Most effective gun of WW2 - the Sten Gun (1960s, facts, German)
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.
The video itself (at 20:37) admitted: the make-do and mend approach came at a price. Soldiers hated the Sten because it's prone to misfire if dropped, jam at critical moments, and their aim reputedly less than true.
It sounds like it was a good value, but not the most effective.
I was not meant to be effective beyond that range. The Sten was more a machine-pistol. It was such a piece of junk the French and Germans copied it and the USA rated it above others in tests. The Sten did exactly what it was designed to do - and very cheaply. The ideal weapon to give an army that was expanding to millions of men. The ideal weapon to give resistance men.
Each sten gun cost as little as £2 ($10) to produce – roughly equal to about $130 or £80 today. By comparison, the American M1A1 Thompson went for a staggering $200 per unit in 1940! Twenty times as much.
It sounds like it was a good value, but not the most effective.
It was effective as it equipped whole armies cheaply and quickly. The later Stens were reliable and did not go off when dropped. The most effective tank in WW2 was T-34. Not the best but the most "effective".
The British army continued to use the Sten into the 1960s, as did a number of other militaries: Belgium, Israel, Jordan, India and Pakistan, Argentina, South Vietnam, South Africa and Indonesia all either used British-built stens or produced their own knock-offs for decades after WW2. During the 1991 break up of Yugoslavia, Croatian nationalists manufactured a domestic sten-inspired SMG known as the Pleter 91.
U.S. Special Forces carried suppressed Stens in Viet Nam. Not bad for a cheapo weapon that was not meant to last after WW2.
Even if that were true...
it's still a far cry from "most effective gun of WW2"
The Sten was the most effective. It was made very quickly and cheaply and equipped expanding armies instantly. Exactly what an army wants.
"Despite its issues, the Sten proved an effective weapon in the field as it dramatically increased the short-range firepower of any infantry unit. Its simplistic design also allowed it to fire without lubrication which reduced maintenance as well as made it ideal for campaigns in desert regions where oil could attract sand. Used extensively by British Commonwealth forces in Northern Africa and Northwest Europe, the Sten became one of the iconic British infantry weapons of the conflict."
Has anyone ever fired a MAC 10? It's a cheap piece of crap that slaps around but it spits 30 9mm bullets out in less than 30 sec. I am curious as to how easily they were hammered out in sheds by resistance fighters as we may need them here when the gubmint does it's gun grabbing. At that point we are as any other society where a tyrant has asserted himself. I don't want to sit by and watch.
Yeah, that is becoming more of a reality. Holder is telling states he will overstep his authority to do so.
I was not meant to be effective beyond that range. The Sten was more a machine-pistol. It was such a piece of junk the French and Germans copied it and the USA rated it above others in tests.
Has anyone ever fired a MAC 10? It's a cheap piece of crap that slaps around but it spits 30 9mm bullets out in less than 30 sec. I am curious as to how easily they were hammered out in sheds by resistance fighters as we may need them here when the gubmint does it's gun grabbing. At that point we are as any other society where a tyrant has asserted himself. I don't want to sit by and watch.
Yeah, that is becoming more of a reality. Holder is telling states he will overstep his authority to do so.
A bunch of Stens would be great - how cheap can they really be if made today? Gotta get those old plans.
Something to think about.
Your post has nothing to do with the topic at hand. There has never been a grab of guns unless it is grabbing them from criminal hands or those that would supply guns to criminals.
During design, emphasis was placed on simplifying production and eliminating most machining operations; most of the weapon's parts were sheet-steelstamped. These measures reduced the number of machined components to a bare minimum, cutting down machining time by more than half, to 2.7 hours of machining instead of 7.3 hours for the PPSh-41. There were also savings of over 50% in raw steel usage, down to 6.2 kg instead of 13.9 kg, and fewer workers were required to manufacture and assemble the parts. Thanks to the improvements in production efficiency, the Soviet planners estimated that the new gun would have allowed an increase in monthly submachine gun output from 135,000 units to 350,000 weapon Due to the massive investment already made in machinery for PPSh-41 production, which was already being produced in more than a million pieces per year, it turned out it would have been uneconomical to completely abandon its production in favor of the PPS.[4] By end of the war some two million PPS-43 submachine guns were made. Due to the oversupply of the Soviet army with submachine guns after the war, production of the PPS in the Soviet Union ceased in 1946. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PPS-43
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.