[quote name='GarandGuy' date='Dec 2 2005, 01:12 AM' post='19642']
Grubbins, [its GUBBINS - I can see why you changed it though] I hate to seem rude also, but what you said in regard to sapper's remarks could be considered disrespectful.
I dont think you are being rude, you're expressing your opinion also, a constitutional right of yours.
You will note I asked sapper to please read my post and respect my right to my view.
As a vet also (albeit of a different war) what you read in books is quite different to what we actually lived through. The Sten was rubbish, I've had the opportunity to handle several, the Mk V and the Mk II and while the V was better it was crap compared to other contemporary SMGs. You point out these books you've read that seem to disprove sapper's comments yet I can tell you books aren't the answer to everything.
I did say in my post that I didn't rely just on books and yet again I said I wasn't trying to be disrespectful. You imply I may be disrecpectful of veterans, but my grandfather a Dunkirk vet, my great uncle a former Swordfish Fleet Air Arm pilot and several other family members will vouch for me that I am not.
If you read a book about the M16A1 assault rifle in Vietnam, and the author happened to work at the Armalite company, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, or as a Army Ordnance deskwarmer, you would believe that the M16A1 was the picture of reliability and the grunts who died in the jungle because it jammed were at fault. These kind of people would have you believe that our soldiers and Marines in Vietnam died because they failed to properly maintain their weapons. I served in the bush for two years as a rifleman with 1st Battalion 9th Marines in the Nam and I and every other Marine I was with in B Company maintained our rifles properly and by the numbers. When firing on full auto you would get a jam every 3 or 4 rounds and on semi you could make it through about half the magazine before the weapon jammed. My point is that if I had posted that the M16A1 was rubbish and some armchair general who had never fired the weapon told me that I handled it wrong, I would be highly pissed.
Thanks for increasing my knowlege on the Vietnam period. I know nothing about this at all. I am citing a very highly respected book in my comments about the Sten. I am sure Mr Laidler did not write it because he wanted to back up the UK army and its choice of weapon, but more likely from 20 odd years experience as an armourer, I'm sure also the Enfield Pattern Rooms don't invite him and others like him to view their massive and rare collections for that reason either.
Back to the rest of your comments. On Stens prior to the Mk V you had no choice but to hold the magazine, as the barrel had no appropriate handguard and would become very hot after a magazine or two.
You are totally wrong on this. There was an issued spring fitted handguard for the Mk2 that went behind the barrel nut, there is one on the Sten in my collection and I have seen plenty of others. The Mk3 had a welded on finger lip for the little finger of the right hand to rest against when holding the weapon correctly [same as Mk2 handguard] to prevent the finger ending up in or over the cartridge ejection port.
Also, England made several million Stens for one reason. They were cheap (because of shoddy construction) and could arm many soldiers quicker than a quality SMG that wasn't pure ****.
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU. It was designed on Harold Turpins dining table one night. Partly this was because he knew we could make a cheaper throw away design based on a much simpler trigger mechanism and also because we could not afford the massive £55 plus EACH that the Thompsons were costing us from the US when we could make the Sten for about £8. Also, due to the fact that 20,000 of the Thompsons sadly went down when one of the supply ships was torpedoed I know you also would agree a cheap alternative was a good idea to a country just waiting to be invaded by the nazi jackboot.
The Owen is an example of a hastily made weapon that worked, however. It was as spidge described it, a real winner. The Thompson SMG was on the opposite end of the Owen and Sten. It weighed about the same as the Owen, but was more expensive to produce.
read MUCH more expensive!!!
It was also very robust and reliable, as all WWII U.S. infantry weapons were.
YES I agree with that too!
Also, the .45 ACP round leaves no doubt as to stopping power. I've seen firsthand what it does to the human body and if one is unfortunate enough to be hit in the torso he has slim chances indeed of surviving. The Thompson also fired fast and was accurate at 125 yards, which is as accurate as an SMG needs to be. So when you want to see the good SMGs of WWII look at the Thompson, Owen, and PPSh 41. The Sten is ****, end of story.
As I said already you're entitled to your opinion, do you see me arguing..? I have the right to my say, as a clever scientist of your country recently said, I even have the right to be wrong.
Please note I am not going to endlessly debate this with you garandGuy, I already stated that I wasn't going to argue this point and I was making MY opinion known. I hope you agree I have tried to do so respectfully. If you don't then I am sorry. If you knew me you'd know I have enormous respect for veterans of all wars and countries and what they went through. If you think it didn't come across because I say the Sten is better than what you think it is then its a slightly narrower and sadder world than I thought it was.
I look forward to hearing what "sapper" has to say. If he thought it was rubbish, well, like I said, I'm happy that we live in a world where he, and I, can express that opinion.
If you're reading this - thank a teacher. If you're reading it in English, thank a Veteran.
Kind Regards and Best Wishes
MG
Kind regards
Matt Gibb
04-08-2005, 09:54 PM
Linear Mode
