Jump to content

What Makes A M1928 An A1?


Recommended Posts

GI Jive,

 

Yes, I am serious about this question stumping this august board of self-proclaimed RKIs. So far the only explanation I've been able to glean from all these replies is, "Because they said so". Hardly an "explanation" at all.

 

FYI, the reason why the M1 was not called the "M1928A2" or similar is because sometime between 1928 and the adoption of the M1, the military changed its nomenclature from the year of adoption to a serial designation (I don't recall the exact date, and am willing to admit my ignorance, unlike so-called "RKIs" on this board). I've read that the Thompson was the last small arm designated with the year of adoption as part of its nomenclature. (Hence the "1911", "1861 Springfield", "1898 Krag-Jorgenson", "1903 Springfield", etc).

 

Yes, I AM looking for "some definitive date, person, feature change or documentation on the rationale for using the A1 suffix". That is the nature of historical research!

 

If you don't know, then FINE! I'm happy with your ignorance! Just please don't state that because you don't KNOW of a reason, then there WAS no reason! Those are two different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur,

 

Will Rogers suggested grinding numbers off Thompsons? When did he do that?

 

If you are referring, dear Arthur, to Will's comment about "I never met a man I didn't like", and you are taking the chance to say you don't like me, well then, based on other comments on this board, I consider myself in good company.

 

So, what IS the difference between a Model of 1928 and a US 1928A1? I'm still looking, Sir Arthur the Omniscient.

Edited by Hurridale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hurridale,

 

Okay, I don't know why they called it an A1.

 

I know what a Model 1928A1 is, who made them, when they were made, what features distinguish them from other models, how they operate, how to tell if it's original, and their country of origin. I just don't know why they used that pesky military A1 designation. I don't know why they used that Model of 1928 designation either, since the gun was essentially the same as a Model of 1921. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GI Jive,

 

Thanks! If I ever get to the bottom of this nomenclature mess, I will post whatever I find (hopefully Kyle will do the same, if he's still with this discussion).

 

I feel comfortable offering to you that the 1928 designation was used because the modified 1921 was adopted for military use in 1928 (the 1911 was designed before 1911 -- but that's when the military adopted it). From what I understand of military nomenclature of the time, even if the Marines had adopted unmodified 1921s in 1928, as far as the military was concerned, they would be called "1928".

 

Somewhere, there's an explanation for this. Please understand that I really do not care what that explanation is! I'd just like to know WHY the same piece of ordnance went from being a "1928" to a "1928A1" (the "US" part I think I understand).

 

Hell, I don't care if it turns out to be a typo by some forgotten clerk in some long-abandoned procurement office! I'm just trying to figure out the WHY!

 

If someone tried to sell me an original WWI 1911A1, I'd call bullshit. Why does there seem to be a problem with getting clarity about the Thompson?

 

I still have a question about the finish. Were ALL US 1928A1s sand-blasted prior to finishing? Are any just blued, as per the Savage Commercials?

Edited by Hurridale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Phil. You are most probably right about such info never showing up. I figured if the info was out there at all, here would be a good place to check.

 

I still have faith that it will show up. Maybe it's parked in that same warehouse where they've got the Ark of the Covenant from "Raiders of the Lost Ark."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Hurridale @ Mar 6 2004, 07:23 PM)
...I will post whatever I find (hopefully Kyle will do the same, if he's still with this discussion).

Yeah, I'm still here- just hiding in the bomb shelter with all the nukes being lobbed back and forth.

 

Geez guys, next time let discuss something a little less controversial, like abortion or gun control.

 

Seriously, I have enjoyed reading everyone's opinions. Like I stated in my original post, there was an identifiable modification which prompted the change from the M1 to the M1A1. I wasn't aware of a similar situation with the 1928/1928A1s and I guess it remains somewhat of a grey issue.

 

remeber folks, we're all friends here!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No worries, Kyle -- I'm glad you asked a question I've long pondered.

 

As for controversy, I think we can all agree on one thing: all these Savages were every bit as good as, if not better than, the original Colts http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/wink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes april fool april 01.1943 you caught the date........what was a p-40 warhawk before it was a p-40???a aircobra???

 

i am glad the board finally came to a consensus.............humor is the best policy.................

 

 

and when i find that document.i will mail it to nick for posting.....................wink

 

 

you all take care now.........rON

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kyle and Hurridale,

 

Please try to quit thinking about this like a 1911 pistol becoming the 1911A1 pistol due to certain changes in features. The 1911 pistol had already been officially aopted as a standard procurement item for the US military when it was so named. Therefore, when modifications were made between the wars, it was changed to 1911A1.

 

Remember, the Thompson was a civillian made weapon, it's research and development weren't funded by the military and the makers of the gun unsuccessfully tried to have the military adopt it for years. Yes, small numbers of Thompsons found there way into the military through various channels. The U.S. Post Office purchased the guns that were supplied to the Marines for use in Nicaragua. The U.S. Navy purchased a few hundred in the late twenties prompting Auto-Ordnance Corporation to try marketing the gun as a 1928 Navy Model. These purchases were small and were a "limited procurement" item. The US military services hadn't officially adopted the weapon, so it obviously (at least to all the Thompson researchers I have read, anyway) wasn't given an official military designation in the table of standard issue items.

 

When it was officially adopted as a standard procurement item for general issue to the military services, the basic 1928 Model, with Cutts compensator, horizontal foregrip and sling swivels, was given the official military designation of 1928A1. The exact date date, piece of paper, or who signed it will probably never be found as PhilOhio so eloquently pointed out. Even if the paper is found, I seriously doubt if the explanation for the terminology used will be listed.

 

By the way, the 1928A1 Model was patterned after the Colt made 1921 Model that Auto Ordnance Corporation marketed as the US Navy Model of 1928. It wasn't patterned after the Savage made 1928 Model. Savage just happened to be the Auto Ordnance Corp. sub-contractor that was making the gun when the military officially adopted it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Hurridale @ Mar 7 2004, 09:12 AM)
Ron,

I don't know if the Aircobra morphed into the P-40, but have heard pilots talk about the P-40 becoming the P-400.

That was a P-40 with a Zero on its tail...

and it's sad to know probably the only flying zero around is in calif.museum,and not many p-40's still left............and aircobra's is anybodie's.guess.............

 

how times change...............ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, you guys talking about aircraft....

 

That I know a little about, the Curtiss P-40 started out as the Hawk 75 or P-36 then turbo'ed as the P-37 then became the Hawk 81 or XP-40 in 1938. The P40D was also sold to the UK and became known as the Kittyhawk I. The USAAC bought the same version but called it the Warhawk as well as subsequent versions up to the P-40N model. End of series.

 

The Bell P-39 Aircobra was a totally seperate design that failed in it's fighter role but was outstanding in the ground attack role, and was the first with tricycle gear in 1939. Model produced up to the P-39Q then in 1944 became the P-63 King Cobra after basically being built as a new aircraft design. USSR got most of the production ground attack role.

 

http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the P-400 was a P-39 "Airacobra" originally meant for England. The English realized what pieces of crap the P-39s were

and declined to accept them. The Army Air Force took them, numbered them P-400's and sent them off to the

South East Asia theater, AKA Guadacanal. They had a 20mm Hispano rather than the standard 37mm cannon in the nose.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, the P-39/400 was the "commercial" export model that Bell tried to sell to the UK for air combat.

 

An old friend worked for Bell during that period and said the P-39 with the 37mm was a hoot to shoot. Said you would line up on a ground target, loose the hammer, and big holes would open up in the ground. He said the shortcomings of the design were the low power engine and the torque whip from the shaft. He said it could be a surprise during air combat, it could change the rate of roll during left and right bank when throttling up or down during the maneuver. He said it was outstanding in the ground attack, tank busting mode, for it was very stable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE
I always thought that was one of the neatest looking planes, with so many innovative features, many of which are universal today. But I doubt if you will ever see one of these planes maintained in restored flying condition. The drive train makes that an impossible job. NAPA doesn't sell the parts.

 

Well the CAF has a P-39 in flyable condition (CAF P-39)and so does the Kalamazoo Air Museum (Air Zoo Bird). I have seen both of them over the years. The P-63 owned by Frank Borrman won Oshkosh's best warbird award a few years ago. They are still out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Kalamazoo Air Museum is a wonderful museum. Not affiliated with the military, but they have a special relationship with

the Navy. You will find a great deal of Navy aircraft there. Only place where I have went and seen 5 F-14s on the ramp at one time,

four flyables and their museum bird. Go in July when they have their "Air Zoo" airshow. Small numbers (relative to Dayton) of people

and lots of aircraft. Evidently (having checked their website) they are having a grand re-opening this May. Musta did some remodeling.

 

Yeager flew the P-39 before shipping out over seas with the 357th FG and LIKED IT. That if anything says the man is not all right

in the head. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/laugh.gif

 

I think Yeager once tied a thompson smg to an Armadillo.. or shot an armadillo.. or something... (pathetic topic save attempt). http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/blink.gif

 

Did I mention my wife's dad's WWII 40mm Anti-Aircraft gun crew had one thompson? (whew) http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd read somewhere that the Navy had Thompsons as the M1928, but the Army wanted nothing to do with the Navy, and designated them as M1928A1 just to be different. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/blink.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, the P-51 Mustang, a truly great fighter. My pal Mickey Spillane was a Mustang flight instructor during WWII, he said the six 50cal. machine-guns was hoot to shoot, as he says: "real firepower" ! At 86 he still has his pilot's liscense, although he doesn't fly much anymore, he sold his personal Mustang years ago, he used to own a couple of Thompsons too. So I guess guns and planes will always go hand-in-hand! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif

 

Mike Hammer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...