No4MK1 T

[CINDERS]

Not forgetting the tale of the Explosive 20mm Rounds found in a B-17 fuel tanks the reason they did not go off was there was a note inside of them saying "This is all we can do for now they should not have used Jewish labour ?"

[Surpmil]

According to Sid Harvey, and of my memory speaking to him, he was suddenly shipped off secretly mid war, so presumably late 42/earlly 43 I'm guessing. The workforce only knew he had gone to |Canada to after his close friends at work were informed by his family. I would imagine that the managers knew but kept it secret. He came back at the end of the war and it was he that told that his job was to get output up and streamlined as they had done/were doing at H&H. Can't be any more accurate than that date wise but continued at H&H until he retired in 1955. Sid Harvey is/was the last of the wartime employers left and has since died.

So we'll agree to differ. I say that he did exactly what he said he did and you say that he was there for some other reason, such as a holiday for good war work....

I appreciate that most of the stuff we make and send our troops to war with is crap and inferior to anything else made elsewhere, including the Owen et-al (Bindi/Cinders, I used both Sten and Owen - and the Sterling). But it's always worth reiterating to those who ain't been there or been in the system, that you go to war with what you've got, not what you want. What you NEED comes later.

But guess what..... The last Sten guns left service slightly AFTER the Owen guns (1968-9 Owen and 1972 Sten) and the really crap, utterly useless No32 scope's in 1988. As for the Tele Scxt Reg, they were still in FRONT LINE SERVICE in 2000. Now what does that say?

And after all the slagging off............, crap kit, better stuff from the colonies, yep.........., worth remembering that while it took a LONG time and a LOT of help, we prevailed with what we had. And we didn't finish paying off our debt until 1998 or so

That is as diplomatic as I can be. If anyone wants to read my first, not so carefully worded reply can PM me

I didn't say that Peter, but there's no justification for slagging SAL or REL that I'm aware of. This fellow may have said it was all a disaster until he got there; people are inclined say things like that, especially 40 years later when there's no one to gainsay them. Sometimes they even exaggerate a tad I've heard. I think you and I even know of a case where a lovely story was made up to fit an artifact.

Without some more details, or corroboration, and seeing what SAL/REL did produce without any outside help, it doesn't quite ring true does it?

I daresay British snipers would have liked to have had a monte carlo buttstock with a recoil pad on their rifles, or a 5 power scope that weighed a pound or so less than a 32. They were certainly enthusiastic about them in 1944. Or even a proper observing scope that wasn't three feet long and didn't fog up in the rain, but they didn't get them, even though the trials results were pretty clear. Not then and not 30 or 40 years later either.

It's not some chap's story, it's all documented in "Without Warning".

I rewrote my post a few times too; it's awfully boring if everyone agrees all the time!

[Surpmil]

And here's the rest of the story:

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread....ion#post362178