WW II British tanker's assessment of the Sten and .38 Webley

[4V50 Gary]

From the recently published book, Tank Action by David Render, we get troop leader Render's opinion of British small arms.

Unlike the infantry, where the .303 Bren light machine-gun and Lee Enfield bolt-action rifle were standard personal weapons, tank crewmen were issued with .38 Webley Mark VI revolvers and 9mm Sten submachine guns. The Sten was cheap and simple in both design and manufacture. Costing five shillings to produce, its simplicity also meant that it was prone to discharge accidentally. You only had to drop it on the ground, and it would fire off without the trigger being touched. Its horizontally fitted side magazine also made it awkward to handle from the hatch of a tank. As well as being dangerous, it also had a propensity to jam. The .38 revolvers were also standard issue throughout the army. Utterly reliable, they were also completely useless. Although it kicked like a mule and required you to fire it cowboy style with the aid of your left hand over the top for the weapon, the revolver lacked penetrating power. Additionally, it was high inaccurate and you would be lucky if you could hit a man-sized target from twenty paces. The characteristics of the weapons hardly made them conducive for use in the close confines of Shermans or in situations where they would need to be brought to bear quickly and effectively. Consequently, I was resolved to replace them as soon as possible and traversing ground that had previously been held by the enemy provided an opportunity, as the quality of their automatic small arms was much better than ours."

No better than a college kid, Render equips himself with a P-08 Parabellum as well as a MP-40. He uses the P-08 to shoot out streetlights and has matches with other troop leaders on shooting lights. He also gets a MP-40 and uses it to kill a German who wanted to throw a potato masher down his turret.

Render's squadron commander, Capt. John Semken, gets into a close range duel against a Tiger I. Knowing that the AP round was ineffective against the frontal armor of a Tiger, he instructed his squadron to use only HE and to smother the Tiger with them. If nothing else, it could break the periscopes and vision blocks and disable the Tiger. His gunner does just that and when the Tiger's driver is injured, the commander orders his crew to abandon their tank.

The book is a good read for anyone interested in WW II tank combat.

[Danoobie]

It does seem odd that an army which fielded the sturdy and efficient Enfield would
saddle their tankers with such shoddy sidearms and subs. There probably can be
no worse endorsement for a sidearm than to say "We replaced it with an enemy's
pistol at the first opportunity."

[44 AMP]

There probably can be
no worse endorsement for a sidearm than to say "We replaced it with an enemy's
pistol at the first opportunity."

Like the number of GIs in Viet Nam who "replaced" their M16 with an AK-47 when they got a chance??

The .38 revolvers were also standard issue throughout the army. Utterly reliable, they were also completely useless. Although it kicked like a mule and required you to fire it cowboy style with the aid of your left hand over the top for the weapon, the revolver lacked penetrating power. Additionally, it was high inaccurate and you would be lucky if you could hit a man-sized target from twenty paces.

I find this interesting, and typically British.

Small arms training, particularly handgun, during WWII was not extensive, in any army. I'm sure the author is honestly recounting his experience. as he remembers it.

The British .38/200 round is the US .38 S&W, it is NOT as powerful as the .38 Special. Muzzle velocity is in the 600fps range.

Yet the gun "kicked like a mule" but at the same time "lacked penetrating power" and you were lucky to hit a man at 20 paces...

I think, like a lot of other young lads who went to war, he never got any kind of decent training with his issue weapons, and formed some opinions that while valid for him, shouldn't always be applied as a general rule.

The trigger of the .38 Enfields are not great (DA is very heavy) and the sights are poor, making the gun difficult to shoot well, but not impossible for someone experienced.

[tangolima]

A few things doesn't sound right.

The .38 webley shouldn't kick that bad. I don't get why it needed to be fired in "cowboy style". The sten was cheap. But 5 schillings is 1/4 of a pound or $1. The liberator in 45acp cost about $2 at the time . That makes no sense.

A sten could fire when dropped? I have heard it was uncomfortable to shoot and the trigger was lousy. Haven't heard it was unsafe. It shouldn't be clumsier than any other sub-gun with magazine sticking out, sideway or not.

A P-08 is nice to look at. In real battle, I would have a Browning hi power or even a Walter p38. Luger and mp40? They might be shot by other tommies thinking they were jerries in British uniforms.

I would take the gentleman's words with a grain of salt.

-TL

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[DaleA]

Thanks for the book recommendation. Sounds very interesting.

There's been a couple of WWII books that have come out fairly recently that have been really good, first person accounts of what went on in WWII. Another is 'Thunder Below' a WWII submarine book by Eugene B. Fluckey who, among other things, sent some of his sailors ashore to set charges so a railroad train would be blown up. It was interesting to hear them discuss what to use for a triggering device.

Thunder Below:
https://www.amazon.com/Thunder-Below...=thunder+below

Tank Action:
https://www.amazon.com/Tank-Action-A...5807481&sr=1-1

[444]

I have owned both weapons.

With the Sten SMG, I agree with him. It malfunctions regularly and the sights are basically just for looks. I sold mine: I was trying to compete in local club matches with it but it wasn't competitive. It wasn't reliable and was difficult to hit anything with. I had a goofy set-up on mine using a red dot that was basically attached to the receiver with a muffler clamp type of thing some local guy made that had two clamps with a piece of rail on it. IF you could get through a stage without having a malfunction, you had a chance to win. I never dropped mine, so I don't know about that.

The pistol on the other hand, I still own and I really like it. Mine is quite accurate and has almost no recoil at all. As was mentioned, this round is not as potent as a .38 Special: recoil is not much more than a .22 LR.

[4V50 Gary]

I personally don't think the 38 Webley needs to be fired "cowboy" style (not sure what "cowboy style" is despite his description of left hand over the top). Rather it's rather the lack of proper firearms instructions with revolvers at Sandhurst.

As for the Sten, it's fired from an open bolt. The early Uzis that didn't have the grip safety were also know to discharge when dropped.

Re: Thunder Below, I have an autographed copy from Adm. Flunkey.

[mcb66]

I let a British friend shoot my handguns on one of his visits over. Just regular old .38s and .45s. He had exactly the same response. I believe seeing all the cowboy movies and having never actually fired a weapon distorted his perception of recoil. He was surprised to say the least.

[tangolima]

Originally Posted by 4V50 Gary

I personally don't think the 38 Webley needs to be fired "cowboy" style (not sure what "cowboy style" is despite his description of left hand over the top). Rather it's rather the lack of proper firearms instructions with revolvers at Sandhurst.

Perhaps the left hand was to cock the hammer after each shot. I can't believe Sandhurst or the army didn't teach them something this basic. How could he possibly do any better with the German weapons? I just added another grain of salt in my alphabet soup.

-TL

[Mike Irwin]

"A sten could fire when dropped? I have heard it was uncomfortable to shoot and the trigger was lousy. Haven't heard it was unsafe. It shouldn't be clumsier than any other sub-gun with magazine sticking out, sideway or not."

Yes, it could. If the bolt was closed on an empty chamber, and it was dropped on the butt, inertia could cause the bolt to compress just enough to strip a round from the magazine and fire it.

That was a trait that was a problem with a number of submachine gun designs, mostly those that "slam" fired from an open bolt and which had a fixed firing pin.

The MK IV and later versions corrected this problem by allowing the cocking handle to be locked into a slot when the bolt was down on an empty chamber.

The Sten might not have been the best weapon, but it was what Britain needed. After Dunkirk, the British had to replace huge amounts of weapons for its standing army and also had to equip new troops. Production of the Lee Enfield wasn't enough to cover it all, and supplies of the Thompson from the United States also couldn't be counted on to fill the need.

Copying the MP-40 magazine also brought known problems to the Sten. The location of the magazine on the side was an issue for armor troops, as it made the gun a lot more difficult to handle.

But, it was still better than nothing.


Regarding the revolver, remember that armor troops were issued double-action only versions of the Enfield, the No 2 Mk I*, due to complaints about the hammer spur catching on things inside the tank.

I agree that the author's complaints about inaccuracy are more of a training issue. All of the DAO Enfields I've fired over the years have had relatively light double action pulls, certainly better than the Nagant, or even the DA first shot pull on the Walther P38.

[Danoobie]

"like the number of guys in Vietnam, who "replaced" their M16 with an AK47 when they got a chance ?"

There ya go. Just like that.

[44 AMP]

That was a trait that was a problem with a number of submachine gun designs, mostly those that "slam" fired from an open bolt and which had a fixed firing pin.

Which is exactly why the M3/M3A1 cover locks the bolt in place, when closed.

Copying the MP-40 magazine also brought known problems to the Sten. The location of the magazine on the side was an issue for armor troops, as it made the gun a lot more difficult to handle.

Quite true. BUT, while a PITA for armor crewmen, the side mounted magazine allowed infantry Sten users to take, and shoot from a "low prone" position, lower than you can get with any conventional bottom magazine SMG.

not sure what "cowboy style" is despite his description of left hand over the top

I got to thinking about this....clearly "cowboy" style means something different on the other side of the pond. Also the time (era) he was in, I'm thinking "cowboy style" comes from watching US cowboy movies, where actors are fanning SA's. To someone who knows almost nothing about single actions (or cowboys), it would LOOK like the cowboy puts his left hand on top of the gun to hold it down, not realizing its being done to cock the gun.

Another good read about tanks & tankers is "Death Traps" by Belton Cooper. Cooper worked tank recovery, and is brutally honest about the way our command created high losses. After the unexpectedly high losses fighting our way out of Normandy, replacing / repairing a knocked out tank was easier than finding TRAINED replacement crewmen.

Literally, if a replacement recruit had seen a tank in basic training, he got put into a tank in France. Sometimes, green crews got a chance to fire a few shots, before going into combat, but not always, by any means.

[Pilot]

Originally Posted by tangolima

A P-08 is nice to look at. In real battle, I would have a Browning hi power or even a Walter p38. Luger and mp40? They might be shot by other tommies thinking they were jerries in British uniforms.

I would take the gentleman's words with a grain of salt.

My experience with the P-08 (non combat) has been excellent. I have a 1941 Mauser Luger which is very accurate, and has been 100% reliable over the 23 years I have owned it. This is with my reloads, both FMJ, and HP, and a variety of factory stuff from crappy WWB to Hornady HP defense ammo. It shoots EVERYTHING, and has never hiccupped.

I wish I had an MP-40.

[tangolima]

Originally Posted by Pilot

My experience with the P-08 (non combat) has been excellent. I have a 1941 Mauser Luger which is very accurate, and has been 100% reliable over the 23 years I have owned it. This is with my reloads, both FMJ, and HP, and a variety of factory stuff from crappy WWB to Hornady HP defense ammo. It shoots EVERYTHING, and has never hiccupped.

I wish I had an MP-40.

My hand hurt after loading a Luger's magazine without the tool. I wouldn't want to do that in combat if there is choice.

-TL

[tangolima]

Originally Posted by Mike Irwin

Yes, it could. If the bolt was closed on an empty chamber, and it was dropped on the butt, inertia could cause the bolt to compress just enough to strip a round from the magazine and fire it.

That was a trait that was a problem with a number of submachine gun designs, mostly those that "slam" fired from an open bolt and which had a fixed firing pin.

It is indeed possible. The recoil spring is also the main spring to ignite the cartridge, so it must be rather stout. The back end of the gun must be landing on hard surface pretty hard for the bolt to clear the first round in the magazine. But it must not be too hard as the sear would catch the bolt. It must be dropped just right. But it is possible I agree.

Does the mp-40 have the same feature? It is also an open bolt design.

-TL

Edit: Holding down a revolver with left hand? That hand would hurt pretty bad.

[Mike Irwin]

Early production MP-38s would fire if dropped on the butt with the bolt down on an empty chamber.

Later production MP-38s, and all MP-40s, had notches that the bolt handle could be pushed into to serve as a safety. The forward notch served to hold the bolt closed and prevent drop fires.

This replica (scroll through the pictures) shows the notches.

http://www.jbmilitaryantiques.com.au...-gun-by-denix/

[DaleA]

Re: Thunder Below, I have an autographed copy from Adm. Flunkey.

I am very impressed.

I should have mentioned that among Adm. Flunkey's many decorations is the Medal of Honor.

I also should have mentioned that it was very interesting to see how a submarine crew were able to arm and outfit the shore party, made up of the sailors on the submarine, that blew up the train. It wasn't their primary mission but was a target of opportunity.

They also launched rockets off the deck of the submarine to bombard the shore IIRC.

[44 AMP]

You can get certain SMG bolts to "bounce" without dropping them. You can swing an M3 (cover open bolt forward), and give it a sudden stop, and the bolt WILL move, maybe enough to strip a round and fire it. I've done it with EMPTY guns, I know it can happen.

Again, cover open. With the cover closed, the bolt is going nowhere, unless the tab holding it breaks.

Jumping down from a truck, tank, apc, with the cover open, bolt forward COULD be enough to cause a discharge. DOING it with your finger on the trigger could dump part of the mag, or all of it, if you don't react fast enough.

[Mike Irwin]

"The recoil spring is also the main spring to ignite the cartridge, so it must be rather stout."

Actually, not really.

Most submachine guns in this class have a relatively heavy bolt. It's the bolt's inertia that helps keep the action closed until pressure in the barrel drops enough for the action to open safely.

By comparison, the main spring on most of these guns is relatively light. It really only needs to be heavy enough to arrest rearward motion of the bolt and push it forward again. It's the bolt's inertia that does the lion's share of actually firing the cartridge, not spring pressure.

Of course, you do need a certain level of spring pressure to ensure that the bolt is arrested in its rearward movement and it moves quickly enough on the forward stroke, but it's not as much as you'd really think.

[Mike Irwin]

"In real battle, I would have a Browning hi power or even a Walter p38."

I'd rather have a Hi Power just for the magazine capacity.

But remember, the Luger saw the German military through two world wars and through their period of Colonial expansion. It was well regarded as being reliable and accurate, even in very adverse conditions in the trenches.

[tangolima]

Originally Posted by Mike Irwin

"The recoil spring is also the main spring to ignite the cartridge, so it must be rather stout."

Actually, not really.

Most submachine guns in this class have a relatively heavy bolt. It's the bolt's inertia that helps keep the action closed until pressure in the barrel drops enough for the action to open safely.

By comparison, the main spring on most of these guns is relatively light. It really only needs to be heavy enough to arrest rearward motion of the bolt and push it forward again. It's the bolt's inertia that does the lion's share of actually firing the cartridge, not spring pressure.

Of course, you do need a certain level of spring pressure to ensure that the bolt is arrested in its rearward movement and it moves quickly enough on the forward stroke, but it's not as much as you'd really think.

I see. There is perhaps another good reason to use lighter spring and longer bolt travel. To reduce cycling rate that is. All that makes this sort of unintentionally dischage more probable.

Not that it makes things any better, the discharge is most probably only one round. Hard for any one to keep the trigger pulled, while letting the bolt go rearward this far. I could be under estimating the creativity of certain kind.

Thanks for info.

-TL

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[Mike Irwin]

A lighter spring with longer bolt travel also gives a relatively softer feel to recoil and also makes the gun easier to cock, but it also makes the gun relatively harder to shoot accurately because the length of bolt travel tends to "walk" the gun.

[tangolima]

Originally Posted by Mike Irwin

"In real battle, I would have a Browning hi power or even a Walter p38."

I'd rather have a Hi Power just for the magazine capacity.

But remember, the Luger saw the German military through two world wars and through their period of Colonial expansion. It was well regarded as being reliable and accurate, even in very adverse conditions in the trenches.

The Luger is not bad. But there were plenty of better, perhaps more accessible, choices in 9mm. Browning, Walter, the antiquated steyr hahn, Astra. That goes to the questionable judgement of the book's author. He was no doubt a very respected tanker. But I find his statement on small arms a bit, the way Brits like to put it, ballocky.

-TL

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[Mike Irwin]

They're only more accessible if you're either issued one or if you manage to capture one. Obviously, he wasn't issued one, as he talks about the .380 revolver, and almost all of the Hi Powers available to the British military were going to specialized troops, so capture is it.

Once you've captured a pistol to replace the gun you don't like, it's a lot less likely that you're going to search for a different one to replace the one you've got, especially given that the Luger was iconic and was considered to be quite the trophy.

We're looking at it from the point of view of gun guys.

He's obviously looking at it from the point of someone who has to fight, and wants better weapons, even if that means using captured weapons.

[SIGSHR]

I suspect soldiers always complain about "lack of stopping power" to make up for inadequate training and poor marksmanship-cf. all the stories from Korea of M1 Carbine rounds failing to penetrate the Chinese padded uniforms. Though again, at 0200 in ten degrees below zero weather, howling winds, and a groggy and exhausted and sleep deprived GI or Marine. Likewise people have a "greatly exaggerated" view of fully automatic weapons, think all one has to do is "spray and pray".