Weapons of the partisans?

[Hisname]

Partizanka rifle

[FiveStars]

Hi.

In relation to the first post, partisans used whatever arms they could get - there really was no regulation on it. In 1941 most partisans in the soviet union consisted of red army stragglers or special NKVD intelligence units, hence they used mostly soviet weaponry. As the war went on, their arsenal diversified and they began to use equipment captured from local garrisons and produce their own weapons aswell (the partisan PPDs being a perfect example)



As mentioned by my fellow forumites, yugoslav partisans produced their own special weapons, and utilized a diverse arsenal of captured war booty, alot of it dating before or during WW1. Not to mention probably the best known example, the french partisans, which again, as the other two groups, used captured german smallarms, french weapons, and Stens parachuted in by the British, which used the same pistol calibre as the germans.

-Kind Regards
Maks

[LineDoggie]

UD M-42's, M3's, M1 Carbines, were dropped.

Vercours FFI received M1903 Springfield Rifles, M42's, M1919A4's, M1A1 Rocket launchers (Bazooka) Besides the usual Stens, Brens, No.4's

[Poot]

Even in Yugoslavia, the use of the Partizanka rifle would have been VERY limited. Statistically they are underrepresented in period photographs.

[Hisname]

Even in Yugoslavia, the use of the Partizanka rifle would have been VERY limited. Statistically they are underrepresented in period photographs.

Alas, I have not seen documentary photos with this rifle.

[FiveStars]

Even in Yugoslavia, the use of the Partizanka rifle would have been VERY limited. Statistically they are underrepresented in period photographs.

Alas, I have not seen documentary photos with this rifle.

Would you please elaborate by what you mean? Do you mean archival film footage or it being mentioned in a documentary about the war or credible sources confirming such weapons did indeed exist and were used?

[Poot]

Period photographs of Yugoslav Partisans armed with rifles that have been confirmed to be so-called 'Partizankas.' There are plenty of photos with them armed with Model 1924 Yugoslav Mausers, captured k98k's, captured Carcano variants, et al., but I can't recall any that show something that is demonstratively a 'Partizanka' rifle.

[Hisname]

Even in Yugoslavia, the use of the Partizanka rifle would have been VERY limited. Statistically they are underrepresented in period photographs.

Alas, I have not seen documentary photos with this rifle.

Would you please elaborate by what you mean? Do you mean archival film footage or it being mentioned in a documentary about the war or credible sources confirming such weapons did indeed exist and were used?

The English language is not native to me and maybe I am not speaking correctly.
When I say that for more than 10 years of studying the history of weapons I have come across documentary photographs of this rifle, I want to say just that.
I met only photos from museums, books and magazine articles.I met only photos from museums, books and magazine articles. I laid out scans from these books earlier in this topic. Branko Bogdanovich is a well-known specialist in weapons, and I respect him very much. His words do not raise my doubts, but I have not seen documentary photos of this rifle. And I really want to see them. If you have such photos, then please share, I will be very grateful to you for this.

[Hisname]

Period photographs of Yugoslav Partisans armed with rifles that have been confirmed to be so-called 'Partizankas.' There are plenty of photos with them armed with Model 1924 Yugoslav Mausers, captured k98k's, captured Carcano variants, et al., but I can't recall any that show something that is demonstratively a 'Partizanka' rifle.

Yes, thank you, that's what I wanted to say. There are many rarer models of weapons; he has documentary photos with these weapons.
One and two photos, but always there. And among weapons experts, these rare photos are well known. And the "Partizanka" rifle I haven’t met.
Although, according to the number of manufactured rifles, there were many. And at least one was supposed to get on the photo.

[driftwood]

Has anyone mentioned the Błyskawica yet? Purpose-made smg for partisan/resistance use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C5%82ys ... achine_gun

I'd imagine a lot of whatever guns were used by the previous armies in east-european countries found their way into partisan hands, when you consider that many partisans early in the war were local army soldiers that went into the woods to continue the fight. There's a photo of a Polish AK partisan carrying a Browning wz. 1928 from the prewar Polish Army: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _Ville.jpg

[Hisname]

Yes, this is a great example. About 700 pieces of these partisan home-made submachine guns were produced.
And there are more than 30 documentary photographs with this weapon.

[FiveStars]

The subject of the "Partizanka" being used and pictures providing credence to them being a legitimate partisan weapon is difficult. Without a doubt, such weapons were indeed used - even if there is no direct evidence. Far often, pictures taken of specific partisans remain within their families and, depending on the country, may not be digitized. Yugoslavia, recovering from the trauma of the 1990s is a place where photographic evidence of such weapons could have simply been lost in the chaos of war, or still kept by families without access to a scanning machine or otherwise reluctant to do so. It may have been simply thrown away by people no longer needing the photographs without realizing their historic value.

The second point is image quality. Assuming such photographs exist (which probably do), their quality cannot be guaranteed, as some images (especially propaganda ones) are of a high standard, ones showcasing more mundane candid situations tend to be lacking in quality. With this in mind, perhaps the rifle was misidentified or obscured.

Finally, we can look at other historical examples of other weapons. For example, the Wz. 39 which undoubtedly saw combat, but of which no photo exists or is known. The maxim-tokarev, or the Petter Model 1939 (of which only one or two poor quality photographs exist and have been verified only to the thanks of french gun nuts), are all weapons on which information is lacking, but it is unwise to rule out that they indeed saw combat.

-Kind Regards
Maks

[Poot]

Good points all around.

The second point is image quality. Assuming such photographs exist (which probably do), their quality cannot be guaranteed, as some images (especially propaganda ones) are of a high standard, ones showcasing more mundane candid situations tend to be lacking in quality. With this in mind, perhaps the rifle was misidentified or obscured.

That's part of the point I was trying to make. The Partizanka is so distinctive (very long barrel compared to the stock and hand guard), that it is very noticeable, and easily distinguished from a Yugoslav Model 1924 Mauser rifle. Even with that, they just don't show up in period photos.

[Hisname]

Submachine gun Wz. 39 was made in the amount of 50 pieces. And it is not unusual that documentary photographs have not been preserved.
Maxim Tokarev machine guns were made about 5,000 pieces and preserved more than 100 documentary photographs with it.

9431704.jpg (93.67 KiB) Viewed 1612 times

[FiveStars]

My friend Hisname is correct. Judging weapons based on photographs and determining their availability from them oscillates on a case by case basis. The partizanka is a barely known weapon even in proffesional circles - we here may know it thanks to a generous forumite, but traditional researchers or archivists might not have the ability to receive the same information as we do.

PS: I was refering to the use of the Maxim-Tokarev in the Second World War by soviet forces, of which there is little information. I hope this message clears it up.

-Kind Regards