why did we make the "Sten" gun?

i guess the title speaks for it's self. why did we make the sten gun and not keep using the thompson? what was the diffrence in the two?

 

i guess the title speaks for it's self. why did we make the sten gun and not keep using the thompson? what was the diffrence in the two?


Price is one reason.

Availability another when the US entered the war.

This from U-Tube:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pwUSe0SnABA&mode=related&search=

and this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V591FhD_y3o&NR

 

Cost and ease of manufacture were the primary reasons. The Thompson was highly machine-work intensive, while the Sten could be easily made with essentially unskilled labor. Thus, the Thompson took longer to make, and was far more costly. The Thompson was a much better weapon (as far as reliability and stopping power), but the STEN was satisfactory for most purposes. Doc2

 

The Thompson was a precision made piece manufactured from milled and machined steel. This made it expensive in skilled labour, time and steel which could only really be mass produced in well equiped workshops and factories.

The Sten, was made from stamped and welded steel parts with the only two parts that needed real skill and machining being the barrel and the bolt. They were quick and reletivley easy to make and could be (in fact were) manufactured in great numbers in small 'backstreet' workshops very common at the time.

Providing your troops with a weapon that was easy to produce in great numbers , which used less resources in steel and skilled labour far outweighed any niggling complaints from the people who had to use them on the front......

..... in fact, when you consider things, not really that much has changed. I still have to suffer my A2 "Bob Marley"!

 

The irony of the sten was that the first couple of models weren't half bad (in production quality that is) but the due to the pressures of demand, the later (Mark 3 or 4?) became cruder.

Now for a really crude weapon, how about the liberator pistol?

 

Mk.V is the epitome of the Sten.
Unbelievable prices for Deacs.

Mind you I couldn't bring myself to buy a standard Mk.II, £400 for a metal tube and a spring...

Is that because of its historical associations with the airbourne?

And have you seen the German version (and the Australian - technically not a copy but similar - the "Owen" what a name!!)

 

Mark V just so well finished, mmmmm. Grips. Oooh. Wood.

I've now got a Homer-esque image of you :p Those gun magazines should now be "top-shelf"

 

Mk.V is the epitome of the Sten.
Unbelievable prices for Deacs.

Mind you I couldn't bring myself to buy a standard Mk.II, £400 for a metal tube and a spring...

Since the cut-off in 1986, machine guns and submachine guns have become quite expensive here in the States, a hobby for someone with a large bank account. Most expensive are WWII era guns, with prices reaching $20,000. Here's a current listing from one site. These are not deacts, by the way.

http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/?db=nfafirearms&category=All+Items+in+this+Category&query=category&search_and_display_db_button=on&results_format=headlines&website=&language=&session_key=


JT

 

i guess the title speaks for it's self. why did we make the sten gun and not keep using the thompson? what was the diffrence in the two?


More to the point.... which killed the most Germans?

 

Odd, the link works fine at this end of things.

Sten - $5-6K

MP40 - $10k at least

M16 - $18-20k

MG 42 - If you have to ask, you can't afford one.

Ridiculous prices, but then Christmas is coming up. Perhaps I'll ask Santa for one.

JT

 

The main reasons have been said already - cheap and easy to manufacture (so you can make thousands). As for it compared to the Thompson the Thompson is heavier and fires a bigger bullet (so more damage) and is more reliable and less like to shoot you in the foot...

 

to sum it up..:

Sten = cheap and easy to make, light and small

Tommy gun = expensive and heavy and requires harder to get parts

 

Even the models are expensive! But check out the videos of the Thompson and Sten being fired.

http://www.modelguns.co.uk/

 

I read somewhere that the Germans used the Sten when they could get their hands on one because they were easier to fire and change magazines when lying down. I suppose compared with a magazine underneath the ground clearance would be less therefore fewer movements and less chance to be seen.
Wasn't the Sten called the 7/6d gun?