Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink
Sterling SMG
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by Ninja-Badger (U1689794) on Wednesday, 3rd August 2005
Whilst reading a book about the Falklands yesterday there was a photo of a bunch of paras, all of whom semed to be equipped with Sterlings.
The caption below the photo stated that in combat the paras often discarded their Sterlings in favour of the Argentinian FN.
Was this because of problems with the Sterling, or was it to do with availability of ammunition, ease of use of the FN etc? I thought the FN and the SLR were virtually the same other than the SLR was semi and the FN was full auto, which often caused more problems because of its rate of fire and its calibre.
Any thoughts greatly appreciated. -
Message 2
Posted by spainman (U1778626) on Wednesday, 3rd August 2005
I was one of the earliest British soldiers isssued with the Sterling, in Cyprus in April 1957. It was isued to NcoΒ·s in the infantry. It never gave trouble whilst the FNs(Belgian made) used by the riflemen were stripping the barrel rifling when fired on automatic and a pin had to be inserted by the trigger to stop them being fired on automatic and they could then only be used on single shots.
Other battalions, who had the SLR (British made),
had no problems.
I would add that nearly all the firing took place on the ranges! -
Message 3
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 3rd August 2005
Agreed totally with Spainman's comments, and also there is the issue of stopping power. An enemy hit by a 9mm round from an SMG is likely to still be capable of fighting (for example, a hit to the arm or leg will cause injury, but a 7.62 round from an FN or SLR will knock the enemy down, and do a lot more damage-there are reports of limbs being amputated by an SLR round) The SLR and FN was much more effective at stopping an enemy soldier, since the round fired is higher velocity and much more aerodynamic. Add to that the fact the SMG is more than likely being fired on full auto, so much less accurate, but the SLR is only semi auto, so the traditional "single, well-aimed shots" that the British soldier has always prided himself on.
I would guess that if going into combat, an SLR or FN (even when fired on auto-wildly inaccurate due to recoil) would be a much more effective weapon than the SMG.
Cheers -
Message 4
Posted by Ninja-Badger (U1689794) on Wednesday, 3rd August 2005
Which begs the question, why did they have sterlings in the first place?
-
Message 5
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 3rd August 2005
Not a clue ninjabadger,
I could understand the value of the SMG as a personal weapon for tank crews, where an SLR would be too damn long to be used effectively and a smaller weapon like the SMG would be much more convenient, or anyone carrying excessive equipment radio operators for example might find a lighter, smaller weapon useful.
Also begs the question "why did they issue the SA80"! It's heavily underpowered, has a tendency to fall apart and can't be fired left handed without pumping out hot empty cartridges into the firer's eye!
My guess would be that the MOD's weapons procurement people are either incompetent or slight mad.
Cheers -
Message 6
Posted by TerribleTomas (U1765869) on Wednesday, 3rd August 2005
I can think of two reasons why men might have 'abandoned' (surely you'd be put on a charge for 'losing' your SMG) their Sterling SMG or even the L1A1 SLR in favour of an Argentinian FN FAL
Extra Stopping power of 7.62mm round
Argentinian FN FAL had a folding stock
FAL was capable of full Auto fire if needed
(Presume again that you might end up on a charge if you 'fixed' an issue rifle to Fire on full auto - but then maybe this infraction might be looked at differently in a combat situation?)
I have also read that the Argentinian conscripts had in some cases allowed their rifles to become rusty and that some were in a very poor state -
Message 7
Posted by Mark (U1347077) on Thursday, 4th August 2005
I'm guessing but perhaps they were issued them as they were intending to use helicopters for deployment. The SLRs would have been bulky in the confines of a helicopter, while a smaller weapon would be easier if they had been deployed into close range. As it happened, they ended up 'yomping' but its a thought.
Has the SA-80 been sorted, yet? I thought a German company had fixed some of the problems or is it still poor? -
Message 8
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 4th August 2005
Hi Mahros,
Apparently the SA80 has been improved, but I couldn't really comment, haven't fired one since 99 (and I am heavily biased towards the SLR, so always thought it was rubbish!) -
Message 9
Posted by Ninja-Badger (U1689794) on Thursday, 4th August 2005
So given free rein, what would people replace the SA80 with?
FAMAS? G3? Go back to the Lee Enfield?! -
Message 10
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 4th August 2005
Probably go for either the MP5, AKM or 74, or that weird looking Austrian Steyr thing!
The Steyr I know nothing about, but it just looks kind of funky! -
Message 11
Posted by spainman (U1778626) on Thursday, 4th August 2005
Thanks for your ageement with my comments re the weapons, at least my two years were not completely wasted, although the army might have thought otherwise.
I would add, sadly however, that my comarade in Cyprus actualy shot and killed an EOKA terrorist with a Sterling. Whatever thier faults, the Sterling possibly saved the lifes of his patrol that day in 1957. -
Message 12
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 4th August 2005
The Army can be a complete a*se!
After all, they did approve the SA80 in the first place! Not entirely sure about military service being a waste, IMO it can be a very positive thing, and in my own case I strongly believe that it changed me from an apathetic loud mouthed teenager into something of a responsible adult in the space of a few short years.
With respect to your comrade in Cyprus, he was doing his job and protecting himself and his comrades, so he should be proud of his actions. Regardless of how the history books describe it, a war is still a war, and however small the outside world views it, it is a very big war to the people at the sharp end.
Best Wishes.
DL -
Message 13
Posted by Gilgamesh of Uruk (U211168) on Thursday, 4th August 2005
Luckily, I was never called upon to use the SMG in action, but it had its attractions - I'd probably have been offered a 9mm Browning instead. One unit (from memory 45 Cdo, the Black Shoe Commando) was held in defence around San Carlos / Ajax Bay, but was originally intended to take on any street fighting and house to house fighting in Stanley if that became necessary. In that particular role, an SMG might be better than an SLR.
-
Message 14
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 5th August 2005
Hi Enmerkar,
Agreed! SMG would be much better for urban close quarter stuff, where long range accurate shooting is not only not really possible, it isn't much of a requirement!
BTW, wouldn't have fancied going into combat with just a Browning! Always makes me think of Blackadder-the episode where they are about to go over the top, and George has to go back for his swagger stick, and Blackadder quips "Wouldn't want to charge a machine gun without your stick" Insanity. -
Message 15
Posted by JimdalftheTorquoise (U1823373) on Tuesday, 9th August 2005
The Sa 80 has been fixed, to an extent, by the German Company Heckler and Koch, and has been named the "SA 80 A2"... well, it makes sense
The Steyr AUG is a much better weapon than the SA, as it was based loosely on the EM-2, which was a british design from the fifties...
I think the reason those paras had the SMG is that the bulky SLR would have been hell to jump with, or perhaps they simply wanted a nice picture, so all men were given the girly SMG -
Message 16
Posted by Gilgamesh of Uruk (U211168) on Wednesday, 10th August 2005
DL -
Well, I'd have had something even more dangerous, in all probability.
A map.
Mind you, the Browning was always a bit of a problem for me - I'm left handed, and it slung the empties straight back in my face, still I shouldn't have joined if I couldn't take a joke, should I? -
Message 17
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 11th August 2005
Ha ha, the most deadly weapon in the world -THE MAP (especially when in the possession of a 2nd Lt!)
Wonder what it is that the Army has against left-handed people? The browning and the SA80 both!
Naturally you have to have a sense of humour to cope with any kind of military service, as they always used to say-if you can't hack it, hand your bedding in!
Oh well, off to laugh at Bad Lads'Army.
Cheers
DL -
Message 18
Posted by Gilgamesh of Uruk (U211168) on Friday, 12th August 2005
Oh come on, old friend:- At least Ruperts are used to walking about on dry land. Irrespective of how many gold rings an N.O. has, his immediate reaction to a map is to get back onto the blue bit, added to which the only personal weapon they normally see is a sword, and that's only on a parade ground.
-
Message 19
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 12th August 2005
Agreed!
They do tend to get confused by all the little lines and different colours on a map too!
However, in my experience a newly commissioned Army officer with a map is without doubt one of the most dangerous things in the military!
The one-pip wonder is without doubt something to be feared!
Here's a quick thought-why do retired officers seem to have the desire to retain their rank in civilian life (Example Major Smith-Smyth-Smith (Retd))? It does seem a little bizarre to me!
Cheers
Sgt DL (Retd)
-
Message 20
Posted by Gilgamesh of Uruk (U211168) on Friday, 12th August 2005
2nd Lt - about as dangerous as a snottie driving any kind of powered craft. Especially one, who, as I was, is supposedly being trained to fly. In WW2, people like me had to wear an "A" on their arm to indicate "Air" as a warning to all seamen that they were utterly untrustworthy. There were even those who averred it was "A for Amateur" - or various less printable alternatives.
I don't know why former officers want to hold on to their ranks, unless, of course, they've never really accepted that they are no longer the Great Green Cheeses they once were. One exception is Admirals, of course, who technically never retire, just go on half-pay. It's the same as MPs who are ex-officers, and thus referred to as "The Hon. and gallant member". Why them, and not ex-rankers? -
Message 21
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 12th August 2005
You have a good point there Harebut!
I do suspect that you are correct with your assumption that they are refusing to give up their "Big Cheese" status! Having thought through your notes "a snottie driving any sort of powered craft" being a source of worry, it is true to this day! We used to have great fun on exercises and operations alike seeing who could knock over the most roadsigns, or pop kerbstones with a Warrior while on the road! Strangely enough, people tend to drive with greater courtesy (even Land Rover and other 4x4 drivers) when confronted with a 25 ton Armoured vehicle!
Hmm interesting point, since all the Great Cheeses maintain their ranks in the real world, I propose this should be over-ruled when referring to Army ranks. Why? Well, it is a well known and regularly quoted fact that the Army is run by its Warrant Officers and NCOs, and the officers as a rule just make life difficult for them! So why do officers advertise their previous ranks and not rankers and NCOS? Probably because the NCOs and Rankers consider their final change of rank (to civilian) to be a good move! I for one can still remember with fondness the moment when I kicked off my combats for the last time (and threw them across the floor!).
Cheers -
Message 22
Posted by freedom-man (U1881025) on Wednesday, 17th August 2005
The Sterling was issued to radio-operators, drivers, posties and mortar / anti-tank type squaddies.
All about the extra weight that they would normally have to carry.
A lot of us would have prefered to be issued SLRs, but when the crunch came the main priority was to get fellers with shooters down there as fast as...
Unfortunately, as some of the other posts alluded to, it was never intended as an 'offensive' weapon, more as a means of self-defense.
The main reason so many 'Small Metal Guns' ended up in kit bags in favour of liberated FNs was that British ammo resupply was geared up for the front-line SLR, Gimpy and the modified Brens that QMs had scrounged up before departure. There simply wasn't enough 9mm knocking around! The stopping power was questionable, especially against an enemy wearing six layers of clothes topped off with a quilted parka! Body armour - pah! I vividly remember three of us throwing two mags a piece at a bunch of scampering sons of Galtierie at about 150m with zero effect. Then they realised they'd legged it into one of their own minefields and jacked it. When they'd eventually retraced their steps, three of the six had parkas that were puffing out feathers from holes where we'd actually hit them!
The FN that I 'accqured' after that episode was manufactured in the BSA small arms factory in Birmingham! It was so clean I honestly believe that it hadn't been fired. It wasn't a para type, I was worried that it couldn't stand up to the job! -
Message 23
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 18th August 2005
Freedom man,
Excellent stuff, I have a weird vision of a bunch of Argentine squaddies legging it in a cloud of feathers, then in true Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔr Simpson style, yelling "DOH!!" as they realise where they are!
Just add the Benny Hill music and that's it!
It is bizarre how many strange and silly incidents occur in combat. My own weird moment has to be during the first Gulf war, where a mad fool Iraqi soldier hiding in a shack built of corrugated iron decided to have a pop at 2 Warriors with an AK. Needless to say, the shack was immediately blown to bits by 30mm cannon and literally fell to pieces. We figured that was that for the mad Iraqi.
A few seconds later, the guy climbs out from the wrecked shack, and runs off at full pelt into the darkness, at which point, the entire Warrior crew simultaneously shout into the intercom...
"OOOOOh YOU LUCKY B****RD!!!!!" in Life of Brian style... -
Message 24
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Saturday, 22nd October 2005
The Stirling replaced the Sten, and was first issued to Paras if I remember rightly, (And I am going from a photo) to some units in time for Arhem.
Fred -
Message 25
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Saturday, 22nd October 2005
Here's a quick thought-why do retired officers seem to have the desire to retain their rank in civilian life (Example Major Smith-Smyth-Smith (Retd))? It does seem a little bizarre to me!
Μύ
Hiya DL,
Could it be because they continue to hold the Queens Commission ?
Cheers. -
Message 26
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Sunday, 23rd October 2005
Hi Enmerkar,
Agreed! SMG would be much better for urban close quarter stuff, where long range accurate shooting is not only not really possible, it isn't much of a requirement!
BTW, wouldn't have fancied going into combat with just a Browning! Always makes me think of Blackadder-the episode where they are about to go over the top, and George has to go back for his swagger stick, and Blackadder quips "Wouldn't want to charge a machine gun without your stick" Insanity.
Μύ
Hi DL, I could never have thought of going into combat without my HP, a wonderful side-arm that we all had confidence in.
In some situation in NI particularly I used the HP as a primary weapon. -
Message 27
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 24th October 2005
Hi All,
Well this one came back from the past!
OK then, Mani. HP as a primary weapon? Give me a 30mm Rarden cannon any day!!!
Expat,
You have to be kidding? Perhaps in the past that was a reasonable reason, but in this day and age, it is just down to out and out snobbery!
I personally find it highly amusing, and feel the earlier answer (i forget from whom) was spot on. They are still pretending to be in charge, when in civilian life, military rank count for nothing.
Cheers
Sgt DL (Rtd) -
Message 28
Posted by Turnwrest (U2188092) on Tuesday, 25th October 2005
In my experience, in industry, senior NCOs & WOs are regarded as far more likely to make a contribution than ex-officers (unless you are in defence-related trades, when the "networking" knowledge is valuable).
-
Message 29
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 25th October 2005
Agreed utterly CMOT!
(Obviously biased opinion though). SNCOs and WOs have many years experience of clearing up the mess that many officers (in particular one-pip wonders) make of simple military matters!
Cheers
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.