Greetings, All,
I'm new to the forum, though I've browsed it for years- as long as I've played Steel Panthers, probably.
For what it's worth, I'm one of those who say that discussions that run along the lines of "What XXX was the best?" are academically void. One should better specify- best for what? Call me wishy-washy if you like, but I think I make a hard argument.
That said...
Overall, I think that the Sten was the engineering success story of the war. The British needed a few hundred thousand if not millions of submachineguns that they could stamp out in no time, and at this the Sten was an unmitigated success. They were, as has been mentioned, very simple and easy to maintain, though hideously inaccurate and outright dangerous. But I would also state that, franlkly, these drawbacks were unimportant to the British, who had greater problems. One can- and many people have- make Stens in garage workshops. Many of the same statements can be made about the US M3 "grease gun." It was also nearly universally hated by those who used it, but it could be stamped out in the thousands unlike the weapon that it replaced, the venerable Thompson (which required quite a bit a milling during production). I'd rather be backed up by twenty guys with M3s than two with Thompsons.
Another point regarding the rating of weapons is made by the PPSh. It was also dangerous, terribly inaccurate, and, frankly, ugly. But it had a beautifully chromed barrel that allowed it to use ammunition with corrosive primers that would reliably fire in the sub-zero conditions prevalent on the eastern front in winter- without pitting into uselessness. As such I would say that it was better engineered for the reqirement it was meant to fill than even the beatifully milled and fitted MP40 was. I would prefer an ugly but functioning PPSh to a beautiful but useless MP40 if my life were on the line.
My final two cents... The Stg44 is no more a submachinegun that the M1 carbine was. Both fired a cartridge midway between the pistol and rifle ammunition of the time, as has been stated. The M1 was meant to replace the officers' or NCOs' pistols with a weapon with a little better effectiveness, and thus is proabably not properly an assault rifle, though some authorities have argued that position. The Stg44, though, was from it's inception designed for the functions that we today associate with the assault rifle. It's developers used nearly the exact same argument that later assault rifle deveolpers would use- that since most infantry engagements take place at less than 500 meters or so, the infantryman does not need a full-power .30 caliber cartridge such as the .30-06 or .303. Thus a lower-powered cartridge would suffice, be more controllable in rapid fire, and allow the infantryman to carry more ammunition.
The whole MP43/44 mess was a semantic trick that no one really understands, though as stated above some think it was meant to deceive Hitler, who was committed to fast and cheap submachinegun production at the time. Thus the weapon was labeled MP and put into production anyway. I understand that the cat was let out of the bag when Hitler read a dispatch from the front begging for "more of these great new rifles." I'm surprised someone wasn't shot over that one. I've also been led to beleive that once Hitler was convinced of the utility of the weapon it was he, personally, who christened it "Sturmgewehr"- literally, "assault rifle."
Man, that was verbose. I do ramble on. Sorry.
