Sten

[IronFist]

Opinions of the Sten.

THe only fact i have is that it is inaccurate from a far.

[DerMann]

Considering that it could be made in one's garage, I find it to be an excellent weapon. However, beside the fact that it was extremely cheap and easy to make it doesn't really have any other astonishing features.

[Topor]

The Stirling SMG was a Sten with money thrown at it.

[IronFist]

Thank you for the info sgt DerMann, i didn't know it was easy to make/produce.

[Man of Stoat]

A friend made a Sten Mk2 (except the barrel) from scratch in 12 hrs in his machine shop. In series production they can be produced astonishingly quickly - that's what they were designed for!

[South African Military]

I actually heard that they were pretty accurate(?). Rate of fire was not as fast as PPSH but not slow (? like mp40?). Pretty unreliable and I think there were a few cases of accidental discharge. Built mainly for its cheapness and production speed, when Britain found itself needing lots of submachine guns. I dont think there was much liking of the gun among troops.

[FluffyBunnyGB]

IIRC they cost about $ 2 to make, which certainly implies rapid and simple production.

There is a Harry Harrison sci fi book called "Rebel In Time" where white supremacist goes back in time to try and alter history by getting the Confederacy to win the ACW.

The wonder weapon he chooses for this is the Sten, precisely because it can be made simply and probably by the technology of the day.

Kind regards

Fluffy

[DerMann]

It didnt' have a very high rate of fire, about 500 RPM if I recall correctly. However, the length and the fact that it fires from an open bolt are reasons that cause it to be inaccurate. Also, the 9mm Parabellum round isn't much accurate over 50 meters, but this is seen with weapons even today.

*Edit*
I don't even know if the Sten has a saftey. If it does, it would be a very simple one that might not have been that effective. Anyone know anything about this?

[Man of Stoat]

It didnt' have a very high rate of fire, about 500 RPM if I recall correctly. However, the length and the fact that it fires from an open bolt are reasons that cause it to be inaccurate. Also, the 9mm Parabellum round isn't much accurate over 50 meters, but this is seen with weapons even today.

*Edit*
I don't even know if the Sten has a saftey. If it does, it would be a very simple one that might not have been that effective. Anyone know anything about this?

It has the same safety as seen on many SMGs of the era - a slot to turn the bolt handle up into. It's supposed to be effective.

The issue of safety with open-bolt SMGs is what happens if the bolt is forward, a magazine is on, and the weapon is knocked or jolted enough to make the bolt move back far enough to pick up a round. This is a problem with every SMG which does not have a means to lock the bolt forwards. Germans with MP38s reportedly used leather thongs attached to the barrel and the cocking handle to prevent it doing this. The MP40 had a lock, as did the later-produced STENs.

[Firefly]

IIRC they cost about $ 2 to make, which certainly implies rapid and simple production.

There is a Harry Harrison sci fi book called "Rebel In Time" where white supremacist goes back in time to try and alter history by getting the Confederacy to win the ACW.

The wonder weapon he chooses for this is the Sten, precisely because it can be made simply and probably by the technology of the day.

Kind regards

Fluffy

This is a great book. The guy sent back to track down this supremist in the deep South of 1860's is Black too! Makes for an interesting read.

[Firefly]

It didnt' have a very high rate of fire, about 500 RPM if I recall correctly. However, the length and the fact that it fires from an open bolt are reasons that cause it to be inaccurate. Also, the 9mm Parabellum round isn't much accurate over 50 meters, but this is seen with weapons even today.

*Edit*
I don't even know if the Sten has a saftey. If it does, it would be a very simple one that might not have been that effective. Anyone know anything about this?

It has the same safety as seen on many SMGs of the era - a slot to turn the bolt handle up into. It's supposed to be effective.

The issue of safety with open-bolt SMGs is what happens if the bolt is forward, a magazine is on, and the weapon is knocked or jolted enough to make the bolt move back far enough to pick up a round. This is a problem with every SMG which does not have a means to lock the bolt forwards. Germans with MP38s reportedly used leather thongs attached to the barrel and the cocking handle to prevent it doing this. The MP40 had a lock, as did the later-produced STENs.

I dont think many liked the STEN, there is an interesting article at the bottom of this link describing a misfire.

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/weapons/sten.htm

[Cuts]

I dont think many liked the STEN, there is an interesting article at the bottom of this link describing a misfire.

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/weapons/sten.htm

Not a bad article, although anecdotal lines like this:

Many Canadians were wounded or even killed by Sten Guns even before being committed to battle.

when not supported by evidence go far to perpetuating popular myth.

[chase]

It looks like a toy.

Just saying that its not my favorite weapon.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Well I think any British solider would take a Thompson over a Sten anyday. However the Thompson was very expensive for the time. Anyhow I guess you could compare the Sten to the Sherman tank. Not great but should get the job done.

[Firefly]

Interestingly the STEN was never issued in the Italian campaign and the Thomson continued to be used.

[student-scaley]

Interestingly the STEN was never issued in the Italian campaign and the Thomson continued to be used.

That's probably due to the fact that the Brits were reliant on the American logistical supply chain for that campaign, made more sense to get issued yank kit than waiting around for Brit stuff.

[IronFist]

Plus all allied soldiers favoured the thompson heavily over any competing SMG.

[Cuts]

Plus all allied soldiers favoured the thompson heavily over any competing SMG. My bold.

Interesting comment, based I assume on interviews with ALL allied soldiers ?
:roll:

Have you ever held a Thompson ? They're basically a ship's anchor with the bits that don't look like a Tommy removed.
If you have a museum nearby, try to arrange with the curators a hands-on visit, where you can view and handle a number of weapons.
It should give you one idea as to why the STEN, for all it's foibles continued to be used for long after the war.
I think you'll find the answer in your post above.

Also as Student-Scaley pointed out, the Log Sp was American through the Italian campaign - they didn't carry 9 x 19.
(That and nine mil rds tend to rattle about a bit in the M1.)




(Edited to add the first 'd' in "they didn't carry.")

[Firefly]

Maybe some of these would help.

http://www.machinegunbooks.com/index2.html

Though Im not sure hes not right. If Britain could have made any other SMG, I think they would have. One of the main reasons why the Sten lasted so long I think is that the UK was flat broke after the war. Remember rationing didnt even end until the 1950's. And we still had a heck of a lot of other priorities other than designing a new SMG.

[Cuts]

In the post war years there were hundreds of SMG designs kicking about and some may well have been the ultimate small metal gun, but it wasn't as if there was a dearth of ready made weapons so few were developed.

At a time when people were tired of killing, any politicos putting great wads of dosh into R&D of new weapons would have been kicking their 'careers' into touch PDQ.
Let' face it, most of our political masters have always wanted to run the forces on a shoestring - until their ineptitude pushes things so far that they call on us for help.

[Firefly]

True. But in my opinion if the UK could have afforded a better SMG during the war, they would have.

[Man of Stoat]

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?

[Firefly]

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.

[Man of Stoat]

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?

[Firefly]

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.

[Man of Stoat]

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!)

[Dani]

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!)

[Dani]

Plus all allied soldiers favoured the thompson heavily over any competing SMG.

We had the best bolt-action rifle, best LMG, and the only real long-range sustained-fire MMG remaining


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.

[Man of Stoat]

See previous threads ad infinitum.

[Dani]

See previous threads ad infinitum.

OK for me MoS. I remember.

IronFist, it's your turn.

[Monty's Double]

George Macdonald Fraser didn't fancy his Tommy Gun much - he threw it in a ditch so he could get his beloved SMLE back.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Plus all allied soldiers favoured the thompson heavily over any competing SMG.

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.

[Firefly]

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!)

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.

[Man of Stoat]

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...

[Firefly]

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.

[Man of Stoat]

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...

[Firefly]

Thats typical, as just a few years later the US adopted the 5.56!

Editted to add, and we all had to follow.

[Man of Stoat]

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!

[Topor]

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:

[Cuts]

Plus all allied soldiers favoured the thompson heavily over any competing SMG.

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.

You've never had to cover distance at speed with eqpt have you ?
:lol: :lol:

[BDL]

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:

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?

:wink:

[Topor]

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:

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?

:wink:

Looking back at the history of equipment supply, I can only assume that it is some kind of unbreakable tradition :? :(

[IronFist]

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.

[Cuts]

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.

...

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 ?

...

BEcause it was the most widely used and produced and many british soldiers dropped their stens for thompsons the first chance they got.
But the Thompson was not the most widely used and produced smg.

[Man of Stoat]

BEcause it was the most widely used and produced and many british soldiers dropped their stens for thompsons the first chance they got.

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

[IronFist]

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.

[IronFist]

allied nations such as British and the French pre-war, war and french resistance and free french ordered them by the hundreds of thousands.

[Man of Stoat]

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.

IronFist, can you not read? "Knowing" when you are entirely wrong is not terribly good, really.

Edited, in order of production:


PPSh - 6M
STEN (all variants) - 3.7-4.3M (depending on source)
Thomson (all variants) - 1.7M
MP40 - >1M
M3 grease gun - 680k
PPS-43 - 500k
(source - Wikipedia)


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.

[Cuts]

http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=34523#34523ok a few things Cuts, i never mentioned anything about the canadian military
1) 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#34523and 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.
2) The point to which I first replied, to whit:
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1153&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15Plus all allied soldiers favoured the thompson heavily over any competing SMG.
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.

3) 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#34523Its a commonly known fact that the thompson was the most widely used and by far the most produced smg of WWII,
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#34523and your free to do your own research if you wish but i know that it was.
So you don't have any creditable sources then.

[Jon725]

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)

[BDL]

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?

genious. 8)

Not quite - they had lipsticks modified to be able to fire bullets.

[Man of Stoat]

allied nations such as British and the French pre-war, war and french resistance and free french ordered them by the hundreds of thousands.

Right, we will deal with this in order.

1. Prewar, neither the British nor the French ordered Thompsons.
2. British procurement of Thompsons at the start of World War II was an emergency measure.
3. 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.
4. 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.

[Cuts]

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, 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."

[IronFist]

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.

[Sturmtruppen]

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 :wink:

[Man of Stoat]

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.

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.

[Cuts]

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.

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
Opinions of the Sten.

THe only fact i have is that it is inaccurate from a far.(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
Thank you for the info sgt DerMann, i didn't know it was easy to make/produce.
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
Plus all allied soldiers favoured the thompson heavily over any competing SMG.(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.

[IronFist]

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.

[IronFist]

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.

[Cuts]

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.

...
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.


...

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.
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 !


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.
'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
Opinions of the Sten.

THe only fact i have is that it is inaccurate from a far.(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
Thank you for the info sgt DerMann, i didn't know it was easy to make/produce.


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
Plus all allied soldiers favoured the thompson heavily over any competing SMG.


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
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.


To summarise:

1. 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.
2. In response to polite requests for sources you challenge those asking for the gen to supply theirs.
3. You continue to post while 'conveniently' fogetting to post the sources previously repeatedly requested.
4. 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 ?

[student-scaley]

Out of interest chaps;
1) when did the brits stop using the sten?
2)And was there an immediate change over to the sterling, and if there wasn't what was used between the sten and the sterling?

Would be interested in the answers,
cheers student-scaley

[Man of Stoat]

The Brits only stopped using the STEN in the 1960s.

There was no intermediate design adopted.

In the case of the US, when the M3 submachinegun was adopted as standard, the Thompson was redesignated as "limited standard" or "substitute standard". Worth a read: http://www.nfatoys.com/tsmg/web/obsolete.htm

Particularly:

Interestingly, even though the STEN was ultimately rejected by the Army, in a series of tests where the guns were rated on a scale of 100, the Thompson scored a 57, while the STEN scored an 88, highest of all guns tested.

[Jon725]

hmmm..

on modern marvels: guns of wwii

wwii vets said the thompson was very much liked through out the war and was a prized weapon to have. they pretty much said it was like gold to soldiers.

though i guess that rating might have to do with how expensive the thompson was , and how complicated it was to create compared to the sten.

hmm, now i want to know what was in those test :shock:

[Nickdfresh]

...
3. 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.
...


And I would think they'd need weapons that they can readily capture, or strip dead Germans of, ammunition for (9x19mm)...

[Nickdfresh]

I once saw footage of Vichy French police (Gendarmes?) carrying Stens as they escorted Resistance prisoners. I was wondering if anybody knew if the Sten was produced by the Axis for the same reasons it was produced by the British? Done as a cheap, easy to produce weapon that gave occupation troops/collaborator security forces firepower... Or did these have to be captured models?

[Man of Stoat]

I once saw footage of Vichy French police (Gendarmes?) carrying Stens as they escorted Resistance prisoners. I was wondering if anybody knew if the Sten was produced by the Axis for the same reasons it was produced by the British? Done as a cheap, easy to produce weapon that gave occupation troops/collaborator security forces firepower... Or did these have to be captured models?

These will have been captured -- the Gerät Potsdam (the exact German copy of the Mark two) was secret and destined for use by stay-behind units.

The MP 3008 is another STEN derivative, except that the magazine is mounted vertically:

http://www.vvm.com/~histpart/mp3008.jpg

[Walther]

Interestingly the STEN was never issued in the Italian campaign and the Thomson continued to be used.

This was mainly done due to logistics. Northern Africa and later Italy were at the end of the American chain of supply and therefore .45 cal ammo was freely available. The supply people didn´t want to introduce another calibre into the theatre. On the other hand Stens were airdropped to Italian partisans, who then could use captured German or Italian ammunition.

Jan

[LargeBrew]

I remember seeing a sten veriant in Australia that was similar to the German knock off except the vertical mag was mounted on top I think it was called the Aus (oz) sten and was produced for jungle op's, pics or links any one.

[Cuts]

The Owen smg is the one you're thinking of, the Austen had a side mounted mag & an MP40 style folding butt.

[LargeBrew]

Thanks cuts your right it was in fact the Owen I was thinking of.

[Walther]

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?

Stoatman,

If you compare a Sten and a Lanchester MP, you'll notice that their design is quite different, especially the trigger mechanism. The only reason why the Sten could use Lanchester magazines was a specification, which demanded that existing Lanchester magazines had to be accepted by the gun. On the other hand a 50 round Lanchester magazine is quite a bit longer than a 30 round Sten magazine and makes the weapon really arkward to handle. Pratchett had the right idea with using his double row magazine in what eventually became the Sterling SMG, since it was much less sensitive to dirt and the feed lips ( a weak point of all Sten models) were much stronger and less likely to get bent through rough handling (the Sten requires a feed angle of exactly 8°, if the feed lips are bent the weapon will jam).

Jan

[Man of Stoat]

I don't think I ever said that the STEN and the MP 28/Lanchester were very similar, only that:

a) the Lanchester is a Britishised MP 28
b) the STEN is a heavily modified MP28

To expand on point b, pretty much every European SMG design incorporating a cylindrical bolt with means to rotate the bolt to "safe" the weapon has MP 28 blood in it.

[Cuts]

...

On the other hand a 50 round Lanchester magazine is quite a bit longer than a 30 round Sten magazine and makes the weapon really arkward to handle.

...

Which is why I've always though it odd that the RN adopted it.
If a boarding party was runnng through the companionways of a ship the huge magazine is ever likely to be in the way.


By the way, Pratchett is better at Discworld than smg designs. ;)

[Nickdfresh]

Thanks for the info Stoatman.




It seems the STEN is disdained here by most as cheap, but honestly I love the weapon...

[Walther]

Stoatman,

AFAIR, even the Villa Perosa SMG, the first gun using a heavy breech block just acting through it's mass and the ancestor of all SMGs used a tubular receiver. It is simply the easiest way to design a receiver, just use a piece of pipe.

Jan

[Cuts]

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.

...
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.


...

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.
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 !


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.
'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
Opinions of the Sten.

THe only fact i have is that it is inaccurate from a far.(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
Thank you for the info sgt DerMann, i didn't know it was easy to make/produce.


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
Plus all allied soldiers favoured the thompson heavily over any competing SMG.


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
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.


To summarise:

1. 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.
2. In response to polite requests for sources you challenge those asking for the gen to supply theirs.
3. You continue to post while 'conveniently' fogetting to post the sources previously repeatedly requested.
4. 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 ?

I know it's a bit infra dig to quote oneself, but I thought I'd give Ironman, I'm sorry, IronFist sufficient time to collect his thoughts and sources.

That he has not posted since can only it imagine it being due to his his deep and incisive research into the subject.

Someone did mention that the was a possibility of his being 'related' to earlier posters that have subsequently been give the Site Honourable (?) Indication of Tediousness.
The other suggestion was that IronFist might have rejoined under another username.

If you are you there IronFist please let us know, I'd hate to be exchanging views with someone who does not carry the courage of their convictions and are too jack to stand by their opinions.

[Firefly]

IRONFIST hasnt posted here since Dec 30th and as far as I can tell is no-one else.

[maninblack]

According to many long conversations that I had with my late father the sten had many attributes that are much under reported.

Certainly the sten was a simple weapon that was built in many variants.

There were variants with wooden fittings, folding fittings, sileners and even a sten bayonet.

There were also versions that were built to be cheap and light so that the maximum number would fit into a parachute container for dropping into Europe by air.

Amongst the great things about the sten were the following.

It was an allied weapon designed to use ammunition captured from the enemy; a major advantage in many situations.

It was designed to be able to be mass produced by anyone with a lathe and half an ounce of common sense. Plans were dropped into Europe so that weapons could be built ocally.

It was a very successful close quarter weapon; it was never designed to be an open field weapon depsite the later expectations.

It would work when it had been dropped in mud, sand or water. More advanced weapons wil not do this.

So, whilst a lot of soldiers preferred the captured German smg of the Thompson my father, who was a marksman and weapons instructor, always said that the sten was his favoutite weapon because whilst it had a slight tendency to jam or misfire it always performed in the same way regardless of how filthy it was. In short, clean or dirty, ill loaded magazine or even foreign ammunition you always new what to expect.

Finally, anothe rpoint my father raised was that in close quarter fighting you held the sten against your belt buckle and charged in firing, where ever you wet it went and fired. This was not the case with the higher charge laoded Thompson of the SME/Bren weapons which were open field weapons.

My father loved his Sten even though his main weapon was the SMLE.

[Panzerknacker]

A nice video of this ugly but effective weapon.

http://www.zippyvideos.com/4791606274573236/sten_in_action./

[Cuts]

A nice video of this ugly but effective weapon.

http://www.zippyvideos.com/4791606274573236/sten_in_action./

The only words spoken in the vid:- "Pretty good, huh ?"
I'd have been more impressed if he'd have use reactive tgts or shown the results of the shooting.

At least it wasn't some gangster rap slang, although I'd been expecting something along these lines as the only wrong way to hold the weapon that he didn't try was on it's side one handed.

[CDN3RD_Canadian]

The only words spoken in the vid:- "Pretty good, huh ?"
I'd have been more impressed if he'd have use reactive tgts or shown the results of the shooting.

At least it wasn't some gangster rap slang, although I'd been expecting something along these lines as the only wrong way to hold the weapon that he didn't try was on it's side one handed.

I rather would have enjoyed seeing the guy try and fire the sten with one hand side ways, I fired one of these when I was at CFB Borden, they have vintage weapons and in Cadets I was able to get a chance to use a sten, as well as the bren. And I was not very accurate with the sten, I was fine with the Bren, in prone of course.

[Panzerknacker]

The only words spoken in the vid:- "Pretty good, huh ?"
I'd have been more impressed if he'd have use reactive tgts or shown the results of the shooting.

At least it wasn't some gangster rap slang

Dont like the "American" english ? ( if that is english after all :roll: )

:P :D :D

...nice weapon indeed, too bad for the H. Heydrich assasins that it jammed that day.

[Cuts]

The only words spoken in the vid:- "Pretty good, huh ?"
I'd have been more impressed if he'd have use reactive tgts or shown the results of the shooting.

At least it wasn't some gangster rap slang, although I'd been expecting something along these lines as the only wrong way to hold the weapon that he didn't try was on it's side one handed.

I rather would have enjoyed seeing the guy try and fire the sten with one hand side ways, I fired one of these when I was at CFB Borden, they have vintage weapons and in Cadets I was able to get a chance to use a sten, as well as the bren. And I was not very accurate with the sten, I was fine with the Bren, in prone of course.

I hope most sincerely that you are being facetious.
You are, aren't you ?

Please say yes...




The only words spoken in the vid:- "Pretty good, huh ?"
I'd have been more impressed if he'd have use reactive tgts or shown the results of the shooting.

At least it wasn't some gangster rap slang

Dont like the "American" english ? ( if that is english after all :roll: )

:P :D :D

:lol: :lol:

Yes, two nations divided by a common language !

No PzK I've nothing against US English, but the gangster rap slang that many young people on both sides of the pond seem to adopt is purile, lazy and annoying.

...nice weapon indeed, too bad for the H. Heydrich assasins that it jammed that day.

Very true, but at least he was eventually killed at Daybreak.

[Panzerknacker]

No PzK I've nothing against US English, but the gangster rap slang that many young people on both sides of the pond seem to adopt is purile, lazy and annoying

Agree, unfortunately I have cable tv, so my ears are bleeding for that. :roll:

Very true, but at least he was eventually killed at Daybreak

I think it last longer, he infected his wounds with the horse hair used to fill the Mercedes fur seats.

[CDN3RD_Canadian]

yeah, I meant that comment to be humourus.

[Cuts]

Very true, but at least he was eventually killed at Daybreak

I think it last longer, he infected his wounds with the horse hair used to fill the Mercedes fur seats.

My fault, (not his death !) I didn't explain myself clearly.
I meant 'Daybreak' as in the name of the Op to top him - hence the capital.

Well it was called Operaton Daybreak in the film of the same name, I recall taking a bint to see it in about '75.
(I know how to treat a lady, take her to a war film ! :lol: )

[Firefly]

The thing about the Op to Kill Heydrich was that it was motivated not out of hatered because he was a butcher (which he certainly was) but out of fear that he was winning over the local population (which he was).

After the operation, German reprisals ensured that they would no longer receive the same co-operation from the locals thay they were getting before the Op.

[Panzerknacker]

The thing about the Op to Kill Heydrich was that it was motivated not out of hatered because he was a butcher (which he certainly was) but out of fear that he was winning over the local population (which he was).

Interesting, unfortunately his death seal the fate of hundreds of Checks who were killed in reprisal. A town were sweeped and blew up by explosives, I cant remember the name.

In the movie the 2 perpetrators killed himself with pistols but other sources say that the were killed in combat with SS troops.

[1000ydstare]

I think the village was called Liddice.

It was not the nearest village to the shooting, but more convenient as it was not industrial and was not helping the Nazi war effort, and possibly smaller than closer villages and towns.

The men were killed in the church, women and children shipped off, IIRC. Afterwards the village was shelled into rubble and erased from the map. The number of those killed vary but between 150 - 200 seems to be the average.

I may have been better for the Nazis just to take it on the chin and encourage mourning by the locals, but each to their own. The after action against Liddice drove a pretty big wedge betweent the locals and the Nazis as you would imagine, which enraged all including the collaborators.

Not too much on t'internet about it, so all of the above is from memory and may be wrong.

[Topor]

From Wiki:

June 10. German security police surrounded the village of Lidice, blocking all avenues of escape. The Nazis chose this village because of its residents' known hostility to the occupation and because Lidice was suspected of harbouring local resistance partisans. The entire population was rounded up, and all men over fifteen years of age were put in a barn. They were shot the next day. Another nineteen men, who were working in a mine, along with seven women, were sent to Prague, where they were also shot. The remaining women were shipped to the Ravensbrück concentration camp, where about a quarter of them died in the gas chambers or from overwork. The children were taken to a concentration camp at the Gneisenaustreet in Łódź (nowadays in Poland), where they were sorted by racial criteria, and those deemed suitable for 'Aryanization' were shipped to Germany (after the war most were found and returned); the rest of children (82) were gassed in Chełmno. The village itself was razed and bulldozed. A genuine film document, made by a German soldier, has survived.

All together, 340 people from Lidice died because of the Nazi reprisal (192 men, 60 women and 88 children).

A small Czech village called Ležáky was also destroyed two weeks after Lidice. Here both men and women were shot, and children were sent to concentration camps or 'Aryanized'.

[George Eller]

-

George Duncan's
Massacres and Atrocities of World War II

Czechoslovakia
THE LIDICE MASSACRE (June 10, 1942)
http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/massacres_east.html#Czechoslovakia

Two Czech patriots, Jan Kubis and Joseph Gabeik, serving with the Polish forces in Britain, volunteered to be dropped by parachute near Prague. Their mission, to assassinate SS Obergruppenfuehrer Reinhard Heydrich, the Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia. The ambush took place on May 27, 1942, as Heydrich drove to his office. Severely wounded, he was rushed to Bulovka Hospital where he died eight days later. The Nazi reprisals then began. In the next few days, 3,188 Czech citizens were arrested of whom 1,357 were shot. Another 657 died while being interrogated by SS police. On June 9th armed police surrounded the small village of Lidice, some ten kilometres from Prague and gathered together the entire population in the tiny square. Boys over 15 were lined up with the men and locked up in an empty barn. Women and children were herded into the local school for the night. The houses were then ransacked, the pillaging went on all night. Next morning, June 10, at 5am, the women and children were bundled into trucks and driven away. The police then fetched dozens of mattresses from the ransacked houses and propped them up against the wall of the barn to prevent ricochets. The men and boys were then brought out 10 at a time, lined up in front of the mattresses and then shot.

In all, 173 souls were murdered this way. While the firing squads were busy, others set about burning the village to the ground. The bulldozers and ploughs were then brought in and in no time no recognizable feature of the village remained. Meanwhile, the 198 women and 98 children were forcibly separated and driven away, the women to the Ravensbruck Concentration Camp where 35 of the older women were then sent on to Auschwitz to be used for medical experiments. Only 143 were alive at wars end. Of the children, 17 were picked out as suitable for Germanisation and allocated to German households. These children all survived the war and were eventually reunited with their families. The rest, 81 in number, were sent to the camp at Chelmno and gassed. Reprisals were also taken in the concentration camps where thousands of Czech political prisoners were murdered. Contrary to what some history books tells us, not a single unit of the SS took part in the destruction, massacre and deportation of women and children in Lidice. The massacre was carried out by a thirty man unit of the Prague police acting under German officers.

A new village of 150 houses for the women who survived, has been built a short distance away from the original site. The men and boys who were shot now lie in a mass grave in the Park of Peace.

-

[Panzerknacker]

Thanks for all your answers, it was simply awful.


http://guns.connect.fi/rs/sten.jpg

[Man of Stoat]

^^^^^

Never, ever, ever, fire a STEN holding onto the magazine! You will damage the means which locks the rotating magazine Housing (mk.II) to the receiver, eventually rendering the weapon U/S.

[1000ydstare]

Are they silenced stens?

Where do they come from? They look quite new.

Back to the Lidice massacre, it is not unique for local troops to behave in such a way. There were similar creatures in all the occupied countries, and of course the Kapo in the concentration and death camps. The Romanians and Bosnian Muslim SS Division were all reported to be capable of the most fiercesom attrocities.

ALthough I am not saying the German SS were all misrepresented angels.

[Panzerknacker]

Never, ever, ever, fire a STEN holding onto the magazine! You will damage the means which locks the rotating magazine Housing (mk.II) to the receiver, eventually rendering the weapon U/S.


Thanks for the advise.

Are they silenced stens?

Where do they come from? They look quite new


Yes, they are, those are converted in finland.

[Dani]

The Romanians [...] were all reported to be capable of the most fiercesom attrocities.

Were reported by whom??

[1000ydstare]

Have no books around me at the moment, and would have to read all this from scratch.

A quick google though (late for work) has found this for now. I will try to find more.

Alibi for Prejudice: Eastern Orthodoxy, the Holocaust, and Romanian Nationalism.

by William O. Oldson

In the summer of 1941 the Romanian Army joined in the attack upon the Soviet Union to ensure, in the words of that nation's military leader and head of state Marshall Ion Antonescu, "the heritage of the Romanian people, the Cross, and justice." Later in the war Antonescu would elaborate upon this theme characterizing the Russian campaign as a "holy war for right, for the Cross, for civilization, for the honor and future" of the nation. (1) Unfortunately, this crusade against the Soviet Union to regain lost territories was also accompanied by an explosive expression of the anti-Semitism that was endemic in Romania. In the words of one of the most eloquent of the victims, Romanian policies during World War II demonstrated a "pervasive hatred towards Jews...." Perceiving the Jew not merely under the traditional stereotype of the "kike" but also as the manipulator of "a devilish network of evil-making influence over the Roumanian soul," all too many Romanians came to equate Jews in general with Bolshevism. (2)

The practical expression of this prejudice became, in the words of those prosecuting the Romanian portion of the Holocaust, "the cleansing of the ground."...

This is the full quote that I can access and there are no notes for this quote, because I don't want to pay $9 to access the rest of the matierial.
From http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5002496658

It was not unknown for members of the Nazi occupied countries to get "on side" with the Nazis. In the Channel Islands, the only Nazi occupied part of Britain, there was a case where a Jew was "processed" by the British bobbies on the Island and shipped off to a concentration camp. Ok it may only be one Jew, but on three islands with a population of less than 1000 that is alot, IMHO.

Although the Romanians finished the war on the Russian (Allied) side, it was only in August 1944 that they swapped over. Up until then they had been on the Nazi side, in a similar way to Finland and Hungary. They were the fourth largest army on the Allied side at the end of the war after the British, American and Russian and Romania provided the largest non-German army fighting for the Nazi cause on the Eastern front.

In a quote from a report from the University of Chicago.

The behavior of the Romanian occupation forces in Bessarabia and
Transnistria, the Soviet territory between the Dniestr and the Bug Rivers, was characterized more by corruption than destruction. There were massive shipments of industrial and agricultural equipment and stores of grain from Transnistria to Romania. When the Romanian army captured Odessa in October 1941, it massacred between twenty thousand and thirty thousand Jews, packedanother thirty-five thousand to forty thousand into a ghetto where they suffered terribly, and then deported them to camps where Volksdeutsche units murdered them.(21) Soldiers of the Second and Third Ukrainian Fronts under Marshal Rodion Malinovskii had witnessed the effects of the wanton destruction and atrocities as they drove the German and Romanian forces out of the Crimea and southwest Ukraine. It was not surprising that Stalin and the Soviet High Command allowed them a period of revenge once they crossed the Romanian frontiers. The looting and rapes that followed have often been attributed to a conscious policy of terrorizing the Romanian population in preparation for their subjugation to communism. But this view does not take into account the sharp contrast between these actions and the exemplary behavior of the forces of Marshal Tolbukhin in occupying Bulgaria, which had not fought against the Soviet Union.

(21) The Romanians also participated in the murder or deportation to Transnistria of over two hundred thousand Jews from Bessarabia and Bukovina that turned into a death march: Dalia Ofer, “The Holocaust in Transnistria: A Special Case of Genocide,” in The Holocaust in the Soviet Union, ed. Lucjan Dobroszycki and Jeffrey S. Gurock (Armonk, N.Y., 1993), pp. 133–54.


Taken from http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/421185&erFrom=4876905495815782149Guest

None of this diminishes the actions that the Russians carried out on the Eastern Front either, nor their actions in bringing Romania to the communist way of thinking as they headed towards Germany.

I will try to find more information tonight.

[1000ydstare]

Didn't mean it as an insult to your fine country, nor it's soldiers (some of whom I worked with very recently) Dani.

[Dani]

There is no problem 1000yds
Anyway, I will help you with a report:

The International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania was established on October 22, 2003. The Commission was conceived from the very beginning as an independent research body, free of any influence and political consideration. The Commission’s budget and composition were approved under Government Decision no.227 of February 20, 2004 and no.672 of May 5, 2004, respectively.
At the invitation of the President of Romania, Mr. Elie Wiesel, Nobel Peace prize laureate and honorary member of the Romanian Academy, accepted the chairmanship of the Commission.
The Commission’s aim was to research the facts and to determine the truth about the Holocaust in Romania during World War II, and the events preceding this tragedy. The results of the research by the Commission are presented in this Report, based exclusively on scientific standards.
The Commission met three times – in Washington, May 16-22, 2004, Jerusalem, September 6-9, 2004 and Bucharest, November 8-13, 2004 – to evaluate the state of research and draft the Final Report. On November 11, 2004 the Final Report of the International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania was presented to the President of Romania.

Quoted from the foreword: http://www.presidency.ro/index.php?_RID=htm&id=41

If you'll select from the top, you'll be able to read all sections of the report.

On the other hand I was quite surprised about your harsh affirmation:
The Romanians [...] were all reported to be capable of the most fiercesom attrocities. including all Romanians who fought in WW2 and talking about most fiercesom activities.
That's all and once again, there is no problem 1000yds!

Now should we all go back to the topic? :D

[Nickdfresh]

^^^^^

Never, ever, ever, fire a STEN holding onto the magazine! You will damage the means which locks the rotating magazine Housing (mk.II) to the receiver, eventually rendering the weapon U/S.

So that's why the put the forward pistol grip on it! :lol:

http://files.uzitalk.com/images/usma/museum/sten-mark-v.jpg

[Lancer44]

Here on this site you'll find beautiful pictures of many versions of Sten.

http://wilk.wpk.p.lodz.pl/~whatfor/sten.htm

SMG Sten was also produced in Poland in conspiracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sten#Foreign_built_copies_and_derivatives

Polish Home Army engineers developed modified version of Sten called Blyskawica.

You can see it here:

http://wilk.wpk.p.lodz.pl/~whatfor/blyskawica.htm

One of the more famous actions of Home Army, often compared with assasination of Heydrich in Prague, was assasination of SS-Brigadefuehrer Franz Kutschera, 1-st of February 1944 in Warsaw.
It is interesting that members of Kedyw, (name of unit of Home Army),
could choose their weapons for this action.
Look how they made their choice, (only armed participants of the action are listed by their nicknames):

Lot - commander and I-st executioner, MP-40, Vis + grenade,
Ali - deputy commander, protection, STEN + grenades
Kruszynka - II-nd executioner, STEN + grenades
Miś - driver of Adler Triumf-Junior and III-rd executioner, Parabellum + grenades
Cichy - protection, STEN + Parabellum + grenades
Olbrzym - protection, STEN + Parabellum + grenades
Juno - protection, STEN + Vis + grenades
Bruno - driver of Opel-Kapitan, 2 x Parabellum + grenades
Sokół - driver of Mercedes 170 V, 2 x Parabellum + grenades

As a matter of fact, I know from the first source, (Mis - Michal Isajewicz was my fathers friend), that Lot armed with MP-40 was worried about
his STEN and replaced it with MP-40 in the last hour before the action.
I can also add that Kedyw used British STENs not Polish made derivations.

Cheers,

Lancer44

[Erik]

Here is a quote from a book I'm reading "Ortona: Canada's Epic WWII Battle" - M. Zuehlke:

"When the Canadians had been preparing to deploy to Sicily, they had been provided with some 9-millimetre Sten submachine guns, a British-designed weapon that was stamped out like metal cookies from a cutter. Inexpensive to make and popular with the Commandos and European underground, the gun was held in disdain by the Canadians and was generally ditched as quick as possible. All too often it's primitive safety switch came off and the gun accidentally discharged causing friendly casualties. By the time the Canadians reached the Sangro River, hardly and Stens were in use by front-line units.

[Panzerknacker]

Well, I cannot blame them, that crude weapon never will inspired me as much confidence like a heavy machined M1927 or the sleek lopking Mp-40.

[Lancer44]

Here is a quote from a book I'm reading "Ortona: Canada's Epic WWII Battle" - M. Zuehlke:

"When the Canadians had been preparing to deploy to Sicily, they had been provided with some 9-millimetre Sten submachine guns, a British-designed weapon that was stamped out like metal cookies from a cutter. Inexpensive to make and popular with the Commandos and European underground, the gun was held in disdain by the Canadians and was generally ditched as quick as possible. All too often it's primitive safety switch came off and the gun accidentally discharged causing friendly casualties. By the time the Canadians reached the Sangro River, hardly and Stens were in use by front-line units.

Why Canadians not refused it?

I read that commander of II-nd Polish Corps which was part of 8-th British Army, General Anders refused Stens and get Thompsons.
After demonstration of Sten he said that he will not send his soldiers to battle with weapon designed and made by "village blacksmith".
There was no one Sten in Polish II Corps in Italy.
To the contrary 1-st Polish Armoured Division in Normandy and 1-st Independent Parachute Brigade landing at Arnhem, had just Stens and no Thompsons.

Cheers,

Lancer44

[Man of Stoat]

Here is a quote from a book I'm reading "Ortona: Canada's Epic WWII Battle" - M. Zuehlke:

"When the Canadians had been preparing to deploy to Sicily, they had been provided with some 9-millimetre Sten submachine guns, a British-designed weapon that was stamped out like metal cookies from a cutter. Inexpensive to make and popular with the Commandos and European underground, the gun was held in disdain by the Canadians and was generally ditched as quick as possible. All too often it's primitive safety switch came off and the gun accidentally discharged causing friendly casualties. By the time the Canadians reached the Sangro River, hardly and Stens were in use by front-line units.

There is no "safety switch" on a sten.

The bolt handle can be turned into a notch if it is retracted. The real problem is when the bolt is forward and there is a magazine placed. A suitably hard knock can allow the bolt to move back far enough to pick up a cartridge and fire it, but this is a problem common with all open-bolt SMG's if the bolt cannot be locked in the forward position, which it could on the later stens by sliding the cocking handle into a hole.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally Posted by Firefly
I dont think many liked the STEN, there is an interesting article at the bottom of this link describing a misfire.

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/weapons/sten.htm

Not a bad article, although anecdotal lines like this:


Many Canadians were wounded or even killed by Sten Guns even before being committed to battle.

when not supported by evidence go far to perpetuating popular myth.

Hi - taking the risk of bumping a year old thread in the hopes you are still around. I'm the webmaster and author of the page in question.

I think the statement stands up to historical scrutiny as there is certainly a lot of anecdotal information regarding the safety hazards associated with the Sten Gun. You're probably correct in that I should footnote the statement with examples of same. I'm making a concerted effort to provide inline references for articles on the site - something I had not done before. If I prove hard pressed to find examples accidental woundings and deaths due to Sten accidents, I will obviously need to change that statement.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention; feedback like yours is essential to any serious web-based endeavour. If you had any other information to contribute, I would of course be grateful.

Here is a quote from a book I'm reading "Ortona: Canada's Epic WWII Battle" - M. Zuehlke:

"When the Canadians had been preparing to deploy to Sicily, they had been provided with some 9-millimetre Sten submachine guns, a British-designed weapon that was stamped out like metal cookies from a cutter. Inexpensive to make and popular with the Commandos and European underground, the gun was held in disdain by the Canadians and was generally ditched as quick as possible. All too often it's primitive safety switch came off and the gun accidentally discharged causing friendly casualties. By the time the Canadians reached the Sangro River, hardly and Stens were in use by front-line units.

Bear in mind that Zuehlke is not really a military historian, but a popular historian. In this case, his comments seem to reflect reality but for the wrong reasons. The Sten was not used in Italy due to ammunition supply problems, AFAICT - the US was already shipping .45 calibre to the theatre so there was no need to compete for limited shipping space by forcing a requirement for 9mm ammo in addition to .45. The Army's official position on the Sten can be seen in a Second World War era technical report available for download at the DND site. The Sten was considered sufficient to its purpose, and accidental discharges and jamming were blamed on user error, officially. The Army in NW Europe saw no reason to replace it.

Originally Posted by man of stoat
There is no "safety switch" on a sten.

This is one of the many little details Zuehlke gets wrong in his book, but his intent is clear. The cutout you correctly describe is no doubt what he is referring to, even though it wasn't a "switch" it was indeed intended for use as a safety. The Sten also had a hole in the body of the gun, so that not only could the c0cking handle be pulled into the niche, but that once there, it could be depressed so that the end of the handle snapped into the small hole, further preventing accidental discharges. I have a dewatted 1944 Long Branch Mk II which has that feature; it was also a field modification dating from the spring of 1944 on existing weapons.

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com

[Panzerknacker]

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

http://img468.imageshack.us/img468/8983/stencar2190ev6.jpg

[Tiger-I]

You could not give me a Thompson.
I'd take the Sten any day.
Fact is, I've owned 4 of them, (a mk-5, a mk-2, and two mk-3's) from time to time over the years-all class 3 weapons with the appropriate tax, help from our local law enforcement center, and licensing of course-which needless to say was not cheap. One can look at paying over $1000 each for this type. And the Stens are the absolute cheapest. Sadly, I no longer have them, and cashed all of them in at one time or another. I went forward and am into ak-74's now-but that's another story. And the ak's are semi, so it's more of a stress reliever on the conscience.
They do have a habit of hiccuping when least expected, but once you are used to it, it's not that big a deal. And I never had that actually happen but a couple of times, and yes, I fired them a LOT.
They do not have many parts that can break. And if it does, it can be replaced easily.
The Thompson's ammo is too heavy to carry the sufficient amount of ammo for it in the field for very long.
The Thompson also is more finely machined (as we all know), and does not take well to dust-dirt, etc.
The Sten's which were in my possession, were quite accurate, after getting used to them. It was not un-common to hit coke cans at 75 yds. on semi.
On full-auto, they are practically useless. I know people will say, why?
Well, you can't hit anything with them that way.
Bottom line. Muzzle climb is not as controllable as with an ak, due to the Sten being so short and little, and havin g to hold sideways on the magazine, which is awkward.
In semi-auto, they are very good guns. The only way I see full-auto being of use with the Sten, is in cover fire, door-to-door, and street fighting. Definately not finely aimed shots.
I have shot, but never owned any Thompsons. But from myexperience, I'd still pick the Sten. Simply because of practicality.
Hope this helps.
p.s.-if one desires a full-auto, please go through the proper channels and don't try making one yourself. I have heard of people doing this, and needless to say, with the communistic laws now, it is not wise.
The reason I was able to do my work back then with full-auto, is because I was introduced to the proper people, had help, and FOLLOWED the law.
Please, follow the law. Be they draconian laws or not. We have no choice as of now. Hopefully, this will change one day, when America is truly a free country once again. And trust me, as someone who knows. Having a full-auto, is not that big a deal, because they a virtually useless in many situations. Only poor shots need full-auto.
If one begins imitating movies and tv in the real world, they will soon end up dead. That is not how it works in actual combat and it's one reason I watch the History Channel, and not these stupid movies they put out these days.
If you simply must have a full-auto, then look at paying over $1000 for the Stens, and over $2-3000 for any of the others, and this is not the worth of the gun either. All of that money will go to the feds. You will still have a gun that cost $2.00 to make. In the end, it's not worth it. Trust me.
Now, there are some semi-auto closed bolt Stens that can be had now, and these seem fun.
That would be a reasonable alternative. They have a longer barrel to bring length to spec. without having to have an SBR form.

[Man of Stoat]

and havin g to hold sideways on the magazine, which is awkward.

... and incorrect, and can lead to damage to the weapon. The STEN should always be held around the barrel nut, like this:

http://www.6th-airborne.org/resources/sten13.jpghttp://www.6th-airborne.org/resources/sten14.jpg

[Tiger-I]

Not necessarily.
Both are options and proven.
It will not damage the weapon.
Holding the mag with the left hand was used frequently, along with holding in front of the barrel nut or trunnion.
On versions without the finger guard, this could lead to a severely pinched finger in hurried situations. Sometimes even with the finger guard.
also-the weight of a fully loaded magazine offsets the gun, to the left, and it will want to twist in the left hand if held in front of the barrel nut. Holding the magazine eliminates this problem.
Nothing was ever effected in the thousands of 9mm rounds I have fired.
Accuracy was better also.
But, like all things, I believe this may be a matter of ones personal preferance and opinion in shooting the Sten. One must familiarize himself with it in ones own best way, in order to be effective.

[Gen. Sandworm]

You could not give me a Thompson.
I'd take the Sten any day.


While I see your arguement I think most of the special forces of the day would disagree. While the Thompson was known to "rattle" sometimes. In a fire fight the stopping power was much greater than the Sten. I think if you ask most ww2 SAS they would take the Thompson over the Sten. IMO.

[Man of Stoat]

The 1942 STEN training manual says the following:

When shooting, the weapon must not be held by gripping the magazine. The correct grip is the barrel nut.

(original italics)

The reason for this is that this puts stress on the catch which holds the magazine Housing assembly in position. This causes the catch to wear, causing a misalignment of the magazine Housing, possibly resulting in misfeeds.

In Dutch service post war, vertical metallic pistol grips were fitted to the barrel nut to further discourage this practice, to improve ergonomics, and reduce transfer of heat to the supporting hand, I believe the same is also true of other countries (South Africa?)

[Nickdfresh]

The 1942 STEN training manual says the following:


(original italics)

The reason for this is that this puts stress on the catch which holds the magazine Housing assembly in position. This causes the catch to wear, causing a misalignment of the magazine Housing, possibly resulting in misfeeds.

In Dutch service post war, vertical metallic pistol grips were fitted to the barrel nut to further discourage this practice, to improve ergonomics, and reduce transfer of heat to the supporting hand, I believe the same is also true of other countries (South Africa?)

Wasn't a forward pistol grip on the STEN a wartime improvement?

[Man of Stoat]

Not metal ones, and not on the mark II; the early Mk. V's had a wooden one which used to break off so were deleted later.

[Tiger-I]

Yes, I do agree with the housing catch problem you mentioned. And yes, I have encountered that before. The grooves can wear, or the catch can wear. As I had noticed on the mk2 I had. Remember, I was into all of this when mail-order companies had the demilled mk2 kits for $35.00(wish I knew then!!!), so I had many spare parts, actually a couple boxes of them.
I suppose I was just not prone to mention this since, as a recreational shooter, we have access to so many spares, but I can see this being a problem in the field of combat.
You know, even though I knew something was amiss with the design and "feeling" right about it holding, this point never weighed very heavily on me. I don't know why. It's just something I never put much thought into.
Thankfully, though, I never had a breakdown.
One thing a person can check before firing any of them, is the catch and grooves, and inspect the wear they may have.
You know, I think I'm going to get another mk2. This time---a dummy mk2!
Just to hearken back to the old days when I was young and stupid...and hang her on the wall. Even the dummies are $200 now. I wish I'd bought all of those kits Sarco had back then. Could have boxed them all up, and put them in the old barn out back and waited 30 years....oh well

[arhob1]

Off topic ...

My father-in-law served in Egypt during the 1950's Suez Crisis.

He was in the Royal Signals attached to 45 Royal Marines and 1st/2nd/3rd Paras.

His role was to relay messages from Gibraltar to local commands and the Far East (Hong Kong etc).

He was issued with a sten gun which he never had any problems with. He can recall some blokes having stoppages but can't recall any NDs.

He used the Sten often when Egyptian forces got in between their tents in close combat - a role for which it was eminently suited.