sidearms during WWII

I believe that "who carried" and "who was issued" will have two different answers. A lot would also depend on what their duties were.

The TOE gave handguns to enlisted men that had to carry other heavy stuff besides a rifle, or were in the rear with the gear.

The bazooka guy, the flame-thrower guy, the cooks, the Generals aid, the BAR man, and machine-gun or mortar crews for instance.

rc

It was very common for soldiers in WWII to use whatever weapon they could pick up off a fallen comrade. If you lost your carbine in a jump and found a Thompson or Garand, you carried that and no one said anything. A weapon was a weapon. As rcmodel said, the pistol was issued to soldiers with special duties, not your average infantryman. But if an infantryman found one, he could and would carry it.

Also tankers and artillery men were issued sidearms.
My Dad was a First Sergent and carried a Thompson and a 1911.
He told me when they got to the Pacific the men were still issued Springfields because of the shortages and priority for newer equipment was the European Theater of operations.

My grandfather told me he carried a .455 Webley.

Dad was 26th Div Inf during WW2 in the Ardennes. I asked him the basic same question. He told me a Rifleman ( standard Infantryman ) didn't get issued one. I asked him how did he get his ( as he said he kept one on him ), he stated picked it up in the field.

Dad was 16 ( he lied to enlist )

I know this is different but for what we consider a weak round (7.62 mm Nagant) the Soviet union still used in ww2 even tho they had the tokarev in 1933? Why they would be willing to carry such a weapon and used it to at least some effect while some people now would scoff at it?

I know this is different but for what we consider a weak round (7.62 mm Nagant) the Soviet union still used in ww2 even tho they had the tokarev in 1933? Why they would be willing to carry such a weapon and used it to at least some effect while some people now would scoff at it?

Click to expand...

There are a couple answers to this, really. The first is that 7.62 nagant in its original loading was fairly hot compared to what we have available today. It was, according to wiki and a few handloaders I've read, about the same in terms of power as .32-20 and .32 h&r mag, which really isn't so bad. The tokarev was a better, more powerful weapon, sure. But the nagant was a decent little 7 shooter that was available, and the Russians pushed everything they had into service. The SVT was arguably a better gun than the Mosin Nagant, but the mosin was cheaper to produce, so they switched production back. Still, the truth is that the nagant was obsolete when it was introduced, much less during WWII. If you want an interesting lesson in the Russian mindset and political ridiculousness, read up on the events surrounding the Nagant pistol's introduction into service.

The second is that a sidearm for Russian troops of the time didn't really need to be a powerful combat weapon, and certainly not an offensive one. Most infantrymen carried a mosin or a SMG of one of the various flavors. Sidearms were reserved for officers, who carried out more executions than offensive combat actions, I'd reckon.


Getting back to the original question, "picked up in the field" doesn't always apply to "the field." My grandad was in the navy and got to Japan just in time for the occupation, but not in time to see any combat. He was issued what I figure to be a 1903 springfield- "a really nice rifle" - that was "traded" out on the boat for a rattle-trap arisaka last ditch type 99 before they hit US soil upon their return. I'd imagine stuff like that happened on the way out, heading to combat, as well.

If you guys watched that show, "Band Of Brothers", by the time they got to Foy everyone and their dog had a 1911 (and some, like Shifty, sent back home a bunch of captured pistols.)

Those that were issued, had. Those determined to get one, got one.

Deaf

Company grade officers carried carbines, not pistols, which were issued to field grade officers. General officers could carry issue pistols, special issue pistols, or personal weapons.

In WWI, the situation was different and even platoon and squad leaders carried pistols. The carbine was adopted in WWII because the Army remembered how hard it was to get enough pistols, and how few could hit anything with them.

Most GIs who carried pistols carried captured enemy weapons, not American weapons. One commander banned possession of enemy pistols, saying that he lost more men to accidents with unfamiliar guns than he did in combat!

Jim

Dad was a tanker, as such he used whatever the tank crew was issued -- M1 Thompsons and M1 Carbines earlier on, then M3/M3A1 "grease guns" later. He wasn't issued a pistol, but made use of a confiscated CZ27 .32 pistol as a 'backup" piece. He liked the little pistol quite a bit.

Dad had amassed a small collection of pistols while in theater, but before he went back to the states after the war, an order came down that if anyone was caught with more than one firearm in their possession, they would be court-martialled. So my dad passed out guns to his buddies, keeping only a Luger. Well, long story short, no one ever inspected any of his bags or even questioned him, from the time he boarded the ship in England all the way back to Oregon.
To make matters worse, he later sold off his Luger to purchase a .38 revolver for law enforcement use. Back then, war-trophy Lugers were a dime a dozen, and he could just get another one when he got the money. He never did, though. Kicked himself for it to his dying day.

Deleted my post because it drifted off topic of side arms.

I know this is different but for what we consider a weak round (7.62 mm Nagant) the Soviet union still used in ww2 even tho they had the tokarev in 1933? Why they would be willing to carry such a weapon and used it to at least some effect while some people now would scoff at it?

Click to expand...

Armies don't turn on a dime, logistically, and the Soviet Army has always hung on to equipment for long periods. Rifles, trucks, you name it. With the numbers of soldiers they had to equip, they probably issued everything in stock, no matter the age. The Russians also didn't care who scoffed at them. Some gun is better than no gun.

Even the US Army issues older equipment concurrent with the new stuff. Some WWII US soldiers and Marines carried 1903 Springfields.

The Army adopted the M9 in 1985 IIRC, but during Desert Storm I was issued a 1911A1 - in a Regular Army FORSCOM unit, at that. The unit didn't trade them out for M9's until 1992.

The post by Jim K about company grade officers not getting pistols is just incorrect. They were normally issued a .45 AND a carbine.

Of course, MP's usually had sidearms, and couriers, etc.

I've talked to several tankers and read books about them. Most do seem to have had .45's. One told me that most also acquired enemy pistols, too, and he wore his under a coat to make him a less desirable sniper target for a German who might resent seeing a Luger on his belt.

Audie Murphy mentioned his .45 auto in, "To Hell and Back", saying that he enjoyed working the action, which had smoothed with use. This was in the book, not the movie, in which he played himself. He was a 2 Lt. at highest wartime rank. Maybe a 1st Lt. He received a battlefield commission.

Pilots also had sidearms.

My Dad was Army Air Corps WWII - Radioman/Navigator enlisted
& for the flights over "the Hump" India to China & Back all aircrews
were issued the 1911 - the survival kit they carried had .45 acp
shotshells.

R-
.

The Table of Organization and Equipment or for adminstrative units the Table of Distribution and Allowances specified who got what. The reality was that it largely held. In peace and war there were always deviations. The personnel officer may have been authorized a rifle but a smart headquarters armorer would see that he got a .45. Ditto the Sergeant Major, the Mess Sergeant and if he wanted one the Chaplain. Similar attitudes also ran in both directions regarding U.S. Property recovered in the field, carrying privately owned weapons and any other variable that arose. Veterans were observed carrying Springfields after units transitioned. Heavy Weapons units that had "extra" machineguns etc.

Every soldier's story is his own. Every unit likewise had its own personality.

Audie Murphy mentioned his .45 auto in, "To Hell and Back", saying that he enjoyed working the action, which had smoothed with use. This was in the book, not the movie, in which he played himself. He was a 2 Lt. at highest wartime rank. Maybe a 1st Lt. He received a battlefield commission.

Click to expand...

He made it up to Major in the Texas national Guard after the war as well.

My granddad enlisted right after Pearl Harbor at the age of forty. He was sent to officer's candidate school. As a lieutenant at a newly opened base in North Carolina, he had the only real sidearm, a 1911, that was signed out to the guards at the front gate for every watch. At the end of the war he was a Major and traded that pistol for this one which I have now.

Cool thread guys. I wonder why some CGOs & NCOs were issued Thompsons or M3s instead of the .30 Carbine ... ? Just what was available to different units I guess.

threoh8 said:

Armies don't turn on a dime, logistically, and the Soviet Army has always hung on to equipment for long periods. Rifles, trucks, you name it. With the numbers of soldiers they had to equip, they probably issued everything in stock, no matter the age. The Russians also didn't care who scoffed at them. Some gun is better than no gun.

Even the US Army issues older equipment concurrent with the new stuff. Some WWII US soldiers and Marines carried 1903 Springfields.

The Army adopted the M9 in 1985 IIRC, but during Desert Storm I was issued a 1911A1 - in a Regular Army FORSCOM unit, at that. The unit didn't trade them out for M9's until 1992.

Click to expand...

No joke. Our Stryker had brand new M2's from WWII. When I saw that date it blew my mind, 1944 if I recall right. They came in big wooden boxes filled with foam and were literally covered in cosmoline. Like dipped in it, bore completely stuffed.

At the SF armsroom, they actually had a few 1911's from WWII. I don't know if they actually still used 'em, but one guy had the SF gunsmith work on his own 1911 that he used. This was in '03. Wouldn't surprise me one bit if they still used 'em, I'm not a big 1911 fan so I never really brought it up.

In our armsroom, all M9's (for pistols anyway). The pistol was not highly regarded at all, most people that had to carry it looked at it like a paperweight. The M4 literally makes it useless today IMO. Our 1SG didn't carry one, made the arms room order him a rifle instead. Said he wanted a "real weapon". Who can blame him.

I hated those pistols, M9's, mostly because I had to teach them how to use them, they'd send the officers to the SDM school to qualify when they couldn't do it on their own. We'd get to babysit them and listen to how they shoot bottlecaps at 25m with a Glock but can't hit a silhouette at 10m with an M9. After a good cry, we'd show them how to hit the target. You'd be surprised at how poor of a shot most soldiers are, ESPECIALLY the officers, and this was an infantry division! They don't even really stress marksmanship anymore, just rates of fire. You have shoot 'til it goes click, shoot a lot, shoot a little, and cease fire.

As for who carries it, everyone on here pretty much nailed it and it is the same way today basically. Too engaged to use a rifle? Here, take this.

My Dad was a radio/signal guy in the 82nd AB 325th Glider Infantry. He was given the choice of a 1911 or Carbine. He chose the Carbine, even though he didn't like it. He said he knew he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with the pistol. As soon as they got into a "hot" area, he threw away the carbine and got himself a Garand. He had nothig but praise for the Garand.

This has been an interesting thread.
One thing that seems to come out is that there was more variety available in Europe.
Because of supply problems in the Pacific there just wasn't as much.