Why so many non-matching mags?

[sheepherder]

In both my service tours, rifles/pistols were stored separately from their magazines. When issued, the first mag to come to hand was used. If a FTF or malfunction was noted, the mag was turned in for inspection and survey. No special emphasis was put on matching mags with individual weapons.

I imagine any US GI's who acquired foreign pistols would adopt the same philosophy...

Interchangeability of parts...part of our heritage...

[Edward Tinker]

Originally Posted by Sieger

...
No Norm, the US Army handled it in a different way. After it was reported and verified that GIs had been murdered while surrendering or murdered after having already surrendered, the order was given "not to take any enemy prisoners".

The overriding "rule of engagement", during that war, was to give the enemy back the same medicine that they were giving us.

Sieger

Big difference in the during the war and after war was over. Huge difference.

And although there were stories as you said and I have been told of them too, but I have never seen this in writing... That said, SS troops were treated differently than other german soldiers I have always been told.

But during war and after the cessation of hostilities are two big differences in how things were carried out on either side.

Ed

[alanint]

Many more than two. Bullingen, the Hotel de Moulin and Malmedy come to mind in the Ardennes. Kurt Meyer also killed all those Canadians in Normandy. While I do agree that GIs were probably wary, most Germans with the exception of a few SS diehards were ready to give up and posed no threat to their captors.

[lugerholsterrepair]

I doubt that, when it came time for the Germans to surrender, the victorious GIs would have been as trusting as you make them out to be.

Norm, You put words into my mouth and that ain't sanitary!

I have said nothing about how trusting GI's might have been. I do know that there are photo's of thousands of Germans lined up, pile of weapons on one side and magazines on the other. How else would they go about disarming these Soldiers but to trust that they would do as they were told?

There were many atrocities perpetrated by all of the participants, Axis and Allied. Plus wild and unchecked rumors..The minds of these people must have been a whirlwind of unknowns.

I would imagine surrenders to the Russian lines might have been much different than ours.

[lugerholsterrepair]

the US Army handled it in a different way. After it was reported and verified that GIs had been murdered while surrendering or murdered after having already surrendered, the order was given "not to take any enemy prisoners".

The overriding "rule of engagement", during that war, was to give the enemy back the same medicine that they were giving us.

While there were isolated incidents of this behavior your statement above is patently false. US forces DID NOT on the whole act in such a barbaric manner as you describe. They acted according to the Geneva Convention. It was not in the nature of Allied Forces and in particular US forces to harm prisoners and there is no documentation that this was a widespread or ongoing practice and in point of fact ...the oppisite is prima face..literally millions of Germans were captured, disarmed and interred in a peaceable manner.

For you or anyone else to say " the order was given "not to take any enemy prisoners". Is perpetuating a myth and at worst a lie. That is a slur on US & Allied forces that cannot remain unanswered.

Perhaps if your Father were to have talked to you.. you would not say things like this..

My Father was captured by the Germans and told unending stories of his experiences..he always told me the Germans were honorable and treated them with respect. Harsh but fair.

[Sieger]

Originally Posted by lugerholsterrepair

the US Army handled it in a different way. After it was reported and verified that GIs had been murdered while surrendering or murdered after having already surrendered, the order was given "not to take any enemy prisoners".

The overriding "rule of engagement", during that war, was to give the enemy back the same medicine that they were giving us.

While there were isolated incidents of this behavior your statement above is patently false. US forces DID NOT on the whole act in such a barbaric manner as you describe. They acted according to the Geneva Convention. It was not in the nature of Allied Forces and in particular US forces to harm prisoners and there is no documentation that this was a widespread or ongoing practice and in point of fact ...the oppisite is prima face..literally millions of Germans were captured, disarmed and interred in a peaceable manner.

For you or anyone else to say " the order was given "not to take any enemy prisoners". Is perpetuating a myth and at worst a lie. That is a slur on US & Allied forces that cannot remain unanswered.

Perhaps if your Father were to have talked to you.. you would not say things like this..

My Father was captured by the Germans and told unending stories of his experiences..he always told me the Germans were honorable and treated them with respect. Harsh but fair.

Jerry:

I am discussing a particular engagement, at a particular place and time. I don't believe that this was a wide spread practice in Europe during WWII, but things do happen, as you well know.

Yes, most of the enemy were SS recently transferred from the Russian front where there were no Geneva Convention rules to follow (the Russians never signed the Convention, nor did the Japanese).

My father, by the way, was the one that told me about it. You were not there, my father was and I have no reason to disbelieve what I was told.

By the way, after my father got out of the hospital in February of '45, he had no unit to return to, so he was made a MP for the last three months of the war. His unit was in charge of processing those hundreds of thousands of enemy soldiers surrendering in the west. These men were, indeed, treated quite well by us. My father commented just how quickly things returned to normal and just how orderly the process, as a whole, was.

Having explained my comments further, I'll have no further comment on the matter.


Sieger