RPRNY
Member
If you do a search, there's a thread on "Vietnam Era Shotguns" that addresses your query in depth.
Thompson in Vietnam
- Thread starter Ruggz1515
- Start date
- Status
If you do a search, there's a thread on "Vietnam Era Shotguns" that addresses your query in depth.
I don't know about the claim of effectiveness at 100 yds. A full choke has a pattern of I've 5 feet at 100 yds. Full power buckshot also tends to start to doughnut at 25 yds. That leaves a big hole in the center of the pattern. You could be holding dead on and miss someone even at closer ranges.
someguy2800
Member
found it, thank you
someguy2800
Member
I can only tell you what I was told. He mentioned that when he would engage troops laying on the ground or sticking out of fox holes that he would shoot at the ground in front of them and the buckshot would skip across the ground and was very effective. He said he didn't think the M16 was a bad weapon but that in the firefights he was in you couldn't see what you were shooting or who was shooting at you and a tube of buckshot was more likely to hit something than a magazine full from an M16.
Last edited:
If they could have done something about that damned bugler, it would have helped a lot.
There were a few old Model 12 trench guns in use with us for a while when we had a TAOR, but they were too heavy for the hills and valleys. Also after the Hill Fights in '67 we had an M-14 in every squad until the M-16's got sorted out. I think they were still in use in mid '68 when I rotated.
Attachments
cpt-t
Member
flasher1: I tried to answer this question somewhat, earlier in this thread. But I must have not touched on the info You wanted to know about. I will try to answer Your specific questions if You will just ask them. On my 1st tour in Viet Nam in 68 & 69 the South Vietnamese were still carrying a lot of our Old Family of Weapons, MI`s, M1 & M2 Carbines, Bars, Browning 30 Mg`s, Grease Guns, and the Old Thomson. And they would sell or trade anything they were carrying. Because they weren't going to use their weapons any way. The Arvn`s were a worthless, I never seen an Arvn Unit stand and fight. So picking up their weapons after they had run was no problem at all and was very common. IMHO the South Vietnamese were a Nation of Thieves, Liars, and Cowards that could not be trusted and most of us despised them for that.
ken
ken
AlexanderA
Member
My late father-in-law, as a U.S. Army sergeant in the North African theater, was issued a Thompson. He exchanged it for a Garand (picked up from a casualty) the first chance he got. According to him, the Thompson lacked the range and accuracy needed in those desert fighting conditions. (Later in the war, he was awarded the Silver Star for his actions with the OSS in the occupied Balkans.)
Vern Humphrey
Member
The Thompson was as heavy as the M1, but only fired the .45 ACP cartridge. If you're going to carry all that weight, you might as well carry a REAL gun.
If you accept there is a use for submachine guns (and I remain unpersuaded). the use is to provide huge numbers of cheap, easy to manufacture, guns to poorly trained troops. The Thompson has all the disadvantages of the submachine gun, and is NOT cheap or easy to manufacture.
If you accept there is a use for submachine guns (and I remain unpersuaded). the use is to provide huge numbers of cheap, easy to manufacture, guns to poorly trained troops. The Thompson has all the disadvantages of the submachine gun, and is NOT cheap or easy to manufacture.
Sunray
Member
"...well worn a "spook" sign..." Swedish 'K'/Carl Gustav M45 SMG's were CIA issue. Supposedly used by SEALs too. http://www.philaord.com/products/swed.html
U.S. MACV supplied the ARVN and ROK with left over W.W. II stuff.
"...Thompson's famed for..." Being heavy(10.6 lbs. empty) and recoiling up and right as I recall.
"...a lot of combat in Vietnam was..." Ambushes by the bad guys. And human wave attacks on fire bases. Plus some conventional attacks by U.S. forces that usually were successful.
U.S. MACV supplied the ARVN and ROK with left over W.W. II stuff.
"...Thompson's famed for..." Being heavy(10.6 lbs. empty) and recoiling up and right as I recall.
"...a lot of combat in Vietnam was..." Ambushes by the bad guys. And human wave attacks on fire bases. Plus some conventional attacks by U.S. forces that usually were successful.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Not really -- most of it was patrolling, sweeping and searching. There were some bitter fights occasionally, but it was mostly little nickle and dime shootouts.
.455_Hunter
Member
Yup- I reported to my active duty unit in Feb of 99, and they had just turned-in their four Grease Guns six months prior. In their place were four shiny new M4 carbines complete with proper carry handles.
bikerdoc
Moderator In Memoriam
Yep, except for 10 days in the A Shau and a couple attacks on some fire bases, for me, it was long hot walks punctuated with the aforementioned nickel and dime exchanges.
Vern Humphrey
Member
That's about par for the course -- we had some big fights near Laos and along the DMZ, but most of it was just thirsty humping through the jungle, and an occasional exchange of fire.
Mosin Bubba
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,936
Just out of curiosity - how many people did these "nickel and dime" shootouts tend to involve, and how long did they last?
Vern Humphrey
Member
In my experience, from a killer team -- four men -- up to a company (about 120 men at that time) on our side, and they might last as much as half an hour, but usually less because of the speed with which we could bring artillery and air support to bear.
Several such little affairs might be linked, as when my company stalked an NVA platoon and had contact of some kind every night for over a week. We finally accounted for all of them -- we knew their names from interrogating prisoners and capturing packs with papers in them.
There was a short clip in that documentary that showed a Marine using a Thompson in Hue. Also great footage of a Shotgun being used in Hue as well. I just couldn't tell what model shotgun it was, which bothered me a bit! I assume by 1968 most Marines were using a Remington 870??
entropy
Member
The M88A1 Recovery Vehicles in the 7thID(L) had M3's in '88 still when I left; I worked on some of them at the Post Maintenance Facility while visiting. (My SMOS was 45B, Small Arms Repair.)
More likely a Savage/ Stevens 67 or 77.
This kind of off topic, but the advisors who were incountry pre1964 told me the weren't allowed to carry anything but semi automatic rifles. Washington didn't want any select fire weapons to fall into VC hands. Dumb ROE's aren't something new.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Well, in '66 we were issued M2 carbines -- miserable pieces of crap that they were.
From what I have heard, the WW2 and Vietnam Thompsons were different from the pre WW2 mechanisms. I have never seen an example of those. But I got to examine a Thompson with a Blish device.
The blish locking piece is brass or bronze. The theory of the device can be found at this Wiki link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blish_lock
Based on the amount of parts and machining, this Blish lock Thompson was expensive to make. I understand the WW2 issue Thompsons were simple blow back devices. I would have hated to carry one of these things, it weighed a ton. And, with the grips and sharp edges, would have constantly sticking you during a march.
WW2 veterans told me that Thompsons were given to the guys who could not shoot. However, they could be combat effective if they could point and hose a target with their Thompson. I have been in South Pacific jungle, sometimes you can't see 25 feet through the foliage, you don't need long range accuracy in the under brush.
The blish locking piece is brass or bronze. The theory of the device can be found at this Wiki link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blish_lock
Based on the amount of parts and machining, this Blish lock Thompson was expensive to make. I understand the WW2 issue Thompsons were simple blow back devices. I would have hated to carry one of these things, it weighed a ton. And, with the grips and sharp edges, would have constantly sticking you during a march.
WW2 veterans told me that Thompsons were given to the guys who could not shoot. However, they could be combat effective if they could point and hose a target with their Thompson. I have been in South Pacific jungle, sometimes you can't see 25 feet through the foliage, you don't need long range accuracy in the under brush.
NIGHTLORD40K
Member
What was wrong with the M2 Vern? Underpowered, worn out? Do you recall if they were Plainfield's, or Universals, perhaps? Just curious, thanks!
- Status
Similar threads
