I've seen in several posts that cal. 38 S & W revolvers of S & W and Colt manufacture were furnished to Britain under "Lend-Lease". They were then sold by Britain when they were not needed after the war. What exactly does that mean? Do I have the wrong definition of lending and leasing? Shouldn't they have been returned to the U.S. with a "Thank you"?
-
Forum Update: We've upgraded the software to improve security, performance, and the overall experience.
👉 Read why we made the change | Support the Forum
Lend-Lease????
- Thread starter jchodur
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Lend-Lease was signed into law in early 1941. It was seen as a way to defend the US by arming our allies, without directly involving our military. It wasn’t just the UK, we also provided aid to France, China and Russia. Support for US involvement in the war was low, until December 7th when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Without our aid and eventual involvement, the war would have been lost.
The US was gun rich by wars end and had no need for half a million .38/200 revolvers. We had produced about 4 million M1 rifles, 6 million Carbines, 2 million 1911A1’s and hundreds of thousands of .38 Special Victory models for the war effort. We also had good stockpiles of grease guns, 03 rifles, BAR’s and Thompson submachine guns, not to mention moth-balled guns from WWI.
Great Britain was broke at the end of the war and we forgave much of their debt. We did get some of the ships back. They needed money, so they sold many of the marketable guns commercially. A lot of ordinance that wasn’t suitable for the commercial market was scrapped.
It boggles the mind when you think of all the ships, bombers, fighters, tanks and other ordinance produced in a relatively short period of time. We truly were the arsenal of democracy.
The US was gun rich by wars end and had no need for half a million .38/200 revolvers. We had produced about 4 million M1 rifles, 6 million Carbines, 2 million 1911A1’s and hundreds of thousands of .38 Special Victory models for the war effort. We also had good stockpiles of grease guns, 03 rifles, BAR’s and Thompson submachine guns, not to mention moth-balled guns from WWI.
Great Britain was broke at the end of the war and we forgave much of their debt. We did get some of the ships back. They needed money, so they sold many of the marketable guns commercially. A lot of ordinance that wasn’t suitable for the commercial market was scrapped.
It boggles the mind when you think of all the ships, bombers, fighters, tanks and other ordinance produced in a relatively short period of time. We truly were the arsenal of democracy.
As much as the great men and women that the US supplied in the actual battles it was the amount of steel production that turned the war. Guns, planes, ships, tanks, etc. Every American put in their part. Farmers farmed for the war. Housewives skimped and saved and cooked for the war.
America!
America!
DWalt
Member
Wikipedia has a pretty good treatment of the 1941 Lend-Lease Act. It was intended to be a legal method of providing military weapons and equipment to friendly nations already involved in conflict with the Axis powers, as technically the USA was "neutral" until the declaration of war following the Pearl Harbor attack. For those interested, perhaps the best treatment of the story of American wartime industrial mobilization can be found here: [ame="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005X0JG48/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1"]Amazon.com: Freedom's Forge: How American Business Produced Victory in World War II eBook: Herman, Arthur: Kindle Store[/ame]
Last edited:
It is worth noting that GB eventually paid back all of its Lend/Lease debt, beyond what had been forgiven.
The USSR, on the other hand, never paid a dime. When that country collapsed, it still owed the US of A a ton of money.
True story!
One of my uncles had sustained a knee injury playing football at NY City College. After the attack on Hawaii, he tried to enlist, but was deemed "unfit for service." He was living in California at the time and had been logging for a living. He asked the recruiter what he could do for the war effort, since they would not let him into the military. He was told to go back and log for the war effort.
He was a great guy. Died in a logging accident the very day I left CONUS for Vietnam. I was somewhere over the Pacific when he died. Dad later wrote me a letter to tell me about it. When my first son was born in 1971, I named him after my late uncle.
DWalt
Member
It's difficult to say who was the most responsible for victory in WWII, fighting men or civilian defense industry workers. My father was the latter, worked his whole life in a steel mill, but that turned into a white collar job in the 1950s. Probably better than getting shot at on the front lines, but then most US military personnel never got close to the front lines either, as something less than 10% of armed service members participated in combat operations during WWII.
Last edited:
In the Public Records Office here I have found a file on the disposal of Lend-Lease arms. There is frequent reference to a 1950 agreement about the sale of lend-lease and/or cash-and-carry arms, requiring consent of U.S. Govt before sales can take place. L-L equipment must first be offered to other NATO nations as a free issue before sale will be consented to. There is, however, no copy of the agreement itself.
My notes say:
"Signs that the ‘weeders’ have been at work. File jacket, presumably showing circulation list, has been removed and replaced by a new one. One document [green photocopy provided] has been removed, copy is presumably redacted. Reference in it to ‘the friends’ suggests MI5 involved.
Mr Leo Lippe, Hercules Armament Corporation, with Robert Churchill running the British end of it, is authorised to purchase surplus British rifles, revolvers and Sten guns from the Ministry of Supply for ‘secret and special’ purposes. Merrit Kirk Ruddock, Counsellor at U.S. Embassy, says blanket approval by U.S.Government for these purchases to continue, which is eventually withdrawn. ‘We have heard nothing more from Mr Lippe for some time. Perhaps he has retired to live on his profits’ comments one civil servant.
Merrit Kirk Ruddock, First Secretary at the US Embassy (OSS employee during the war and internet gossip says CIA officer) passes on complaints from U.S. Congressmen on behalf of New England gun manufacturers that surplus US arms are being re-imported via Canada. .455 S&W revolvers particularly singled out. Admits that arms purchased under cash-and-carry arrangements cannot be objected to, but principle that Lend-Lease funded arms should not resold for profit is sought to be maintained by U.S.G. Foreign Office will seek to restrict reimportation of arms of ‘standard’ U.S. calibre (defined as including .455, somewhat bizarrely). US revolvers loaned to West Germany for police use. 10000 .45 automatics supplied to Control Commission Germany personnel for self-defence. "
My notes say:
"Signs that the ‘weeders’ have been at work. File jacket, presumably showing circulation list, has been removed and replaced by a new one. One document [green photocopy provided] has been removed, copy is presumably redacted. Reference in it to ‘the friends’ suggests MI5 involved.
Mr Leo Lippe, Hercules Armament Corporation, with Robert Churchill running the British end of it, is authorised to purchase surplus British rifles, revolvers and Sten guns from the Ministry of Supply for ‘secret and special’ purposes. Merrit Kirk Ruddock, Counsellor at U.S. Embassy, says blanket approval by U.S.Government for these purchases to continue, which is eventually withdrawn. ‘We have heard nothing more from Mr Lippe for some time. Perhaps he has retired to live on his profits’ comments one civil servant.
Merrit Kirk Ruddock, First Secretary at the US Embassy (OSS employee during the war and internet gossip says CIA officer) passes on complaints from U.S. Congressmen on behalf of New England gun manufacturers that surplus US arms are being re-imported via Canada. .455 S&W revolvers particularly singled out. Admits that arms purchased under cash-and-carry arrangements cannot be objected to, but principle that Lend-Lease funded arms should not resold for profit is sought to be maintained by U.S.G. Foreign Office will seek to restrict reimportation of arms of ‘standard’ U.S. calibre (defined as including .455, somewhat bizarrely). US revolvers loaned to West Germany for police use. 10000 .45 automatics supplied to Control Commission Germany personnel for self-defence. "
Absalom
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
The .38-200 Colt OPs were all sold to the BPC pre-LL, and there were only 18,250. And the WW I-era .455 Triple Locks don't fall under LL.
But I can see where S&W would be unhappy about the prospect of potentially 100s of thousands of ex-BSRs flooding back onto the American sporting market, without a cent of benefit to the manufacturer and to the detriment of sales of new revolvers to civilian plinkers and economically-minded home defenders.
As we know, happened anyway. Lots came back and were sold cheaply. Including to presidential assassins
Attachments
Last edited:
The lease part of "lend-lease" was the US getting land in return to build US bases in airstrips in ally nations. The US "lent" resources (arms, ships, etc.) and received "leased" land.
S&W also supplied revolvers to pay the UK back for the failed 1940 light rifle disaster. In 1939, the British Government contracted with S&W to develop and supply a 9mm light rifle, and advanced S&W one million dollars toward production of the design following receipt of prototypes assembled in accordance with a patent application filed on 28 June 1939.
The rifles were a disaster, the British wanted to cancel the remainder of the contract and get their money back, but S&W did not have it to return.
A deal was struck and S&W fulfilled the remainder of the M1940 contract
with M&P revolvers.
S&W also supplied revolvers to pay the UK back for the failed 1940 light rifle disaster. In 1939, the British Government contracted with S&W to develop and supply a 9mm light rifle, and advanced S&W one million dollars toward production of the design following receipt of prototypes assembled in accordance with a patent application filed on 28 June 1939.
The rifles were a disaster, the British wanted to cancel the remainder of the contract and get their money back, but S&W did not have it to return.
A deal was struck and S&W fulfilled the remainder of the M1940 contract
with M&P revolvers.
DWalt
Member
At the prevailing prices of M&P revolvers at that time, it probably took somewhat fewer than 50K revolvers to make restitution for the British 9mm Carbine project failure but I have never seen an actual number of the restitution revolvers or exactly what S&W's deal with the British was. S&W far more than made that amount up on the nearly 1 million revolvers made and sold during the war.
I knew about the failed S & W Machine Pistol being substituted with the revolvers but figured there were far more revolvers "leased" to Britain and her commonwealth countries to more than compensate. Thank you all for the replies. The England being broke and the flooding the U.S. market with cheaper arms makes sense.
