In regards to Truman's opinion on MacArthur, it seems reasonable that Cpl Truman suffered from intimidation and an inferiority complex as would most wanna be armchair generals. It wasn't until his Presidency that he finally felt like an equal to those he had served under. We can thank Harry for the existence of North Korea and the untold millions that have perished in that country. Had MacArthur gotten his way it most likely been a unified country....but that's speculation we will never be able to prove.
Douglas MacArthur's combat weapons
- Thread starter 44 AMP
- Start date
FrankenMauser
New member
I have nothing gun-related to add.
But I am enjoying the MacArthur discussion.
For the record, I've always considered Mac to be a sell-out (and worse than the big-headed Monte). Tucking tail and ditching his men was a cowardly move - presidential order, or not.
My grandfather was involved in a lot of Pacific operations, and he never had a single good word to say about Dugout, either.
But I am enjoying the MacArthur discussion.
For the record, I've always considered Mac to be a sell-out (and worse than the big-headed Monte). Tucking tail and ditching his men was a cowardly move - presidential order, or not.
My grandfather was involved in a lot of Pacific operations, and he never had a single good word to say about Dugout, either.
I was not there, but I've got it on good authority that the US had a very unpleasant surprise in late November of 1950, a surprise that could have become a huge catastrophe, with tens of thousands of men lost in a very short period of time. Generations of court historians have managed to fob most of the blame off on MacArthur, but in fact President Truman was aware of the enemy situation, and running MacArthur all the way up to the Yalu was Washington's plan, not his. Of course "Washington's plan" means "Marshall's plan", and he may well be the Machiavellian character at the bottom of this drama, for reasons that remain obscure.
Also, MacArthur did not get in trouble for disobeying orders. He merely gave an honest answer to a congressman. This answer proved that he was not on the same page as the administration, so Truman had no choice but to relieve him, and in MacArthur's case, relief could only mean retirement. Still, it would be interesting to see what kind of a world we had today if he had become president in 1952.
I've never seen anything suggesting that he was much of a gun guy.
Also, MacArthur did not get in trouble for disobeying orders. He merely gave an honest answer to a congressman. This answer proved that he was not on the same page as the administration, so Truman had no choice but to relieve him, and in MacArthur's case, relief could only mean retirement. Still, it would be interesting to see what kind of a world we had today if he had become president in 1952.
I've never seen anything suggesting that he was much of a gun guy.
Well, there is disobeying orders, and there is disobeying orders....
And then there is what Paul Harvey called "the rest of the story"...
According to a story I heard (from a friend, whom I will ask for his references, the next time I see him...)
What got MacArthur cashiered wasn't what happened in Korea, though that was the official line.
It was disobeying a different, and "very minor" order that was the "last straw", according to the story....Truman ordered MacArthur to meet with him, at Midway. Time was tight for Truman, and he specifically ordered MacArthur to meet him on his plane. MacArthur arrived several hours ahead of Truman, and went to the hotel.
When Truman's plane landed, MacArthur did NOT meet him at the plane, as he had been ordered (by the President, personally, the Commander in Chief) , he sent a car to bring Truman to the hotel.
Truman was furious, and MacArthur was relieved.
While officially there were other reasons, I find the story quite plausible, especially when you consider the egos of the people involved. Truman had a valid point, which was that "General, you work for ME!" And by not meeting him at the plane was in clear violation of an order. Sure, it's a small thing in the grand scheme of things, but history often turns on small things, and they seldom get into the official histories.
Truman supposedly gave him the choice of resign or be brought up on charges.
And before you think it ridiculous, remember the point is not WHAT the order was, but that a General must obey orders from the President, even the small ones, and does NOT get to pick and choose which ones he will obey.
If a general refuses to obey a simple little thing, how can he be trusted to obey a major thing? It may have been a deliberate set up, or it may have been Truman seizing the moment, either way it was a legal, and valid order, and was deliberately disobeyed. There are few, if any, greater sins in military society. MacArthur "had to be brought to heel", was, and resigned as a result.
The original question my friend asked was about MacArthur being familiar and fond of the Colt SAA .45Colt. So far, no one has found any photos, or other evidence directly showing he was.
However, he did grow up on Army posts in what was still the "wild west", and was taught to ride and shoot at a young age. The Colt .45 SAA was the standard handgun at that time, and I'm confident the young MacArthur was aware of it, and likely had some experience with it, even if no formal documentation of that can be found.,
also, one brief aside about this...
Nimitz (and his staff) didn't tell REPORTERS any such thing. THEY knew better. They did, however tell the Congressman (as required to do) and it was the CONGRESSMAN, later told the reporters, boasting about it. It was the politician's fault (and the reporters) that the Japanese learned they were setting their depth charges too shallow, NOT the fault of Nimitz, or anyone else in the Navy.
Now back to our regularly scheduled program...
One other tidbit about MacArthur and guns that I have run across, some accounts from people who knew him, and were there...During his time as COMSOWESPAC, including the return to the Philippines, MacArthur was reported to have carried a .41 derringer, and had it with him when he was filmed wading through the surf "returning". Considering that a derringer would have been something easily dropped into a pocket and not showing, its probably true. Few Generals and Admirals went about visibly personally armed. Patton was a huge exception in that regard.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Doug forgot his eye and ear protection by the 40 mm.
I also read that folks wanted him canned after he screwed up and allowed the unopposed air attacks on the Philippines the next day after Pearl Harbor.
I also read that folks wanted him canned after he screwed up and allowed the unopposed air attacks on the Philippines the next day after Pearl Harbor.
I do not think I have the book anymore but if I can find it I will post the reference. At the time I was doing research it was considered a valid reference. It might not be anymore.
The reason the story stuck in my mind so much was because I could not believe they would violate OPSEC in such a way. But that was the authors assertion.
SPEMack618
New member
Really? I can't fathom Nimitz saying that. Not in the least.
General MacArthur always struck me as entirely too pretentious to be a professional officer serving the Republic.
However, that same demigod view of himself is what made our occupation of Japan so successful.
General MacArthur always struck me as entirely too pretentious to be a professional officer serving the Republic.
However, that same demigod view of himself is what made our occupation of Japan so successful.
No doubt some people would have wanted him canned, after all the commander IS responsible for everything, whether they are actually the cause, or not.
In the case of the Japanese air attack, it was the SAME DAY as the Pearl Harbor attack. (that pesky international date line thing, Dec 7 in Hawaii, Dec 8 in the Philippines).
The Japanese raid was very successful, virtually unopposed, and essentially wiping out all US airpower in the Philippines. And it was so, because of the timing.
It is ironic, the tight timing of the Japanese plan of attack for Dec 7 (US date) gave them both an easy victory and a huge political disaster, when certain parts were not able to be done, on schedule.
The disaster was, of course, the fact that due to security rules, the Japanese embassy could not use one of their clerks to type up their declaration of war, and instead of delivering the declaration a few minutes BEFORE the Pearl Harbor attack, (per the plan technically following the recognized rules of warfare, but times so that nothing effective could have been done, in time to matter), it came late, after the attack had begun. Bad move on their part, it really kind of ticked us off...
The easy victory they got due to failing to follow the schedule was the initial air attack on the Philippines. Japanese bombers, operating out of Formosa, could not take off "on time", and were delayed several hours, due to fog.
The plan was that the bombers would have hit the Philippines just after the Pearl Harbor attack, before an effective defense could be managed.
MacArthur got the word of the Pearl Harbor attack, and did exactly the right thing, alerting the air command who launched their planes to repel the attack that was expected at any moment.
And, an attack that would have been there, had not the Japanese been grounded due to local fog.
When the weather cleared enough, they did take off, though several hours late, from the plan. Which, happened to work out for them, as they were able to catch US airpower on the ground, refueling, and destroyed it.
Not MacArthur's fault at all, but still, his responsibility.
kilimanjaro
New member
I've read about the Clark Field attacks, and have to agree with 44Amp, it just worked out that aircraft were alerted and burned up their fuel, then got caught on the ground refueling. Two lesser Generals were directly involved in the timing and indecision, much less so than MacArthur.
Face it, hindsight is marvelous, but real events turn on the actions of real people, not automatons.
I've also read about the proposed invasion of Formosa instead of the Philippines, and how it was touted to be a war winner. The reality is that Formosa would have been a hard-fought campaign in mountainous terrain, like much of the Philippines, but the ports and airfields would have been in range of air and naval attacks from the China mainland. In other words, the usefulness of Formosa as a platform for invasion of Japan would have been manifest only after months of fighting, and still reduced our airstrike capability by large fractions just to keep things in hand on the China mainland, as well as tying up a lot of warships that were better used in the Japan home islands.
We didn't retake the Philippines because MacArthur wanted to retake the islands, that would be a criminal act in a commander. The responsible leaders met and hashed it out and determined MacArthur was correct. Roosevelt had been putting pressure on the brass to get his way, which was entirely inappropriate for a commander in chief, and not the first time, either. He once ordered an island to be assaulted and taken by pointing to it on the map, he knew of it's existence from his stamp collection, and sought to impress the admirals. So the island was duly captured, and proved to be entirely useless to the war effort.
Roosevelt had to be restrained numerous times from gross interference in the war, from demanding an invasion of Europe in 1942, then again 1943, to even trying to keep the British from joining in the Pacific war in 1945.
Face it, hindsight is marvelous, but real events turn on the actions of real people, not automatons.
I've also read about the proposed invasion of Formosa instead of the Philippines, and how it was touted to be a war winner. The reality is that Formosa would have been a hard-fought campaign in mountainous terrain, like much of the Philippines, but the ports and airfields would have been in range of air and naval attacks from the China mainland. In other words, the usefulness of Formosa as a platform for invasion of Japan would have been manifest only after months of fighting, and still reduced our airstrike capability by large fractions just to keep things in hand on the China mainland, as well as tying up a lot of warships that were better used in the Japan home islands.
We didn't retake the Philippines because MacArthur wanted to retake the islands, that would be a criminal act in a commander. The responsible leaders met and hashed it out and determined MacArthur was correct. Roosevelt had been putting pressure on the brass to get his way, which was entirely inappropriate for a commander in chief, and not the first time, either. He once ordered an island to be assaulted and taken by pointing to it on the map, he knew of it's existence from his stamp collection, and sought to impress the admirals. So the island was duly captured, and proved to be entirely useless to the war effort.
Roosevelt had to be restrained numerous times from gross interference in the war, from demanding an invasion of Europe in 1942, then again 1943, to even trying to keep the British from joining in the Pacific war in 1945.
Last edited:
Dfariswheel
New member
The man who exposed that the Japanese were setting their depth charges too shallow was Andrew Jackson May:
http://www.ww2pacific.com/congmay.html
If MacArthur was armed with a .38 Revolver in 1903 it would have been a Colt New Army Model 1896, which was the issued pistol of the time.
The caliber was the .38 Long Colt cartridge.
It was the worlds first double action, swing-out cylinder revolver, invented by Colt in 1888 as the Colt New Navy.
After the army bought it also in 1892 it was generally known as the Colt New Army & Navy.
It was made up until 1907 as both a US issue and commercial model.
http://www.ww2pacific.com/congmay.html
If MacArthur was armed with a .38 Revolver in 1903 it would have been a Colt New Army Model 1896, which was the issued pistol of the time.
The caliber was the .38 Long Colt cartridge.
It was the worlds first double action, swing-out cylinder revolver, invented by Colt in 1888 as the Colt New Navy.
After the army bought it also in 1892 it was generally known as the Colt New Army & Navy.
It was made up until 1907 as both a US issue and commercial model.
Thank you Dfariswheel
for that tidbit about the Congressman.
Once again we see that idiots in government (and the media) are not just a modern phenomenon. If you want a really startling revelation, look and see how many people in government could NOT get a security clearance if they were not politicians! By their own admissions, some of our past (and our current) President would be denied a security clearance if the same rules were applied to them that are applied to "ordinary" folks.
Agreed in 1903 MacArthur's .38 would have been the .38 Long Colt.
Now, what about the ".38 revolver" he carried at Vera Cruz in 1914? .38 Long Colt? or .38 Special????
Logic suggests it ought to have been the more modern, and more powerful .38 Special, but logic isn't always what applies to officers....
for that tidbit about the Congressman.
Once again we see that idiots in government (and the media) are not just a modern phenomenon. If you want a really startling revelation, look and see how many people in government could NOT get a security clearance if they were not politicians! By their own admissions, some of our past (and our current) President would be denied a security clearance if the same rules were applied to them that are applied to "ordinary" folks.
Agreed in 1903 MacArthur's .38 would have been the .38 Long Colt.
Now, what about the ".38 revolver" he carried at Vera Cruz in 1914? .38 Long Colt? or .38 Special????
Logic suggests it ought to have been the more modern, and more powerful .38 Special, but logic isn't always what applies to officers....
This began when he headquartered underground in Corregidor and picked up the name "Dugout Doug" from troops battling the Japanese on Bataan. It should come as no surprise that a three-star general was at headquarters, rather than the front lines (IRRC, that was his rank at the time). It was simply troops griping about upper echelon officers. When MacArthur later learned of his nickname, he made it a point to tour relatively close to front lines, sometimes even when active snipers were about. His personal bravery cannot be questioned and is evidenced by his combat experience.
MacArthur pushed for a Philippine campaign for four reasons. First, the Philippines were a U.S. territory and under the protection of the United States. It was morally reprehensible to leave millions of Filipinos at the mercy of a vengeful and cruel enemy. Just imagine if Puerto Rico were invaded today. The second reason is somewhat related. He loved the Philippines and its people. Third, his word meant something to him. Finally, MacArthur thought it was bad strategy to leave a very large army in his rear which could live off the land (and its people). This was not a small island that could simply be bypassed and let starvation take its course.
MacArthur prided himself on his relatively low U.S. casualty rate. Most of the bloodiest battles in the Pacific were Navy operations. For example: Iwo Jima (U.S. casualty rate of 23.7%, Okinawa (30.1%), and Guadalcanal (19.7%). In contrast, the Battle of Luzon is considered the bloodiest of MacArthur's Pacific campaign and had a U.S. casualty rate of 16.8%.
As to his advance to the Yalu River in Korea, keep in mind that MacArthur was not allowed to fly jets north of the Yalu river, even for reconnaissance purposes.