pdmoderator
New member
GIF! GIF!
- pdmoderator
What gun did Winston Churchill carry ?
- Thread starter Ponty
- Start date
- pdmoderator
As an aside, the British noted that wounds inflicted by the smaller caliber but much higher velocity Mauser round were much worse than those caused by larger, heavier, slower rounds. Field surgeons commented that the wounds were "chewed up" or "mangled", and that the wounds caused more fatalities than any other handgun type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Churchill was an ass in his younger years and was noted as such by many of those who knew him, he also had all the strategic ability of a goldfish - the Dardanelles conflict immediately springs to mind.
What he did was to become the finest wartime leader in modern history, the British simply believed that they could not lose with "Winny" at the helm. His sayings are now the footnotes to many key note speeches, and many of his quotes will never be fogotten.
He had a special fondness for the Thompson, and also for America and Americans in general. Many put this down to Britains wartime need for help in fighting the Germans, Churchill was not so fickle, for proof of that look up his opinions of the French, also our allies (although in truth the French are noones ally).
He died in the year of my birth, it would be true to say that I mourn his passing even now. To think that the creature Blair even came from the species is an insult.
Churchill was pro-gun, he knew the value of firearms ownership.
Mike H
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Churchill was an ass in his younger years and was noted as such by many of those who knew him, he also had all the strategic ability of a goldfish - the Dardanelles conflict immediately springs to mind.
What he did was to become the finest wartime leader in modern history, the British simply believed that they could not lose with "Winny" at the helm. His sayings are now the footnotes to many key note speeches, and many of his quotes will never be fogotten.
He had a special fondness for the Thompson, and also for America and Americans in general. Many put this down to Britains wartime need for help in fighting the Germans, Churchill was not so fickle, for proof of that look up his opinions of the French, also our allies (although in truth the French are noones ally).
He died in the year of my birth, it would be true to say that I mourn his passing even now. To think that the creature Blair even came from the species is an insult.
Churchill was pro-gun, he knew the value of firearms ownership.
Mike H
Mike Irwin
Staff
Mike H,
Churchill gets a VERY RAW deal when it comes to the Dardanells. The charges are, in large part, BS.
Strategically the plan was quite sound, its execution by the generals on the ground, and by Churchill's peers in the Cabinet, caused innumerable delays, decisions, counter decisions, hesitation and, combined with some bad luck, caused the failure of the campaign.
In my estimation, the public needed a whipping boy, and the easiest person to throw away was Churchill. How could Churchill be beaten by a bunch of half-savage backward Turks?
In essence, it was nothing more than a fairly successful attempt to haul the public's attention away from the even greater fiascos that were going on in Europe at the time.
There's an extremely good examination of the Dardanelles fiasco done about 15-20 years ago, I think, that pretty much puts to bed the fact that it was Churchill's plan that caused the problems by going back and examining a lot of the Admiralty, Army, Government, and personal papers of the time. I'll be damned if I can remember the name or the author, only that I used it for source material for one of my papers in college.
Churchill gets a VERY RAW deal when it comes to the Dardanells. The charges are, in large part, BS.
Strategically the plan was quite sound, its execution by the generals on the ground, and by Churchill's peers in the Cabinet, caused innumerable delays, decisions, counter decisions, hesitation and, combined with some bad luck, caused the failure of the campaign.
In my estimation, the public needed a whipping boy, and the easiest person to throw away was Churchill. How could Churchill be beaten by a bunch of half-savage backward Turks?
In essence, it was nothing more than a fairly successful attempt to haul the public's attention away from the even greater fiascos that were going on in Europe at the time.
There's an extremely good examination of the Dardanelles fiasco done about 15-20 years ago, I think, that pretty much puts to bed the fact that it was Churchill's plan that caused the problems by going back and examining a lot of the Admiralty, Army, Government, and personal papers of the time. I'll be damned if I can remember the name or the author, only that I used it for source material for one of my papers in college.
Mike Irwin
Staff
That picture was taken in, I believe, 1940 while Churchill was inspecting British troops.
The Germans got hold of it and promptly turned it into a propaganda poster comparing Churchill to a gangster.
The Germans got hold of it and promptly turned it into a propaganda poster comparing Churchill to a gangster.
Larry Wright
New member
I don't know that I would call the Turks "half-savage". What they were was a decaying civilization that had dominated the region for centuries and were on there last legs until Attaturk (sp) brought them into the 20th Century (over a lot of Armenian dead bodies). I was in New Zealand back in '84 and there were still folks that had ill will towards Churchill over Gallipoli. Oh well, Churchill like Patton was a man for a certain season and it didn't take the Brits any time at all to put him out to pasture after WWII.
John Lawson
New member
Mauser Wounds VS "Large Caliber Wounds."
Mike, you have slipped in a comparison of apples and oranges. The sugreon quoted was comparing the Mauser bullet wounds with the .455 Webley bullet wounds. The Webley exited at about 635 feet per second. Naturally, there can be no comparison with the 7.63 bullet traveling at just about Mach I.
The Mauser round was intended to kill; the Webley round was intended to inflict a wound bad enough to make the recipient unable to return fire, but to require the assistance of two stretcher bearers, an ambulance driver and attendant, hospital orderlies, surgeons, nurses, ward attendants and an entire staff of service people. When shot dead, a body was ignored and until grave diggers were employed, nobody was required to attend the casualty.
The Webley Mk VI was used in WW-I extensively, but was less widely distributed in WW-II, but it was there, if you looked for it!
Mike, you have slipped in a comparison of apples and oranges. The sugreon quoted was comparing the Mauser bullet wounds with the .455 Webley bullet wounds. The Webley exited at about 635 feet per second. Naturally, there can be no comparison with the 7.63 bullet traveling at just about Mach I.
The Mauser round was intended to kill; the Webley round was intended to inflict a wound bad enough to make the recipient unable to return fire, but to require the assistance of two stretcher bearers, an ambulance driver and attendant, hospital orderlies, surgeons, nurses, ward attendants and an entire staff of service people. When shot dead, a body was ignored and until grave diggers were employed, nobody was required to attend the casualty.
The Webley Mk VI was used in WW-I extensively, but was less widely distributed in WW-II, but it was there, if you looked for it!
According to the 1907 Tests presided over by John T. Thompson, the small caliber high velocity rounds worked well when they struck the brain but not when they hit the internal organs. I believe it was 7.65 (.30) Luger he was testing.
That's where the test board determined .45 caliber was the most effective. .476 British (a slow bumble bee of a cartridge (c. 600 fps), was even more effective than .45 IIRC.
That's where the test board determined .45 caliber was the most effective. .476 British (a slow bumble bee of a cartridge (c. 600 fps), was even more effective than .45 IIRC.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Larry,
My use of the term "Half-Savage" was to highlight prevailing British, and generally European, conventional thinking about any non-lilly-white peoples, not as an indication of what I think about the Turks.
The white paternalist attitude, reinforced by over 300 years of colonial expansion, was still in fully swing at the time.
"Sure, the Turks were a relatively modernized society with a large and fairly well equipped and trained army. But, for got's sake, they're bloody Wogs! How in the name of God did they force us to withdraw? Time to lay some blame..."
Contrast that with the attitude toward combat on the Western Front, where literally millions of casualties were being caused by poor leadership employing even poorer tactics. "Oh dear, we lost half a million men this week, but that's OK, they're being wounded and/or killed by a white enemy."
This attitude was still highly prevalent at the outbreak of WW II, both in Britain and the US.
"The Japanese? Why, they're too short and too myopic to be good soldiers. The only thing they can do is make cheap, inferior imitations of Western goods. Their weapons? You can't cause a wound with that little pop rifle they carry..." etc. ad nauseum.
You want a really good look at how Americans felt about the Japanese during WW II? Try to find the old Bugs Bunny cartoons of the era. They're incredible.
My use of the term "Half-Savage" was to highlight prevailing British, and generally European, conventional thinking about any non-lilly-white peoples, not as an indication of what I think about the Turks.
The white paternalist attitude, reinforced by over 300 years of colonial expansion, was still in fully swing at the time.
"Sure, the Turks were a relatively modernized society with a large and fairly well equipped and trained army. But, for got's sake, they're bloody Wogs! How in the name of God did they force us to withdraw? Time to lay some blame..."
Contrast that with the attitude toward combat on the Western Front, where literally millions of casualties were being caused by poor leadership employing even poorer tactics. "Oh dear, we lost half a million men this week, but that's OK, they're being wounded and/or killed by a white enemy."
This attitude was still highly prevalent at the outbreak of WW II, both in Britain and the US.
"The Japanese? Why, they're too short and too myopic to be good soldiers. The only thing they can do is make cheap, inferior imitations of Western goods. Their weapons? You can't cause a wound with that little pop rifle they carry..." etc. ad nauseum.
You want a really good look at how Americans felt about the Japanese during WW II? Try to find the old Bugs Bunny cartoons of the era. They're incredible.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"the Webley round was intended to inflict a wound bad enough to make the recipient unable to return fire, but to require the assistance of two stretcher bearers, an ambulance driver and attendant, hospital orderlies, surgeons, nurses, ward attendants and an entire staff of service people."
Sorry, John, I don't think that is the case at all.
Why?
Because the .455 Webley was developed and adopted during the height of British Colonial involvement, with the vast majority of combat occurring against native troops who didn't have stretcher bearers, ambulance drivers, ambulances, hospital orderlies, or even hospitals, surgeons, etc.
The Webley, just as with the American .45, with its heavy bullet was seen as a very effective way of stopping an attacker up close. That was why the Webley was developed and adopted.
But even the .455 Webley was found to be wanting in the Sudan, so a new bullet was developed for it, essentially a massive hollowpoint slug of pretty much pure lead called the Manstopper.
And, in another nod to British colonial and general racial views of the time, the British felt that it was just fine to use this round against the "native savages" (actual quote from a British book describing this round) but it was NOT ok to use this round against troops from "Civilized" (read white) nations.
Sorry, John, I don't think that is the case at all.
Why?
Because the .455 Webley was developed and adopted during the height of British Colonial involvement, with the vast majority of combat occurring against native troops who didn't have stretcher bearers, ambulance drivers, ambulances, hospital orderlies, or even hospitals, surgeons, etc.
The Webley, just as with the American .45, with its heavy bullet was seen as a very effective way of stopping an attacker up close. That was why the Webley was developed and adopted.
But even the .455 Webley was found to be wanting in the Sudan, so a new bullet was developed for it, essentially a massive hollowpoint slug of pretty much pure lead called the Manstopper.
And, in another nod to British colonial and general racial views of the time, the British felt that it was just fine to use this round against the "native savages" (actual quote from a British book describing this round) but it was NOT ok to use this round against troops from "Civilized" (read white) nations.
John/Mike
The Webley .455 was, and is, a manstopper in its own right, myths about "wound only" bullets still persist, the M16 and the M185 round come to mind. I very much doubt that such revolutionary thinking was prescient at the time of the Webley Mk.VI's design, they wanted people dead - period.
Mike - The Manstopper round was used by the British in WWI, albeit against regulations. Such was its effectiveness (a solid lead wadcutter with a conical hollowpoint in the nose) that the Germans let it be known that they would execute any officer captured whilst carrying such rounds.
Mike H
The Webley .455 was, and is, a manstopper in its own right, myths about "wound only" bullets still persist, the M16 and the M185 round come to mind. I very much doubt that such revolutionary thinking was prescient at the time of the Webley Mk.VI's design, they wanted people dead - period.
Mike - The Manstopper round was used by the British in WWI, albeit against regulations. Such was its effectiveness (a solid lead wadcutter with a conical hollowpoint in the nose) that the Germans let it be known that they would execute any officer captured whilst carrying such rounds.
Mike H
Mike Irwin
Staff
"The Manstopper round was used by the British in WWI, albeit against regulations. Such was its effectiveness (a solid lead wadcutter with a conical hollowpoint in the nose) that the Germans let it be known that they would execute any officer captured whilst carrying such rounds."
Do you by chance have a citation for that? I've never come across that claim before. To the best of my knowldge, the Manstoppers were produced for only about 4 years, if that long, at a single British arsenal. Not that many were made, and most were sent to the Sudan and other garden spots.
The Germans did threaten to execute any American caught carrying a shotgun, while the Americans countered with the threat to execute any German found to be carrying the Mauser Sawback bayonet.
In neither case was any enemy soldier ever executed.
Do you by chance have a citation for that? I've never come across that claim before. To the best of my knowldge, the Manstoppers were produced for only about 4 years, if that long, at a single British arsenal. Not that many were made, and most were sent to the Sudan and other garden spots.
The Germans did threaten to execute any American caught carrying a shotgun, while the Americans countered with the threat to execute any German found to be carrying the Mauser Sawback bayonet.
In neither case was any enemy soldier ever executed.
Larry Wright
New member
Point taken, Mike. As an old PSYOPer I am aware of the trap of not truly understanding the enemy. Sometimes we paint them ten feet tall; sometimes we brush them aside until they spank us. Sometimes the propaganda is just that - propaganda. As for the debate about "manstoppers"; debate on it's interesting. Sloppy seque here - the Chinese at the Chosin supposedly would try to wound Marines because they knew it took more people to tend wounded than to carry out the dead. Truth or fiction, I don't know.