Did the British really use the shotgun from Americans in WW2

This too is incorrect...The American 27th and 30th Divisions did all of their European training and all of their fighting under British Command. It should also be mentioned that besides the 27th and 30th Divisions, another 8 American divisions were training under the British - However, Foch commandeered 5 of those divisions(4th, 28th, 35th, 77th, and 82nd) in June, 1918. So, if the Americans were uncomfortable to close and get personal, am I to presume that it was because of the "Poms" were deficient in their training regimens.

 

And so is the Browning which the British and Commonwealth adopted for fifty years.

 

Just noticed this.

My admittedly limited experience with 1911's doesn't suggest that the kick was all that bad. I've also read in many sources that it was designed to operate in dirty environments and did so (at the sacrifice of some accuracy). I know others here know a lot more about this than I do. Comments PLS.

 

It kicks more than a 9mm, but I've seen some pretty dainty ladies handle one with no problem at all. It kicks less than a .357 revolver for example, which is a pretty damned popular sidearm. As for reliability, you're right. The Milspec 1911 has fairly loose tolerances and is more reliable than most military pistols of the era even when dirty. Even those are accurate enough to get a torso shot at 50 yards every time, which is as good as you'd expect from any handgun.

The civilian models are generally tighter (for accuracy) and many of them have to be "shot in" for a while before they are 100%. When somebody does complain about reliability, the odds are about 90% that the fault lies with the magazine. Either they bought poorly made magazines or the feed lips have been bent and create issues. The springs in the mags have to be changed every few years as well if the gun is used a lot. About the only other thing that can go wrong with a 1911 is the extractor hook can get rounded down over time. That can be fixed with a few licks from a file, or just replaced for a few bucks.

 

Funny but your characterization of US troops being hesitant to close with the enemy is not the perspective of the German's.

“I fought in campaigns against the Russian Army, the Serbian Army, the Roumanian Army, the British Army, the French Army, and the American Army. All told in this war I have participated in more than 80 battles. I have found your American Army the most honorable of all our enemies. You have also been the bravest of our enemies and in fact the only ones who have attacked us seriously in this year’s battles. I therefore honor you, and, now that the war is over, I stand ready, for my part, to accept you as a friend.”
—Chief of Staff for General v. Einem, commander of the Third German Army

“Americans are good fighters with nerve and recklessness.”
—Arunlf Oster, Lieut. of Reserve

“There were only a handful of Americans there but they fought like wildmen."
—Antone Fuhrmann of Mayschoss

A negative comment to maintain balance, Interrogation of Peter Mersch, 467th Infanty, 239th Division:

"...the wonderful American artillery and stubborn resistance of the infantry proved too much. He spoke highly of the dash and energy of the American soldier but considered them undertrained and poorly officered."

Interrogation of Joseph Muller 47th Infantry Regiment:

"He fought against the Americans for the first time on the Marne in July and August and says that in open warfare there are no better troops. He thinks the system of the American army and the comradeship of the men is far better in the making of good soldiers than the strict discipline and machine-like actions of the German system."

Interrogation Matthew Guttis, 294th Regiment:

"He says the Americans were so strong that it was (a) futile effort so they finally broke and ran for their lives. He claims that at that time (Chateau Thierry) the Germans thought the Americans were either crazy or bulletproof."

“I would like to go to America for a half year or so because it is certain that these people possess a secret method which raises the most common fellows into an individual who stands up boldly and moves about freely and unconcerned.”
—Letter from Frau Lisbette Schafer of Vallender to William Straube

Doesn't support your comments on the aggressiveness, combat capabilities nor the quality of the US forces in WWI. In fact if you are interested here is a PDF of an entire contemporary report.

https://fas.org/irp/agency/army/wwi-soldiers.pdf

From French 6th Army Bulletin 11 June 1918 on the opinion of German POW's:

"The prisoners do not conceal their wondering astonishment at the training and skill of the Americans, as revealed this morning before them"

From Interrogation of Alsation deserter by French Intelligence officer 03 Oct 1918:

"The Americans have a reputation for irresistible courage."

French 3rd Army interrogation 16 Oct 1918:

"One of the captured officers was profoundly impressed by the manner in which the Americans fight. He speaks of their valor, energy, and their scorn of danger. "We shall be obliged to take into account troops which are so well armed and infused with such spirit".

From 77th Division report 5 Nov 1918:

Three Russians, used by the Germans as workmen, escaping to the Americans, stated: "We have seen numerous French, Italian and British prisoners, but no Americans. The Germans fear the Americans more than any other enemy forces on the front."

Interrogation Fred Eiker, MG Co. 43d Infantry Regiment:

"He said Bois de Belleau was well known in Germany. He also said they had never before met such a sudden shock and deadly machine gun and rifle fire, and that most of their losses were from the above mentioned arms. They came to Chateau-Thierry with a company strength of 150 men and had lost 2 percent until they met the Americans the first of June, and when relieved the 10th of June by the 108th Regiment had only thirty men left in his company. They were out of the line for three weeks then replaced being sent to the Champagne front, where again he met the Americans July 15th, and here the American artillery so badly wrecked his regiment that what was left were given work behind the lines. He has three other brothers in the german Army and two in the English Army. He frankly admitted that Chateau-Thierry and Soissons were the turning points of the war and also said that if the Americans had not come to the aid of the French in June and July that they would have been in Paris by the last of July. He thought the American morale the best of any he had ever seen."

 

I agree with what Keith said regarding reliability and fit, but I will add a comment on "kick". 45ACP is a "snappier" round than .455 Webley. .455 has more of a "push", while .45ACP has more of a "kick". They both have noticeable recoil (note: I'm not saying it is "bad", as both are easily controllable). In amateur hands I can see how the .455 might initially be considered easier to shoot but for an experienced shooter there should be no issue with either.

 

shot shells are more expensive than rifle cartridges at any given time. but you don't get to fire them as often as rifles.

 

I know that the modern day army does in fact use the shotgun as another tool to our tool box.

However I am not sure if the shotgun was used during WWII but it has got me thinking and I feel I will have to do a bit of digging around as it's got me wondering

 

The shotgun was very definitely used in combat by US troops in WWII in the Pacific, both USMC and Army. Photos of them in service and accounts of their use are not hard to find.Types used included the Winchester 97 and 1912 (the two most common, apparently), the Stevens 520 and 620, Remington 10 and 31, and Savage-Stevens and Remington autoloaders.I have a WWII field manual for them in pdf somewhere.

 

I've said this before, but I think it bears repeating. When you compare a shotgun to a 9mm submachine gun the advantages of one over the other become very subjective, far more so than most people would credit.
The 9mm has a 35 caliber ball, while OO buck has a .33 caliber ball and they are both traveling at about the same velocity. It's a virtual tie.
The 9mm has an advantage at longer ranges because of the rifled barrel, but even here the advantage isn't that great. Perhaps the useful spread of a shotgun becomes ineffective at 100 yards, but that 9mm only stretches the useful range to perhaps 150 yards.
At any range below 100 yards, I'd give the nod to the shotgun. You're throwing nine balls every time you pull the trigger, so your hit probability is much higher.
The Model 12 was the most common shotgun of the era and had a capacity of 6+1 (1 in the chamber, six in the tubular mag). That's 7 cartridges x 9 projectiles - 63 projectiles on tap, double what you could get out of any subgun. AND, you can reload as you fire without changing or removing the mag. In addition, you could really lay down a dense barrage of fire because you don't have to pull the trigger, just hold it down and pump away.
Advantages of the subgun? Well, it's lighter and more compact. You have ammunition that is interchangeable with your own sidearm, or that of others in the squad, and slightly greater range.

There's something to be said for #4 Buckshot as well, which was also military issue. These are .24 caliber balls and with some of the heavier cartridges you get up to 34 balls in each standard 2.75 inch shell! With each pull of the trigger, you get more projectiles out than a full magazine from a subgun. Impressive! I used to read a lot of Peter Capstick about the old hunting days in post-war Africa. Capstick specialized in leopards and when a client wounded one, he'd go after it in the tall grass with a shotgun and #4 buck. You might only see the twitch of the brush when that big cat charged and nothing else would lay down that dense wall of lead to give the guide that assurance of a quick stop before it reached him.

At any rate, a shotgun is a pretty damned good weapon within its range limitations.

 

If it comes to club range I'd want the shotgun rather than a submachine gun as well.

 

A little more life breathed into this thread. Just came across this story a few minutes ago.

http://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/this-awesome-trench-gun-terrified-germans-in-both-world-wars

 

Interesting link. I think the newer shotguns coming into the police and military arsenals are the Mossbergs.

 

Are there any accounts of a shotgun shooting a grenade tossed in action-
Wasn't that the original intent of shotguns in the trench...then it was discovered they'd be more useful as a trench broom?

 

I have never seen any. Furthermore a shot gun isn't a force field

This a thread which deserves to be put out of its misery. Various posts all extolling the supposed virtues of the military shotgun.

Here is a link to some British men who carried a shot gun in WW2. http://www.paoyeomanry.co.uk/PM/LYWW2RA153.htm The Colonel and majors all took a gun with them to war and particuarly valued them while on coastal defence work in East Anglia. There was good shooting on the marshes.... The guns were valued alonmg with the dogs and horses they maintained in the UK.

But the shotguns wasn't the weapon which worried the Germans. They did have an awesome weapon to pepper the germans with shot- The MIKE TARGET would put zillions of more fragments in German occupied space and had a far greater impact that the damned fantasy of pup action shotguns.

Despite the fantasy of US shot gun enthusiasts, or the donations to the Home Guard, none of the British, Germans of the US Army made wholesale deployment of military shot guns in the ETO or MTO. Section weapons were rifles, SMG and LMG. If pump action shot guns were use useful, can you show me the unit establishment for these weapons?.

 

Well, if you read the thread, you'd see that the shotgun (in WWII) was more of a Marine weapon, useful in the tropics of the Pacific theater in much denser cover. There was no need or call for shotguns in Europe since trench warfare was a thing of the past.

As for "fantasy" I don't see where a subgun 9mm (35 caliber) ball is more deadly that a shotgun .33 caliber ball at the same velocity. The 9mm has greater range, but the shotgun has at least double the projectiles on tap. It becomes entirely dependent on the terrain you're fighting in, as to which is more useful.

 

Sheldrake my friend, look, you don't have to follow the thread if it bothers you so. The first weapon my dear old dad taught me to shoot was his 12 gauge pump. It was cool. And loud. We like shotguns. We shoot shotguns. We have shotguns. Our military and police use and love shotguns. It is no fantasy, they are very very effective whenever and wherever used, whether the British consider is an inferior colonial weapon from a country that is really really loves it's firearms or not. And we really are not concerned in the least bit if Brits and Euros like or revere or hate shotguns. Y'all fight y'all's way and we'll fight ours. Everybody's happy. More than just a few times in my police career, all I had to do was rack a round into the chamber and draw a bead on an alleged perpetrator and let me tell you that it was a different game from that point on in the situation. Pistols dropped to the ground and hands went up in the air. Nobody got hurt, and I was happy. It makes a big boom, and a big hole, and we like it. And the bad guys know it too.

Yes, I know the title of the thread is "did the British really use the shotgun from Americans in WW2", and we know that the Brits disdain for those wonderful weapons were frowned upon by those who consider themselves gentlemen, but the thread has morphed into more of a pro-shotgun thread as of late. Maybe the mods can change the name of the thread to "we love shotguns, and are proud of it" or something like that so the British gentlemen here won't be offended by the notion that they had to lower themselves to use the shotgun. I really don't understand the British disdain for personal firearm ownership anyway. Must be that Lexington and Concord thing, I don't know.

As for your request for evidence of the unit of establishment for shotguns, I can't help you there. I'm sure someone else will come along and provide valuable input so we both can benefit from their knowledge. I don't think that there were any units that were all outfitted with shotguns, either in the US Army or Marine Corps as per TO&E. The shotguns were allotted out as needed, or by special request as best as I know. Same for Thompsons, Springfield rifles (w/scopes for sniping), grease guns and such. As mentioned in earlier posts, the shotgun came in handy in house to house fighting and cave clearing.

 

Shotguns were also employed by the US Army in the Pacific. James Jones (25th Infantry Division, Guadalcanal) gives a vivid and frightening picture of what shotguns could do in his novel The Thin Red Line.

 

This is cool.

I edited this link to avoid any malware issues or having this site listed as prone to malware. Apologize for any inconvenience.

Belasar.

 

I think that is a little much, as in too much weight, expense, and complexity for what is after all a short-range weapon.

Also, that site is infested with pop-ups and bogus "warnings" of problems with your system, etc. I wouldn't tell anyone I liked to follow that link.