RFC mechanics with revolvers

[centurion]

Browsing through my "Images of Aviation - The Royal Flying Corps" when I came across a photo of a group of RFC other ranks all equiped with revolvers in holsters worn on the righthand side high up on where the belt and shoulder strap of the equipment webbing join (and it looks af if drawing the gun would be most awkward). The caption says these are mechanics due to be sent to France. Now whilst the photos in this book are all very good the accuracy of some of the captions is pants. So I'm mistrustful. I can see the posible value of revolvers to aircrew (in case forced down) but would these be normal issue to mechanics?

For anyone who has the book the photo is on page 27

[Starlight]

My grandfather was initially a wireless mechanic in the RFC and was issued with a revolver (Number 10836). He was also required to undergo regular target practice sessions but as far as I know he never fired it in anger, nor carried it around with him on the aerodrome.

[SiegeGunner]

Did AMs go out with ground crews to recover aircraft/pilots downed in the combat area? If so, a revolver would have been handy. Also, didn't AMs sometimes go up on test flights and specialist missions - where, in the absence of parachutes, a revolver was the means of self-deliverance in the last resort?

There is, of course, one surviving Great War AM who would no doubt be able to answer your question ...

[Starlight]

My grandfather (AM 1st Class) often visited the various batteries that the squadron worked for and did on occasion go out with the crash tenders. He also went up on test flights in the observers cockpit (testing wireless etc) on many occasions but he never mentioned taking his revolver with him - others might have of course.

[per ardua per mare per terram]

AM was a rank, it didn't cover all their roles. AMs could be observers or air gunners as well as mechanics. Additionally, the distinction between air crew and ground crew was not rigid in WWI. It was possible to go over to France as one and end up as the other. The name McCudden comes to mind ...

[truthergw]

I know next to nothing about RFC but arming ground crew with pistols rather than rifles seems like a good idea and by no means unique to them as tradesmen.

[centurion]

I know next to nothing about RFC but arming ground crew with pistols rather than rifles seems like a good idea Why? and by no means unique to them as tradesmen.

[Starlight]

With space always at a premium on aerodromes (never enough room for aircraft or mechanics) and the fact that the squadrons were constantly on the move from one place to another it certainly would have been more convenient for the non combatants to be issued with small arms rather than a cumbersome rifle, especially if they were rarely used.

[centurion]

Starlight

I don't think that squadrons moved that often (with the exceptions being the 1914 retreat and the 1918 retreat) and the RFC was far better equiped with motor transport than most. I ask the question why revolvers because itwould seemthat the purpose of issuing arms at all to RFC personnel (other than as personal weapons for aircrew) would be in the event of enemy action against their airfield in which case I would have thought revolvers to be too short range to be very effective and pretty useless for sustained fire (it takes time to reload a revolver, not like putting another clip in.)

[yellow]

Those revolvers are for those men assigned to the recovery of aircraft as the gentlemen have stated above.

WHY is because when one is moving aircraft is is not advisable to be burdoned with rifle and ammunition. It is for the same reason that we see Royal Engineers with pistols as well as the No.1 on machine guns because these chaps are supposed to have their hands full.

[centurion]

Those revolvers are for those men assigned to the recovery of aircraft as the gentlemen have stated above.

Doesn't hold water I'm afraid as the photo in question is of a group in Britain (not France) waiting transfer to France. They all have holsters and revolvers.

[yellow]

I think it does, why wouldnt these men be issued with small arms before departing for France just as other men would be issued with a rifle?

I understand what your thinking, you think that revolvers are drawn from the armoury before the men are about to go on a job.

Also when you say webbing can you please be more descript, is that P14, 08?

[truthergw]

Yellow has said most of what I was thinking. As a matter of courtesy, I will answer anyway. I am trying to picture mechanics whatever their role, carrying out their jobs with ammunition packs and slung rifles. Very unhandy, I think. That being so, the pistols and associated equipment would be issued and a measure of training given, before departure from training camp. I actually extrapolated from RE, as I was aware of them being issued with side arms.

[yellow]

A Royal Flying Corps despatch rider

[centurion]

I understand what your thinking, you think that revolvers are drawn from the armoury before the men are about to go on a job.

Also when you say webbing can you please be more descript, is that P14, 08?

Given that every other photo I have seen showing mechanics (including thosre recovering aircraft who were in overalls without webbing) none are wearing holsters where would such weapons be held? The Armoury!

I enclose an extract from the photo in question. The holster looks most awkward, two high up to allow the wearer to draw the gun easily right handed but the butt is to the right so a left handed extraction would also be difficult. I suspect that it might also get in the way when bending. If the revolver was their for someone to protect the men who are doing the dismantling - a rifle would be more effective.

[Pete1052]

That holster is indeed in an awkward location, but the "quick draw" stuff seen in Hollywood westerns is Hollywood nonsense. In the U.S. Army the pistol is worn on the hip--if the belt is slung too low, cowboy style, it makes it harder to walk. Perhaps that airman has a non-standard holster.

[centurion]

All the others in the photo appear to have it in the same position (there are 23 of them). I'm not talking about Hollywood style gun fights which I agree are sheer bunkum but it should be possible to get at your weapon reasonably quickly in time of need.

[Pete1052]

That's unusual--most military holsters have a flap that covers the grip of the pistol or revolver. Maybe you should ask the weapons and equipment forum what type or pattern of holster that is.

[Starlight]

Starlight

I don't think that squadrons moved that often (with the exceptions being the 1914 retreat and the 1918 retreat) and the RFC was far better equiped with motor transport than most. I ask the question why revolvers because itwould seemthat the purpose of issuing arms at all to RFC personnel (other than as personal weapons for aircrew) would be in the event of enemy action against their airfield in which case I would have thought revolvers to be too short range to be very effective and pretty useless for sustained fire (it takes time to reload a revolver, not like putting another clip in.)

Centurion, It was not uncommon in WW1 for squadrons to have had 16 or 17 bases on the Western Front (eg. Numbers 23, 24 and 32 to name but a few, with 32 having several stays of less than a week at a particular aerodrome) and if you look at the original squadrons like numbers 3 or 5 they had in excess of 30 bases. I agree that transportation was efficient in the RFC - it had to be - but space was always at a premium. The AMs who used the workshop lorries often had to share the vehicle with five or six other men, not much room to move when you take into account the equipment that was kept on the lorries. I would think the revolvers would have been for personal protection as the main risk to the AMs on the aerodromes would have been night-time enemy bombers and long distance shells against which a rifle would not have been particularly effective.

[centurion]

I would think the revolvers would have been for personal protection in transit? as the main risk to the AMs on the aerodromes would have been night-time enemy bombers and long distance shells against which a rifle would not have been particularly effective (and a revolver even more so).

[Pete1052]

At the risk of going off-topic, the U.S. M1 Carbine, a semiautomatic weapon with a 15-round magazine, was originally intended to be a replacement for handguns. The little rifle was in service from '42 to about '67, my late dad had one in combat in Germany in WW II. (Stamped on the breech is "U.S. Carbine, Cal. 30, M1.") The carbine could be described as firing a hot pistol cartridge and being short, light and very handy. When it first came out it was enthusiastically accepted by the armed forces, including some in the SAS. The problem was it was issued to many types of troops who had never previously been issued a handgun. Although it was never intended to be a front-line weapon--it was intended for troops who don't normally engage the enemy with small arms fire--it turned into one because of its widespread popularity. The problem with it was that it lacked the knock-down power of the .30-06 and .303 cartridges and could be tempermental, reliability-wise. I own a nice one made by the Inland Division of General Motors Corporation in '43. Today M1 Carbines are illegal in Great Britain.

[centurion]

I've had a thought (very rare these days). Did the RFC have its own military policemen? If so that would be an explanation for revolver toting mechanics.

[per ardua per mare per terram]

In British Air Forces 1914-18 Vol. I by Andrew and Peter Cormack there is also a picture of a Corporal and Air Mechanics at Northolt in 1915 with pistols. The holsters are similarly without flaps and the group is described as wearing "1908 Pattern pistol equipment."

Centurion please explain the point of issuing RFC personnel with rifles? They were not evisioned to be taking a role in the firing line, they were a technical arm, like the RE. Their primary mode of transport were aircraft which did not have room for cumbersome rifles that would take space and weight. Pistols would be used for close order defence and in extremis I think I remember reading of shots being fired at the engine to disable it before capture; I have also seen photos of RFC rooms with displays of revolvers. The RFC was an army unit and airfield defence could be allocated to men trained with a rifle. Both the photos we are talking about show men in England, that gives me the impression of regulation rig, which was discarded when they arrived in an operational area. Also in 1915 when rifes were in short supply even for infantry battalions, the RFC would not be high enough priority to be so equipped.

[centurion]

Rifles were certainly issued. There are a number of photos of mechanics parading with rifles, forming honour guards etc. Firing a pistol would be a very uncertain way of doing any damage to an engine that couln't be repaired. I have heard of flare pistols being used to set fire to the petrol tank.

[John Thorne]

VERY interesting photo! The men are indeed wearing the Pattern 1908 Special Pistol gear, but in a non-standard fashion - they have the pistol cases and ammunition pouches reversed. As you can see from the picture below, the pistol case was designed to be worn on the left side for a right hand cross draw. It would be very awkward to try and draw the pistol with it carried the way these men have it. This type of webbing set-up was introduced in 1913 for pipers and range takers. Its use was extended to OR's in the RFC in, I believe, early 1915, so perhaps it has just been issued and they haven't yet been properly instructed in how it's worn? At least two of the men shown are also wearing the 2" brace buckles on the front of the braces, and one of them has the buckles upside down (they are supposed to be on the back to support the pack when worn) so it seems likely to me that they just have figured it all out yet.

Wearing it high as shown was correct, and the open topped case is correct for this pattern. It's just the way it's assembled that's odd.