Thompson and B.A.R

(spidge @ Oct 18 2005, 08:13 PM) [post=40200]On an aussie site and the photo was from New Guinea.

http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-weapons/allied_ww2.htm
[/b]
Wow. That's a clever way of killing a sniper. They should call that use of a weapon a "Bren-saw".

 

Both the Bren and the Bar were disadvantaged by the problem of being magazine fed.

A section automatic weapon that is magazine fed has an advantage over belt fed whan patroling in close country (bushes, jungle etc.) as the rounds are held secure in the magazine where belts can be twisted or hook on branches. So magazines are better for moving around. The germans used belts held in drums for this very reason on the MG34 and MG42, but they were prone to misfeeds and jams and as such weren't really popular.

When it comes to the reason for having a section automatic weapon, that is putting down of rapid supressing fire while the rest of the section get into position for the assault and then to cover the assault, belt fed has the advantage. There is a tedency to use more ammunition with a belt fed weapon, but that is mainly because you have the oppertunity and there are less stoppages due to being out of ammunition. Most modern belt MGs allow you to add the next belt to the one being fired whilest it is being fired, offering the possibility of seemless fire..... until the barrel gets too hot that is.

Everything has good point and bad points, and it is interesting to see that the Bren's accuracy is seen in the army today as a disadvantage, not an advantage. With a weaopn like the MG34, MG42 or the modern GPMG, the rounds land over a large area known as the 'beaten zone'. This means that by putting your fire in one place a whole area recieves a lot of rounds and is supressed. As the idea of the weapon is to supress the enemy it is better if the firer doesn't have to think too much about it himself.

 

What was the little grease gun machine gun the Brits used? It was about the size of an MP 40. Seems like it had a problem of getting hot when fired (though I may be remembering it wrong)

 

Jimbo, that would be the sten gun, 9mm, not too much to them, they worked and they were cheap to produce. Not really in the class of weapon the MP38, MP40 or the Thompson were,

Cheers
Bob

A Little bit on the sten can be found below, some of it kinda funny.

http://www.canuck.freehosting.net/sten.htm

 

(Reverend Bob @ Oct 21 2005, 12:20 PM) [post=40362]Jimbo, that would be the sten gun, 9mm, not too much to them, they worked and they were cheap to produce. Not really in the class of weapon the MP38, MP40 or the Thompson were,

Cheers
Bob
[/b]

The Sten was plagued with jamming problems before the MK11 however I am not sure how the latter performed overall.

The Australian made version was called the "Austen".

 

Because of the simplicity of the Sten, it suffered from safety problems. Having a fixed firing pin meant that if the bolt was released because of a worn sear or having been dropped, the rounds would fly. This was amplified by the fact that it had a very short barrel and as such was easily pointed around by 'accident'. The short barrel also made it easy for the firer's hand to slip forward over the muzzle leading to the bad practice of holding the magazine housing or magazine itself. This lead to stoppages caused by inadvertant release of the magazine during firing.

Later marks had a recess cut in the housing to hold the cocking handle back in an atempt to prevent accidents, and this was the only form of 'safety catch'. Others had a web strap attached to the barrel sleave to help control the weapon. That said, the Sten was cheap, easy to produce if not all that popular with those who were issued it.

 

Did Brits not like the Thompson?

 

(jimbotosome @ Oct 22 2005, 04:10 AM) [post=40391]Did Brits not like the Thompson?
[/b]
Far from it, they regarded it as an excellent weapon. However it was expensive to buy and there was difficulty in producing the quantity required because it was so well built.

 

My brother in law who graduated from West Point told me that if he chose between the US weapons in WWII, he would have taken the M1 over a Thompson because of the abundance of ammunition that would be available on the battlefield. I guess there are no absolutes in weaponry.

(spidge @ Oct 20 2005, 11:04 PM) [post=40364]The Australian made version was called the "Austen".
[/b]
Did the "Austen" suffer from the same problems or was it an improved version?

 

The Austen was a direct copy of the Sten, so as far as I know there were no special modifications. That shouldn't really be a surprise given the Sten's place as a cheap 'n' cheeful mass produced weapon.

Their other 'home made' SMG the Owen, was well liked and designed specifically for use in the jungle. The top mounted magazine was less likely to catch on branches in close country and gave 'gravity feed' assistance to the system. Magazines kept loaded for long periods in jungle conditions tended to weaken and could cause stoppages, these stoppages at least were reduced by the Owen's design.

Not as easy to produce and more expensive, the Owen was much more popular with the troops than the Austen.

 

A "distinctive" Australian Sten derivative called the Austen

The Austen was essentially a modified Sten submachine gun with features appropriated from the German MP40. Instead of the Sten's fixed stock and lack of grips, the metal stock of the Austen could fold and the weapon had two plastic pistol grips. The gun had a selective-fire feature permitting the shooter to fire single shots or fully automatic fire at 500 rounds per minute.

An improved version, the Mark II Austen, had an accompanying bayonet designed to fit over the muzzle compensator. Only 200 examples of this model of bayonet were produced. In 1944 a shortened version of the standard Pattern 1907, or No. 1 Mark I bayonet, was designed for use with the Austen.

View attachment 1147

Despite these improvements the weapon did not prove successful in jungle warfare. It was less popular with Australian troops than the Australian designed Owen.

Austen Mk I
Type sub-machine gun
Nation Australia
Era World War Two
History
Date of design
Production period 1942 to 1944
Service duration 1942 to 1966
Operators Australia
War service WW2
Variants MK 1, MK 2
Number built 45,000
Specifications
Type
Calibre 9 mm
Barrel length 198 mm (7.87 in)
Ammunition 9 mm Parabellum
Magazine 28 round detachable box
Action
Length (stock closed/open): 552 / 732 mm
Weight 3.98 kg empty
Rate of fire 500 round/min
Muzzle velocity 366 m/s
Effective range {{{range}}}

 

I stand corrected on the Austen. I didn't know about the modifications, just it's lack of popularity amongst the troops.

 

</div><div class='quotemain'>Not as easy to produce and more expensive, the Owen was much more popular with the troops than the Austen. [/b]

The Owen was still in use in Vietnam by the Diggers

 

(morse1001 @ Oct 23 2005, 07:55 PM) [post=40459]</div><div class='quotemain'>Not as easy to produce and more expensive, the Owen was much more popular with the troops than the Austen. [/b]

The Owen was still in use in Vietnam by the Diggers
[/b]
This photo from Korea.

Around Hill 159, Korea. Private (Pte) Dick Gray of St Peters, NSW, smoking a cigarette, wearing an armoured vest, a sweat rag cap and grease paint and carrying his Owen gun.

Pte Gray - a member of the 3rd Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment (3RAR) preparing to go out on a night-time patrol towards the enemy lines.

View attachment 1148


The various parts of an Owen gun.
These fit together by simple bayonet catches.

View attachment 1149

Since Owen guns are precision made a damaged part can be replaced in a few seconds.

 

Cpl "Buddy" Lea taken after the battle of Long tan 18th Aug 1966

View attachment 1152

Unknown Radio Op taken on the battlefield


View attachment 1153

 

If the "Owen" had a top feed magazine, how did you sight and aim it?

 

(jimbotosome @ Oct 23 2005, 06:44 PM) [post=40498]If the "Owen" had a top feed magazine, how did you sight and aim it?
[/b]
Just as with the Bren gun, the sights were off-set to the left of the weapon thus avoiding the magazine housing. No real effect on the aim, in the same way that standard sight types are set above the weapon rather than directly along the barrel.

Where it does have an effect though, is making it difficult to aim the weapon in the left shoulder. With SMGs deployed in jungle environments however, their normal use would be as a point and shoot weapon so this wouldn't have been too much of a problem.

Of course, that is only my opinion.

 

</div><div class='quotemain'>With SMGs deployed in jungle environments however, their normal use would be as a point and shoot weapon so this wouldn't have been too much of a problem. [/b]

Thats the best thing to do with them!