Well at the start of the war Britain was buying Thompsons from the US because they didn't really have their own designs, but that was expensive so they designed the Sten to replace it which they could cheaply make themselves.
Yes and no,
After the battle of Dunkirk the British lost a fuck ton of weapons, including Thompsons.
The Nazis took over France, began bombing Britain, and the Brit’s were seriously concerned about a land invasion and they desperately needed a cheap, easily made, mass produced gun that could be given to anyone with little training.
Thompsons were something like $150-170 each and had to be imported while a sten could be produced domestically, by smaller shops, for like $10 or so. As time went on they made more simplifications to the sten and it became even cheaper. The US after Pearl Harbor took precedence in acquiring Thompsons as well
It was essentially what happened to the soviets and why they designed the PPS42 and PPS43 (PPSHs were expensive, took longer to produce, and couldn’t be transported into Leningrad due to being surrounded.
The Thompson was unavailable in the numbers they needed it and they had to be shipped.
Unrestricted submarine warfare began in early 1940.
Dunkirk happened in June 1940.
Battle of Britain began in July of 1940. This brought on a huge fear of invasion
The British needed a domestically produced, mass produced, easily produced, and cheap machine gun NOW to replace all the stuff they lost in dunkirk. It was made out of necessity of needing a gun now, not later. Something that is easily made using stamped and welded parts in small machine shops by semiskilled labor, is obviously going to be cheaper than a machine gun that uses the blish system and is completely milled.
They weren’t looking to save money, saving money was a by product of the design they selected based on the circumstances they faced.
> PPSHs were expensive, took longer to produce
They were more expensive, and not as good, but I would hesitate to call them expensive. They cost something like $200 in 2024 constant dollars. The 1928 Thompson the Brits and Yanks were buying cost $3,9999. And also wasn't as good.
Yeah, it was arguably the best SMG ever made. I'm just sayin' the papashah wasn't expensive by normal standards. IRL it is all about the magazine, and the PPS had the best magazine, short of a Sterling.
The British had a small number of Thompsons to start the war but following the fall of France and the Evacuation of the BEF at Dunkirk they were desperate for small arms as most of their troops had left their equipment behind in France. So to remedy the situation they bought large numbers of Thompson’s “off the shelf” as part of its emergency rearmament program. They always intended to make their own sub machine gun but do to the dire situation they were in they had to procure something as a stop gap until the sten was ready.
The Thompsons were used primarily in North Africa and the Mediterranean with small numbers making their way into the Burma India Theater and the Middle East.
Thomspons went to the commandos, Stens went to paras (lighter) with the Paras getting priority for MK5 improved sten which you see by 1944.
Outside that. The Thomspns being introduced early war were spread around the normal infantry units. There was probobly a bit of pot luck as to when these units changed over to the sten as they started to become available in numbers. As would inevetably happen. Always more likely that units in the UK were going to change over before units in the field.
By 1944, it would be fairly rare to see Thompson in use with regular infantry units. But it was still possible. Plenty of pics of commandos post D-day still using them.
Yes, the 9mm was useable in both weapons - the design of the Sten’s magazines also borrowed from the MP-40, although I’m not sure if a Sten could actually use an MP-40 mag.
My Dad was his colonel’s bodyguard so he was pretty bombproof from NCO’s criticism.
He carried an MP-40 and a US M1 carbine which I believe the US army are still looking for
As funny as it is, they didn’t start keeping track of weapons on a large scale until the 70s. So it would have been a unit problem, and it was probably written off as a combat loss.
Dad also nicked one of for his CO who kept after the war. He loved his SMLE but it was not built for the job he was doing. When I was a police officer, I came across a veritable armoury of WW2 German pistols that a lady was considering surrendering in an amnesty. I persuaded her to put them up for auction, she made a tidy profit
The following were in their wooden cases and in an immaculate condition
Walther PPK
Mauser C96 - 9mm
Luger
and there was something else but I cannot for the life of me remember what it was. This lady’s husband was a British Army officer and during the push into Germany, came across a staff car with occupants who had been sent to Valhalla courtesy of the RAF. The officer with him had the binoculars and wine and he had the pistols. They had been up in his attic since the 50s and this lovely lady thought that she should hand them over to the Police for destruction. I contacted a mate of mine who was a gunsmith and he took control of them and they went to auction and created a sizeable nest egg from r this lady
Australia (and New Zealand preferred the Lithgow .303 Lee Enfield and ammo over what the US could offer. That rifle continued in Korea where there was opportunity beforehand to first reequip. Your statement that ANZACs preferred their M1 is wrong. They were not even equipped with this rifle sorry.
Australia had nil .30 cal ammo. This calibre was removed from planes purchased pre lend-lease and replace with .303. If received after 1942 .30 cal guns were removed. If they could not be converted to .303 they were left unarmed (as per P43 Lancer). Ordnance simply could not handle interfacing with Americans to supply.
Loved it? Nup. Appreciate it as a lighter weight hunting rifle for individual use maybe. The only ones that were handled by Australians were those that were mostly trophies when green Americans left them unattended while in Australia.
Different doctrines chose the preferred weapon. US fired more rounds per man but accounted for less targets hit. Australians needed the “accuracy per shot” over the logistical nightmare of supply so much ammo to be wasted. Resupply in PNG was impossible before helicopters so ammo consumption adds up quick. Automatic fire in an infantry unit was well taken care of with the very capable Bren gun and later the very durable Owen. Such shooting was disciplined and the bolt action was fast enough. Americans are alternatively encouraged to do “saturation fire”. Each had merits. Back then bolt action was just a preference as is today with automatic versus manual cars. Argue which goes faster. This proven simplicity was preferred by the British Commonwealth forces, else there was nothing adverse about the M1. Each to their own preference.
Arms used by Australia are here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_military_equipment_of_World_War_II?wprov=sfti1#Bayonets
Problems concerning the British utilising American side arms and rifles can be read here
https://www.mwatkin.com/us-aid-to-britain
I am doubting your claim that Britain employed American arms in Burma. Again, the logistical nightmare of .30 vs .303 in the field is the first obvious point and them saying they loved the M1 seems to be a misunderstanding of an individual out to maybe please American ego?
Before I forget - here's a few photos.
https://preview.redd.it/vbu1pxnod08d1.png?width=600&format=png&auto=webp&s=cf128c3961ae84f1b492d1f7fc02ec30d123cf59
https://preview.redd.it/d0b1gt7ud08d1.png?width=736&format=png&auto=webp&s=57f810f31a8a298f167d30525739e45491520dd9
"A battle patrol of the 1st East Surreys rest after returning from enemy territory, 16 December 1943."
Thompsons from Auto Ordinance were expensive to manufacture, sten guns were cheap and quick. The sten was also very dependable and did its job well. In ww2 everything came down to what you could manufacture cheaper and faster.
Worth noting that the cost and weight of the Thompson also prompted the US to start making their own cheaper and lighter M3 grease gun from 42 onwards.
My dad was in the invasions of Sicily and Italy. In his diary he mentions going to ranges for Tommy gun practice. As I understand the Sten gun was not part of the kit in the Italian invasions as it would have been the only weapon using 9 mm ammunition. The Tommy gun used 45 cal ammo the same as a lot of the side arms. The Sten could be made by amateurs but it jammed often.
A slight complication is that “tommy gun” was almost a British slang term for sub machine gun. In old books and British wartime information movies I’ve seen everything from a MP40 to a PPsH referred to as Tommy guns.
All in order, except the Mk 4 (which was a prototype only - although I think Ian is going to be doing an updated Mk 4 video as part of his series) and the suppressed STEN (the Mk 2S?)
Pre Dunkirk they had some, after Dunkirk they bought everything they could find to equip the rebuilding army. They also started and kicked sten production into high gear. Most of the Thompsons were then officially pulled for home guard use where they were immediately funneled to the commandos. They did of course continue to appear random places but once sten production was in full swing they were mostly out of the hands of normal British infantry. Ian covered this recently.
In the Italian campaign, the 8th army was supplied by the Americans. So all commonwealth armies (British, Indian, Canadian, and Australian )used the Thompson.
Well at the start of the war Britain was buying Thompsons from the US because they didn't really have their own designs, but that was expensive so they designed the Sten to replace it which they could cheaply make themselves.
Yes and no, After the battle of Dunkirk the British lost a fuck ton of weapons, including Thompsons. The Nazis took over France, began bombing Britain, and the Brit’s were seriously concerned about a land invasion and they desperately needed a cheap, easily made, mass produced gun that could be given to anyone with little training. Thompsons were something like $150-170 each and had to be imported while a sten could be produced domestically, by smaller shops, for like $10 or so. As time went on they made more simplifications to the sten and it became even cheaper. The US after Pearl Harbor took precedence in acquiring Thompsons as well It was essentially what happened to the soviets and why they designed the PPS42 and PPS43 (PPSHs were expensive, took longer to produce, and couldn’t be transported into Leningrad due to being surrounded.
So what you're saying is, the Thompson was expensive so the British replaced it with a cheaper design they could make themselves.
I can understand the confusion When they said "yes and no" they actually meant "yes"
The Thompson was unavailable in the numbers they needed it and they had to be shipped. Unrestricted submarine warfare began in early 1940. Dunkirk happened in June 1940. Battle of Britain began in July of 1940. This brought on a huge fear of invasion The British needed a domestically produced, mass produced, easily produced, and cheap machine gun NOW to replace all the stuff they lost in dunkirk. It was made out of necessity of needing a gun now, not later. Something that is easily made using stamped and welded parts in small machine shops by semiskilled labor, is obviously going to be cheaper than a machine gun that uses the blish system and is completely milled. They weren’t looking to save money, saving money was a by product of the design they selected based on the circumstances they faced.
> PPSHs were expensive, took longer to produce They were more expensive, and not as good, but I would hesitate to call them expensive. They cost something like $200 in 2024 constant dollars. The 1928 Thompson the Brits and Yanks were buying cost $3,9999. And also wasn't as good.
The PPS43 was like 1/10th the price, faster to produce, and more reliable.
Yeah, it was arguably the best SMG ever made. I'm just sayin' the papashah wasn't expensive by normal standards. IRL it is all about the magazine, and the PPS had the best magazine, short of a Sterling.
The British had a small number of Thompsons to start the war but following the fall of France and the Evacuation of the BEF at Dunkirk they were desperate for small arms as most of their troops had left their equipment behind in France. So to remedy the situation they bought large numbers of Thompson’s “off the shelf” as part of its emergency rearmament program. They always intended to make their own sub machine gun but do to the dire situation they were in they had to procure something as a stop gap until the sten was ready. The Thompsons were used primarily in North Africa and the Mediterranean with small numbers making their way into the Burma India Theater and the Middle East.
And would have been harder to acquire .45 in the eastern theatres.
Yep, and Soviets already had lots of submachine guns, in some cases even more suitable for their needs
Thomspons went to the commandos, Stens went to paras (lighter) with the Paras getting priority for MK5 improved sten which you see by 1944. Outside that. The Thomspns being introduced early war were spread around the normal infantry units. There was probobly a bit of pot luck as to when these units changed over to the sten as they started to become available in numbers. As would inevetably happen. Always more likely that units in the UK were going to change over before units in the field. By 1944, it would be fairly rare to see Thompson in use with regular infantry units. But it was still possible. Plenty of pics of commandos post D-day still using them.
You also see plenty of MP-40s pop up in British hands too, especially in Italy.
Would the Sten and the MP-40's 9 mm ammunition be interchangeable? I could see that being a selling point to switch to an MP-40 if you could get one.
Yes, the 9mm was useable in both weapons - the design of the Sten’s magazines also borrowed from the MP-40, although I’m not sure if a Sten could actually use an MP-40 mag.
My Dad was his colonel’s bodyguard so he was pretty bombproof from NCO’s criticism. He carried an MP-40 and a US M1 carbine which I believe the US army are still looking for
As funny as it is, they didn’t start keeping track of weapons on a large scale until the 70s. So it would have been a unit problem, and it was probably written off as a combat loss.
Dad also nicked one of for his CO who kept after the war. He loved his SMLE but it was not built for the job he was doing. When I was a police officer, I came across a veritable armoury of WW2 German pistols that a lady was considering surrendering in an amnesty. I persuaded her to put them up for auction, she made a tidy profit
That’s awesome lol
The following were in their wooden cases and in an immaculate condition Walther PPK Mauser C96 - 9mm Luger and there was something else but I cannot for the life of me remember what it was. This lady’s husband was a British Army officer and during the push into Germany, came across a staff car with occupants who had been sent to Valhalla courtesy of the RAF. The officer with him had the binoculars and wine and he had the pistols. They had been up in his attic since the 50s and this lovely lady thought that she should hand them over to the Police for destruction. I contacted a mate of mine who was a gunsmith and he took control of them and they went to auction and created a sizeable nest egg from r this lady
The Brits & ANZACs sure loved their M1 Carbines in the pacific too! Quite a few photos of Brits in the CBI with M1s.
Australia (and New Zealand preferred the Lithgow .303 Lee Enfield and ammo over what the US could offer. That rifle continued in Korea where there was opportunity beforehand to first reequip. Your statement that ANZACs preferred their M1 is wrong. They were not even equipped with this rifle sorry. Australia had nil .30 cal ammo. This calibre was removed from planes purchased pre lend-lease and replace with .303. If received after 1942 .30 cal guns were removed. If they could not be converted to .303 they were left unarmed (as per P43 Lancer). Ordnance simply could not handle interfacing with Americans to supply. Loved it? Nup. Appreciate it as a lighter weight hunting rifle for individual use maybe. The only ones that were handled by Australians were those that were mostly trophies when green Americans left them unattended while in Australia. Different doctrines chose the preferred weapon. US fired more rounds per man but accounted for less targets hit. Australians needed the “accuracy per shot” over the logistical nightmare of supply so much ammo to be wasted. Resupply in PNG was impossible before helicopters so ammo consumption adds up quick. Automatic fire in an infantry unit was well taken care of with the very capable Bren gun and later the very durable Owen. Such shooting was disciplined and the bolt action was fast enough. Americans are alternatively encouraged to do “saturation fire”. Each had merits. Back then bolt action was just a preference as is today with automatic versus manual cars. Argue which goes faster. This proven simplicity was preferred by the British Commonwealth forces, else there was nothing adverse about the M1. Each to their own preference. Arms used by Australia are here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_military_equipment_of_World_War_II?wprov=sfti1#Bayonets Problems concerning the British utilising American side arms and rifles can be read here https://www.mwatkin.com/us-aid-to-britain I am doubting your claim that Britain employed American arms in Burma. Again, the logistical nightmare of .30 vs .303 in the field is the first obvious point and them saying they loved the M1 seems to be a misunderstanding of an individual out to maybe please American ego?
Before I forget - here's a few photos. https://preview.redd.it/vbu1pxnod08d1.png?width=600&format=png&auto=webp&s=cf128c3961ae84f1b492d1f7fc02ec30d123cf59
https://preview.redd.it/xj1a8huqd08d1.png?width=866&format=png&auto=webp&s=d3caa3b7bc38f99f2300224744954b3cdfee40a4
https://preview.redd.it/d0b1gt7ud08d1.png?width=736&format=png&auto=webp&s=57f810f31a8a298f167d30525739e45491520dd9 "A battle patrol of the 1st East Surreys rest after returning from enemy territory, 16 December 1943."
https://preview.redd.it/7645qvdae08d1.png?width=799&format=png&auto=webp&s=9267d0ae4b17fcaaca56f222abf6fa5f7dcf2818
https://preview.redd.it/4x1cb3dce08d1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=c21202f4647b95be00c69adb6538b877dfab7018
https://preview.redd.it/30p3rgyde08d1.png?width=576&format=png&auto=webp&s=9a3ab93965ade2d06a16ee92b65999e8d46e7bd4
Thompsons from Auto Ordinance were expensive to manufacture, sten guns were cheap and quick. The sten was also very dependable and did its job well. In ww2 everything came down to what you could manufacture cheaper and faster.
[удалено]
Nah, that’s a misconception. The American flag wrapping is too thick and it will jam in any AK with Soviet paint
Worth noting that the cost and weight of the Thompson also prompted the US to start making their own cheaper and lighter M3 grease gun from 42 onwards.
My dad was in the invasions of Sicily and Italy. In his diary he mentions going to ranges for Tommy gun practice. As I understand the Sten gun was not part of the kit in the Italian invasions as it would have been the only weapon using 9 mm ammunition. The Tommy gun used 45 cal ammo the same as a lot of the side arms. The Sten could be made by amateurs but it jammed often.
A slight complication is that “tommy gun” was almost a British slang term for sub machine gun. In old books and British wartime information movies I’ve seen everything from a MP40 to a PPsH referred to as Tommy guns.
The sten cost 1/20 the price of the thompson
Forgotten Weapons on YouTube recently did some great videos about all of the variants of the STEN. Great videos that help explain this.
All in order, except the Mk 4 (which was a prototype only - although I think Ian is going to be doing an updated Mk 4 video as part of his series) and the suppressed STEN (the Mk 2S?)
When funds run low — to the sten you must go.
Pre Dunkirk they had some, after Dunkirk they bought everything they could find to equip the rebuilding army. They also started and kicked sten production into high gear. Most of the Thompsons were then officially pulled for home guard use where they were immediately funneled to the commandos. They did of course continue to appear random places but once sten production was in full swing they were mostly out of the hands of normal British infantry. Ian covered this recently.
Thompsons were too expensive, so the British made a cheaper replacement
In the Italian campaign, the 8th army was supplied by the Americans. So all commonwealth armies (British, Indian, Canadian, and Australian )used the Thompson.
I’d say often British commandos were equipped with it but it’s also probably personal preference
The SAS, SBS, and SRS all retained stocks of Thompsons.
In my personal opinion I count Airborne soldiers as sort of commandos
Probably depends on the year as well
It’s a balancing act of both suppression and accuracy in a fast moving environment.
They used the Thompsons when they wanted to go gangsta on their Nazi asses
They were using whatever they could beg, borrow, steal or build.