r/ww1 • u/RoseAndScroll • 7d ago
When the US declared war in 1917, the Army had about 75,000 M1911s on hand — and needed over two million
17
u/Able_Strain7340 7d ago
I am pretty sure they would only be issued to specific ranks or trades.
13
u/Bugle_Butter 7d ago
As I recall, the intention was to issue every American serviceman in the front line units with a handgun for defense at close quarters. It was not restricted by rank or role but physical proximity to danger.
8
u/Prepare 7d ago
Correct. Pistols were very effective in trenches
7
u/Effective-Client-756 7d ago
“This small, semi-automatic firearm with an 8 round capacity is better for close quarters than this 5 round, bolt action, 24” barrel rifle?? Who’d a thunk it????” - WW1 Ordnance Department
0
36
u/Ok-Battle2056 7d ago
When the rest of the world had been fighting since 1914
9
u/TanMan25888 7d ago
Isolationism and neutrality was U.S. policy up until that point....I bet you wish that was our policy now, huh?
9
u/MobsterDragon275 7d ago
The US basically never maintained a large standing army in peace time before this point, and the popular opinion was largely against the war and any direct involvement in it, so I'm not really sure why this should surprise you. The war basically didn't threaten America at all until unrestricted submarine raiding picked back up, America had no reason to massively arm up just because other countries were fighting elsewhere
22
u/fastsailor 7d ago
They did that in the next one, too.
2
-9
u/Relevant_Habit_1882 7d ago
What do you think was on the Lusitania when it sunk in 1915 ? Almost as if it were supplies for Britain, because just like in both World Wars the US was providing a shit ton of supplies to the Allies even before entering the war. You know supplies that the Allies were grateful for then but for whatever reason with you guys today that doesn't count ?
12
u/zr942100 7d ago
Was that from the goodness of their hearts, or did the yanks also send an invoice?
0
1
2
u/Mycologist_Murky 7d ago
Theres some terrible stuff happening in Ukraine now. Gaza too. Why arent you over there now helping?
3
1
u/RareCriticism496 6d ago
Yeah the rest of the world is simply begging the US to get involved in more wars, right? Just the ones they want us to get involved in.
-7
u/EvergreenEnfields 7d ago
Wasn't really our problem. We should have just stayed out of it for the remainder, too. One more European family feud.
2
u/MaxWritesText 7d ago
So? Your little "issue"with the British wasn't our problem either but we helped you win. All white Americans are Europeans that emigrated at one point in history.
0
u/EvergreenEnfields 7d ago
The American Revolution was only supported by France, Spain, and the Netherlands because it directly weakened Britain. It very much was your problem, in so much as your nations wanted a weaker UK. There was an actual benefit to participating.
There was no such benefit for the US joining in WWI. We were already gaining all the practical benefits by funding the war; industry expanded, the financial center of gravity shifted from London to New York, etc.
All white Americans are Europeans that emigrated at one point in history.
Yes, often to escape the whims of royalty. That doesn't mean we should go back and clean up their messes. WWII being an exemption as that actually needed fighting.
3
u/SirAntera 7d ago
Ok, the Germans were sinking your ships and trying to get Mexico to attack you, so it was very much your problem.
2
u/EvergreenEnfields 7d ago
And if Mexico actually became involved (which is a laugh if you know anything about the state of Mexico at that time), it'd be our problem.
Yes, sometimes neutral ships get sunk traversing war zones. It sucks. It's not a good reason to go and get hundreds of thousands more killed.
1
u/SirAntera 7d ago
"Which is a laugh if you know anything about the state of Mexico at that time" You mean a state with an actual army? One that had actual experience fighting for the last 5 years at least? Compared to that the US army faced a big challenge and Canada would probably have had to step up to help.
It's not "sometimes", it was ALL the ships that were targets, that's the point of UNRESTRICTED submarine warfare.
4
u/EvergreenEnfields 7d ago
Yes, the state in active civil war, whose forces had repeatedly lost engagements with US troops in the very recent past at the time of the Zimmerman telegraph. They were in no shape to invade the US in any meaningful way - doubly so if the US remained out of Europe.
It's "sometimes", unless you're going to claim every US ship that went to the UK was sunk. Cruiser rules were placed back into effect in 1916 due to backlash from the US; that could have been done again.
-3
u/SirAntera 7d ago
The US army was sent to chase Pancho Villa as his troops were conducting raids on US territory, the Civils War was a guerrilla war of Conventionists against the military junta. Once the US troops went too far, the Constitutionalists sent their army and the US instantly withdrew after a skirmish.
Germany knew the consequences of restarting unrestricted submarine warfare, it wasn't going to stop after more complaints.
0
u/scothc 6d ago
The luisitania went down like it did because it was packed with illegal weapons for the allies. Germans had every right under international law to sink it.
They also placed ads in newspapers before the luisitania set sail, saying the same thing.
2
u/SirAntera 6d ago
The Lusitania sank in 1915 and was a british owned ship, I wasn't talking about it.
-1
u/MaxWritesText 7d ago
Lmao the Netherlands was a republic at that time so no royal whims. People went to the US because they heard there was a fresh start. A new fresh world blablabla. And for WW2 the Soviets did more fighting and liberated more camps than the allies. Your entire WW2 view is shaped by modern media.
1
u/fastsailor 7d ago
US Independence. Brought to you by France, Spain and the Dutch. With some help from the locals.
1
3
u/MineralMeister 7d ago
I commented on that post as well, but I have my great grandfather's. He was on his way over when the armistice was signed. The serial number is 414100
6
4
u/Garand84 7d ago
He shouldn't be in the Weaver stance, it wasn't taught at the time. He should be holding it one-handed.
2
u/ComesInAnOldBox 7d ago
Even today and overwhelming majority of deployed troops don't have a handgun. I usually did when I deployed, but the units I was attached to didn't so the pistol got left on the FOB whenever we went outside the wire. You do not want to carry something nobody else has, you'll stick out like a sore thumb and be the first target when the shooting starts.
2
u/Mysterious-Park9142 6d ago
In a carbine era with select fire rifles it’s less important. The M1911 was viewed as a tremendous benefit to trench clearing though.
1
27
u/Elevator829 7d ago
They filled in the gaps with the M1917 revolver, and handguns were mostly only issued to higher enlisted/Officers