Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Good Looking Women Soldiers
In a heavily resource-constrained UK during WWII, that made it a very reasonable weapon.
Was it better than the SMLE (another possible choice for many of the people who got the Sten)? I'm pretty sure it was significantly cheaper than the SMLE. But not only that, it was better than the SMLE when volume of fire was more important than long-range accuracy and penetration. (I wouldn't recommend a Sten for a sniper. 8-)
Was it better than a Thompson? Certainly not better quality (though it was lighter), but the US Army largely stopped buying the Thompson in favor of the M3, because the Thompson was heavy and expensive -- exactly the driving reason for the Sten.
Was it better than any of the pistols available? For most military applications, it probably was. And probably cheaper than most, too.
All weapons are tradeoffs; I don't think the set of tradeoffs involved in the Sten was a bad one -- it was no Chauchat.