WHAT? We’re going to get cheaper, sub standard equipment? But Tony said he was proud of us and the work we do, he wouldn’t try to fuck us on kit would he?
WHAT? We’re going to get cheaper, sub standard equipment? But Tony said he was proud of us and the work we do, he wouldn’t try to fuck us on kit would he?
[/quote]
Looking back at the history of equipment supply, I can only assume that it is some kind of unbreakable tradition :? 
Cuts, and your telling me that the sten continued to be used after the war unlike the thompson? not to my knwoledge, both continued to be used. So lets hear your reason to why my commenyt about allied soldiers favoring the thompson over another smg seems inaccurate to you. BEcause it was the most widely used and produced and many british soldiers dropped their stens for thompsons the first chance they got.
Your knowledge concerning the use of the Thompson after VJ Day may well be encyclopaedic, in which case I shall of course defer to it.
Do you have any sources to which I might be able to refer ?
The Thompson may have seen some very limited use after the war but I believe it was withdrawn from normal Canadian service in 1945.
It saw further limited use during the Korean conflict - due in no small part to the fact that the US which carried the 45ACP, was responsible for most of the Log Sp.
IF, your comment was that all allied soldiers favoured the Thompson heavily over any competing smg.
Did you base that on research ?
Have you fired these smgs ?
Or even handled them ?
But the Thompson was not the most widely used and produced smg.
I’m sure you’re right, it seems perfectly logical to me. I would gladly drop a light weight weapon for which there was plentiful ammo and replace it with an extremely heavy one for which I may not be able to find ammo.
Oh, btw, production figures:
Thomson (all variants) - 1.7M
M3 grease gun - 680k
STEN (all variants) - 3.7-4.3M (depending on source)
MP40 - >1M
PPSh - 6M
PPS-43 - 500k
ok a few things Cuts, i never mentioned anything about the canadian military and the fact if i have handled them or not has nothing to do with my point that is was more widely produced , used and popular. Its a commonly known fact that the thompson was the most widely used and by far the most produced smg of WWII, and your free to do your own research if you wish but i know that it was.
allied nations such as British and the French pre-war, war and french resistance and free french ordered them by the hundreds of thousands.
IronFist, can you not read? “Knowing” when you are entirely wrong is not terribly good, really.
Edited, in order of production:
Just to reiterate: there were 3.5 times as many PPSh produced as the Thomson, and 2.2-2.5 times as many STENs produced.
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=34523#34523
- I used the Canadian Forces’ use of the wpn as an example because:
- -a) Unless you have information to the contrary, (possibly from the same source as that you have concerning the Thompson,) Canadian troops were considered allied soldiers.
-
- b) As your location is noted as Canada; it is not inconcievable that your main interest may lie with the contribution Canadian sldrs made during WWII.
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=34523#34523
- The point to which I first replied, to whit:
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1153&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15
had nothing to do with your erroneous assumption that they were the most widely produced.
Nevertheless, whether you have handled them or not does have a bearing on your statement quoted above.
- Have you in fact:
-
- a) been issued with a Thompson ?
-
- b) handled the wpn ?
-
- c) fired one or more ?
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=34523#34523
It may be commonly assumed to be so in some minimally radiused circles, but that does not make it a fact.
Do you have any creditable sources for this assumption ?
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=34523#34523
So you don’t have any creditable sources then.
i like the fact the the STEN is cheap and easy to create. Though i would rather have a ppsh or thompson.
Anyway, i heard some of the french resistance forces created 9mm bullets for the stens out of lipstick capsles?
genius. 8)
Not quite - they had lipsticks modified to be able to fire bullets.
Right, we will deal with this in order.
- Prewar, neither the British nor the French ordered Thompsons.
- British procurement of Thompsons at the start of World War II was an emergency measure.
- Resistance groups pretty much get what they are given. I would wager that they received more STENs than Thompsons over all. Beggars cannot be choosers, after all.
- Once the STEN was on full issue, the Thompson became a limited issue item in British service, i.e. not front-line issue. This is for logistical reasons.
Supported information on points one and two:
Smith and Smith, Small Arms of the World, page 258:
Although BSA had developed the number of modifications of the Thompson submachine gun during the 1920s, the British Army did not show much interest in submachine guns until after World War II started. In 1940 large contracts were let for the manufacture of the calibre .45 Thompson submachine gun M1928A1 the Auto Ordnance Corporation of Bridgeport, Connecticut.
Ibid., Page 367:
France used the German 9 mm Parabellum Vollmer Erma submachine gun to a limited extent prior to 1941. French development of the native submachine gun began at MAS (St Etienne) during the 30s. In 1935 the first of the MAS weapons developed for the 7.65 mm long pistol cartridge appeared. This weapon, called the 7.65 mm L type SE-MAS 1935, was quite similar to that later and more common MAS 1938. The 7.65 mm long Mas 1938 was the standard French submachine gun until 1949.
IronFist, where do you get your information from ? :shock:
I won’t reiterate all the points most ably made by MoS, but with reference to the resistance why do you assume that they made widespread use of the Thompson, let alone ‘ordered them by the hundreds of thousands’ ?
A small quantity of 1921’s was purchased by France in 1939, (but no 1928A1’s or M1’s,) the Gendarmerie, ie a police rather than a military force, took delivery of most of these.
When the French threw the towel in the Germans used them under the designation Mp 761(f), but they saw only very limited use due to the ammunition availability.
The resistance forces in most european countries tended to receive their weapons from the UK by air.
Why, given the limited payloads of the supply a/c, would they have ‘ordered’ the heaviest smg available rather than a greater number of lighter, more concealable, weapons for which they had a readily availabe source of ammunition - ie their adversaries ?
As the saying goes, “Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.”
Cuts, For the last 3 or so posts you have accused me of having poor information and no having an SOURCES or RESEARCH done to prove my correct points. And yet you claim all these production numbers and prewar facts relating to the thompsons and resistance forces to disagree with my theories and yes provide no sources yourself.
don’t worry sir,cuts is like that,he would do us a favour if he shoots himself.
greetings ,and just resist
You, sir, are either dim or a troll. A source was posted for the production figures – they came from Wikipedia. Small Arms of the World was also quoted at length.
Cuts has an extremely impressive library of books on this kind are subject (I’ve seen it), and I’m sure he will be able to provide you exact references – which you won’t be able to do.
If you are so right, you will post sources right away. And that doesn’t include articles on the Internet which you have just edited yourself. If not, you’re a troll and a blackguard.
Ironfist, have asked if you had any creditable sources that would back up your posts.
That you haven’t been able to provide any, yet throw aspersions on corrections to the erroneous statements would indicate that indeed such sources do not exist.
It is typical of trolling posters in general and a certain ex-member of this site in particular, that off the wall statements are made without basis in the real world and when established fact is brought into the discussion the troll will not back up his or her posts but proceeds ineffectually to cast doubt on the truth.
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1153
(My bold.)
So you are in possession of one solitary fact and then follow it with guesswork ?
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1153
Had you seen or handled one, the simplicity would have been blatantly obvious.
A major raison d’être of the Sten was it’s ease of manufacture, I’d have thought an ex-spurt of your stature would heve been aware of this.
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1153&start=15
(My bold.)
A sweeping statement, and one that is inadmissable in any intellectual exchange of yiews.
In the spirit of Christmas generosity I will pass on to you some of my sources, even though you refuse to do so yourself, please note that the book list is in no way exclusive. I have also drawn on common military sense, my own practical experience and that of other men known personally to me who carried the weapons during WWII and since.
0-88935-259-3 The Sten Machine Carbine - Laidler
0-88935-208-9 Thompson - the American Legend- The First SMG - Hill
0-85368-456-1 Small Arms of the 20th Century - Hogg & Weeks
0-85368-614-9 Small Arms of The World - Smith & Smith/Ezell
I look forward eagerly to seeing the ‘sources’ from which you have gained your encyclopaedic and profound knowledge of the subject in just under a month.
Ok, Man of Stout i don’t know who asked for your personal opinion of Cuts but its not relivent to anything that this post has explained or discussed so if you have nothing to say about the post then please stay out of mine and Cuts discussion. Cuts, if you have some information on the Sten and hard facts then please share them instead of disigreeing with me because i am part of this webiste to learn, so share the facts or don’t agrue, Thank You.
and also my “knowledge” of any WWII information is not just limited to how long i have been a member of this website, so please stick to the facts.
I had no idea that we were having an intimate discussion Ironfist, but just remember it definitely doesn’t mean we’ll be taking long showers together late into the night.
This hapens to be a publicly accessible website and as such I believe you are the one who will have to get used to the fact that other people will stick their oar in from time to time.
If you didn’t write utter kak I wouldn’t disagree with it now would I ?
You started posting inaccuracies and didn’t, wouldn’t, or as is most likely, couldn’t back them up.
This is entirely consistent with trolling actvity.
As for telling me to not to argue…? Get in your box !
‘Stick to the facts’ ? That’s a bit rich considering your unsupported claims,
however I don’t believe I mentioned anything to do with your membership of this site did I ?
However once again the season of goodwill to all has settled on me and I shall ‘stick to the facts’:
a. You yourself set a baseline here:
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1153
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 5:39 pm
(My bold)
b. A week later you seem to have made little or no headway with active research:
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1153
Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 9:30 pm
c. Your next three weeks must have been sleepless to have conducted so many interviews:
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1153&start=15
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 7:23 pm
d. You followed this with a bit of a dropped bollock concerning the production figures for the weapons, but perhaps you have access to information that other people haven’t seen, if so would you care to share it with us ?
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/posting.php?mode=quote&p=33417
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 5:16 pm
To summarise:
- So far you’ve not supplied any gen on your claims that would appear to clash with many authoritative works published by established firearms authors.
- In response to polite requests for sources you challenge those asking for the gen to supply theirs.
- You continue to post while ‘conveniently’ fogetting to post the sources previously repeatedly requested.
- You instruct other people what to do and how to behave, though Fonda-esquely not adhering to the guidelines yourself.
As noted above, all classic trolling behaviour.
Do you have any relatives in the US that are ‘fans of the M1 carbine’ ?
Finally, would you care to share with us some of the creditable sources from which you have gleaned your bounteous information ?