Mills Bombs
- Thread starter BigG
- Start date
- Status
Ah politics. The history books leave out more history than they tell.
In WW2 America was out placing embargos and patroling the seas in the Pacific making things difficult for Japan long before they attacked Pearl Harbor. In fact if any nation did to us what we were doing to them we would consider it an act of war.
They knew we were getting ready to go on the offensive, they had minimal resources and raw materials and were trying to expand into the mainland so they could actualy be a world contender (which obviously an Island the size of Japan could never be without expanding). They could see that while they were ahead, America had a much more vast number of resources, and would quickly catch up and exceed thier military capability in the coming years. So it was now or never.
They launched a strategic attack on a nation that had made it quite appearant it was an enemy of thier empire, and would go on the offensive once militarily ready. In thier shoes anyone that did not make the choice to attack then would have been a foolish military tactician. They managed to destroy a good chunk of our naval power with very few losses in a single blow. Had they waited until we were good and ready first we would have crushed them far more easily.
Our country was simply trying to remain openly passive until it could build a massive force without having bombs falling in the meantime. Keep in mind every nation that was actualy on the front lines was being bombed and had production severely hampered. If our factories were under constant attack we would not have faired as well either. We were simply fortunate that at that point in time we were an isolated untouched factory of a nation seperated by the rest of the world by large oceans.
So the front lines were kept elsewhere, the American public was made to think it was keeping out of the war and the world's problems while the leaders planned otherwise. Pearl Harbor was a rallying point, but had it not happened something else would have been used shortly thereafter.
America was involved in WW2 actively long before it officialy jumped in as documented for school children. It was both a friend and an enemy of those involved prior to then and the major players knew it and planned accordingly.
Everyone sacrificed a lot. America poured in lots of troops who lost thier lives, and was the unmolested factory for all the Allies involved in the war, producing goods that kept everyone else afloat. However America also didn't have soldiers on its streets, battles destroying cities, bombings of factories, bridges, power plants and supply lines etc. Much of Europe did, although the UK managed to keep thier fight in the skies and off thier soil.
America was also able to wait until the 8th round of a 12 round fight, when the other sides were bloodied and had beaten eachother into a stupor before pouring in to help save the day, in both world wars. So combined with no fighting on home soil, and attacking economies already struggling in the midst of war, they are successes to be proud of, but certainly not almighty enough to be rude to others who had not just thier soldiers on the front lines, but thier homes and families as well.
America has never had a modern war brought to it. We have never had bombs rain down on us, cities burning, and women and children killed by the millions along with our men. Not since the civil war have we had widespread horrors of war here.
The closest we have had is a mere couple buildings destroyed on 9/11, and that brought our economy to its knees for weeks. So lets not get too smug.
Call Brits a bunch of pansies for things they do now, like letting themselves be disarmed, not for combined valiant efforts we both took part in in our past.
In WW2 America was out placing embargos and patroling the seas in the Pacific making things difficult for Japan long before they attacked Pearl Harbor. In fact if any nation did to us what we were doing to them we would consider it an act of war.
They knew we were getting ready to go on the offensive, they had minimal resources and raw materials and were trying to expand into the mainland so they could actualy be a world contender (which obviously an Island the size of Japan could never be without expanding). They could see that while they were ahead, America had a much more vast number of resources, and would quickly catch up and exceed thier military capability in the coming years. So it was now or never.
They launched a strategic attack on a nation that had made it quite appearant it was an enemy of thier empire, and would go on the offensive once militarily ready. In thier shoes anyone that did not make the choice to attack then would have been a foolish military tactician. They managed to destroy a good chunk of our naval power with very few losses in a single blow. Had they waited until we were good and ready first we would have crushed them far more easily.
Our country was simply trying to remain openly passive until it could build a massive force without having bombs falling in the meantime. Keep in mind every nation that was actualy on the front lines was being bombed and had production severely hampered. If our factories were under constant attack we would not have faired as well either. We were simply fortunate that at that point in time we were an isolated untouched factory of a nation seperated by the rest of the world by large oceans.
So the front lines were kept elsewhere, the American public was made to think it was keeping out of the war and the world's problems while the leaders planned otherwise. Pearl Harbor was a rallying point, but had it not happened something else would have been used shortly thereafter.
America was involved in WW2 actively long before it officialy jumped in as documented for school children. It was both a friend and an enemy of those involved prior to then and the major players knew it and planned accordingly.
Everyone sacrificed a lot. America poured in lots of troops who lost thier lives, and was the unmolested factory for all the Allies involved in the war, producing goods that kept everyone else afloat. However America also didn't have soldiers on its streets, battles destroying cities, bombings of factories, bridges, power plants and supply lines etc. Much of Europe did, although the UK managed to keep thier fight in the skies and off thier soil.
America was also able to wait until the 8th round of a 12 round fight, when the other sides were bloodied and had beaten eachother into a stupor before pouring in to help save the day, in both world wars. So combined with no fighting on home soil, and attacking economies already struggling in the midst of war, they are successes to be proud of, but certainly not almighty enough to be rude to others who had not just thier soldiers on the front lines, but thier homes and families as well.
America has never had a modern war brought to it. We have never had bombs rain down on us, cities burning, and women and children killed by the millions along with our men. Not since the civil war have we had widespread horrors of war here.
The closest we have had is a mere couple buildings destroyed on 9/11, and that brought our economy to its knees for weeks. So lets not get too smug.
Call Brits a bunch of pansies for things they do now, like letting themselves be disarmed, not for combined valiant efforts we both took part in in our past.
matt87
Member
As semi-mentioned before there is the Boys antitank rifle... .55 calibre and weighing 36lb. Named for Captain Boys, of course!
LaEscopeta
Member
More like a cross bow launching a mortar bomb. Propulsion was provided by the spring and also a small charge at the base of the shell, set off by the spring slamming the "bolt" into the back of the shell. I theory the spring would absorb most of the recoil and the recoil would re-cock the spring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIAT
There is a great scene in the movie “A Bridge Too Far” of British paratroopers firing a PIAT at a German tank as it rumbles down a city street and across a bridge. The Brits score 2 or 3 direct hits but the explosions are so small the tankers don’t notice, nor even realize they are passing an enemy unit that is firing at them. They just rumble on their way. This story was also in the book, the author getting it from interviews with survivors of the British paratrooper unit.
We Americans did not win WWII single-handedly either. If the British hadn’t held out after France fell, hadn’t protected Egypt, the Suez canal and middle east oil fields, hadn’t kept the Japanese out of India, etc, etc, we would all be speaking German now (those of us not sent to “happiness camps.”)
Calibre44
Member
Doodle bugs
V1 Flying Bombs were commonly known as "doodlebugs" or “Buzz Bombs”. Launched in 1944, almost 9,250 V1's were fired against London. Although a around a quarter reached their target, in flight they were almost as vulnerable as the ramps they were fired from: about 2,000 were destroyed by anti-aircraft gunfire; 2,000 by fighter planes, and almost 300 by barrage balloons.
V1 Flying Bombs were commonly known as "doodlebugs" or “Buzz Bombs”. Launched in 1944, almost 9,250 V1's were fired against London. Although a around a quarter reached their target, in flight they were almost as vulnerable as the ramps they were fired from: about 2,000 were destroyed by anti-aircraft gunfire; 2,000 by fighter planes, and almost 300 by barrage balloons.
jerkyman45
Member
Not really a funny name, but a goofy looking gun. The Webley and Scott Mars pistol. Powerful to be sure, but that thing is the ugliest handgun ever.
Bart Noir
Member
I find the used-to-be British way of designating artillery to be.... interesting.
As in using the weight of the shell. For instance they replaced the US 75mm gun on the Sherman with a very capable "6-pounder". Must have been a direct carry over from old muzzle loading cannon days.
Bart Noir
As in using the weight of the shell. For instance they replaced the US 75mm gun on the Sherman with a very capable "6-pounder". Must have been a direct carry over from old muzzle loading cannon days.
Bart Noir
ARGarrison
Member
What about the British Gammon grenade so loved by our (USA) airborne troops. A Gammon grenade is basicly a sack stuffed with 2lbs of high explosives and a collar to affix a detonator. The detonator was a pull type with a string attached to it. When assembled you place the loop of the sting over your hand on the wrist and throw the grenade, when the string pulls tight it pulls the pin on detonator and starts to burn until it reaches the explosives. Some claimed it was like having a hand tossed artillery round!
Yeah, the British firefly was a 76mm gun to our 75mm.
As for calling grenades "bombs", seam to recall in "Bravo Two Zero" they kept saying "203 bombs" meaning 40mm grenades for the M203s.
The Movie "A Bridge Too Far" it has been said you never see the face of the soilder firing the PIAT. They ended up getting a WWII Vet to come in and fire the thing to get it to hit the target. The young guys, be they actors something else, couldn't figure the PIAT out.
Yeah, the British firefly was a 76mm gun to our 75mm.
As for calling grenades "bombs", seam to recall in "Bravo Two Zero" they kept saying "203 bombs" meaning 40mm grenades for the M203s.
The Movie "A Bridge Too Far" it has been said you never see the face of the soilder firing the PIAT. They ended up getting a WWII Vet to come in and fire the thing to get it to hit the target. The young guys, be they actors something else, couldn't figure the PIAT out.
SDC
Member
There are also a number of oddly-descriptive names for British ordnance, such as the Vickers "toffee apple" 2-inch trench mortar, from the First World War, and the WW2 "sticky bomb" anti-tank grenade, which had to be transported inside a thin metal casing until ready for use, otherwise it WOULD stick to anyone or anything.
So, who cooked up the term "smelly" to describe the short magazine Lee Enfield? And yes, hanging the designer/builders' names on the early aircraft has cracked up a few generations of baby boomers (Sopwith Camel? Short Sturgeon? Fairey Swordfish? C'mon, yer killin me). And how do you pronounce Siddeley, anyway?
I'm a big fan of deHavilland mosquitos, however, and the P-51 wouldn't have amounted to much without those gorgeous Rolls Royce engines.
I'm a big fan of deHavilland mosquitos, however, and the P-51 wouldn't have amounted to much without those gorgeous Rolls Royce engines.
ConfuseUs
Member
What I've read about the PIAT is that it had a hellacious recoil. It was supposed to be fired in the prone since guys who fired it in any other position found themselves flat on their backs admiring the clouds after firing.
alsaqr
Member
"If you're confused as to why they didn't develop an electrically fired rocket launcher the way we did, you're clearly unfamiliar with British automobiles and their electrical systems..."
In the 60s and 70s a new MG, Triumph or whatever could not go from Miami to NYC without experiencing at least one major electrical problem.
In the 60s and 70s a new MG, Triumph or whatever could not go from Miami to NYC without experiencing at least one major electrical problem.
woodybrighton
member
the gimpy is now the general
and rifles are usually referred to as gats
and rifles are usually referred to as gats
Bart Noir
Member
Apparently I find them confusing also.
Sticky bomb is maybe a winner.
And who has a problem going from SMLE to "smelly"??? It is so obvious to anybody who deals in acroyms and there pronunciations, if they have any at all.
Bart Noir
sterling180
Member
Yes and the other 1911 was given to Inspector Thompson to use.Imagine if Brown gave a cop on duty a private handgun...wait...wait....oh yes thats right,his Party banned then.Those were the glory days of the UK.
Don't tell the GCN about that,otherwise they will ban it.
the picture of MKVII about M1 Garand
The picture is from Hong Kong.
The name plate at the back ground is "Fan Ling" in Chinese. It is a train station near the Hong Kong Chinese broder.
That must be after the Japanese pow sent back to Japan via China.
Those are british force from Indea, equiped by the Americans.
They came with a british war ship in the Pacific fleet. They were in the Pacific campain with the American.
Regards
K.T.Chan
The picture is from Hong Kong.
The name plate at the back ground is "Fan Ling" in Chinese. It is a train station near the Hong Kong Chinese broder.
That must be after the Japanese pow sent back to Japan via China.
Those are british force from Indea, equiped by the Americans.
They came with a british war ship in the Pacific fleet. They were in the Pacific campain with the American.
Regards
K.T.Chan
every thing ive ever read is that the gun control movement in europe after WWI made arms such a scarcity in europe that the governments there were begging for weapons from anywhere... and that thousands of private sporting arms were donated by americans and shipped overseas... not sure if those mad it to england or what...
Black Adder LXX
Member
The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch?
Or are we referring to strictly modern era weapons?
Or are we referring to strictly modern era weapons?
Slugless
Member
The British were far better than we at naming aircraft. I don't know if you'd consider their names "funny." (although "Eurofighter" makes me 
)
For instance, we Yanks developed the P-51 Mustang, right? Not quite. We developed a mediocre plane w/great aerodynamics with the catchy name "NA-73." Stirs the blood, that.
The brits dropped an awesome Rolls-Royce engine into it and the best fighter-interceptor of the war was born.
from Wikipedia
Eric Bergerud talks about this in his book "Fire in the Sky" (about the air war in the South Pacific) which is one of the best history books I have ever read.
)For instance, we Yanks developed the P-51 Mustang, right? Not quite. We developed a mediocre plane w/great aerodynamics with the catchy name "NA-73." Stirs the blood, that.
The brits dropped an awesome Rolls-Royce engine into it and the best fighter-interceptor of the war was born.
from Wikipedia
Eric Bergerud talks about this in his book "Fire in the Sky" (about the air war in the South Pacific) which is one of the best history books I have ever read.
loud-mouth shnook
Member
I've always had an affinity toward the antiquated M3 Stuart light tank. The british called them, "Honeys", IIRC.
I've often wondered why, among the names of british armor such as the, "Cromwell", "Chieftain" and such, that they referred to another as the, "Matilda".
Gotta call 'em sumpthin', I reckon.
I've often wondered why, among the names of british armor such as the, "Cromwell", "Chieftain" and such, that they referred to another as the, "Matilda".
Gotta call 'em sumpthin', I reckon.
The vast majority of the arms donated in 1940 went to the Home Guard - the huge variety of types and calibres would have made them very difficult to service and supply with ammo in any more active warfighting force. As to what happened to them, a recent article related the experience of one man who had loaned a .22 rifle earlier in the war. He got a message to go to a depot in the West to collect it. On arrival he found a great heap of guns and rifles lying promiscuously on the floor. He started sorting through them, but after a while it became obvious that the task was hopeless so he just sorted out one that was the approximate equivalent of his gun and settled for that.
The reference to Hong Kong sounds right, can't remember where I got that picture from now. Marine Commandos in the Far East had M1s, (my late father picked one up off a dead man that way) and got them again in Korea, fortunately they still had some NCOs who were qualified to instruct on them
“ While preparing to leave, the Commando was informed that they would be armed and equipped by the United States forces. As at the end of World War Two the Commando brigades were armed with US .45 Colt automatic pistols and the M1 (Garand) Rifle, there was some experience available already with the unit. Twenty Garands were borrowed from the Royal Marines weapons collection held by the Platoon Weapons School at Browndown. Many thousands of rounds were fired at the firing range before the departure of the Commando from Bickleigh. ”
The reference to Hong Kong sounds right, can't remember where I got that picture from now. Marine Commandos in the Far East had M1s, (my late father picked one up off a dead man that way) and got them again in Korea, fortunately they still had some NCOs who were qualified to instruct on them
“ While preparing to leave, the Commando was informed that they would be armed and equipped by the United States forces. As at the end of World War Two the Commando brigades were armed with US .45 Colt automatic pistols and the M1 (Garand) Rifle, there was some experience available already with the unit. Twenty Garands were borrowed from the Royal Marines weapons collection held by the Platoon Weapons School at Browndown. Many thousands of rounds were fired at the firing range before the departure of the Commando from Bickleigh. ”
Brian Dale
Member
Welcome to The High Road, K.T.Chan. Thanks for contributing that information. 
Roswell 1847
member
That MARS pistol would go well with the Broken bones due to recoil thread.
I've read that several young officers had badly sprained wrists when testing the gun.
I've also read that a US Arms dealer whose Mother was a UK Citizen sent thousands of low numbered 1903 springfields his company had converted to .303 British caliber.
The Rifles had been bought cheap due to the heat treatment issues and he'd intended to use the actions to build custom sporting rifles.
He had the bores lapped a bit and set back a few threads then rechambered.
Unfortunately the Bitish stripper clips wouldn't fit and the mag well wasn't suited to hold rimmed cartridges, plus the feed lips didn't handle the .303 well either.
The rifles were used as Drill Purpose only till it was found that they were highly accurate due to tight nicely lapped bores, they were then used as singleshot target rifles.
As for US designs used by other countries the Luger was a development of the Borchardt which was designed by an American who later moved to Europe.
It wasn't were you were born that made the difference, it was the fact that the US civilian arms industry offered more freedom to work on your designs, and the lack of interest by the US Military resulted in many fine US designs finding backers in Europe.
The Lewis Gun is a prime example.
I've read that several young officers had badly sprained wrists when testing the gun.
I've also read that a US Arms dealer whose Mother was a UK Citizen sent thousands of low numbered 1903 springfields his company had converted to .303 British caliber.
The Rifles had been bought cheap due to the heat treatment issues and he'd intended to use the actions to build custom sporting rifles.
He had the bores lapped a bit and set back a few threads then rechambered.
Unfortunately the Bitish stripper clips wouldn't fit and the mag well wasn't suited to hold rimmed cartridges, plus the feed lips didn't handle the .303 well either.
The rifles were used as Drill Purpose only till it was found that they were highly accurate due to tight nicely lapped bores, they were then used as singleshot target rifles.
As for US designs used by other countries the Luger was a development of the Borchardt which was designed by an American who later moved to Europe.
It wasn't were you were born that made the difference, it was the fact that the US civilian arms industry offered more freedom to work on your designs, and the lack of interest by the US Military resulted in many fine US designs finding backers in Europe.
The Lewis Gun is a prime example.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
