Higgins LCP(L) in British use

[Alex Blair (RIP)]

Originally Posted by servicepub

And three more.

Some time ago we had a discussion of the use of Thompsons in Canadian service..here we see a trooper carrying one..

[servicepub (RIP)]

No question that Canadians had Thompson SMGs in the UK. However, they were not used at Dieppe and they were not used by Canadians in Norhwest Europe. They were used by Canadians in Sicily and Italy.
(you had to open that can of worms again, didn't you!)

[Lang]

I think a lot of people have said before regarding anything military "Never say never!"

So many people look at official documents and regulations for everything from clothing, weapons and equipment to methods of operations and tactics and pronounce them as final proof that something did or did not happen.

Look at any photo of any group of soldiers, sailors and airmen (not on a formal parade or guard duty) of any nationality on active service and you will find dozens of variations in weapons, clothing and equipment, even in the same platoon, almost none of which is regulation. People doing a job develop the most convenient, comfortable way of doing it. Supply systems may not keep up or provide substitutes for "official" equipment. The troops get their hands on something better - even enemy equipment.

Of course there is always fashion. In a modern day large military exercise regular troops can be instantly identified from reserve/home guard troops beside them, issued with exactly the same equipment and uniforms by the way they talk, wear and carry their gear and the way they behave between themselves and with their officers amongst other pointers.

It is a brave man who says that troops on active service behaved or were equipped in a uniform way just because some official document or regulation prescribed those actions or equipment.

[servicepub (RIP)]

There are a number of reports that clearly identified the troops carrying Stens at Dieppe. In fact, the troops' unfamiliarity with these, and the fact that the magazines were delivered loaded and did not give the troop any time to inspect the weapons, led to criticisms about the Sten from raid survivors.
I will try to dig these out later.

Michael R. -Note that I only refer to Canadians in my previous comments.

Lang - Note that documents and regulations are the basis for any study. Yes, a soldier or two may have carried unauthorized equipment but that is not the basis for study. As to TSMG in Dieppe by Canadians - good luck finding .45ACP ammunition once you have expended your magazine.

[Ed Storey]

Full marks to Alex for being able to recognize a Thompson....

[Lang]

Clive,

I think you do a good job in your historical research but while documents and regulations may be the basis for this, actual events are more likely to follow their own course than conform to the official line (even unit histories written after the fact). Historians have always had difficulty with grasping the atmosphere, relationships - both personal and in the chain of command, lack of adherance to the official line which varies according to the soldier's national traits and the soldier's reactions to the widespread leadership and management incompetance to be found in all armies.

I come from an aviation background and am aquainted with many prominent aviation historians who know more about design, performance, serial numbers of aeroplanes, squadron numbers etc than I will ever know. Unfortunately very few of them know anything about flying!

My point is, with any recounting of history the untidy, unpredictable, non-conforming and vast range of abilities found in the human side is hugely discounted in an attempt to gather "facts". As anyone who has ever had an article printed about them in the paper knows, the facts are often totally correct but the story is completely wrong.

Keep up the good work Clive as we still need the facts to use as a basis of study.

[servicepub (RIP)]

I had really hoped that this thread would not be hijacked and was hoping for comment on the six photos I posted rather than dredge up this argument again.

That said;

CMHQ Report 113, paras 16-22 inclusive. http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-...hq/CMHQ113.pdf

Over the years I have often encountered tales of soldiers pursuing independent courses of action, be it in their personal equipment, dress, deportment or approach to military life.

Equipment was both expensive and in high demand, especially in the post-Dunkirk era. Ignoring the possibility of 1 or 2 individuals 'pushing the envelope' I do not believe that the army (especially the UK-based Canadian Army Overseas of 1940-1943) was populated with individuals who took it upon themselves to decide what equipment they would carry into battle. Ignoring the difficulties of ammunition re-supply and weapon repair I must ask myself "where are they going to keep a Thompson"? All rifles were held in barracks but other weapons, including pistols, SMGs, Mortars, LMGs, etc..., were kept in the unit armoury where they were maintained and secured by the unit CQMS. Tucking an illegal TSMG under the mattress just wasn't an option. Add to this that the possession of the TSMG outside of lawful authority was a serious crime. It involved theft and, more importantly, withholding a weapon which could be issued to another soldier. With the cost of manufacture of the TSMG at over 25 Pounds it is doubtful that the average soldier would try to buy one - assuming that he could find a black market vendor. Add to this the apoplexy of the Battalion RSM when our soldier showed up at the embarkation point with his TSMG while all of his mates were trying to figure out the newly issued Sten.
Sorry, I just don't buy it. And my research has constantly dug up instances of COs, HQs, Routine Orders, etc..., stressing that discipline and uniformity were to be maintained in all respects.

Clive