Webster

The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions." --American Statesman Daniel Webster (1782-1852)


Monday, March 8, 2021

Monday Music "Emerald" By Thin Lizzy

  Man the meme is still rolling along.....

I am continuing my string of "bugaloo" songs.  This discussion was started in the "Monster Hunter Nation, Hunters Unite", back in November of 2019? it is a Facebook group with enthusiast of the ILOH "International Lord of Hate" A.K.A Larry Correia.  We were talking about what song would we use if we looked out of our window or glanced at our security camera and saw this.....

One of the alphabet bois lining up to take down your house...What would be your "Valhalla" song and you would set it up to play as you load up magazines set up the Tannerite Rover, turn on the water irrigation system and fill it with gasoline instead of water and prepare yourself.

 I figured it would scar the alphabet boys if they come busting in and hearing a song about people standing for their beliefs and willing to fight for them no matter the cost, Good Music  unlike that crap they listen to now.  What can I say, My humor is warped....just a bit. Next week will be "Desperate, But not Serious by Adam Ant"  Now that should really cause some psych evals., hehehe, some poor ATF guy trying to explain the attraction to his mother because he is imaging himself as The savior of the American way rather than working for an agency that have the initials of a convenience store.

     Emerald is a song by Thin Lizzy from their 1976 album Jailbreak. It is inspired by traditional Irish music and utilizes a 6/8 rhythm. The guitar riff uses an "Irish" melody with its use of triplets.  This song was recommended by "Bad Frog" one of my readers.


After their previous two albums, Nightlife and Fighting, failed to generate sales, Thin Lizzy were given one last chance by their label, Vertigo Records. The band wrote songs and collected ideas in a studio in Buckinghamshire in late 1975, then convened at Ramport Studios in London in the new year. The band selected John Alcock as their producer, as he had worked in the studio extensively. The band worked diligently through February on the album. However, guitarists Scott Gorham and Brian Robertson felt that the speed at which it was completed adversely affected its quality. Both stated that the tightness of the songs made the album feel rigid. In particular, Robertson said he would have liked more freedom to improvise his lead guitar parts. Gorham also criticized Alcock's production, saying that he didn't particularly care for his guitar tone on the album.

"When I wrote 'Warriors'…" frontman and songwriter Phil Lynott remarked in 1976, "the only way I could give any sense of heavy drug takers was by describing them as warriors; that they actually go out and do it. People like Hendrix and Duane Allman were perfectly aware of the position they were getting into. They weren't slowly being hooked. It was a conscious decision to go out and take the thing as far as it can go."

Initially, the song "Running Back" was chosen to be a single ahead of "The Boys Are Back in Town", the latter being seen as possibly too aggressive for some radio stations to play. Lynott and producer John Alcock decided to employ session musicians to add more commercial elements to some of the tracks and try to produce a hit single, so Tim Hinkley was brought in to add keyboard parts to "Running Back". Robertson was against the idea, as he liked the song as it had originally been arranged, in a blues format with his own additions of piano and bottleneck guitar. He later said, "I took enormous offence to [the changes]. I couldn't understand why they'd pay this guy a fortune just for playing what he did. Listen to it and tell me it's not bollocks." Robertson did not play on the finished version of the song and Hinkley is not credited on the album sleeve. Lynott said at the time that "Running Back" was "very much influenced by Van Morrison. I really like that song." Hinkley later recalled, "Robbo and Scott were not keen on it at all but they were overruled." Thirty-five years later, Robertson recorded his own versions of the song on his 2011 album Diamonds and Dirt.

Scott Gorham also revealed that "Romeo and the Lonely Girl" was also brought up as an option for a single, but was ultimately discarded, as "nobody was overexcited about it.



Village Voice critic Robert Christgau likened the album's songs to Bruce Springsteen cast-offs, finding Lynott's lyrical ideas "boring" and Gorham's guitar lines "second-hand". Stuart Bailie of Classic Rock magazine referred back to Christgau's appraisal, writing that both Springsteen and Lynott "were indebted to Van Morrison and his Celtic soul", and remarked how on Jailbreak "Lynott's best attributes were coming on strong."

In a retrospective assessment for AllMusic, Stephen Thomas Erlewine describes Jailbreak as a "truly exceptional album", with "a dimension of richness that sustains, but there's such kinetic energy to the band that it still sounds immediate no matter how many times it's played". Highlighting Lynott's songs as "lovingly florid... crammed with specifics and overflowing with life", he says that Gorham and Robertson's guitar work is "intertwined, dual-lead guitar interplay that was one of the most distinctive sounds of '70s rock".[6] In his review Martin Popoff described Jailbreak as "the band's last album where eclecticism outweighs the cohesive signals" which made later releases "much more singular in intent". He praised "Gorham and Robertson's sharpest metal to date" and remarked how the album is made of "a coterie of songs that very often struck the same emotional heartstrings of Springsteen.

    


Thin Lizzy "Emerald" in 1976

Sunday, March 7, 2021

Latest at Casa De Garabaldi

 What has been going one is this...I had gotten my A&P back in 2019 and was hoping to get a promotion at my place of employment.  I have been repairing airplanes under FAR 145 repairman certificate under my employers repair station certificate.  I interviewed for several jobs and got one, and the day I was to get it my employer dropped a hiring freeze due to Covid exactly a year ago so I had to wait.  Well a year later several AMT jobs came open so I immediately applied for one and GOT IT!   Big promotion and pay raise.  

   Well I brought donuts to work and my spousal unit made a dessert casserole to take.  The funny thing about donuts is that they are currency...in Prison it is cigarettes...In the Boy Scout world it is Boy Scout patches and in the my employer's world ...it is Donuts....I personally didn't partake of any because of my weight loss program...and yes I am doing well at it but I made my "Work With's" happy with the donuts that I brought in plus the dessert casserole my wife made...It was made with cinnamon rolls and apple pie filling....well they also hit that thing like a shark through a surfer..

  This pic was taken in the Leads office....Like I said...It was gone by first break.   It is tradition for newly promoted mechanics to bring something in to celebrate an event.....or if you are late to work for work, you bring in donuts for the crew and the lead don't dock your pay. 
      Now as my long time readers know, I drive a 1999 F150 to work and that truck is my "Precious" as I call her.  She is very reliable and I know everything about that truck because I am the one that works on her well I had decided to take a portion of my raise and buy a newer commuter car to spare the wear and tear on the Truck especially with the cost of gas climbing like it is and I believe it will be $3.00 by summer.  I started looking for something newer and that gets good gas mileage and has to be a Ford, I am a Ford guy you know.

   Well I found this cherry 2017 Ford Focus with 40,000 miles on the car and at a great deal.  Car was a one owner Lease return and loaded with pretty much all the options except Leather seats.   I spent 2 days going back and forth after work traveling to the other side of the city to line up the paperwork because I wouldn't use their finance people but my credit union to finish the financing.  Not that I don't trust dealership financing but I have heard too many shady crap involving them.    I had put $$$ down and financed 2 years. And this is my 3rd Focus and the first 2 were stellar cars, my 2005 was slayed by Bambi, my 2010 was killed by a Tahoe., they never laid down on me so I have high expectations of this car.

     The New Ride next to my 99 F150

       And Finally a pithy thought about the Xiden Presidency...


      


Friday, March 5, 2021

The Japanese Garand

 I have been extraordinarily busy in "the Real World", I will post about it in a day to 'splain what is going on....Nothing bad good news actually but it pulled me away from my blog.


I snagged this off "American Rifleman" It was fascinating read.  I thought it was a different take on the Garand, I do know that the Germans had a different opinion on the Garand, the German Army Ordinance people didn't like the Garand, they hated the sights and they considered the 8 round clip limiting.  But we American considered the Rifle excellent for our needs and the rifle served us well.  I know, I owned one until my untimely Kayak accident *Sniff, Sniff*.

The Japanese Type 4 semi-automatic is one of the most sought-after rifles by military collectors. Interest in it spans the spectrum from those who specialize in Japanese military arms to collectors of U.S. M1 Garand rifles to collectors of military rifles in general.

The Type 4 has been erroneously identified as the Type 5 in recent years. In the past, very little was known about development of the rifle. Model identification was established originally through information in a World War II U.S. Army Ordnance report where basic description, history and designation of the rifle as a Type 5 were presented.

In the same report, however, references were made to recovery of Type 4 semi-automatic rifle drawings at Yokosuka Naval Arsenal, which somewhat muddied the water. The Type 5/Type 4 argument has continued among collectors for some time. Examples marked Type 4 have shown up in recent years, and more information has become available that points to the proper nomenclature being Type 4. That said, the Type 4 is still recognized by collectors as a single variation when, in actuality, five variants of this very rare rifle have been identified.

Development of the Type 4 semi-automatic has its roots in an Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) semi-automatic development program initiated in mid-1931. The Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) relied on army arsenals as a source of small arms for land-based personnel, so it sat on the sidelines and watched the IJA semi-automatic development program with special interest.

Initially, in the 1931 timeframe, Nambu Rifle Mfg. Co. was issued a development contract for a semi-automatic rifle intended for army use. Later, the program was expanded to include Tokyo Gas & Electric, Nippon Special Steel (NSS) and Tokyo Army Arsenal (Koishikawa). Nambu initiated development work with a gas-operated design featuring the army-specified five-round magazine. Tokyo Gas & Electric reverse engineered the Czech ZH-29 rifle, examples of which had been captured in Manchuria in 1931.

Nippon Special Steel presented a novel gas-operated toggle configuration, and Koishikawa provided a copy of the American-designed Pedersen rifle. In the case of the Pedersen design, J.D. Pedersen had taken his U.S. Ordnance Dept. trials rifle to Japan in the 1935 period seeking additional interest in the rifle. At the time Pedersen presented his rifle to Japanese army ordnance officers, they were not satisfied with progress on rifle development by private companies, and decided the army should develop a competitive rifle based on the Pedersen design. After all, they were being assured that the U.S. and Great Britain were in the process of adopting the configuration for the using services, so the design must be a winner.

The program, which now included the IJA itself as a contender in development of a satisfactory design, continued until 1937, at which time the program was curtailed. Politics were involved in the decision to stop the program, but of primary importance were the facts that military production was stretched to the limit with the expanding war in China, and it was readily apparent that Japan just did not have the production capacity to build the number of rifles required.

first experimental Garand copy
The rear of the receiver on the first experimental Garand copy is flat-faced and faceted. A slot on its underside allows for engagement of a recoil lug.


The semi-automatic program was reinstated in 1941. The using services were demanding more firepower, plus military use of semi-automatic rifles was becoming more and more common throughout the world. Since private industry in Japan was so focused on production for the war effort, the IJA set up a competition between two design groups within the army arsenal system, a unit at Kokura Arsenal and the small arms staff at the research center in Tokyo. The program continued until mid-1943 when it was halted because of similar issues faced previously, plus, very importantly, the failure to develop a satisfactory configuration for production.

diagram
This drawing shows how first- and second-variation Type 4 rifles locked during assembly by way of hooks on the trigger guard that gripped external lugs on the receiver.

The IJN was very disappointed in the IJA’s actions. The IJN needed more firepower for its land-based units, and the naval paratroop command desperately wanted a version of the semi-automatic rifle for its units. Japanese navy development of a semi-automatic rifle probably began in some form or other immediately after the army program ceased in mid-1943. Regardless, the program was included in a list of IJN ordnance action items for Fiscal Year 1944 (April 1943–March 1944) with three naval arsenals scheduled to participate—Yokosuka, Kure and Mazrui.

All three, however, were already working at full capacity, so arrangements were made for rifle development to be done on a spare-time basis at Yokosuka Naval Arsenal only. Development of the new rifle was carried out in the machine gun plant of Yokosuka Arsenal, specifically the third floor of the plant, as a spare-time activity in conjunction with production of 25 mm anti-aircraft cannons, Lewis machine guns and Vickers machine guns. With demand for machine gun production so high, priority could not under those circumstances be given to the semi-automatic-rifle program.

Even though a spare-time activity, the timeline for development of the new rifle remained very short. It has to be assumed that only one rifle was under consideration—the U.S. M1 Garand—because of the short timeline and no evidence of another design being evaluated. Captured samples of the M1 were warehoused at Yokosuka.

Stores of M1s had been found warehoused in Manila after occupation by the Japanese in 1942. Some were transported by the IJN back to Japan. The U.S. M1 represented a successful design in wide use, so IJN engineers decided to modify some of the captured rifles to 7.7x58 mm Japanese, the rimless cartridge standardized for use in the Type 99 bolt-action infantry rifle. In early 1944, 10 rifles were modified to 7.7x58 mm for testing. Functional testing and evaluation proved to be highly satisfactory. This success led to full development of the Garand copy.

front of the receiver
A small 2.5 mm-tall numeral “4” at the front of the receiver identifies this specimen as the fourth iteration in a series of test rifles.


First Variation Experimental Type 4 Rifle (Tool Room Example)

The overall brief development period leaves the impression that design and fabrication of the experimental Garand must have proceeded concurrently with modification of the 10 M1s in the early part of 1944. This was a success-oriented program with a lot of objectives to be met in a very short period of time.

Development from the toolroom example to the initiation of production took place during the first 10 months of 1944. Keep in mind that time must have been allowed during that period for tooling design and development, in addition to locating dedicated machinery. Very importantly, an initial effort had to be made to verify that Japanese ordnance had the capability of manufacturing all components of the rifle, some of which are very complex.

What I believe to be the toolroom rifle, or first experimental M1 copy, is functionally very similar to the M1 Garand; however, there are a few key differences. Attempts at simplification and improvement, those changes to the Garand include:

a.) 10-round integral magazine fed by standard five-round stripper clips instead of the M1’s eight-round en bloc clip.

b.) Ramp-type rear sight.

c.) Recoil lug integral with upper buttstock wrist tang instead of recoil absorption through upper stock ferrule.

d.) Lockup of the rifle through hooks attached to the trigger guard, which engage receiver lugs on back of magazine box instead of entering recesses in the receiver.

e.) Trigger housing retained to buttstock with screws instead of falling free during disassembly of the rifle.

f.) Simplified machining of receiver.

The specimen described has no serial number or markings, so it is thought to be the first and only example of its type that was fabricated. If more than one specimen were fabricated, typically, the rifles would be serialized, if only to prevent the mixing of hand-fitted parts.

Machining of the components of the single specimen known is crude where finish is not important to form, fit or function, and the rifle shows haste in fabrication. For example, the barrel, normally a long-lead item, is from a Type 99 rifle and has been modified to fit the new receiver. The Type 99 rear sight was obviously knocked off the barrel with a hammer during rebuild, leaving screw shanks still embedded in the barrel.

Mauser-style ramp rear sight
The Mauser-style ramp rear sight on this pre-production Type 4 is one of the major differences that are readily apparent when comparing the Japanese and American versions of Garand rifles.


The rifle was originally obtained in an incomplete state. Only the barrel and receiver group was available. To complete the rifle to its original configuration, the buttstock and trigger housing group had to be configured and machined. This wasn’t very hard because features on the barrel and receiver group dictated the design of replacement components.

The original rifle probably failed at some point during testing, and the remaining parts were acquired by a veteran as a souvenir. The magazine well has significant powder residue and shows evidence of extensive firing. Most likely, this is the rifle described in U.S. Army Ordnance reports as being introduced to the paratroop command in March 1944.

Features on the toolroom example, plus subsequent test and production models, were required to meet paratroop requirements by configuration. The paratroop command desired a folding or break-down design, shortened in the stored state for transport in a soldier’s pack or leg bag. The U.S. M1 rifle breaks down into multiple segments, one of which is the trigger housing assembly.

The Japanese version, as designed, breaks down into two segments, the difference being the trigger housing assembly is retained to the buttstock group through the use of screws, plus the upper stock ferrule is retained in place via three small nails. The Japanese Type 2 paratrooper rifle, the mainline paratrooper arm at the time, breaks down into two segments; thus, the Japanese M1 copy meets existing IJN paratrooper command requirements. Very importantly, as development of the rifle progressed to the production design, features “c” and “d” were replaced by the tried-and-true equivalent features on the U.S. M1 rifle. Only the novel features “a,” “b” and “e” remained. 
 

A U.S. Army Ordnance bulletin put together in late 1945 presents perhaps the most accurate assessment of Washino’s production effort. The report states that the factory had no production machinery, so it was assembling rifles from parts that were most likely furnished by Yokosuka Arsenal.

Second Variation Experimental Type 4 Rifle

As far as we know, the second variation of the experimental Type 4 rifle exists only in drawing form today. High-quality assembly drawings of the rifle have been recovered from the archives of the Japan Self Defense Force (JSDF) in Tokyo. The drawings show most all of the features of the final configuration of the Type 4, including the revised magazine box with external cap integral with the magazine floorplate. The action-locking features of the first variation are retained, which are locking hooks integral with the trigger guard that engage similar lugs on the backside of the receiver magazine box as the trigger guard is rotated to the closed position, thus locking the rifle components together. The drawing is very detailed and appears to be a production-level drawing, not one of an experimental rifle. It is complete to the point of including accessories, such as a cleaning apparatus and paratrooper accessories such as a waist ammunition belt. So, either the design group was jumping ahead without proof of successful testing, or initial testing with the first prototype had exceeded expectations. No examples of the second variation have been reported, so whether this specimen was actually built is unknown. 

Third Variation Experimental Type 4 Rifle

It is only a small step to reach the final Type 4 configuration. The drawings for the second variation incorporate most of the changes to reach the final stage except for the locking mechanism. The third variation substitutes the locking features of the U.S. M1 rifle. Locking lugs on the M1 are configured differently, and enter recesses in the receiver. Rotating and latching the trigger guard locks the assembly together. Keep in mind that the Japanese version had heretofore featured locking lugs external to the magazine box. The IJN may have switched to the M1 design simply to guarantee success in a timely fashion by minimizing any unforeseen development problems.

One example of the experimental third variation has been examined. Typical of the Japanese procedure in serializing experimental production, the rifle exhibits only a small numeral “4” on the front top of the receiver. No other components are marked. Only one specimen so marked has been reported. The rifle shows results of extensive testing with serious bore wear. 

Type 4 Pre-Production Rifle For Field Test

With the final configuration set for production, the rifle was adopted by the IJN as the Type 4 rifle. Examples were hurriedly fabricated at Yokosuka Naval Arsenal for field testing prior to mass production. They were reportedly shipped to ground units in China, the islands and to the IJN paratroop command within Japan for extended field tests. That plan could involve a sizable number of rifles, but, most likely, only a handful were distributed.

These rifles exhibited model, arsenal of production and serial numbers on the receiver, along with the month and year of production. The receiver markings on the two examined are inconsistent and hand-engraved, showing a lack of overall process control and also illustrating how fast the program was moving. The rifle with Serial No. 6 has the Yokosuka identification on the line with date of manufacture, while Serial No. 5 has the Yokosuka identification on the line with the serial number. Specimen Serial No. 6 had been examined and found to have all parts matched to the serial number. Only two specimens of this type have been reported.

Japanese Garand markings
Receiver stamps on the heel of this Japanese Garand include (from top to bottom): Type 4, Serial No. 6 and Yokosuka 19-10.

Type 4 Production (Washino Factory)

Testing of the prototype rifles revealed problems with parts breakage, insufficient recoil and associated feeding difficulties. Even with these problems, testing was considered successful enough to initiate production. Yokosuka Naval Arsenal was not able to support production, so plans were made to shift the work to a private company: Washino Kikai Co., in Aichi-ken.

A U.S. Army Ordnance bulletin put together in late 1945 presents perhaps the most accurate assessment of Washino’s production effort. The report states that the factory had no production machinery, so it was assembling rifles from parts which were most likely furnished by Yokosuka Arsenal. Furthermore, only 50 rifles had been assembled at the war’s end, even though parts for 150 rifles were on hand. None of the rifles had passed final inspection, and the rifles were found in various stages of completion at the factory.

Production of the rifle had stopped prior to war’s end because of functioning problems identified as insufficient recoil from the less powerful 7.7 mm cartridge 
to eject and chamber another round from the magazine of tested rifles. At Washino Kikai Co., personnel were production-oriented, and no engineer was on staff to solve test problems that may have been encountered, so the company was awaiting instructions from Yokosuka on how to correct the problem and proceed.

While Type 4 production was at a standstill, new orders were received from the IJN to cease production of the rifle in favor of a new aircraft engine contract. When U.S. Ordnance personnel visited the Washino factory in late 1945 after the cessation of hostilities, they found production in the process of switching to an aircraft engine. Even though the production line was being changed, special machinery was at the same time arriving at the factory for rifle parts production. All this illustrates late-war confusion in Japanese production.

I have catalogued 33 Washino-assembled rifles. None are marked externally, indicating no final inspection, but each has an assembly number on the underside of the receiver to match up parts at the assembly stage. The addition of serial number and final inspection symbols were to be added only after successful testing of each rifle. The highest assembly number recorded is No. 58, and that corresponds nicely with U.S. Army Ordnance reported data showing 50 assembled rifles found at the factory at war’s end.

Tuesday, March 2, 2021

Communist Small Arms of the Korean War.

 

I had this issue of "American Rifleman" back in January and I wanted to use it in my blog and didn't have the opportunity and I forgot.(LOL)  Well I remembered  while I was cleaning up my emails and decided to use it.  The credit of the article is all theirs.


American troops went to war in Korea carrying many of the same weapons that served the U.S. military during World War II. They soon found themselves in combat against North Korean troops carrying their own World War II-vintage small arms. The North Koreans used Soviet-made small arms, the same types used on the Eastern Front.
.

When the Chinese joined the fight, American troops would be surprised to find their opponents armed with a strange variety of small arms. Some of them were from the Eastern Bloc, others were recycled Japanese arms captured in China during World War II. There were even American-made rifles, submachine and machine guns provided to China via the Lend-Lease Act.

Before the war:  A North Korean border guard poses with a Mosin-Nagant M1891/30 rifle (7.62x54 mm R).
Before the war: A North Korean border guard poses with a Mosin-Nagant M1891/30 rifle (7.62x54 mm R).


At the beginning of the Korean conflict, the American military was well-equipped for a modern war but rather unprepared for the nature of battle which would take place; an old-fashioned, gut-level infantry struggle across some of the harshest terrain ever fought over. 

Eyes on the Sky

On Aug. 29, 1949, the Soviets shocked the world when they detonated their first atomic bomb, the RDS-1. The nuclear “balance of terror” that would define the Cold War had begun. Less than a year later, the Soviets debuted their world-leading MiG-15 jet fighter, and on Nov. 1, 1950, the first jet-versus-jet combat took place when a Soviet pilot named Khominich downed a U.S. Air Force F-80C. 

A good example of typical Chinese or North Korean uniform during the Korean War, along with the nearly ubiquitous PPSh-41 submachine gun.
A good example of typical Chinese or North Korean uniform during the Korean War, along with the nearly ubiquitous PPSh-41 submachine gun.


Soviet pilots (called “Honchos” by the U.S.A.F.) covertly flew MiG-15s in North Korean or Communist Chinese air force colors throughout the Korean War.  Consequently, America’s military attention was focused on advanced Soviet weapons technology.  Soviet-made small arms were otherwise generally overlooked.

Eastern and Western Philosophies in Conflict

As I began to research this article, I sought to gather resources that provided details on Communist small arms from the beginning of the Korean War. I quickly learned such information is nearly non-existent. 

U.S. Ordnance was very proud, and rightfully so, of the American arms that proved so crucial to Allied victory in World War II. Axis infantry weapons, particularly the later German designs, were carefully examined and assessed by American weapons experts. Across the board, German designs were judged to be inferior to U.S. weapons.

A communist soldier equipped with the PPS-43 submachine gun (7.62x25mm).
A communist soldier equipped with the PPS-43 submachine gun (7.62x25mm).


Certain German concepts, like the “General Purpose Machine Gun” that were the basis of the MG34 and MG42, were explored for later U.S. designs. Other concepts, particularly the MP44 Sturmgewehr “assault rifle” and its intermediate cartridge were not embraced by U.S. Ordnance initially. Work began on improving the M1 Garand, but the M14 rifle that would come to replace it did not enter service until 1958.   

After World War II, the Soviets were busily working on small arms to leverage their M43 7.62x39 mm cartridge, which was developed from the German 7.92 mm “Kurz” round.  Even so, the now-famous SKS-45 rifle and the AK-47 would not reach standard-issue status until well into the 1950s, and neither one would see service in the Korean War. 

War trophy: A Leatherneck of the 5th Marines looks over a captured Mosin-Nagant M1944 carbine with its spike bayonet in June 1952.
War trophy: A Leatherneck of the 5th Marines looks over a captured Mosin-Nagant M1944 carbine with its spike bayonet in June 1952.


The Soviets would supply their Communist allies with the same weapons the Red Army had used so well during World War II. American military leaders overlooked the fact that 80 percent of all German combat casualties in World War II came on the Eastern Front. Those same weapons, considered crude by American standards, coupled with the basic infantry tactics of the Red Army were waiting for U.S. troops in Korea.

In the March 1951 issue of “Popular Science”, editor Perry Githens wrote a review of Communist small arms captured in Korea titled “How Good Are Russian Guns?” Githens writes: 

“It is true that many of the Russian-made weapons I saw and handled at Aberdeen Proving Ground look, at first glance, like practice work in a school for lady welders. It is also true that they can kill you very dead at the effective ranges for weapons of their type. 

Red semi-automatic: Marines examine a rare Simonov AVS-36 selective fire rifle at a stateside range.
Red semi-automatic: Marines examine a rare Simonov AVS-36 selective fire rifle at a stateside range.


How good are Russian guns?  Just exactly good enough and no more.  …For Russian weapons are a literal reflection of the harsh Asiatic philosophy that life is cheap. Where men are expendable, so are guns. And if guns are to be lost in the grinding of war we politely call “attrition,” it is better to lose cheap guns.”

I mentioned that pre-Korean War references on Soviet small arms were hard to find. To my knowledge, there was one American arms expert actively writing about Soviet guns in this era. His name was Roger Marsh, a gunsmith, gun writer and NRA member from Hudson, Ohio. In 1950, Marsh researched, wrote, illustrated and self-published “Weapons I: Overture to Aggression.”

Marines pose with a captured PPS-43 submachine gun (7.62x25 mm) during 1952.
Marines pose with a captured PPS-43 submachine gun (7.62x25 mm) during 1952.


Githens mentions Marsh’s soft-cover book in his article, calling the work “excellent” and “brief but meaty.” Those are accurate descriptions, and “Weapons I” also provides a valuable snapshot of what we knew (and should have shared with our troops) about Soviet-made small arms as the Korean War began. Along with the details he shares in his book, Marsh also provides some interesting editorial:

“Although there has been little reported on the subject, it is rumored that the North Koreans have held classes for their men in the use of U.S. weapons. Its logical: Communist activists are expected to know the use of their own weapons and those of their enemies, and the North Koreans found added incentive in the fact that they expected to have a quick brawl with U.S.-armed South Korea.

Chinese influence: A Chinese soldier with a Czech ZB vz. 26 light machine gun (7.92x57 mm).  The Chinese purchased more than 30,000 of these from the Czechs and made thousands more under license.
Chinese influence: A Chinese soldier with a Czech ZB vz. 26 light machine gun (7.92x57 mm). The Chinese purchased more than 30,000 of these from the Czechs and made thousands more under license.


I wonder if U.S. forces are getting comparable instruction in the use of Soviet and other foreign equipment? The Germans were publishing extensive information on Soviet weapons in 1941-1943, and it is 1950 now. In 1943, in the Armorers Section, ORTC (Aberdeen Proving Ground), I set up, wrote the lessons plan for and the instructional materials for, and repaired or rebuilt the material for and trained other instructors for a Foreign Material course. Maybe it saved some American lives…we did the best we could. The services have had a seven-year start anyway. I hope they have done something with it.”
   

Opponents Old and New

When the Chinese joined the fight in Korea, American troops would find their opponents armed with wide variety of small arms. Some were made in the Soviet Union, others were repurposed Japanese arms captured in China during World War II and finally, there were American-made rifles, SMGs and machine guns provided to Nationalist China via Lend-Lease and then absorbed into the Chinese Communist Army after China’s civil war. 

Captured weapons:  A haul of captured Communist weapons, including a bundle of Mosin-Nagant rifles and carbines with a Japanese Arisaka Type 99 rifle on top.
Captured weapons: A haul of captured Communist weapons, including a bundle of Mosin-Nagant rifles and carbines with a Japanese Arisaka Type 99 rifle on top.


The 1953 U.S. Army Military Intelligence Guidebook “Material in the Hands of or Possibly Available to the Communist Forces in the Far East” lists the following Japanese small arms potentially in the hands of North Korean or Chinese Communist troops:

  • Type 14 pistol (8 mm Nambu)
  • Type 94 pistol (8 mm Nambu)
  • Type 38 rifle (6.5x50 mm)
  • Type 99 rifle (7.7x58 mm)
  • Type 96 Light Machine Gun (6.5x50 mm)
  • Type 99 Light Machine Gun (7.7x58 mm)
  • Type 92 Heavy Machine Gun (7.7x58 mm)

These weapons, along with the Type 89 50 mm Grenade Discharger, commonly called the “Knee Mortar”, made up the bulk of Japan’s World War II infantry weapons, all of which were captured in large numbers by the Chinese and remained in their service until the mid-1950s.

Red Impressions

Several Soviet weapons made a significant impression on U.S. troops in Korea. During World War II, the Red Army was often short of rifles, and the Soviet remedy was to replace long arms with considerably less-expensive submachine guns, quite often at a ratio of three-to-one. Primary among these submachine guns was the PPSh-41 (7.62x25 mm Tokarev), and more than six million of them had been produced by the end of World War II.

Entire units were equipped with the PPSh-41, and with it, the Soviets introduced the idea of tremendous infantry firepower, albeit at short range, to combat on the Eastern Front. They shared the PPSh-41 with their satellite states, and licensed copies were created in North Korea (the Type 49) and China (the Type 50).    

The Chinese Type 50 submachine gun, a copy of the Soviet PPSh-41.  The Type 50 only accepted 35-round box magazines. With a high cyclic rate (almost 1,000 r.p.m.), the PPSh-41 proved to be the king of the close-quarter firefight in Korea.
The Chinese Type 50 submachine gun, a copy of the Soviet PPSh-41. The Type 50 only accepted 35-round box magazines. With a high cyclic rate (almost 1,000 r.p.m.), the PPSh-41 proved to be the king of the close-quarter firefight in Korea.


The PPSh-41 and its clones feature a high cyclic rate, 900 to 1,000 rounds-per-minute.  Equipped with either a 71-round drum (the Russian and North Korean models accept the drum) or a 35-round box magazine (the Chinese version only accepts the box magazine), the PPSh spits out a lot of lead in a hurry. When Communist troops closed the range in Korea, the PPSh submachine guns gave them an advantage in firepower. G.I.s called it the “burp gun”, and some U.S. infantry commanders considered the PPSh-41 to be the best short-range infantry weapon of the war. 

No Communist weapon brought forth as much curiosity from American troops as the Soviet PTRD-41 and PTRS-41 anti-tank rifles, chambered in 14.5x114 mm. These massive rifles, 79.5” for the PTRD and 83” for the PTRS, overlooked or considered obsolete in the West for a decade, made a big impression on American troops in Korea. What the G.I.s called “Buffalo Rifles” had been the Red Army’s prime man-portable anti-tank weapon of World War II. 

The Maxim Model 1910/30 (7.62x54 mm R) on a wheeled Vladimirov mount.  This later variant of the classic Russian Maxim machine gun (in service prior to WWI) features a radiator cap on the water jacket to allow snow to be easily packed in to help keep the barrel cool.
The Maxim Model 1910/30 (7.62x54 mm R) on a wheeled Vladimirov mount. This later variant of the classic Russian Maxim machine gun (in service prior to WWI) features a radiator cap on the water jacket to allow snow to be easily packed in to help keep the barrel cool.


The Western Allies had given up on anti-tank rifles by the end of 1941, but the Soviets had effectively used their 14.5 mm AT rifles until the end of the war. While other nations assumed that for an anti-tank weapon to be worthwhile it must be able to penetrate the enemy tank’s armor where it is the thickest, the Soviets employed their anti-tank rifles to target sensitive points like running gear, vision ports, engine compartments and even cannon barrels.

AT rifles were deployed in depth, with multiple weapons firing at a vehicle from several angles. Once disabled, the tank was vulnerable to roving Soviet tank-hunter teams. As World War II progressed, the Red Army found useful secondary applications for their PTRD and PTRS rifles, most notably in sniping at hardened enemy machine gun and artillery positions. The big rifles, along with their doctrine for use, were provided to the North Korean and Chinese Communist armies.

A U.S. soldier examines a bolt-action PTRD-41 anti-tank rifle chambered in  14.5x114 mm.
A U.S. soldier examines a bolt-action PTRD-41 anti-tank rifle chambered in 14.5x114 mm.


Interviews with North Korean P.O.W.s revealed that they were well aware that their anti-tank rifles could not penetrate the frontal armor of U.N. tanks, and thus, Communist AT rifle teams targeted lightly armored vehicles and motor transports, along with machine-gun bunkers and artillery positions. The enemy “Buffalo Rifles” drew attention for their potential as big-bore sniper rifles.

American sniping expert, Lt. Col. William S. Brophy took a captured PTRD-41 AT rifle and reworked the weapon with a .50-caliber machine gun barrel, adding a Unertl scope and the small comfort of a butt pad. Using his early conversion, Brophy successfully engaged enemy targets at more than 1,000 yds. This basic modification became one of the forerunners of the modern .50-caliber sniper rifles we know today.

A Marine examines a semi-automatic PTRS-41 anti-tank rifle chambered in  14.5x114 mm.
A Marine examines a semi-automatic PTRS-41 anti-tank rifle chambered in 14.5x114 mm.


Roger Marsh describes the Russian-made AT rifles in his book “Weapons I”:

“No US weapon or class of weapons corresponds exactly to the PTRD/PTRS class.  The closest approximation is the M2 Caliber .50 Heavy-Barrel Browning machine gun.

Unquestionably, as far as general effectiveness is concerned, the high rate of fire of the M2 makes up for the differences in ammunition and weight, but is it impossible that a weapon of the PTRD/PTRS class might be of use in U.S. service?  The PTRD weapon is surprisingly light for a weapon which can punch a hole in 30 mm thick armor at 100 meters. Perhaps an American version of the 33-lbs. PTRD type would be useful where the M2 could not readily be carried, but where a weapon effective against medium armor and motor transport might be useful, as, for example, in a behind-enemy-lines raid on supply facilities and motor pools.”

Red sniper: A Marine examines a M1891/30 sniper rifle (with a 3.5X PU scope) in Korea, 1952.
Red sniper: A Marine examines a M1891/30 sniper rifle (with a 3.5X PU scope) in Korea, 1952.


The Soviets also provided the Mosin-Nagant M1891/30 rifle (7.62x54 mm R) to their Communist allies. Chinese and North Korean snipers used these weapons, either in their standard configuration or equipped with a 3.5X PU scope. As the Korean War became a stalemate during the final two years of the conflict, snipers on both sides of the lines took their bitter toll of unwary opponents.  

Soviet-made machine guns made a strong impression on the Korean battlefield as well. The venerable Maxim M1910 water-cooled machine gun was already a veteran of two world wars by 1950.  Many of these were attached to the wheeled Sokolov mount, a low-profile configuration often fitted with a light armored gun shield. World War II models of the Maxim gun had a radiator cap added to the top of the water jacket, allowing snow to be easily added to keep the barrel cool. 

Marines examine a DP-27 light machine gun. The DP-27 weighed 25 lbs. loaded and had a cyclic rate of 550 rounds-per-minute.
Marines examine a DP-27 light machine gun. The DP-27 weighed 25 lbs. loaded and had a cyclic rate of 550 rounds-per-minute.


G.I.s came to respect the light DP-27 “Degtyaryov” machine gun (7.62x54 mm R), which featured an odd 47-round pan-shaped magazine. Somewhat comparable to the BAR, the DP-27 weighed in at about 25 lbs. loaded and provided the base of fire for better units of the Chinese Army. Communist forces also used the Soviet SG-43 medium machine gun (7.62x54 mm R), and this more modern Soviet machine gun was new to American troops, apparently. Roger Marsh makes mention of this in his “Weapons 2” (1952):

“The SG-43 "Goryunov”: The Goryunov is now almost 10 years old. It was used in World War II—extensively. And yet, when the Korean Incident began, the Goryunov came as a complete and terrible surprise, according to the newspapers. One wonders how such things can happen. We can't afford many more "surprises".

SG-43 Goryunov (7.62x54 mm R) seen at a USMC display in early 1954.  With its wheeled mount and armored shield, the SG-43 weighs 90 lbs. Cyclic rate is about 600 rounds-per-minute.
SG-43 Goryunov (7.62x54 mm R) seen at a USMC display in early 1954. With its wheeled mount and armored shield, the SG-43 weighs 90 lbs. Cyclic rate is about 600 rounds-per-minute.


Acceptable War Trophies

It is interesting to note that the 1953 US Army Military Intelligence Guidebook “Material in the Hands of or Possibly Available to the Communist Forces in the Far East” provides a list of “Permissible War Trophies” in the Far Eastern Command. All ordnance items of Japanese, German, Chinese, Polish, Czech, Rumanian, Albanian, Hungarian and Bulgarian manufacture were considered acceptable trophies, provided they were manufactured prior to the end of World War II.

U.S. War Correspondents review captured communist weapons, ranging from a M1938 Carbine (modified to accept a bayonet), a Chinese Bolo Mauser (with a white grip) and a classic spear for the modern era.
U.S. War Correspondents review captured communist weapons, ranging from a M1938 Carbine (modified to accept a bayonet), a Chinese Bolo Mauser (with a white grip) and a classic spear for the modern era.


No Russian-made items were deemed acceptable war trophies, and U.S. troops were instructed to turn over any captured Soviet equipment to their superior officers. The Cold War was already hot, and U.S. Ordnance intelligence had plenty of catching up to do.

Monday, March 1, 2021

Monday Music "I wanna Rock" By Twisted Sister.

 Man the meme is still rolling along.....

I am continuing my string of "bugaloo" songs.  This discussion was started in the "Monster Hunter Nation, Hunters Unite", back in November of 2019? it is a Facebook group with enthusiast of the ILOH "International Lord of Hate" A.K.A Larry Correia.  We were talking about what song would we use if we looked out of our window or glanced at our security camera and saw this.....

One of the alphabet bois lining up to take down your house...What would be your "Valhalla" song and you would set it up to play as you load up magazines set up the Tannerite Rover, turn on the water irrigation system and fill it with gasoline instead of water and prepare yourself.

 I figured it would scar the alphabet boys if they come busting in and hearing a song about people standing for their beliefs and willing to fight for them no matter the cost, Good Music  unlike that crap they listen to now.  What can I say, My humor is warped....just a bit. Next week will be "Emerald" by Thin Lizzie, That song was recommended by "BadFrog", one of my readers,  Now that should really cause some psych evals., hehehe, some poor ATF guy trying to explain the attraction to his mother because he is imaging himself as The savior of the American 


   I decided to go with "Twisted Sister I Wanna ROCK."   This song was very popular when I was in the service especially when we had to have a G.I party...Those that were in the service would know the reference.  We would have several stereo's in the quad play this very loud while we were cleaning.   Even now when I hear it, I automatically look for the floor buffers.

                                                     Here are some more details of the song.


Stay Hungry is the third studio album by American heavy metal band Twisted Sister. Released on May 10, 1984, the album includes the band's two most well-known songs, "We're Not Gonna Take It" and "I Wanna Rock". According to RIAA certification, Stay Hungry gained multi-platinum status with U.S. sales of more than 3,000,000 copies.

Twisted Sister performed the song "Burn in Hell" during a cameo appearance in the 1985 film Pee-wee's Big Adventure. The song "Burn in Hell" was covered by black metal band Dimmu Borgir on Puritanical Euphoric Misanthropia. "We're Not Gonna Take It" was also covered by Bif Naked on the Ready to Rumble soundtrack. The two songs that comprise the Horror-Teria segment became the basis of Twisted Sister lead singer Dee Snider's 1998 film Strangeland, in which Captain Howdy was played by Snider himself. The "Captain Howdy" segment of the "Horror-Teria" suite would later be covered by the death metal group Broken Hope on their album Repulsive Conception and in 1999 by the Swedish heavy metal band Morgana Lefay on their Symphony of the Damned, Re-symphonised album.

In 2004, the band re-recorded the tracks from this album and re-released them under the title Still Hungry.

In 2009, the band played Stay Hungry in its entirety for the first time including songs never played live before, such as "Don't Let Me Down" and "Horror-Teria: Street Justice"



Like the earlier "We're Not Gonna Take It", the video features actor Mark Metcalf, best known as the abusive ROTC leader Douglas C. Neidermeyer from the movie National Lampoon's Animal House. Here, he plays a teacher with a similar personality to Neidermeyer, who harasses a student for drawing the Twisted Sister logo on one of his textbooks. He chastises the student by shouting "What kind of a man desecrates a defenseless textbook?! I've got a good mind to slap your fat face!", which echoes a line from Animal House: "What kind of man hits a defenseless animal [a misbehaving horse]? I've got a good mind to smash your fat face in!"

Metcalf's character reprises his question from the "We're Not Gonna Take It" video, "What do you want to do with your life?!" This provides a lead-in for the track, as the student answers with the first line of the song, "I wanna rock!", after which he and four of his classmates are instantly transformed into Twisted Sister's five members. After the vicious teacher's repeated attempts to stop his rock-loving students not only fail but also backfire on him, he crawls into the principal's office, only to be confronted by the principal, played by Stephen Furst, who played Kent "Flounder" Dorfman in Animal House, alongside Metcalf. Furst reprises one of his lines from the movie: "Oh boy, is this great!", before he sprays water from a seltzer bottle at the teacher.