There are a few threads around here about the British Army replacing the Sten gun with the Australian Owen gun. Usually it's pointed out that the Owen is more reliable and robust than the Sten while the Sten is cheaper and easier to make than the Owen. A while ago though I read a post that pointed out that the Sten was supposed to be a stopgap weapon designed and produced in the dark days following Dunkirk and that a stopgap shouldn't still be in production after three years. So, should Britain have switched over to the Owen gun in about 1943 and relegated the Sten to a weapon that was dropped to continental resistance movements?
Sten or Owen?
- Thread starter Landshark
- Start date
, "Would you really take a Australian gun."
You might want to explain that for us simple Australians. But don't use any big words.
You might want to explain that for us simple Australians. But don't use any big words.
The MkV isn't much of an improvement. Slightly better finishing and nicer sights can't hide the fact that it's still the same old Sten underneath.
Depends on when in 43? The Owen was in production in March 42 so it could easily have gone into production in the UK and Canada in January 43, a full year and a half before D-Day.
We used Belgian pistols, Czech machine guns and Polish cannon so why wouldn't we use an Australian SMG?
Depends on when in 43? The Owen was in production in March 42 so it could easily have gone into production in the UK and Canada in January 43, a full year and a half before D-Day.
We used Belgian pistols, Czech machine guns and Polish cannon so why wouldn't we use an Australian SMG?
IIRC the British command in Malaya during the Emergency requested 5000 Owens. During the Pacific War the US army seriously considered adopting it in .45 ACP.
And anecdotally, British troops in Korea were very happy to grab Owens.
In terms of service durability (if not manufacture), the weapon was the Kalashnikov of SMGs.
There was a lot more machining in the OG than in the Sten; though less than the wartime 'dumbed down' Thompson. Someone here once made the case it was too much a pre-war design in its basic concept. And it was heavy.
As a replacement for the Woolworths gun, this needs a major change in British wartime manufacturing doctrine.
The last thing one wants to do in the middle of a war is completley re-tool production lines. The Owen was an excellent SMG, however the Sten proved to be 'good enough'.
"(Ok dropbearabroad , I admit I used 1 big word sorry, doesn't the tell you all you need to know ? )."
I wasn't offended. Now we have the Ashes back we can afford to be less chippy with our colonial masters.
I wasn't offended. Now we have the Ashes back we can afford to be less chippy with our colonial masters.
IIRC the Owen did contain more machining than the Sten but it was "simple" machining, the sort of thing any reasonably well equipped machine shop could do rather than a select number of precision machining companies.
Yes, it was produced by a general engineering firm that had never made firearms before; if it had been introduced at the same time as the Bren, pre-war, it would have been a piece of cake to bring into peacetime service, and it would have been an excellent way to restart a couple of shuttered Depression-era factories!
(Odd fact: the Australian version of the Sten, the Austen, was produced via die-casting; it was an appallingly difficult process to master for that production line, and Austens ended up having a higher unit cost than the Owen.)
"What makes you think he's British?"
I'm not assuming that he necessarily is, it was a generalist response that shouldn't depend on anyone's nationality (other than mine). It was also meant to be light-hearted which may or may not have been apparent. I honestly was not offended in the slightest.
I'm not assuming that he necessarily is, it was a generalist response that shouldn't depend on anyone's nationality (other than mine). It was also meant to be light-hearted which may or may not have been apparent. I honestly was not offended in the slightest.