Talk:Sterling submachine gun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of the Firearms WikiProject, a project devoted to the improvement of firearms coverage on Wikipedia with an emphasis on civilian firearms.

If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Sterling submachine gun should be removed from Secondary weapons of World War II because it was developed after world war II

No it wasn't. The Patchett SMG (which is simply the Sterling by another name) was developed in 1943 and was used by British Paratroopers at Arnhem in September 1944. Admittably, only a few dozen Patchetts were used at Arnhem, but it really was fired in combat there. Although the Patchett wasn't officially adopted by the British Army until after WW2, even during the war people recognised that it was an excellent design. Hence paratroopers taking them to Arnhem. One final nugget of information that you may not be aware of that made the Sterling viable at Arnhem: the Sterling will accept a Sten gun magazine and fire it. Obviously the Sterling magazine design is much superior, but you can get away with using Sten gun mags.

The SMG was used by the British Forces in the early to mid 1990's. Last used operationally by the British Army during Op Granby.

[edit] Copyvio issue

User:Noodle_snacks copyvio'ed the article in its entirety, due to an apparent inclusion of text from [1]. I have reviewed this and put this on his talk page:

I just went back through this history of the article. The section identical to what's on the nazarian.no website was introduced here [2] by User:Jll. The section was not dropped in in the form that it appears at nazarian.no; look at the diff series from April 7, 2005:

That clearly shows Jll formatting the new text and adding and fixing text and typos.

Evidence says that nazarian grabbed the text off wikipedia, not the other way around. So I am going to restore it. Let me know if you find better evidence... Georgewilliamherbert 07:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)