Spitfire pilot pistol

[Andre B]

Just learned that the canopy on early Spitfires could be hard to open during higher speed. So an pistol could be important of security reasons to shoot out the canopy to peaces and get out.

 

Wasn't it an scene of this happening in A Peace of Cake or Pearl Harbour?

 

Cheers / André

[noelh]

Interesting thread. So yes many did carry sidearms which while useless in dealing with a squad of soldiers would certainly outgun the eponymous farmer with a pitchfork. I know I'd prefer to have something to defend myself. I think even modern pilots are issued with pistols while on combat operations. 

[Richard E]

Whilst not a Spitfire/fighter pilot I was speaking with a former Lancaster Wireless Operator several years ago and he recalled once incident when his aircraft had to make an emergency landing at a station which was the home base if a training unit after a mission and the crew caused "quite a stir" when they reported to the Operations Room in their Irving Jackets carrying their Mae Wests, parachutes and revolvers.

 

 

Edited June 17, 2018 by Richard E

[Dads203]

The thought of a wartime pilot flying into harms way without a side arm for self defence to me quite daft and I for one would not think of flying without one even just for physiological reasons. 

I would also imagine it would be against Squadron standing orders.

 

Just because you don’t see a holster doesn’t mean that they didn’t carry one 

and I would imagine lots of custom rigs might of been used such as a shoulder holster under a jacket or even stuffed into a pocket .

 

 It would have more uses than just brassing up a patrol of German Infantry which would end in only one result, I think many would look at it as a survival tool, a gentle persuasion implementation device and the ultimate get me out of here tool. If stuck in a burning aircraft I for one would take the full metal jacket pain relief rather than burning up. 

[JohnT]

Good discussion.  I wonder if we are maybe focussing on what happens after a bail out etc. when there are other possible applicable scenarios.

 

I think even today pilots and others even in non combat roles such as logistics are required to carry or be issued with a personal weapon if in a combat zone.  Might that require a pilot to have a revolver at the least if say in France after the invasion? Not just for use on ops but also for personal defence should the enemy be encountered for what that's worth.

 

No doubt current regs can be confirmed by someone in the know. I am recalling one young lady sent out to Iraq some years ago to do decidedly non combat work and her taking her issued pistol, Browning I think

[Sky dancer]

This has drifted a bit!

 

It would have made sense for a pilot in 2nd TAF to carry a sidearm, and wear Army battledress, as due to the very nature of their role they would have been operating over or very close to the front lines. If forced down, it may have been advisable to wait for your own troops to reach you, rather than evade in the normal manner.

 

Carrying a weapon to shoot yourself if trapped in a burning aircraft - I would suggest that this would have been for psychological reasons rather than of any actual, practical use - the fingers and hands are the first things to go, just look at any pictures of members of the Guinea Pig Club. Trying to remove a revolver from the standard holster, or battle dress pocket, when your plane is on fire? Very, very unlikely, I would suggest.

 

Having said that, I did once read of an 8th AAF B-17 crash, close to it's base. Pilot was trapped in the wreckage of the cockpit, and when ground rescuers arrived, he produced his pistol and threatened to shoot the first man that smoked. (IIRC, he did this a colleague of his had been in a similar situation, but some idiot of a rescuer had started to smoke a cigarette, and the resulting explosion killed almost everyone nearby)

 

The carrying of weapons, by everyone, in more recent conflicts is a very different situation indeed - it is to mitigate against "Green-on-Blue" attacks, in which persons, supposedly on the same side as you, then turn their guns on you.

 

Yes, aircrew are still armed, the extent is dependant on the aircraft they are flying in. In military terms, it is still like the old saying of "bringing a knife to a gun fight."

 

Michael Durant, of "Blackhawk Down" fame, succeeded in expending all of his own ammunition for both his MP5 and side arm, before being given a second weapon by a Delta "operator" before being over-run. He was incredibly lucky to survive. After this "encounter" he became a very strong advocate of carrying the same weapons, and quantity of ammunition as the "operators" they transport.

 

Russian aircrew operating over Syria are currently carrying pistols and grenades in case of being forced down in hostile territory, with one grenade being reserved for their own suicide. This scenario has already occurred once.

[Giorgio N]

The thread has sure drifted, but there's some interesting comments made.

At the same time I believe we should differentiate between what we know actually happened and what we may speculate on...

It is a fact that airmen accounts tell us that some carried sidearms and some didn't. There are pictures showing holsters that even allow the identification of the weapon carried, some that hint at the presence of sidearms and others that don't show any sidearm. Pictures of course may not tell the real story as really a lot of the nice pictures we have of WW2 pilots were posed and while they likely represented standard procedures they may have not been always fully representative of the way things were over the whole duration of the war.

Then we know that airmen were ordered to carry sidearms in a number of situations, and in this cases we may expect that these orders were followed.

 

We should also keep in mind that carrying a gun on a transport or bomber is one thing, carrying one in a fighter is different story. This applies to both WW2 and later times. In WW2 many fighters had small cockpits and this made the carrying of large service sidearms not that easy. Luftwaffe pilots for example were known to prefer small caliber semiautos rather than Lugers or P-38s for this reason. Several air forces around the world only issued small .32 or .380 ACP caliber guns as larger guns were considered unnecessary anyway. The RAF was an exception and of course another exception was the USAAF.. still, even the USAAF used smaller guns than the ones carried by the Army, favouring the .38 Special revolvers over the .45 automatic.

Postwar cockpits are generally larger but now there's another issue: with ejection seats any item carried by a pilot must be safe in case of ejection and simply getting a nice looking holster may not be the best thing to do.... RAF aircrews used for many years the L47A1 pistol as this was safer to wear in the survival vest while larger guns could break the arm of the pilot in case of ejection. Later revised vests allowed the carry of larger guns. BTW, the L47A1 was a postwar built Walther PP, the same gun many Luftwaffe pilots would have carried over Britain in 1940.

Transport types or helicopters are a different story as they allow more room. It was not uncommon to see larger guns carried in these types, like SMGs and even rifles. All guns that would be impossible to carry in a fighter cockpit.

 

Today all air forces pilots carry weapons when in operation over hostile territory and this can be seen in all pictures showing pilots over Iraq or Afghanistan.

There's another aspect we should not forget: airmen often have to carry weapons when on the ground. In areas where the airbase could be attacked, pilots were often ordered to carry weapons when on the base and in some cases even when off-duty. 

 

I'd like to add one more comment, unrelated to the topic but of historical interest: the mention has been made of using a sidearm to commit suicide in case of being trapped in a cockpit. It's not something that easy but there could have been one famous instance when this happened. There is a debate on how Italian WW1 ace Francesco Baracca lost his life and a wound in his head and the open holster with no gun (a small semiauto) made some believe that he had committed suicide after the tanks were ruptured and fire started spreading. The ace himself seem to have stated more than once that he would have preferred to kill himself rather than roasting to death if the aircraft caught fire. At the same time other wounds and reports from Austrian airmen seem to point at the effects of machine gun fire. We'll probably never know the truth, but it's interesting how even an ace with good experience feared fire way more than bullets, so much to openly say that suicide was their preferred way to go in case of fire.

 

 

 

 

 

[Dave Swindell]

Edward "Mick" Mannock reportedly carried a pistol whilst flying for that very reason.

[noelh]

On 6/17/2018 at 3:50 PM, Sky dancer said:

This has drifted a bit.

 

Michael Durant, of "Blackhawk Down" fame, succeeded in expending all of his own ammunition for both his MP5 and side arm, before being given a second weapon by a Delta "operator" before being over-run. He was incredibly lucky to survive. After this "encounter" he became a very strong advocate of carrying the same weapons, and quantity of ammunition as the "operators" they transport.

Thread drift indeed. I had the pleasure of being in the audience at Oshkosh as that gentleman recounted his adventure. He definitely advocated carrying the same weapons as the operators. I was amazed to meet him as the first time I saw him was on TV being taken away by some nasty people and thinking, ' That's a dead man'. Never imagined I'd meet him one day.

[noelh]

On 6/8/2018 at 7:36 AM, bedford said:

Hi,

I'm making a diorama of Spitfire belly landing on France during D-Day's period. I would like to show the pilot on the wing but I have a doubt about pilot's pistol. Did Spitfire pilots have a pistol while going in combat ? If yes, which model would they have and where (waist, boots,...) I've read a forum question about this question but answers were really contradictory and most were more guess than real knowledge.

 

Thank you for your help and have fun modelling.

 

Gabriel

Back on topic:

Here's proof Spitfire pilots did carry pistols:

 

http://elinorflorence.com/blog/d-day-spitfire-pilot

 

Quote:

 

'Already soaking wet and freezing, Arthur was ordered off the boat along with everyone else. He had NO unit, NO commanding officer, NO training for this type of combat, and NO weapon -- except for a service revolver which all the pilots wore, in a clip stuck shut by salt water!'

 

By clip I imagine he means holster. The standard 1937 holster. I have one in my collection. I could see how saltwater might render it difficult to open.

Edited June 18, 2018 by noelh

[Meatbox8]

On 6/10/2018 at 12:55 PM, Don149 said:

Gabriel, if you have the book "Typhoon and Tempest at War" byArthur Reed and Roland Beamont there`s a pic of NZ. Tempest pilots at Grimbergen airfield in Belgium

in November 44 and they are all wearing sidearms . Most likely 38 Webley ,or 38 S+Wesson chambered for the British cartridge .I read somewhere that the RAF were

issued with them. When I "joined-up" at the end of 52 there were only the 38 Webley`s in RAF service, maybe the Colts and S+W were only on Lend - Lease , although

I have a pre. L. L. S+W in my collection , chambered for the British round .

MSnell , the revolver in your post is wrongly captioned , it`s an Enfield Mk 1, the grips and fore sight are different to the Webley .

                                                                                                                                                                                                            `hope this is of interest ,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Don .

Excuse my ignorance but were the Webley and the Enfield essentially the same weapon?  They look very similar.

[Meatbox8]

If you take a butcher's at the IWM website and look up 2TAF photographs there is a quite well known pic of about 20 or so pilots (Spitfire IXs in the distance) milling around and at least eight of them are wearing revolver webbing belts with holsters. Another reason why a 2TAF pilot might have been so armed was because there may well have been groups of German troops roaming around in the vicinity of any advanced landing grounds.  I would have thought that all pilots and ground crew would have been issued with a side arm for that reason.  Whether they wore them in the air or not is a different question, of course. 

 

Just checked the caption for the photo.  Apparently they are, in fact, Typhoon pilots of 121 and 124 Wings, while the dispersed Spit IXs are of 66 Squadron.  Of note is the fact that in the background 121 Wing's CO, Wing Cmdr Green, is wearing a Panic Bowler!  Presumably he didn't wear this in the air!

Edited June 20, 2018 by Meatbox8
Additional info

[Don149]

Although quite similar , they were not the same . No parts were interchangeable , except  the cartridge , which was a rimmed 9m/m with a slightly longer/heavier

bullet . The Webley was made by Webley and Scott of Birmingham and the Enfield revolver by the Singer Sewing Machine Co . and the Albion Motor Co . of

Glasgow , if you`re interested in a bit of their history .

[Giorgio N]

The Enfield (meaning the Enfield designed Revolver No.2) and the Webley (or precisely the Webley M,IV) are indeed very similar for one reason: when the relevant authorities started looking for a replacement for the WW1 era .455 revolver, Webley offered their Mk.IV. This was found very interesting but nobody wanted to pay royalties to Webley so RSAF Enfield made some modifications to the design and proposed the gun as their own, which was immediately accepted. A legal battle followed that resulted in Webley being denied their claim but in some money being given to them anyway. Webley kept producing the Mk.IV for police and civilian customers and during the war they supplied a good number of guns to the armed forces.

Interestingly, RSAF Enfield was once again accused of stealing someone else's design later during the development of the SA80 weapons...

[Meatbox8]

On 6/20/2018 at 7:23 PM, Don149 said:

Although quite similar , they were not the same . No parts were interchangeable , except  the cartridge , which was a rimmed 9m/m with a slightly longer/heavier

bullet . The Webley was made by Webley and Scott of Birmingham and the Enfield revolver by the Singer Sewing Machine Co . and the Albion Motor Co . of

Glasgow , if you`re interested in a bit of their history .

Thank you.  Very interesting.  It seems strange that Singer would have been making side arms.  The exigencies of war I suppose. 

[Meatbox8]

10 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

The Enfield (meaning the Enfield designed Revolver No.2) and the Webley (or precisely the Webley M,IV) are indeed very similar for one reason: when the relevant authorities started looking for a replacement for the WW1 era .455 revolver, Webley offered their Mk.IV. This was found very interesting but nobody wanted to pay royalties to Webley so RSAF Enfield made some modifications to the design and proposed the gun as their own, which was immediately accepted. A legal battle followed that resulted in Webley being denied their claim but in some money being given to them anyway. Webley kept producing the Mk.IV for police and civilian customers and during the war they supplied a good number of guns to the armed forces.

Interestingly, RSAF Enfield was once again accused of stealing someone else's design later during the development of the SA80 weapons...

Thank you Giorgio.  Those cheeky blighters at Enfield.  Must be particularly galling that Webley were ripped off by a government backed/owned concern.  I wonder whose design it was they 'based' the SA80 design on.   From what I've heard they would have been better off starting with a clean sheet until H&K sorted it out.  

[Giorgio N]

12 hours ago, Meatbox8 said:

 I wonder whose design it was they 'based' the SA80 design on.   From what I've heard they would have been better off starting with a clean sheet until H&K sorted it out.  

 

The design of the SA80 internals is very clearly based on the AR18's and the first prototypes had several parts taken from the AR18 rifles (one demonstrator was even built on an AR18 receiver) and Sterling Armaments claimed that RSAF had taken parts from rifles they had built under licence without permission. Sterling also claimed that RSAF had copied a number of proprietary manufacturing processes.

It's hard to tell what actually happened on the manufacturing side, it's easier to tell if Sterling had reasons to complain about the use of AR18 parts and most information point to RSAF not having really "stolen" anything. The MoD already had a small number of AR18s that had been used for evaluation well before Sterling started producing AR18s (that we should not forget was not a Sterling design but an Armalite one built under license). The parts used in the prototypes likely came all from these rifles and the converted receiver was from a Howa built gun (Howa in Japan had the license before Sterling). Moreover, there wasn't really anything covered by patents in the AR18 design and in this case it would have been Armalite anyway who had to complain, but the company was at that point just a name (the Armalite name still survives but has nothing to do with the original company). Yes, the SA80 is based on the AR18 but so are a number of other rifles (the G36 for example). The same Sterling later packaged the same internals in a different rifle that they offered on the market without feeling they owed any license fee to Armalite...

My personal opinion on the final product, hopefully unbiased (not a Brit, I have no personal interest in either glorifying or complaining) is that the design of the internals is not bad at all and a lot is very sound. The rifle as a result is very accurate, probably one of the most accurate standard military rifles around.

The rifle sure suffers from some of the problems common to all bullpups, does not feel as "natural" as standard rifles in the hands and the trigger is not great (a consequence of needing a bar to connet the trigger to the rest of the mechanism). Ergonomics are not great, still after handling one I felt that a lot of the criticism is unfounded and I can see how with appropriate training any soldier can almost immediately find almost every control most of the times...  now on an AR15 I can naturally find every control every time, but that is probably the best around in terms of ergonomics.

The problems of the rifle are (or were) elsewhere... the design of some parts was very poor and led to various problems but most importantly the manufacturing quality was awful. In a sense it was like a car built around a great engine and drivetrain but with poor steering wheel and brakes and with a shoddy bodywork.

Ok, I know it's all off topic... 😁

[Don149]

You`ve got me blinded with science Giorgio !. I date back to the No 4 Lee Enfield , Bren and Sten .