Thompson & Sten Sub machine gun queries

[gjkennedy]

Twice as many Bren guns! New one on me, be interested to find out where the note originated from. Possibly confusing Motor Bns with Inf Bns, as the former type always had a generous allocation of LMGs, partly through their extra carriers. The only proviso for a Guards Bn I've ever seen noted in WEs are Drill Serjeants, two, for the use of

[David W]

OK. Thanks.

Did the Guards Battalions have slightly fewer men than a standard infantry battalion? Or the same?

[Saxon Cross]

OK. Thanks.

Did the Guards Battalions have slightly fewer men than a standard infantry battalion? Or the same?

I looked into the difference between Guards and regular WW2 infantry one time; and I was surprised to find that there was no difference in training, equipment, morale anything, during WW2! Except that you had to be 5ft 10in to get into a Guards regiment; but even that may have been relaxed during the latter half of WW2.


Saxon

[David W]

Interesting!

[gjkennedy]

I've got a vague memory that the height requirement was ditched, or at least reduced, as well. Guards units were organised based on their role (Inf, Motor Bn or Armd Regt), and used precisely the same WEs as anyone else did in the same role. No special allowances in terms of men or equipment. British units were liable to be switched around inside formations, so having some with an excess or inferior capability could cause complications.

Back in musket days, I seem to recall that Guards Bns tended to be larger in size than Line equivalenets (1100 to 550 or thereabouts for the Napoleonic period), but by WW2, and I suspect WW1, standardisation was the aim.

Gary

[David W]

So are we saying that by WWII the title "Guards" was just that and only that, a title?

[gjkennedy]

Well, I'm sure the Guards would argue strongly that it was more than just a title!

However, if you lined Guards Armd Div up alongside 11th Armd Div in May 1944, you won't see any major differences in terms of personnel, transport, AFVs or weapons. Red Army Guards units, going from memory some know, did receive additional weapons and their Guards Divs were stronger than 'normal' Divs, but that wasn't British practice.

[David W]

Well, I'm sure the Guards would argue strongly that it was more than just a title!

Yeah okay. But brushing history & heritage aside, from a purely practical perspective.............?

[Saxon Cross]

So are we saying that by WWII the title "Guards" was just that and only that, a title?

This is my understanding. Though I would phrase it "during WW2" not "by WW2".

I was disapointed to discover this, so if anyone can find evidence to the contrary I'd love to hear it.

I did hear that the Guards armoured units were of a better quality/morale, but have nothing solid on this.


Saxon

[gjkennedy]

On a purely technical/tactical level, then a Inf Bn of Guards heritage would've been no different to an Inf Bn of County, Light Inf, Fusilier in terms of organisation and general capability. Likewise for a Guards unit in tanks (I or Cruisers) compared to a Regt of pure Cav or Yeo history.

Trying to assess whether a unit was somehow 'better' because of its heritage, rather than taking into account its particular experience and leadership leads you down those rocky regimental mafia type routes, as well as the (to me anyway) pointless arguments of the 'my Dad's bigger than your Dad' variety.

I'm not aware of any specialist training that was undertaken by Guards units that wasn't by other units tasked with the same role, and as mentioned there was no additional firepower or manpower available to them. The British Army has a habit of switching units around within formations, or sending them to entirely new ones, so having some with extra capabilites and others with lesser would complicate that type of exchange.

Gary

[EKB]

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.

Martin Pegler The Thompson Submachine Gun: From Prohibition Chicago to World War II (p.65) writes that British raiding parties preferred the Thompson for its rugged dependability and knock-down firepower, and that No. 3 Commando flatly refused to accept the cheap 9mm Sten guns:

" … We were told the Sten was going to replace our Thompsons. It was a truly horrible little gun, the bullet wouldn't stop a dog, let alone a bloody big German, and it was very prone to jamming. We went mob-handed to the CO and said if we couldn't keep the Tommy guns, we'd all transfer back to our [army] units. He was sympathetic and I don't know how they swung it, but the Stens were never issued to us.… "

The shoulder patch designed for British Commandos carried the image of a Thompson submachine gun. It was unthinkable to change that to a Sten gun. They used them only when stocks of Tommy guns were depleted.

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.

Those numbers are misleading. The Sten gun and 9mm bullets did not perform so well in any rigorous field test during the war, or after. There were more dissenters than proponents.

From John Scurr and Mike Chappell The Malayan Campaign 1948-1960 (p.18):

"… Mike recalls: 'At the BMH (British Military Hospital) Cameron Highlands, 22 SAS brought in a CT who was tied, struggling, to a stretcher. He had multiple wounds in his legs and body caused by 9mm rounds. These had penetrated such a short way that the bases of the rounds were visible. 303s in the stomach and neck had stopped him, but these were the only wounds that he had bandaged. Anyway, I never again carried a 9mm SMG of any sort after that.'
Sub-machine guns were, in fact, less effective than any other weapon, and would usually only bring an enemy down if he was hit in a vital organ.
During the early years, most kills were achieved with .30cal American M1 and M2 carbines and .303 Bren light machine guns. Later these weapons were upstaged by 12-guage Browning automatic and Remington slide-action shotguns, from which a multiple-pellet hit would invariably fell the target in a normal, close-quarter encounter ... "

He adds (p.34):

" ... By 1953-54 there were enough of the American semi-automatic carbines available to be more widely distributed -- previously there were only two per platoon. They were naturally quicker firing than the bolt-action British rifles, had less kick, and suffered fewer misfires through ammunition deterioration in the humid climate ... "


No doubt that .45 ACP is more difficult to control on full automatic, but the Thompson and M3 'grease gun' were more reliable. The Australian Owen SMG was reputed to be very dependable but due to the weak bullet, Anzac infantry in Vietnam were eager to trade them for more powerful M-16s and CAR-15s. The Swedish Carl Gustav M/45 was probably the best overall submachine gun from 1945-1975.

Something that people often fail to understand about the British - particularly British men, and even more the case if they're in the military - is that they're critics. They will run everything British down, especially if it has a flaw. And if its flaws aren't evident, they will soon find them or even invent them if need be. And all the better if it's done with humour. As an example, how many times have I heard the PIAT bomb's flight described as 'wobbling slowly towards it's target'? People grab the phrase and use it as evidence that the PIAT was rubbish! Few recognise the British humour, and their tendancy to criticise everything British while they lionize the weapons of the enemy.

They did not corner the market on criticism of own weapons. The U.S. Marines had few nice things to say about the Reising submachine gun. Others said the Thompson was too heavy compared to more modern guns made of stamped parts. German troops complained that the MP-40 jammed frequently in dry weather, and froze up in the winter unlike the Russian PPSh-41.

Soldiers know that military equipment is typically manufactured by the lowest bidder. If the troops never raised objections about quality and other issues, there would be no progress.

[Saxon Cross]

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.

Martin Pegler The Thompson Submachine Gun: From Prohibition Chicago to World War II (p.65) writes that British raiding parties preferred the Thompson for its rugged dependability and knock-down firepower, and that No. 3 Commando flatly refused to accept the cheap 9mm Sten guns:

" … We were told the Sten was going to replace our Thompsons. It was a truly horrible little gun, the bullet wouldn't stop a dog, let alone a bloody big German, and it was very prone to jamming. We went mob-handed to the CO and said if we couldn't keep the Tommy guns, we'd all transfer back to our [army] units. He was sympathetic and I don't know how they swung it, but the Stens were never issued to us.… "

The shoulder patch designed for British Commandos carried the image of a Thompson submachine gun. It was unthinkable to change that to a Sten gun. They used them only when stocks of Tommy guns were depleted.

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.

Those numbers are misleading. The Sten gun and 9mm bullets did not perform so well in any rigorous field test during the war, or after.

Those numbers are the result of a War Office test, so the Sten did perform that well.
Compare the Sten to the Bren at 200yds, rested, single shot, percent chance to hit a man:
Bren: 60%
Sten: 40%
And obviously a Bren hit will do more damage.
What is misleading?

From John Scurr and Mike Chappell The Malayan Campaign 1948-1960 (p.18):

"… Mike recalls: 'At the BMH (British Military Hospital) Cameron Highlands, 22 SAS brought in a CT who was tied, struggling, to a stretcher. He had multiple wounds in his legs and body caused by 9mm rounds. These had penetrated such a short way that the bases of the rounds were visible. 303s in the stomach and neck had stopped him, but these were the only wounds that he had bandaged. Anyway, I never again carried a 9mm SMG of any sort after that.'
Sub-machine guns were, in fact, less effective than any other weapon, and would usually only bring an enemy down if he was hit in a vital organ.
During the early years, most kills were achieved with .30cal American M1 and M2 carbines and .303 Bren light machine guns. Later these weapons were upstaged by 12-guage Browning automatic and Remington slide-action shotguns, from which a multiple-pellet hit would invariably fell the target in a normal, close-quarter encounter ... "

He adds (p.34):

" ... By 1953-54 there were enough of the American semi-automatic carbines available to be more widely distributed -- previously there were only two per platoon. They were naturally quicker firing than the bolt-action British rifles, had less kick, and suffered fewer misfires through ammunition deterioration in the humid climate ... "

Do we know what range, SMG, and 9mm ammo the chap was hit with? Because you can't knock a government controlled test with a specific weapon, ammo and range with multiple shots, and then produce a single anecdote where all we know is it was 9mm ammo that hit the poor chap. Could have been a machine-pistol with some rubbish quality foreign ammo at 400yds for all we know?

Something that people often fail to understand about the British - particularly British men, and even more the case if they're in the military - is that they're critics. They will run everything British down, especially if it has a flaw. And if its flaws aren't evident, they will soon find them or even invent them if need be. And all the better if it's done with humour. As an example, how many times have I heard the PIAT bomb's flight described as 'wobbling slowly towards it's target'? People grab the phrase and use it as evidence that the PIAT was rubbish! Few recognise the British humour, and their tendancy to criticise everything British while they lionize the weapons of the enemy.

They did not corner the market on criticism of own weapons. The U.S. Marines had few nice things to say about the Reising submachine gun. Others said the Thompson was too heavy compared to more modern guns made of stamped parts. German troops complained that the MP-40 jammed frequently in dry weather, and froze up in the winter unlike the Russian PPSh-41.

Soldiers know that military equipment is typically manufactured by the lowest bidder. If the troops never raised objections about quality and other issues, there would be no progress.

Yup, you're right. All nationalities are identical in their cultural attitude and critical nature.

Saxon

[JKindred]

Martin Pegler The Thompson Submachine Gun: From Prohibition Chicago to World War II

I would not put a lot of faith in this book, the majority of serious Thompson collectors do not include it as valuable reference material due to the number of mistakes it contains.

Hill's The Ultimate Thompson Book and Iannamico's American Thunder II are the best and most often recommended books dealing with the Thompson.

[EKB]

Those numbers are the result of a War Office test, so the Sten did perform that well.
Compare the Sten to the Bren at 200yds, rested, single shot, percent chance to hit a man:
Bren: 60%
Sten: 40%
And obviously a Bren hit will do more damage.
What is misleading?.

Because a firing range report does not prove anything about general effectiveness. And because the submachine gun no longer has a place in the infantry. There is no evidence that many soldiers were stopped by a 9mm bullet at 200 yards. The accuracy and killing power of pistol ammunition is not dependable beyond 75 yards. The effective range is even less in jungles and forested areas.

Today, submachine guns are relegated to military and police special forces. They use them in situations where a low-powered bullet is specifically desired for safety reasons. Room clearance and hostage rescue in built-up urban areas, security details, etc.

you can't knock a government controlled test with a specific weapon, ammo and range with multiple shots, and then produce a single anecdote where all we know is it was 9mm ammo that hit the poor chap.

"Government controlled test" is the operative phrase. Can you name a single front line soldier who took these firing trials seriously? After the Falklands war, Julian Thompson wrote that British troops under his command regarded the 9mm Sterling SMG as a useless weapon. Many were discarded on the battlefield. The British soldiers also preferred enemy rifles over the SLR because the Argentine FN FAL was fully automatic.

Do we know what range, SMG, and 9mm ammo the chap was hit with? Could have been a machine-pistol with some rubbish quality foreign ammo at 400yds for all we know?

I don't know the precise range in this case, but the troops had enough trouble scoring lethal hits at 40 yards, much less 400. If the British soldiers were satisfied with the Sten gun, they would not ask for more American carbines and shotguns.

[Saxon Cross]

Those numbers are the result of a War Office test, so the Sten did perform that well.
Compare the Sten to the Bren at 200yds, rested, single shot, percent chance to hit a man:
Bren: 60%
Sten: 40%
And obviously a Bren hit will do more damage.
What is misleading?.

Because a firing range report does not prove anything about general effectiveness. And because the submachine gun no longer has a place in the infantry.

Of course the SMG no longer has a place in the infantry. That has nothing to do with the validity of WW2 trials on a WW2 SMG, and how it compares to another WW2 SMG.

At first you were saying:

Those numbers are misleading. The Sten gun and 9mm bullets did not perform so well in any rigorous field test during the war, or after.

But are you now saying the weapon did perform that well, but it doesn’t prove anything about general effectiveness?

Why should we discount a rigorous test, by the School of Infantry, firing various weapons, at various ranges, at various targets, stationary and moving, using a sample of infantry with various skill levels? A test designed to come to conclusions regarding battlefield conditions.

Are you saying instead, that we should listen to an anecdote from a soldier?

Saxon