There is a reason why the British would become fanatical about the subsequent post war weapon being able to run in the desert -such as the cut outs on the bolt of the Sterling SMG and its over engineered magazine.
Now obviously these would be LL niche items in British service, paratroopers and special forces issue equipment comes to mind. (Looking at you Burma.)
If Mr. Johnson had weapon proofed his rifle and LMG in the Mojave, then it would have helped in another theater where lightweight infantry arms for special forces could have helped.
As it is, a STEN actually made a lot of British sense for the two reasons specified above, but I am not an ergo fan of it. More on the STEN in a moment.
Once again, judging from the milling operations involved I am going to suggest that this needs to be sourced, because I do not see how. The STEN is simple. Hardly more than an over-glorified shooty tube with springs and levers and cast or metal stamped bits welded, riveted and/or screwed to it, and one block of metal that reciprocates with a firing pin on it. It is a headlamp manufacture type simple item to make. I do not even see why it costs twice as much as a grease gun to make. The Kiraly, (see upthread where Gun Jesus takes it apart and shows the operating parts.) has lot of precision milled pieces and precision cut and shaped elements that are expensive to make and proof fit on the factory floor in the assembly process.BSA said they could produce the weapon for £5 each (Sten gun MkII cost about half this) - considering that they ended up buying Thompsons at more that £40 each I'd say that was a bargain!
But then I always thought the Thompson at $200.00 was a price gouge, too. That bar-stock turned machine pistol should not have been that expensive. And for that price Uncle, for those 1 million or so Thompsons made, could have bought 2.5 million MORE M1 and M2 carbines. Might have something to say about a light rifle in a moment.
Oh, Canada! Next door to that nation using the weird manufacturing and production tech. It turns out "they" use the same weird manufacturing and production tech, too. Inside the firm so to speak. Do not let the Ross Rifle leave a negative impression.For the UK to rearm on such a scale would strain the defence budget to breaking point in the early 1930's, there is also the issue of how it would affect balance of trade as UK production methods were different to the ones used in the US requiring the import of US machine tools and production methods all of which would need to be paid for with cold, hard cash. Don't forget all of the existing weapons in the Empires armouries which cannot be converted so that includes all the existing Enfield rifles as their receivers are too short for .30-06, existing Lewis guns, Vickers-Berthiers in Indian Service etc.
This is a no-brainer. Even when the PIAT and 6 pounder comes online; they should become antitank gardeners and sow mines for the Germans to reap.issue a lot of AT mines Finnish style to the troops until they can be replaced by an effective infantry AT weapon.