Higgins LCP(L) in British use

[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

[Lang]

Clive,

I was not suggesting individual weapons smugglers but small unit and sub unit arrangements outside the prescribed equipment scale.

You are right. This has got way off the track. Let's return it to Higgins Boats.

Has anyone got comments on Clive's photos?

Lang

[Lang]

Here is a page out of the Higgins manual. It is a great read with lots of diagrams on landing in all sorts of conditions. Higgins obviously had a sense of humour and didn't suffer fools gladly. There are several big notices that "These instructions are written for USA Americans who have sufficient intelligence to adjust them according to the exigencies of the conditions"