Where are all the Allied SMGs?

[JasonC]

I have been wondering about the lack of SMGs in Allied squads in CM, compared to the common SMGs in German force types. I do not doubt that Germans made extensive use of their MPs, and I am well aware of western Allied doctrine's love of the rifle. But there is a mystery here, which grew as I looked into the overall production figures for SMG makes during the war. I am sure the Russians will have plenty of SMG infantry in CM2. I include their figures to give a sense of the whole match up.

The Germans produced 908,000 MP38 and MP40 "pure" SMGs in the whole war. They also produced 426,000 MP44s, though not all of them made it to the troops by the end. Overall then, 1.3 million SMG types, certainly a considerable number. But on both fronts, all war.

Looking into it, I find the US produced 1.2 million Thompson SMGs and another 600,000 M3 "grease guns" during the war. The figures I have seen for the super-simply Sten start at 2 million and range upward from there. The Russians made 5 million PPsh SMGs.

Now, I am aware the Allies fielded more men overall, and sure some of the Allied SMGs went to the Pacific. But that is more than 6 Allied SMGs for every German one, while in CM today one typically sees ~10% Allied SMGs compared to 33% and up for German small arms.

So, where are they? In CM, the Paras have a few more per squad, but that is only a handful of divisions. No doubt in CM2, the Russians will have pure SMG troop types as a possibility. But what is the breakdown east to west of the German ones? Certainly half in the west can be taken as an upper bound, since the east had a much larger front and longer fighting. Similarly, no more than 1/3rd of the US, and only 1/10th of the Brits (if that), can be written off to the Japanese theater.

Which still leaves more than 4 1/2 Western Allied SMGs (~1.2m US + 1.8m UK) for every German one (less than 650K). The overall infantry odds were nothing like that high. Therefore, the SMGs per man were higher in the western allied forces than in the Germans facing them, despite the impression created by CM.

So, where were they, and where are they? Tank crews? Gun and infantry teams? Drivers? Rear echelon you-know-what-ers? If so for a large numbers, it raises two additional interesting questions. One, isn't it rather distorting to disallow these "side arms" to fire (e.g. mortar crews, etc) while infantry does, when the weapons mix varied along the lines of this rule? (I.e. Allied crews more likely to have SMGs, German crews more likely to have rifles?). Two, how many of these abundant SMGs found their way to the front?

[Mr. Johnson--]

Good call Jason, I agree on all points.

I liked the Ad Hoc squads in CC. Just because a standard US rifle squad is not supposed to have more than 2 Bars and 1 Thompson does not mean that after a week of combat the squad will still be using what was assigned to them. Your dead comrade is not going to miss his Thompson, and if you need a pray and spray gun you are gonna use it.

I would have liked to see a non-standard US assault squad or Rangers with additional SMGs. Something, anything! If the allied player uses Airborne and tanks he gets accused of being gamey while the smug axis player sits on his Strumgruppen, Fusiliers, or plain old volks SMG platoon. All in the Herr catagory which are "non-gamey".

[Gyrene]

Jason C, I agree with most of your statements, and have been knocked about for bringing them up before.

Most M3's in Europe went to crews, most frontline M3 use was in the PTO.

It was fairly common for US squads to "Load for Bear" and go heavy on the Thompsons/BARs when trouble was expected, even to the point of leaving all M1's at home.

It was very easy for US troops to pick a new weapon of choice, and I remember one comment in particular about troops going ashore at Okinawa that it "Seemed like every other man had a BAR".

The lack of diversity in Allied squads, while historical according to TOE's does not reflect the field adaptations that were very much widespread during the War.

Gyrene

[Stacheldraht]

Don't forget about Allied soldiers using captured German weapons, either. Apparently it was (rumored to be) common practice for Germans to kill Allied troops (instead of taking them alive as prisoners) found with German weapons, though, which may have curtailed the practice.

[CMplayer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gyrene:

The lack of diversity in Allied squads, while historical according to TOE's does not reflect the field adaptations that were very much widespread during the War.

Gyrene<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

American Scrounger Squad:

Weapon__________40m____100m____250m____500m

6 BAR___________204_______156_____ 90______42

6 Thompson SMG___270_______54 _____ -_____ -

Total Firepower___474_____288______90____ 42

:eek:

--Rett

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[kmead]

In regards to the production numbers for German submachine guns, you have captured the numbers for a few popular weapons, they also made many others. The "burp gun" was made in large numbers, sadly since I gave my dad all my books and my memory is full of other useless knowledge I cannot lay my hands on the correct names much less the production numbers.

In regards to US troops being able to procure whatever they wanted in terms of weapons, I honestly find that hard to believe. There just wasn't that much laying around unused in the armorers truck and getting the appropriate level of ammo supply seems like a problem. I am sure there was some of what you relate Gyrene, but it is unlikely it was a widespread as you are relating. I think we would see more evidence of this in period photos if it were true. Sorry I have no real data to back up my statements, so you can ignore me , maybe a grog will take up this thread and either crush me into the mud or exonerate my recollection.

[IPA]

Jason,

Would you consider factoring in the following to explain some of the distortion?

1/ Colonial and Commonwealth ground forces by 1945.

Britain - 2.9 Mil

Commonwealth - Approx 3.5-4.0 Mil

(Largest contributors India, Australia, NZ, Canada)

British Home Guard - 1.7 mil

As I understand it, Commonwealth and Home Guard forces generally followed the British Army TO&E and were armed in similar proportions. Thus the sten allocation for the war in the Far East is perhaps too low.

2/ Could the large sten quantity also be attributed to progressive upgrading and replacement? There were 5 or 6? variants. Was this also the case for the Thompson and the grease gun?

3/ Have the US Nation Guard/Home defence forces been factored in? I have no idea on the manpower figures.

Peter

[Michael Dorosh]

You know, soldiers in Canada and the US DID use SMGs for training.

Military Police units used them extensively, and most armoured vehicles were issued with tommyguns.

Don't forget we had a Navy and Air Force as well, in which men did guard duty, manned guard houses, etc.

How many Stens were dropped to the French, Yugoslavian and Greek Resistance movements? (How many ended up in German hands, instead?)

How many went to Palestine or Egypt for their armies?

The South African, Indian, Australian and New Zealand armies all used the Thompson, as did various "free" European forces.

Lots to consider. Few references.

[Michael Dorosh]

Appendix B, Report No. 141, Historical Section, Canadian Military Headquarters dated 18 July 1945 gives the equipment state of First Canadian Army in June 1944 (this does not include troops in Italy), gives an establishment for Sten machine carbines (not SMG) as 33687, with 36068 held.

The report states that individual platoons held two or three extra and I have read accounts of privates carrying these weapons into action. See the account by George Teasdale at http://members.home.net/calgaryhighlanders/

Then again, some officers and NCOs carried rifles instead of Stens, because they preferred them and it helped hide their status from snipers. In the end, you will have a hard time accounting for who carried what.

Still this overall number (if we believe its accuracy, which I am inclined to do), for two infantry divisions, one armoured division, two armoured brigades, and ancillary troops of all descriptions, will give you an idea of how few Sten guns were issued (as compared to the overall production figures).

The DA&QMG entertained suggestions that the Thompson replace the Sten in Nortwest Europe - and in August 1944 issued a report indicating that this action was not necessary, as most faults reported in the Sten were due to user error and some minor technical problems.

It was concluded that the Sten's problems could be remedied by correct handling by users, and proper daily maintenance and cleaning, as well as

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>scrapping of the weapon or parts as soon as a fault appears.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Sten was intended to be a throwaway weapon!!!! How many were stripped for parts (or scrapped altogether) in this manner? This report seems to be pretty good evidence that many Stens were used for parts, to repair other Stens, or simply scrapped and a new one drawn. It is signed by the Major General in charge of administration at Canadian Military Headquarters.

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Wrong button

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IPA:

2/ Could the large sten quantity also be attributed to progressive upgrading and replacement? There were 5 or 6? variants. Was this also the case for the Thompson and the grease gun?

Peter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were three major variants of the Sten by 1944 - the Mk II, the simplified Mk III, and the Mk V (which went to airborne troops only.)

The Mk II (the most common) could be broken down easier than the Mk III (which had the barrel housing and body all in one) and was dropped in large numbers to resistance units in Europe.

[ASL Veteran]

I think this points out the danger of making assumptions and drawing conclusions based upon raw production figures alone. The production figures alone are not necessarily an indicator of standard frontline usage.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC:

One, isn't it rather distorting to disallow these "side arms" to fire (e.g. mortar crews, etc) while infantry does, when the weapons mix varied along the lines of this rule? (I.e. Allied crews more likely to have SMGs, German crews more likely to have rifles?). Two, how many of these abundant SMGs found their way to the front?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do you mean by etc.? Commonwealth mortar crews were armed with rifles, not SMGs. I thought US crews were armed with the M1 carbine (the "official" replacement for the pistol). Why do you say Allied crews were more likely to have SMGs? The tables of organization I have seen make this patently false. Is it to match your numbers?

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

What do you mean by etc.? Commonwealth mortar crews were armed with rifles, not SMGs. I thought US crews were armed with the M1 carbine (the "official" replacement for the pistol). Why do you say Allied crews were more likely to have SMGs? The tables of organization I have seen make this patently false. Is it to match your numbers?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many crews were armed with M1 carbine (not tank crews who used M3 SMG). The M2 Carbine grew progressively more popular as the war went on, and was more and more likely to be carried on the side by more than just officers. By Korea, Carbines were in common front line use.

Still, it was harder than people imagine for a US solider in Europe to dump the garand and pick up a SMG in all but the heaviest action. US soliders signed a property card for their rifle, and were expected to have that rifle at all costs. Loosing yoru rifle could result in stockade time unless your unit was over run or you escaped from a POW camp.

[IPA]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

There were three major variants of the Sten by 1944 - the Mk II, the simplified Mk III, and the Mk V (which went to airborne troops only.)

The Mk II (the most common) could be broken down easier than the Mk III (which had the barrel housing and body all in one) and was dropped in large numbers to resistance units in Europe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the reply.

If anyone's interested here's a superb website on the Sten, everything you ever wanted to know and some. It also concurs with Michael's comments.

http://www2.prestel.co.uk/history/sten/

Peter

[Mr. Johnson--]

bumpski

[Dunnee]

In actuality, I believe a large number of guns were "scavenged" on all sides of the war. Picking up an smg that was lying on the ground was commonplace. The germans even envied spotting an unused soviet smg on the ground, they were highly valued finds for german troops in that meat grinder called stalingrad. Us troops were seen using mp38 and mp40 models. Us troops in the pacific especially would scrounge their own dead to get a bar, a colt .45 pistol, or a thompson.

[SGT_Gold]

Loosing yoru rifle could result in stockade time unless your unit was over run or you escaped from a POW camp.[/QB]

[ASL Veteran]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dunnee:

In actuality, I believe a large number of guns were "scavenged" on all sides of the war. Picking up an smg that was lying on the ground was commonplace. The germans even envied spotting an unused soviet smg on the ground, they were highly valued finds for german troops in that meat grinder called stalingrad. Us troops were seen using mp38 and mp40 models. Us troops in the pacific especially would scrounge their own dead to get a bar, a colt .45 pistol, or a thompson.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The main reason the Germans might pick up the Soviet SMG was that it used a 71 round drum rather than a 32 round box magazine so the Jerries were caught reloading sometimes. The way they solved that was to create a way to have two box magazines put together so they could be slid over when changing mags (or something along those lines - I can check my sources if necessary). The problem with using captured SMGs though revolves around ammunition supply and sound. You don't have a steady supply of enemy ammunition and when you fire you can easily be mistaken for the enemy. Two good reasons why you might prefer your own weapon to that of the enemy. Anyway, captured SMG use is not really what the topic of this thread is about - otherwise domestic production figures would not have been used as the basis for the ... thesis (for lack of a better word)

[ASL Veteran]

I might also point out that the MP44 really isn't an SMG as postulated by Jason in his initial post. The SMG uses a pistol round and the MP44 used the 'Kurz' round - which was more of a cut down rifle round and this round was significantly more powerful than the pistol round used in the SMG. The proper designation for the MP44 would be more along the lines of an automatic rifle (in which section it will always be found when thumbing through books about WW2 infantry weapons).

However, the Germans did also use the MP28, the Solothurn S1-100, the MP34, MP35, Maschinenpistole EMP, the MP38, the MP41, and the ZK383 (Czech design used by the SS) along with the MP40 that Jason mentioned. The Soviets used the PPD 1940G, the PPSh-1941G, and the PPS42

[Michael Dorosh]

Dunnee and Sgt Gold - you shouldn't throw out generalizations like that without at least some kind of evidence, even if anecdotal. I certainly do not think that SMGs were "commonly found" just "lying on the ground." Many photos of Allied men with captured MP 40s were staged; I am not aware of any photos of US troops with MP 38s. Do you have one or two to share with us?

Officially, captured weapons use was prohibited in the western Allied armies, and smart men obeyed the rule.

I also don't agree with the assertion that staff officers carried SMGs to look like fighting troops. Most staff officers I've seen carried pistols - or in the case of men like Major General Hoffmeister or General Ridgeway, rifles.

Anyway, ASL Veteran makes excellent points, and this is of course off the topic.

The conclusion we can draw, as ASL Vet has already pointed out, is that raw production values are pretty much useless for hypothesizing who carried what in action.

I also forgot to mention the Brazilian Army in my earlier posts - those SMGs and Machine carbines/pistols really made the rounds.

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Dundee Said: Us troops were seen using mp38 and mp40 models.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought I read somewheres that US troops in ETO were rather reluctant to use German smalls arm because of the distinctive sounds these things made and for fear of drawing friendly fire.

[JasonC]

Well, I think 36,000 SMGs in an army of ~4 divisions is rather a lot. I'd expect that is one man in 3-5, or 2-3 per squad even if they were no more common in the infantry than in other parts of the formation. It is also more than 1000 SMGs for every infantry-type battalion in the units you listed (2 ID, 1 AD, 2 AB that is), counting engineers, recon, and MG battalions.

Not that that was where they were, but enough for that, which is more than the front-line infantry establishment of the whole formation therefore. Meaning no physical lack of Stens for the infantry is involved, but purely a question of doctrine or choice of weapon.

Stens and Grease guns were very cheap weapons. The Sten apparently cost about 2 pounds to make, and production occasionally reached 50,000 in a single week. The grease ran about $25 dollars. Thompsons are a more intricate weapon, but cost the army only about $100 apiece. Incidentally, for the fellow wondering about the German production numbers, the "burp" gun is the term the Allies gave to the MP40, and the 908K figure I gave is for combined MP38 and MP40 models.

Another fellow gave figures for total UK forces, adding up to around 8 million and perfectly believeable. But most of the commonwealth forces did fight in the European theater, not in the far east. Indian and Australian divisions fought in North Africa and Italy, for example - it is not like they were all in Burma or New Guinea. 18 million served in the German armed forces at some point during the war.

Undoubtedly the Brits dropped many Stens to partisans, probably in the hundreds of thousands, but even a generous estimate there will leave an equal number of SMGs for a smaller armed force, thus more per man. As for throwing them away, all MPs have short life expectancies in combat, simply because the men using them do. But retreating defenders will lose more weapons and advancing attackers, simple because the latter will tend to own the field after a given fight, more often than the reverse.

As for the comments about "avoiding deductions from production figures", it is simply irrational. The Germans issued 1.3 million MP varieties and ten times that many rifles. The Allies did not build more than 6 times as many SMGs and eat them or drop them down wells. A -doctrinal- dislike of them is perfectly possible, though the production figures sort of belie that idea in any extreme form.

If the troops actually preferred rifles in practice, though, a somewhat stronger cause would have to be operating. There would have to be some actual point to using rifles. Which CM does not seem to me to model terribly well, since everyone knows SMG-heavy infantry performs better in CM than rifle armed infantry does, other things being approximately equal.

Personally, I have explained a theory on that subject before. I think the CM ammo system does not fully reflect the much higher ammo expenditure from SMG equipped infantry. The advantage of the rifle is greater accuracy per bullet fired, and thus more hits over the whole ammo load that can be carried. While the advantage of the SMG is greater firepower per unit time, at the expense of a more rapid expenditure of the practical load carried.

Or in CM terms, rifle armed infantry ought to have more shots than SMG armed infantry. The CM system just abstractly gives them 40 shots apiece. It thus translates a properly modeled greater firepower per unit time for SMGs into a greater firepower overall, over the whole ammo load, well above the level of historical realism.

If rifle armed infantry got 50 shots and pure SMG armed infantry 25, then true relations would be clearer. SMG infantry would still have much higher firepower per unit time. But it would only achieve higher firepower over the whole ammo load carried, if almost all shots were traded at quite close range. Then the reasons some preferred rifles would be modeled reasonably well.

But there should still be more Allied squad types. It might be best of all if the weapons load-out of squads were a designer tweakable item. In the absence of that, the Germans have units with ~1/4 SMG, 1/3 SMG, 1/2 SMG, 2/3rd SMG, and pure SMG. The Allies have units with 1/10 SMG (standard), and with 1/3rd SMG (airborne only). I consider this rather silly, and also think the loadouts in the airborne squads are probably closer to ad hoc realities than the vanilla "TOE", pure rifle, types.

If you doubt it, consider the 1st Canadian army example. At one per infantry squad, CM accounts for about 1000 of the Stens (around 30 infantry-type battalions), out of 33K authorized and 36K actually held. Undoubtedly some are in rear areas or carried by crews of various sorts. But 97% of them can never fire a single CM burst, no matter what force mixes are chosen or what events occur.

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Micheal Said: Dunnee and Sgt Gold - you shouldn't throw out generalizations like that without at least some kind of evidence, even if anecdotal. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean like indiscriminately slamin’ Guy Sajer or Paul Carrell

[Stalin's Organ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC:

Indian and Australian divisions fought in North Africa and Italy, for example - it is not like they were all in Burma or New Guinea. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a point of History, I believe 1 Australian division served in the Mid East and was withdrawn after the Japanese attack. The Australians from then on only fought in the Pacific.

IIRC there were only ever 3 or 4 Indian Divisions in Italy.