Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You do know that the Sten itself was nothing more than a cheap copy of the Lanchester which itself was nothing more than a copy of the German MP18/28, right?
The designers did not base the Sten in the Lanchester.
The Sten was a revolutionary design. All nations drew influence from the Sten and often ended up with a much more robust weapon, even the British with the Sterling.
Quote:
However, there is such a thing as being "too economic"
The US Grease gun, with its design brief based on the Sten was meant to be thrown away if it malfunctioned, meaning no parts logistics needed - great approach and ideal in wars. Getting millions of parts to all forces was nightmare. The Sten only had 48 readily available parts.
Quote:
Kalashnikov openly admitted in the years before his death that he received "help" from the Germans when designing the AK-47. How much help he received is a matter of some debate...but let's be honest...the man 'invented' one rifle design and then nothing outside of re-chambered models and variants that used the same main design from 1947.
The designers did not base the Sten in the Lanchester.
Ummm....yes they did. The Lanchester is basically a copy of the MP18/28. The Sten uses the exact same action and general design in terms of how it functions as a gun, but was engineered to be produced much more cheaply versus the higher quality Lanchester.
MP28...
Lanchester...
Sten...
Yep...nothing similar there at all...
Quote:
The Sten was a revolutionary design. All nations drew influence from the Sten and often ended up with a much more robust weapon, even the British with the Sterling.
The ONLY thing revolutionary was how cheap they were able to make it. That little revolution was abandoned in future efforts, including the Sterling.
Quote:
The US Grease gun, with its design brief based on the Sten was meant to be thrown away if it malfunctioned, meaning no parts logistics needed - great approach and ideal in wars. Getting millions of parts to all forces was nightmare. The Sten only had 48 readily available parts.
The "grease gun" was based on the Sten concept, but was still a better made weapon.
Quote:
I assume captured German POWs.
Well, if you want to call the German designers POW's, sure. Schmeisser himself was taken by the Red Army after it assumed control of Suhl and the Stg.44 factory. Schmeisser and his design team were sent to Russia where they were forced to work with Soviet designers including Kalashnikov on new weapons for the Soviet Union.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK
They did? All by themselves? That is new to me.
It was the Brits starving out the Germans with the Royal Navy blockade and bombing their industry. Invade the UK? Without a navy. Wow!
The US and British played a part in the defeat of Germany, but the lion's share of the credit goes to the Soviet Union.
The RN blockade certainly impacted Germany in the early years of the war and was one of the primary justifications for the necessity of expanding east. Resource security was the name of the game.
The bombing had a questionable impact and let's face it, the bombing was just as much the US as the British in terms of tonnage. However, the British easily carried the load nearly alone from 1939-1943. The US only began to really impact the bombing campaigns in 1944. However, even at the peak of the strategic bombing campaign, German production of war material and armaments reached their highest levels of the entire war.
Invading the UK was never a realistic possibility for Germany.
Well short of actually firing weapons in actual combat (Vietnam 1970-71) then the next best thing is the range. You really can't discuss weapons without taking them apart, handling them and firing them. The knowledge acquired beats a barstool every time.
Personal ownership at one time or another: H&K 92, H&K 93, AK-47, assorted AR-15's..
Relevant weapons played with: Lee Enfield, Sterling L2A3, Steyr Aug, IMI Galil, FN-FAL and I think there was a Sig and a Bennelli rifle somewhere in the mix.
Well short of actually firing weapons in actual combat (Vietnam 1970-71) then the next best thing is the range. You really can't discuss weapons without taking them apart,
The ONLY thing revolutionary was how cheap they were able to make it. That little revolution was abandoned in future efforts, including the Sterling.
This proved you do not have much of clue. The Sterling was basically a Sten made to a higher manufacturing specification an small design changes like a pistol grip added.
Quote:
The "grease gun" was based on the Sten concept
You are getting there.
Quote:
The US and British played a part in the defeat of Germany, but the lion's share of the credit goes to the Soviet Union.
The RN blockade certainly impacted Germany in the early years of the war and was one of the primary justifications for the necessity of expanding east. Resource security was the name of the game.
I advise you to do some reading. The RN blockade impacted Germany all through WW2. It went from the first day to the last day. It prevented food, oil, rubber and all precious metals from entering Germany. Germany was considering de-motorizing as they had little rubber.
Without the UK the Soviets could not have stopped the Germans at Moscow. 75% of the tanks used were supplied by the British.
Quote:
The bombing had a questionable impact and let's face it, the bombing was just as much the US as the British in terms of tonnage. However, the British easily carried the load nearly alone from 1939-1943. The US only began to really impact the bombing campaigns in 1944. However, even at the peak of the strategic bombing campaign, German production of war material and armaments reached their highest levels of the entire war.
In 1944/45 the Rhine was the cleanest it had ever been as the factories were nearly all destroyed. Hamburg was wiped out in a night in 1943. Countless men and equipment were assigned to attack he bombers, keeping them away from the USSR.
Quote:
Invading the UK was never a realistic possibility for Germany.
The Sterling was basically a Sten made to a higher manufacturing specification an small design changes like a pistol grip added.
Just take a minute....just a minute....and go back and re-read the thread.....
....I'll wait....
...done yet? OK...
So, your main claim to fame is that the Sten was cheap and easy to produce making it revolutionary and changing the way guns were made after. This was your fallback position after we proved that the Sten was nothing more than a copy of a German design. My point was that the concept of design simplicity and cheapness was ABANDONED even during the war when replacement guns like the Patchett/Sterling were being developed.
There was nothing revolutionary about the Sten other than it was cheap. It's cheapness was not an endearing quality beyond the immediate need at the beginning of the war, so later designs ABANDONED the cheapness. Hence, the Sten wasn't all that revolutionary was it?
Quote:
You are getting there.
You apparently aren't.
Quote:
I advise you to do some reading. The RN blockade impacted Germany all through WW2. It went from the first day to the last day. It prevented food, oil, rubber and all precious metals from entering Germany. Germany was considering de-motorizing as they had little rubber.
I advise you to read more than one book by some poofter about the war. The blockade had a minimal impact in reality. In the early war, there were massive leaks in the system...notably the Baltic and Black Seas and Russia. In the later years Germany was at war with anyone who would have traded with them.
The WW1 blockade was much more effective since Germany imported nearly 35% of its food at the time and didn't conquer land to replace it. In WW2 at the beginning Germany only imported 15% of its food supplies and it conquered large tracks of land. The blockade impacted people in German occupied lands more than people in Germany who just happily looted whatever they needed.
Quote:
Without the UK the Soviets could not have stopped the Germans at Moscow. 75% of the tanks used were supplied by the British.
BULL. I already pointed out how this was BULL in the other thread where I proved in great detail how wrong Tooze and you were about the composition and disposition of the French air force in 1940. There were 2,000+ tanks along the entire Moscow front which was composed of hundereds of miles along the Northwest, Kalinin and West Soviet fronts. There were perhaps upwards of 200 British tanks involved in the battle. Across the entire front these account for as little as 15-20% of the total medium and heavy tanks and around 10% of the total tanks.
If we focus in closer on specidic areas in the immediate Moscow suburbs, the number can go as high as 50%. I have NEVER seen a documented source claim that "75% of the tanks used were British". Even then, the total number of British tanks didn't mean they were all great tanks. There were around 75-100 Matilda II's about the same number of Valentines and around 20 Tetrarch light tanks. These mounted 2pdr guns which were limited as anti-tank weapons to engaging the lighter German armor. The 2pdr of the time also had poor anti-personnel capability, so they weren't great for that either. What the British tanks did have was exceptional armor and the Soviets used that to their advantage. Most of the British tanks ended up being placed in "hull down" position and used more as a static fortification. The advantage to this is that it freed up Soviet tank resources to provide punch to the counter-offensive. I suppose, if one got granular enough they may find a "75%" concentration in some sector.
Quote:
In 1944/45 the Rhine was the cleanest it had ever been as the factories were nearly all destroyed. Hamburg was wiped out in a night in 1943. Countless men and equipment were assigned to attack he bombers, keeping them away from the USSR.
The strategic bombing campaign had little impact on Germany until late in 1944. At this time, they were already defeated. The Soviets were moving into Poland and the western Allies were closing the gap at Falaise and getting ready to dash across France. Prior to that the Germans had actually achieved relative air superioirity over Germany in 1943 and the British and US actually suspended daylight bombing through the latter half of 1943. They did not resume until late February 1944 when new escort fighters like the Mustang became available and Germany's defeat was inevitable. The bombing really stepped up in Fall 1944, but at this time Germany was also largely cut-off from raw materials as well which easily had an impact on German production. However, by the time the largest tonnages and raids were being launched, Germany had already been shattered militarily.
Just take a minute....just a minute....and go back and re-read the thread.....
....I'll wait....
...done yet? OK...
EJECT, EJECT, EJECT before you get trolled into an infraction... oh goodness did I use troll in sentence?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
