising guns is a figure that probably can never be determined with any accuracy. The best method would be to examine the Table of Organization and Equipment for the 1st Marine Division and the many other smaller Marine units as of August 1942.

Below is a well known photo of a Marine on Guadalcanal with his Thompson. His weapon has the drum magazine but the 5-cell web pouch at his feet carries 20-round magazines. Also seen is the M1919A4 Browning .30 machine gun.

__________________
Charlie Flick
SWCA 729 HF 215

This is probably the one you are referring to. The TSMG was part of the tankers' equipment and not scrounged elsewhere.

__________________
Charlie Flick
SWCA 729 HF 215

I remember reading several times that one of the reasons the Marines disliked the Reising was that it sounded just like the Japanese 6.5mm machine gun. Anyone else remember hearing this?

I have herd that, or read it some where. Never herd either one
fire, so I don't know if true. I hear all kind of BS war stories from
RVn. Guys bragging they used a Ak47 because it was a better
gun than M16. Maybe SOPs guys did that to confuse the gooks.
Where I was at AK fire would draw fire. Every gun has its own
sound and rythme. The wrong one can get you shot, or worse.

The thread is labeled Thompsons vs Reisings so what did I misread?
I am well aware of the Reising issues.
Jim

Yes, that's it. Thanks!

Well, go read my OP again. I think it'll then be clear.
I covered the unpopularity of the Reising due in large measure to the lack of parts interchangeability. Only after this issue of the Reising did I ask whether the Marines there also had Thompsons, and to what degree.


At no point did I say that Thompsons had that parts problem.

Marines guarded the US Mail on several occasions. The post office had Thompsons that the Marines used. It has been said that the Marines may have "forgotten" to return them when this duty was over.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

"Marines had some Johnson LMGs that they prized. They weren't happy when they had to turn them in. "

And also Johnson semiautomatic rifles. There was quite a bit of consternation in certain quarters over why the Garand was chosen over the Johnson, as many believed that the Johnson was a better combat rifle. I've never fired a Johnson in .30-'06 , nor even seen one. Those in 7mm, while not common, do show up at gun shows occasionally.

I know their rifles then were Springfields. When did M-1903-A3's appear? Were Remington M-1903's available then? The invasion was in August, 1942, I think.

I was at a ammo dump, don't know the name of place near Red Beech.
They had my outfit there to beef up for pending attack, that never came.
Anyway we were exploring the dump and we found a conx full of
Thompson parts, no recievers. I hadn't seen that many Thompson parts
even back in the world. Thompsons in RVN were not scarce, but a little
hard to get your hands on. Had there been recievers, I would have been
a rich GI, from sales.

What's a "conx"?

A conx was a corrugated steel container, similar to the shipping
containers they use now. They came in different sizes. They
dug these containers into a hill side for ammo storage. Built a
blast wall in front of doors so that a direct hit was only way to
take it out. The uses for these conx were many. Sometimes
they would be dug in and used for bunkers, firing ports cut out
with torch. In our outfit each platoon had a conx back at HQ
area. We were able to store and lock up stuff that we couldn't
carry with us. A conx was living hi on the hog, our usual quarters
was 1/2 of a culvert pipe, sandbagged in.

I've also seen is spelled 'conex'.

After the war, quite a few Reisings wound up in law enforcement use. The guys I knew who used them spoke very highly of them. They fired from a closed bolt and were pretty accurate. They were lighter than the Thompson. The guys didn't seem to mind the small magazine capacity. I guess if you were used to having a 30-30 for a patrol rifle, 12 or 20 rounds was quite a bit. They worked well in law enforcement conditions (as opposed to combat conditions). Not as likely to have the parts mixed up either.

You maybe right on the spelling, it don't hurt my feelings to be
corrected.

Now that we agree on how to spell CONEX,
What does it stand for?
Where did this term originate?

__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER

Reising - take a look at these Marine Raiders.
I believe the tall Marine on the left side holding on to the end of his gun barrel to be Gordon Warner.
Is Gordon holding a Reising?
Looks like the Raider is front had a Springfield 03.

Attached Images

IMG_2272.JPG (183.7 KB, 311 views)

__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER

My Dad joined the Marines the day after Pearl Harbor.

His first duty was in the Panama Canal Zone. Searching foreign vessels before they entered the locks. Had the Japanese taken a freighter through, full of explosives and damaged the Canal...Could have lengthened the war by years.

He had access to and they carried; 1911's, 1903 bolt guns, 1897 Win pump Riot guns, and M-1 Thompsons. But he only recalled stick mags for the Tommy guns, no drums.

FN in MT

It is Conex, abbreviation for Container Express. Same as the steel intermodal shipping containers used on ships and railroads. Like most items used in international trade. there are standardized Conex sizes and volumes used by all countries.

I don't think so. He is indeed a tall guy. The Model 50 Reising is relatively short at just under 36 inches in length. In the pic the weapon is seen extending above the Marine's waistline, so unless he had the butt resting on a coconut the weapon appears to be too long for a Reising. It is also worth noting that he is wearing a Browning Automatic Rifleman's belt for magazines. Finally, the muzzle of the weapon he is holding appears to me to be that of an M1 Garand.

__________________
Charlie Flick
SWCA 729 HF 215

I enjoy shooting mine. Always draws a lot of curiosity at the range


There was a really great article in the December 2000 issue of Small Arms Review. It was titled: "Ordnance Committee Meeting, 23 December, 1943". In it, Lt. Col VH Kulak, USMC, gives his opinion of various weapons being used by Marines in the Pacific Theater. He indicates that later models of the Reising were, "...accurately fabricated and are quite satisfactory. They function well and as the .45 goes it is quite acceptable." He was more critical of the Thompson: "It is much too heavy...uncomfortable to carry and is does not function well." He also discusses the 1903 Springfield, Garand, Johnson, BAR, Johnson LMG, M1A1 Carbine and the Bazooka.

How long after PeARL harbor WAS HE IN pANAMA? I DON'T THINK m-1 tHOMPSONS WERE MADE YET. bUT I DON'T THINK THEY WERE ADAPED TO USE ANY BUT STICK MAGAZINES. tHE DRUM MAGS WERE ONLY FOR EARLIER tOMMIES.


I HAVEN'T READ MUCH ON tHOMPSONS IN YEARS. I COULD BE WRONG ON THIS. I've ONLY FIRED ONE tOMMY IN MY LIFE, AND WE HAD ONLY STICK MAGS FOR IT. It was the M-1928 or 1928A-1.


Oh, dang: I look down to type, and the bleeping Caps Lock came on . I hate that thing! No time to re-type.


That bit about an Axis ship loaded with explosives being used to blow the Canal is new to me and very interesting. We're very fortunate that it didn't happen.

Didn't anyone ever see the old Humphrey Bogart movie "Across the Pacific"? Plot involved an attack on the Panama Canal's Gatun locks by the Japanese using an explosive-laden plane. Of course, Bogey single-handedly foiled the Japanese plan. Odd title - During the movie, Bogart never went across the Pacific, just from New York to Panama by ship.

It probably had something to do with the Garand being adopted in 1936, before the Johnson existed.

Then there's the Garand having been developed at Springfield Armory, vs Melvin Johnson's machine-shop prototype.

That bit about an Axis ship loaded with explosives being used to blow the Canal is new to me and very interesting. We're very fortunate that it didn't happen.[/QUOTE]

The Japanese had a number of different plans to disable the Panama Canal.
The one I like best is Seaplanes with folded wings transported in large tubes onboard large submarines.

__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER

The Japanese had a number of different plans to disable the Panama Canal.
The one I like best is Seaplanes with folded wings transported in large tubes onboard large submarines.[/QUOTE]


Were US fighters stationed in Panama to prevent a Japanese aircraft carrier from launching an attack? They might have even been able to launch Betty bombers from a carrier, as the USS Hornet did B-25's in the Doolittle raid.


Which fighters were used, if so?

This fits here. Been posted before, but enjoy.

Attached Images

	IMG_20130823_083224_686.jpg (76.1 KB, 178 views)
	IMG_20130917_132906_675.jpg (84.8 KB, 160 views)

Were US fighters stationed in Panama to prevent a Japanese aircraft carrier from launching an attack? They might have even been able to launch Betty bombers from a carrier, as the USS Hornet did B-25's in the Doolittle raid.


Which fighters were used, if so?[/QUOTE]

Early on when the Japanese had a carrier advantage, an air raid on the canal was a definite possibility.
Post Midway, a commando raid or sub launched air raid were possibilities.
The Canal Zone was gunned up and armed all the way!
A number of planes types were stationed there.
The P-40 was probably there the most and longest.
This one is close to being the weirdest. There may be one even stranger.
So can you name strange and stranger?
Here's the strange.

Attached Images

IMG_2882.jpg (168.5 KB, 213 views)

__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER

Maybe some variant of the Ford Tri-Motor? I know there were several different models of it. Lots of them were used for passenger and cargo service in Latin America, I didn't know any had been used by the U.S. military, but no reason they couldn't have been. I think there was a similar Fokker Tri-Motor.

Not a Ford!
Henry Ford would not like it one bit if he know he called his tri- motor weird.
It's not so much that this bird is weird, it's really weird that our guys are flying it, in Panama!

Mean while - the only combat Marine units to be issued the Johnsons and Reisings were the Raiders and ParaMarines.
Both of these units were disbanded and folded into regular Gyrene units.
Then they were issued the regular service weapons.

__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER

It wasn't too difficult to find the picture.
Junkers C-79, s/n 42-52883, at Howard Field, Panama Canal Zone, late 1942 with the USAAF 20th Transportation Squadron, Sixth Air Force.

Yep, that is a German JU-52 transport. I believe the one in your pic is the German aircraft that was seized by Peru and turned over the the US.

Here is another one dropping supplies on the Russian Front.

__________________
Charlie Flick
SWCA 729 HF 215

I think that's a German transport aircraft, but I can't remember the model. It's either a heinkel (sp?) or Junkers I believe


EDIT: think I found it. Looks like a Junkers Ju 52

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's a JU-52.
Ordnanceman beat richardman1992 by a silly millimeter.
Now we can work on the stranger, nothing to do with Merl Haggard's band.
Some of you guys can probably do it without a picture.
And of course it's another non-US plane.

__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER

Early on when the Japanese had a carrier advantage, an air raid on the canal was a definite possibility.
Post Midway, a commando raid or sub launched air raid were possibilities.
The Canal Zone was gunned up and armed all the way!
A number of planes types were stationed there.
The P-40 was probably there the most and longest.
This one is close to being the weirdest. There may be one even stranger.
So can you name strange and stranger?
Here's the strange.[/QUOTE]

The 3 engine air plane in this post is a Junker JU52-3m a German Transport/Paratrooper aircraft. It wouldn't have been there. I had the pleasure of being a Crew Member on the one that Martin Caden brought back from Panama.

I had the pleasure of talking to an elderly Marine who fought in the Banana wars. He liked the Thompson.

Also, a LEO friend owned a Reising. He liked it very much. The mags were a bit low on capacity, as has been stated. (12's and 20's).

BTW, there were still Thompsons in the armory at the Coast Guard base where I was stationed in 1970. Later, an FBI agent told me that all federal agencies had been instructed to turn in their Thompsons for destruction. About 1978 IIRC.

IIRC the Marines had Thompsons in Nicaragua in the late '20s -early 30's. There is a photo of Chesty puller holding one while stationed in Nicaragua. I have it in a book somewhere around here.

I suspect with the onset of WWII there weren't enough Thompsons to go around.

But it was there! Remember I said this was a strange one.
The JU-52 was tail number 42-52883. The Army called the C-79.
It was stationed at Howard Field and flown by the 20th Transportation Sqdn.

Attached Images

IMG_2889.JPG (32.5 KB, 59 views)

__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER

Very nice, that is some serious money now :-)

With due respect that is Victor H. Krulak you are talking about.

Dennis

No kidding! We still had M1 Garands at Base Miami Beach until late 1973/early 74. I remember seeing the guys at the machine shop cutting up brand new M16s that had been confincated from Alpha 66 and we couldn'g get them!

One good point when we finally got the M16 was that the gunner's mate gave me a pretty good size box of spare Garand parts that weren't on his books because he knew I owned a Garand!

My Dad was stationed at Ewa Marine Air Station, Hawaii, on December 7th, 1941, when the Japanese attacked and destroyed all their planes (Brewsters and Wildcats). He was assigned to VMF-121, and in October, 1942, he and his half of the squadron landed on Guadalcanal, where they endured nightly bombing runs by Betty bombers and shelling from Japanese artillery. He said Guadalcanal was worse than the attack on Pearl Harbor, as far as he was concerned, as it went on day and night.

He told me about one night in particular when they got word that Japanese infiltrators were on the airfield and he and 9 other Marines were issued Thompson SMG's with 50 round drum magazines and told to check around the revetments for infiltrators. When they got out there, a Betty bomber happened to be flying over and dropped a flare for taking night photography. Out on the runway was a platoon of Japanese, marching in formation, and calling cadence in English, which is something the Marines never did there during that time. After all, they were in a war zone and under attack most of the time.

Dad said the NCO in charge of the detail ordered them to open fire and they all emptied their Thompsons at the Japanese formation, killing them all. He said the Japanese troops would sneak in at night and steal food, since they were having problems getting resupplied out in the jungle. He also said if it hadn't been for the food the Marines had captured from the Japanese, they would have all gone hungry....

Dad passed away on December 2nd, 2014, with me at his side. He was 95 years old. He was truly one of the Greatest Generation, and I will forever miss him.

Semper Fi, Dad.

Fred

One of the issues I've heard of in regards to the Reisings was that they rusted easily. Another was that the mags were not heat treated and they needed to be tuned to work with different guns.

But the vets I've spoken with who used them said they were reliable and easy to use.