A2 and shoulder holster

[taikonaut]

Wouldnt avoiding it altogether be a better option if that was the case?
...Having a conceal weapon gives the pilot option. Showing that you are armed reduces that option.

Yes -- you bail out and do your best to avoid capture, being spotted by any of the enemy; civilian or military is a bad move, but if you're in uniform, you're already expected to be dangerous -- Most civilians will do their best to avoid you, hiding your weapon isn't going to make that big of a difference. Better to show it and keep them away than make believe you're unarmed and possibly have them approach you.

The point you're missing is that you'd do your best to escape, but also to defend yourself if threatened -- and that is not to play hide and seek games.

Remember what Swing said about all those pilots wearing their sidearms on their waists, they were more concerned about ready accessibility than concealment.

Chandler

A pilot without his plane is not design for combat duty, if he cant escape he surrenders to the authority namely an enemy in uniform. Civilians do sometime approach downed pilots and they do kill them. As I mention above conceal weapon is an option. I think those image of cowboys with waist holsters were airmen showing off, those who hide them in inside jacket and flight boots think about options.

 

[Chandler]

A pilot without his plane is not design for combat duty

Every pilot goes through basic training, just like everyone in the military. But it's not about combat, nor is it about espionage -- it's about escape and evasion. Any of our veteran members graduates of that school, in theory or practice?

Civilians do sometime approach downed pilots and they do kill them.

Put yourself in a civilian's shoes in wartime -- if you saw what appeared to be an enemy soldier down the street with a pistol on his belt - or outside his jacket in any way - would you approach him or keep your distance?

Chandler

 

[taikonaut]

A pilot without his plane is not design for combat duty

Every pilot goes through basic training, just like everyone in the military. But it's not about combat, nor is it about espionage -- it's about escape and evasion. Any of our veteran members graduates of that school, in theory or practice?

Not really the same. In the ground force a soldier would have logistics outline for combat duty. A pilot would not have the same. Yes they have basic survival training and this involve surrendering to the enemy.

Civilians do sometime approach downed pilots and they do kill them.

Put yourself in a civilian's shoes in wartime -- if you saw what appeared to be an enemy soldier down the street with a pistol on his belt - or outside his jacket in any way - would you approach him or keep your distance?

Chandler

Put yourself in the position of a civilian, if you saw a downed enemy who just bombed your town and your Chippy you would want his blood even if he might shoot you dead.
Put it another yet not uncommon scenario, downed pilots injured unable to escape, an angry mob of civilians with pick axe and shovel running towards him, he pulls out his gun to worn them off until an enemy officer arrives to surrender to, then POW camp. Another scenario, pilot wore gun outside downed behind enemy line injured, a civilian with gun spotted him, he like to capture him alive and get a reward but on hindsight since the pilot is armed the decision weighs heavily to shoot him dead instead. A pilot has concealed weapon injured behind enemy line, a lone civilian with gun approach him maybe to kill him or take him alive, undecided but approach the injured pilot, pilot pulls out concealed gun and shoot the civilian then make his escape. Civilians arent trained to handle combat situation, even soldiers dithers and become undecided. Not everything is hollywood and not everyone beahves in such as way you would expect them to

 

[Chandler]

Back to the original argument -- there's no way you can change what the military deemed correct at the time. You discovered it yourself, the holster isn't at all comfortable under your jacket. They made it to wear on the outside. Go argue with the quartermaster of the day.

Your scenarios are more Hollywood than the pilots acting as cowboys with pistols on their hips. It was a war, not a game. Make that weapon easily accessible -- no matter who's approaching.

Chandler

 

[rick.canavar]

Who knows what who was thinking at the time. I'll say if it were me and the theater was Europe my thinking would be as follows. The two critical events in all this would be the bailout and the point of capture.

If you don't get out of the plane successfully nothing afterward matters. The pistol doesn't help here and could catch on something or encumber me.

Capture is basically inevitable without help on the ground, in some locations maybe you're lucky and the local resistance gets to you first, but in Germany your chances of evading escape are nil. There are endless possible scenarios involving torch and pitchfork wielding civilians etc, but in the end the most likely scenario involves armed German troops. Possession of a gun makes that point of capture more.... ambiguous as far as edgy soldiers with guns are concerned. I'd rather avoid the whole dodgy affair of surrendering a weapon than worry about vengeful civilians. Conclusion, having the pistol in the first place is more trouble than its worth; I'd not bother with one.

 

[watchmanjimg]

Don't get me wrong--I love talking about this stuff with you guys. However, I think some of us are reading way too much into what basically amounts to personal preference under relaxed wartime uniform standards. There could be scenarios where a concealed firearm could be an indispensable asset, while in other cases it can mean one's death. Whatever the case, does anyone here really think a soldier encountering his enemy on the battlefield would EVER assume he was unarmed?

I'd be more inclined to think that the various alternatives to the shoulder holster were chosen to avoid the damn thing flopping all over the place and getting caught on things (I once enjoyed a week's vacation in the Mojave Desert when the driver of my tank set off the fire extinguishers trying to disentangle his shoulder holster from the cables that activated the system. Operation of the vehicle was forbidden without a functioning system and replacements had to be ordered from our base in Colorado, which took a looooong time). Thanks again, Jon!

 

[Andrew]

Specifically relating to aircrew wearing side arms- this discussion appears to conjecture from a bunch of people born many years after the event and are just comparing opinions. :|

The best thing is to ask someone who was there whilst there's still time, or failing that read biographies of the time. Air Crew I have spoken to and personal accounts I have read of men who flew in Europe preferred not to cary a side arm as it was asking for trouble (from troops or civilians) if you were caught and that was more likely than making it back on foot. In Nth Africa they didn't bother because if downed they were ususally behind the lines and again it would just ask for trouble. Capture by Troops meant imprisonment.

Now my turn for conjecture- there are many shots of Aircrew AAF and RAAF wearing a side arm on the hip operating in the Pacific. I suspect that of equal importance of protection form the enemy was protection from Croc attack as all of our northern coastline is Croc territory as is New Guinea etc etc. There's no way you would want to be unnarmed in that situation. The nature of the War in the Pacific was different with a different enemy. The distances were vast, the conditions far more extreme and people very few and far between- especially helpful ones. A side arm would give you a chance of evasion whereas capture would mean alsmost certain death by execution or in a brutal labour or prison camp.

I know some Pacific Bomber guys so i'll see if I can get an opinion sometime.

 

[T-Bolt]

I will say it would be foolish to dismiss the value of an issued handgun in the event of a close quarters confrontation. Here is a quote regarding part of the combat action that Sgt. Alvin York was involved in on October 8, 1918:

"Having shot some 17 German gunners via sniping, York was charged by seven German soldiers who realised that he was operating on his own. He killed them all with his pistol. With the aid of a German Major captured earlier York brought in a total of 132 German prisoners, a remarkable feat."

The pistol mentioned above was a U.S. Model 1911 service automatic which fired the .45 Automatic Colt Pistol cartridge.


Ted

 

[T-Bolt]

It is common knowledge that USAAF personnel who sucessfully parachuted into hostile (enemy) territory, stood a significant possibility of encountering German civilians after reaching the ground. Unlike German soldiers who operated under specific orders to capture Allied soldiers and keep them alive for probable interrogation, German civilians often had a totally different attitude toward "enemy" airmen.

After seeing many of their cities destroyed and fellow countrymen killed by bombardment or strafing, the first thought that many of them had when encountering airmen.......was to "get even".

If I was an American airman who had just unexpectedly arrived in enemy territory, you are damned straight I would hold onto my sidearm until I was forced to surrender to ememy troops.


Ted

 

[airfrogusmc]

When I was in we had a choice of 38 or 45 I never knew one pilot or crewchief that preferred the 45.

 

[Vcruiser]

Well..I'd take the stopping power of a .45acp over a .38 any day. I own both...but normally carry the .45 just for that reason.
As far as finding myself alone in enemy territory in my era of war...Nam...I'd damn sure want at least a pistol...preferrably the .45. I wouldn't resign myself easily to be torn apart and dragged down dusty Main St. by a half dozen pissed off local militiamongers...
VB

 

[airfrogusmc]

Well..I'd take the stopping power of a .45acp over a .38 any day. I own both...but normally carry the .45 just for that reason.
As far as finding myself alone in enemy territory in my era of war...Nam...I'd damn sure want at least a pistol...preferrably the .45. I wouldn't resign myself easily to be torn apart and dragged down dusty Main St. by a half dozen pissed off local militiamongers...
VB

It really boiled down to weight (mostly weight) and accuracy. When flying over water in cold weather you had your layers, survival vest, gunners belt, flight jacket and anymore weight was definitely not wanted. Plus most Marines are in the camp of 1 well placed round over a dozen that aren't.

 

[watchmanjimg]

[quote="airfrogusmc]It really boiled down to weight (mostly weight) and accuracy. When flying over water in cold weather you had your layers, survival vest, gunners belt, flight jacket and anymore weight was definitely not wanted. Plus most Marines are in the camp of 1 well placed round over a dozen that aren't.[/quote]

I'm interested in hearing more about this. First off, I'm surprised they gave you a choice as it seems like many US aviation units were stuck with .38s from sometime in the '50s until the Beretta M9 was standardized across the services (maybe into the '90s for some units). The weight difference between the issued M1911A1 and the standard 4-inch K-frame revolver (assuming that's what you guys carried) is only a few ounces so I'm surprised weight would be a factor. Additionally, the flatter profile of the auto would make it more comfortable to carry, especially in a shoulder holster.

What I find most intriguing is your comment regarding accuracy. Did you guys really find the .38 more accurate than the .45? In competitive circles both rounds have been recognized for their inherent accuracy, but I'm not sure the typical S&W Model 10 or Colt Official Police derivative issued by the US military is any more accurate than the M1911A1 (mind you, I've only carried the .45 in uniform but I've owned issued .38s privately). I suppose the Model 15 Combat Masterpiece with its target sights would possibly be an exception. Is this what your unit issued?

Finally, I agree with Van's comment on stopping power. It's well known that the .45 is more effective than the .38, especially when GI FMJ ammo is used. This is the very reason the .45 auto was developed in the first place. I'm all for one well-placed shot, but it has to get the job done.

 

[Atticus]

I asked my father about this. He says he carried my grandfather's little .38 short Smith and Wesson in lieu of the .45 he was issued. He wore it outside his jacket, and his jacket was a B-10, not an A-2. He cared even less for A-2s than he did for .45s.

All this being said, he never got to see actual combat. Maybe he would have made a different choice of sidearms had he been faced with the prospect of bailing out over enemy-held teritory.

But knowing him as I do, probably not.

AF

 

[Swing]

The best thing is to ask someone who was there whilst there's still time, or failing that read biographies of the time. Air Crew I have spoken to and personal accounts I have read of men who flew in Europe preferred not to cary a side arm as it was asking for trouble (from troops or civilians) if you were caught and that was more likely than making it back on foot.

Correct, in Europe you were better off not carrying a firearm, and being a non hostile as possible once you hit the ground. You're weren't going to shoot your way out.

Pacific, you're not going to shoot your way out either, but if downed in a jungle, you need a firearm of some sort to deal with dangerous wildlife.

How you wore your firearm came down to personal preference.

~Swing

 

[Swing]

Plus most Marines are in the camp of 1 well placed round over a dozen that aren't.

Accuracy can make up for a lack of power, but very rarely will power make up for a lack of accuracy. If you don't put the bullet where it belongs, it doesn't matter how big or heavy it is, or fast it was going when it hit the target... example, a .458 Winchester in the foot isn't going to beat a .32-20 through the heart or lungs.

~Swing

 

[watchmanjimg]

No argument here, except that a Marine who can make a well-placed shot with a .38 should be able to do a hell of a lot more damage with a .45.

 

[airfrogusmc]

[

I was in from 73-77 and we had a choice of which to qualify with and what we wanted to carry. And I shot expert with both but, I like most, preferred the 38. I also preferred the M-14 over the M-16. We also had to be checked out on M-60s and 50 cals. 50 cals now thats some fire power.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Also in the 70s I think the Marines snipers were using the M 40 which if I remember right is bolt action and isn't the Army still using the M1903 ?

 

[watchmanjimg]

I'm not sure of the exact year, but the Army developed the M21 sniper rifle during Vietnam. This is an accurized version of the M14 with a scope, the Leatherwood ART I believe. I'm pretty sure they're still using this as well as other modern sniper rifles. I believe the M1C and M1ds saw action in early Vietnam, but I think the M1903 sniper hasn't been used by the Army for a long time (like maybe half a century or so).