Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Dj wrote: "Derek wrote: "'Aussie Rick' wrote: "As and ex-mortarman (81mm) I had to post details of this new release in the group:

[book:Mortars in World War II|278..."

When I served in the U.S. Navy we still used the 1911A1 .45 cal.

Manray9 wrote: "I came across an article in a gun collector's magazine from 2009. The author conducted an unscientific test of several WW II military handguns. He tested:

1. U.S. 1911A1 .45 cal auto.
2. British E..."
If you hit a man in the hand with a 45 he is going down from the impact. I don't know about a finger.

We had the .45 ACP until the 9mm Para came out. I saw a man hit with a .45 in the chest, and the first thing to hit the ground was is head in a backward flip, dead before he hit the ground.

Have you guys seen the new M45 Marine Corp Close Quarter Battle Pistol (CQBP)? It is bascially Colt 1911 rail 45ACP with a flat dark earth (cerekote finish). It has a beefed up rail frame and for some reason they are using a 7-shot capacity magazine instead of an 8-shot mag. It is the first new order for1911s from Colt for the Marine Corp since 1944. Apparently, Marine Corp armers were rebuilding the frames for the past 40 or 50 years. That is also the reason for the heavy frame. The old ones were cracking after 1000s and 1000s of rounds.



Apparently, the Marine Corp felt that the 9mm just doesn't have the stopping power of the the 45. This is especially true with ball ammunition where you are just punching holes. I heard some chatter about the military using hollow point ammo which could favort the 9mm.

Sweetwilliam, I have fired 1000s and 1000s of runds out of the old 1911 45 and the frame never cracked. Sounds like to me that they have made up the loss of 1 magazine round with a slightly heavier frame.

Robert, I think they are talking about hundreds of thousands of rounds. The M45 frame is heavier than the traditional Government model and they have added an additional spring. They have two springs - a spring within a spring if you will. The purpose is to add life to the frame. Some say it helps with felt recoil but that is not the purpose. It is not clear but I have heard that the Marine Corp stuck with the 7-shot magazine as a cost saving measure. They have thousands of these in inventory.

Sweetwilliam, Thanks for the explanation.

I have a sig .45 and previously a Colt .45 ACP, and much prefer the sig. On active duty I had the gov't colt, then we went to 9mm, preferred the .45. One round from that sucker was all you needed vs 3-4 from a 9mm ball.

Colin, Being an old guy, you know I think anything old is better than anything new.

There were a number of measured reasons why the Old .45 was replaced by a 9mm. Supposedly there was no loss in stopping power. (Something that most everyone at the time had some doubt about.) There was increased accuracy and the fact that the 45 was somewhat unforgiving. It was hard for a number of individuals to use due to the power factor in the recoil. So the change was decided upon.

I found this video regarding the M45 MQBP on Youtube. The new Colt M45 pistol is intended for Marine Corp Spec Ops. I thought this video was good because the Colt factory rep is discussing the pistol.



I have been trying to learn more because I want to get one. It seems like you have to pay at least $1400 for a production M45. Also, they no longer carry the USMC roll mark on the slide. With the roll mark, they are going for $3K+ on gun selling auction sites. they also modified the finish. I think they dropped the Cerakote finish which is a dull flat dark Earth (FDE) coating in favor of an Ion Bond which is a thin coating vapor that is deposited on the gun. The Cerakote was failing. The ion bond has better adhesion.

We went to 9mm NATO due to the European coalition and the wide and exclusive use of the parabellum round, as most nations did not produce .45 rounds. I have had both calibers in my personal collection, and my oldest son Max a former Marine carries the Sig 9mm. He likes the round capacity. I never needed 14 + 1 with a .45.

Never fired the .45. We used the 9mm SMG as our personal weapons (tank crews) and also 9mm Browning pistol, but I'd rather any day carry my 7.62mm as opposed to those and the llater (NATO standard) 5.56mm SA80.

The 7.62mm Light Machine Gun - a version of the WWII .303 Bren gun was fun but frankly too accurate when delivering a cone of fire.

I'd like to try the PPSH41 and also MG42 from WWII.

I'm a great fan of the 7.62mm and loved my time when I was the M-60 machine gunner in my section, even got an award for best shot on the 'pig':

7.62mm (.308 173 grain) is a great sniping round, which I used as a sniper, but the .300 Win Mag is better knock down and range round. I used the 7mm Magnum also, good round, better than the boat tail cartridge in my opinion for low tumble and flat trajectory.

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "I'm a great fan of the 7.62mm and loved my time when I was the M-60 machine gunner in my section, even got an award for best shot on the 'pig':

..."

A good weapon Rick, we had some sessions swapping our 7.62 GPMGs with US troops using the M60 and also the M240 on Bradleys and in Abrams to see differences and sharing experiences.

Dj wrote: "Derek wrote: "'Aussie Rick' wrote: "As and ex-mortarman (81mm) I had to post details of this new release in the group:

[book:Mortars in World War II|278..."

The 45 was still be used while I was in. I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with it. I'm glad I qualified with the M-16.

One of those 81mm mortars almost did me in.

I miss the . 45 as well. The services are supposed to be doing trials on a new pistol in. 45, but I'll be retired before it gets approved. When I was a private, my weapon was the M3, which was nothing more than a bolt with a trigger and magazine attached to it. No range (50 meters effective) and hard to shoot.

Al wrote: "I miss the . 45 as well. The services are supposed to be doing trials on a new pistol in. 45, but I'll be retired before it gets approved. When I was a private, my weapon was the M3, which was noth..."

Al: The ol' Grease Gun. You date yourself.

Al wrote: "I miss the . 45 as well. The services are supposed to be doing trials on a new pistol in. 45, but I'll be retired before it gets approved. When I was a private, my weapon was the M3, which was noth..."

Were you a tanker?

happy wrote: "Al wrote: "I miss the . 45 as well. The services are supposed to be doing trials on a new pistol in. 45, but I'll be retired before it gets approved. When I was a private, my weapon was the M3, whi..."

Cavalry scout on bikes for a year, then on a Bradley. Then light infantry to get off the vehicle.

Al wrote: "happy wrote: "Al wrote: "I miss the . 45 as well. The services are supposed to be doing trials on a new pistol in. 45, but I'll be retired before it gets approved. When I was a private, my weapon w..."

I thought the Bradley, like our British Warrior was a great improvement over the M113 and FV432 the infantry had to use and they were/are great partners to the Abrams and Challenger. Many guys I met in US service felt it was good [with limitations that were exposed for both US and also Britsh units in Iraq on protection). As you served in it was your view of the Bradley positive Al?

From Peter Smith's SKUA! The Royal Navy's Dive-Bomber.

The development of the Blackburn Skua is a testament to the shortcomings of committees. An attempt to design a naval aircraft suitable to two different missions guarantees difficulties, if not failure. The Skua ended up a flop as a fighter, but a marginally-satisfactory dive bomber. Committees (an alphabet soup of: RAE, AMRD, DGRD, ACAS and more) dominated by the Air Ministry and the RAF, ignored or dismissed valuable input from the Royal Navy. The development and production delays dragged on and on. The Royal Navy expected the Skua to enter service in 1937, but only twelve were delivered by the end of 1938 � and most of these were training aircraft. The Fleet Air Arm received only five ships in 1938. Blackburn's production was so slow as to be deemed “unacceptable.� The company was “to be omitted from bidding on any new aircraft orders that year until bottlenecks had been sorted out.�

Even more eyebrow-raising was “the saga of the dive-bomb sight.� The Royal Navy advanced the requirement for a sight “capable of use against a moving target, and it was necessary for this important point to be made clear from the outset.� The Air Ministry insisted on a sight for stationary targets. The Air Ministry won out. As Smith wrote: “For the purpose of warfare at sea against high-speed targets (i.e. Japanese aircraft carriers) the whole basis of development was practically useless from the start.� If only ships at sea would heave to while being bombed...

Interesting bit of information MR9, thanks for sharing with the group.

A May 2017 release:

by Murray Barber
Description:
The A4 rocket, or V2 � 'Vergeltungswaffen Zwei' (Vengeance Weapon 2), was the most sophisticated weapon developed in Europe during the Second World War. From September 1944 to March 1945, launch teams fired more than 3,000 V2 rockets at targets in England, France, Belgium and even within Germany itself. Many V2s were fired from mobile launch sites and from concealed wooded areas, using fleets of transporters and trailers with sophisticated ancillary and support vehicles. After travelling at the edge of space, the V2 fell without warning at supersonic speeds, turning suburban streets to dust in seconds and terrorising civilians.

Drawing on a wide range of archive sources, rare personal accounts and interviews conducted with personnel associated with the A4/V2 program, rocketry expert Murray R. Barber traces the origins of the V2 and presents a detailed view of the research conducted at the secret, experimental rocket-testing facility at Kummersdorf West and the vast, infamous base at Peenemünde. This important new work reveals the transformation of the rocket into a weapon of war and describes the A4 in detail as well as the intense and often difficult intelligence effort by the Allies to discover more about this highly secret and unprecedented weapon, and to destroy it.

The author also describes the field-testing of the A4 rocket, its reliability problems and the remedies and compromises employed to deal with them. He reveals the activities of the SS and their machinations to gain control of the rocket programme from the Wehrmacht, as well as the subsequent operational deployment of the V2 in Operation Penguin, the 'vengeance' offensive against the British Isles.

Illustrated throughout with rare and many previously unseen images (including color photographs), technical drawings and maps, this is the most comprehensive book ever on the V2, and includes important new details of the post-war development and testing of the rocket and its role in the dawning of the space age

From Robert Kershaw's Tank Men: The Human Story of Tanks at War.

British tank officer Robert Crisp was delighted to acquire a new American M3 Stuart light tank while fighting in the desert in late 1941. The Stuart (called a "Honey" by the Brits) boasted a powerful and reliable radial aircraft engine which gave it a top speed over 40 mph. This was more than twice as fast as any German tank. The only problem? It carried a 37 mm popgun as its main armament. Crisp knew the Germans' 88 mm flak gun in an anti-tank configuration had a tank-busting range of 3,000 yards. His Honey would be in range for 1,800 yards before he could get a shot in from his 37 mm gun. As Crisp put it: "Eighteen hundred yards, in these circumstances, is a long way."

Many years ago I read Crisp's Brazen Chariots: An Account of Tank Warfare in the Western Desert, November-December 1941. It's worth reading.

You would feel pretty intimidated rumbling off in your "Honey" tank with a puny 37mm gun, crossing your fingers that your speed would save you if you ran into any trouble.

For those who are interested in accounts covering WW2 artillery here is a forthcoming release (UK- March 2017) that may be of interest:

Gunfire!: British Artillery in World War II by Stig H Moberg
Description:
This book provides an insight into how artillery resources were established, developed and employed during the Second World War, using the British Royal Artillery as an example. Beginning with an overview of the nature and state of readiness of the Royal Artillery on the outbreak of war, the book analyses in great detail the weapons available to the Royal Artillery, their technical functionality and their performance capabilities. With this knowledge the author then examines the organization, methods, procedures and tactics employed by the Royal Artillery. To complete this fascinating study, Stig Moberg looks at a number of key battles from the war to see how the artillery was used, and the effectiveness of its support to the British and Allied infantry, in campaigns in North Africa, Burma and Europe. British Artillery of the Second World War is profusely illustrated throughout with photographs, maps, plans, graphs, charts and diagrams to demonstrate precisely how the British Artillery was used on the battlefields around the world. 'Although I am an infantryman, and proud of it, I have many times said that the Royal Regiment of Artillery, in my opinion, did more to win the last war, more than any other Arm of the Service.' Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery

Seeing as to how Monty barraged his way through Normandy old school, this should come in handy.

Dimitri wrote: "Seeing as to how Monty barraged his way through Normandy old school, this should come in handy."

You'd think so.

Gee we don't have an automotive section,,, General MacArthur's 1942 Packard is the subject of an article in this month's Hemmings Classic Car April #151.

Mac tried to pay for it himself, $2,600, a fair sum in those days, but Packard returned the check and had the olive drab Army equipped vehicle shipped to the South Pacific. Along with a Thompson gun rack in the front, it had Air Conditioning. I bet that came in handy in his theater.

The car had a few narrow escapes from destruction, all after the war, when he gave it to his Army chauffeur. The driver planned on converting it to civilian usage but passed away a few weeks later. The car sat in his wife's garage until 1968! it was almost sent to the junkyard. It's been in private hands since, unrestored so all original.

Amazing tale.

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "This March 2013 release (UK) sounds like it has the potential to be a very interesting account:


by [author:Artem Drabki..."

My father-in-law commanded an anti-tank section in 1941 in the Red Army. He told me several times about how difficult it was to knock out the tanks with the anti-tank guns: you had to hit the sloping armour at exactly the right angle to penetrate, or the round would simply ricochet off.

carl wrote: "Dj, I think that was the balloon bomb. The family
found it and not knowing what it was, fiddled with
it and it exploded. But hey I could be rusty
on that, time to start searching."

It's interesting to find this today! I just a book signing for my third Eastern Front memoir, Walking Out of War, and a couple from the U.K. stopped to chat. The husband was partly deaf, the result of being too close to a balloon bomb that dropped over Manchester when he was a child!

Hi Scott, I bet your father-in-law had some great stories to tell!

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "Hi Scott, I bet your father-in-law had some great stories to tell!"

He sure did. I compiled them into three books. If it's okay on this group, I'd like to tell others about them.

Hi Scott, you can post as much detail as you like on your books in our authors page:

/topic/show/...

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "As and ex-mortarman (81mm) I had to post details of this new release in the group:


Mortars in World War II by [author:John Norris|12893..."

How'd you find this Rick? Wondering what kind of detail it contains on each mortar, sights and its ordnance. I have a 3" mortar and rounds and information on these things is always thin on the ground.

I didn't end up getting a copy Al so I can't hep you there however there is this review at Amazon UK:

Thanks Rick! Both the description and the review weren't particularly conclusive on details so I reckon I'll leave it.

U.S. Handguns of World War II

This book covers all the handguns used by the U.S. armed forces during WWII except for the Model 1911. It's a very impressive piece of research. The author obviously spent years going through both governmental and manufacturer records. It's an excellent book for both researchers and collectors. It's still in print and can be purchased from Amazon. Not a cheap book but I felt that it was worth the expense.

U.S. Infantry Weapons of World War II

This books details almost all of the weapons used by the United States Infantrymen (also includes the United States Marine Corp riflemen) to include rifles, carbines, shotguns, sub-machine guns, grenades (handheld and rifle), anti-tank weapons, automatic weapons, flame-throwers, mortars and handguns. The developmental and manufacturing history as well as the actual battlefield use of the individual weapons is covered. However it doesn't look at the secondary handguns. For that see U.S. Handguns of World War II by Charles Pate. Mr. Canfield is a well known historian of United States firearms going back to the United States Civil War. I own several of his books and I've read his articles in American Rifleman for the last several years. This is another excellent book for the researcher and collector.

This looks like the right spot for this book:
Shadow Diversby Robert Kurson

description:
Includes a section of b&w photos and one section of color plates. In the fall of 1991, two deep wreck divers discovered a World War II German U-boat sixty miles off the coast of New Jersey. No identifying marks were visible on the submarine or the few artifacts that John Chatterton and Richie Kohler brought to the surface. No historian, expert, or government had a clue as to which U-boat the men had found. In fact, the official records all agreed that there simply could not be a sunken U-boat and crew at that location. Over the next six years, an elite team of divers embarked a quest to solve the mystery.

versus
Shadow Divers Exposed: The Real Saga of the U-869byGary Gentile

description:
The U-869 was one of more than 1,200 U-boats that were constructed for the Nazi war machine. It was sunk off the American eastern seaboard by a combination hedgehog and depth-charge attack. There were no survivors to tell the tragic tale. Now, for the first time, the real saga of the U-869 can be told in full. Archival documents have established that the U-boat was sunk by two American destroyer escorts. Seven crewmembers of those aggressive warships have supplemented the official record with their personal recollections. Shadow Divers Exposed works on a multitude of levels. It presents the actual circumstances that surrounded the loss of the U-869. It puts the discovery of the U-869 into perspective with other U-boats that have been found in American waters. It provides an overview of the U-boat war through accounts of other U-boat losses. And it corrects some of the gross errors, wild exaggerations, and deliberate distortions that filled the pages of Shadow Divers. The author interviewed a number of witnesses whose testimony contradicted the theatrical plot and boastful embellishments that formed the essential ingredients of Shadow Divers. Some of these witnesses actually performed the deeds for which the chosen protagonists of Shadow Divers were given credit. These witnesses disputed many of the fictitious elements that ran rampant through the pages of Shadow Divers. By means of forensic analyses of shipwreck collapse, torpedo mechanics, and U-boat survivors' accounts, the present volume explains why the U-869 could not have been sunk by a circular run of its own torpedo - as Shadow Divers had its uninformed readers believe.

Two excellent books, thanks for posting the details Dimitri.

Good info Dimitri, I recall a good documentary on Nova on this U-boat. It's available on line.

Also great interview with a shipmate that left before the last voyage.



'Aussie Rick' wrote: "Two excellent books, thanks for posting the details Dimitri."

Here is a book that may interest some group members:

Everything Worked Like Clockwork...: The Mechanization of British Regular and Household Cavalry 1918-1942 by Roger Salmon
Description:
The mechanization of British and Household Cavalry regiments took place between the two World Wars and on into 1942. This book describes the process by which many horsed cavalrymen were re-trained to operate and fight in Armoured Fighting Vehicles (AFVs) and the experiences of some of the men and regiments involved. Extensive use has been made of regimental and War Office archives, and particularly from the Imperial War Museum's sound archives - the oral testimonies of soldiers who had experienced this huge change. A small number of veterans are, or were, still living and were interviewed by the author for this work. The reason given for the delay in cavalry mechanization - cited in some military histories and much influenced by the writings of Sir Basil Liddell Hart - was the reluctance by the cavalrymen to part with their horses and their technophobic attitude. This book tests the accuracy of this assertion, together with what was the availability of suitable and sufficient armoured fighting vehicles to replace the cavalry's horses. Of special interest is the examination of the historical papers of the tank manufacturers Vickers, held at the Cambridge University Library, regarding tank development and production. This story of mechanising the cavalry has been set against the backdrop of the social, economic and political climate of the 1920s and 1930s, and the pressure on politicians of the wider franchise and public opinion. In researching this aspect, the Britain by Mass Observation archives - held at the University of Sussex - have been most illuminating. The interwar impact on cavalry mechanization; the role of the British Army in general; disarmament; and rearmament are described - again with illustrations from oral testimonies.

My thanks to the likers of a mere star review for The Vickers-Maxim Machine Gun
I've finally written down my toughts;

/review/show...

Dimitri wrote: "My thanks to the likers of a mere star review for The Vickers-Maxim Machine Gun
I've finally written down my toughts;

...."

Great review Dimitri, thanks for sharing.

Dj wrote: "The .45 was still in service as the standard US Military Side Arm until it was replaced by a 9mm while I was serving in the 80s. It was an amazingly successful side arm, with major class stopping power. Even if it took some downside on the range.

The day we're invaded & I'm drafted in some militia, I'll insist on a Colt 1911. No faith in today's plastic. I'll trust a gun that survived both World Wars !

Dimitri wrote: "Dj wrote: "The .45 was still in service as the standard US Military Side Arm until it was replaced by a 9mm while I was serving in the 80s. It was an amazingly successful side arm, with major class..."

Dimitri: I have a 1911A1 about five feet away from me now. I'm ready for that invasion.