WW II British tanker's assessment of their small arms

[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."

Remember that the Sten fires from an open bolt and like the early pre-grip safety Uzi, could fire if dropped. Regarding the difficulty with the .38 Webley, I think there was no real small arms training at Sandhurst.

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.

 

[dh1633pm]

Sounds like a good read. I just downloaded the kindle edition for my Ipad. I can read it on my upcoming trip to Hawaii, Australia and New Zealand. Don't ask, but many hours in the back of plane. Kindle edition is $5.99.

Tank Action: An Armoured Troop Commander's War 1944-45

 

[4v50 Gary]

If you're into tank action, Leakey's Luck. When dismounted during the first Siege of Tobruk, Leakey volunteered as an infantryman and learned from the Australians how they stalked Germans at night.

 

[Crawdad1]

I still like the words of those old British tanker, "If the Tiger sees you before you see him you're in bloody trouble, but if you see the Tiger before he sees you you're in even more bloody trouble." "I retreated behind a house and the bloody tiger shot through the bloody house blowing my bloody tank to pieces."

I guess they could laugh now.

 

[Sam1911]

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.

Can one imagine a circumstance under which anyone would be compelled to believe that the .38/200 round "kicked like a mule?"

Sounds like the art of handgunning was not well taught to British tankers. (Not that it really was or has been, to almost any military troops.)

 

[Jim Watson]

.38 Webley Mark VI revolvers

And you can't expect them to be up on nomenclature, either.
The .38 Webley, issued like the S&W as a supplement to the Enfield .38, was the Mk IV.
There were certainly a lot of Mk VI Webleys still in use, but they were .455. And do kick a bit.

So, does he have the calibre or the marque correct?


The STEN was certainly cheap and nasty. Its greatest fault may have been its double column, center feed magazine, taken from the German design.
The successor Patchett - Sterling - L2A1 had a double feed magazine like Beretta and Thompson and is notably reliable. Still has the side magazine that the tanker found awkward, though.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I'm thinking that .38 Webley Mk VI is a transposition error for IV.
BTW, there were .455 Webley revolvers in marks I through VI including a .455 Webley Mk IV. The .38/200 Webley Mk IV actually looks to me like a .455 Webley Mark VI left in the dryer too long.
The Amazon page for Render's book has a fairly generous Look Inside! sample for prospective buyers. Book reviews in British newspapers are very favorable (or is that favourable).
(Open bolt firing SMGs, with bolt closed for transport and loaded magazine inserted, don't require much of a bump to bounce the bolt back far enough to pick up a round from the magazine and slam shut firing the gun. People were injured or killed in WWII by Stens, M3 grease guns, Thompsons, that way.)

 

[FL-NC]

The Sten is drop safe IF the charging handle is placed in the safety slot. The 38 break top is pretty bad- couldn't kill a dead dog with it. Found one in Afg. i an enemy cache.

 

[Sunray]

The Royal Military Academy Sandhurst is the Brit equivalent to West Point. It's a university. Small arms training gets done during the summer. Render wouldn't have seen any firearms while on his shortened Sandhurst time.
The .38 Webley, like all military handguns, was a status symbol and last ditch self defence piece for armoured crew. Wasn't intended as anything else. The STEN was a war time emergency firearm. Brits needed an SMG PDQ and got the 'easy to make, it'll do', STEN.
"...the .38/200 round "kicked like a mule?"..." Compared to the previous .38 S&W's 178 grain FMJ, it would.

 

[Rock185]

Interesting little excerpt from the book. Perceptions of recoil differ, but the little 38/200 kicking like a mule??? Have to admit that I'm not familiar with shooting cowboy style with left hand over the top of the weapon. I have no experience with a Sten, but was a TC in Vietnam and had two M3 .45 ACP SMGs on clips provided for the purpose welded to the inside the turret. We were all issued 1911A1s too. Never realized that the 38/200 kicked like a mule. Our .45 ACPs must have been completely uncontrollable

 

[Jim Watson]

"...the .38/200 round "kicked like a mule?"..." Compared to the previous .38 S&W's 178 grain FMJ, it would.

Previous what?
The calibre was adopted as the .38-200 with the lead roundnose of the US Super Police load. The FMJ came about in response to the Krauts whining about the discomfort of being shot at with lead bullets. Not that the .38 had enough velocity to cause expansion. The Heinies also complained about US trench guns in WWI but we told them to bugger off.

 

[caribou]

I shot an empty oil drum at a dump in Kotzebue years ago. At 10 yards, the Webley .38 bounced off. The .25acp bounced off. The 9mmP and the .22lr rem solids zipped through both sides......

Ive also had an Afghan hand made copy of a Webley (MK II/III/IV ??? (LOL!!) marked ''Weplev'' a hand chiseld crown, and idiotc marks and numbers galore....but notably that ithad features from 3 different Marks of that type pistol. Buffalo (?) horn grips and left spieling rifling

 

[Deanimator]

Can one imagine a circumstance under which anyone would be compelled to believe that the .38/200 round "kicked like a mule?"

You've apparently forgotten the American "journalist" who RECENTLY commented that the "recoil" and muzzle blast of an AR-15 left him with... POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER.

A friend, after shooting my DCM Garand with 168gr. target handloads commented, "Kind of a lot of recoil for a 'combat weapon'."

 

[Deanimator]

Interesting little excerpt from the book. Perceptions of recoil differ, but the little 38/200 kicking like a mule???

Back in the '80s, I owned a British surplus S&W M&P in .38-200/.38 S&W. It kicked... almost as hard as "Pajama Boy" when his parents told him to stop prattling on about "getting covered".

I just watched the C&Rsenal YouTube video about the .455 Webleys. While the .38/200 Webleys and Enfields are probably lots of fun to shoot at the range, if I needed to shoot PEOPLE... trying to KILL me... with guns, I'd stick with the .455.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Who loaded the .38/200? Local ammo?

 

[.455_Hunter]

Sounds like typical service member gripe to me.

 

[MechAg94]

Interesting about using HE shells to break the periscopes and vision blocks. That is not a tactic you hear about much.

 

[Merle1]

Can one imagine a circumstance under which anyone would be compelled to believe that the .38/200 round "kicked like a mule?"

Sounds like the art of handgunning was not well taught to British tankers. (Not that it really was or has been, to almost any military troops.)

I have a 38/200 Enfield, and its pretty accurate out to 50 yds or so.
From the comments, I suspect that marksmanship was the problem - not inaccurate revolvers.

 

[carsten1911]

Interesting about using HE shells to break the periscopes and vision blocks. That is not a tactic you hear about much.

Howdy MechAg94, having had some training time with the German 20*151mm machine cannon (Spähpanzer LUCHS) I can back up the statement about "when your gun is not enough don´t shoot to kill but shoot to blind".
With a full-automatic gun this really might work...and of course is more reasonable than just preparing to meet your maker.
That was what we were taught and found it resonable enough.

Since the heavybattle-tank guys (Leopard 1...not to be mixed up with the Leopard 2, which is a complete different beast) were just across the floor we had some lively discussions with them about who would win an NIGHT fight.
We LUCHS-guys had night vision and night aiming aboard, they had only co-ax spotlights. We "light" guys were pretty confident we would blow their spotlights off with HE-bursts before they could even find us with their spots.

We never came to test our respective theories, though. Wold have humbled them "heavy dummies"

Greetings
Carsten

 

[Merle1]

Howdy MechAg94, having had some training time with the German 20*151mm machine cannon (Spähpanzer LUCHS) I can back up the statement about "when your gun is not enough don´t shoot to kill but shoot to blind".
With a full-automatic gun this really might work...and of course is more reasonable than just preparing to meet your maker.
That was what we were taught and found it resonable enough.

Since the heavybattle-tank guys (Leopard 1...not to be mixed up with the Leopard 2, which is a complete different beast) were just across the floor we had some lively discussions with them about who would win an NIGHT fight.
We LUCHS-guys had night vision and night aiming aboard, they had only co-ax spotlights. We "light" guys were pretty confident we would blow their spotlights off with HE-bursts before they could even find us with their spots.

We never came to test our respective theories, though. Wold have humbled them "heavy dummies"

Greetings
Carsten

most interesting -
I for one would like to hear more including detail of your equipment.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

I have a 38/200 Enfield, and its pretty accurate out to 50 yds or so.
From the comments, I suspect that marksmanship was the problem - not inaccurate revolvers.

IIRC correctly, many British troops would use Webley as a generic term for both that and the Enfield No.2 as the two looked and functioned almost identically, hence perhaps some of the confusion regarding the mark of his pistol (assuming its not just a misprint.) I am also confused as to why he would have felt it necessary to cover the pistol with his left hand- unless, perhaps they had watched too many Westerns and were attempting to "fan fire?"
The accuracy issues could be a reference to the bobbed hammer Enfield* pistols which were actually meant for vehicle crew use in DAO, so to speak.

 

[AlexanderA]

many British troops would use Webley as a generic term for both that and the Enfield No.2 as the two looked and functioned almost identically

While the Webley was a conventional DA/SA revolver, the vast majority of the Enfield No. 2's used in WW2 were made (or altered) to the Mk. I* configuration, which was double action only, with a spurless hammer. This was not popular with the troops. I have an unaltered prewar Enfield, and it indeed is functionally on a par with the Webleys. Given that most of the Webleys were in the rough "war finish," a prewar unaltered Enfield is actually better and would have been prized by the troops.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Where does the Enfield with the sliding (hammer block) safety fit in?

 

[kBob]

I have seen Sten Mark IIs with a safety at the closed bolt position that consisted of a hole in the tube receiver opposite the bolt handle. Pressing the handle inward locked the bolt forward.

Was this a post war modification?

One of the major differences between the Erma MP-38 and the Erma MP-40 was the cocking handle. The MP38 just had a simple finger hook affixed to the bolt. The later MP-40 had a sliding cover over a stud of a handle that had a ball and spring friction system to hold it out for firing or in to engage a safety slot when the bolt was forward.

Both the Mark II and later Stens and the Erma MP38 and 40 had J type slots for safety while cocked.

BTW it is possible to jerk an M3A1 SMG downward while at "port arms" with the dust cover open to actually lock the bolt back.....or cause a slam fire if you don't do it quite hard and fast enough. Keeping the cover closed locked the bolt forward or back.

I have to wonder though how it was easier to fit an MP40 through the hatch of a tank than a Sten as both used essentually the same mag.

British authorities believed the DAO Enfields to be both more safe and more combat efficient than DA/SA versions. They had numerous test showing faster rounds on man sized targets at realistic combat ranges with DA fire than SA and plenty of acciedent reports of folks trying to decock a SA cocked revolver. Remember service weapons are for the average Joe and not all of us interweb expert pistolaros.

When I carried a pistol as a machine gunner, Recoilless rifleman, assistant to either, a gate guard, or payroll guard I never realized my handgun was a badge of authority. I was given the mistaken idea that it was a weapon I was expected to be able to use effectively from right here to 50 meters out to save my gun, my gate, the payroll officer (and his satchel) or (lastly) myself with for some reason. The mortar platoon guys with no rifles seemed to feel pretty un authorized as far as badges go as well. Always gave me a warm fuzzy feeling like a good teddy bear or stuffed tiger when I was a crumb snatcher. I never found the M1911A1 to kick that hard (compared to many "civilian" guns) and not that inaccurate, and very mechanically reliable with GI Ball ammo. Very glad I did not have to depend on an Enfield DAO revolver in .38 S&W though.

-kBob

 

[kBob]

Carsten1911,

Along about 1974 the PZRGND at Rommel Kasserne near Ulm where playing with a ground radar system linked into the Marder Armored Fighting Vehicle. They were testing it in the fog and snow one day I was out there. We did and anti armor operation with a Leopard Platoon supporting two of the Leopard based Pioner vehicles. They did a anti light Infantry operation. We were winning according to the German Field Judges with 90mm Reoillles Rifles, LAW rocket launchers and thrown teller mines until our officer told us to abandon our positions and run....across a 600 meter snow covered field. Can you say "Turkey shoot?" Can you say "Shooting fish in a barrel" Lots of 7,62 NATO green plastic blanks used up in those few moments. A few Hoffman devices (simulated 105 main gun fire) got spent as well.

I was very impressed with the German armor of that time period. Actually had a short discussion with a German Army General Officer about the Marder while standing in one once. I was a young US Private first class then and he had once been an Afrika Korps 2LT or whatever you called such in those days. Very short discussion, but he did agree that a few battalions of Marders and Leopard Is could have made quite a difference in the early 1940's and that then my German language skills might have been better.

-kBob