Hey folks,
When the three guys go ashore under cover on a reconnaissance mission, they cleary were issued two lever action rifles, and they were rifles - not even carbines. Surely submarines would have carried Thompson sub-machine guns rather than lever action rifles. It is comforting to note they did have 1911 Colts rather than 1873 Colts.
Best wishes,
Dave Wile
Heh. I'm sure they would have liked to have Thompsons. I've read some books written by sub commanders and they never mention carrying such firearms on board. I don't think we can assume such a mission would involve such implements. Also keep in mind that the film was made smack in the middle of world war 2. I'm sure Tommy Guns were in short supply for the film industry. Wheras they probably had plenty of repeaters sitting around on various lots all over hollywood.
I can't really say though if an actual mission of this kind would have been equipped as portrayed on film. I kind of doubt it, for a number of reasons. But could not say for sure.
In any case, it didn't really affect the film much. They never used them anyway as I recall.
Great flick though. If ever I see it is on I always watch it. John Garfield and Alan Hale were both great. When they torpedo that jap carrier at the end I can't help but cheer. Rotten sneak attackin sons of......uh oh. I've gone PI again haven't I?
Hey Herb,
The mission depicted in the film took place before, and in preparation for, the Doolittle Tokyo raid of 18 April 1942. This film was made more than a year later and was released in December of 1943.
In addition to sinking enemy shipping, submarines were used in many other roles. The primary objective of the mission depicted in the film was to infiltrate the Japanese island and provide weather and other kinds of intelligence to enable the Doolittle raid on Tokyo. Submarines in WWII, especially ones doing infiltrations, would normally carry small arms weapons to include Thompson Sub Machine Guns, Colt 1911 pistols, grenades, and probably even M3 Grease Guns which became available during the war. Because of limited space in a submarine, shorter small arms such as the Thompson were the usual choice rather than full length rifles.
While I was not there for WWII submarine service, I am pretty certain that no submarine at that time would have stored any lever action rifles aboard. The small arm weapon of choice at that time for submarines would have been the Thompson SMG because of its small size and increased firepower over other rifles. Lever action rifles just would not be there. If a WWII submarine had a mission requirement for rifles, they certainly would have issued M1 Garands rather than lever action rifles.
As far as Thompsons not being available for use in the film, that should not have been a problem. When this film was made toward the end of 1943, there had already been quite a number of WWII films made such as "Wake Island," "Shores of Tripoli," "Burma Road," "Bataan," "Corregidor," "Guadalcanal Diary," "Sahara," and others. There was no shortage of Thompsons for film use if they wanted to use them. For ten years prior to this film, they had been using Thompsons for all the gangster films, and even the gangster Thompsons would have been more realistic than using old lever action rifles.
Now, before anyone thinks I am ranting about the use of lever action rifles ruining the film, please do not think that. I liked the film. I liked it even with the anachronistic lever actions, even with the underwater model subs, even with the "standard" characters used, and even with the nationalistic propoganda used in the film. None of those things caused me to not enjoy the film. The use of replica models, standard characters, and war propoganda was pretty much standard fare for films at the time, and when I think of 7 December 1941, I think of Japs rather than Japanese. Today I use the term Japanese, but I do not have any guilty feelings about using the term Japs at that time.
Seeing the use of those long lever action rifles on the submarine did not hurt the film for me, but it did surprise me to see them, and I wondered why the director and technical advisor went with them when Thompsons certainly were available.
Best wishes,
Dave Wile
Ideal choice is not the "usual" choice. The Navy has always been a bit backwards for small arms, gravitating not to SMGs and other things but to full size rifles (which may be due to the ranges across water and the paucity of boarding parties in the 20th century). Lots of weird stuff ends up on ships, then stays there. I have heard Sailors say that the arms room reflects the vintage of the ship: so, WW1 commissioned ships had Krags throughout WW2.
And other things come up. Double barrel shotguns? Found in some arms rooms, apparently for shooting skeet for... practice? No one knew why but there they were.
During WW1 the USG bought some lever guns I think of the type shown, for general use, and I can imagine them having made it into the arms locker on a sub. You'll also note for this raid they brought the met station gear, but didn't seem to get issued special guns, so they are presumably using what was already available on the boat.
I like the weird guns, and can see them being chosen by the advisor as they had some on their boat and were used due to light weight or some other perceived advantage. Remember also, these are defensive arms. They don't want to get in a fight, and really probably didn't expect to win if it came to shooting.