Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
I can't find any hard numbers, but from what I've been able to find, it all says the Suomi (and it's drums) were expensive and time-consuming to make. I don't think it was Thompson money, but definitely not cheap. For the Brits ITTL, bumping the Sten up to M3 Grease Gun money seems like the best bet (as that was $20 per gun at the time.)
With regards to the Sten and it's fate in this tl it's important to remember that the majority of Stens never fired a shot in anger. If you look at the ToE for a British infantry battalion, never mind other units, most of the men issued Stens were the likes of signalers or mortar crew who had other things to do in combat then fire their personal weapons. That's before your remember that the vast majority went to vehicle crews and non combat units. So the most important characteristic is it's cheap and light and the OTL Stens were that.
In an ideal world you'd have had a second model more like the Owen gun for issue to paratroopers and other soldiers who were issued the Sten in OTL but could have benefited from something better.
In an ideal world you'd have had a second model more like the Owen gun for issue to paratroopers and other soldiers who were issued the Sten in OTL but could have benefited from something better.
marathag
Banned
After WWI, the Allies took most all the German Patents as reparations.
That's how the US got out from the Mauser infringement on the Springfield Rifle.
“There’s a war on!” I doubt HMG would have cared too much about honouring German patents by 1940…
Hear, hear! It’s about getting lots of good working SMGs to the front ASAP until Enfield can develop a battle or assault rifle as cheaply as possible. (Personally I wish the Army did adopt the M1 Garand with the detachable magazine, preferably in the 7mm bullet it was designed for and the British army knew was the best calibre as early as 1913)
Alternatively instead of the somewhat anemic .30 Carbine, someone could have a brainwave and create an intermediate round out of .303, which would be mostly identical to what the Soviets did, shrink the Garand action and make something like the Soviet SKS or American Ruger Mini-30. But that’s unlikely to be Mr Carden, so I’m off topic, alas.
Finally, for the wiser minds; without the panic, why would the UK & Commonwealth not go directly to the Sterling SMG?
No one is changing calibre with a war on, which is also the only reason 303 was still around. It was going to be changed but WW1 came along and then afterwards a combination of massive stores of bullets/rifles and lack of funds meant it lasted till WW2 kicked off and reprieved it again.
For the BSA/Kirlay SMG from 1938 I have found a quoted cost of £5 each for the six prototypes. These had the complicated flywheel rate reduce as part of the trigger mechanism and therefore with the simplified trigger later designed by Kirlay should not in Mass production even cost this much. All in all if adopted instead of the Lanchester in 1939/40 they might well have become an iconic British weapon.
With the magazine folding up under the forearm and a folding stock they could have ITTL been a very useful carbine issued initially to tank crews.
With the magazine folding up under the forearm and a folding stock they could have ITTL been a very useful carbine issued initially to tank crews.
marathag
Banned
Anemic compared to current full power rifle rounds, yes.
Vs pistol rounds used in SMGs?
It is mighty.
A hot 9mm load has 700J of power.
30 Carbine is almost twice that, around 75% of the power of 5.56mm
It didn’t exist yet. The Sterling was developed by the lead engineer at Sterling arms in response to a specification put out by the Army in 1944. That specification was based on considerable experience with the Sten and comparative testing with other SMG’s. In the early part of the war the Army doesn’t really have the experience to write the specification the way they did and Sterling is unlikely to come up with what they did in 1944 either. If the Army had more experience to know what it wanted from an SMG earlier, then maybe, but still not guaranteed.
I am pretty sure that was either marketing or poor price estimation on the part of BSA. I could be wrong of course but looking at the prices of other SMG’s and their relative sizes and complexities, that £5 number from BSA kind of screams underestimate.
@ Marathag: Quite, but then if .30 Carbine doesn’t replace a rifle round, and merely adds to the collection of sidearm cartridges in use is it worth it? (I suppose it’s extra recoil wouldn’t be a major factor against it.) On the flip side it might replace .45ACP?
@ Artos: With access to German designs earlier, and less of a panic for the Sten, my point is could it not likely be in service a year earlier? And with more time, I’d imagine upgrades in the Sterling could be added to TTL’s Sten?
Last edited:
I would tend to agree but that is the only figure I have found, however I have yet to find the source of that price.
BSA thought that they could make them for £5 a gun
And Kiraly in his later efforts (Danuiva 39.M submachine gun) simplified the trigger group (this from feedback from the British) so I suspect that would happen here if the design was adopted
And in 1939 the British are not wedded on any pistol cartridge, with the Lanchester not in production until 1941 and the Thompson available in such small numbers (April 1940 it was 3 guns per battalion and issued to patrols) so the 9 x 25mm Mauser is not really an issue as what ever gun they chose they would likely have to start large scale ammunition production for that calibre anyway.
That would be true for any SMG/PDW adopted by the British in WWII. The standard British pistol rounds aren't suitable for the role, being both rimmed and low power.
I doubt it. The Sterling was not based on German designs. The specification that birthed the Stirling called for the new weapon to:
“ weigh no more than six pounds (2.7 kg), should fire 9×19mm Parabellum ammunition, have a rate of fire of no more than 500 rounds per minute and be sufficiently accurate to allow five consecutive shots (fired in semi-automatic mode) to be placed inside a one-foot-square (30 cm × 30 cm) target at a distance of 100 yd (91 m).”
Sterling submachine gun - Wikipedia
The MP-40 was over 8 lbs and automatic only. So what from that list would the MP-40 convince the British is possible that the MP-28 did not?It took experience using, and modifying the weapons to inform that spec.
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
In a more perfect world, yes.
It would have been better to declare the M1911 Pistol and M1928 SMG as Substitute Standard, with limited production for L-L with the Standardization of the M1 Carbine in October, 1941
But to better fill the roles, have an early M2 Carbine with a longer magazine and heavier, shorter barrel for SMG, and to replace the pistol, make a PDW type with shorter barrel than even the SMG type(cut back to the gas port), with just sling and pistol grip.
The Paratrooper equivalents would have a folding stock for SMG and Carbine.
At least 38 S&W, 9mm, 45 ACP, 455 Webley and 455 Webley Auto can all be fired from a pistol too (even if half of them are rimmed).
Unless there is a rush to adopt 30 Carbine, if we’re looking at developing a “non pistol SMG/PDW” round, it might make sense to take a bit longer to develop a “303 Kurtz”. I wouldn’t have thought .30 Carbine would work as a comfortable pistol round.
Maybe “303 Kurtz” could be developed by trimming the brass to be just enough to hold the powder charge from the old WWI trench/cadet rounds? And ideally removing the rim, too.
But that’s going too far off topic from the most likely “improved Sten”
I think all of this discussion about optimum small arms for the British Army in this tl ignores the simple fact. In British Army doctrine of the time individual small arms were regarded as essentially irrelevant. The primary weapons of the infantry platoon was the Bren LMG, grenades both rifle and conventional and the 2-inch mortar. The Army didn't regard rifles or SMG's as effective weapons in large scale peer warfare and was unwilling to spend anything more than the bare minimum amount of money on them. That's why they stuck with the No. 4 and the Sten, a combination which may not have been brilliant but was very, very cheap freeing resources for weapons the Army did regard as effective; tanks, mortars, heavy machine guns and above all Artillery, the Queen of Battle.
A more effective performance in the early years of the war is not going to convince the British Army that this approach is wrong. I really can't see how in this tl the individual small arms will be anything other than the No.4 and the Sten.
A more effective performance in the early years of the war is not going to convince the British Army that this approach is wrong. I really can't see how in this tl the individual small arms will be anything other than the No.4 and the Sten.
marathag
Banned
Part of that, was from the loss of so many arms in France. ITTL, the British Army isn't as desperate, so is possible a slightly nicer STEN is there from the start, rather than waiting for the Mk V late in the War
There is still a case to be made for the crude Sten MkII. They're just about perfect for the Special Operations Executive and the various resistance movements.