Time to the front, WWI pistols

[BlackArmy]

With the war ending 11 Nov 1918, obviously any M1911 shipped from Colt on 10 Nov 1918 was very unlikely to have seen action in WWI.

How long did it take pistols to get from, say, Bush Terminal to the front?

Are there generally accepted shipment cutoff dates from Colt where pistols would/could have made it overseas (even if not necessarily in combat), and what would they be? Shipped to Bush Terminal in August? September? October?

[ZvenoMan]

What makes you think pistols were shipped from the manufacturer to the front?
Wouldn’t the troops at the front already have their firearms? (Other than replacements).

Pistols seemed to generally go from the manufacturer to depots and then to various bases and units who then would use them, either there, at wherever they were later deployed, including the combat areas.
Sometimes troops deployed with their firearms, other times they deployed without them and had them issued upon arrival near or in the combat zones. But again, they would be issued in groups, not in a constant stream (again, excluding obvious replacements).

So no real average, some could be a matter of weeks, others could be issued to a soldier long before he made it to Europe.

[metalliman545]

Originally Posted by BlackArmy

With the war ending 11 Nov 1918, obviously any M1911 shipped from Colt on 10 Nov 1918 was very unlikely to have seen action in WWI.

How long did it take pistols to get from, say, Bush Terminal to the front?

Are there generally accepted shipment cutoff dates from Colt where pistols would/could have made it overseas (even if not necessarily in combat), and what would they be? Shipped to Bush Terminal in August? September? October?

If I remember correctly, US troops didn’t leave Europe until around 1920 (almost 2 years after the war ended). So they could have made it overseas until 1920.

Troops are armed generally before going “to the front”. I would assume they would have large weapon depots in England for rearming the newly arrived troops. Not everyone was given a pistol, especially those on the front. So very few pistols were “on the front” compared to the number of troops and rifles on the front. And in my experience, new equipment trickles down to the non-combat side first and their old equipment gets sent to the combat arms troops (at least in modern times).

Since you asked about the front, A rifle was far more important and only NCOs and officers would be issued a sidearm. Any one else was either a specialist, a REMF, or they acquired it.

Anecdotal but I was a tanker. Our primary weapon is the M9. Only our E5s and above were issued an M9. The rest of us carried M4s.

[investigator187]

Originally Posted by metalliman545

Anecdotal but I was a tanker. Our primary weapon is the M9. Only our E5s and above were issued an M9. The rest of us carried M4s.

I may be wrong, so correct me if I am, but wasn't your primary weapon the TANK!?

[MajorD]

Just my suspicion, it i suspect troops were shipped to the embarkation terminals unarmed, then armed as they got on ship. That would explain the large numbers of 1911’s shipped from colt directly to the ports. After that simple question is how long did it take a ship to sail from NY to France in those days? That would be your answer.

[2AD_Vet]

Originally Posted by metalliman545

Anecdotal but I was a tanker. Our primary weapon is the M9. Only our E5s and above were issued an M9. The rest of us carried M4s.

I was a tanker in the 2AD in late 70's. Our crews carried the M-16 typically but I was a VTR operator so I got to carry the infamous M3-A1 Grease gun.... It was a real "kick" to shoot!

My 1917 Colt 1911 was shipped to Commanding officer of Springfield Armoury in July 1917 so I think it had a very good chance of seeing combat in WW1

[metalliman545]

Originally Posted by 2AD_Vet

I was a tanker in the 2AD in late 70's. Our crews carried the M-16 typically but I was a VTR operator so I got to carry the infamous M3-A1 Grease gun.... It was a real "kick" to shoot!

My 1917 Colt 1911 was shipped to Commanding officer of Springfield Armoury in July 1917 so I think it had a very good chance of seeing combat in WW1

It must’ve been a pain in the butt to lug M16s in the turret haha. I had a tough time sitting in the drivers hatch with my M4. There was no leg room as is!

Funny story, About a month after I got out my tank commander texted me a picture of what happened during gunnery with my replacement loader. He stowed his M4 under the breach block of the main gun. As they approach the firing line they are told to elevate the gun. The barrel had a 45° bend, the stock and buffer tube ripped off from the lower.


Although fun to think of the history, I have to be a realist.

Why would the commanding officer of Springfield armory (I would assume they ranked Colonel or Above) suddenly leave their admin job to see combat? Could he have went overseas? Definitely. But for combat duty? I doubt it. Perhaps as a commanding officer of a brigade that saw combat, but I doubt he and the 1911 were out in the trenches

[2AD_Vet]

Originally Posted by metalliman545

Why would the commanding officer of Springfield armory (I would assume they ranked Colonel or Above) suddenly leave their admin job to see combat? Could he have went overseas? Definitely. But for combat duty? I doubt it. Perhaps as a commanding officer of a brigade that saw combat, but I doubt he and the 1911 were out in the trenches

I'm sure someone will clarify but I think the shipment to the "commanding officer" was generic to the locations armory and not to an actual indivdual for their personal usage. Often, from there, they would be further routed to other locations or units. For example, my M1917 also made in 1918 was shipped July 23, 1918, to Ordnance Base Depot, Bush Terminal, Brooklyn, N.Y. for further routing to Ordnance Base Depot, A.E.F. France.

My assumption of my 1911 seeing combat is solely based on the date of introduction into the active military arsenal and the shortage of firearms at that time which would have most likely targeted it for delivery to a unit having a need for it.

[CBIthaca]

I think that there is a high likelihood that weapons shipped to arsenals in the USA in the WW1 years stayed stateside. The amount of weapons needed to train troops would have been massive as the training pipeline and infrastructure grew larger and larger as the US entered the war and got more heavily involved. It would seem unlikely that WW1 training brigades would have transferred weapons out as people left training camps. It was bad enough already for them and state units to where pre 1903 and 1917 weapons were forced into use for training and some use. As production increased I am sure the problem was greatly lessened.

That versus weapons shipped to embarkation points, which likely ALL went overseas?

[2AD_Vet]

It would be interesting to know if most of our troops werre issued service weapons in training that stayed with them during deployment or if they shipped out un-armed and were issued new weapons upon arival into Europe.