Patton 1911

That sure is not a "medium" tank as the caption states. When I saw a Stuart Light Tank on display at Fort Knox in 1962, I was taken aback by how small the .37 MM cannot was and how small and light-armored the thing was. The word, "deathtrap" comes to mind in regard to it and German anti-tank weapons of WWII.
As for Patton's side arms, I could swear that I have seen Patton with a double-action S&W on his right side.
 
This has become a pretty far-reaching thread, from what Patton carried, to where, to when, etc., etc., and if the type of tank in the background of a period photo helps determine that Patton didn't carry his Woodsman in Tunisia, it might be of value (would he carry a .22 into combat?).
In the last three days, I've found pics of Patton carrying the SAA, 1911, Woodsman, and Colt '03/'08.
I also found a tiny pic of him in his proposed tanker uniform. "Green jacket with a row of brass buttons, topped off with a gold football helmet . . . God, it was beautiful", from the movie. It looks like he has a revolver in a shoulder holster, the butt appearing too round to be an auto pistol, but the pic is too small to really tell.
 
One kind find photos of Patton with the SAA on the right, the .357 on the left and on the right, a Detective Special in a belt holster on the right, and the Woodsman.

And, off topic, with binoculars or with a Leica.

I like all of those items.
 
"Mike,
Could you please move this to the Armored Vehicle forum?"

Done.

Being an admin kicks ass. :cool:

No, it's not a medium tank.

What most people don't know is that when the M3 was built, it was on par with just about anything the Germans had at the time.

As late as early 1941 the German army was armed primarily with PzKw IIs.
 
"and if the type of tank in the background of a period photo helps determine that Patton didn't carry his Woodsman in Tunisia, it might be of value (would he carry a .22 into combat?)."

I can't see that he would. .22 Long Rifle uses a heeled bullet, and I don't think anyone has ever produced a .22 FMJ because of that.

That means that the .22 LR fired lead bullets, and while the United States wasn't a signatory to the Hague Accords on the types of ammunition used in combat at the time, it followed the accord's strictures.
 
"As for Patton's side arms, I could swear that I have seen Patton with a double-action S&W on his right side."

Patton was known to carry an S&W .357 Magnum (what would later become the Model 27).
 
On the use of a .22, I am not sure he could have found FMJ ammo for his SAA or the .357, either. I rather suspect he didn't give a darn, and no one on our side was about to tell him what he couldn't do. The FMJ and other such rules could really be enforced only by the enemy against captured personnel, and (rank aside) I think it is a near certainty that Patton did not intend to be captured.

The real point is that Patton was a showman; he never really intended to use any of his handguns in combat. They were part of his "image" as a flamboyant leader, like Stuart's scarlet-lined cape or Custer's long light hair, men whose era he believed he belonged in, rather than in the time of the business-like Ike or the staid Marshall.

(P.S., the U.S. did produce FMJ .22 LR for Air Force survival rifles, but that was long after WWII.)

Jim
 
"On the use of a .22, I am not sure he could have found FMJ ammo for his SAA or the .357, either."

No, I don't know of any FMJ ammo at that time, but....

There was easy access to the next best thing, and which nice met the spirit of the accord by not having an exposed metal tip.

.38-44 and .357 Mag. metal capped rounds from Remington and Peters that were originally brought out as a means of dealing with the heavy sheet metal in the cars of the auto bandits.

Two nice boxes...

http://picturearchive.gunauction.com/8786220416/6904016/ae70cbc3249c20b0c79aa53fbcd6780d.jpg

My Uncle served in Korea during the unpleasantness there. My Grandfather sent him a Colt or S&W .357 Magnum and several boxes of metal capped .38-44 ammunition.


Come to think of it, though, Remington MAY have been making metal capped .22 Long Rifle around this time frame, as well.


I still find it impossible to believe that Patton would carry a .22 Long Rifle in the field in a combat operations zone. Patton was a gun man, he had been around them his entire life, and he knew what constituted an effective cartridge. More than that, he was a practitioner of that, given that he had killed at least several men during the Mexican Expedition.

He would carry smaller, less powerful handguns when not in the field. Those served more as accoutrements of office than actual fighting weapons.
 
curious if anyone can recommend a good biography on Patton.
Click to expand...

Patton, The Man Behind the Legend; Martin Blumenson
The Pattons; Robert H. Patton (grandson)
The Armies of George S. Patton; George Forty
War As I Knew It; George S. Patton

Each book is different, focusing more or less on Patton's military service, family, ancestry, etc.
 
"On the use of a .22, I am not sure he could have found FMJ ammo for his SAA or the .357, either."

No, I don't know of any FMJ ammo at that time, but....
Click to expand...

During WW II Dominion Cartridge Co. and, I believe, Eley Cartridge Co. loaded FMJ .45 Colt ammunition for the War Effort, this due to the number of Colt New Service revolvers issued at the time. Also metal penetrating .38 Special and .357 Magnum was available.

But even if he'd carried hollow points in his revolvers, who was going to challenge Patton?

Bob Wright
 
"But even if he'd carried hollow points in his revolvers, who was going to challenge Patton?"

Well, considering how many times he was reprimanded, removed from command/duty, forced to apologize to his troops, censured, etc....

I'm thinking a lot of people?

"During WW II Dominion Cartridge Co. and, I believe, Eley Cartridge Co. loaded FMJ .45 Colt ammunition for the War Effort..."

I doubt if it would have been .45 Colt. Outside of the United States .45 Colt was pretty uncommon, even in Canada.

During World War I Colt supplied about 60,000 New Service revolvers in .455 Eley/Webley to both Canada and Britain, and those continued to see service during WW II.

.455 Colt Mk I (a marking used by Dominion) is more likely, though.

It has the same case dimensions as .455 Webley Mk I) was also a pretty common chambering in the New Service, and many were sold privately to Canadian and British officers in the years before World War I.

But... those guns had the advantage that they could use either the Mk I or Mk II case lengths, so there wouldn't have been much need or reason to load the Mk I during the war. It would have just complicated things.
 
I doubt if it would have been .45 Colt. Outside of the United States .45 Colt was pretty uncommon, even in Canada.
Click to expand...

The box I have is of Dominion manufacture, dated 1944, and is marked "For use in Colt's New Service Revolver." And they are indeed .45 Colt, loaded with what appears to be 230gr. FMJ. The H/S reads "DC 44" and ".45 Colt" and the box is stamp dated "Jul. 1944" and is the typical twelve round box.

Bob Wright

Bob Wright
 
Congrats Mike, you caught it before I found the pic. ;)
The caption is incorrect. The tank is an early M3 Light tank. Not the very first ones, which had riveted turrets. This is the first major change version using a welded hexagonal turret. But still having the riveted hull.

The welded turret was rapidly replaced with a cast "horseshoe" shape turret, and after 42, M3 & M3A1s had welded hulls.

Being a General (and being THE General, as well), Patton could carry whatever he wanted. You may also note his "standard" uniform wasn't the usual issue, either.

An interesting note, Patton's reputation as our premier fighting general was held by more Germans than Allies.
 
"The box I have is of Dominion manufacture, dated 1944, and is marked "For use in Colt's New Service Revolver." And they are indeed .45 Colt, loaded with what appears to be 230gr. FMJ. The H/S reads "DC 44" and ".45 Colt" and the box is stamp dated "Jul. 1944" and is the typical twelve round box."

Pictures, please!

Thinking about this some more, my guess is that they were produced for home guard use in Canada and were never intended to be offshored.

By far the largest user of .45 Colt-chambered revolvers in Canada at the time was the Royal North-West Mounted Police, which had purchased several hundred New Service revolvers in the early 1900s. They also purchased Colt Model 1878s.

The Canadian Army had purchased a few dozen New Services in .45 Colt to arm officers going to Africa as part of the Boer War contingent, but to my knowledge that was the only, and last time that the Canadian Army used the .45 Colt overseas (other than personally owned sidearms).

During World War I the Canadian Army purchased several thousand S&W and Colt revolvers, all chambered in .455 Webley Mk II; during World War II most Canadians who carried revolves carried a Smith & Wesson in .380/200.
 
"Being a General (and being THE General, as well), Patton could carry whatever he wanted."

I know Generals have great leeway in their choice of personal weapons, but that doesn't give them carte blanch to violate ammunition regulations.

Unless Patton managed to latch onto some metal capped .22 LR, he would have been violating general orders that far outstripped even him.
 
but that doesn't give them carte blanch to violate ammunition regulations.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't, technically. But they sort of can, regardless. The only people who can tell a General to follow the regs are higher ranking Generals.

And at that level, Generals don't really care much about such things. They might snicker behind their hands, and make fun of the "rogue" general's quirks, but at the level of Generals, they are all members of a very special "club", and calling one of their "members" to task over a very "trivial matter" just isn't done, you know.

They would take him to task for being TOO GOOD a general, (like getting to Messina before Monty), or for being bad PR (slapping a coward??) but what pistol he carries, and what ammo he has in it? I don't see them doing anything, other than, a friendly back room "Now George, you know you really shouldn't carry that...." kind of "advice".
 
Generals always have higher reputations among their foes than their "friends".
Many of the Germans felt Rommel's reputation was more due to Goebbel's PR machine than his military achievements-Rommel never fought on the Eastern Front and wasn't subject to the degree of micro-managing those commanders were. Many of the Soviets felt Zhukov's reputation was overblown, Rokkosovsky said Zhukov was too harsh and those who served under Rokkosovsky said he achieved the same results without all the threats and cursing.
I read Patton preferred revolvers, saying all you needed was ammunition, while a semiauto was a gun of "two parts" and without the magazine you were lost.
Patton fulminated about generals "dressing down"-Theodore Roosevelt, Junior, e.g. "A brave man but no soldier." But it was TR Jr. who went ashore in the first wave at Normandy.
Patton received plenty of support for his slapping incidents, and it was Eisenhower who approved the death penalty for Slovik.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top