Did the British really use the shotgun from Americans in WW2

The comment was my summary of the historic British military opinion about the value of shotguns. In general they were seen as sporting equipment rather than military weapons. They weren't in the British army armoury during the world wars. Popularity among American rebels and Confederate cavalry would be assumed to say more about the lack of access to weapons by uncivilised colonials.

I do remember a discussion C 1986 with a British Army small arms expert whose pet subject this was. He argued that Hollywood has created an incorrect perception of the relative effectiveness of the pistol round and the shotgun. E.g people using motor vehicles as cover from pistol rounds, but shot guns blowing away the vehicle. He backed this up with statistics and images from tests of the relative effectiveness of pistols sub-machine guns and shotguns. With Northern Ireland this was a fairly hot topic.

Here are the results of a search on the Imperial War Museums Collections http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/search?query=shotgun&items_per_page=10

Apart from an Ithaca shotgun - as used extensively by the US Army.and a shot gun donated to the Home Guard from the USDA the majority of exhibits are captured shotguns used by terrorists.

 

On a related note, the most interesting handgun of the American Civil War was the Lemat Revolver.

It had a nine shot cylinder that held .36 or 42 caliber balls that fired through a rifled barrel, and that cylinder revolved around a 20 gauge shotgun barrel. You could switch between revolver balls or buckshot by manipulating a lever with your thumb. That's an impressive amount of firepower in 1861!

They were designed by one Jean Le Mat in New Orleans then produced in Paris and run through the Union Blockade from Great Britain.

 

I think that is because shotguns were not seen as utilitarian items, but as sporting items with even a bit of class distinction - you had to be a landowner to hunt, and when you did you used a single or double. They just weren't familiar with repeating shotguns. In the states, it was a regular mans weapon and repeaters were around at least as early as 1882 with the Spencer Pump then the Winchester Lever Action in 1887 followed by a host of others. It wasn't about sport, it was about knocking down as many ducks (or whatever) as you could. And that same common man might only be able to afford one gun, so he'd use it with buckshot or "punkin balls" (slugs) for deer or other big game.

Yet, the American situation and attitude was the same in Canada and they were involved in WWI long before the US, so I wonder why they weren't using them in the trenches? You'd think every guy that jumped into a trench would remember Dad's pump shotgun and wish he had it.

 

I remember reading an article on this very opinion back when I was in high school (back in the mid-70s) but cannot find it for the life of me. It was a passage in a section about US troops first being deployed into the trenches. At one point, a British officer (possible attached to a US unit or an observer) made a statement about the demeanor of an Alabama National Guard unit he was observing attacking across no man's land. His statement (or report) was to the effect of "what's with this Alabama crowd, they act as if they are going on a hunt, waltzing across no man's land shooting up everything with their shotguns".) I've always remembered this statement and have been trying to find it every since this thread got going. It does in part agree with KBs statement about shotguns in the trenches.

 

Not sure where you are getting your prices, but a box of 12 gauge (for birdshot) is about 6-10 USD, now a CASE of 12 gauge (birdshot again), or 250 shells, is about 70 USD

 

The shotgun is an excellent close quarters weapon was used extensively in WWI and WWII by the Marine Corps. With Buck Shot it's like a computer, just point and click. Your hit probability in trench or bunker clearing goes way up, and the need for precise aim goes way down allowing for more rapid target aquisition and engagement. If even one of the .33 caliber projectiles hits the target they will be effected, chances are they'll take multiple hits, and the chances of a critical hit are increased. That added to the ability of a pump to quickly deliver a followon round makes it very effective. The magazine also does not have to be empty to keep topped off and this can be accomplished quickly.
And for Dave"seeing is believing"55, here's a short video produced by HQ Marine Corps History and Museum's branch that shows several shotguns being used by Marines during the,Great War. Plus it's a good moto video.

https://youtu.be/6OfotQg4tLs

 

In Alaska I used my Baikal "coach" gun as my main home defense weapon. Slug in the right barrel, a heavy load of #4 Buck in the left barrel. The "heavy" #4 has thirty four .24 caliber balls. Ouch! It was a remote area and the slug was for bears. It's not uncommon there for a bear to bust through a kitchen window when smelling cooking food. The buck was for human intruders. In either case, the second barrel would still be ugly at close range. Those little coach guns are pretty handy in tight quarters. I never had to use that little double in my home, but if fit neatly in a pack with the butt hanging out over my right shoulder when I was fishing, both barrels loaded with slugs. The poor mans Holland & Holland African Double.

View attachment 22972

 

For WWII, what is the factual basis for such a sweeping generalization? 'Used extensively' is squishy enough to mean almost anything.

If you were relying on Peleliu, you might want to reconsider.



Not exactly a a war winner in the Palaus. Much more effective in video games (where the humidity tends to be much lower).

 

"Much more effective in video games (where the humidity tends to be much lower)."

Well first of all I don't base my statements off of video games. Take your cheap shot, though it has no basis in fact. Secondly, just because there was an issue with damaged ammunition lots at Peleilu does not mean there were similar issues in other operations. There were also issues at Peleilu with water, because of inadequate cleaning of the 55 gallon drums it was carried in. That does not indicate that all water used during the war, if carried in 55 gallon drums was contaminated. There are myriad accounts of shotguns being used by Marines in combat, in wetter, more humid environments than Peleilu, Guadalcanal for instance.

Marine Raider, Private First Class Ervin Kaplan, Co. E 2d Raider Battalion:

I functioned as a radio man in the communication section of Company E, Second Marine Raider Battalion at the 4 November 1942 landing at Aola Bay, Guadalcanal.....The radio equipment carried ashore at the Aola Bay landing was the "TBX" which consisted of four canvas encased units furnished with pack straps; a transceiver set, a receiver battery box each weighing about forty pounds; in addition, there was a hand cranked generator for transmission weighing in at about twenty five pounds and a 10 pound antennae in sections. The four company radio men were trained in combat techniques as well as in communication. In addition to side arms the radio station was armed with a twelve gage shotgun firing pea size "00" buckshot. At close range it would blow a four inch diameter hole in a man.

BTW, he makes no mention of any faulty ammunition issues in his account. Oh, and yes the TBX was a piece of equipment plaqued by moisture issues, doesn't mean it was rarely used.

As for extensively, an F-series Divisional TOE had 306 x 12 guage shotguns, when compared with other weapons flamethrower M-2 (243), machine gun M-1919A4 (302), M1A1 Thompson (49), M1911A1 .45 cal pistol (399), yes it was used extensively, not ubiquitously like the carbine or M1 rifle, but it's usage was definately not rare or uncommon.

The Marine Corps still retains shotguns in it's inventory, something they would not do if it were not effective in combat. They're even testing, developing and/or fielding several modern variations.

Heres the M1014-M4 Benelli

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzb_jT_ol-A

Here at around the 1 minute nark you'll see them using the Mossberg 590.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcwb1krfNmQ

 

Yes, there were problems with the paper cases, which were vulnerable to the damp and humidity of the Pacific climate, but not all shotgun ammunition used paper cases; brass cases were also authorized and used. (This from the 1942 US Army manual TM9-285.) There is ample evidence that the combat shotgun was used extensively and successfully by both the USMC and the US Army in the Pacific. James Jones served in the 25th Infantry Division, and his novel The Thin Red Line contains a frightening picture of what a combat shotgun could do at close quarters. Eric Bergerud's fine book on the South Pacific campaigns, Touched by Fire, covers the combat shotgun. Bergerud talked to at least one US Army veteran who swore by the weapon. I have seen pictures of US Marines carrying shotguns on Iwo Jima, months after the Palaus operation. I hardly think the USMC would have allowed its men to still carry a weapon which had proven ineffective. I know some British soldiers and members here were and are skeptical, but I think shotguns would have been a useful addition to 14th Army's arsenal in Burma.

 

I don't understand the level of disdain for the shotgun. There seems to be some preconceived notion on the part of some that a shotgun is good only for birds or rodents -- nothing is further from the truth, and I strongly suggest that you familiarize yourself with the facts before throwing around nonsensical arguments.

 

Lot of clearance between 'extensively used' and 'not rare.' And, of course, issued is quite a different animal from used.

How did you conclude the Peleliu report described a single ammo lot? I can't seem to locate that passage.

Now I'm confused about how an official report from late 1944 can be explained away, but a personal memoir from two years earlier is somehow the gold standard. The latter would be a great answer to a trivia question like, "did they ever...?" To get a glimpse of the big picture (as when using a term like 'extensively'), not so much.

If you come across any reliable info on where brass case was used vs. paper, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Not sure if brass changes the arithmetic very much, though. In the one report from my piles that clearly designates brass shell - III Phib Corps at Okinawa - average rounds/weapon/day comes in at 0.8. Just a tad short of one whole round per day!!! Of course, that can only serve as a general guide. Small arms ammo was counted as expended when issued to the using unit (presumably with serviceable salvage added back in for the final beancount), so any destroyed, lost, etc. would contribute to that 0.8 rounds/day.

Also note that all but 6 of those 306 shotguns on the T/O were held by the supply section of RHQ (obviously 100 each) per F-4, Mar 27 '44. The flamethrowers you selected for a general comparison were closer to the front (inf bn HQ), so maybe that's not the ideal yardstick.

 

True to a degree. The pistol cal .45 while widely carried, was not regularly used when issued (but was carried). That is not surprising though based upon it's intended role as a personal defense weapon. Many personnel authorized this weapon were operating a primary weapon such as a machinegun or flamethrower and the pistol was a backup.
I don't care to argue semantics for the words I used, let it suffice to say that I seriously doubt you would have had a problem with my using that term had I been referring to the M1919 machinegun or the post Tarawa use of the flamethrower, both weapons being deployed in similar numbers to the shotgun. This is the reason for my supplying their numbers in my earlier post.

I didn't, I stated, "there was an issue with damaged ammunition lots at Peleilu", lot's being plural and indicating more than one. I did not reach my conclusion based upon the single snippet taken from the report you posted, I based it upon common sense. I would further "guess" that the Peleilu problem had to do with conditions during shipment to theater, with storage of the ammunition prior to the landing or possibly (but least likely) badly manufactured lots. Both of the 1st Marine Divisions major campaigns prior to Peleilu were in extremely wet environments, Cape Gloucester/New Britain being the worst conditions the division would experience during the war. Had similar problems been an issue, to the same extent, during Guadalcanal and Cape Gloucester for the 1st Division, or any of the battles the other Marine units had been engaged in prior to Peleilu the shotgun would most likely have been dropped from, or at least had it's numbers decreased within the TE portion of the TO&E. The Marine Corps went through four major (D, E, F, and G series) and several minor TO&E changes during the war. Each incorporating lessons learned from previous campaigns, adjusting to changes in enemy tactics, incorporating new weapons systems, deleting obsolescent/ineffective weapons, improving command and control, and trying to make the division more lethal and efficient. There were 4,208 .45 cal Reising SMG's authorized for the D Series division. Due to it's poor performance during Guadalcanal it disappeared from the divisional TE, the majority being replaced with other weapons, though some were deleted along with the organic parachute battalion (583 men) which was dropped in the E series TO. The shotgun however remained constant at 306 in the E, F, and G series, continued to be carried during the Korean War era K series, and was retained in the TE during Vietnam and continues to be issued today. Not something that would have occured with an ineffective or unused weapon. It was noted as particularly effective in the early WWII battles and during Korea for it's effectiveness in breaking up massed enemy assaults and for securing the flanks of machinegun positions. At one point, Basilone even used one during his epic defensive fight at Guadalcanal. During Guadalcanal, Bougainville, New Britain and during the smaller actions by the Raiders in the Solomons, it was noted, additionally to have been particularly effective in breaking up enemy ambushes in heavy vegitation. Starting with Tarawa it's effectiveness when used for clearing bunkers, and then later war as part of purpose organized assault teams for assaulting fortified positions and caves.

This is not really relevant as it has more to do with how Marine units task organize/fight their subordinate units than in where a particular asset is employed. Where an asset was carried also varied during the war depending upon how and by whom it would be employed, not where it was deployed. For instance in the F series the flamethrower (and bazooka's) was carried on the battalions TE for issue to squads within the infantry companies, along with additional demo charges (some were organic to the infantry Co.), to be used by Marines organic to the company. In the G series the weapon was carried on the same TE but was carried by specially trained personnel, organic to the battalion, organized into assault squads and chopped to the line companies. The weapon was employed in the same place but the operators came from a different place. Same-same with Corpsmen, they were assigned to the battalion, some worked for and in the battalion aid station but many were assigned to the infantry platoons, trained with those units, served with those units, went into combat with those units and were only a part of their parent unit for administrative purposes.

 

Some kind transatlantic gifts to the Home Guard:


G.Boot double-barrelled 12 Bore shotgun. © IWM (FIR 4098)IWM Non Commercial Licence

Remington Model 10 riot shotgun. © IWM (FIR 4104)IWM Non Commercial Licence

And a little bit of counter-giving:



BRITISH EQUIPMENT AT AN AMERICAN AIRFIELD: ANGLO-AMERICAN CO-OPERATION IN WARTIME BRITAIN, 1943. © IWM (D 15127)IWM Non Commercial Licence

 

Deleted:

Couldn't get the reference link to work

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_XrsPcE7J4

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMi1g-i7_mE

 

We relied heavily on shotguns on the TAC Unit in certain situations. Sometimes used to practice shooting targets behind cars with shotguns from about 30 yards out. Targets were placed behind cars, and the cars were parallel to the firing line. We'd shoot at the ground just below the car doors with buck shot. The pellets would "skip up" and take down the targets that were behind the car. Then we'd fire again, hitting the targets on the ground, simulating hitting an "armed suspect barricaded behind a vehicle". The first shot would be like taking the alleged perpetrators feet out from under him, then the second shot would "neutralize" the aforementioned subject. Yeah I know, two shots is wasteful, but it was great training. Beats shooting at targets all the time.