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 best hand machine gun of gun of WW2 must go to the British Sten gun. Simple, light, cheap to make and stamped out by the millions. Even the Germans and French copied the gun. Crude but effective. It could be made in garden sheds with minimum machine tools. Plans on how to make them were sent to resistance movements.
The Sten had initial defects which were ironed out quickly to the point it was very reliable. It was made in Resistance workshops in Denmark, Norway, France, Poland etc. And by Israel where the Arabs had them too. Quite a remarkable weapon that lacked recognition, despite a rush design. The later models were more simpler, and reliable, with less parts.
The US evaluated the Sten to copy it. The British Sten gun was trialled along with several other US designs. The Sten gun was the winner of the evaluation, with the US evaluation finding it more reliable than the M1. However the US strangely did not copy it mainly due to internal differences.
This is superb video overall, worth watching from end to end. The Sten Gun design is at 14 mins. Amazing.
I cannot tell if you are serious or not. Look at the longevity of the Sten vs. the Stirling in British military use.
Ironic that some U.S. combat soldiers actually would use the MP 38/40s when available as captured weapons. Germans would use the PPSh-41.
Well researched books dealing with WW2 infantry weapons and written by those who are knowledgeable will state the Sten was a mass produced due to low cost and simplicity not because it was the better than similar sub-machine guns.(the correct term)
Finnish and Australians both had outstanding ones as well.
One of the better SMGs was not even used by combatants, the Swedish K, but used extensively postwar in colonial conflicts.
I cannot tell if you are serious or not. Look at the longevity of the Sten vs. the Stirling.
Ahhhhh the dreaded BSS - "British Superiority Syndrome" - The tendency of British history fans to look back in fondness on the days of the British Empire, where everything was perfect and without fault. I see it's making it's way out of Napoleonic Warfare discussions and into WW2 discussion.
He's serious, looking at his posting history you can expect his response to be either: 1.) a long-winded essay that has nothing to do with your post, or 2.) personal insults
I cannot tell if you are serious or not. Look at the longevity of the Sten vs. the Stirling.
Ironic that some U.S. combat soldiers actually would use the MP 38/40s when available as captured weapons. Germans would use the PPSh-41.
Well researched books dealing with WW2 infantry weapons and written by those who are knowledgeable will state the Sten was a mass produced due to low cost and simplicity not because it was the better than similar sub-machine guns.(the correct term)
Finnish and Australians both had outstanding ones as well.
One of the better SMGs was not even used by combatants, the Swedish K, but used extensively postwar in colonial conflicts.
The Sten is valued by collectors and an important piece of military history. Without the Stens the Brits wouldn't have been able to field their armies in Europe or Asia fighting the Germans and Japanese. They lacked a lot of resources and had an urgent need to equip their troops so the Stens made perfect sense to make. Also it was pretty reliable in mud etc. So it became pretty popular with resistance, insurgent groups where a more complicated gun would be finicky if not religiously maintained.
The best hand machine gun of gun of WW2 must go to the British Sten gun
First thing, you need to post a picture of a Sten gun and not a Sterling.
This is what a Sten Mk III looks like.
Effective? What might be your definition of effective because in terms of rate of fire, ballistics, reliability and accuracy the Sten lagged far behind the Thompson M1A1, the German MP40 or the vastly superior Soviet PPSh-4.
Now I'm all for a little nationalist pride here and there, but let's not be silly.
Hail Britannia, pip, pip and a Jolly hip hip hurrah. But you've got to be pissed if you think the Sten was anything other than really cheap to make.
Many are suffering from the German quality syndrome lacking understanding of the economics in the ability to wage war. Look at the video relating to the Tiger tank - "a waste of time" as the video stated. The idea was to win a war not be first on the block with a shiny gun that lasted for decades. The Sten was super cheap to make and as the video stated, it did "exactly what it was supposed to do". You could make a weapon that costed 10 times more to make, took 10 times more in resources and time to make, lasted 10 times longer as well and in function did exactly the same. It was a highly disposable weapon designed to win a war and forgotten. It was stamped out in the millions. It was so good a design the Germans and French even copied it. Resistance fighters made them in garden sheds.
The Sten was the most effective hand machine gun of WW2, without a shadow of a doubt. These sort of weapons win wars.
Ahhhhh the dreaded BSS - "British Superiority Syndrome" - The tendency of British history fans to look back in fondness on the days of the British Empire, where everything was perfect and without fault.
Pay attention at the back !
The Sten was stamped out cheaply in the millions. It was crude but highly effective. Effectiveness wins wars. The Sten was a war winner.
Have you ever actually FIRED a Sten ? I have. A piece of junk.
The reason that the Sten used 9mm pistol ammunition ? The British captured whole ship loads of 9mm Italian pistol ammo in the middle east, and designed a sub machine gun to use it. Remember that it used a PISTOL bullet. Not effective beyond 100 feet.
As a military weapon it was less than adequate. It had a bad reputation for accidental discharge, and as soon as soldiers in action could get some thing else, they "lost the sten " .
Infantry soldiers have a keen sense of survival, and any bit of kit that isn't essential to life, is soon dropped. Example, in WW2, gas masks, no body was to be seen wearing a gas mask carrier bag, in action, after Dunkirk. Same thing with the Boys Anti Tank rifle, a useless bit of carp if ever there was one.
In any case, a typical British or Canadian infantry section in WW2 had 10 men, made up of a two man Bren gun team, and 8 with 303 rifles, and perhaps a Thompson. The ONLY thing that the Sten had going for it was weight, and the folding butt stock. Dispatch riders, on Indians, BSA"s or Harley's, were given one, as were armoured car crews. Guess what they did with the Stens ? Tossed, in favour of a Thompson, or a US M1 carbine.
Stens are complete crap. They are "spray and pray" weapons; their only advantage was how cheap and easy they were to manufacture. I've shot one too; it's one of the more common civy-legal NFA guns. I could not get through a single mag without it jamming and forget about actually hitting anything with it.
The most effective guns of WW2 were probably the Browning MGs. They were so good the US military is STILL using them today.
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.
