Canadian tank crews small arms

[maple_leaf_eh]

Originally Posted by jdmcm

So I'm guessing the brackets inside most M4A2's are originally designed for M3 grease guns or Thompson smg's? These would just be used as is for Stens? Would the stens have full stocks, skeleton or T style? I suppose if the tank is finished in Korean War era turnout, Thompson SMG's would be considered correct?

I think Shermans were designed for what the British designated "machine carbines" aka Thompsons. Exactly how the crews wedged their Sten guns inside is another question. I doubt the crews would have been allowed to keep .45 cal personal weapons when the normal logistics train was variously bandoliered, boxed or belted .303, 9mm for Brownings and Stens, and .455 for Webleys. As for the model of Sten, I believe whatever was standard ordnance corps issue, regardless of portability. In Korea, Thompsons and M1 Carbines MIGHT have been available to the tank crews through barter or pickup from Americans, but as above I would not bet my Tokyo leave pass with the Sergeant Major for having the wrong personal weapon when he inspected. Canada's Korean contingent was relatively small and generally equipped with the same equipment available in 1945, with selected American and British vehicles and gear. Remember too, the US replaced Thompsons with M3 for their tank crews fairly early in WWII.

Many Internet electrons have been expended arguing whether or not use of nonstandard or captured weapons was permitted. Discipline starts within. The outward expression of discipline is conformity. The word uniform is not just a noun to describe a set of clothes. The whole national effort to test, build and equip soldiers depends on the users being mindful of everyone behind them, supporting them. To throw away your rifle is the same as insulting your aunt or cousin who made it. Soldiers were taught and absolutely expected to use what was issued, and God help the insubordinate ones who lost, destroyed or failed to fully use their weapons. What self-respecting soldier would not defend himself against the enemy? I have intentionally not mentioned stupidity like Sir Sam Hughes' insistence on the marginally fit Ross Rifle in WWI, or the awkwardness of drawing friendly fire from use of enemy weapons. With rare exception, British pattern firearms in WWII were quite suited for battle.