I had really hoped that this thread would not be hijacked and was hoping for comment on the six photos I posted rather than dredge up this argument again.
That said;
CMHQ Report 113, paras 16-22 inclusive.
http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-...hq/CMHQ113.pdf
Over the years I have often encountered tales of soldiers pursuing independent courses of action, be it in their personal equipment, dress, deportment or approach to military life.
Equipment was both expensive and in high demand, especially in the post-Dunkirk era. Ignoring the possibility of 1 or 2 individuals 'pushing the envelope' I do not believe that the army (especially the UK-based Canadian Army Overseas of 1940-1943) was populated with individuals who took it upon themselves to decide what equipment they would carry into battle. Ignoring the difficulties of ammunition re-supply and weapon repair I must ask myself "where are they going to keep a Thompson"? All rifles were held in barracks but other weapons, including pistols, SMGs, Mortars, LMGs, etc..., were kept in the unit armoury where they were maintained and secured by the unit CQMS. Tucking an illegal TSMG under the mattress just wasn't an option. Add to this that the possession of the TSMG outside of lawful authority was a serious crime. It involved theft and, more importantly, withholding a weapon which could be issued to another soldier. With the cost of manufacture of the TSMG at over 25 Pounds it is doubtful that the average soldier would try to buy one - assuming that he could find a black market vendor. Add to this the apoplexy of the Battalion RSM when our soldier showed up at the embarkation point with his TSMG while all of his mates were trying to figure out the newly issued Sten.
Sorry, I just don't buy it. And my research has constantly dug up instances of COs, HQs, Routine Orders, etc..., stressing that discipline and uniformity were to be maintained in all respects.
Clive