USMC: Thompson vs. Reising SMG's

[texmex]

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.

 

[Drm50]

I've also seen is spelled 'conex.

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

 

[THE PILGRIM]

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

 

[THE PILGRIM]

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.

 

[Frank237]

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

 

[DWalt]

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.

 

[ordnanceguy]

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?

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.

 

[koz5614]

"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 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.

 

[Texas Star]

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

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.

 

[DWalt]

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.

 

[jtcarm]

"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.

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.

 

[THE PILGRIM]

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.

 

[Texas Star]

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.

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?

 

[03hemi]

This fits here. Been posted before, but enjoy.

 

[THE PILGRIM]

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.

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.

 

[DWalt]

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.

 

[THE PILGRIM]

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.

 

[DWalt]

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.

 

[ordnanceguy]

A number of planes types were stationed there. This one is close to being the weirdest. There may be one even stranger. So can you name strange and stranger?

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.

 

[richardman1992]

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