True. But in my opinion if the UK could have afforded a better SMG during the war, they would have.
What, like the Lanchester that continued to be built through the war?
Good example of what I’m talking about MOS. Its not usual for you not to know your weapons though, as the Lanchester was direct copy of a German SMG.
So? It’s Britishised MP28! What’s that got to do with the British affording it, which was your original contention?
Oh you have a point there. But, as I pointed out, the Lanchester still wasnt a British designed weapon.
In fact apart from the poor STEN, did the British actually design any small arms during the war? We seemed to have struggled through to the end and beyond with the poorest set of infantry weapons of all the major combatants.
We had the best bolt-action rifle, best LMG, and the only real long-range sustained-fire MMG remaining. I’d say the Italians had the worst of absolutely every class of SA. The Russkies weren’t too well off either.
Also, the STEN is merely a heavily modified MP28 too (it’ll even take MP28 mags!)
Off-topic: MoS I just deleted an almost double post of yours.
Edited: Deleted post was exactly like above, without this phrase
Also, the STEN is merely a heavily modified MP28 too (it’ll even take MP28 mags!)
Obviously this will turn into a fight.
IronFist please rephrase your affirmation with arguments. What means for you “allied soldiers”? Why Thompson was heavily favoured??
MoS, please sustain your affirmation.
Thanks to both of you.
See previous threads ad infinitum.
OK for me MoS. I remember.
IronFist, it’s your turn.
George Macdonald Fraser didn’t fancy his Tommy Gun much - he threw it in a ditch so he could get his beloved SMLE back.
Sorry folks but he is right. Dont know if any of you lads watch TV or in Britian also known as the “the tele” but im sure you will gather from most shows that any allied soldier would love to have a Thompson. Problem is that they are awfully expensive to make. Watched one interview with a SAS soldier during the war. He had the impression during the debriefing that the commanders were worried just as much about the mission objectives as they were the return of the Thompson’s.
Great gun…Great stopping power. One of the best weapons of the war.
On the other hand the Sten is a brillant, cheap and effective replacement. Not a great gun but will get the job done.
The choice of weapon however greatly differs from mission to mission, however on a day to day basis Thompson over the Sten anyday.
We had the best bolt-action rifle, best LMG, and the only real long-range sustained-fire MMG remaining. I’d say the Italians had the worst of absolutely every class of SA. The Russkies weren’t too well off either.
Also, the STEN is merely a heavily modified MP28 too (it’ll even take MP28 mags!)[/quote]
So the answer is no then and youve confirmed that the STEN is even based on the MP28, which was originally designed as a ww1 German SMG. There were no British small arms introduced during the war. For the main part we used the same old weapons.
Has anyone ever fired a STEN and if so is it like the old Sterling SMG?
But as Cuts says, politicians like to starve the forces of money until something goes wrong.
The No.4 was put into mass production during the war - it had been produced earlier for troop trials, but not on a mass scale. That was a British design!
EDIT: I suppose we could do what the French do and adopt something utterly balls just cos it’s home-grown… oh, wait, we did that in the 1980s…
Wasnt there a decent Bullpup rifle developed in the 50’s for the Brits? I can remember reading that it wasnt adopted because the rounds werent NATO standard or something.
It wasn’t reportedly that decent (the locking was copied from the German G43). US tests putting it up against the early .280 FAL (same calibre) and one of the modified Garands showed it to be lacking (parts breakages & fun stuff like that).
.280 had a chance of adoption as NATO standard, but the US said that they wouldn’t adopt anything weaker than .30M2…
Thats typical, as just a few years later the US adopted the 5.56!
Editted to add, and we all had to follow.
Yup, and now there’s talk of this 6.8mm round with similar(ish) ballistics to… wait for it… .280 British!
From reports on many firearms sites, it looks like the 6.8SPC isn’t going much further than it is now 
I think financial expediency will once more triumph over operational effectiveness :roll:
Sorry folks but he is right. Dont know if any of you lads watch TV or in Britian also known as the “the tele” but im sure you will gather from most shows that any allied soldier would love to have a Thompson. Problem is that they are awfully expensive to make. Watched one interview with a SAS soldier during the war. He had the impression during the debriefing that the commanders were worried just as much about the mission objectives as they were the return of the Thompson’s.
Great gun…Great stopping power. One of the best weapons of the war.
On the other hand the Sten is a brillant, cheap and effective replacement. Not a great gun but will get the job done.
The choice of weapon however greatly differs from mission to mission, however on a day to day basis Thompson over the Sten anyday.[/quote]
You’ve never had to cover distance at speed with eqpt have you ?
:lol: :lol: