Just now watching Seargent York movie on TCM....we are lucky he survived WW1...his rfile serial number assigned in the movie was under 250,000:D:D
Printable View
Just now watching Seargent York movie on TCM....we are lucky he survived WW1...his rfile serial number assigned in the movie was under 250,000:D:D
Big debate over M1917 or M1903. Seems his unit carried M1917's.
If you read his diary you will see that when they arrived in England they were issued British rifles for combat.
If i remember correctly C.S. Ferris makes a good case in his 1917 book for Sergeant York using a M1903 Springfield.
Jarrod
We will never know. York himself seems never to have publicly stated which rifle he used, and anything from anyone else is conjecture. His unit had been issued M1917's, and unless he somehow stole or traded for a 1903, he had a M1917. It is likened to arguing what size stone David used to slay Goliath. Those who really know are long gone.
It is kinda like the WWI era statue made for the Army to represent a Doughboy. The model was a Marine friend of the sculptor, thus it became a Marine statue when the Army refused to pay the guy.
Jim
If y'all look up the Tennessee State Museum, they will gladly show you a picture or two of Sgt. York's Longrifle. Which is decidedly not a 1903 or 1917.
Andy
And he didn't use either one of those Longrifles in France.
Jim
Didn't say he did, just thought that y'all would like see a rifle that was used by him for sure. I am aware that the U.S. stopped fielding a "Longrifle" around 1812 or so when they dropped the 1792 contract series of rifles... Andy
While researching his book on the Model 1917 rifle, C.S. Ferris contacted the York museum in Pall Mall, TN, to learn what he could about the rifle that York carried. To his surprise, museum personnel referred Ferris to York's son, Andrew, who was still alive and lived nearby. They gave Andrew's telephone number to Ferris. So Ferris called Andrew.
In the conversation that ensued, Ferris was shocked to learn from Andrew that York carried a Model 1903 Springfield rifle. Startled by this information, Ferris asked Andrew point blank, "Did you and your father specifically discuss the rifle he carried in France?" Andrew replied, "Yes, we certainly did. And he carried a Model 1903 Springfield rifle."
Andrew then went on to describe how his father played a role in directing production of the movie, "Sergeant York". And he pointed out that the rifle correctly used in the movie was a Model 1903 Springfield rifle (although I understand that it may be a Bannerman version).
Andrew then went on to describe how the statue of his father resting on the grounds of the Tennessee State Capital in Nashville correctly depicts him using a Model 1903 Springfield rifle.
Ferris called me immediately after he got off the phone with Andrew, told me what he had learned, and related parts of the conversation. Ferris was obviously startled by what he had learned. Ferris asked if I could check out the York statue in Nashville. And I did. And, make no mistake, the statue clearly depicts York aiming and firing a Model 1903 Springfield rifle.
A year or so later, an article on this same subject appeared in the American Rifleman magazine.
I am aware that York's unit in France had been issued Model 1917 rifles. I do not question that. But could York have acquired a Model 1903 rifle if he had wanted one? I have no doubt that he could. Model 1903 rifles were certainly present all over France. Hundreds of thousands of them!
One must ask why York's family member would seek to overturn the generally-held belief that York carried a Model 1917 rifle. Do they not understand the difference between a Model 1903 rifle and a Model 1917 rifle? I do not accept that proposition. Do they have a vested interest, financial or otherwise, for promoting the Model 1903 rifle over the Model 1917 rifle? Hardly! So, on what basis do we challenge their position? Simply that his fellow soldiers were carrying Model 1917 rifles? That's not much of a basis in light of family statements and artifacts to the contrary.
This discourse will not likely change anyone's mind. Pre-conceived notions do not die easily. But, they do reflect on those who cling to them without further consideration or study.
J.B. :wave:
My father told me he carried an M1 Carbine in WWII (European Theater), but can I say positively that he did so? No. I wasn't there, and neither were York's sons in France (or even alive at that point in time). Many a vet has told his sons tales of what he did in the wars. All are not necessarily true, and repeating them does not change that fact. I don't know what rifle York carried, and neither does anyone else still living.
:thup:
I have stated this before, military units do not cotton to soldiers carrying weapons they were not issued. Having said that, I once used an AK47 because it was handy and my M16 was not. It does happen, and York may very well have utilized a 1903 Springfield. Other than the statements by York's sons, I know of no public statement where York identified the rifle he used. The fact remains, we do not know exactly what rifle York used.:confused:
Jim:super:
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.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by firstflabn
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.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pattern14
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?
http://acacia.pair.com/Acacia.Vignet...VATE%20DONAHUE
And probably taking notes...Quote:
After the Armistice was signed, I was ordered to go back to the scene of my fight with the machine guns. General Lindsey and some other generals went with me.
We went over the ground carefully. The officers spent a right smart amount of time examining the hill and the trenches where the machine guns were, and measuring and discussing everything."
Didn't one of the Germans call out to York during the action asking if he was an "Englishman"? Would that be because of his marksmanship or because the report of his rifle was different somehow?
There were plenty of good shots in the AEF and by 1918, marksmanship in the BEF was nowhere near as good as it had been in 1914, so I would guess it was the sound of his rifle that was noted.
The York Gallery
Based on the information shown in the York discovery expedition above, they show that all the rifle shell casings found at the site are .30-06. Seems like this at least eliminates the possiblity that Sgt. York used a British SMLE rifle, which would not have used such ammo, but still doesn't provide any conclusive evidence on the others.
Len
Hey Jim, I think our positions are really not that far apart. My objection was to what seemed like setting an impossible standard. Your reponse filled out your thinking on the York subject and, thus, I believe I can safely say we are both dedicated to finding the objective truth (or as close as we can get) while having fun torturing every detail in the process.
Since you gave a personal example, allow me one. York's son's lack of knowledge about miltary weapons reminded me of my experience as a volunteer at a local Civil War museum/library. I would consider my knowledge as advanced. Visitors often come in with family stories concerning their ancestor's Civil War service. These people have no more than a very general knowledge of the history and totally lack any detailed knowledge about weapons, tactics, or military organization. It's amazing how often these family stories have a kernel of truth embedded in them - though the details tend to be fuzzy or distorted. These kernels of truth relate to details way beyond their appreciation, but in many cases these details can help flesh out the story. That sort of phenomenon is what I saw in Andrew York's telling of his father's tale. Instead of being disqualified by his lack of firearms knowledge, it could cut the other way - that a partial memory recalled for reasons even he couldn't explain - that Springfield was also a Tennessee town 100 miles away, that the '03' spoken aloud sounded funny - who knows. But, as in the example I gave, an innocent, with opportunity and without obvious bias, can preserve an important clue.
Does that make the case for the '03? No, of course not. But when we can't get to the answer we seek, sometimes we can get to a better questions - and that next question evolved from hypotheses, educated guesses, and what-ifs oftentimes does ultimately lead to our answer. I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you haven't already experienced. Here's to the quest - and to that elusive 'AHAH!' moment.
I agree 100%. You'll have to relate some of those stories one of these days. I just looked at a shotgun used by "grand dad in WWI" that was manufactured in the 1930's. Broke my heart to tell them. I don't think they believed me.:dunno:Quote:
Originally Posted by firstflabn
Jim:confused:
If they found shell casings, then it might be possible to identify the weapon type from which they were fired. If I remember correctly, the firing pin dia. of the M1917 is a bit smaller than the M1903. (I do know that P'14s are smaller yet, but that won't help here.)
Just a thought.
Might be possible to further confirm it thru extrator/ejector marks, which would also be distinctive AFAIK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmoore
Bear in mind that York was not alone. What are the odds of finding the exact spot York stood? I also understand there is an alternate site found by a US military officer.
Jim
I wondered about that myself, especially on an active battlefield in 1917-18. I believe one of those sources stated they found German rounds, .30-06, and French rounds all at the same spot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Tarleton
Also bear in mind these men were being shot at and killed. Hard to memorize locations in a forest when your mind is whirling like a gyroscope.
I hunt the same forest every year. Several years ago I found a small clearing in the woods where I killed the largest buck of my life. In the past four years I have searched in vain for that clearing. It can be difficult to find your exact path in a thick forest.
Jim
These cases have been in the weather for 75 years? They look like what? Little to discover, I'm afraid.
Corrosion won't change firing pin indentation dia. significantly, once cleaned enough to measure. It might be interesting if some few '03 cases were found in a predominately M1917 area. I mean, if you're going to actually investigate, at least be thorough!
Mind you, I don't know if it really matters to me what he used- I don't think it particularly would have influenced his actions that day...
I have been researching the Sgt. York myth for many moons now and have been published on the events of that day.
This is true. The folks who insist he had a Springfield or an SMLE like to ignore the later part of this.Quote:
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.
This is not true.Quote:
As stated in previous comments the M1903 rifle was available throughout the AEF to anyone who really wanted one.
Soldiers in WWI didn't just swap rifles and the 1903s weren't just floating around. The only folks who had 1903s anywhere close to York were Marines. The 82nd had M1917s, just like the other 75% of AEF forces in France at the time. If you believe a Marine would have "traded" his rifle, then I have some real estate in Florida I'd like to sell you. And if no one in his DIVISION had one, where'd he get it?
I'd believe he could have picked up a Chauchat, but not a Springfield.
Finally, there is a picture of the 328th with other members of York's company IDed in the photos. I have a better resolution photo somewhere, but am not able to lay my hands on it. You can see part of one, admittedly lower resolution than I'd like, at http://www.the-othersixteen.org/home.html
The photo shows the Enfield-style "heel" on the butt, which Springfields didn't have and a protruding barrel, which the SMLEs didn't have. End of story. They're M1917s. There is no mix of 1917s, SMLEs, 1903s, etc.
The York story was inflated first by the military as propaganda in WWI and then by Hollywood in the 1941 film. The movie Sgt York was a Harry Warner (Warner Bros) project constructed to bolster sentiment for US involvement in WWII. Warner was a key player in the government's propaganda machine, and for obvious reason since he came from European Jews.
I shouldn't have to tell anyone that the movie is a WORK OF PURE FICTION. If you want to educate yourself further on the matter, there's a hard-to-find book called "Celluloid Soldiers" about the whole thing. It was written by the Middle Tenn. State U. professor who is the caretaker of the York papers.
The Skeykill "biography" is also a work of fiction. If you read it with a critical eye, it's not hard to see the "diary" is put together after the fact. The narrative clearly refers to supposedly "present" items with knowledge of future events. The York myth is just that. He pulled off an awesome feat for which he absolutely deserved the MOH, but there were 16 other guys there, many of whom spilled blood in the fight and several of whom died.
Back to the issue at hand, there is a vigorous dispute over the location of the G Co. exploit. I mean, there are some REAL hard feelings on both sides. One of the few things I've found that they agree on is that York had an M1917 and a M1911.
Very interesting site, but none of photos or articles appear when I click on them.
I think it's spelled "affidavits" too.
The plot thickens...
A Marine might not have traded his rifle, but in the same way that Canadians picked up SMLE's in large numbers from the battlefield to replace their Rosses, don't you think York might have done the same with a Springfield? Was he ever in an area where that might have been possible?
I have to say that I'm a partisan for the M17 though!
I have noticed they're having some server problems lately, but the lo-res photo is right there on the index page. I'll admit it's tough to see, but it's been a couple of years since I've had cause to pull out the good one.
I'm not saying it's IMPOSSIBLE that he had a Springfield, just quite unlikely. Three quarters of all US soldiers over there had the M1917. The quarter that did were Marines. I don't have the time or interest in checking to see whether a quarter of all AEF soldiers were Marines. That would be an interesting exercise.
Army units had the 1903 also. For example, the 42nd Division. I have found where Marines were court martialed in May and June of 1918 for having rusty rifles. They would most certainly be court martialed for having the wrong rifle.
I find it amusing that people think soldiers or Marines could just carry any weapon he wanted to carry. You signed for your weapon, and you better return that same weapon in good condition. No where in the Marine Corps that I was in could that be done. No beards, none of that crap. The WWI Muster Rolls indicate it was no different in WWI.
Jim
Not true - my G-Grandfather served in the 3rd Artillery, 6th Division. I have photos taken by him at the time of members of his unit and they are carrying '03s. Its my understanding that most regular Army units (which his was) carried 1903s whereas most Guard and National Army units carried 1917s - not always true, but generally true. I have also read where had the war extended into 1919, Pershing wanted all rifles in theater to be 1917s to improve logistics and repair issues.Quote:
Three quarters of all US soldiers over there had the M1917. The quarter that did were Marines.
After reading tfltackdriver's comments (#32) it appears that some readers (hopefully few) interpreted my comments (#18) that Corporal York obtained a M1903 rifle (presuming of course he had one) from a Marine. In this he is mistaken. At no time did I indicate that he had definitely used a M1903 rifle.
My reference to the Marines was a simple comparison of Corporal York's circumstances and desire for what he thought was a better weapon to that of the Marines serving on Guadalcanal some 24 years and one World War later. From my readings of WWII history many Marines "traded" their '03s and Reising guns to the Army for their new Garands. Of course this story, like that of Corporal York, could be more fiction than fact.
My conclusion, then and now, is that yes, if he really wanted a '03 that he could have obtained one. If this was not possible through official channels he could have utilitized what most veterans would call "Back Door" channels, namely, find, trade, buy, or at last resort, steal one.
Regarding whether or not any M1903 rifles were used by the 82nd Division I did, I must admit, make a presumption that the Sniper and Recon sections of the Division's infantry regiments used the standard M1903 sniper system. Of course I could be wrong as they may been the only unit in the AEF not to do so.
Subsequent to reading tfltackdriver's posting I reviewed both the official history of the 82nd Division and Volume two of "Order of Battle" (the US Army's official history of WWI) regarding when and where the 82nd Division deployed to the front during the St. Mihiel and Meuse-Argonne offensives.
The Army's "Order of Battle", indicates that in August 1918 during the St. Mihiel offensive the 82nd Division relieved the 2nd Division.
If the 82nd Divison's history is correct in October 1918, the 164th Infantry Brigade (327th & 328th Infantry Regiments) relieved the soldiers of the 1st Division's 1st Infantry Brigade (16th & 18th Infantry Regiments) on the Meuse-Argonne front.
To the best of my knowledge both the 1st and 2nd Divisions were armed, throughout the war, with only the M1903 rifle.
Where there is a possibility that both the soldiers and marines of the 2nd Division and the soldiers of the 1st Division did what undoubtedly has to be the most complete "Police Call" of "No Mans Land" known in the history of the US military service and collected from the battlefield every Springfield rifle assigned to them prior to departing the front line, I, for one, think that they could have missed at least one. Who knows, maybe Corporal York salvaged a rifle when passing through. I for one don't know and don't really care as I think the M1917 was a better battle rifle to begin with.
In closing, the intent of my original remarks was to discuss the possible ways in which Corporal York might have obtained a Springfield rifle. I believe I have shown that while not definite, it was possible. As Sergeant York and all the members of his unit are deceased it is a matter that will never be totally resolved.
Oh yes, before I forget, I am afraid that you will have to find another buyer for your Florida real estate. If it fronts on the Gulf I would hold out for top dollar as you never know you might just strike oil on it any day now.
:surrender:Quote:
Oh yes, before I forget, I am afraid that you will have to find another buyer for your Florida real estate. If it fronts on the Gulf I would hold out for top dollar as you never know you might just strike oil on it any day now
I'll put it to you this way: I am in touch with all the known surviving family members of the G co. squads that went out with Sgt. Early's group. And to put it another way, I think it's very unlikely, but you are absolutely right.:thup:Quote:
In closing, the intent of my original remarks was to discuss the possible ways in which Corporal York might have obtained a Springfield rifle. I believe I have shown that while not definite, it was possible. As Sergeant York and all the members of his unit are deceased it is a matter that will never be totally resolved.
I don't have any accounts of US WWI soldiers doing the ol' battlefield pickup other than doing everything they could to get rid of the terrible Chauchat. In WWII and Korea, I've heard lots of first-hand stories from guys issued a Garand that didn't need it, and did everything they could to get a carbine... then when they weren't happy with that, a Thompson or BAR. Guys who had been issued the carbine first wanted a Thompson, etc.
Off topic, but we can delight that there is no controversy over York's use of the M1911 to kill at least five bayonet-weilding Germans while his position was being raked by machine gun fire. You ever try to use the sights on an M1911?
By late 1918 the battlefields of Europe were heavily littered with equipment. Many eye witnesses of that era commented on the vast amount of equipment on the battlefields. There were helmets, canteens, rifles, stripper clips, etc, from the American lines all the way to the German lines. Units rotated in and out of the trenches every 30 days. It was a very fluid situation with heavy losses on both sides. Finding a weapon would have been very easy for an NCO. Mind you, I personally believe York carried an M1917, but have no proof of that belief.
Why, yes! Yes, I have! I don't mind 'em except on really sunny days. I've even got a "stealth" match pistol that uses the stock sights and have done "fairly well" w/ it in CQB events....Quote:
Originally Posted by tfltackdriver
1911 sights are rather bigger than .38 Colt auto sights (1900,1902,1903) and those are pretty accurate also! (w/ the right ammo- .360" bullets not .355")
A few years ago, The American Rifleman magazine published a letter written to them by a man who's father had been in Yorks platoon in the Great War. This man's father had been wounded and had been sent to a field hospital for treatment. While there, he was visited by York who was a friend of his. Upon leaving, York asked his friend if he could take the man's rifle with him. Consent was made and York left with it. This was the day before the event in which York earned his reputation against the German machineguns. The rifle was a 1903 Springfield that was one of the several that one or two of the members of Yorks platoon had seen stacked up behind a mess tent one day. The man or men, seeing an oportunity, grabbed a bundle or two of the rifles and beat it back to their platoon. Severlal of the men in the platoon exchanged their 1917 Enfields for the 1903 Springfields at that time. York, who'd kept his 1917, had over a time begun to desire a 1903 for himself as he observed the several being used by the men who'd exchanged their 1917's for them. The man in the hospital had told his son that until Yorks visit with him in the field hospital, York had retained and used a 1917. He said that he didn't know for certain, but he told his son that he believed that the rifle York used in the event on the following day against the Germans was the very rifle that he let York take with him from the hospital where the man was ordered to remain for a time. My grandfather's best friend, Fred Smith, out of Kansas City, MO, who was an infantryman in WW I, told my grandpa that the men in his unit, who carried 1917's, would upon finding a Springfield lying on the ground, would drop their Enfield and pick up the Springfield every time. That's from the horses mouth. My grandfather, who was a qualified Expert Rifleman with the 1903 Springfield, thought VERY highly of it.
By the way, as per York's personal diary, the serial number of his 1911 Colt that was stolen from him while he was shipping home aboard the transport vessel was No.254648.
Here's a neat picture of my grandpa, James Mett Shippee, in 1917 on the rifle range that he helped build at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center, The picture was taken just before Gramps was assigned to and shipped out to the North Sea on the Destroyer, U.S.S. Wadsworth.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...herange1-1.jpg
It is a great story, but it isn't a true story. According to Cpl. Alvin York, he spent the day of 7 Oct 1918 in combat and spent the entire day in a hole alongside a road. If you read his diary, you will see he wasn't at any hospital, which would have been many miles behind enemy lines. There were triage stations near the front, and first aid stations at the front, but York wasn't there either.:thdown:
Jim:beerchug:
Jim, maybe it WAS a triage station or some other area near the front. Maybe the son THOUGHT he remembered his father saying the visit from York was the day before when he's actually said it was shortly before the event. Really Jim, can we truyly say that we KNOW that the story isn't true? I don't see how we can absolutely know that. I'll wager that the account could be very true and that the telling of it from person to person has altered some details that should not be used to denounce the event as meer fancy. That's why I avoid ending my statements with the word "Period". I try to leave room for adjustment and investigation. Good job of detailing the events of Yorks diary. However that is just his diary and the events as they transpired on the day before the event. It might have been some time before when he obtained the wounded man's rifle.
Fred
Not to come into this discussion late but that gentleman who recounted that story in the American Rifleman about Alvin York and the 1903 is a member of my local rifle Club. He's a retired AF Colonel and has been a competitive shooter for many years, still shooting on the Bald Eagles Palma Team, so very familiar with any firearms that might have been discussed or used by York. His Dad served in Sergeant York’s platoon and as a youngster, John had actually had met Alvin York during family visits. John's Dad recounted how the troops were issued 1917s but that some liberated 1903's were available for the platoon to use. John's Dad was whom York visited in hospital and due to his wounds wasn't involved in the brave action. I think some of the confusion in this thread is the fact that York didn't "borrow" the 1903 at the hospital but used what was available to the platoon. John's Dad always indicated York had used one of those liberated 1903s to capture the German machinegun nests recounted in the citation and in the movie. I think John would be willing to discuss this further, but I would have to respect his privacy until he agrees to some forum to chat about this.
SAJTU
Now, that's an interesting development. We look forward to his comments if he is so disposed.
Jim
I can tell you all that I spoke w/Yorks son a time or two in Pall Mall
York was a lot like my Grandfather and were from only about 40 miles apart.
My grandfather wound up in an artillary guard unit from Texas( I'm still trying to figure that one out)
Did not talk about the war, nor made a many comments about it after he came home , other than say it was terrible.
My grandfather was also a crack shot and was a Hard Core Baptist, he also had a fond interest in firearms. I have a pic I should share of him at basic with his rifle.
My Uncle just passed a few Months ago and at his funeral I learned he was a gunner in B17's and like my grand dad kept quiet about what he had saw
those were hill people, lived a simple life and saw the most horrific things that they would have never imagined.
Now back to Alvin's son, seems as if the state of Tennessee gave him that job and he was very unfamiliar with too much that went on. Other than what he picked up later on in years.
Alvin had a few tech schools built ith what he had and tried to make it better for the young people from Tennessee.
And only after the war bond drives of WW2 did he speak of the war. He just wanted the poor (yes they were and stil are) people from the hill's to be better educated & have better lives.
My point for this post in the first place is I would not put much into what York's son would say. I found out a couple weeks after I met him that he was his son, and it seems so odd that he just seemed to quote some of the material he had there for sale.