Weapons used in the spanish civil war

[Jistuason]

This list of weapons is used by spanish civil war i think..

70 mm Schneider M08 Mountain Gun
75 mm Schneider M06 Field Gun
105 mm Schneider M19 Mountain Howitzer
105 mm Vickers M22 Field Howitzer
150 mm Krupp M13 Howitzer
155 mm Schneider M17 Howitzer
20 mm Madsen M33 Anti-aircraft Gun
75 mm Vickers M31 Anti-aircraft Gun

[¡NO PASARAN!]

Hi, I'm currently attempting to put together a list of all the weapons used in the Spanish civil war Rifles, Tanks etc. The ones I already know are below. Any help would be appreciated.

Rifles:
M1893 (both sides)
Mosin-Nagant (international brigades)
Level 1886 (international brigades)

Pistols:


Machine Guns:
Hotchkiss m1914 (both sides)
MG13 (Nationalists)
MG08/15 (Nationalists??)

Sub Machine Guns:
MP28 (Nationalists)

Anti-Tank
Pak 35/36 (Nationalists)
Soviet 45mm mod. 1932 (republicans)

Tank:
Mercier (Nationalists)
Ft-17 (both sides)
Verdeja (Nationalists)
T-26 (both sides)
Bt-5 ( Republicans)
Vickers 6 ton (Republicans)

Artillery:

I'd love to say that your job is a simple one, unfortunately it's not. There were at least a hundred different rifles (arisakas, mausers, mosins, winchesters, berthiers, ross, springfield, Lee Enfields, lebels, steyrs to name a few) used by the republic and about 150 mgs(maxims, vickers, colts, brownings, hotchkiss, St Entiennes, schwarzlose, fiat revelli, etc)/lmgs(lewis,colts, brownings, hotchkiss, csrg chauchats, tokarevs, madsen, maxims, beretta, breda, etc). The nationalists primarily used mauser variants and had maybe 20 mgs, but probably more. There were also a dozen smgs used by both sides. There were also extensive anti tank weapons used by both sides that aren't all AT guns (this also includes at least one mauser T gewher). Tanks are a bit easier off the top of my head I have T-26, BT-5, Panzer 1 AUSF A, Panzer 1 AUSF B, Trubia Tank, CV 33/35, CV 33, CV 33/35 lanciaflamme, SdKfz 265 Panzerbefehlswagen, FT-17, Schneider CA1. Assorted pistols from various countries including france, britain, russia, italy, austria, germany, belgium, usa. Artillery is also a mixed bag of pre ww1 and ww1 ancients along with some modern (for the time) pieces.

Hopefully you see the point, while I don't mean to salt your game, I wouldn't bother to go through the trouble. Fortunately there are some great books on this stuff. Osprey Publishing has a good book on spanish civil war tanks among others. I actually picked up a book this weekend called: Arms of the Spanish Republic: A Nationalist Overview, 1938. The book is great and should answer all your small arms questions on the war for the Republican side (they had the most variety).

I can also while I'm at it confirm the "urban legend" on the box of ammunition of different calibers. The box was created by Robert Hale Merriman an American officer in the XV International Brigade. It contained an example of all of the types of ammunition the men of the Abraham Lincoln Battalion were using during their time in the Jarama trenches. He would often show it off to visiting reporters.

Any questions you have regarding specific weapons I can probably answer.

Hope you found this helpful.

[¡NO PASARAN!]

]
In fact, a very important number of captured weapons used by the National side came from ships captured while sailing towards Republican ports. This has the additional advantage that the weapons were ready for use, unlike most of those captured on the field, which may need a heavy work on collection, transport to depots, repairs and classification. The Republic failed completely in this field.

Most of the Spanish Navy sided with the Republic - otherwise the Nationalists would not have needed German planes to ferry troops across from North Africa. I believe the (relatively small) Nationalist Navy captured four or five ships carrying arms for the Republic - but what exactly was in those ships?

Most Likely Remington made Mosins from Mexico, but I doubt the Nationalists captured many weapons from capturing ships, because the Republic had many rifles, and there was little Naval Warfare.

[¡NO PASARAN!]

So you say the Italian losses werent at all 5 thousand man, and no full 2 divisions republicans armed from their left over gears?? Barely two battalion worth? All this mostly a propaganda tale, apparently cited here and there?

Yes, it is a propaganda tale. Italian losses, though they differ from source to source, can be put as about 1,500 dead, 4,500 wounded and 350 POWs; republican losses were slightly higher. Italian material losses are again difficult to ascertain. I used data from Martínez Bande, who studied the Republican official reports. Michael Alpert, for example, in Aguas Peligrosas, says that Italian losses were "35 guns and mortars, 225 machine-guns and submachine-guns, 822 rifles and 67 trucks"; as these are Italian losses, it doesn't mean that all were captured or, if captured, they were in working order. Anyway, not much more that a pair of battalions could have been equipped with the captured material. It would have been impossible to arm a pair of Republican divisions. Anyway, if a couple of Republican divisions had been armed with Italian material, there would be abundant graphic evidence, and there isn't.

It think it was also Possibly it was some misunderstanding / faulty rewriting somewhere. If they had a great vicory as the reports told, it "should" be 2 divisions worth, not barely 2 battalions, no?
Its easy to overinterpret, even withouth propaganda lies.

Well, the Republicans managed to stop the CTV offensive and then pushed it back, but they were unable to recover all the terrain they had lost. How this could qualify as a great victory can give us an idea about the expectations that the Republicans had.

Anyway, one of the experiences was the italians werent as effective as they was meant to be. Fullly trained soldiers and officers, fully equipped, having also tanks, while republicans had almost none, 4 italian divisions + one spanish-marockans, against 3 government divisions (as this book tells), and they were forced to retreat.

We can conclude that "this book" is also a propaganda tale.
[*]The Italians were not "fully trained soldiers and officers", and in fact they had less combat experience that most of the Republican troops involved in the battle.
[*]The Italians were fully equipped, but the Republican troops were also well equipped.
[*]"Having also tanks, while republicans had almost none": OMG! I do not know whether to laugh or to cry! The Italians had about a battalion of CV.33 vehicles; you can call them tanks, but they were only machine-gun armed. The Republicans had two battalions of T-26 tanks. So actually you could say it the other way around: the Republicans had tanks, while the Italians did not have any vehicle worth of that name.
[*]"4 italian divisions + one spanish-marockans, against 3 government divisions": Just 4 Italian divisions plus smaller units (the Spanish unit, which was a brigade, not a division, operated independently against other Republican troops), against 3 Republican divisions plus smaller units. But that doesn't really tell us the truth, because the Republican divisions were bigger that the Italian ones. In fact, for the whole battle the Republican had a slight numerical superiority, about 40,000 Republicans against 31,000 Italians.
[*]Something this book forgets completely is that the Republicans had complete air superiority during the battle, because the weather precluded the activity of the Italian air forces.
[*]"and they were forced to retreat". For what's worth, it should be noted that the Italians retained the control of a big part of the area they conquered in their initial advance. The Republicans never reached the original frontline.
So perhaps it was not that the italians weren't as effective as they were meant to be, but that the expectations about their performance (both theirs and those of others) were disproportionate.

While they retained control of the situation it should be remembered that the battle is a republican victory because it blocked the final attempt to encircle Madrid, proved Franco relied on foreign aid, and showed that the Republican army was maturing and was not the pushover militias of 1936.

[Knouterer]

Here's a book about guns in Spanish Army service in 1936. It lists 3 types of AT/infantry guns, 2 mountain guns, 5 field guns, 2 AA guns, 4 coast defence guns and 13 naval guns used on shore.
http://www.casadellibro.com/libro-mater ... 544/678121

[Knouterer]

And a companion volume listing obsolete artillery weapons brought back into service. It lists another 28 guns of all kinds. The authors also published books about artillery of Italian and German origin used in the SCW but I don't have those myself.
If you add to that all the different types of artillery imported by the Republicans it's a long list.

http://www.casadellibro.com/libro-la-ar ... 629/731073

[Ironmachine]

Tanks are a bit easier off the top of my head I have T-26, BT-5, Panzer 1 AUSF A, Panzer 1 AUSF B, Trubia Tank, CV 33/35, CV 33, CV 33/35 lanciaflamme, SdKfz 265 Panzerbefehlswagen, FT-17, Schneider CA1

Actually the Trubia Tank is in fact two different tanks: the Trubia A4 and the Trubia-Naval.

I can also while I'm at it confirm the "urban legend" on the box of ammunition of different calibers. The box was created by Robert Hale Merriman an American officer in the XV International Brigade. It contained an example of all of the types of ammunition the men of the Abraham Lincoln Battalion were using during their time in the Jarama trenches. He would often show it off to visiting reporters.

Any source for that?

proved Franco relied on foreign aid,

Actually, that was pretty evident much earlier.

Most Likely Remington made Mosins from Mexico, but I doubt the Nationalists captured many weapons from capturing ships, because the Republic had many rifles, and there was little Naval Warfare.

Actually there was plenty of naval warfare if you think about "guerre de course" and naval blockade.
"Many" is always relative, but for example the 5,000 Chauchat obtained from the Sylvia were certainly many when talking about light machine-guns, and they were vital for the National's war effort.
On the other hand, any captured weapons, even if not a weapon that they could/would use, was certainly a weapon that their enemy could not use.

[Ironmachine]

The authors also published books about artillery of Italian and German origin used in the SCW but I don't have those myself.

The book about Italian artillery lists 11 field artillery models, 1 anti-tank model and 5 anti-aircraft models. However, I have other books that list more models. I don't have the book about German artillery available now, but IIRC the Germans models employed by the National side (including the Condor Legion, but not including the minenwerfers) were 5 field artillery models, 5 anti-aircraft models, 1 anti-tank model and 1 coastal artillery model; the Republican used some German models that were not used by the Nationals.

[¡NO PASARAN!]

Tanks are a bit easier off the top of my head I have T-26, BT-5, Panzer 1 AUSF A, Panzer 1 AUSF B, Trubia Tank, CV 33/35, CV 33, CV 33/35 lanciaflamme, SdKfz 265 Panzerbefehlswagen, FT-17, Schneider CA1

Actually the Trubia Tank is in fact two different tanks: the Trubia A4 and the Trubia-Naval.

Yeah I forgot about that

I can also while I'm at it confirm the "urban legend" on the box of ammunition of different calibers. The box was created by Robert Hale Merriman an American officer in the XV International Brigade. It contained an example of all of the types of ammunition the men of the Abraham Lincoln Battalion were using during their time in the Jarama trenches. He would often show it off to visiting reporters.

Any source for that?

Between the Bullet and the Lie By Cecil Eby (a great book on the Abraham LIncoln Battalion). I also believe it is mentioned in Osprey Publishings International Brigades in Spain 1936-1939

proved Franco relied on foreign aid,

Actually, that was pretty evident much earlier.

Yes but with the amount of captured material and the press coverage it got (especially pictures) it proved to the people of the wider world even if some of the governments had know (Britain, France, etc) but had refused to admit it.

Most Likely Remington made Mosins from Mexico, but I doubt the Nationalists captured many weapons from capturing ships, because the Republic had many rifles, and there was little Naval Warfare.

Actually there was plenty of naval warfare if you think about "guerre de course" and naval blockade.
"Many" is always relative, but for example the 5,000 Chauchat obtained from the Sylvia were certainly many when talking about light machine-guns, and they were vital for the National's war effort.
On the other hand, any captured weapons, even if not a weapon that they could/would use, was certainly a weapon that their enemy could not use.

I unfortunately do not know the exact amount, but I do know that the mosins supplied by mexico and by the soviet union were enough to supply the republican army for the remainder of the civil war, because they transitioned to them from mausers during late 1936 (like december) and early 1937. While you have a fair point about potential use for captured weapons I have never seen pictures of nationalists with mosin nagants and would only consider that a possible fact if you could find some concrete reference point like a picture or an article. As for the chauchat, the nationalists already had a few which were used by the spanish foreign legion.

[Ironmachine]

Between the Bullet and the Lie By Cecil Eby (a great book on the Abraham LIncoln Battalion). I also believe it is mentioned in Osprey Publishings International Brigades in Spain 1936-1939

And what source are these books using?

Yes but with the amount of captured material and the press coverage it got (especially pictures) it proved to the people of the wider world even if some of the governments had know (Britain, France, etc) but had refused to admit it.

It's not that they refused to admit it, it is simply that they did nothing about it, and nothing changed after Guadalajara, so the battle really mattered very little in that respect.

I unfortunately do not know the exact amount, but I do know that the mosins supplied by mexico and by the soviet union were enough to supply the republican army for the remainder of the civil war, because they transitioned to them from mausers during late 1936 (like december) and early 1937. While you have a fair point about potential use for captured weapons I have never seen pictures of nationalists with mosin nagants and would only consider that a possible fact if you could find some concrete reference point like a picture or an article. As for the chauchat, the nationalists already had a few which were used by the spanish foreign legion.

First, certainly the Republicans received a fair number of Mosin Nagant rifles, but with an estimated number of less than 300,000 of them they were not enough by a far shot to supply the republican army for the remainder of the war. They did not transitioned fully to them and kept using other rifle calibers for all the war.
Second, I have not said that the Nationals used the captured Mosin Nagants; even though they captured them in big numbers (just considering captures from land combat, not from captured ships), they had enough rifles in their three main calibers and had no reason for adding another one. In fact, I've never said that the number of Mosin Nagants (or of rifles of all kinds for that matter) were captured in big numbers while being carried by ship. I talked about weapons in general. However, we should remember that "a very important number" is always relative. For example, the 20 Colt machine-guns captured in the Mar Cantábrico amounted to nearly 1,3% of the Colt machine-guns received by the Republicans, and to about 1,2% of the total number of machine-guns in service with the Spanish Army at the beginning of the war.
Third, as for the Chauchat, just to have an idea of how important 5,000 of them could have been you have to consider that at the beginning of the war, it is estimated that the whole Spanish Army had just about 2,500 "fusiles ametralladores".

[¡NO PASARAN!]

Between the Bullet and the Lie By Cecil Eby (a great book on the Abraham LIncoln Battalion). I also believe it is mentioned in Osprey Publishings International Brigades in Spain 1936-1939

And what source are these books using?

Not sure but Cecil Eby's book was published in 1969 and I consider it to be very accurate and well researched. He looked over letters, and interviewed surviving veterans when he did sources. I'm a bit surprised you haven't acknowledged this, because it seems to be mentioned in just about every spanish civil war book I read.

Yes but with the amount of captured material and the press coverage it got (especially pictures) it proved to the people of the wider world even if some of the governments had know (Britain, France, etc) but had refused to admit it.

It's not that they refused to admit it, it is simply that they did nothing about it, and nothing changed after Guadalajara, so the battle really mattered very little in that respect.

Debatable, but it must be admitted that the battle was important for the republic.

I unfortunately do not know the exact amount, but I do know that the mosins supplied by mexico and by the soviet union were enough to supply the republican army for the remainder of the civil war, because they transitioned to them from mausers during late 1936 (like december) and early 1937. While you have a fair point about potential use for captured weapons I have never seen pictures of nationalists with mosin nagants and would only consider that a possible fact if you could find some concrete reference point like a picture or an article. As for the chauchat, the nationalists already had a few which were used by the spanish foreign legion.

First, certainly the Republicans received a fair number of Mosin Nagant rifles, but with an estimated number of less than 300,000 of them they were not enough by a far shot to supply the republican army for the remainder of the war. They did not transitioned fully to them and kept using other rifle calibers for all the war.
Second, I have not said that the Nationals used the captured Mosin Nagants; even though they captured them in big numbers (just considering captures from land combat, not from captured ships), they had enough rifles in their three main calibers and had no reason for adding another one. In fact, I've never said that the number of Mosin Nagants (or of rifles of all kinds for that matter) were captured in big numbers while being carried by ship. I talked about weapons in general. However, we should remember that "a very important number" is always relative. For example, the 20 Colt machine-guns captured in the Mar Cantábrico amounted to nearly 1,3% of the Colt machine-guns received by the Republicans, and to about 1,2% of the total number of machine-guns in service with the Spanish Army at the beginning of the war.
Third, as for the Chauchat, just to have an idea of how important 5,000 of them could have been you have to consider that at the beginning of the war, it is estimated that the whole Spanish Army had just about 2,500 "fusiles ametralladores".

My mistake. Wording is important on forums! I guess I mistook when you said that "On the other hand, any captured weapons, even if not a weapon that they could/would use" for "On the other hand Nationalists could have very well used these". My bad!

I'm also not sure why your so insistent on these things, especially demanding sources for the box with different types of ammunition, and then demanding sources for the sources I gave you. What's next? Sources for the sources of the sources? I'm not sure why your being so stubborn and I hope that this doesn't turn into an argument. This would especially ruin my opinion of this forum since I just joined because of it's extensive Spanish Civil War thread.

[Ironmachine]

I'm also not sure why your so insistent on these things, especially demanding sources for the box with different types of ammunition, and then demanding sources for the sources I gave you. What's next? Sources for the sources of the sources? I'm not sure why your being so stubborn and I hope that this doesn't turn into an argument. This would especially ruin my opinion of this forum since I just joined because of it's extensive Spanish Civil War thread.

Well, if an argument would ruin your opinion of this forum, then you certainly came to the wrong place, because we could say that argumentation is the foundation of this forum. Just take a look around and you will see that many (most) of the threads are just an argument going on about a topic.
That said, I'm not specially interested in an argument about the "box with different types of ammunition", but I would like to see a more consistent proof. Just being told in a book is not enough, as the number of wrong "facts" that are published in books is enormous. In fact, Knouterer's version and your own account of the issue differ considerably.
I have never seen any report of a battalion armed with fourteen different rifle calibers; that would have been difficult to achieve even if it was a composite unit formed with the survivors of other units that carried along their original weapons, and there was no logical reason for this to happen in a newly created unit. It would have been an extraordinary event, and as such it would require extraordinary evidence.
You mention two books: Between the Bullet and the Lie and Osprey's International Brigades in Spain 1936-1939. I don't have the first one, but regarding the second one, which I have, there is the following reference: "Early in the service of the Abraham Lincoln Bn. a visitor to their commander, Merriman, found a 'sort of Little wooden box with a lot of Little slots in it, and sticking up in each one of these were about twelve different rounds of rifle or machine gun ammunition of different shapes and sizes', kept by Merriman as an aide memoire to the ammunition required for the range of weapons his unit had received." Now, we have an unsourced anecdote about an unnamed visitor that saw a box with "about twelve different rounds of rifle or machine gun ammunition" (and perhaps it included even pistol calibers?), kept as an aide memoire (and why would Merriman need such an aide?). For me, this is quite weak as far as proofs go. Just to give an idea, this same book mentions in its first page (among a number of similar nonsensenses) that in 1931 the Spanish Army had 800 generals. Well, this a simple "fact" that could have been easily checked by the autor. Well, it is utterly false: the preamble to the Decree granting passage to the reserve for the generals and retirement for the officers, dated 25 April 1931, gave the figure of just 258 generals and equivalents. You can see why I am not going to accept a "fact" just because this book says it.
So although I'm not categorically denying the possibility that it happened, I'd like to see some solid proof before accepting it as a fact.

[¡NO PASARAN!]

I'm also not sure why your so insistent on these things, especially demanding sources for the box with different types of ammunition, and then demanding sources for the sources I gave you. What's next? Sources for the sources of the sources? I'm not sure why your being so stubborn and I hope that this doesn't turn into an argument. This would especially ruin my opinion of this forum since I just joined because of it's extensive Spanish Civil War thread.

Well, if an argument would ruin your opinion of this forum, then you certainly came to the wrong place, because we could say that argumentation is the foundation of this forum. Just take a look around and you will see that many (most) of the threads are just an argument going on about a topic.
That said, I'm not specially interested in an argument about the "box with different types of ammunition", but I would like to see a more consistent proof. Just being told in a book is not enough, as the number of wrong "facts" that are published in books is enormous. In fact, Knouterer's version and your own account of the issue differ considerably.
I have never seen any report of a battalion armed with fourteen different rifle calibers; that would have been difficult to achieve even if it was a composite unit formed with the survivors of other units that carried along their original weapons, and there was no logical reason for this to happen in a newly created unit. It would have been an extraordinary event, and as such it would require extraordinary evidence.
You mention two books: Between the Bullet and the Lie and Osprey's International Brigades in Spain 1936-1939. I don't have the first one, but regarding the second one, which I have, there is the following reference: "Early in the service of the Abraham Lincoln Bn. a visitor to their commander, Merriman, found a 'sort of Little wooden box with a lot of Little slots in it, and sticking up in each one of these were about twelve different rounds of rifle or machine gun ammunition of different shapes and sizes', kept by Merriman as an aide memoire to the ammunition required for the range of weapons his unit had received." Now, we have an unsourced anecdote about an unnamed visitor that saw a box with "about twelve different rounds of rifle or machine gun ammunition" (and perhaps it included even pistol calibers?), kept as an aide memoire (and why would Merriman need such an aide?). For me, this is quite weak as far as proofs go. Just to give an idea, this same book mentions in its first page (among a number of similar nonsensenses) that in 1931 the Spanish Army had 800 generals. Well, this a simple "fact" that could have been easily checked by the autor. Well, it is utterly false: the preamble to the Decree granting passage to the reserve for the generals and retirement for the officers, dated 25 April 1931, gave the figure of just 258 generals and equivalents. You can see why I am not going to accept a "fact" just because this book says it.
So although I'm not categorically denying the possibility that it happened, I'd like to see some solid proof before accepting it as a fact.

By "argument" I mean an all out name calling brawl, not a debate of intellectual minds (I'm worried we're getting past this point). Anyways, even if Osprey isn't always a 100% reliable source, Between the Bullet and the Lie I consider to be reliable because the research is extensive and the author references interviews he conducted with americans who fought in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. If you don't think the information is reliable you can say that, but the fact that you request sources for my sources, seems to show that you doubt information from others and request them to provide sources, while you yourself provide no sources . I feel like we should resolve this now before it takes a turn for the worse. With that I leave you a link to purchase the book:

http://www.amazon.com/Between-Bullet-Li ... nd+the+lie

[Ironmachine]

By "argument" I mean an all out name calling brawl, not a debate of intellectual minds (I'm worried we're getting past this point).

Are you serious?

Anyways, even if Osprey isn't always a 100% reliable source, Between the Bullet and the Lie I consider to be reliable because the research is extensive and the author references interviews he conducted with americans who fought in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade.

If I'm not wrong the first edition of Between the Bullet and the Lie is from 1969. IMHO, interviews with people about events that happened about 30 years before are not solid proof. How many of those americans interviewed in the book talked about the "box"? Did they actually see it or did they just hear about it? How many different rifle and machine-gun models did they actually saw in service in the battalion during that period?

If you don't think the information is reliable you can say that, but the fact that you request sources for my sources, seems to show that you doubt information from others and request them to provide sources, while you yourself provide no sources .

Yes, I don't think the information is reliable. But no, I don't doubt the information you provided, that is, that the "box" is mentioned in the books you cited. When I asked for the sources of your sources I just wanted to know what was the ultimate, original source for the claim (nothing outrageous in that, IMHO). The reference in the Osprey volumen is unsourced, and if the sources used in Between the Bullet and the Lie are just interviews with surviving veterans I will remain unconvinced. Now, if the original source was a "revista de comisario" listing fourteen different rifles in the battalion, or an official letter from the battalion to the army services complaining about the fourteen different rifles in service in the battalion, that would be a different thing.
And by the way, usually when I provided some data in the forum, unless it is a commonly known fact, I post a reference, mostly a quote from a book or webpage. You should note that while you just mentioned the Osprey book, I actually quoted the relevant part. So I can't really understand your "while you yourself provide no sources" mention. You have not asked me for any source, as far as I can see.

I feel like we should resolve this now before it takes a turn for the worse. With that I leave you a link to purchase the book:

The only way this could take a turn for the worse would be if you turn for the worse, so as long as you remain calm, that is not going to happen.
I have no intention of purchasing a book that is of no interest for me. If you can quote the relevant part here (I have already made the same with another book), I will be grateful. However, the point that originally interested me about this anecdote was not whether it was true or not but that, even if true, it is in no way a "proof" of a lack of weaponry suffered by the Republicans when compared with the Nationals. If really fourteen different rifle calibers were used in a battalion it was not because the Republic was lacking enough rifles to arm its units, but because the organization of the supply service was utterly chaotic or because it was deemed unnecessary to trouble much about some foreigners. And that is not going to change whether the "box" is real or imaginary.

Regards.

[¡NO PASARAN!]

I can't provide any sources at the moment because I don't have the book on me. The interviews were not conducted thirty years in the past but would have been conducted in the 60s when he was researching his book. The fact that you don't seem to believe that interviews with surviving veterans are a legitimate and trustworthy source is something that you'll honestly have to get over. As to there being a "revista de commisario" I doubt it would still exist. You could be right in what you said earlier that there was various pistol and machine gun rounds in the box. I have provided you with where to find the book and it's relatively cheap too, so if you want to pursue this fact down to then ends of the earth I'll leave it up to you, but I'm done with having to repeat to you the same information.