Because BSA didn't have factories sitting ideal with men twiddling their thumbs, they were the primary private producer of No.4's, were making .303 Brownings for the RAF, Oerlikon cannons for the RN, Boys Anti-tank rifles and plenty of other stuff so the Ministry of Supply probably decided that adding bringing a new weapon system into production order would cause disruption to more important contracts. It would be the same logic that they applied to the switch over from 2-pounder production to 6-pounder. They also probably felt that they didn't want to be producing a two SMG's at the same time so it was an either/or situation and the Sten got the nod.
Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
Because BSA didn't have factories sitting ideal with men twiddling their thumbs, they were the primary private producer of No.4's, were making .303 Brownings for the RAF, Oerlikon cannons for the RN, Boys Anti-tank rifles and plenty of other stuff so the Ministry of Supply probably decided that adding bringing a new weapon system into production order would cause disruption to more important contracts. It would be the same logic that they applied to the switch over from 2-pounder production to 6-pounder. They also probably felt that they didn't want to be producing a two SMG's at the same time so it was an either/or situation and the Sten got the nod.
In the OTL Situation the Ministry of Supply probably made the right decision regarding BSA and the Kirlay SMG, The Sten parts could be produced by small suncontract workshops and then assembled. BSA were too valuable producing 'proper weapons' to have their capacity wasted on a 'Garage Gun'.
ITTL if a tank crew carbine is specified pree DOW, then the BSA Kirlay might fill the bill and could butterfly the Lanchester but not the Sten or equivalent gun.
ITTL if a tank crew carbine is specified pree DOW, then the BSA Kirlay might fill the bill and could butterfly the Lanchester but not the Sten or equivalent gun.
allanpcameron
Donor
Thanks guys, I knew it would keep you talking! So in answer to my question 'would having samples of the MP38 and MP40 make any difference to the design and production of the Sten gun?' The answer is no. I've been reading a fair bit on the Malaya campaign and the Thomson does appear regularly. I remember seeing something on one of the Tank Museum videos about tanks having a smg in the turret, probably later in the war. There's that great photo from the phoney war about what the RTR men were probably equipped with:
allanpcameron I think the Thompson had some reliablity issues in the Malaysian and Asian climate.
Though if these tankers came from North Africa the may have some German SMGs though if they are lucky they got the Italian SMG's as war trophies so they may have an odd mix of personal arms with limited ammo.
Though if these tankers came from North Africa the may have some German SMGs though if they are lucky they got the Italian SMG's as war trophies so they may have an odd mix of personal arms with limited ammo.
BSA were long busy making Lee Enfields which were part of the existing infantry doctrine and used the same ammunition as the Brens, for which they carried 2 magazines each to each rifleman. The Army were not going to divert effort which was otherwise going to one of their vital weapons. Even if BSA could do it for an improbable £5.
Remember that the Sten was to be as cheap as possible in cost, materials and man power. Performance beyond adequate was secondary.
Lo, the War Office looked upon the Mk1 Sten and found it too costly, too slow to make and used too much labour. Woodworkers were set to making gliders and Mosquitos. And the designers heard Their word and threw away as much as possible until there was nothing left except the bits that made it go bang. And the War Office looked upon it again and found it good. Garages, chicken sheds and terraced house tenements laboured upon it mightily with youths, housewives and the old and many flooded out to the wonder of the arms industry who wondered whence they came.
When one looks at the Sten and compares it with the MP40, M3 or the Russian SMGs you see that, like the Russians, nothing is stamped by an expensive industrial machine out of high quality thin steel. It all comes from ordinary steel stock, folded as necessary so little impinging upon the existing industrial capital. The M3 was simple but needed proper factories to mass produce it’s stampings. Ditto for the MP40. One needs to look at the Sten as a very basic tool, not a firearm. The answer to ‘we need it now, in vast quantity’ ‘Oh, and don’t get in the way of the existing arms makers or use their labour.’ A better quality Sten would be a worse Sten just then.
Remember that the Sten was to be as cheap as possible in cost, materials and man power. Performance beyond adequate was secondary.
Lo, the War Office looked upon the Mk1 Sten and found it too costly, too slow to make and used too much labour. Woodworkers were set to making gliders and Mosquitos. And the designers heard Their word and threw away as much as possible until there was nothing left except the bits that made it go bang. And the War Office looked upon it again and found it good. Garages, chicken sheds and terraced house tenements laboured upon it mightily with youths, housewives and the old and many flooded out to the wonder of the arms industry who wondered whence they came.
When one looks at the Sten and compares it with the MP40, M3 or the Russian SMGs you see that, like the Russians, nothing is stamped by an expensive industrial machine out of high quality thin steel. It all comes from ordinary steel stock, folded as necessary so little impinging upon the existing industrial capital. The M3 was simple but needed proper factories to mass produce it’s stampings. Ditto for the MP40. One needs to look at the Sten as a very basic tool, not a firearm. The answer to ‘we need it now, in vast quantity’ ‘Oh, and don’t get in the way of the existing arms makers or use their labour.’ A better quality Sten would be a worse Sten just then.
Last edited:
True. Especially as the primary users would be tankers legging it or SOE /resistance. If an SOE op needs that much lead something has probably gone terribly wrong and much of the resistance didn't have full military training so a gun that could spray hot lead in vaguely the right direction is probably more useful than something that needs six weeks training to use well. Not usually an option due to noise.
And as you say only so much money. At least the Stem ensured everybody had a gun instead of a few having very expensive ones.
Yeah the short answer is no.
The longer answer is no but some minor changes may occur and the move away from the STEN towards something better like the Stirling will possibly happen sooner.
Also I love those holsters, very fancy.
marathag
Banned
US didn't have problems with them in the Central American 'Banana' Wars or in the Pacific
Thompson had a number of real flaws, unreliability wasn't one of them
In the original timeline the Germans succeeded in blowing up some of the arms production in Birmingham, which presumably had consequences for what was made and how much of it: https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Birmingham_Blitz
That military history website says (at the time of this post) there was a loss of three months' rifle production:
That military history website says (at the time of this post) there was a loss of three months' rifle production:
If the attack was butterflied away in this timeline, that's more domestic production of weapons which can have been taking place in this timeline.military-history website said:
Was not one of the better versions of the Sten made by a cigarette vending machine manufacturer? As I understand it, the company simplified it and reduced the number of parts needed to make it.
TBH I was going off memory of something I heard here so not 100%,
But other than that the Thompson is getting long in the tooth right now.
Last edited:
And as has been mentioned they're expensive, hence Sten and the US grease gun because inspite of appearances the Allies were not completely made of money. Also the Thompson is quite big to lug around while the other two (and the German versions) were much smaller.
Aye lugging a brick into the field even if it is an effective brick is never fun.
Though the big area for the British I can see them going after at least from my point of view on the infantry side would be anti armour weapons given they have seen how effective armour can be and the infantry won't always have an anti tank gun handy.
Once again I can't see much of a difference from OTL. They repeatedly saw how effective German tanks were and post the Fall of France poured money into developing infantry anti tanks and expanding the issue of existing ones (Boys AT rifles), the end result was the Blacker Bombard (so crap it was Home defence only) and the PIAT, which while a technological dead end and not as good as the Panzerfaust/Bazooka was still pretty effective and had it's advantages (being able to use it in buildings).
The Blacker Bombard started a development process that ended with Hedgehog, a rather effective anti-submarine weapon.
The Blacker Bombard was issued in North Africa to the Regular Army. It could kill tanks that a 2 Pounder could not. If you could reach them and hit them….
The Thompson is also difficult to fire as an SMG. I have fired the sten, MP40 and Thompson. The Thompson is an absolute honey fired semi auto; you can plink away all day getting nice small groups and cenre of mass hit on a standing man at 50 yds is child's play. I've not fired it at 100, but I would expect it to be quite accurate. Switch it to full auot auto and it's a beast. The combination of the very high rate of fire and the powerful round made it difficult to control; it climbs rapidly even in experienced hands and it is difficult to limit bursts to 3-4 shots. The MP40 is much more controllable, the lower rate rate of fire means 3-4 round bursts are easy, and its easy to keep them all on a silhouette at 25 metres; most stayed in the chest area. The Sten is accurate, controllable and easy to shoot in semi auto; all the shots stay in the black of a PL3 target at 25m., standing. It is easy and comfortable to fire prone at 50 and 100 m in semi. I have only fired it briefly in full auto, but my impression is that it is a bit less controllable than an MP40, but not much so.