thompson question...

Reference information and uniform and kit Q&A
User avatar
Yith
10,000 posts
10,000 posts
Posts: 11194
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:05 am
Location: Sheffield/Chesterfield

Re: thompson question...

Postby Yith » Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:53 am

The bolt of the 303 is now on the wrong side and he's holding it left handed...
Sent from my WS-18 using Morse.

Image

Image
User avatar
Lardassmonkey
Fought at the Battle of Agincourt
Fought at the Battle of Agincourt
Posts: 2680
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 6:37 pm
Location: Arse end, just outside nowhere.
Contact:

Re: thompson question...

Postby Lardassmonkey » Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:53 am

the point at the beginning was is there photographic evidence ? unfortunatly this falls a little short of the mark as none of us can tell what gun it is


Yes quite. :giggle:

could it even be a sten with the picture reversed (often done for artistic reasons),


I don't think so, for the same reasons I have doubts about an Mp40.

Any help?


Nope! :raspberry:
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
oddball
Fought at the Battle of Agincourt
Fought at the Battle of Agincourt
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:03 pm
Location: LIVERPOOL

Re: thompson question...

Postby oddball » Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:18 pm

Yith wrote:The bolt of the 303 is now on the wrong side and he's holding it left handed...


Yes sten was my first thought as it looked like the mag was fed in the side and photo reversed but I spotted the 303 bolt was correct, but a sten mag can be rotated. His left hand is in the wrong place for a Sten.
Maybe it is a custom Sten made for a lefty :giggle:

When you look at the blown up pic the mag disaperars to me :)
Watch VidImage
Free speech is expensive these days!
Image
No1_sonuk
Fought at Waterloo
Fought at Waterloo
Posts: 1453
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: South Essex

Re: thompson question...

Postby No1_sonuk » Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:31 pm

Pretty sure the rifle's a No.4 - the foresight is too far from the front to be a SMLE, and the bayonet would be further back under the front if it was a SMLE.
User avatar
mr cake
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:21 am
Location: Christchurch NZ

Re: thompson question...

Postby mr cake » Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:48 pm

chaos wrote:I'm sorry for posting that photo now, can we move the thread back to the original topic.


haha its alryt chris....thats wat forums are all about :giggle:

has anybody else got photo or written evidence with paras using thompsons....? :whistle:
Kiwi airsofter, just pew-pewing.
User avatar
Poacher
Fought at Waterloo
Fought at Waterloo
Posts: 2270
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 10:41 pm
Location: Lincolnshire, where else?

Re: thompson question...

Postby Poacher » Tue Feb 01, 2011 10:13 am

Lettucehead wrote:and the caption mentions it as well.

The caption also notes that the Thompson was not a standard issue item in 6th Airborne.
Lettucehead wrote:Paras involved in Operation Manna

That's the Med again, re-enforcing the 'Sten=NW Europe, Thompson=Med' hypothesis?
Not that you dont see the other weapon in each theater, you certainly do but that there was a significant weight of numbers of one type in one theater. Makes re-supply simpler?
If you ever visit Athens their military museum is worth an afternoon. It's out of the sun and does not involve climbing big hills. The civilians really had it rough. Some nice kit from many periods of history.
aka Stigroadie
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage
AFRA
better by design

"Truth is a shining goddess, always veiled, always distant, never wholly approachable, but worthy of all the devotion of which the human spirit is capable. "
User avatar
Poacher
Fought at Waterloo
Fought at Waterloo
Posts: 2270
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 10:41 pm
Location: Lincolnshire, where else?

Re: thompson question...

Postby Poacher » Tue Feb 01, 2011 7:43 pm

To be uber pedantic;
Glider pilots are not paratroops, by definition they fly gliders. The thread asks about paratroops.
aka Stigroadie
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage
AFRA
better by design

"Truth is a shining goddess, always veiled, always distant, never wholly approachable, but worthy of all the devotion of which the human spirit is capable. "
User avatar
mr cake
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:21 am
Location: Christchurch NZ

Re: thompson question...

Postby mr cake » Tue Feb 01, 2011 10:01 pm

Poacher wrote:To be uber pedantic;
Glider pilots are not paratroops, by definition they fly gliders. The thread asks about paratroops.


haha ok then.....british airbourne :P this has all been quite helpful iv only been curious boutnthe whole issue cuz well....thats all we can get atm ....thompsons :roll: tho i am hopfully getting a legal sten.... :whistle:
Kiwi airsofter, just pew-pewing.
User avatar
Poacher
Fought at Waterloo
Fought at Waterloo
Posts: 2270
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 10:41 pm
Location: Lincolnshire, where else?

Re: thompson question...

Postby Poacher » Tue Feb 01, 2011 11:13 pm

The sing on an FG42 mounts on the right, that photo looks like it's on the front left to me?
aka Stigroadie
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage
AFRA
better by design

"Truth is a shining goddess, always veiled, always distant, never wholly approachable, but worthy of all the devotion of which the human spirit is capable. "
User avatar
Gadge
Fought at the Battle of Hastings
Fought at the Battle of Hastings
Posts: 7194
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:04 pm

Re: thompson question...

Postby Gadge » Wed Feb 02, 2011 12:38 am

Poacher wrote:To be uber pedantic;
Glider pilots are not paratroops, by definition they fly gliders. The thread asks about paratroops.



And to be fair it differs by nation.

US glider pilots were just that, after a drop they simply made their way back to friendly lines.

UK Glider pilots were as well trained as any other glider or para airborne troops and upon landing were trained to form up as combat units and operate as infantry.

So while you're right that 'glider pilots are not paratroops'... *some* (ie uk) Glider pilots were 'airborne infantry.

And while I know Poacher knows this and the link is not really for him I thought it's a good point to put this in for those who might be interested.

http://www.gliderpilotregiment.org.uk/

With regards to the thompson, fine for skirmishing in my opinion but i wouldnt take one along to a living history show with a brit para impression as you'd just get more questions/pickyness than it would be worth.

I cant remember exactly but I'm sure someone once put up the ammunition alloaction for an airborne division and the ammount of .45 ammo allocated made it highly unlikely anyone was usng thompsons. (it *may*even have been '0' but it was a long time ago and I wasnt really looing for that as the discussion in hand at the time was how the famous 'm1 carbine at the hartenstein' occurred!)
Image
ImageImage

Image
Image
"I think we are in rats' alley - Where the dead men lost their bones."
User avatar
Chomley-Warner
Site Admin
Posts: 15581
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:20 pm
Location: Derby

Re: thompson question...

Postby Chomley-Warner » Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:56 am

Gadge wrote:I cant remember exactly but I'm sure someone once put up the ammunition alloaction for an airborne division and the ammount of .45 ammo allocated made it highly unlikely anyone was usng thompsons. (it *may*even have been '0' but it was a long time ago and I wasnt really looing for that as the discussion in hand at the time was how the famous 'm1 carbine at the hartenstein' occurred!)

I tried to find that too - but I thought the opposite: it was a huge amount of .45 relative to the number of pistols likely to be on the ground and that either someone had cocked up and oversupplied or there was something else using .45. Heh, my recollection is probably up the spout!
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Gadge
Fought at the Battle of Hastings
Fought at the Battle of Hastings
Posts: 7194
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:04 pm

Re: thompson question...

Postby Gadge » Wed Feb 02, 2011 1:39 pm

Chomley-Warner wrote:
Gadge wrote:I cant remember exactly but I'm sure someone once put up the ammunition alloaction for an airborne division and the ammount of .45 ammo allocated made it highly unlikely anyone was usng thompsons. (it *may*even have been '0' but it was a long time ago and I wasnt really looing for that as the discussion in hand at the time was how the famous 'm1 carbine at the hartenstein' occurred!)

I tried to find that too - but I thought the opposite: it was a huge amount of .45 relative to the number of pistols likely to be on the ground and that either someone had cocked up and oversupplied or there was something else using .45. Heh, my recollection is probably up the spout!



Could well be the opposite CW all i remember is that the thread was trying to work out likely small arms via the ammo allocation. Do you remember if it was on here or pozzi - I cant recall now.

To throw a spanner in the works, well after the introduction of Sten to Brit units, Polish para units were using the thompson... They could well be Poles its nigh on impossible to tell without seeing BD or soft caps.

Here's a posed pic from the WWiireenacting forum showing a polish SNCO or Officer with a thompon (and makeshift jump jacket before they got denison...)

Image
Image
ImageImage

Image
Image
"I think we are in rats' alley - Where the dead men lost their bones."
User avatar
BedsnHerts
Fought at the Battle of Agincourt
Fought at the Battle of Agincourt
Posts: 4503
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:28 am
Location: Airstrip One
Contact:

Re: thompson question...

Postby BedsnHerts » Wed Feb 02, 2011 5:59 pm

In my opinion, this....

Image

is an optical illusion where the rocky background looks like part of the gun. If it really is a gun barrel, then it's bent.
stof
Fought at the Somme
Fought at the Somme
Posts: 865
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:09 pm
Location: Blairgowrie,Perth and Kinross

Re: thompson question...

Postby stof » Thu Feb 03, 2011 6:52 pm

It might be a bit early to be an accurate indication ,but "The Raid on Bruneval " on Sky last night also had paras carrying Thompsons.
Image

ImageImageImageImageImageImageImage
Waldiebeast
First Posting
First Posting
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 8:41 am
Location: Surrey

Re: thompson question...

Postby Waldiebeast » Tue May 24, 2011 10:23 am

mr cake wrote:hey guys i know that the brits (and her glorious commonwealth :lol: ) used all sorts of variants of the thompson but iv noticed in pictures that its usually just regular infantry or commandos SOOOOOOOO did the british paras use thompsons at all?? or wer they too cool to use them 8) ooo and some photographical proof would be cool :giggle:

chur,
henry

I believe that they used the "tommy gun" and the 1928 military variant. For a more "genuine" british loadout, I would go for the sten
GUNS: (ww2)
AGM sten mkII
Classic Army Colt 1911A1 GBB pistol
ARES PPSh-41
Deact Mosin M38

Return to “British Uniforms and Kit”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests