bikerdoc
Moderator In Memoriam
Yes, but the Thompson was heavy thing
Thompson in Vietnam
- Thread starter Ruggz1515
- Start date
- Status
Yes, but the Thompson was heavy thing
Unless he was in some type of Special Operations I think I know his answer. I got to Vietnam in 1968. You could acquire just about any small arms you wanted by then. A 1911 or M1/M2 carbine went for about $60. A Thompson would have been more because "it's cooler". There was also a plethora of civilian firearms that were brought over and left behind by thousands of GIs. I saw handguns from 22s to 44 magnums. If you had something in a caliber the military didn't use you had a serious logistics problem.
Thompsons worked well and were effective. They served the function of a relatively light, portable, full auto weapon. Valuable in WW2 and Korea. They were first replaced by the cheaper M3 greasegun. The M14 was supposed to replace subguns. It didn't work well in that role. Just about everyone had a M16 by the late 60s. It fulfilled the light, portable, full auto role. It was lighter and so was the ammo which is more effective.
Vern Humphrey
Member
When I was an adviser in III Corps in '67-'68, I had a Thompson. I kept it in the jeep. I never took it into the field -- it was heaver than an M1, and only fired .45 ACP.
Being .45 ACP, how did that fair in comparison to the .30 Carbine in close range power/effectiveness?
bikerdoc
Moderator In Memoriam
I didnt have to buy mine. I was a Bac Si (medic) and picked it up when we helped out a ARVN company that was ambushed around Dong Nai in april 68. The little people were very grateful gave me several bandoleers of loaded mags and I paccumulated many more.
I
It wasnt I disliked the M16 , It was a fine weapon but the damn pistol grip and carry handle would poke my skinny self when I was working and the sleek slim carbine didnt, plus out to 100 yds - which was long shot where we were - 30 cal was doom on you.
Leadership was fine with it except for one ring knocker LT who was told to myob by our LTC bat commander.
I
It wasnt I disliked the M16 , It was a fine weapon but the damn pistol grip and carry handle would poke my skinny self when I was working and the sleek slim carbine didnt, plus out to 100 yds - which was long shot where we were - 30 cal was doom on you.
Leadership was fine with it except for one ring knocker LT who was told to myob by our LTC bat commander.
AJumbo
Member
A family friend did three combat tours and loved Thompsons, both for their actual effectiveness and the psychological effect they had on Vietnamese soldiers of all stripes. He liked the terminal ballistics of the round, and he claims no Thompson ever jammed on him. He also preferred AK-47s over M16s, but didn't like carrying them because of their somewhat distinctive report. Seems some guys would take "sounds shots" when they heard an AK being fired.
bannockburn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 26,286
AJumbo
My Dad told me the same thing would happen when he was fighting in France and Germany during WWII. The last thing you wanted to do was let off a few rounds from an MP40 or MG42 you recently found. Good way to invite some friendly fire on your position.
My Dad told me the same thing would happen when he was fighting in France and Germany during WWII. The last thing you wanted to do was let off a few rounds from an MP40 or MG42 you recently found. Good way to invite some friendly fire on your position.
A 45 out of a subgun is going 900-1000 fps. That's still a lot less energy than a M1 carbine. The 45 is probably more effective at close range but the 30 carbine is easier to hit something with, more so as the range gets longer.
The best source of how well a 30 carbine works is something Jim Cirillo told me once. Jim said FMJ in a 30 carbine tends to leave "ice pick" wounds. It will punch right through tissue and bone at close range. However, a soft point or hollow point bullet makes it way more effective. Jim liked to use the M1 carbine on stakeouts.
I think the earlier poster(s) who brought up the M3 "grease gun" have a good point. For the question of weapon -issued- vs "acquired", the M3 is more likely than an M1A1 Thompson.
Heck, my unit still had at least 2 M3s per company sized unit in the 90's(!) Those were finally replaced by some of the first M4s to be issued while I was there...
Heck, my unit still had at least 2 M3s per company sized unit in the 90's(!) Those were finally replaced by some of the first M4s to be issued while I was there...
But impossible to forget.
I'm not sure about Thompsons. My platoon sergeant had a grease gun and he was always trying to get people to give him ammo. There weren't that many .45's in a less than 30 man platoon.
Carrying AKS after 1967 wasn't a good idea. That's when a program was implemented where SOG guys would slip some booby trapped rounds into enemy weapon caches. The 7.62x39 rounds had enough explosive packed in them in place of powder to drive the bolt into the firer's skull. They also boobytrapped heavy machine gun and mortar ammo. The program was intended to have NVA and VC lose confidence in the ammo supplied them by the Chinese. Forged documents in Chinese were also planted saying that "only a small percentage" of Chinese ammo exploded.
kBob
Member
Lake City ammo plant made several runs of 7.62x39 loaded to M43 spec in boxer primed cases for use by the South Vietnamese. They did arm some ARVN units and civil defense group force units with captured AKs.
Wonder if any is still in Vietnamese ware houses?
-kBob
Wonder if any is still in Vietnamese ware houses?
-kBob
jim in Anchorage
Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2009
- Messages
- 2,849
Dam this is a good thread. Nam guys taking about Thompsons
I would love to buy you guys a beer.
I would love to buy you guys a beer.
Gordon
Member
This is true ! It was done way out in the boonies near border areas or actually across them. It was only down for about a year or so , I think Hanoi complained to the Democrats
This is true ! It was done way out in the boonies near border areas or actually across them. It was only down for about a year or so , I think Hanoi complained to the Democrats
I think it went on until just about the time we pulled out our combat troops (1973).
Nothing says that booby trapped ammo wouldn't make it to combat with US troops.
One of the guys in my unit who flew as an observer in a LOH had a Thompson. As said you had to trade for them, our military certainly didn't stock them.
I wanted one about 10 years ago but after handling it I decided to pass. It is not a balanced gun and the civilian model has a longer barrel. The gunstore owner told me to get the stamp and buy a real Thompson, said I'd be happier.
I wanted one about 10 years ago but after handling it I decided to pass. It is not a balanced gun and the civilian model has a longer barrel. The gunstore owner told me to get the stamp and buy a real Thompson, said I'd be happier.
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,404
The M-16 was supposed to replace all those weapons. After the M-14's were replaced I think they pretty much went to the ARVN's. I also think that ammo became less plentiful for the legacy weapons. Of course .45 ACP was still plentiful.
Interesting about the BAR. With AP they certainly have more penetration than any other small arms round. Since they used 30-06 rather than 7.62 NATO they probably weren't common either. I was there in 1969 and traveled to bases all over central Vietnam. Thompsons, Carbines and other legacy weapons were really rare by then. Probably used more in the South.
Interesting about the BAR. With AP they certainly have more penetration than any other small arms round. Since they used 30-06 rather than 7.62 NATO they probably weren't common either. I was there in 1969 and traveled to bases all over central Vietnam. Thompsons, Carbines and other legacy weapons were really rare by then. Probably used more in the South.
cpt-t
Member
cpt-t
Member
Ruggz1515: I assigned to a Mech Infantry Unit during my first tour in Viet Nam, so I had the opportunity to have a extra weapon or two. I had several Thompsons and a few Old Grease Guns and I used them quite a bit. However not on Dismounted Patrols or Ambushes. The Thompson & the Grease Gun were both heavy and I never had enough magazines to feel comfortable to use either one of them for this. But one of the other main reasons was because of the sound. We all knew what a M16, M14, and an M60 sounded like and were used to them. But let a strange sounding weapon open up in a firefight in the Jungle or in the Rubber Plantations where visibility was limited and there was a very good chance the area where that sound came would take some friendly fire. And let a AK or SKS open up and it was going to be fired on by most everybody in the area. And for that reason friendlies did not normally carry AK`s & SKS`s in our AO`s.Thompsons were not rare but not common either, but Grease Guns were common. Most every Tank in Viet Nam while I was there I was told came with 4 or 5 of them TO&E, so they were easy to acquire. The Thompson and the Grease Gun worked extremely well for working Villages in hostile or free fire zones, they penetrated hooch`s extremely well where an M16 didn't do so well. As far as the effectiveness of the Thompson`s or Grease Gun`s in CQB, Stopping Power, and Reliability, they were truly outstanding at close range, couldn`t get much better IMHO. The Old 45 Caliber weapons were hard to beat for this type of use, and they were definitely very serious casualty producers. I never seen a unit armed with just Thompson's while I was in Viet Nam either tour. And both the Thompson and the Grease Gun were extremely accurate, used at ranges they were designed for. I had a Civilian Model ((( Semi Auto ))) for many years, and I just sold it about a year ago. The weight ot it got to bothering my left arm. But I still have a M1 Carbine, a Sterling, and several AR15`s. If I could answer any other questions you might have I would be happy to try to help you.
ken
ken
Tommygunn
Member
You're right about it not being balanced ... also it tends to put the rear sight right in my eyeball. I might have stubby arms, but with the 50 rnd drum I can't reach the forend easily.
My father, a Korean War vet, stated that he thought the Thompson would be great if used as a boat anchor for those rubber zodiacs they used to putt around between ship & Shore in, so he apparently wasn't highly impressed with them.
They certainly are iconic American guns, but they sure aren't perfect!
someguy2800
Member
I want to thank all you guys for your service and for being willing to teach what you know to the next generation.
I was talking to somebody once that said he did two tours with a Remington 870 that he had sent to him from home. He said he was in a firefight the first month he was there and didn't care for the M16 so he wrote home and asked his dad to send him an 870 and a case of buckshot. He said it was very effective to 100 yards and saved his life several times. He also said that after asking around he was able to get supplied with army spec buckshot and never had a problem keeping ammo on hand. Anybody know who would have actually been issued shotguns and what type they would have been?
I was talking to somebody once that said he did two tours with a Remington 870 that he had sent to him from home. He said he was in a firefight the first month he was there and didn't care for the M16 so he wrote home and asked his dad to send him an 870 and a case of buckshot. He said it was very effective to 100 yards and saved his life several times. He also said that after asking around he was able to get supplied with army spec buckshot and never had a problem keeping ammo on hand. Anybody know who would have actually been issued shotguns and what type they would have been?
- Status
Similar threads
