Patton 1911 - Page 4

**44 AMP** · March 19, 2015, 07:51 PM

Congrats Mike, you caught it before I found the pic.

The caption is incorrect. The tank is an early M3 Light tank. Not the very first ones, which had riveted turrets. This is the first major change version using a welded hexagonal turret. But still having the riveted hull.

The welded turret was rapidly replaced with a cast "horseshoe" shape turret, and after 42, M3 & M3A1s had welded hulls.

Being a General (and being THE General, as well), Patton could carry whatever he wanted. You may also note his "standard" uniform wasn't the usual issue, either.

An interesting note, Patton's reputation as our premier fighting general was held by more Germans than Allies.

**Mike Irwin** · March 20, 2015, 06:26 AM

"The box I have is of Dominion manufacture, dated 1944, and is marked "For use in Colt's New Service Revolver." And they are indeed .45 Colt, loaded with what appears to be 230gr. FMJ. The H/S reads "DC 44" and ".45 Colt" and the box is stamp dated "Jul. 1944" and is the typical twelve round box."

Pictures, please!

Thinking about this some more, my guess is that they were produced for home guard use in Canada and were never intended to be offshored.

By far the largest user of .45 Colt-chambered revolvers in Canada at the time was the Royal North-West Mounted Police, which had purchased several hundred New Service revolvers in the early 1900s. They also purchased Colt Model 1878s.

The Canadian Army had purchased a few dozen New Services in .45 Colt to arm officers going to Africa as part of the Boer War contingent, but to my knowledge that was the only, and last time that the Canadian Army used the .45 Colt overseas (other than personally owned sidearms).

During World War I the Canadian Army purchased several thousand S&W and Colt revolvers, all chambered in .455 Webley Mk II; during World War II most Canadians who carried revolves carried a Smith & Wesson in .380/200.

**Mike Irwin** · March 20, 2015, 06:30 AM

"Being a General (and being THE General, as well), Patton could carry whatever he wanted."

I know Generals have great leeway in their choice of personal weapons, but that doesn't give them carte blanch to violate ammunition regulations.

Unless Patton managed to latch onto some metal capped .22 LR, he would have been violating general orders that far outstripped even him.

**44 AMP** · March 20, 2015, 11:36 AM

Quote:

but that doesn't give them carte blanch to violate ammunition regulations.

No, it doesn't, technically. But they sort of can, regardless. The only people who can tell a General to follow the regs are higher ranking Generals.

And at that level, Generals don't really care much about such things. They might snicker behind their hands, and make fun of the "rogue" general's quirks, but at the level of Generals, they are all members of a very special "club", and calling one of their "members" to task over a very "trivial matter" just isn't done, you know.

They would take him to task for being TOO GOOD a general, (like getting to Messina before Monty), or for being bad PR (slapping a coward??) but what pistol he carries, and what ammo he has in it? I don't see them doing anything, other than, a friendly back room "Now George, you know you really shouldn't carry that...." kind of "advice".

SIGSHR · March 20, 2015, 02:07 PM

Generals always have higher reputations among their foes than their "friends".
Many of the Germans felt Rommel's reputation was more due to Goebbel's PR machine than his military achievements-Rommel never fought on the Eastern Front and wasn't subject to the degree of micro-managing those commanders were. Many of the Soviets felt Zhukov's reputation was overblown, Rokkosovsky said Zhukov was too harsh and those who served under Rokkosovsky said he achieved the same results without all the threats and cursing.
I read Patton preferred revolvers, saying all you needed was ammunition, while a semiauto was a gun of "two parts" and without the magazine you were lost.
Patton fulminated about generals "dressing down"-Theodore Roosevelt, Junior, e.g. "A brave man but no soldier." But it was TR Jr. who went ashore in the first wave at Normandy.
Patton received plenty of support for his slapping incidents, and it was Eisenhower who approved the death penalty for Slovik.

bloodysam · March 21, 2015, 04:44 AM

Well, General Douglas MacArthur didn't carry firearms even while touring the battlefield or wading in the surf upon landing in Lingayen Gulf in 1945 and even in Korea.

It was always those faded khakis, 'crushed' cap, Raybans and corncob pipe. Somehow, these made the man and added to his myth.

Bob Wright · March 21, 2015, 09:57 AM

bloodysam:

Quote:

Well, General Douglas MacArthur didn't carry firearms even while touring the battlefield or wading in the surf upon landing in Lingayen Gulf in 1945 and even in Korea.

It was always those faded khakis, 'crushed' cap, Raybans and corncob pipe. Somehow, these made the man and added to his myth.

Gen. MacArthur was know to carry a Remington double deringer in .41 R.F.

Bob Wright

Bob Wright · March 21, 2015, 11:06 AM

Mike Irwin:

Quote:

"The box I have is of Dominion manufacture, dated 1944, and is marked "For use in Colt's New Service Revolver." And they are indeed .45 Colt, loaded with what appears to be 230gr. FMJ. The H/S reads "DC 44" and ".45 Colt" and the box is stamp dated "Jul. 1944" and is the typical twelve round box."

Pictures, please!

So be it:

Note the crimped "creases" to hold the bullet against recoil in the cylinder.

Bob Wright

**Mike Irwin** · March 21, 2015, 03:48 PM

Sweet....

Now I have something to look for at my next cartridge collector's show.

James K · March 21, 2015, 09:32 PM

IMHO, the chances that Patton or any other American had Canadian or British-made .45 Colt FMJ ammunition is so remote as to be impossible.

If the captions on the pictures of Patton are wrong in other aspects, can we assume that the location (Tunisia) is correct? Or did some editor just pull a file photo shot in, say, Texas, and put on the "Tunisia" caption to make it more up-to-date? Would the press do that? Surely not!

Jim

**Mike Irwin** · March 22, 2015, 08:21 AM

The Tunisia part might very well have been added by military censors as a means of faking out the Germans and Italians.

Not an uncommon occurrence that both hides the true location of the forces in question but also to screw with enemy troop estimates. That was the entire point of FUSAG in the days leading up to the Normandy invasion.

You make a good point about .45 Colt ammo.

But... (isn't there always a but?

)

A few years ago here someone asked about some old, weird American-made .44 Special ammo he had. Eventually he removed the bullet from the case and melted the lead, and was left with a hard metal cap into which the lead portion of the bullet had been poured during manufacture.

Was that kind of ammo available at this time? I don't know, but it may well have been.

That said, though, I'm still going with my premise that Patton was such the gun guy that he never would have gone into a combat operations area with a .22 as his sidearm.

**44 AMP** · March 22, 2015, 11:27 AM

Quote:

he never would have gone into a combat operations area with a .22 as his sidearm.

I agree that is a completely reasonable assumption. Patton had been in personal combat in Mexico, and in France before WWII, so I think he would have made a logical choice for a combat sidearm.

Also he was an Olympic class shooter, who was probably robbed of a medal by a judge's decision that he missed a shot, rather than accept what likely happened, two bullets went through the same hole.

SO, yes, I'd think he knew what it was all about.

On the other hand, if I'm in an assembly area, 40 miles behind the front, or if I'm in Texas, and there are rabbits, or other small game about, I might just pack a .22 for that trip. And, might even be wearing it when some photographer wanders by....

Rommel, and some aides, on at least one occasion hunted gazelle with an 8mm rifle while in Afrika. I could find no details on the specific rifle or ammo used, other than the mention of its caliber.

During the opening of the Battle of the Bulge, some senior Army commanders (not looking it up right now) weren't at their HQs, a couple were in Liege, getting "fitted" for shotgun stocks at FN....

Generals, pretty much, do as they please in lots of things....

Driftwood Johnson · March 23, 2015, 06:45 PM

Howdy

I just want to mention that in the movie, George C Scott is not firing at fighters. Those are Heinkel He 111 bombers he is firing at. The same pair of planes shows up in several scenes.

I always heard it was the 1903 Colt Hammered Pocket Pistol Scott brandished against the planes in the movie, not the Hammerless model. The Hammered model was a bit more obscure, firing the 38 ACP round (not the 380 ACP round).

If it was a Model 1903 or a Model 1908 Hammerless the actor was brandishing, it would certainly be impossible to tell them apart in an action scene.

And for the record, the scene in the movie with Patton firing at the oncoming planes is pure Hollywood.

There really was a meeting where a British officer confidently assured Patton that they had air superiority over the Germans just as German planes attacked. But Patton did not jump out in the street and start firing. That is pure Hollywood.

Bucksnort1 · March 24, 2015, 09:54 PM

Mike Irwin, I have more respect for officers who lead by example. Kinda sounds like Patton used the principle of, "do as I say, not as I do".

Driftwood, thanks for the clarification on the aircraft.

RickB · March 25, 2015, 11:34 AM

While we're being specific, the planes featured in the Patton movie were Spanish Air Force CASA 2.111s, a Merlin-powered Heinkel variant that was still in service in the '70s!
They also featured, along with Spanish-built, Merlin-powered "Messerschmitts" in The Battle of Britain.
Some people accuse Patton of not being concerned enough about casualties, but Patton's theory was that the ultimate means of reducing casualties was to end the war as quickly as possible.
He believed that the war could have been ended in the Winter of '44-'45, if resources had been allocated differently.

Bucksnort1 · March 25, 2015, 10:45 PM

Rick B, and hind sight is always 20/20.

Rob228 · March 25, 2015, 11:59 PM

Quote:

On the other hand, if I'm in an assembly area, 40 miles behind the front, or if I'm in Texas, and there are rabbits, or other small game about, I might just pack a .22 for that trip. And, might even be wearing it when some photographer wanders by....

I think that hits the nail on the head. That and the amount of diseased dogs running around in Northern Africa, cleaning up the battlefields. I doubt humans were ever his intended target with that .22

RevolverRO · March 27, 2015, 08:54 AM

Regarding the Hollywood actor and firearms gifted by Gen. Patton...

An early 90's article in Guns and Ammo magazine stated that Patton was friends with, IIRC, actor George Montgomery and his wife--can't remember her name but she was a minor starlet involved in USO-type shows. The wife was still alive at the time the article was written. She still possessed the firearms in question and the article profiled the guns, which I think were a FN P-35 Hi-Power, a Colt Woodsman and I believe a Colt SAA as well.

RickB · March 27, 2015, 11:56 AM

This is one of the most enjoyable threads I've ever seen at TFL.
Thank you, posters and mods, for letting it just run its course, staying somewhat on topic even as it has meandered.

**Mike Irwin** · March 27, 2015, 12:27 PM

"On the other hand, if I'm in an assembly area, 40 miles behind the front..."

As a proponent of the kind of fast-moving, armored-based warfare used so effectively by the Germans at the start of the war, not to mention the airborne capabilities of most of the major combatants, I don't think Patton would think, for a moment, that there would actually be a rear area truly safe from engagement.

I still think the photo was taken at the Desert Training Center in California...

Cyanide971 · March 27, 2015, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickB

This is one of the most enjoyable threads I've ever seen at TFL.
Thank you, posters and mods, for letting it just run its course, staying somewhat on topic even as it has meandered.

+1!

SIGSHR · March 27, 2015, 02:34 PM

George Montgomery was married to Dinah Shore at the time.
The book Fired in Anger has a good chapter on Patton's handguns.

March 19, 2015, 07:51 PM	#76
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,846	Congrats Mike, you caught it before I found the pic. The caption is incorrect. The tank is an early M3 Light tank. Not the very first ones, which had riveted turrets. This is the first major change version using a welded hexagonal turret. But still having the riveted hull. The welded turret was rapidly replaced with a cast "horseshoe" shape turret, and after 42, M3 & M3A1s had welded hulls. Being a General (and being THE General, as well), Patton could carry whatever he wanted. You may also note his "standard" uniform wasn't the usual issue, either. An interesting note, Patton's reputation as our premier fighting general was held by more Germans than Allies. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

March 20, 2015, 06:26 AM	#77
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,390	"The box I have is of Dominion manufacture, dated 1944, and is marked "For use in Colt's New Service Revolver." And they are indeed .45 Colt, loaded with what appears to be 230gr. FMJ. The H/S reads "DC 44" and ".45 Colt" and the box is stamp dated "Jul. 1944" and is the typical twelve round box." Pictures, please! Thinking about this some more, my guess is that they were produced for home guard use in Canada and were never intended to be offshored. By far the largest user of .45 Colt-chambered revolvers in Canada at the time was the Royal North-West Mounted Police, which had purchased several hundred New Service revolvers in the early 1900s. They also purchased Colt Model 1878s. The Canadian Army had purchased a few dozen New Services in .45 Colt to arm officers going to Africa as part of the Boer War contingent, but to my knowledge that was the only, and last time that the Canadian Army used the .45 Colt overseas (other than personally owned sidearms). During World War I the Canadian Army purchased several thousand S&W and Colt revolvers, all chambered in .455 Webley Mk II; during World War II most Canadians who carried revolves carried a Smith & Wesson in .380/200. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

March 20, 2015, 06:30 AM	#78
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,390	"Being a General (and being THE General, as well), Patton could carry whatever he wanted." I know Generals have great leeway in their choice of personal weapons, but that doesn't give them carte blanch to violate ammunition regulations. Unless Patton managed to latch onto some metal capped .22 LR, he would have been violating general orders that far outstripped even him. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

March 21, 2015, 03:48 PM	#84
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,390	Sweet.... Now I have something to look for at my next cartridge collector's show. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

March 22, 2015, 08:21 AM	#86
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,390	The Tunisia part might very well have been added by military censors as a means of faking out the Germans and Italians. Not an uncommon occurrence that both hides the true location of the forces in question but also to screw with enemy troop estimates. That was the entire point of FUSAG in the days leading up to the Normandy invasion. You make a good point about .45 Colt ammo. But... (isn't there always a but? ) A few years ago here someone asked about some old, weird American-made .44 Special ammo he had. Eventually he removed the bullet from the case and melted the lead, and was left with a hard metal cap into which the lead portion of the bullet had been poured during manufacture. Was that kind of ammo available at this time? I don't know, but it may well have been. That said, though, I'm still going with my premise that Patton was such the gun guy that he never would have gone into a combat operations area with a .22 as his sidearm. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

March 20, 2015, 02:07 PM	#80
SIGSHR Senior Member Join Date: September 13, 2005 Posts: 4,700	Generals always have higher reputations among their foes than their "friends". Many of the Germans felt Rommel's reputation was more due to Goebbel's PR machine than his military achievements-Rommel never fought on the Eastern Front and wasn't subject to the degree of micro-managing those commanders were. Many of the Soviets felt Zhukov's reputation was overblown, Rokkosovsky said Zhukov was too harsh and those who served under Rokkosovsky said he achieved the same results without all the threats and cursing. I read Patton preferred revolvers, saying all you needed was ammunition, while a semiauto was a gun of "two parts" and without the magazine you were lost. Patton fulminated about generals "dressing down"-Theodore Roosevelt, Junior, e.g. "A brave man but no soldier." But it was TR Jr. who went ashore in the first wave at Normandy. Patton received plenty of support for his slapping incidents, and it was Eisenhower who approved the death penalty for Slovik.

March 21, 2015, 04:44 AM	#81
bloodysam Junior Member Join Date: November 17, 2011 Posts: 13	Well, General Douglas MacArthur didn't carry firearms even while touring the battlefield or wading in the surf upon landing in Lingayen Gulf in 1945 and even in Korea. It was always those faded khakis, 'crushed' cap, Raybans and corncob pipe. Somehow, these made the man and added to his myth.

March 21, 2015, 09:32 PM	#85
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	IMHO, the chances that Patton or any other American had Canadian or British-made .45 Colt FMJ ammunition is so remote as to be impossible. If the captions on the pictures of Patton are wrong in other aspects, can we assume that the location (Tunisia) is correct? Or did some editor just pull a file photo shot in, say, Texas, and put on the "Tunisia" caption to make it more up-to-date? Would the press do that? Surely not! Jim

March 23, 2015, 06:45 PM	#88
Driftwood Johnson Senior Member Join Date: January 3, 2014 Location: Land of the Pilgrims Posts: 2,033	Howdy I just want to mention that in the movie, George C Scott is not firing at fighters. Those are Heinkel He 111 bombers he is firing at. The same pair of planes shows up in several scenes. I always heard it was the 1903 Colt Hammered Pocket Pistol Scott brandished against the planes in the movie, not the Hammerless model. The Hammered model was a bit more obscure, firing the 38 ACP round (not the 380 ACP round). If it was a Model 1903 or a Model 1908 Hammerless the actor was brandishing, it would certainly be impossible to tell them apart in an action scene. And for the record, the scene in the movie with Patton firing at the oncoming planes is pure Hollywood. There really was a meeting where a British officer confidently assured Patton that they had air superiority over the Germans just as German planes attacked. But Patton did not jump out in the street and start firing. That is pure Hollywood. Last edited by Driftwood Johnson; March 23, 2015 at 07:00 PM.

March 24, 2015, 09:54 PM	#89
Bucksnort1 Senior Member Join Date: July 8, 2013 Location: Littleton, Colorado Posts: 1,121	Mike Irwin, I have more respect for officers who lead by example. Kinda sounds like Patton used the principle of, "do as I say, not as I do". Driftwood, thanks for the clarification on the aircraft.

March 25, 2015, 11:34 AM	#90
RickB Senior Member Join Date: March 1, 2000 Location: Boise, ID Posts: 8,518	While we're being specific, the planes featured in the Patton movie were Spanish Air Force CASA 2.111s, a Merlin-powered Heinkel variant that was still in service in the '70s! They also featured, along with Spanish-built, Merlin-powered "Messerschmitts" in The Battle of Britain. Some people accuse Patton of not being concerned enough about casualties, but Patton's theory was that the ultimate means of reducing casualties was to end the war as quickly as possible. He believed that the war could have been ended in the Winter of '44-'45, if resources had been allocated differently. __________________ Runs off at the mouth about anything 1911 related on this site and half the time is flat out wrong.

March 25, 2015, 10:45 PM	#91
Bucksnort1 Senior Member Join Date: July 8, 2013 Location: Littleton, Colorado Posts: 1,121	Rick B, and hind sight is always 20/20.

March 27, 2015, 08:54 AM	#93
RevolverRO Member Join Date: February 16, 2008 Location: Culloden, WV Posts: 71	Regarding the Hollywood actor and firearms gifted by Gen. Patton... An early 90's article in Guns and Ammo magazine stated that Patton was friends with, IIRC, actor George Montgomery and his wife--can't remember her name but she was a minor starlet involved in USO-type shows. The wife was still alive at the time the article was written. She still possessed the firearms in question and the article profiled the guns, which I think were a FN P-35 Hi-Power, a Colt Woodsman and I believe a Colt SAA as well.

March 27, 2015, 11:56 AM	#94
RickB Senior Member Join Date: March 1, 2000 Location: Boise, ID Posts: 8,518	This is one of the most enjoyable threads I've ever seen at TFL. Thank you, posters and mods, for letting it just run its course, staying somewhat on topic even as it has meandered. __________________ Runs off at the mouth about anything 1911 related on this site and half the time is flat out wrong.

March 27, 2015, 12:27 PM	#95
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,390	"On the other hand, if I'm in an assembly area, 40 miles behind the front..." As a proponent of the kind of fast-moving, armored-based warfare used so effectively by the Germans at the start of the war, not to mention the airborne capabilities of most of the major combatants, I don't think Patton would think, for a moment, that there would actually be a rear area truly safe from engagement. I still think the photo was taken at the Desert Training Center in California... __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

March 27, 2015, 02:34 PM	#97
SIGSHR Senior Member Join Date: September 13, 2005 Posts: 4,700	George Montgomery was married to Dinah Shore at the time. The book Fired in Anger has a good chapter on Patton's handguns.