Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.

[sonofpegasus]

In 1939 Kirlay had redesigned the triggers assembly to simply it and was working on simplified construction.
Allenpcameron mentioned this gun as a "machine carbine" for that criteria the lever delayed gun firing the 9 x25 gives a flatter trajectory and better range that the 9x19.
So having BSA producing a British Machine Carbine in 1939, would be useful. It can be made similar still, deleting the fold up magazine would do for one.
This does not stop you going for a gun like the OTL Sten ITTL.

 

[HPM]

I am not a gun nut!
However the Sten was designed principally as a simplified Lanchester SMG which was based on the MP28. BSA had a licence for the Danuvia 39M SMG design by the Hungarian Designer Kirlay. this was a lever delayed design and could have been a reasonable carbine if adopted earlier.

View attachment 787119

The Danuvia goes in the same catergory as the Furrer, and to an extent the Thompson; over complicated and too expensive for an SMG. The round is heavier than it needs to be as well; 9mm x19 is plenty for an SMG. The carbine is a bit of a blind alley; it is arguable that it could be developed into an assualt rifle, but it may not be robust enough. There was a very nice Johnson derived assault rifle concept around in the early 6os using a round called the .22 Spitfire (among other names). You could probably go there with the Danuvia. Does it fire from open bolt with a fixed firng pin?

 

[CMDBob]

Thinking about it, I imagine that there wouldn't be much the British could learn from the captured MP38/40, as they were more complex and more expensive to make than the Sten, while still being roughly equivalent (the Sten could use MP38/40 magazines, which is handy, but it already could do that pre-capture).
The main thing I can see is the Sten not ending up quite as crude as the Mark II with the horrific steel stock/grip, and instead more resembling the Mk V with the better wooden stock, pistol grip and (possibly optional for this time line, to save just a little bit of extra time/money) vertical foregrip. While crude, the Sten was effective and VERY cheap to make (5 man hours, and £2 6s/$11 in 1942...), something that is still desirable for the British forces, and having that little bit extra money to smooth off the crudest edges will make for a much nicer weapon.
Anything else just seems wasteful, especially when the Sten can be made better for much less cost.

 

[HPM]

Thinking about it, I imagine that there wouldn't be much the British could learn from the captured MP38/40, as they were more complex and more expensive to make than the Sten, while still being roughly equivalent (the Sten could use MP38/40 magazines, which is handy, but it already could do that pre-capture).
The main thing I can see is the Sten not ending up quite as crude as the Mark II with the horrific steel stock/grip, and instead more resembling the Mk V with the better wooden stock, pistol grip and (possibly optional for this time line, to save just a little bit of extra time/money) vertical foregrip. While crude, the Sten was effective and VERY cheap to make (5 man hours, and £2 6s/$11 in 1942...), something that is still desirable for the British forces, and having that little bit extra money to smooth off the crudest edges will make for a much nicer weapon.
Anything else just seems wasteful, especially when the Sten can be made better for much less cost.

Getting the magazine feed problem sorted out would be nice.

 

[marathag]

Thinking about it, I imagine that there wouldn't be much the British could learn from the captured MP38/40, as they were more complex and more expensive to make than the Sten, while still being roughly equivalent (the Sten could use MP38/40 magazines, which is handy, but it already could do that pre-capture).
The main thing I can see is the Sten not ending up quite as crude as the Mark II with the horrific steel stock/grip, and instead more resembling the Mk V with the better wooden stock, pistol grip and (possibly optional for this time line, to save just a little bit of extra time/money) vertical foregrip. While crude, the Sten was effective and VERY cheap to make (5 man hours, and £2 6s/$11 in 1942...), something that is still desirable for the British forces, and having that little bit extra money to smooth off the crudest edges will make for a much nicer weapon.
Anything else just seems wasteful, especially when the Sten can be made better for much less cost.

For comparison, the 1911 pistol cost Uncle Sam $26 and the M1 Carbine $44.
So yeah,, spend $4 more on the STEN to improve the looks, and inspire a bit of confidence in it.

 

[marathag]

Getting the magazine feed problem sorted out would be nice.

I would have like for them to have borrowed the doublestack design of the Thompson magazine

 

[CB13]

In the late 1930's were there any patent protections on the MP18 or MP28? Or if one acquired the tooling could any nation produce without restriction?

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

In the late 1930's were there any patent protections on the MP18 or MP28? Or if one acquired the tooling could any nation produce without restriction?

By 1940 who cares, besides it's easy enough to make very minor changes to bypass any patent issues. The MP 18 - 28 use a pointless tow piece bolt, make it in one piece. The trigger group can also be simplified. By the time you're finished and get the Sten the only direct relationship with the original is the magazine.

 

[ArtosStark]

While crude, the Sten was effective and VERY cheap to make (5 man hours, and £2 6s/$11 in 1942...)

For comparison, the 1911 pistol cost Uncle Sam $26 and the M1 Carbine $44.
So yeah,, spend $4 more on the STEN to improve the looks, and inspire a bit of confidence in it.

For reference the cost of the Owen was, depending on the source you read, between A£8 and A£12 ($24 and $30 US). Still cheap and could maybe get cheaper with larger production. But not at the level of the Sten.

 

[CB13]

By 1940 who cares, besides it's easy enough to make very minor changes to bypass any patent issues. The MP 18 - 28 use a pointless tow piece bolt, make it in one piece. The trigger group can also be simplified. By the time you're finished and get the Sten the only direct relationship with the original is the magazine.

Where I was going with the question was "If for example Japan decided in 1935 it did want an SMG but decided it wanted one immediately and didn't want the hassle of developing one, could they have just cloned the MP28? Or was it only after the German invasion that such patent considerations were removed?"

 

[yulzari1]

The Lanchester was based upon an MP28 brought back from Ethiopia. The Sten was a cheapened simpler concept of the Lanchester. The purpose of the Sten was to be easy to make and do so in a hurry without using the existing arms industry. The British nomenclature was Machine Carbine which reflected the intended use. ie as a short range small shoulder arm. Not a pistol replacement. The Danubian fits the machine carbine role but, despite BSAs claims, it would be more expensive and less suited to outsourcing. I would choose 9x25 but there was existing 9x18 production in place commercially and the Lanchester was following the MP28 as a model. In 1939 the crude (but effective) approach of the Sten would be impossible to get past the relevant authorities even if you moved them to favour a service machine carbine. They would expect the quality of finish etc. of a first generation such as the Lanchester but might be willing to go with 9x25mm. I do doubt, in 1939, that they could see where to fit it into the existing infantry structure based as it was around the Bren and riflemen. The 9x25mm might be enough to swap for the rifles. Especially if they were in addition to the slow rifle production numbers. As a personal defence weapon for non infantry troops it might get more traction. Immediate firepower trumping fears of excessive ammunition use and having a separate ammunition supply route to 0,303” armed infantry. Also releasing more rifles to the infantry. The tactical advantages and doctrine would follow actual experience as the war progressed.

Would it make a significant difference? Probably not in the greater scheme of things. Even if it were to overtake the rifle in doctrine the PBI will still have to cart around two Bren magazines to keep the LMG supplied. Presumably there would have to be machine carbine bandoliers in some form to reload the issue magazines.

When you look at the history of inertia upon new weapons being evloved it would certainly have to fight against the prejudice that too much ammunition would be expended and that disposable/multi issue magazines would be too expensive.

 

[kelgar04]

Just out of curiosity, if anyone has some information on the development of the Sten smg.
In the aftermath of Dunkirk, I deliberately mentioned that both MP38 and MP40s were part of the captured German armaments brought back.
The Lanchester smg was developed for the RN and RAF as a direct copy of the MP28. What would be chances that with the German machine pistols being used as the basis for the Sten gun?
I suppose the question was whether the Sten would have been any different if the German guns were available for comparison?
I've deliberately not tried to describe the machine carbine carried in the tank turrets, but am curious what the 'gun nuts' think?
Allan.

Ian at Forgotten Weapons has some very good videos on them but the Lancaster which came first was basically based on the Germans earlier SMGs it was expensive though and you mainly saw it in the RN.

It was superseded by the Sten since it followed the same logic as the French Chauahate Machine Gun in that it was quick and easy to produce and cheap. It was what the British needed after Dunkirk and quickly too.

First one was MKI and MKI* who were crap for all interns and purposes and suffered from so many reliability issues and accidental discharges that I remember one Vet telling me that they had so many accidents with these.

MK2 was basically stripped down to the point you needed 12 manhours to build one with semi killed workers and was basically asked for quick assembly and disassembly at one point for airborne troops. It was also made safer from the MK1 which isn't hard and I think the Germans used one of these to make their own Sten knock off.

But basically as you progress from MkIII to MKV staens you got a lot of improvements to the Sten which made it more useable than the intial emergency run ones that could be slapped together in a bike shop.

TBH giving the British a look a german SMGs could allow for improvements to the Sten to happen earlier and given the quicker victories in NA and African they have more time to maybe develop something like the MKV sooner rather than later.

 

[MattII]

Hm, given the differences here, would there even have been a need for the Stens? Or maybe they tried it, but decided the MKIs were too crap, and developed them a bit more before deploying them.

 

[kelgar04]

Hm, given the differences here, would there even have been a need for the Stens? Or maybe they tried it, but decided the MKIs were too crap, and developed them a bit more before deploying them.

Could give you a leap to Mk3 or maybe 4s earlier though reverse engineering is harder than developing a desgin from the ground up.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Hm, given the differences here, would there even have been a need for the Stens? Or maybe they tried it, but decided the MKIs were too crap, and developed them a bit more before deploying them.

The government is still going to need a (much) cheaper alternative to the $200 Thompson. There are much more important things to spend those dollars on.

 

[marathag]

The government is still going to need a (much) cheaper alternative to the $200 Thompson. There are much more important things to spend those dollars on.

There is a wide gap between $11 garbage and $200 over-engineered profit maker for Colt.
A few dollars to the STEN gets you a decent foregrip and a stock to your basic blowback SMG

 

[MarcH]

As others have pointed out the Sten is still a near certainty ITTL. The only difference is likely to be an earlier switch to something more akin to the Mk 2 Wooden stock model

that never went into production in OTL due to cost but could well ITTL or the Mk V which should be familiar.

my personal belief is that the Mk II with wood stock would be the way Britain went initially with the possibility of a foregrip as well. After experience with the semi pistol grip stock my suspicion is there would be a move to the Mk V style pistol grip. The other option is that a replacement weapon would be sought sooner than 1944 ITTL. That could see the Sterling could well come along either in lateish 1942 or at some point in 1943. That could well also have wooden furniture at least initially. That is probably particularly true if the switch is made sooner rather than later.

 

[wietze]

As others have pointed out the Sten is still a near certainty ITTL. The only difference is likely to be an earlier switch to something more akin to the Mk 2 Wooden stock model View attachment 787295 that never went into production in OTL due to cost but could well ITTL or the Mk V which should be familiar. View attachment 787297 my personal belief is that the Mk II with wood stock would be the way Britain went initially with the possibility of a foregrip as well. After experience with the semi pistol grip stock my suspicion is there would be a move to the Mk V style pistol grip. The other option is that a replacement weapon would be sought sooner than 1944 ITTL. That could see the Sterling could well come along either in lateish 1942 or at some point in 1943. That could well also have wooden furniture at least initially. That is probably particularly true if the switch is made sooner rather than later.

tube stock combined with a pistol grip would be good, a wooden stock just adds a load of unnecessary weight

 

[Rickshaw]

Just out of curiosity, if anyone has some information on the development of the Sten smg.
In the aftermath of Dunkirk, I deliberately mentioned that both MP38 and MP40s were part of the captured German armaments brought back.
The Lanchester smg was developed for the RN and RAF as a direct copy of the MP28. What would be chances that with the German machine pistols being used as the basis for the Sten gun?
I suppose the question was whether the Sten would have been any different if the German guns were available for comparison?
I've deliberately not tried to describe the machine carbine carried in the tank turrets, but am curious what the 'gun nuts' think?
Allan.

For a better SMG look at the Owen Gun. It beat both the Sten and the MP40 in trials. There was a well publicised propaganda film which featured a gun which had been submerged in mud, burnt and it still fired. They used to subject it to the blown sand test something the Sten and MP40 were guaranted to fail. I knew a WO who I served with, his opinion was that is was a superb gun. My opinion was it was a bit heavy but very accurate. I fired one when I served in the Australian Army. When they were designing something to replace it, the one feature that they retained on the F1 SMG was the top mounted magazine.

 

[general]

I once saw an Owen gun that had been lost in the invasion of Tarakan in 1945. It was found in the mud in 1965. After a clean up and some oil, it fired perfectly. Cannot beat that!