Ok so we've done machine guns.

So how about sub-machine guns? What was the AORG view on this.

Here we get into MP40 versus Sten discussions...

1/

The important thing to note here is that the Sten was a good weapon.

Not the initial variants for sure. Sure soldiers belly-ached about it but by the time it was more widely available it worked.

2/

Indeed, as Peter Laidler comprehensively points out, that's the reason why later versions remained in service for so long.

3/ https://www.amazon.co.uk/Machine-Carbine-Laidler-Stevens-editor/dp/0889352593

The crucial thing for the AORG, however, was that the Sten could be used to produce more advancing fire for soldiers on the attack.

Why was this considered relevant. Because at an Infantry conference in April 1944, delegates concluded that:

4/

First, lighter Sten guns were more useful to troops on the attack where battlefield tempo demanded that a soldier had to move quickly and stop rarely to take deliberate aim at an inconspicuous enemy.

5/

Second, although the sub-machine gun (machine carbine if you're a nerd) was designed for CQB, operational researchers found it could retain effectiveness to ranges out to 200 yards given its higher rate of fire.

6/

Now I am going to offer a caution here.

First the table in tweet 6 was for rifle fire at 200 yards.

Second, the effectiveness of the Sten out to 200 yards was referenced in a Ronnie Shepherd file that I cannot find on my hard drive. So you'll have to accept my assertion.

7/

The file number I have but I cannot find on @LCMSDS's index is "Shephard Papers Box 2 - File 00028, LCMSDS, ‘The Fire-Power of the Infantry Section'"

8/

Theoretically speaking, however, the Sten was capable of firing in the region of 500 rounds per minute and as it only weighed under 7lb (depending on version) it was considered to have as much value as the Bren LMG at ranges up to 300 yards.

9/

This was important because...

10/

Potentially, then, the Sten could deliver the tactical flexibility that the infantry section would need.

Not that field commanders embraced the idea being put forward by Operational Researchers.

11/

This in turn led to further lobbying by the Director of Infantry Maj-Gen TNF Wilson and lots of discussion within the Standing Committee on Infantry Weapon Development - of which we will hear more later.

12/

NB: sources for images can be found in the image descriptions....