best jungle weapon?

Excellent, man.
A blow to the combat lid with a scabbarded sword could knock a guy out?

The GF uses Tiger Balm, which is a miracle drug.
Going to rub a little hot sauce on the knee, see what happens. Just a dab'll do ya.
Who knows, maybe the Latino ladies may want some.

Oops, straying off topic.

Terry wrote a nice bit there too.
Only wonder about the effectiveness of the .45 vs 9mm penetration ranges in the jungle.

 

I thought Tabasco used a specially developed pepper (cayenne may have been the main progenator though). It certainly has a different flavor from most other pepper sauses. I've grown to appreciate the flavor more although it's still not my favorite. What I do like about Tabasco is that it seems to hold the flavor and heat better than other pepper sauses. You can have a bottle open for years and it still will have a good bite.

Back on the topic of the helmet and sword. The crease in the helm pictured looks sharper to me than would be the case if the sword was still in the scabbard. It could be just the picture though. Would be interesting to see a bigger (higher res) picture or in person.

 

While current 9mm loads can do as much tissue damage as a .45. Older 9mm rounds only had a better velocity, cheaper to manufacture and less carry weight as advantages.
Less bullet weight means it was more likely to be deflected by branches and such. In addition the 45's greater take down strength helped against charging opponents.


9MM Bullet weight is 115 grains [7.45 grams]. Velocity is 1300 feet/second [396 meters/second]
.45 cal Bullet weight is 230 grain. Velocity is 950 feet per second from the M1A1 Thompson sub-machine gun.

 

Are those figures for wartime service loads? If so, I'd be interested to know where you got them. (I am researching US wartime ammo right now.)

 

Yes! Look at the dent on that helmet; where the steel is dented on the outside, it protrudes on the inside and hitting the head. (The scabbards are made of steel.) A naked blade would do even more damage to the helmet; this is why long, heavy swords persisted on medieval and renaissance battlefields even after men-at-arms started to wear full Milanese or Gothic plate armor. A concussed armored knight is combat ineffective and can be captured or dispatched with a dagger or other weapons.

Back on track: The Thompson, surprisingly, garnered a reputation for unreliability in Guadalcanal. According to Wikipedia, 1st Marine Division's marines favored the M1 Carbine over both the Reising or the Thompson due to better dependability in jungle climate. I submit that the M3 was a better SMG than the Thompson, principally for its lightness without compromising reliability. Also, the M3 had no wooden furniture that could warp in dampness. WRT caliber, the 9mm is more controllable then and now, but again with FMJ bullets, it is inferior in stopping power.

 

They're for wartime loads yes, unfortunately I can't claim anything more reliable than Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.45_ACP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9mm

 

For fighting the machete might not have been the best "combat" weapon, but when it came to getting through the jungle and clearing out trees and branches for men to get through, the machete was an indispensable tool that came in real handy for its users. For combat the flamethrower certainly was a helpful weapon especially in clearing a field of fire out.

 

Recall a ww2 US training video. They were demonstrating the .45 1911. They shot a german helmet from 20-30? yards, and it left a dent in it. Would that have knocked the German out- because have read often, where soldiers helmets were dented by bullets and were not knocked out. Doesn't the helmet have an interior webbing, like a construction helmet, which creates a space between head and helmet.

 

Well Poppy I suppose it would depend on the exact blow given to the helmet, how much it protrudes, etc.

 

I'd have to question the validity of this, Guadalcanal was not the first tropical/jungle environment that the Marines employed the Thompson in. They had used it for years in the "Banana Wars" and in China, and were highly impressed with it's firepower and stopping ability. After they first deployed it and used it on jungle patrols they got the Navy to purchase all they could get. When WWII broke out they tried to purchase additional Thompsons, but the US Army and Britain were given priority over them. The Reising was available and they had to take it or nothing and that's just about what they got. The Reising was roundly deplored, and called the "rusting gun" and it doesn't even make a good club. I have read very few negative comments by Marines about the Thompson, some complained about the weight, many were concerned because it sounded like the Japanese 25mm, and the drum magazine had issues that led to stoppages (rust, noise-and apparently easily deformed). With the stick magazine the Thompson was a very reliable weapon. Several additional issues also make me question the Carbine/Thompson statement.
1.) Production Carbines did not start reaching any military units until mid-1942, and then the ETO and troops intended for that theater had priority, the Guadalcanal landing was in August 1942 and the 1st Marine Division with 2d Marines attached was already deployed to the pacific, at the end of a very long, very thin supply line. (7th Marines had shipped out for Samoa in March '42, the rest of the Division headed to New Zealand in May '42).
2.)Very few carbines had reached Marine Corps units by the time they landed at Guadalcanal, and because it was designed as a pistol replacement it went first to officers and support personnel (and very few of these at the time). There was not widespread (if any) issue to infantry units so it could not have been compared. Same thing for the '03, the Marines used it because there were not enough M1 Garands available and didn't re-equip with the M1 until their rebuilding time in Australia, after the Guadalcanal campaign.
3.) The Marine Corps had well over a decade of experience using it in jungle combat environments, and any reliability issues due to climate would have already have been apparent.
4.) The Marine Corps continued to buy Thompsons and issued them through the Korean war. The Reising was quickly dropped from the inventory and issue to line units.

 

Poppy, fitted just right, the head would never touch the outer shell of the helmet...that brought back memories I had forgotten........we used old style helmets until we went with the new Kevlar style...from memory, there was mucho room between the head and outer shell..the picture can give you some idea

 

Perhaps the best "jungle weapon" was actually a member of the forces know as the "Bushmasters" who were the only group in WWII to have had jungle training which included use of martial arts in facing the enemy.

 

The 158th was a fine outfit, but it certainly was not the only Allied unit to receive jungle training. By 1943 at the latest, specialized training for jungle warfare was standard in the US, British-Indian, and Australian armies. The Australians sent every combat solider through a rigorous course at their jungle training center at Canungra, and British and Indian units received similar training in the jungles of central India before entering combat on the Burmese frontier. Hand to hand combat training was common as well; E.B. Sledge went through an unarmed combat course before joining the 1st Marine Division in the field.

 

The Japs liked to emphasize cold steel, and thanks to infiltration and night attacks they could get dangerously close with swords and bayonets. For that reason, quite a few Allied soldiers carried fighting knives of one sort or another. The USMC had the Ka-Bar knife, while the British, Australians, and Indians used the Gurkha khukri. Machetes were no doubt used as weapons too.

 

Camouflage, depending on the type of environment you're in which in this case is the jungle, was also as dispensable as machete's. Camouflage was used in all theaters of the war, but came very handy in the Pacific theater. And they ranged from the uniform you wore which was usually in the color of olive drab used by the USMC to using nature such as branches and bushes which was something that the Japanese was good at using. They designed their camouflage garments to suit the area that they are in.

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt08/japanese-camouflage-16.html

 

USMC Price,

I misread a line in wikipedia that cites The Reising Submachine Gun Story. The reported preference of the M1 carbine over the Thompson came later in the campaign that is derived from comments of marines. The problem with such comments are, of course, opinions based on personal experience from a large group of people are never unanimous. Without quantitative data this supposed superiority of the Carbine might be merely anecdotal.

 

this is something I rarely see discussed...and from the many pictures I've seen, i notice the Japanese using more natural camo than the US troops

 

Interestingly enough some of what I've read indicates the Marines didn't think much of the skill with which the Japanese used the bayonet. Perhaps that was due to over use of the bayonet itself as opposed to including the rifle butt. Mass weapons don't seem to play much of a role in Japanese military history, Of course the above could be simply the opinion of a few Marines that got incorporated in the work I read (unfortunately I have no idea what work it was).

It is worth remembering that the main cause of concussions is the brain impacting the inside of the skull. If the head is given a large enough impulse a direct impact isn't required to produce a concussion or render someone unconcious.

 

The early Thompson (M28A1) was a more reliable gun. It used the Blish lock to slow the rate of fire, had cooling fins on the barrel, a Cutts compensator and was all in all a better gun. The much simplified M1 and M1A1 dropped the Blish lock and was straight blowback, had a higher rate of fire, no cooling fins (it overheated faster) and while still a fine gun, it wasn't as reliable in adverse conditions.