"Sporterised" Lee-Enfields in WWII

I was doing some research on the Australian War Memorial site and came across this photo, taken in Papua New Guinea in 1944 and showing "A staff sergeant of the 43rd Field Ordnance Depot showing two very badly damaged .303 Lee-Enfield rifles which have been returned to store" :

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/076283

Interestingly, the rifle on the left looks like it might have been cut down for jungle fighting? I know this sort of thing was officially a huge no-no, but I've heard persistent rumours it happened anyway.

Thought it might be interesting discussion material, either way...

Could have also been a "local's"/ plantation owner's hunting rifle that was recovered after being in the hands of the Japanese or "doubtful" locals.

I doubt that any digger would take a saw to the fore-end of his rifle.

Firstly, because the ire of the unit armourers would have paled into insignificance before the fury of the RSM.

Secondly, these "sporter" jobs are often less accurate after surgery, with Mk7 ball, because all of the carefully built-in bedding has been tossed aside.

Looks like a Roo shooters rifle. The other one would appear to be missing its clothes.

the one on the right looks like it has been through a big fire (vehicle or building?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colonel Enfield

Interestingly, the rifle on the left looks like it might have been cut down for jungle fighting? I know this sort of thing was officially a huge no-no, but I've heard persistent rumours it happened anyway.

---

Because people that have zero military experience want these romantic notions to be true. And the internet makes it worse. If a soldier had cut down his rifle or customized it in ANY way, as a Snr NCO I'd have danced him directly to the jail house. Do not pass go. I'd have done it on my own authority...

We had a young man once that wanted to stand out on parade so he went to buy a small screwdriver set. He sat in his room in the quarters and stripped his FN C1 A1 to pennybits and removed every spot of parkerizing visible. Upon return to stores he was immediately charged for destruction of goods.

Now let's come down off the clouds and forget this happy hogsh*t. As the others pointed out, one plantation rifle and one looks like a destroyed rifle. RQ's problem now...

Broken stock and a bent barrel, that is essentially what a soldier (or anyone) would have done to disable a captured/discovered weapon in the field without tools.

Its been awhile since I read the manuals but these actions and others were described for dealing with unwanted weapons or to prevent their capture and use. Also included plugging the barrel with mud and firing a round remotely with a string, removing bolts and critical bits to discard in water, swamps, bogs where-ever, and so on.

While the weapon may have been turned into stores, there is little way of knowing where it actually came from.

One on the left appears to have been run over by a heavy vehicle or hit by shell fragment IMHO. Notice how the shortening of the stock correspomds with the bend in the barrel.

Attachment 79705

I've often wondered about this photo; AWM 013155.

Captioned as taken by Damien Parer, 28/8/42
Private H A Lake of 2/5 Independent Company.

Could be his own rifle which he has bought with him into service?

A lot of "target" rifles were handed back "for the duration" in WW2

Some of these ended up with the VDC, (Volunteer Defence Corps). A lot of members of this organisation already had a rifle (or two) in .303. I notice that the one in the AWM pic still has its magazine cutoff, despite these being officially "withdrawn" TWICE. First time was with the introduction of the No1 Mklll* "economy model. Post WW1, it was decided to put the fruit back on. The second time "economies" were introduced again was not long before WW2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maxwell Smart

Attachment 79705

I've often wondered about this photo; AWM 013155.

Captioned as taken by Damien Parer, 28/8/42
Private H A Lake of 2/5 Independent Company.

Could be his own rifle which he has bought with him into service?

---

He was a roo shooter before the war. Most likely his own rifle.

Also notice the non reg bandolier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maxwell Smart

Attachment 79705

I've often wondered about this photo; AWM 013155.

Captioned as taken by Damien Parer, 28/8/42
Private H A Lake of 2/5 Independent Company.

Could be his own rifle which he has bought with him into service?

---

Exactly like the cut down forend on an "H-barrel" that I bought a couple of years ago. I replaced it with a new forend for the proper look but the H-barrels can be floated and work well.

Ridolpho

From the Australian War Museum (AWM) official site;
ID number 013155
Collection type Photograph
Object type Black & white - Film original negative nitrate other
Maker Parer, Damien Peter
Description PAPUA. 1942-08-28. INFORMAL OUTDOORS PORTRAIT OF TOUGH AND WIRY PRIVATE H.A. LAKE, ONE-TIME KANGAROO HUNTER, NOW A SNIPER WITH THE 2/5TH INDEPENDENT COMPANY. (NEGATIVE BY DAMIEN PARER)

Its just me but if I was a sniper the last thing I would want is anything that could possibly cause a glint from the sunlight the rounds and that nice long barrel poking out just begs for a bit of sunlight and having the rounds exposed to get covered in crud at least in a bandoleer they would be protected from the worst of the crud & cr*p. I hope H.A Lake survived the war.

I find anything written on a picture difficult to believe, like what's written as gospel on the internet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Because people that have zero military experience want these romantic notions to be true. And the internet makes it worse. If a soldier had cut down his rifle or customized it in ANY way, as a Snr NCO I'd have danced him directly to the jail house. Do not pass go. I'd have done it on my own authority.

---

That's why I wanted to ask - because I know messing with Government Property tends to be frowned upon (to put it mildly) but I know they made a small number of "Official" experimental Jungle Carbines on the SMLE action so it struck me as likely that it wasn't outside the realms of possibility someone had taken an already damaged rifle and turned it into a sporter for use in jungle combat before that.

Damien Parer was one of Australias top War Correspondents, the 2/5th Independent Company was one of the forerunner Units that became Commando Units post war.

It says " Informal outdoors portrait" on HA Lake photo.

Do you think it possible that the photo was taken with props supplied by the photographer? (After all, we see British soldiers with photos taken in kilts, when we know at times they were not in kilted regiments)

I think the photo is fantastic though. Really brings out his features which are in themselves a study!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz

A lot of "target" rifles were handed back "for the duration" in WW2

I notice that the one in the AWM pic still has its magazine cutoff, despite these being officially "withdrawn" TWICE. First time was with the introduction of the No1 Mklll*.

---

Where does it say that in the LoC of 1916?
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...LoC19161-1.jpg

Well, obviously, the Mk111* was "sans cutoff" as part of its specification. Given the existence of Mk 111 rifles that have been "updated" and consequently "overstruck" with a "star", and the distinct scarcity of "intact" Mk 111s, there appears to have been some sort of concerted effort to "update" things over time.

Yes, I know that the " * " variant was supposed to be a temporary" relaxation / "economy measure" for the duration of WW1 and that, as soon as was possible after that time, "normal" production resumed. There are also surviving examples of Mk111* rifles that were "reverted" post WW1 by fitting all the "fruit" and striking-out the "star".

Lots of (Lithgow) bodies, marked from scratch as "111*" have the slot for the cutoff, whether they were assembled in the 1920s or the 1940s.

To further play around with the numbers, the prodigious wastage of rifles in BOTH World Wars seriously culled the herd of "representative pieces".

The British 1931 "Instruction For Armourers" refers to both Mk 111 AND Mk 111* rifles and contains instructions pertinent to both variants.

The 1945! edition of the Australian "Identification List" covers both the Mk 111 and Mk 111*.

The 1929 "Handbook of Small Arms seems to refer only to the Mk 111.

According to Skennerton, "The Lee Enfield", pp. 160-161:

"The Mark 111* Short Magazine Lee Enfield was officially approved on 2nd January 1916, but while the Mark 111* usually had no provision for the magazine cut-off, the omission of the cut-off was not necessarily intended to be a feature of the Mk 111*. "

There is also an extract from the British List of Changes; para 17622, which specifies what was allowable / required in the change to the Mk 111* variant.

"British List of Changes, Para 17622.
Rifle-short, M.L.E., Mark III.
1. Modifications.
Rifle, Short M.L.E., Mark III*, without cut-off.
2. Introduction.
1. In future manufacture, rifles of the above mentioned pattern may embody any of the following modifications:

(a) The omission of long range sights (dial and aperture) from stock, fore-end and body. blah, blah.

(b) etc, etc

2. The pattern of this rifle has been approved to govern manufacture of rifles required without cut-offs.

It differs from the Mk 111 rifle in that the body is not slotted and drilled to receive the cut-off and screw, but, like the Mark 111, may embody the modifications mentioned at 1 above. "

The timing of all this overlaps the changeover from Mk 6 to Mk 7 ammo, and thus includes sighting and magazine changes. the Mk 111 was introduced in 1907 and thus, was set up for Mk 6 ball, the Mk 7 not seeing service until 1910. The Mk111* was introduced as a "wartime expediency" in January 1916, some time after Mk7 ball had been officially adopted.

Photos from the Gallipoli/ Dardanelles campaign show the widespread use of Mk111 rifles, (and a LOT of older "long" variants), as well as prodigious quantities of Mk6 ammo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bindi2

He was a roo shooter before the war. Most likely his own rifle.

---

Were there standardised equipment for commando companies, or did they have leeway for using non standard equipment?

So taking from what Bruce is saying the mag cut off was deleted as of Jan '16 I have a 1916 Lithgow MkIII* that has the mag cut off fitted to it I also know from I think it was either yourself Bruce or another member that the rifle had a barrel change '37 barrel replacement to "H" thus stamped on top of the butt wrist (Still do not know why) could the mag cut off have been fitted then.
Does that mean that subsequent receivers made after the Jan '16 date were not to have the cut out slot and screw hole machined into it. TIA

Though the shot was posed as such, Parer was an expert photographer and took pic's that showed the actual combat situation.
There is an ABC series called Parers War, a documentary on him.
He was at the forefront in many combat situations, regularly dragging injured soldiers to safety.
His Camera actually took his dying picture when he was shot........working with the Yanks I think.......typical.

Parer was killed on 17 September 1944 by Japanese gunfire while filming a United States Marine advance in Palau on the island of Peleliu. He was following a unit he had always followed not sure which one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz

Well, obviously, the Mk111* was "sans cutoff" as part of its specification. Given the existence of Mk 111 rifles that have been "updated" and consequently "overstruck" with a "star", and the distinct scarcity of "intact" Mk 111s, there appears to have been some sort of concerted effort to "update" things over time.

Yes, I know that the " * " variant was supposed to be a temporary" relaxation / "economy measure" for the duration of WW1 and that, as soon as was possible after that time, "normal" production resumed. There are also surviving examples of Mk111* rifles that were "reverted" post WW1 by fitting all the "fruit" and striking-out the "star".

Lots of (Lithgow) bodies, marked from scratch as "111*" have the slot for the cutoff, whether they were assembled in the 1920s or the 1940s.

To further play around with the numbers, the prodigious wastage of rifles in BOTH World Wars seriously culled the herd of "representative pieces".

The British 1931 "Instruction For Armourers" refers to both Mk 111 AND Mk 111* rifles and contains instructions pertinent to both variants.

The 1945! edition of the Australian "Identification List" covers both the Mk 111 and Mk 111*.

The 1929 "Handbook of Small Arms seems to refer only to the Mk 111.

According to Skennerton, "The Lee Enfield", pp. 160-161:

"The Mark 111* Short Magazine Lee Enfield was officially approved on 2nd January 1916, but while the Mark 111* usually had no provision for the magazine cut-off, the omission of the cut-off was not necessarily intended to be a feature of the Mk 111*. "

There is also an extract from the British List of Changes; para 17622, which specifies what was allowable / required in the change to the Mk 111* variant.

"British List of Changes, Para 17622.
Rifle-short, M.L.E., Mark III.
1. Modifications.
Rifle, Short M.L.E., Mark III*, without cut-off.
2. Introduction.
1. In future manufacture, rifles of the above mentioned pattern may embody any of the following modifications:

(a) The omission of long range sights (dial and aperture) from stock, fore-end and body. blah, blah.

(b) etc, etc

2. The pattern of this rifle has been approved to govern manufacture of rifles required without cut-offs.

It differs from the Mk 111 rifle in that the body is not slotted and drilled to receive the cut-off and screw, but, like the Mark 111, may embody the modifications mentioned at 1 above. "

The timing of all this overlaps the changeover from Mk 6 to Mk 7 ammo, and thus includes sighting and magazine changes. the Mk 111 was introduced in 1907 and thus, was set up for Mk 6 ball, the Mk 7 not seeing service until 1910. The Mk111* was introduced as a "wartime expediency" in January 1916, some time after Mk7 ball had been officially adopted.

Photos from the Gallipoli/ Dardanelles campaign show the widespread use of Mk111 rifles, (and a LOT of older "long" variants), as well as prodigious quantities of Mk6 ammo.

---

Nothing you have said says the cutoff was "withdrawn" in 1916, in fact quite the opposite, sure the original plan for the MkIII* was with the cutoff but they kept the MkIII omitted the parts listed in pt1 of the LoC & continued to call it a MkIII at the same time they introduced the SMLE without the cutoff & called it the MkIII* but as it was the same as a MkIII the changes listed in pt1 were also applied so after 1916 there were 2 models the MkIII & the MkIII* this is supported by the fact LSA & Lithgow both produced MkIIIs with cutoffs into 1918

lots of australian plantation owners and managers through out asia befor the war.

Many LE's sold comercialy could have started out or ended up bubba'd for alot of reasons, some of them even good.

corrosive ammo and humidity causes damage at both ends of the barrel. some solutions involve shortening the barrel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJcH8rWcsn4

Damien Parer, Australia's first Oscar recipient too i believe for this

What's all the excitement? Rifles lying around the battlefield, rifles not assigned to soldiers by number...pick one up and do what you want with it. No one will know, no one will care. It's wartime, why would anyone care, but for the odd retentive NCO or officer? Case in point, these 16th Battalion rifle numbers I copied out from a 1915 roll book: that lasted a few months in France and then out the window: no more numbers recorded. You've got a rifle and it's clean? Good enough. Didn't record the numbers off the salvaged SMLE's a lot of them were packing around along with their issued Ross MkIII's either!

The one with the cut forend has obviously been deliberately rendered U/S by a blow on the butt and bending the barrel. The other one probably burned as mentioned. Would anyone take the rifle to bits, throw the wood away and assemble the guard etc. to the action again? Can't see any reason myself.

The dregs of a battlefield salvage by the look of it, with the photo taken by the ordnance man to show "this is as bad as it gets".

Remember the photo in Without Warning of the RCEME Sgt. with his cut down No4(T)? Remember how many sniper rifles were cut down in WWI? SMLEs and Rosses and not just by the Canadians either.

Rob, thread 27 above. While I agree with the gist of the thread Rob, I'd take issued with your comment '...pick one up and do what you want with it. No one will know, no one will care. It's wartime, why would anyone care, but for the odd retentive NCO or officer?...' Doing what you wanted with it, even in wartime and on the front line wouldn't extend to cutting it about believe me. It might include daubing a bit of paint on it or wrapping it with a bit of hessian sacking would be acceptable. Nope...... While active service might look and occasionally feel like a bit of organised chaos in reality it is organised and a well structured doctrine but things like weapon inspections right down to foot inspections (in the tropics) are still primary duties of any platoon NCO's.

No mods were allowed when we were overseas either...

How does a soldier in the field bend a substantial piece of steel like a No1 barrel to a 70 degree angle?

Simple. He and his mates sit alongside a 113 while grabbing a quick bite to eat. Driver reverses AFV back to put it in a more hull-down concealed position and runs over rifle of someone who is around the other side having a pee. Seen similar things happen time and time again........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by green

How does a soldier in the field bend a substantial piece of steel like a No1 barrel to a 70 degree angle?

---

We had an L42A1 with a damaged barrel that got trapped between the gap of the door and hinges of a pig in Northern Ireland. I didn't see it but apparently the door was slammed with some force.
Its difficult to imagine a barrel that thick being damaged enough to actually bend, my own thoughts are that it was probably surface damaged......but what say the armourers?

Talking to the lad who was issued with it (reacquainted via Facebook) he was given a replacement within 48 hours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by green

How does a soldier in the field bend a substantial piece of steel like a No1 barrel

---

As Peter says, it ain't that hard. Really...

All this talked of cut back Enfields got me thinking about a picture I have in one of my books on China, Burma and India that shows a cut back No. 4 during the battle for Mandalay in Burma. I managed to find it and here it is:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../jZDyzA8-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../026v0kp-1.jpg



The caption for this photo said these troops were on Pagoda Hill overlooking Mandalay. I always thought the cut down No. 4 was pretty interesting because I did not recall ever seeing another one like it actually in service.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Because people that have zero military experience want these romantic notions to be true. And the internet makes it worse. If a soldier had cut down his rifle or customized it in ANY way, as a Snr NCO I'd have danced him directly to the jail house. Do not pass go. I'd have done it on my own authority...

We had a young man once that wanted to stand out on parade so he went to buy a small screwdriver set. He sat in his room in the quarters and stripped his FN C1 A1 to pennybits and removed every spot of parkerizing visible. Upon return to stores he was immediately charged for destruction of goods.

Now let's come down off the clouds and forget this happy hogsh*t. As the others pointed out, one plantation rifle and one looks like a destroyed rifle. RQ's problem now...

---

Good post Jim.

Sandy Scott the sniper Cass and I did the story on told us he modified the butt stock hand grip on his BSA T so it fit him better. When he turned it in they told him he had to pay for it, he told them to "pound sand" as he was being discharged. Sandy was one tough guy and I can just imagine the conversation that occurred.

One dare not modify anything without facing the wrath of a superior officer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shoe303

shows a cut back No. 4 during the battle for Mandalay in Burma.

---

I'll bet there's way more to that story than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by enfield303t

One dare not modify anything without facing the wrath of a superior officer.

---

There are simpler stories that are far less venomous too, during WW1(I know that ain't what we're discussin')...men that hated the Ross discarded it and picked up a #1Mk3 when they could. Upon return to lines, they were charged and after summary trial were fined the cost of the Ross for "The loss of a rifle"... No story washed, "But sir, it was blown to bits and I picked this one up". So doing what a rifleman wanted wouldn't fly either... That's just one example that comes to mind.

As for Sandy and his "Discussion" with the release clerk, a man always has some money coming to him at outclearance. I'll bet they just raped his paybook and left it at that. The rifle cost what? $35CDN for a #4 Mk2T back when I saw the microfich? A basic rifle would be less...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

No mods were allowed when we were overseas either...

---

During my time overseas we were allowed to play with the "lego" bits of the C7, which is purchase/addition/subtraction of parts, and paint of the rifle. Grips, handguards, sights, stocks, bipods, ergonomic items were common, but no alterations to the barrel, action or mechanism were tolerated.

Although one of my Section C9 gunners did obtain a spare LMG barrel that had been chopped to 12" somewhere, and his use of that went unquestioned for the duration. He wouldn't tell me where he got it, but I knew it was an unofficial job, because the flash suppressor of installed off index. These kind of barrels were later officially supplied.

Then again, at the time, and reflecting historically Task Force 1-06 Afghanistan was a bit of a "cowboy" tour and we had a lot of latitude beyond peacetime operations.

anybody who's been in the military never mind combat does not carry two rifles. maybe a submachine gun or pistol but not another rifle. I very much doubt that you could randomly modify a military service rifle without comment from higher up's. Also I have seen alot of photo's suposedly of WWII in asia that were actualy later in malasia. Just saying.

It was quite often that when a barrel was shot out, it was easy to bend it 90 degrees to facilitate its removal. why bend it 90 iif iit will unscrew just as easily at 70 degrees? even when the rifle is 100 years old and the barrel has not been replaced once or more its not that hard to uncrew a barrel. bending a barrel 90 or 70 degrees prevents it from beeing used or misused again.

I would never rebuild or reuse a rifle that had been in a fire. heat treating goes right out the door along with safety. hot enough to burn of all the wood? no way.

interesting pictures but lets avoid turning speculation into fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sentryduty

Task Force 1-06 Afghanistan

---

That was almost the beginning actually...a bad time.

So I wonder who was billed for all those rifles, Brens and Boys ATRs left lying on the sand at Dunkirk? Did anyone get hauled up by the quartermaster or billed for their losses after they got off the boat at Dover? How about the ordnance returns from Singapore? Used to wrap parts or wipe bottoms probably. How about Greece or Crete in 1941? Who paid for all that lot?

Kit lying all over the place and no one bothered with it, but we're supposed to believe that if a soldier picked some of it up and messed about with it he'd be up on a charge?

How about those soldiers buried in Italy or a dozen other theatres with their rifles stuck muzzle down in the dirt? Are we going to pretend that no NCO or officer saw it being done? How about a soldier who lost his rifle in WWI? Is anyone seriously going to propose that he was made to pay for it? I'd like to see some evidence to back up that claim.

So there's a photo of a cut down No4 and he's not under close arrest? I'll bet the fellow next to him with the binoculars is an NCO too. Maybe he just hadn't noticed the rifle yet? :rolleyes:

Worth remembering that most soldiers in world wars are not careerists, they're in for the duration and they don't much care for all the procedural bumpf that keeps things running in peacetime. If you want to know what it was like in a field dressing station in WWI or WWII you could go and ask your GP, but I suspect you'd learn more reading the comments of those who were actually there.

Sorry if that offends anyone, but since none of us were there, we'd probably best rely on the evidence of those who were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

So I wonder who was billed for all those rifles, Brens and Boys ATRs left lying on the sand at Dunkirk? Did anyone get hauled up by the quartermaster or billed for their losses after they got off the boat at Dover? How about the ordnance returns from Singapore? Used to wrap parts or wipe bottoms probably. How about Greece or Crete in 1941? Who paid for all that lot?

---

Written off because of battle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

How about those soldiers buried in Italy or a dozen other theatres with their rifles stuck muzzle down in the dirt?

---

Picked up after battle when bodies were exhumed by graves registration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

How about a soldier who lost his rifle in WWI? Is anyone seriously going to propose that he was made to pay for it? I'd like to see some evidence to back up that claim.

---

I've read claims to that exact evidence from my Regimental history. Men would be charged and paid for a rifle lost in battle. It would depend on the situation...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

So there's a photo of a cut down No4 and he's not under close arrest? I'll bet the fellow next to him with the binoculars is an NCO too. Maybe he just hadn't noticed the rifle yet?

---

Like I say, there's more to that picture than meets the scripture under it.

---------- Post added at 05:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:46 AM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

orth remembering that most soldiers in world wars are not careerists,

---

Well I for one was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

but since none of us were there, we'd probably best rely on the evidence of those who were.

---

Except they aren't here either, just pictures. Sounds like you didn't do a days service either.

Surpmil,

At Dunkirk, most were ordered to leave kit/equipment behind including arms. That is why we even see photos of great piles of helmets on the beach.

I suppose in the long -run it was easier to replace arms /kit than men, so bodies aboard the boats was first and a very sensible priority.
Goes without saying, that leaving any equipment by order would bear no consequences.

tax payers probably footed the bill for a bit of it. pure speculation if you dont pay taxes.

expediency in actual combat is a totally different animal than modifications to a rifle before entering the conflict. Many soldiers in Viet nam used the ak 47 in actual combat but they did not fall into a formation with one. many soldiers in Iraq and Afganistan buy thier own accessories for thier m16 rifles. its not frowned upon but they are removed when the rifle is turned in. Sure "damaged "parts are repired or replaced but if thats the foundation for your arguement you totally miss the context of the discussion. Of course there were many home spun modifications to weapons but IG inspectors did not tolerate it nor would a commander risk conflict over it. Close arrest? got to be pretty stoopit to push the limits to the point of close arrest for it dont you think?. or not. any body smart enough to modify thier weapon might be smart enough to say "gee... its broke up here at the forarm, can you replace it? Who's to say that weapon, modified in that manner was actually effective or even being used.
maybe the soldier discovered the weapon and is showing it to an NCO. the piture does not tell us enough to make statements of fact about euipment used in combat in asia.

You set a pretty high standard when you insist we rely entirely on the statements of people whom are mostly dead .

speculation is ok as long as you indicate that it is just that. insisting as though its a fact blurs the lines for those in the future. lets discover historical facts and not create them.

history is exacty that.... His Story

1. Would a soldier be permitted to modify his issued weapon during WWI or WWII?

We seem to agree that with the exception of snipers and PERHAPS soldiers in some “irregular” formations, no.

2. Would a soldier have been made to pay for his issued weapon if he lost it during WWI or WWII?

We seem to agree that this would depend on the scenario; in the event of a mass evacuation, retreat, surrender or unit collapse, likely not. In the event that he lost it through negligence while out of the line or when not engaged in combat, it seems very likely that he would be penalized in some way. But if he was say, out on patrol, fell into a swamp, dropped his weapon and couldn’t find it before having to move on? Presumably it would depend on the decision of his superiors whether he was penalized.

3. Would a soldier have been permitted to ‘acquire’ and modify a weapon he salvaged from the battlefield? Obviously that would also depend on the attitude of his superiors, and that might well depend on the formation concerned, the nature of the theatre, the fluidity of the battle there etc., etc. Lots of soldiers picked up and used enemy weapons, sometimes it was deliberate policy to do so. Would anyone care if they modified them? Probably not. Would anyone care if a soldier modified a weapon he salvaged that was issued to his own forces? Quite possibly, but again it would depend on the attitude of his superiors and the situation. A soldier walking around with a cut down rifle when his comrades are using them as issued would be sure to attract attention from an NCO or officer, who would naturally assume it was his issued weapon that he had modified. But if it wasn’t? What if it was one he kept on the side, like a spare set of badges or boots? The attitude might have been quite different between say, the Chindits and a Guards battalion? Or a British formation and an Australian one?

Some people have more common sense than others. Some are sticklers for regulations whether they have any relevance or utility in a given situation, and some are not. It seems to be generally agreed by veterans of those conflicts and later historians, that Commonwealth soldiers were more inclined to do what they thought would work best even it didn’t accord with regulations, and were less inclined to put with what they saw as unnecessary “exercise of authority”. The consensus seems to be that those in authority over them usually came to understand this and behave accordingly.

We’ve got photos, but no one has to accept them if they don’t want to. Here’s a photo taken in 1919 showing SMLEs and Mausers lying around in area that was fought over for the last time in August 1918. No one seems to have salvaged them. We know salvage policies and parties were in place long before then. Why not these rifles? Could it be that rules and regulations are not followed with entire uniformity in a world war?

http://data2.archives.ca/ap/a/a004553-v8.jpg

After a few weeks stuck muzzle down in the dirt most rifles would be ready for an “FTR”. I doubt the regulations prescribed anywhere that rifles might be used as grave markers, unless it was only the bayonet that was driven into the ground, but it was obviously commonly done in both world wars. Soldiers probably felt grave markers were more important than the regulation treatment of weapons, even though they were rendered U/S in the process.

The fog of war, again.

Right, who’d like to flog poor dead Daisy next?

......as to discarded weapons, I remember seeing in a file, piles of rifles and MGs piled up on the docks in Britain as the evacuated soldiers were brought home.

a single photo is no longer sufficient evidence to draw any conclusion. even more so if its source cannot be confirmed.

Its hard to tell if Daisy's dead. so many people are beating her , her movement might be the result of thier combined enthusiasm to beat her. Hard to tell, maybe there's a photo of daisy we can all discus.

Surpmil ~ The Germans were given a field day with the stores left behind just like at Dieppe where the Churchill tanks were left behind for them to evaluate.

When they leave the rifle as a marker they would normally render it by ditching the bolt or mechanism my faded memory has Tom Hanks rendering a Garand marker after they buried their medic.

Material loss is probably scaled into the big scheme of things but Dunkirk was not one of them and without operation Dynamo aided by the RAF* fighters coupled to Herr H*tlers reluctance to attack England we have probably been spared a 1000 years of blackness.

*Conjecture there as allot of soldiers thought they had been abandoned by the air force they had not as the RAF fighters were stopping the German Luftwaffe inland from the beach.

Just a side note when I buy books for my collection I try as much as possible to get first Ed's $'s pending, as I feel that history written closer to the event is more likely to be less inclined with embellishments from the fog of time.
If I am in doubt with information I will consult my books and try to find the relevant information because it is a very brave soul that puts conjecture to a sources information when that source was there at the time doing it or trying to survive it and not a re-write of the original text or data by some one who found a lost document that the cook threw out.
Besides Daisy is dead and well loosing her shape...........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

Surpmil ~ The Germans we given a field day with the stores left behind just like at Dieppe where the Churchill tanks were left behind for them to evaluate.

When they leave the rifle as a marker they would normally render it by ditching the bolt or mechanism my faded memory has Tom Hanks rendering a Garand marker after they buried their medic.

Material loss is probably scaled into the big scheme of things but Dunkirk was not one of them and without operation Dynamo aided by the RAF* fighters coupled to Herr H*tlers reluctance to attack England we have probably been spared a 1000 years of blackness.

*Conjecture there as allot of soldiers thought they had been abandoned by the air force they had not as the RAF fighters were stopping the German Luftwaffe inland from the beach.

---

Cinders, the Churchills left behind at Dieppe - and we won't get into that schmozzle unless others want to: first cancelled and then revived as a sop to Stalin and all his eager friends in the USA and Britain who were babbling about "second front now" in 1942 - were indeed evaluated after capture and the Germans concluded IIRC that they must have been an obsolete or experimental type that had been rejected for service and was being sacrificially disposed of! As you probably remember, the geniuses in combined operations who landed them on a cobblestone beach unsuited to their tracks, with a seawall too high to climb over, and no fascines or other means to surmount it, probably have to take the blame for the failure to re-embark the tanks, and of course the troops, who were thrown away as they were at Hong Kong in 1941.

Here is a good read from my collection about the other part of the battle seldom spoken about guess we forget the allied forces had not quite got combined operations in hand where the Navy & troops regarded any plane over head as an enemy one.

Dieppe.... Thgis was one of the subjects studied by one of the JO Courses at Warminster while I was there. I asked one of the visiting experts whether there were any plans to reinforce the Dieppe bridgehead if things had gone better than planned. Had we were able to hold on for a long period could we have reinforced our hold. Nope........ nothing. just in and out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Nope........ nothing. just in and out

---

That's not a plan...

The case for abandoning equipment at Dunkirk was purely a weight issue, a small pleasure boat laden to the gunnels with squaddie's is one thing but to take their Rifles and Equipment would be another.... all to with the stability of the vessel, if you see some pics of some of men on the bigger RN and MN ships then most have at least there basic kit, this also depends where and when they boarded the vessels......and would say this was at the beginning of Operation Dynamo, towards the end I would assume this was the biggest loss of kit, with the weather on the turn and Luftwaffe airborne....... (I'd be running like an olympic champion with little care for the kit I'd just ditched)

I've been to Dunkirk on numerous occasions, and have run along the beach and also along the main artery and small streets leading to the evacuation area, quite chilling if you imagine what it was like at the time, most of the streets are unchanged, the beech front has mostly been rebuilt or expanded, one part that does stand out is part of a fortification attached to a house, I can only guess after the war this was beyond demolition so they just built on to it....and next to it.

most soldiers would sink and drown if they waded out to a boat with full gear. there was more gear in reserve, left over from WWI so resupply was not an issue, professional lifers with experience could not be replaced, a lesson learned from the big one in '14. Oficers, regretabley were less expendable than they should have been.

Cynders...

the official secrets act(?) did not allow the release of information for 60 years. so I think much accurate information has become available since then.

I dont discredit the recorded experiences of soldiers who were ther but new documented information adds an additional layerof accuracy and the comparison of french, british and german records for the period is available for analysis with incredable hind site whereas it was not after the event itself or after the war.

I also love the first editions.