Unless you're the one having to use it; then it becomes a bit more important.
Absolutely the Sten was notorious for not working at critical moments ...
... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Anthropoid#The_attack_in_Prague
Unless you're the one having to use it; then it becomes a bit more important.
Thanks for that link to the full Australian version of the Owen's development.
My previous education was lacking because British and American books describe the Owen as just another version in the whole Bergman, Schmeisser, Sten Austen, Owen, F1 SMG development sequence.
Whereas this Australian account says that the Owen SMG was a completely independant design that just happened to resemble a Sten because it was designed to do the same job.
It sounds like a case of Aussie ingenuity triumphing over Imperial ignorance. Only a red-neck engineer could triumph over that many government obstacles.
After reading that account, I now understand your fondness for the Owen, especially it's downwards ejection port.
The British War Office began WW2 the same way they began every other war with British industrialists scheming on how to turn the best profit by selling expensive arms to the colonies in exchange for cheap raw materials. It was only after the debacle at Dunkirk that British industry started to consider that they might need help from colonial factories.
Canada rapidly tooled-up to build British-pattern weapons. Despite the Nazi threat, it was still "politics as usual" in Ottawa. Opposition politicians tried to embarrass the government over the "Bren gun scandal." The government had rushed to sign a no-bid, single-source contract (with Inglis) to build Bren guns in Ontario. The fact that Inglis-built Bren guns performed well in combat was quietly forgotten before the next election!
Hah!
Absolutely the Sten was notorious for not working at critical moments ...
... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Anthropoid#The_attack_in_Prague