Thompson & Sten Sub machine gun queries

Discussions on all aspects of the The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Andy H
User avatar
David W
Member
Posts: 3516
Joined: 28 Mar 2004, 02:30
Location: Devon, England

Thompson & Sten Sub machine gun queries

#1

Post by David W » 19 Jun 2011, 13:57

From when did the Thompson sub machine gun become standard issue to the Commonwealth Infantry Companies?

From when (if ever) did the sten gun become standard issue to the Commonwealth Infantry Companies?

gjkennedy
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 28 Oct 2003, 21:06

Re: Thompson & Sten Sub machine gun queries

#2

Post by gjkennedy » 19 Jun 2011, 15:54

The first mention for Thompson SMGs, in WE tables at least, is late 1940. They are shown as one per Section in the Div Recce Bn WE of Dec 1940, and an amendment of Nov 1940 adds one per Sec to the Inf Bn WE of Apr 1940. Sten guns first appear in some mid-1942 WEs, but these aren't specifically for infantry units.

From memory there was a divide between 8th Army, which continued to use the Thompson, and Home Forces, who began to receive the Sten, but I don't know if that was reflected in units of 1st Army in North Africa. Stens and Thompsons certainly appear to have co-existed in Italy, but by 1944 in Northwest Europe the Sten was standard issue (personal acquisitions not withstanding :) ).

Gary


User avatar
David W
Member
Posts: 3516
Joined: 28 Mar 2004, 02:30
Location: Devon, England

Re: Thompson & Sten Sub machine gun queries

#3

Post by David W » 19 Jun 2011, 16:22

Thank you for that excellent answer Gary!

User avatar
Pips
Member
Posts: 1280
Joined: 26 Jun 2005, 09:44
Location: Country NSW, Australia

Re: Thompson & Sten Sub machine gun queries

#4

Post by Pips » 20 Jun 2011, 01:47

Just how good (or bad) was the Sten in comparison to other SMG's like the Thompson, Owen, MP 40, Type 100, PPSh-41 and the M3? Considering things such as rate of fire, durability, lightness, stoppages/jams, weather proofness and accuracy.

User avatar
verdenpark
Member
Posts: 203
Joined: 14 Mar 2010, 13:39
Location: Victoria, Australia.

Re: Thompson & Sten Sub machine gun queries

#5

Post by verdenpark » 20 Jun 2011, 08:56

I was under the impression that the Sten (and AuSten) was used exclusively by special forces. Can anyone confirm this?
Those who live by the sword...... get shot.

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 13:15
Location: UK

Re: Thompson & Sten Sub machine gun queries

#6

Post by Tim Smith » 20 Jun 2011, 14:02

Pips wrote:Just how good (or bad) was the Sten in comparison to other SMG's like the Thompson, Owen, MP 40, Type 100, PPSh-41 and the M3? Considering things such as rate of fire, durability, lightness, stoppages/jams, weather proofness and accuracy.
Sten was very, very, very good indeed - for the price. And it was the cheapest SMG of WW2 apart from the US M3. One of the best 'bang for the buck' weapons of WW2. In 1941, Britain, who abandoned a whole army's worth of firearms at Dunkirk, needed quantity more than quality.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sten
http://world.guns.ru/smg/brit/sten-e.html
http://www.coleshillhouse.com/coleshill ... e-td189306

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 13:15
Location: UK

Re: Thompson & Sten Sub machine gun queries

#7

Post by Tim Smith » 20 Jun 2011, 14:12

verdenpark wrote:I was under the impression that the Sten (and AuSten) was used exclusively by special forces. Can anyone confirm this?
No - Sten and Austen were used by regular infantry divisions. Although initially, they were issued to NCO's and officers only, while privates kept the Lee Enfield rifle. Paratroops received more SMGs per battalion than regular infantry.

Only the silenced Sten MkIIS and suppressed Austen were used exclusively by special forces.

User avatar
Saxon Cross
Member
Posts: 158
Joined: 05 Apr 2010, 15:33
Location: UK/USA

Re: Thompson & Sten Sub machine gun queries

#8

Post by Saxon Cross » 21 Jun 2011, 01:40

The Sten was a cheap (as already said) and quickly produced SMG for the British Army. Early Marks were not very good quality and prone to go off accidently. But it turned out to be a very good SMG, particularly once they worked the bugs out.

The Sten (mark III) had a 31% chance of hitting a man at 200 yards (single shot without a rest).
This went up to 40% if it was a 4 round burst.

If the Sten was rested a single shot had a 40% chance of hitting a man at 200 yards.
This went up to 68% for a 4 round burst.

The Sten was lethal at 300 yards, and at that range 90% of shots would be grouped within 5 1/2 feet, regardless of single or automatic. But sights were only good out to about 100-150yds or so I believe.

Regarding a comparison to the Thompson, I have this quote:

Morgan's combat ex-perience included a world wide assortment of weapons, but he prefers the British Sten or
improved Sterling submachine guns. He described the British weapons as having less
recoil and weight yet a greater effective range than the American Thompson or M3 grease
gun. "Furthermore," he emphasized, "weight difference between 9 mm ammo and .45
makes a hell of a difference in favor of the 9mm when you're off on a 40 mile hike...


But this was likely regarding a post WWII Sten.

Saxon

Jabberwocky
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: 17 Mar 2011, 08:31

Re: Thompson & Sten Sub machine gun queries

#9

Post by Jabberwocky » 21 Jun 2011, 09:11

The Sten was considered effective by troops and liked for its fully automatic nature and relative lightness and compactness, particularly by vehicle crews, which couldn't fit a SMLE into the cramped confines of a WW2 AFV. There are stories of Commonwealth troop sections in Normandy with as many Stens as Lee Enfield. It was perfect for the hedgerows and the cramped confines of old European towns.

However, the gun was known for its, um, capricious nature and somewhat temperamental behaviour, particularly with early (1941 through mid 1942) production examples.

Ode to a Sten Gun
By Gunner. S.N. Teed (written in 1945)

You wicked piece of vicious tin!
Call you a gun? Don't make me grin.
You're just a bloated piece of pipe.
You couldn't hit a hunk of tripe.
But when you're with me in the night,
I'll tell you pal, you're just alright!

Each day I wipe you free of dirt.
Your dratted corners tear my shirt.
I cuss at you and call you names,
You're much more trouble than my dames.
But boy, do I love to hear you yammer
When you 're spitting lead in a business manner.

You conceited pile of salvage junk.
I think this prowess talk is bunk.
Yet if I want a wall of lead
Thrown at some Jerry's head
It is to you I raise my hat;
You're a damn good pal...
You silly gat!

The Mk II and Mk III were notorious for going off if bumped hard or dropped. They also had a habit of refusing to fire on fully automatic after being dropped.

Occasionally, a dropped Sten would discharge after being dropped and continue doing so until the magazine was empty, pinwheeling around the floor propelled by the recoil and popping off shots in random directions. There are a few memoirs that mention this. I would imagine this would be particularly frightening if you were inside a tank or AFV, with rounds spanging off the inside of the hull. War-weary Mk IIs were notorious for this, apparently the locking mechanism on the bolt would get worn down with use, releasing the safety.

The cheapness of the weapon also extended to the magazine, which was made of a very pressed light steel or tin. These deformed quite easily, particularly at the mouth of the magazine, resulting in mis-feeds and jams. There were also problems with the magazine spring, which tended to behave poorly if over compressed. The 32-round magazines were generally only filled with 30 rounds.

British troops were instructed not to hold the magazine well but the receiver forward of the magazine. Holding the magazine well while the gun was firing could bend the magazine. The Mk IV adopted a wooden foregrip.

The Australians made their own version of the Sten - the Austen. It was generally a good weapon, with a foregrip directly under the magazine well, but it was not as popular as the more reliable and accurate Owen SMG - also an open bolt blowback design using 9x19mm Parabellum.

User avatar
David W
Member
Posts: 3516
Joined: 28 Mar 2004, 02:30
Location: Devon, England

Re: Thompson & Sten Sub machine gun queries

#10

Post by David W » 21 Jun 2011, 14:32

Did either of the 1940 style or 1942 style Indian Infantry Battalions have sub machine guns allotted to them?
I think not in 1940, but am completely unsure about 1942.

User avatar
Saxon Cross
Member
Posts: 158
Joined: 05 Apr 2010, 15:33
Location: UK/USA

Re: Thompson & Sten Sub machine gun queries

#11

Post by Saxon Cross » 21 Jun 2011, 17:34

The Sten was first produced in 1941, but very few troops would have received it that year.
About 1.5 million were issued in 1942, and another 1.5 million in 1943.

User avatar
JKindred
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 12 Sep 2010, 04:11

Re: Thompson & Sten Sub machine gun queries

#12

Post by JKindred » 21 Jun 2011, 17:57

I have owned a number of full auto Thompsons, MP40s and Stens over the years. Given the choice between those I would take the Thompson every time. Extremely reliable, never had a malfunction with thousands of rounds fired. I cannot say the same for the Mp40s and Stens I have owned.
Books: The original search engine.

Interested in original M1918 BAR and M1917A1 BMG related items.

GD,grenedier
Member
Posts: 133
Joined: 27 Oct 2008, 05:57

Re: Thompson & Sten Sub machine gun queries

#13

Post by GD,grenedier » 22 Jun 2011, 16:49

My own take on the Sten is pretty much tha same as Brits had "You call this a Gun!!!!!".Simple easy to make,sturdy enough (within reason)and easy to use.That being said there where some draw backs to it. one was safety the other was the Magizines.The safety on the early marks was a simple cross bolt setup useing the bolt handle ,the operater closed the bolt(after removing the magazine)and pushed the bolt handle inward causing it to slide into a hole in the lower right of the reiciever that was it as far as safety went (the cross bolt setup seen just ahead of the trigger guard in most pictures is actually the selecter ,semi/full auto) the magazines are something of a horror show in themselves being based on the Lancaster SMG it's a single position feed setup that is painfully slow to load and needs (not an option here)a mag loader. Other than that they are reliable when kept reasonably clean and sturdier than the gun!. The Thompson on the other hand was heavy, bulky,a pain to field strip,and an absolute blast to shoot.and the magazines could be loaded by hand,no tools needed. there's quite a bit more to the subject than this but overall the Sten was the right gun for the time (when you absolutly positivly neaded it ten minuits ago) :lol: :lol: ps don't laugh,I'm told the Owen SMG was just as crude as the Sten and then some!

User avatar
verdenpark
Member
Posts: 203
Joined: 14 Mar 2010, 13:39
Location: Victoria, Australia.

Re: Thompson & Sten Sub machine gun queries

#14

Post by verdenpark » 23 Jun 2011, 09:05

The Owen was a very simple, cheap weapon, made by general engineering firms not experienced in firearms production, at a critical point in time during the Pacific war. It worked extremely well in the mud, rain, and extremes of temperatures present in New Guinea, when the Thompsons would not.

When your back is against the wall, you do not care how well your bang stick is made, just so long as it works.
Those who live by the sword...... get shot.

User avatar
The Edge
Member
Posts: 4166
Joined: 28 Nov 2005, 11:18
Location: Serbia

Re: Thompson & Sten Sub machine gun queries

#15

Post by The Edge » 23 Jun 2011, 15:57

Sten Gun was probably a WWII champion in getting inglorious nicknames, as:
“Woolworth’s rifle”
"Plumber's Nightmare"
"Plumber's Abortion"
"Stench Gun"
etc.

Post Reply

Return to “The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth 1919-45”