Why the British were so late with introducing their SMG in WW2?

And why did it suck so bad?

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why do you sniff farts ?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why does a Frenchie stick up for the Brits?

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It was alright to be sceptical about the worth of submachine guns in combat back then. People thought that they are more useful as a police weapon (a common notion in US, iirc), and the fact that more armies experimented with semiauto rifles was only contributing.
    The real question should be "why did Brits refuse to experiment with semiautos as much as everyone else did?'

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's this, and british infantry doctrine had really fallen behind the curve at the start of the war, limited motorization and the infantry section only had Lee-Enfields and a single Bren gun, heavier firepower needed a weapons section with a water cooled Vickers gun. I kinda understand how you end up in the conclusion that a SMG with ~100 yards range is useless in battle when everyone is carrying rifles that can kinda shoot out to 500 yards, they just turned out to be very wrong.

      Thompson was the best SMG of WW2 you retard.

      t. retard

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >It's this, and british infantry doctrine had really fallen behind the curve at the start of the war, limited motorization and the infantry section only had Lee-Enfields and a single Bren gun

        better motorisation than anyone but the americans and only the germans had anything much better at section level

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Before the war, especially after Munich, the British (rightfully) focused their capital investments into armor, aviation, and shipbuilding, and mostly ignored the infantry.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >armor
        Which was mostly inferior to German. The rest ones seem to be quite good.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          cause the krauts in turn dumped all their XP into armour and artillery alone

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I mean their tank designs sucked ass, but emphasizing Armor over small arms was a good call

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Which was mostly inferior to German
          Only once the Panzer III was introduced, and that wouldn't be introduced in large numbers till 1941. The best tank the germans had in 1940 in any real numbers was the Czech built pz.38t
          The Valentine was superior to any contemporary german tanks.
          Why does this fudd lore keep getting repeated?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Only once the Panzer III was introduced, and that wouldn't be introduced in large numbers till 1941
            I thought there would be plentiful of IIIs by the time of french operation.
            >The Valentine was superior to any contemporary german tanks.
            It was well-armoured, but the early model's 2pdr cannon was meh compared to soviet 45 and german 50 mms

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Pz3s had to be uparmoured to deal with the 2pdr, before 1942 it was fine
              I will absolutely grant that by early 1942 it was obsolete

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The Aus A-C had only 15mm of armour. D-E series had 30mm. The 2 pdr is fully capable of penning that.
              Furthermore, the aus A-G only had a 37mm gun which was less good than the 2 pdr.
              Why do people always compare early British tanks to late model panzer IIIs with the 50mm long barrel gun which only arrived on the scene in like 1942?
              Don't get me wrong the panzer III was a good tank, and crucially had room to grow and be upgraded but in it's initial incarnation it wasn't vastly superior to the tanks it was facing.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                because most of them have only read shallow, pithy one-liners in wikipedia, and didn't actually read the more serious academic works detailing the discrete progression of weapons development, and/or don't care for anything that happened before Torch and Barbarossa

                https://i.imgur.com/sUWYP7O.gif

                Because first generation submachine guns, like the Thompson and the MP-28 were expensive and the British were notoriously cheap when it came to small arms manufacturing. So, when the shit hit the fan and they needed to make subguns, they didn't have the right tooling and manufacturing experience, so they just went for the most simple option and made a t00b.

                ackshually it was because the Germans were effectively in Hoi4 terms on War Economy since Hitler became Chancellor and had had all that time to retool their industry for war and produce reserves; whereas the British only began preparing for war in 1938. Consider: beginning in 1934 the Luftwaffe placed annual orders for several thousand aircraft; the British only expanded the Hurricane order book to 1,000 machines in late 38. The RN hoped to limit armament by treaty until 1937, when they laid down KGV and a bunch of fleet cruisers and destroyers.
                Hitler had a huge headstart in production, basically, and practically speaking doctrine is dependent on what you have to fight with regardless of what you fantasise having.

                also as

                >British were notoriously cheap when it came to small arms manufacturing
                Because their army had lost like 70% of their weapons and equipment (not an exaggeration) at Dunkirk, so they needed to produce a shitload of weapons and gear really fucking quickly, and they didn't have an infinite budget to get it done.

                says there was the small matter of Dunkirk and losing all the equipment of their entire expeditionary force, though not the manpower

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Krauts made the same mistake as was done with the M3, having a low caliber AT gun and a high calibre HE slinger, except they split it between the Pz3 and 4 instead of having them on a single chassis. But in my opinion the relative shittiness of kraut armor is important to keep in mind when you discuss armored doctrine, as, (afaik), frenchies had better and higher quantity of tanks in 1940 compared to the krauts, but couldn't use them effectively.

                The T-34 with the original gun was something of a 'tiger scare' to the krauts when they started appearing to the front, since it outmatched the early Pz3 and 4, nevermind the foreign tanks adopted to service

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >but the early model's 2pdr cannon was meh compared to soviet 45 and german 50 mms
              It also existed in notable numbers, something that cannot be said about the german 50mm before 1941.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This

        >armor
        Which was mostly inferior to German. The rest ones seem to be quite good.

        Look man Im a huge wehraboo but early british armour wasnt a slouch either

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There was also the view that SMGs were "gangster guns".
      This view is purely aesthetic, but British aristocrats being British aristocrats, that became a factor.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >People thought that they are more useful as a police weapon
      To add to this the British police was not interested in SMGs either; since they did not really use guns

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They were used here in Northern Ireland very shortly by the RUC and army and I'm sure the firearms teams in the MET that did Royalty and Diplomatic protection (and other armed branches of the UK police) used them during the time they were relevant. They were then quickly replaced by the Sterling. I remember seeing RUC and army patrols when I was a kid in the late 80s and early 90s and the RUC would still occasionally have a sterling on patrol.

        Pic related. Just a couple of dudes and their sterlings.

        You can see all the current firearms used by the UK police forces today, as well as the ones that were historically issued.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom#Historical_firearms

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So is this dude Russia or does he have a completly unrelated beef with the British that causes him to spam these threads?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I don't know what you are talking about

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Indian probably

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why WERE
      WHY WERE THE BRITISH SO LATE YOU FUCKING RETARD

      Russians don't post on /k/, they have their own chan. It's American 5th columnists, and hired thirdies.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Russians don't post on /k/
        I do. And I'm not OP.

        It was alright to be sceptical about the worth of submachine guns in combat back then. People thought that they are more useful as a police weapon (a common notion in US, iirc), and the fact that more armies experimented with semiauto rifles was only contributing.
        The real question should be "why did Brits refuse to experiment with semiautos as much as everyone else did?'

        guy

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I made a simple mistake, shut the fuck up.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He used to shill Russian equipment constantly before the Ukraine war irreversibly btfo'd him, but in all I'm pretty sure he's actually american.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        armaturd identifies with being half-slav fwiw

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      prolly a hindinagger

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      ???

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why does the bolt handle go on the opposite side of the magazine and not behind it?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's a good design you retard.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because people are right handed.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Bolt handles belong on the right. It's the FAL's only design flaw.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Lefty cope

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Not even a lefty.
          >matchlocks have the lock on the right
          >wheelocks have the lock on the right
          >flintlocks have the lock on the right
          >percussions have the lock on the right
          >bolt actions have the bolt handle on the right
          >most early semiauto rifles have the bolt handle on the right; if it was somewhere else it was almost never on the left

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >bolt handles are usually on the right
      >no need to cut a separate hole for the bolt handle because the ejection port is already there
      >bolt handle more difficult to access if the magazine is in the way

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      because it's not fucking kraut

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Supposedly there was an elitism towards them in the UK, thinking they were nagger guns in the same way that hipoints and sawed-offs are today. Secondly they couldnt afford to buy anything nice on any scale, paying thousands each for a handful of thompsons. Many of these thompsons were lost during Dunkirk, and fresh ones could not be bought as the bong gold reserves were already strained. So they churned out the cheapest POS they could, and retained the few remaining tommy guns for airborne units.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Thompson is also an over-rated piece of shit, that was heavy and expensive to make. To arm lots of people quickly, the Sterling and Sten was the result. They're so basic to make that Loyalists in Northern Ireland were knocking them out in sheds in vast quantities using scrap metal and sten/sterling mags bought from army surplus stores.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Don't forget the Ballynahinch Uzi.
        https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ruc-uncovers-gun-manufacturing-operation-in-co-down-farmhouse-1.102280
        >Both these organisations have extensively used "homemade" machine-guns, particularly replicas of the Sterling and Uzi submachine-guns. The last major discovery of a loyalist arms manufacturing operation was also in north Co Down, in September 1988, when the RUC discovered 1,000 Uzi replicas and 30 replica Sterlings.
        Sam McCoubry who was manufacturing those guns was found with all the replicas and an original dismantled on a work bench that he was using as a reference.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Be British Goverment
          >Northern Ireland is on fire, the Irish want to secede, the IRA is armed to the teeth with arms smuggled from USA
          >Have a group of loyal British citizen who are ready to risk their lives for NI to stay in UK
          >Force them to make their own weapons instead of just "loosing" a truck full of arms somewhere.

          Stupid fucking castrated horseteeth degenerated British elites.
          >Ballynahinch Uzi

          Cant find any pics of the makeshift uzi, but that bootleg sterling looks pretty fucking neat for something coughed up in the shed.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            them to make their own weapons instead of just "loosing" a truck full of arms somewhere.
            I'm Northern Irish. And a lot of my family were in the police, prison service or army.vIn the early days both loyalists and republicans were raiding army bases until security was stepped up. When the UDR was formed they had a "weapons out" scheme for part timers who lived in remote or "security sensitive" areas. This meant lads were taking L1A1s home with them. Then they would leave the house, either to go to the pub, or on holiday and the house would mysteriously be broken into and the L1A1s "stolen" by Loyalists. They ended the weapons out scheme and started issuing Walthers as personal protection weapons. Many of the army took their browning hi power instead, in my ma's case (prison officer) she kept the Walther as it fit in her purse. Sammy Brush was a part time UDR soldier and postman who was ambushed by a PIRA hit squad and managed to fight them off, it was either with a Walther or a Ruger Speed Six, which was also known as the Security Six and the issued RUC gun. My dad was RUC until he was paid off to quit when the RUC was restructured into the PSNI. He had his Security Six from the day he joined, until he retired in the very early 00s as they didn't bring the Glock into mainstream service until the PSNI was formed.

            My dad was originally a dog handler with the Royal Air Force police and when he was doing a tour in Northern Ireland he would often be called out looking for guns and ammunition. He told me that he'd been on a couple of calls where they'd raided a backyard / farmyard manufacturing plant and the dog had found fuck all. Because to the dog, it was all just steel parts. They tended to keep the ammunition somewhere else as that was harder to get your hands on than scrap metal.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >walther

              Interesting.
              https://www.forgottenweapons.com/british-l66a1-a-pistol-for-northern-ireland/

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Bro, the Walther Polizeipistole was insanely successful in Europe. Like most of police forces on the continent were using these things.
                So as surplus cop guns, they're abundant on the Euro second hand market.
                They're not bad for civilian sport shooting either, surprisingly accurate little guns. But the ammo isn't cheap, and the recoil is kinda snappy compared to full size service pistols.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Wonder how reliable the .22 was.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Hey, I'm from the north too but other side of the house, many family active in PIRA in seventies. In 74, my father and neighbour were acting as scouts targeting an RUC patrol in the village one night, it never appeared so they went home but were rumbled on the road by local UDR patrol, they quickly threw their radio out the window into the field before getting waved through. When they pulled up into my neighbour's yard it wasn't long before Lt Oliver Gibson (co founder of the DUP and local headmaster) jumped on their hood and screamed at them. The UDR entered the home and found ammo under the bed, and they kept them all night beating them with their SLR's, in the morning they called the RUC to have them arrested. Just yards away from where they were beating them though, there was a hidden revolver (I think) in the bushes that belonged to a abducted executed UDR capt from early in the year. If they had found it, they'd probably have executed them

              Only a few months later Gibson and his unit were involved in the abduction and murder of Clr Pat Kelly (one of his men in Ballygawley admitted to it 20 years ago), funny but nothing happened to Gibson or my father/neighbour after that, which i assume is on the understanding that if anything did they would have been no 1 target. Dad wasn't really involved after that, but the IRA did come to him and see if he was okay if they targeted him and he refused, probably saved his life

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The British Government obviously supplied them with the sten magazines as that's the only part that was hard to make and the rest of it provided plausible deniability. I guess rifled barrels are tricky too.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Thompson was the best SMG of WW2 you retard.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That doesn't detract that it's still an over rated piece of shit.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's not, you are just a krautaboo homosexual.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It was expensive to make, heavy, unwieldy and inaccurate. Its inaccuracy comes from the fact it wasn't even designed with a stock. It was designed to be fired from the hip. It's popularity is only because it was the US first mass produced SMG and its appearance in mob and war movies in the early to middle 20th century where it's made out to be something that it is not.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It was still much better than anything else at the time. 45 ACP >>>> 9mm, you pleb.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Cry more homosexual.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Sneed

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                not in a weapon designed for volume of fire.

                lighter recoiling and with greater magazine capacity 9mm is definitely better for SMGs. also for everything else but definitely for SMGs

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >9mm is definitely better for SMGs

                No.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >It was designed to be fired from the hip.
                People forget that it was designed as a trench clearing weapon and to be fired like that. It wasn't until much later that it came dressed with a stock and removed the fore grip and the (unreliable) drum mags were replaced with stick mags. The original stock is also shit in its design too in the way it's angled. The ergonomics were terrible.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The original stock is also shit in its design too in the way it's angled.
                Ok. That's particularly bad.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Why the British were so late with introducing their SMG in WW2?

                "Lanchester" you mong. The Sten is simply a grossly simplified Lanchester, which is the British take on the Mp-28.

                >Tell us you've never fired a Thompson, without directly telling us you've never fired one.

                FFS, noguns homosexuals are fucking insufferable.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          you dont get to say things that stupid and then call anyone else a retard

          it wasnt even the best US SMG

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Thompson >>>>>> Grease gun

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              T. Hasn't shot either of them.
              The Thompson sucks ass.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Your mom sucks ass

                Yet it was still better than the Thompson

                No, it wasn't. Even the Japanese copy of it, the Type 100 was POS

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes it would you fag. MP18 was a piece of shit

                The SIG 1920 and MP28 were great
                The MP18's problem was the retarded Luger magazine

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The Thompson wouldn't even have been the best SMG of WW1 had it actually managed to make its debut there.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes it would you fag. MP18 was a piece of shit

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Yet it was still better than the Thompson

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Still a better WWI gun than the Thomson, which wasn't available until 1920.
                🙂

                Stop samefagging you retard

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >NOOOOOO STOP INSULTING THE THOMPSON

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Still a better WWI gun than the Thomson, which wasn't available until 1920.
              🙂

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Not even

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          5 and 10 rounds burst used at 25 and 50m, 5 rounds burst at longer ranges. Standing shooting position.

          Overall P/H worst to best:

          Sten, MP-40, Thompson, PPSH-41, Beretta, M56.
          25m - all equal
          50m:

          - Sten 80% hit ratio

          - rest ~95%
          100m:

          - Sten - 50% hit ratio

          - MP-40 - 60%

          - Thompson - 70%

          - rest ~90%
          150m:

          Sten - 30%

          MP-40 - 35%

          Thompson - 40%

          Beretta - 65%

          PPSh - 70%

          M56 - 80%
          200m :

          Sten - 10%

          MP-40 - 15%

          Thompson - 15%

          Beretta - 25%

          PPSh - 35%

          M56 - 45%

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Thats weird, Michael Cane said his sten and that of his buddies ware beat up piece of shit that couldn't hit the wider side of the barn.

            He wasnt the only vet I heard this from.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Well during those Yugoslavian trials i posted Sten scored the worst. So reputation is deserved.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Thats weird, Michael Cane said his sten and that of his buddies ware beat up piece of shit that couldn't hit the wider side of the barn
              That was Korea era, to be fair, so that's stens after five plus years of conscript abuse between the end of the war and him getting his hands on it

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            yugoslavian weapon did best in yugoslavian trail

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              whatever

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            M56 is pretty much an MP40, what a bullshit test.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It wasn't. It was pleasant to shoot, had power, but it was quite heavy, expensive and difficult to make. And even most simple versions still were pretty expensive.
          Compare that to the price of PPSh (especially late war production and loaded with stick magazines), M3 or MP-40 - a couple of more cost-effective stamped reciever SMGs.

          It's this, and british infantry doctrine had really fallen behind the curve at the start of the war, limited motorization and the infantry section only had Lee-Enfields and a single Bren gun, heavier firepower needed a weapons section with a water cooled Vickers gun. I kinda understand how you end up in the conclusion that a SMG with ~100 yards range is useless in battle when everyone is carrying rifles that can kinda shoot out to 500 yards, they just turned out to be very wrong.
          [...]
          t. retard

          >and british infantry doctrine had really fallen behind the curve at the start of the war
          Why, btw? Was it because of economic reasons, overconfidence or what?

          >The Thompson is also an over-rated piece of shit, that was heavy and expensive to make.
          Not wrong, but it was better than anything the bongs had, and they didnt pretend otherwise. The Sten literally only existed because they couldnt afford Thompsons.
          >To arm lots of people quickly, the Sten was the result.
          Right, thats essentially what I said.
          >They're so basic to make that Loyalists in Northern Ireland were knocking them out in sheds in vast quantities using scrap metal
          Right, none of that precludes them being total shit. The bongs were trying to "fix" the Sten as soon as it was adopted, playing with different configs and furniture. Unfortunately, they were in too deep and couldnt reasonably afford to alter the pattern on any scale; so there were only really two main variants. The Sterling is a solid refined design that they adopted when they could afford to, but thats not what the Sten was.

          Idk why people get so emotionally invest in it tbh, bongs of the time thought it was junk, seems its a postwar phenomenon to whiteknight it.

          >Sten literally only existed because they couldnt afford Thompsons.
          And Lanchesters. Sten is basically MP28 stripped of most of the quality of life details.

          >bongs of the time thought it was junk
          bongs think everything is junk, it's their brand of humour
          layer that on top of the fact that soldiers always gripe about everything

          the Sten wasn't brilliant obviously, but it did the job operationally. neither the Brits nor their opponents ever said "oh they'd have done better if they weren't carrying the Sten", so did it really have true operational impact?

          [...]
          >heavier firepower needed a weapons section with a water cooled Vickers gun
          bong doctrine to this day has always been to separate the MG section so the platoon commander can concentrate or allocate as necessary

          by 1942 the British were at the forefront of Western doctrine development, pioneering combined arms tank-infantry cooperation and combat engineering principles which are still in use today

          [...]
          >Its inaccuracy comes from
          models which don't have the Cutts compensator

          >bongs think everything is junk, it's their brand of humour
          Considering how many of them were in love with Mauser action, why did they refuse to replace SMLE with P15 rifle after WWI?

          https://i.imgur.com/kZX5zHq.jpg

          >Be British Goverment
          >Northern Ireland is on fire, the Irish want to secede, the IRA is armed to the teeth with arms smuggled from USA
          >Have a group of loyal British citizen who are ready to risk their lives for NI to stay in UK
          >Force them to make their own weapons instead of just "loosing" a truck full of arms somewhere.

          Stupid fucking castrated horseteeth degenerated British elites.
          >Ballynahinch Uzi

          Cant find any pics of the makeshift uzi, but that bootleg sterling looks pretty fucking neat for something coughed up in the shed.

          >Force them to make their own weapons instead of just "loosing" a truck full of arms somewhere
          I bet they've lost some. That's how Gladio work was done in Western Europe - right wing guerillas were only partially supplied by governments

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It wasn't. It was pleasant to shoot, had power, but it was quite heavy, expensive and difficult to make.
            Largest problem of Tommy gun is fudd boomer caliber. Large recoil=poor burst accuracy.

            Best SMG caliber until 5.7 is 7.62x25.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            because even post-WW2 the British Army tested the SMLE and found it an excellent weapon

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              They also thought that SA80 was an excellent weapon.
              Anyway, I'm asking because civilian rifle owners culture in Britain, as far as I recall, was all about Mauser superiority with Mannlicher rifles being slightly less popular and the success of 7x57 Mauser has almost convinced British army to copy it and replace all Lees with P13/14/15s

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >muh SA80
                if you want to play the cheap shot game, can we bring up Tiger tanks, or the M247 York?

                point is the British reviewed the SMLE and found that it was a satisfactory weapon for the war. indeed in recent tests it was found that the rate of AIMED fire of WW2 bolt actions was not actually far behind the Garand, the main advantage of which was probably ease of use more than speed of operation

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The SMLE was an excellent rifle and only a total moron would claim otherwise. The British did not have the resources to waste their time fucking with their principle infantry rifle when the one they had was demonstrably good enough.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Eh, the real problem with the SMLE was manufacturing.
                Making 'em took a lot of skilled labor and fine tuning which had to be done by hand.
                This made manufacturing slower and more labor-intensive than competing designs such as the Mauser 98 series.
                The .303 cartridge was also arguably obsolescent soon after it was introduced.
                These factors made the Brits want to out the SMLE and replace it with a Mauser-clone chambered for a rimless cartridge.
                But those plans got put on hold in 1914 for obvious reasons. Then the SMLE just stuck around, largely because it was considered good enough, ammo was available in huge stockpiles. Other factors which kept the SMLE in service were that British military spending in the interwar period was limited because their economy was shit, and no one thought there would be another world war.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the SMLE would have been shit except that it was good enough!
                >Mauser uber alles!
                fucking wehraboos

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                uber alles!
                I never said that, but the engineers at the royal small arms factory Enflied may have when they built this blatant Mauser knock-off which the British army decided should replace the SMLE.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            PPSh was a pp-s-of-shit. Uncontrollable and wasteful rof, unreliable unless being made by someone not Soviet. MP-40 was a fine SMG, but in terms of performance characteristics, a worse weapon than a Thompson. I do agree that the Thompson's economics/logistics characteristics were a massive problem though, and it was more complicated than it needed to be for its job. It got replaced for a reason.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The M1 was decent
          The M1928 the Brits had was needlessly complicated
          It was supposed to be a delayed blowback; but the blish lock principle was deboonked
          So it is just a straight blowback that costs and weighs more than it should

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          More like worst SMG adopted on a large sclae by a major power in WWII.

          You wanna talk best SMG? Try Berreta Modello 38.

          Or the Owen Gun. Because yes, a fucking 'strayan hobbyist named Evelyn managed to build a better SMG than the Thompson. In his fucking garage. LMAO.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Wrong, Tommy gun is still superior

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              "Superior" in what? Being a heavy, overpriced POS with obnoxious recoil and literally nothing to recommend it?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Be Thompson SMG
          >Weigh 12 pounds
          >Completey milled and forged
          >Originally issued with shit dick 20 round mags
          >Cost $250 per unit ($5,232.50 in 2023 dollars)
          >Usless ladder sights and semiautomatic function
          >Shit tier magazine feed requires a groove to be properly lined up
          Lol. Lmao in Beretta Model 38

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The Thompson is also an over-rated piece of shit, that was heavy and expensive to make.
        Not wrong, but it was better than anything the bongs had, and they didnt pretend otherwise. The Sten literally only existed because they couldnt afford Thompsons.
        >To arm lots of people quickly, the Sten was the result.
        Right, thats essentially what I said.
        >They're so basic to make that Loyalists in Northern Ireland were knocking them out in sheds in vast quantities using scrap metal
        Right, none of that precludes them being total shit. The bongs were trying to "fix" the Sten as soon as it was adopted, playing with different configs and furniture. Unfortunately, they were in too deep and couldnt reasonably afford to alter the pattern on any scale; so there were only really two main variants. The Sterling is a solid refined design that they adopted when they could afford to, but thats not what the Sten was.

        Idk why people get so emotionally invest in it tbh, bongs of the time thought it was junk, seems its a postwar phenomenon to whiteknight it.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The bongs were trying to "fix" the Sten as soon as it was adopted, playing with different configs and furniture. Unfortunately, they were in too deep and couldnt reasonably afford to alter the pattern on any scale;
          Did the same with the SA80. It's tradition.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >bongs of the time thought it was junk
          bongs think everything is junk, it's their brand of humour
          layer that on top of the fact that soldiers always gripe about everything

          the Sten wasn't brilliant obviously, but it did the job operationally. neither the Brits nor their opponents ever said "oh they'd have done better if they weren't carrying the Sten", so did it really have true operational impact?

          It's this, and british infantry doctrine had really fallen behind the curve at the start of the war, limited motorization and the infantry section only had Lee-Enfields and a single Bren gun, heavier firepower needed a weapons section with a water cooled Vickers gun. I kinda understand how you end up in the conclusion that a SMG with ~100 yards range is useless in battle when everyone is carrying rifles that can kinda shoot out to 500 yards, they just turned out to be very wrong.
          [...]
          t. retard

          >heavier firepower needed a weapons section with a water cooled Vickers gun
          bong doctrine to this day has always been to separate the MG section so the platoon commander can concentrate or allocate as necessary

          by 1942 the British were at the forefront of Western doctrine development, pioneering combined arms tank-infantry cooperation and combat engineering principles which are still in use today

          It was expensive to make, heavy, unwieldy and inaccurate. Its inaccuracy comes from the fact it wasn't even designed with a stock. It was designed to be fired from the hip. It's popularity is only because it was the US first mass produced SMG and its appearance in mob and war movies in the early to middle 20th century where it's made out to be something that it is not.

          >Its inaccuracy comes from
          models which don't have the Cutts compensator

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >by 1942 the British were at the forefront of Western doctrine development

            Germany is a western country, and they were the first to pioneer combined arms tank-infantry cooperation.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Germany is a western country
              now, it is; back then, it was Axis

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >and they were the first to pioneer combined arms tank-infantry cooperation.
              No, they weren't. The Brits ran combined arms experiments all through the 1920s and had experimental combined arms units with tanks and half-tracks in 1926. But the equipment was shit (ahead of its time, to an extent) and they didn't have the budget to acquire/replace it, so it all got scrapped in 1929.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Pic (sketch) related - Burford Kegresse track.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous
          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >, pioneering combined arms tank-infantry cooperation and combat engineering principles which are still in use today
            modern US mechanized infantry doctrine is largely descended from their own US armored infantry doctrine from WW2, which in turn was a combination of interwar doctrine modified to meet practical experience

            US division combat commands were similiar to british brigades, but neither was copying each other and both were descended from their own local experiences
            combined arms had already been practiced before the war heavily by both of them and they both converged on similar principles because there are only so many ways to shuffle troops around

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >by 1942 the British were at the forefront of Western doctrine development
            I don't recall when they started modernizing, but krauts and soviets got armored warfare right in the '30s, while brits and the french did the mistake of infantry tanks. Cruiser tanks had the right idea but poor implementation.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >the mistake of infantry tanks. Cruiser tanks had the right idea but poor implementation.
              yet for the rest of WW2, the Allies fought in the "infantry tank" style, with infantry divisions supported by tank battalions; meanwhile cruiser tank fleets never became a thing

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >yet for the rest of WW2, the Allies fought in the "infantry tank" style,
                the US had armored divisions, with equal numbers of tanks to infantry
                these were considered the primary offensive maneuver unit and they used their tanks as cavalry tanks, used to exploit breaks in the enemy defense and fan out into the enemy operational depths

                seperate tank battalions can be considered the infantry tank role, but they were still equipped with medium tanks and were expected to have a wider mission set than "trundle next to infantry at walking speed"
                and would be expected to flank, attack, or engage enemy armor instead of strictly being assault guns, which is what the actual assault guns in an SBT was for

                while SBTs did outnumber battalions in armored divisions, due to the greater number of infantry divisions
                armored battalions were considered much more important due to how concentrated the armor was and would be thrown into the hardest fighting

                they were cruiser tanks first, infantry tanks second
                but could be considered the precursor to the universal tank, the M4 sherman could fill many roles

                the concept of infantry tanks has actually died out post-war
                the general theme of the US army from ROAD onwards was to dispense with regimental tank units and instead just have all tanks accompanied by mech infantry

                hence, the attached tank battalion in an infantry division was not attached to the rest of the infantry but had their own mech infantry battalion and they would act as a mini-armored division within a infantry division rather than attached to the infantry battalions (read: a cruiser tank)

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the US had armored divisions, with equal numbers of tanks to infantry
                after the operational lessons of North Africa, before which 1st Armored massed an absolutely huge fleet of tanks which ended up being parceled out in Combat Commands to support infantry divisions
                following which the division TOE was remodelled

                >were expected to have a wider mission set than "trundle next to infantry at walking speed"
                cmon, you know very well that's an oversimplification of the infantry tank role

                >they were cruiser tanks first, infantry tanks second
                you're not adequately differentiating the cruiser concept, which is similar to one Soviet idea that tanks and AFVs would roam around on their own shooting shit up, with minimal infantry dismount necessary

                >the attached tank battalion in an infantry division was not attached to the rest of the infantry but had their own mech infantry battalion and they would act as a mini-armored division within a infantry division rather than attached to the infantry battalions
                and that's exactly how British brigade groups fought in North Africa after El Alamein, and later from Italy to France to Germany

                >(read: a cruiser tank)
                no

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >after the operational lessons of North Africa, before which 1st Armored massed an absolutely huge fleet of tanks which ended up being parceled out in Combat Commands to support infantry divisions
                a combat command typically consisted of 1 tank battalion and 1 mech infantry battalion
                mech infantry specifically

                a combat command was a divisional organization, so the tank battalions were only used alongside armored infantry
                they were not used in the infantry support role

                >and that's exactly how British brigade groups fought in North Africa after El Alamein, and later from Italy to France to Germany
                >cmon, you know very well that's an oversimplification of the infantry tank role
                the US saw tanks as manuever weapons, not infantry support weapons
                and while STBs did outnumber armored battalions, the armored units were still considered the main striking force
                infantry tank was not their main role

                >you're not adequately differentiating the cruiser concept
                cruiser tanks are meant to act as cavalry and exploit breaches in the enemy defenses and attack their operational depths
                which is what the role of the armored divisions were, which was expressly not to support infantry but to maneuver on the battlefield
                the infantry supported the armor, not the other way around

                >no
                the M60s in an infantry division were not parcelled out to support the infantry battalions
                they would be used as a maneuver element alongside their mech infantry

                they were not infantry tanks but acted identically to battalions in armored units

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                we are actually talking about the same thing, except what I see as support you define as manoeuvre

                when I say a tank battalion supports an infantry brigade I don't mean that it sits around waiting to ambush tanks or shell bunkers, I mean that it joins in with manoeuvres and assaults as well. and yes, practically it means that one tank battalion would be paired with one infantry battalion and operate together, and obviously the infantry would have to be motorised to do so effectively

                >a combat command typically consisted of 1 tank battalion and 1 mech infantry battalion
                after Torch, yes

                before Torch a US armored division could have more tank battalions than infantry, just like the British did in e.g. Operation Crusader. by the time of Torch however the British had reorganised away from this model and the US Army followed suit.

                >the M60s in an infantry division were not parcelled out
                sometimes, a few were

                the bulk however yes did form a combined-arms tank-infantry manoeuvre element

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >which ended up being parceled out in Combat Commands to support infantry divisions
                Retard. US Armored Divisions were structured to split into two combat commands. Which were independent MANEUVER UNITS that were empathetically NOT used to "support infantry divisions".

                British and american armore ddivisions fought in much the same style and the same operationjal role as germna Panzer Divisions. The Allies were just capable of ALSO affording seperate tank battalions operating in the infantry support rule on top of their armored divisions.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >empathetically NOT used to "support infantry divisions".
                except they were
                armored divisions always operated in concert wiith infantry divisions
                not even at Operation Cobra did they act alone

                There was also the view that SMGs were "gangster guns".
                This view is purely aesthetic, but British aristocrats being British aristocrats, that became a factor.

                armchair theorising
                the British have never avoided using a weapon merely because it's "low class"

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Absolutely not, the western front was largely motorized or mechanized and infantry tanks would've been operationally useless because they are too slow. Germans were pocketed by fast moving armor much like they themselves had attacked the french and the poles.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous
              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Tactical movement speed =/= operational movement speed

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Look at de Gaulle and harte as well as rommel's writings, this pre war development was ongoing in more than just Germany at the time, the source material should be seen as the first world war and reactions to it like infantrie graft an or actung panzer shoukd be secondary sources. De Gaulle was arguing for concentrated mechanised units before the fall of France and only too late was granted that wish. Harte, the Brit is who I know less about, but they were also arguing for new doctrine.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >De Gaulle was arguing for concentrated mechanised units before the fall of France and only too late was granted that wish.
                DLMs and DCRs were a thing well before the fall of France.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Heavy and expensive, yes. A piece of shit, no. Heavy was a virtue for controlling them, too. It wasn't a practical weapon for WW2 though, and was replaced with more expedient weapons.

        The Sten is perhaps the worst SMG of a major belligerent in the war, at least the initial run. You were much better off with a grease gun or an owen gun than an early sten, though by reports they did improve.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >you were much better off with a weapon built in 1943 than the 1941 weapon on which it was based
          you don't fucking say

          the Owen I grant was a good first go

          Krauts made the same mistake as was done with the M3, having a low caliber AT gun and a high calibre HE slinger, except they split it between the Pz3 and 4 instead of having them on a single chassis. But in my opinion the relative shittiness of kraut armor is important to keep in mind when you discuss armored doctrine, as, (afaik), frenchies had better and higher quantity of tanks in 1940 compared to the krauts, but couldn't use them effectively.

          The T-34 with the original gun was something of a 'tiger scare' to the krauts when they started appearing to the front, since it outmatched the early Pz3 and 4, nevermind the foreign tanks adopted to service

          The M3 was not a mistake, it was a good design for 1940
          Had not the Germans responded in turn with upgrades and new models it would have wiped the floor of the Panzerarmee
          that's just the nature of wartime development

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Mistake is a bit unfair given the good combat record, but the separation between HE and AT guns was an error many countries did, funnily enough both krauts and the US found high calibre high velocity guns ready for adoption to tank guns in their AA guns (90mm/88mm)

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Mistake is a bit unfair given the good combat record
              you'd be surprised, some people think it should never have been built at all, which is totally unfair for a tank that helped stop Rommel cold
              It's a misconception that the M3's 75mm could not be used as an antitank gun; it could and was
              >funnily enough both krauts and the US found high calibre high velocity guns ready for adoption to tank guns in their AA guns (90mm/88mm)
              so did the British but they preferred to develop the 17pdr AT from scratch instead rather than miniaturise the QF 3.7 inch AA

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Thompson was fine it was just a heavy bitch.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why the British were so late with introducing their SMG in WW2?
    the sten entered into service in 1941, so pretty early in the war and made it in time for service in north africa, the last campaign they fought mostly on their own

    which means that the british had SMGs about as long as the soviets and the americans were at war
    by 1942, they actually had more SMGs in each platoon than the germans did
    they were authorized 2 per squad and had more SMGs in the weapon pool, while germans had just the 1

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Read up on the sas patrol bravo two zero. It should explain everything

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >tHe StEN wAS BaD
    Garbage take. It was cheap to manufacture and could be run off by the million by people with only rudimentary metalworking skills.
    It's basic use was to spray down a room or a dugout and it was perfectly fine for that.
    It could also be dropped by the thousand on to the french Resistance who loved the shit out of it.
    It's a gun that killed a lot of german officers and enlisted homosexuals living it up in cafes.
    The nazis thought so highly of it they introduced their own version of it in 1944.

    OP is a retarded troll.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    At least one of the anti-bong posters does it because I shat all over him and exposed how ignorant he was about the Bengal Famine. He's never stopped seething.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    And why did they still produce 4x as many as the Germans did of their SMGs despite a 3 year lead?

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because first generation submachine guns, like the Thompson and the MP-28 were expensive and the British were notoriously cheap when it came to small arms manufacturing. So, when the shit hit the fan and they needed to make subguns, they didn't have the right tooling and manufacturing experience, so they just went for the most simple option and made a t00b.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >British were notoriously cheap when it came to small arms manufacturing
      Because their army had lost like 70% of their weapons and equipment (not an exaggeration) at Dunkirk, so they needed to produce a shitload of weapons and gear really fucking quickly, and they didn't have an infinite budget to get it done.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        MP3008 when you need a shit ton of Stens and don't have an industrial base left.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >talks about MP.3008
          >posts a photo of a regular STEN MkII with the magazine well rotated down to the storage position
          All the variants of the MP.3008 are easy to recognize because the vertical magazine well is welded directly to the receiver tube.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Shot is from the MP3008 Wiki page.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP_3008
            Don't let facts get in the way 🙂

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >image description on wikipedia is in dutch
              >says outright that it's a photo of a British STEN gun in the possession of the Rotterdam Museum
              >has the name STEN mkII stamped into the fucking magwell
              Don't let facts get in the way 🙂

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Any time any british equipment is discussed
    >Bad takes by uninformed morons who only want to troll
    Why it gotta be like this?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      confused retards are confused why cheap SMG was cheap and shitty ( they forgot UK was fighting in every theatre either directly or suppyling allies )

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A better question is, why didn't the Germans make the MP 3008 earlier? Sell it to ordinance as an ersatz MP40 to arm the waffen ss and other allies specifically against the soviets.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Sten is cute and valid anx Im tired of pretending its not. Have any of you retards actually shot one before? They are not as bad as they look

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    military huffing its own shit. at the end of the day, its just a system to murder other people, people you dont like. drones will level the fighting arena. yeah its cool, you gave your dudes 50 grand of equipment, they speak 3 different languages and spent 10 years bodybuilding. heres this 40 dollar drone. its got a grenade. bye.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >its just a system to murder other people, people you don't like

      Not really the case. It's also a system to defend your people from being murdered by the invaders.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *