Seargent York and 1903

Over the years I have been told stories such as that the white bars on the U.S. National Insignia on WW2 Aircraft had today's red stripes... had Vietnam War vets insist "They could fire OUR 7.62 in THEIRS, but we could not fire theirs in ours"... same story was perpetuated by WW2 vets in the Pacific RE: 7.7 and .30'06. Just goes to prove that they don't always remember exactly how it was.... although what I have read about York was that he was a real straight-up guy, just too darn innocent; gave a lot of his money away, didn't know he owed taxes, and wound up an IRS slave.

If perfect knowledge is the standard for interpreting historical events, then little history can be written. Eyewitness testimony can be dubious and even contemporaneous documents cannot cover quirky circumstances. What are we left with then? Only reasonable inferences drawn from available sources - and an honest discussion of their strengths, weaknesses, and ambiguities. While skepticism is good and can lead to a better answer, it's difficult to convince someone who requires perfect proof.

The case for the 1917 has good circumstantial evidence to support it, but with no direct participant account. Nothing in this case precludes the use of the 1903. The 1903 case has a secondary source that speaks directly to the issue (something the 1917 case lacks). As John explained, the secondary source was probed for believeability and found solid: no evident bias on the son's part; access to the participant; adequate knowledge of the subject; a clearly recalled discussion directly addressing the issue at hand. The only argument against this account is that Alvin York had a faulty memory with the passage of time or had a bias himself. On the movie set, isn't is reasonable to think that after the Lugar swap for the 1911 had to be made that York would have been especially tuned in to the shoulder arm question?

In my mind a solid secondary source is better than relying on general principles like what the unit was issued.

I'm sure there must be some pictures sitting in an archive out there somewhere that would be able to clear that up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firstflabn

If perfect knowledge is the standard for interpreting historical events, then little history can be written. Eyewitness testimony can be dubious and even contemporaneous documents cannot cover quirky circumstances. What are we left with then? Only reasonable inferences drawn from available sources - and an honest discussion of their strengths, weaknesses, and ambiguities. While skepticism is good and can lead to a better answer, it's difficult to convince someone who requires perfect proof.

In my mind a solid secondary source is better than relying on general principles like what the unit was issued.

---

Are you familiar with the current furor over the Alamo accounts and the Mexican officer diary? It is a first hand account versus our generally accepted historical account of the events at the Alamo. Since there were no survivors from the last day (our account, which is now in question), we have developed an account based on "solid" hearsay. It would now appear that hearsay evidence is in question on many fronts (death of Davy Crockett for one).:dunno:

History is ever changing and is never cast in stone, but we do continually seek perfection as to facts. Just look at the Kennedy assassination. I am not saying York used any particular rifle, I am saying we don't know with certainty which rifle he used. For your enlightenment, I personally lean towards the 1903, even though there were no units in the immediate area that were issued 1903's. York would have had to acquire the 1903 at some point before his arrival at the front. His son gives an account that he did indeed do so, but that is from an individual who wasn't even born at the time. On the plus side, his account is presumably from York himself (which doesn't necessarily make it true). The statues themselves prove nothing, as they are a product of the sculptor (read about the Army's "Marine" statue from WWI).:super:

There is pause for concern for use of both rifles. Did York even know the nomenclature for a 1903? I would say he did, as would any Doughboy know his rifle like a child knows his mother. So I tend to believe that account. Others point to the obvious question as to where and how he would have acquired and kept a 1903. I point out the M1913 sniper rifle known to have been used by the Marines even though one was never issued to them (Cors Collection). There were constant raiding parties looking for food and equipment even from their own compatriots.:dunno:

My point is this: We do not know with a certainty which rifle York used due to the issued M1917 vs stolen 1903 controversy. York was not known for his intelligence, quite the contrary, and since I never knew him, I can't even be certain of that. As for the "solid" secondary source, I wouldn't consider Andrew's views "solid", but would rate them to be something less, and they would not be acceptable in our criminal courts. We might well believe every "war" story told to a son as fact. I have sat in more than one bar listening to RVN "war" stories I knew to be pure BS (Marines fighting in Siagon, etc.?) to believe all the stories even when from the "primary" sources.:nono:

"In my mind a solid secondary source is better than relying on general principles like what the unit was issued." One is a well known fact, the other is supposition.;)

Jim:wave:

Some say he used a M1903....Some say he used a M1917. I vote for a third option and maybe when he mentioned a British rifle, he actually MEANT a British rifle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pattern14

Some say he used a M1903....Some say he used a M1917. I vote for a third option and maybe when he mentioned a British rifle, he actually MEANT a British rifle.

---

If one assumes York knew the difference between a 1903 and a M1917, one might logically conclude he would know a "British" rifle when he saw one. That would be a third option. The plot thickens!:dancingbanana:

Jim:cool:

It seems to me I remember reading an article sometime ago. In this article it was stated that York "traded" his Model'17 for a 1903 because he was used to the open sights. He didn't like the peepsights on the '17. Just a point to add fuel to the debate.

The history of the 82d Division published in 1919 indicates (p.11-13) that upon arrival at Le Havre, France that they remained only long enough to exchange their M1917 rifles for British rifles. The "British" rifle issued to them was the SMLE (later known as the No 1 Mark III). In addition, the infantry elements received Lewis automatic rifles, Vickers Machine guns and Stokes mortars. The division spent the next six weeks being trained by British NCOs in the use of the "Lee-Enfield" rifle. Not suprisingly as soon as they began to develop proficiency with these new weapons they were taken away and M1917 (Eddystone) rifles were reissued. In late June the division was redeployed to Toul for training with the AEF. Upon arrival the infantry received Chauchat automatic rifles and Hotchkiss machine guns.
As stated in previous comments the M1903 rifle was available throughout the AEF to anyone who really wanted one. The 30th Division which also arrived in France in May 1918 surrendered their M1903 rifles for the SMLE. Throughout the war they were assigned to the British and, with the exception of their sidearms, were armed with British weapons. Upon return to AEF control they were not reissued the M1903 rifles that had been issued them while serving in the SC/NC/TN National Guard, but instead were issued M1917 rifles. Their state issued M1903 rifles were absorbed into the AEF ordnance system.
Presuming that the 82nd Division's TO&E was the same as all other American Divisions each infantry regiment had a Sniper, Recon, & Intelligence section. The standard sniper rifle in these units was the M1903 (with and without telescopic sights). With his known ability with the M1903 I can easily believe that had it been a problem his commander would have "looked the other way" when Corporal York passed by.
In addition to official supply channels I think anyone with any field experience would agree that Alvin York could have obtained a Springfield rifle the same way Marines on Guadalcanal obtained a Garand. It was probably a midnight requistion or a straight cash and carry and out the back tent flap deal.
To me the most important fact to remember about Sergeant York's feat was not what rifle he used but how well he used it.

Hasn't recent archeological work recovered casings fired by Sgt. York? Could anything about the firing pin indentation or marks on the case tell which rifle fired them?

Site of Sgt. York’s WWI heroics found? - Europe- msnbc.com