Thompson & Greese Gun

Discussions on all aspects of the United States of America during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Carl Schwamberger.
YAN
Member
Posts: 1113
Joined: 24 Aug 2006 15:11
Location: ENGLAND

Thompson & Greese Gun

Post by YAN » 24 Nov 2009 15:55

Hi, having looked at a number of TO&Es from the American army, I cannot find were the Thompson and M1 Greese gun were located in the infantry company, the weapons I have come across are the M1 rifle, M.1903 springfield and the BAR, I have not counted for the other support weapons like the heavier MGs and such, but when you consider that you cant even locate the M1 carbine in the company TO&E you wonder were these weapons were located.
Thanks Yan.

Schpam
Member
Posts: 18
Joined: 10 Mar 2006 19:54
Location: Huntingtown, MD USA

Re: Thompson & Greese Gun

Post by Schpam » 25 Nov 2009 13:51

Not sure where you are looking but read this: http://www.militaryresearch.org/7-17%2026Feb44.pdf

You can see where the carbines are allocated, somewhat. There seem to be a few extras.

Agree that there isn't an allocation down to a specific person/SSN for the .45 cal submachine guns, but it seems they were there at the company HQ level for whomever wanted one.

YAN
Member
Posts: 1113
Joined: 24 Aug 2006 15:11
Location: ENGLAND

Re: Thompson & Greese Gun

Post by YAN » 25 Nov 2009 16:31

Thanks Schpam, I see what you mean by the M1 Carbines they are mostly seen at HQs, I think I may as well do what they do in the movies and allocate the SMGs to NCOs.
Yan.

Trackhead M2
Member
Posts: 1004
Joined: 24 Mar 2012 16:48
Location: North Utica, IL

Re: Thompson & Greese Gun

Post by Trackhead M2 » 09 Apr 2012 17:52

YAN wrote:Hi, having looked at a number of TO&Es from the American army, I cannot find were the Thompson and M1 Greese gun were located in the infantry company, the weapons I have come across are the M1 rifle, M.1903 springfield and the BAR, I have not counted for the other support weapons like the heavier MGs and such, but when you consider that you cant even locate the M1 carbine in the company TO&E you wonder were these weapons were located.
Thanks Yan.
Dear YAN,
If you can find a copy US Army Order of Battle for WW 2 is a great resource; it details the Table of Organization and Equipment of every Unit type of the US Army. The book gets right down to the number of M-1911's in a particular battlalion.
Strike Swiftly,
TH-M2

binder001
Member
Posts: 142
Joined: 07 Jan 2010 17:11
Location: Nebraska, USA

Re: Thompson & Greese Gun

Post by binder001 » 12 Apr 2012 18:46

The submachine gun was not an item that was organic to the "standard" or "leg" infantry company. Ranger and parachute rifle companies had authorized levels of SMGs but the infantry did not. SMGs were "acquired" by units or individuals. They were like the supplemental armor and stowage racks on tanks - often seen during the war, but quickly removed after the end of hostilities. Some rifle companies had several extra weapons that were held by the company for special uses, i. e. an SMG might be loaned out for street fighting or a patrol.

User avatar
Pips
Member
Posts: 1194
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 08:44
Location: Canberra, ACT, Australia

Re: Thompson & Greese Gun

Post by Pips » 12 Apr 2012 23:46

binder001 wrote:The submachine gun was not an item that was organic to the "standard" or "leg" infantry company.
That's odd. Don't doubt you, but I would have thought that adding SMG's to rifle companies would have been seen as necessary in boosting firepower. Does that attitude also apply to British infantry compaies?

Isn't that one of the claims (by British and American servicemen) as to why German infantry were such heavy hitters? Because they had a wide seletion of SMG's and LMG's built into the platoon/company framework?

Trackhead M2
Member
Posts: 1004
Joined: 24 Mar 2012 16:48
Location: North Utica, IL

Re: Thompson & Greese Gun

Post by Trackhead M2 » 13 Apr 2012 11:59

Pips wrote:
binder001 wrote:The submachine gun was not an item that was organic to the "standard" or "leg" infantry company.
That's odd. Don't doubt you, but I would have thought that adding SMG's to rifle companies would have been seen as necessary in boosting firepower. Does that attitude also apply to British infantry compaies?

Isn't that one of the claims (by British and American servicemen) as to why German infantry were such heavy hitters? Because they had a wide seletion of SMG's and LMG's built into the platoon/company framework?
Dear Pips,
The fundamental issue is raised in your post. There was a focus on automatic weapons by the Germans while the US and possibly the British on individual rifle marksmanship. In a rifle to rifle encounter the average German facing an M-1 comes off badly. The SMLE also carried double the rounds of a K-98. But, the MGs to a greater extent were their focus and after 1942 they were on the defense anyway so sitting and waiting for US an UK forces to come to them made it easy to use more MGs.
Strike Swiftly,
TH-M2

YAN
Member
Posts: 1113
Joined: 24 Aug 2006 15:11
Location: ENGLAND

Re: Thompson & Greese Gun

Post by YAN » 13 Apr 2012 16:44

Thanks TH for the book info.

I think that the standard U.S. Infantry Platoon with its three BARs and up to 35+ M1 Rifles could lay down a pretty good volume of fire, don’t forget nothing is bolt action apart from the odd M.1903 of course, the Japanese had no chance trying to mass charge the Marines, some Marine Sections had up to three BARs, and I am not even adding the Weapons Platoon to this list.

Yan.

Trackhead M2
Member
Posts: 1004
Joined: 24 Mar 2012 16:48
Location: North Utica, IL

Re: Thompson & Greese Gun

Post by Trackhead M2 » 14 Apr 2012 17:41

YAN wrote:Thanks TH for the book info.

I think that the standard U.S. Infantry Platoon with its three BARs and up to 35+ M1 Rifles could lay down a pretty good volume of fire, don’t forget nothing is bolt action apart from the odd M.1903 of course, the Japanese had no chance trying to mass charge the Marines, some Marine Sections had up to three BARs, and I am not even adding the Weapons Platoon to this list.

Yan.
Dear YAN,
There are a lot of photos showing large groups of US Marines carrying M-1 Carbines instead of Garands and 03's because of the greater ammo capacity. It was probably the Pacifc experience that led to Carbines having 30 round magazines and bayonet lugs.
Strike Swiftly,
TH-M2

Gary Kennedy
Member
Posts: 906
Joined: 28 Mar 2012 18:56

Re: Thompson & Greese Gun

Post by Gary Kennedy » 14 Apr 2012 18:32

YAN wrote:Hi, having looked at a number of TO&Es from the American army, I cannot find were the Thompson and M1 Greese gun were located in the infantry company, the weapons I have come across are the M1 rifle, M.1903 springfield and the BAR, I have not counted for the other support weapons like the heavier MGs and such, but when you consider that you cant even locate the M1 carbine in the company TO&E you wonder were these weapons were located.
Thanks Yan.
Re the initial query regarding .45-cal submachine guns, they only appear in the 1944 era Rifle Coy T/Os, and then as an amendment in most cases, with six being issued per Rifle Coy. I've never thought that was an accurate reflection of the actual issue, but it's consistent across the Inf, Para, Glider and Mountain Rifle Coy tables.

Gary

Felix C
Member
Posts: 1009
Joined: 04 Jul 2007 16:25
Location: Miami, Fl

Re: Thompson & Greese Gun

Post by Felix C » 20 Mar 2021 22:59

I know this is an old post and my reply appears to fit here, I was watching History Channel's WW2 in HD and in a segment in the 1943/44 Solomons campaign there is a soldier with a Thompson fitted with the round gangster era magazine.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Thompson & Greese Gun

Post by Takao » 22 Mar 2021 20:32

Only the M1928 was capable of using the drum magazine, the M1 and M1A1 were not. There is photographic evidence of drum magazines in use as late as Okinawa.

wwilson
Member
Posts: 192
Joined: 29 Sep 2012 08:33

Re: Thompson & Greese Gun

Post by wwilson » 31 Mar 2021 07:32

Re: the "grease gun". AFAIK, this was not a typical infantry weapon. IIRC, they were issued to armored crewmen. This was still the case in the mid-1980s.

Cheers

User avatar
Hans1906
Member
Posts: 2250
Joined: 06 Jan 2020 23:13
Location: Deutschland

Re: Thompson & Greese Gun

Post by Hans1906 » 01 Apr 2021 11:30

"The US Marine crew of a M3A1 tank display their sidearms, on Bougainville island, during 1943. Each US-built tank was equipped with at least one submachine gun (in this case the M1928A1 held by the man on the right) as standard equipment. The other crew members are holding automatic pistols and/or knives."
Link to the photo: https://www.quora.com/Was-the-Thompson- ... m-magazine

Hans1906
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Es ist im Leben wichtig, viel zu wissen.
Manchmal ist es noch wichtiger, zu wissen, daß man nichts weiß.

wwilson
Member
Posts: 192
Joined: 29 Sep 2012 08:33

Re: Thompson & Greese Gun

Post by wwilson » 11 Apr 2021 14:27

Although accepted in late 1942, the "grease gun" was first issued in late 1943 and not in large numbers until 1944.

Leroy Thompson's The M3 "Grease Gun" has some information in this regard. It also mentions another work that stated the first combat use of the "grease gun" was in Normandy in 1944 by Rangers and paratroopers.

Cheers

Return to “USA 1919-1945”