We don't know if your suspicions of Thompson guns being on the Ramon de Larrinaga are correct. Please point to the 1941 AOC order in question. I would like to see if the Ramon de Larrinaga is referenced. It's hard to comment without seeing the referrenced documentation. If the cargo was salvaged, I don't think it would be counted as lost.
I still don't believe Savage Arms would knowingly sell anything with the Colt name on it.
The British would not have cared who made them as long as the Thompsons were delivered. The British would have only worried about their own inspection markings, which was really not a concern in 1940.
Forget the February 7 order (which was actually a U.S. Government contract) as that would be impossible to be ready for a February 8 shipping date.
In order to match up the Ramon de Larrinaga with Hamblin's recollection of a sea water damaged TSMG shipment during his first months of employment at Savage Utica, New York, we would need to know the period of time that elapsed between a British contract with AOC and that order being processed by Savage and then arrange for a British cargo ship ( or ships in order to split up the order as a precaution against the likelihood of the entire order being sunk) to be in NYC port and then arrange delivery to the docks and then loading of cargo and then time table and routing of ship to avoid Axis Navy.
The only British Contract that could provide for enough time to meet these demands would be the October 31, 1940 A-2308 for 54,000 Savage TSMGs. According to Frank Iannamico Savage had delivered to AOC 42,954 total 1928 TSMGs by end of 1940. That gives AOC three months to complete the order and arrange for the vessel.
That the Ramon de Larrinaga's cargo was submerged for four months before Savage could examine the damaged TSMGs, it would seem logical to assume that AOC would have temporarily classified the shipment as lost and subsequently took it out of the loss column.
Frank Iannamico confirms the congenial relationship between Savage and Colt.
"Colt and Savage seemed to have a good rapport and corresponded frequently discussing production of the Thompson."
page 102 American Thunder III
As Savage was not allowed to stamp their name on the TSMG receivers coming out of their factory, the British might be confused that it was indeed Savage who made them. They had no difficulties figuring out Colt manufactured the earlier shipment of TSMGs to U.K.
As for the British inspection markings, the Inspection Board of the United Kingdom and Canada was not formed until October, 1940. Its headquarters were in Ottawa, and it had an office in New York City.
It was the representative inspecting authority on behalf of the UK Ministry of Supply, and the Canadian Department of Munitions and Supply.
It was to inspect the production of war goods and resources, supplies and stores in Canada and the United States. It was dissolved on 31 March 1946, to be replaced in Canada by the Inspection Board of Canada
As Frank Innamico states in American Thunder III
"The Joint Inspection Board of The United Kingdom and Canada were allowed to place inspectors in U.S. factories like Savage to mark Thompsons procured by the British Purchasing Commission"
This would account for the Crown W stamps on Savage receivers on TSMGs in Utica, New York that were shipped to U.K. before the U.S. government Lend Lease program was enacted.
Frank Iannamico might be able to shed more light on the credibility of Mr. Hamblin's story. Why would the subject of Colt Navy TSMG even come up when the subject was his time at the Utica and Bridgeport plants? If Hamblin had worked at AOC in the 1920/30's it might be a question of misremembering, but AOC was supposed to b out of stock of Navy Colts during his time inspecting TSMGs. It is difficult to dismiss his first hand account of handling a sufficient number of Colt Navy TSMGs in Summer of 1941 that he vividly recalled them 60 years later.
Edited by Arthur Fliegenheimer, 01 August 2019 - 05:26 PM.