SMGs - how common were they?

Some more about Stens

I had read that they were designed so simply that they could even be produced (in part at least) by "cottage industry" meaning parts could be made by volunteers at home or in simple shops.

Also, was the Sten the only SMG that was fitted to mount a bayonet?
If so, it was such a light weapon that the spike bayonet I think could have been replaced with a blade-type, mounted flat (horizontal) so each side could cut, for urban assault by para's etc.

Finally, the main problem with the Sten is that "the magazine lips were too easily bent, causing jams" so does anyone know how this was remedied if at all, i.e. by hardening the magazine lips or the whole magazine?

Thanks!

 

And one of the most expensive ones was Suomi Submachine Gun, KP/-31.
http://guns.connect.fi/gow/suomi1.html
http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg52-e.htm

It was very good weapon, preferred by many. It was produced right up to the end of hostilities -44/45 but there wasn't ever enough of them. Most Finnish soldiers had to rely on rifles which lacked ROF for short range encounters.

 

Just remembered about the British using Thompsons with both long magazines and drums as well.
Did the drums (100 rounds I am guessing) jam more than the long magazines? I wonder because I would have expected to see more photos of the drum type in use.

 

A US Army infantry division in 1944 had only 93 SMG's, and only 46 of those were with combat troops (30 in the Recon troop and 16 in the Engineer battalion).
A US Armored division had 2,803 SMG's, but again many were for use by support troops or were part of a vehicles equipment, not for front line use, but more than the infantry division.
A US Ariborne Division had 383 SMG's.
A German 1944 Infantry division had 1,503*, with 7 in each infantryplatoon (63 infantry platoons/division).
A Volks Grenadier division had 2,064*, the 1st and 2nd platoon of a company having 26 each and the 3rd platoon only 9.
A 1944 German FJ Division had 3026*, with 9 per infantry platoon (81 platoons/division).
A 1944 German panzer division had 1543* (SS 2050),
A Pz Grenadier division had 1,441*.
*Probably includes assault rilfes as SMG's.
A Soviet infantry division had 3,594 by the end of 1944 (from a low of 121 in the summer of 1941).
By the end of 1942 a Soviet ank Corps had 2,068 SMG's, a Mechanized Corps would have had even more.
A BCW infantry division had 6,525 "machine carbines",
A BCW Armoured Division 6,204 "machine carbines",
A British Airborne Div 6,504 "carbines (sten) ab".

 

Re: Some more about Stens

No the MP-34 (German/Austrian) could be fitted with a bayonet and so could the British Lanchester (M1907 bayonet)

 

Very interesting information, thanks Canambridge. I find it quite surprising that it was actually the British who had the greatest amount of SMGs, seeing as it was the Russians who were known for having whole units of SMG soldiers only and the Americans who were known for their ability to give maximum firepower to the individual soldier.

 

I wonder how many of those SMGs were given to rear-area/support and command staff in the case of the British Divisions though whilst front line troops perhaps carried predominantly SMLEs?

I can recall prior to the mass issue of the SA80 in the late 80s/very early 90s that the Sterling still appeared to be in wide spread use in Germany, although you'd be unlikely to see them in Infantry Regiments.

 

SMGs were at least not very common in the Japanese Army during WWII. Not many were manufactured, only 17500 of all versions of the Type 100, and the ammunition was of poor quality.

 

I found the British totals surprising as well. If I interpret Col. George Forty (ret.) properly, the WWII British "machine carbine" must have been the (in)famous Sten gun. According to Forty, it wasn't up to the quality of the German and US weapons. Even if a large number of the weapons were intended for rear area personnel, these types almost always made their forward, as was the case with the US SMGs (Tommy Gun) in their divisions.
Both the US and British armies seem to have always prized accuracy, range, and portability (not to mention lower ammo needs and continued production) over auto fire. This seems to have been the rationale for sticking with single shot rifles, small mortars (60/76mm vs 81mm) and small bazookas (60mm vs 90mm).
Wasn't the American M2 carbine capable of auto fire? Or was it a post WWII weapon?
It seems the Soviets concentrated thier SMGs in dedicated front line SMG units, thus the greater fame.

 

The M2 had automatic fire, and yes it was a WWII weapon.