"Sporterised" Lee-Enfields in WWII

[browningautorifle]

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.

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.

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...

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 ----------

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

Well I for one was.

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.

[Richard Hare]

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.

[mike16]

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

[Surpmil]

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?

[muffett.2008]

......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.

[mike16]

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.

[CINDERS]

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...........

[Surpmil]

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.

[CINDERS]

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.

[Peter Laidler]

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