Question about 1941 Lithgow No.1 MkIII with Chinese? markings.

[Sapper740]

At least you'll have one.

I currently own one Lithgow but it's a "bitzer" as the antipodeans like to call it so I'm hoping this one is a little bit better. The auction ends in a little over 4 hours and even at my maximum bid if I win I'm getting it very cheap. As I stated I'm no Lithgow expert but what got my attention, other than the "Chinese? markings" (LOL) is that this appears to be a MkIII which might make it a little rarer? I surfed the interweb looking at as many pictures of Lithgow SMLE's that I could find and most were MkIII* from that time period. I asked in an earlier post if the picture in the original post showed a MkIII. not a MkIII* but received no responses. If I win the auction I'll post more and better pics.

[Bindi2]

Sapper 740
Lithgow were making Mk111 and Mk111* at the same time in that time frame. In reality it is a Mk111* with a cut off slot no *

[Bruce_in_Oz]

Things were indeed grim in 1942 / 43.

Lithgow and the "Annexe" plants were pushed hard to produce weapons.

One interesting twist is the appearance of No4 rifles on the Oz roster.

Allegedly, these were "safely diverted" away from Singapore and offloaded in Australia. There is a certain "symmetry here,; after Dunkirk, Oz shipped a swag of No 1 rifles to Britain to make up some of the losses

Some No4s DID get to see combat use in small numbers in New Guinea, even featuring in the cover art of at least one book; "A Bastard of a Place", by Peter Brune. ISBN 174114 403 5. The photo is AWM 013971

This was a potential logistical issue, being that there is are VERY few components common to the two rifles. The big stock bolt is one, as is the little "U"-shaped mag-catch / sear spring. Triggers and sears are "more-or less" interchangeable, but every other threaded component is NOT. (No1s use "Enfield special" threads, The No4 is full of BA threads). So, as more Lithgow / Annexe production came on-line, the No4s were redistributed to various "non-infantry" units in Australia My father was issued with one for a time. Being a motor mechanic in an artillery unit helped score that "prize".

[Bindi2]

The VDC were equiped with No4s. They were called garrison rifles by my father.

[mattyboy82]

The other interesting point I note about Australia sending rifles to Britain AFTER Dunkirk is....it's not borne out by ordnance or other records.

I do make note of rifles being sent BEFORE the war (1938 I think) and this has been proven by the discovery of a 1922 Lithgow at Arras in a creek in 2018/2019 (where the Brits suffered heavy losses in 1940) as well as correspondence between Australia and Britain but NOTHING post-Dunkirk..

I do know there was a request by the British to send rifles post-Dunkirk but the Australian Government couldn't provide any due to the fact they struggled for rifles for mobilisation of forces in 1939 and had to raid the militia stores in June 1940 for the newly created 7th, 8th and 9th DIVs.

It got even worse in Dec 1941 for the Armys equipment....that's a whole other story.

And for the divisions returning from PNG and rotating through for training at home etc, many left their No.1s in PNG and used No.4s whilst training at home. Once all DIVs were readily settled, the production of No.1s finally caught up and it appears that by early 1944, all the DIVs were able to use the No.1 here and overseas.

[Bindi2]

you need to check what the home garrisons were equiped with in WA as well as the VDC till the end of the war. .310s were still issued in some places with very rare bayonets. The written record may not be as correct as you think.

[mattyboy82]

Martinis of various calibres, Long Lees, SMLE Mk.1s, SMLE No.1 Mk.IIIs and even old civilian rifles, shotguns and Hotchkiss's. What an eclectic array of firearms indeed. I have a pic of a soldier from the VDC in WA crossing a creek with a Martini strapped on his back. Just shows how serious the rifle shortages actually were and hence why Australia didn't/couldn't send any to Britain post-Dunkirk.

With regards to the DIVs use of the No.4 in Australia, that was for training purposes and that was the 6th, 7th 8th and 9th DIV AIF.

The historical records I have looked through that discuss the rifles sent to Britain pre-war and the lack of any sent post-Dunkirk, they're actual War Office/High Commission/Australian Parliament documents. This is also backed up by the Australian Ordnance documents discussing these issues of rifles shortages.

The Australian Government actually said to Britain that they could not afford to send over the requested amount in 1940 due to the shortages of rifles and the trouble in arming the mobilised AIF elements to send to the Middle East.

[Bindi2]

The home guard garrisons were not in training they maned the coastal forts and coast watch posts with No4s as there was a lower risk of Maintenace being required. The VDC supplied their own weapons for a long time. My home territory was used for training by the same bunch of men given different handles for most of the war. They were the most highly trained never used men anywhere. If you would like to see a record of this go to MOORA and see the plaques. All made by my father.

[Mk VII]

Big chunk of wood missing off the side of that forend. Wonder what else is wrong with it.

[mattyboy82]

I think you might be confused with what I was referring to Bindi.

When I was referring to the AIF divisions returning back to Australia and using the No.4 rifle alongside No.1s, that’s the Australian imperial Force and not the VDC.

I’m aware of the weapons the VDC used and how they were supplied and maintained by the respective ordnance depots etc.