Military Review

STEN and its copies in service with Germany

60
STEN and its copies in service with Germany

STEN Mk I submachine gun. In service with Germany, it received the designation MP-748 (e). Photo Modernfirearms.net


The British STEN submachine gun was distinguished by its extreme simplicity of design and low cost of production. Thanks to this, the release of such weapons managed to establish not only in Great Britain, but also in other countries. Moreover, in 1944, even Hitler's Germany began to produce its own versions of the submachine gun. However, such an attempt to save money did not affect the general course of the war.

Trophy in service


In 1941, British factories mastered the production of the first model STEN submachine gun, and a few months later a modernized version appeared. In the shortest possible time, it was possible to re-equip its own army and begin preparations for new operations. Already in August, an unsuccessful raid on Dieppe took place, during which the British suffered heavy losses. As a result of this battle, the German military were able to first get acquainted with a number of enemy developments, incl. with a new simplified submachine gun.

From a certain time, Great Britain began to support the Resistance units in the occupied countries. Various cargoes were delivered to them by air, incl. armament. The cheap, simple and compact STEN, capable of using captured German cartridges, turned out to be a convenient novelty for the partisans.


STEN Mk II, aka MP-749 (e). Photo Wikimedia Commons

However, not all of the "parcels" reached the Resistance. Thus, a significant part of the cargo for the French partisans was discovered by the Germans. The seized weapons were sent for storage to the Paris office of RSHA. From there, trophies were shipped to various rear and police units for which there was not enough German production. The STEN Mk I entered service as MP-748 (e), and the Mk II product was designated MP-749 (e).

Initially, German experts were skeptical about the British submachine gun, since the overly simplified design showed low performance. However, in the face of a lack of own weapons, we had to close our eyes to the shortcomings of trophies, and they became a real alternative to the scarce MP-38/40.

Product "Potsdam"


In the summer of 1944, after the Allied landings in Normandy and further advance deep into France, the number of captured weapons sharply decreased - in contrast to the needs of the German structures. Therefore, at the beginning of autumn, it was decided to launch its own production of a copy of the STEN Mk II product. Such a copy was named Gerät Potsdam ("Product" Potsdam ").


Gerät Potsdam German production. Photo Smallarmsreview.com

In September 1944, Mauser received a special order. She had to copy the captured submachine gun and set up its production. In addition, it was required to develop two sets of technical documentation with different features. The first was intended to be transferred to large arms factories with developed production capacities, and the second was planned to be distributed between small factories with limited capabilities.

The Potsdam submachine gun was an exact copy of the British STEN Mk II with minimal technological differences. This allowed us to get the desired features, although it led to some problems. First of all, Potsdam has retained all the shortcomings of its prototype. In addition, the copied weapon, despite the unification of the cartridge, could not use the standard German magazines from the MP-38/40. Cost was another issue. One submachine gun cost 1800 Reichmarks. For comparison, the StG-44 assault rifles in the series by that time cost less than 100 marks.

Some sources mention that all the smallest details were copied, right down to the marking. From this it is concluded that there are plans to use Gerät Potsdam in sabotage under false flag, etc. However, reliably known German-made submachine guns do not have the characteristic British brands. In addition, the only goal of the project was to produce the cheapest and simplest weapon possible.


Experimental "Potsdam" with a silent firing device. Photo Valka.cz

The documentation was ready in mid-October, and immediately after that, an order for 10 thousand items appeared. By the end of November, 5300 submachine guns had been manufactured at the Mauser, and another 5100 units were produced in December. The ordered 10 thousand were shipped to the armies, and the fate of the remaining 400 Potsdam is still unknown. At the same time, the Hänel plant launched production of stores and by the end of the year produced almost 17 thousand units. Another 22,5 thousand stores were released in the first months of 1945.

"Neumünster" instead of "Potsdam"


On November 2, 1944, when production of Potsdam was just starting, Mauser received a new order. Now she had to rework the existing design towards further simplification and cost reduction. Upon the readiness of the project, he had to replace the predecessor in production. As before, it was planned to establish production at developed factories and small workshops.

In the documents, the new project was designated as Gerät Neumünster. Later, the incorrect designation MP-3008 became widespread. This index comes from the order number of November 2, which asked the development of weapons - "1-3-3008". Officially, this designation was never used.


The rear of the Potsdam receiver. Photo Smallarmsreview.com

In order to simplify the design, the barrel mount was redone. On STEN Mk II, it was secured in the receiver with a nut. The Neumünster used a bushing with pins instead. The receiver was extended for a new spring. The swivel magazine receiver, which also served as a protection for the ejection window, was made immovable and converted into a magazine from the MP-38/40. Its neck was now under the receiver, and the ejection window remained on the right. In connection with the transfer of the store, the shutter had to be redone. Trigger, controls, butt, etc. left unchanged.

The development and fine-tuning of Neumünster took only a few weeks. By the end of November, the submachine gun was ready for release at any factories in Germany. The first order appeared on November 15. The army wanted to get 1 million units. weapons with delivery until March, at 250 thousand a month. At the end of November, an additional order for 50 thousand items appeared for the newly created Volkssturm.


Serial Gerät Neumünster with a STEN Mk II stock. Photo Modernfirearms.net

However, the fulfillment of these orders ran into difficulties. The continued production of Potsdam, a shortage of materials and general difficulties of that period led to the fact that the mass production of Gerät Neumünster on the Mauser could not be launched until the beginning of 1945. Up to 30 other organizations were involved in production, but they also did not succeed. In addition, during the tests, various problems appeared, and the army began to plan the development of another sample, devoid of the flaws of the Neumünster.

In limited quantities


By the beginning of 1945, customers revised their plans for the supply of Neumünster. Starting in January, the monthly production of submachine guns was assigned to only 10 thousand units. In the spring it was planned to double it, and in the summer to reach rates of up to 250 thousand per month and by the fall to release the desired 1 million items.

In the winter of 1944-45, the army had to deal with the issue of ammunition production. In order for each of the million ordered submachine guns to have three loaded magazines, 96 million rounds were required. In this regard, in December there was a requirement to increase the production of 9x19 mm "Luger" cartridges by 150 million pieces. per month. As in the case of weapons, these requirements could not be met.


A submachine gun with a frame stock manufactured by the Eickhorn plant. Photo Modernfireams.net

It is not known how many enterprises managed to establish the production of Neumünster submachine guns. The general release of such weapons also remains uncertain. According to various estimates, from December 1944 to April 1945, it was possible to collect from several hundred to 45-50 thousand units. Apparently, the actual number of weapons is closer to the minimum estimates. So, among the known copies, the largest serial number was found for a product from the Blohm & Voss plant - "232". It is unlikely that other enterprises were able to reach the four- and five-digit numbers.

Production was carried out at several enterprises with their own technological characteristics. Known samples from different factories differ markedly from each other. So, some of the submachine guns received a receiver from a pipe, while others used a bent and welded sheet. The contours of the units and fittings were very different. For example, the mentioned submachine gun "232" from Blohm & Voss had a full-fledged wooden grip instead of a protrusion on the buttstock. Models with a wooden stock are also known.

Objectives and Outcomes


In 1944, Hitlerite Germany faced the problem of a shortage of small arms and began looking for alternatives to the models available in the series. One of the solutions to this problem was the copying of the most simple design of a foreign model. However, this did not allow meeting all the customer's requirements - Gerät Potsdam and Gerät Neumünster could not be produced in large quantities, and their cost was unacceptably high.


Another disassembled piece from Eickhorn. It can be seen that the receiver is bent from the sheet. Photo Smallarmsreview.com

The reasons for this are quite simple. The STEN submachine gun was created by the British industry, taking into account the available resources and production capabilities. By optimizing the design and manufacturing technologies, it was possible to reduce the cost of materials, labor and money to a minimum. Germany, copying STEN, was forced to start production virtually from scratch and could not use the reserve according to its own samples.

All this led to obvious difficulties, the struggle with which required a lot of effort, time and money. Moreover, all these problems arose in the most difficult period for Germany, when its defeat was already a matter of time - and any unjustified spending worsened the situation. It should be recalled that in 1944-45. other models of simplified and cheaper weapons were also developed, none of which helped to avoid defeat.

The program of copying a captured submachine gun ended in a real failure. With unacceptably high costs, no more than 10-15 thousand units were manufactured in a few months. weapons that could no longer influence the course of the war. Meanwhile, the UK and other countries were releasing tens of thousands of STEN submachine guns every month, supplying the army with weapons and avoiding unnecessary spending.
Author:
60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. zxc15682
    zxc15682 22 October 2020 18: 16
    +2
    What a nasty machine gun ...
    1. Revolver
      Revolver 22 October 2020 20: 26
      +3
      One of his nicknames was “Plumber's Nightmare”. But he did his job.
      http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2016/08/wwii-gun-nobody-wanted-hold/
  2. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 22 October 2020 18: 18
    +3
    I thought that I would read another transfusion from empty to empty, but the author managed to find and provide some new facts and figures.
    Thank you, it was interesting.
  3. Alf
    Alf 22 October 2020 18: 41
    +7
    The funny thing is that the copied product turned out to be MUCH more expensive than the original.
    1. Aag
      Aag 22 October 2020 18: 49
      +1
      Quote: Alf
      The funny thing is that the copied product turned out to be MUCH more expensive than the original.

      Well, the author explained it ...
      Although ..., 18 times (!), Probably more compelling justifications are needed. Well, for sure, it's not funny.))) You can't even blame German pedantry.
      1. Alf
        Alf 22 October 2020 19: 20
        +3
        Quote: AAG
        Quote: Alf
        The funny thing is that the copied product turned out to be MUCH more expensive than the original.

        Well, the author explained it ...
        Although ..., 18 times (!), Probably more compelling justifications are needed. Well, for sure, it's not funny.))) You can't even blame German pedantry.

        In 40, 1 pound was 11,5 Reichsmarks. Wall cost £ 2,5. We multiply 2,5x11,5, we get 28,5 reichmarks. Vick gives the price of a German WALL at 1800 Reichsmarks. Divide 1800 by 28,5, we get 63 times more expensive. I think, having learned about this, the German Ministry of Finance in full force would have hanged himself.
        1. Alf
          Alf 22 October 2020 19: 23
          +2
          Quote: Alf
          In 40, 1 pound was 11,5 Reichsmarks. Wall cost £ 2,5. We multiply 2,5x11,5, we get 28,5 reichmarks.

        2. Aag
          Aag 22 October 2020 19: 27
          +1
          Quote: Alf
          Quote: AAG
          Quote: Alf
          The funny thing is that the copied product turned out to be MUCH more expensive than the original.

          Well, the author explained it ...
          Although ..., 18 times (!), Probably more compelling justifications are needed. Well, for sure, it's not funny.))) You can't even blame German pedantry.

          In 40, 1 pound was 11,5 Reichsmarks. Wall cost £ 2,5. We multiply 2,5x11,5, we get 28,5 reichmarks. Vick gives the price of a German WALL at 1800 Reichsmarks. Divide 1800 by 28,5, we get 63 times more expensive. I think, having learned about this, the German Ministry of Finance in full force would have hanged himself.

          I proceeded from this, in the article: "... One submachine gun cost 1800 Reichmarks. For comparison, StG-44 assault rifles in the series by that time cost less than 100 marks ..."
          There is a striking difference in both cases. Did our Ministry of Finance work there then?)))
          1. Alf
            Alf 22 October 2020 19: 31
            +4
            Quote: AAG
            There is a striking difference in both cases. Did our Ministry of Finance work there then?)))

            Apparently, the nabiulins, silanovs and grefs with curls began their working careers there.
            1. Aag
              Aag 22 October 2020 19: 40
              +2
              Quote: Alf
              Quote: AAG
              There is a striking difference in both cases. Did our Ministry of Finance work there then?)))

              Apparently, the nabiulins, silanovs and grefs with curls began their working careers there.

              Well, at least, put emoticons. And then they will attract for ... they will come up with what!))) hi
              1. Alf
                Alf 22 October 2020 20: 30
                +1
                Quote: AAG
                Quote: Alf
                Quote: AAG
                There is a striking difference in both cases. Did our Ministry of Finance work there then?)))

                Apparently, the nabiulins, silanovs and grefs with curls began their working careers there.

                Well, at least, put emoticons. And then they will attract for ... they will come up with what!))) hi

                Perhaps, Yes, you are right. laughing laughing laughing
            2. Catfish
              Catfish 22 October 2020 20: 34
              +2
              It was the secret weapon of the NKVD in the bank of the Third Reich. laughing
              1. Cowbra
                Cowbra 22 October 2020 22: 22
                0
                Quote: Sea Cat
                It was the secret weapon of the NKVD in the bank of the Third Reich.

                I feel there too - Putin is to blame)))
                1. Catfish
                  Catfish 22 October 2020 22: 35
                  +1
                  Well, where is without him, darling. laughing
        3. Revolver
          Revolver 22 October 2020 20: 14
          0
          Quote: Alf
          In 40, 1 pound was 11,5 Reichsmarks. Wall cost £ 2,5. We multiply 2,5x11,5, we get 28,5 reichmarks. Vick gives the price of a German WALL at 1800 Reichsmarks.

          Even if we assume that the 1945 Reichsmark has lost several times since 1940, the difference is still staggering.
      2. Revolver
        Revolver 22 October 2020 20: 09
        0
        Quote: AAG
        Although ..., 18 times (!)

        How do you say "cut" in German? wassat
      3. Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko
        Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko 22 October 2020 21: 19
        0
        Or maybe kickbacks and other payments are hidden in the rise in price?!?
    2. andreykolesov123
      andreykolesov123 22 October 2020 20: 05
      0
      Quote: Alf
      The funny thing is that the copied product turned out to be MUCH more expensive than the original.

      for the same reason, Soviet copies of Western electronics were worse and more expensive than the originals.
  4. maktub
    maktub 22 October 2020 18: 43
    +2
    I read somewhere that the most "technological" PP of the Second World War was PPS-43
    Thanks to the author, I haven't even heard of the Potsdam product
    1. Aag
      Aag 22 October 2020 19: 11
      +1
      Quote: maktub
      I read somewhere that the most "technological" PP of the Second World War was PPS-43
      Thanks to the author, I haven't even heard of the Potsdam product

      Met ... Only, EMNIP, it was about the shooter of the USSR, Germany.
      Thanks to the author! But. You can, of course, find a description of STEN in other sources. However, for the sake of completeness of the article, IMHO, it would be useful to present the uniqueness of the design, manufacturability, as well as performance characteristics for comparison by the general public, and not just experts and deep amateurs. hi
    2. Catfish
      Catfish 22 October 2020 20: 32
      +2
      Not only the most technologically advanced, but also the most successful p / n of the Second World War. After the war, the Germans also copied it, but chambered for 9x19.
  5. Catfish
    Catfish 22 October 2020 19: 16
    +5
    An interesting nuance emerges here: STEN is the most simplified copy of the Lanchester submachine gun,

    which in turn is a copy of the German p / p Bergmann (designed by Hugo Schmeisser) MR-18,

    the Germans, out of necessity, began to copy STEN and everything returned to normal. The ways are inscrutable ... and not only the Lord's.
    1. Aag
      Aag 22 October 2020 19: 49
      +1
      Extremely curious!
      I hope the specialists will chew (or at least send them to find the truth). In this case, it is an obvious flaw of the author of the article.
      For my part, I can only explain that as a child, for some time I possessed an electromechanical toy made of gray plastic, externally similar to the samples presented in the photo.))))
      1. Catfish
        Catfish 22 October 2020 19: 53
        +3
        I hope the experts will chew (or at least send them to find the truth)

        What exactly? In general, these are fairly well-known facts. smile
        1. Aag
          Aag 22 October 2020 20: 04
          0
          Quote: Sea Cat
          I hope the experts will chew (or at least send them to find the truth)

          What exactly? In general, these are fairly well-known facts. smile

          From the article it follows that during WWII Germany was forced to "copy" STEN. You refer to the MP-18. I understand that one thing may not contradict the other. But I would like some specifics. Without epistemology about the chicken and the egg.)) hi
          1. Catfish
            Catfish 22 October 2020 20: 30
            +6
            The MP-18 in production was much more expensive than the Wall, after all, the Germans themselves, before the war, adopted another p / p - the MP-38, then they modernized it, making production cheaper - the MP-40. It's all about the cost, I guess. Otherwise, the "chicken", like the "egg", was German. laughing
            Only the author here somehow "walks" with prices, something I doubt that the Stg44 costs only a hundred marks, a completely different class of weapon.
            1. Aag
              Aag 22 October 2020 20: 51
              +1
              I agree.
              "... something I doubt that the Stg44 is worth only a hundred marks, a completely different class of weapon ..."
              And such suspicions crept in. Unless on the basis of reports to the Fuhrer (on captured raw materials, production facilities, captive labor force ...) By the way, this is a topic for a separate, and not one, article (methods of calculating the cost of certain types of weapons in different countries at different periods of time !). hi
              1. Catfish
                Catfish 22 October 2020 21: 11
                +4
                Here, after all, a completely new cartridge comes with a Sturmgever trailer, and the cheapness does not fit in somehow. And besides, arms production is a fairly accurate event, you can easily shit there, and it is unlikely that prisoners in particular and ostarbeiters in general were attracted there, if only packed boxes are loaded onto cars. From such industries, the Nazis did not send skilled workers to the front at the end of the war.
                1. Aag
                  Aag 22 October 2020 21: 38
                  +1
                  Quote: Sea Cat
                  Here, after all, a completely new cartridge comes with a Sturmgever trailer, and the cheapness does not fit in somehow. And besides, arms production is a fairly accurate event, you can easily shit there, and it is unlikely that prisoners in particular and ostarbeiters in general were attracted there, if only packed boxes are loaded onto cars. From such industries, the Nazis did not send skilled workers to the front at the end of the war.

                  It seems that we are going beyond the "scope" of the article ... The Germans somehow managed to produce more complex weapons with their orgnung.
                  Regarding: "... if only packed boxes are loaded onto cars ..", sorry, unpleasant associations have arisen, - in my opinion, a good part of our present country is doing this ... Thank you for a pleasant discussion, but after 4 hours on work, - the MO pension does not allow to sit at home.))) hi
                  1. Catfish
                    Catfish 22 October 2020 21: 43
                    +1
                    Happy and good luck to you, I am also retired, only in "civilian clothes". hi drinks
                    1. Aag
                      Aag 22 October 2020 21: 47
                      +1
                      Mutually. drinks hi
                      Quote: Sea Cat
                      Happy and good luck to you, I am also retired, only in "civilian clothes". hi drinks
                2. hohol95
                  hohol95 22 October 2020 23: 19
                  +1
                  MR-40 submachine gun (Maschinenpistole 40)
                  Cost
                  48 Reichsmarks
                  Rifle Mauser 98k
                  Cost
                  56 Reichsmarks
                  According to other sources - 78 RM
                  Automatic rifle SturmGewehr 44 (StG 44)
                  Cost
                  52 Reichsmarks
                  According to other sources - 70 RM
                  Machine gun MaschinenGewehr 42 (MG 42)
                  Cost
                  200 Reichsmarks
                  I cannot vouch for the reliability of these data!
                  1. Catfish
                    Catfish 22 October 2020 23: 25
                    +2
                    Hi Aleksey! hi
                    Mauser rifle more expensive than Sturmhever? This is due to what?
                    How are things going? drinks
                    1. hohol95
                      hohol95 22 October 2020 23: 41
                      +1
                      Wood and milling versus steel sheet and stamping.
                      Perhaps these are the main differences in price.
                      1. Catfish
                        Catfish 22 October 2020 23: 43
                        +2
                        It is very similar to the truth, but the price is still prohibitively low, because then why did they need to fence a vegetable garden with copying British scrap metal?
                      2. hohol95
                        hohol95 22 October 2020 23: 51
                        +1
                        Similar questions should be asked to the author of the articles "What did the Wehrmacht pay for?" lol lol lol
                      3. parma
                        parma 23 October 2020 08: 03
                        +2
                        Quote: Sea Cat
                        It is very similar to the truth, but the price is still prohibitively low, because then why did they need to fence a vegetable garden with copying British scrap metal?

                        It is quite understandable - the volume of production ... Stg-44 for 1,5 years of production collected about 400 thousand, and this freak was planned to collect 250k per month, because it was planned to make it in every yard workshop ... but apparently they did not take into account the materials Britain 1940 and Germany 1944-45 are slightly different, and the fact that the British simply lay in abundance, the Germans had to make specifically for this item (this is my understanding, there are no exact facts) ...
          2. AUL
            AUL 22 October 2020 22: 20
            +3
            Quote: Sea Cat
            Only the author here somehow "walks" with prices, something I doubt that the Stg44 costs only a hundred marks, a completely different class of weapon.

            It also hurt the eye. Something doesn't add up here! Why then did the Germans start building a garden? And other inconsistencies in the text come out. By the number of machines produced - from several hundred to 50. Somehow indistinct!
            1. Catfish
              Catfish 22 October 2020 23: 22
              +1
              Yes, there are other "punctures" with the number of weapons fired.
              For example
              ... immediately after that, an order for 10 thousand items appeared. By the end of November, 5300 submachine guns had been manufactured at the Mauser, and another 5100 units were produced in December. The ordered 10 were shipped to the armies, and the fate of the remaining 400 Potsdam is still unknown.
          3. hohol95
            hohol95 22 October 2020 23: 06
            +1
            Information from the Internet -
            As a result of significant efforts of German engineers, technicians and designers, the Stg 44 has become a really simple, cheap and technologically advanced product. The production of one Stg 44 required 14,3 kg of metal, with the mass of the weapon itself 5,5 kg; and 19 man-hours and 14 machine-hours. The cost price of this automatic weapon began to equal only 78 Reichsmarks, while the main weapon of the Wehrmacht infantry - the Mauser 98k magazine carbine continued to cost 70 marks.
  6. hohol95
    hohol95 22 October 2020 23: 23
    +1
    Interesting is another.
    Nobody can answer the question: "Where did all those gigantic masses of captured small arms that were captured in Europe and at the initial stage of the war with the USSR go?"
    After all, the Germans organized exhibitions of captured equipment and showed mountains of captured weapons in their newsreels.
    What kind of "tsunami" these mountains were "washed out like a bag of sugar"?
    1. Catfish
      Catfish 22 October 2020 23: 29
      +2
      Armed police units from traitors, again ROA, probably a lot went to melt down, and they did not produce ammunition for Soviet trophies.
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 22 October 2020 23: 49
        +1
        In the First Imperialist produced!
        During the Russo-Japanese War in Germany, an order was placed for cartridges for the "three-line". After completing the order, the Germans simply mothballed the lines and re-mothballed them with the beginning of the arrival of captured Russian rifles.
        All the same, there is a very big secret in the disappearance of the "mountains of small arms" captured by the Germans!
        In the First World War, they did not have such problems with small arms.
      2. Avior
        Avior 22 October 2020 23: 53
        +1
        They remade them for the 9 mm cartridge
        1. Catfish
          Catfish 22 October 2020 23: 58
          +1
          What kind of systems, Alexey?
        2. Avior
          Avior 23 October 2020 00: 07
          +1
          The Germans PPSh-41 received the designation Maschinenpistole 717 (r)
          Changed the chamber, barrel and magazine receiver for German stores

          Under the standard for the Germans cartridge 9 * 19
          1. Catfish
            Catfish 23 October 2020 01: 18
            +1
            Yes, of course, I saw this photo, but the whole question is how cost-effective is the re-barrel and rework of the receiver and shutter, how many of them could you make? With such a heap of trophies, it was probably still easier and cheaper to rearrange them than to establish the production of British clones. The devil only knows, the topic is such that a separate large article is required, and maybe not even one.
            PS We fired 9x19 cartridges from TT, it worked out quite well with single ones, they have almost the same sleeve bottoms.
            1. Avior
              Avior 23 October 2020 06: 04
              +1
              I think, first of all, we entered non-combat units and units.
              There they belong.
              And why the clones of the British did not work out is unclear. Objectively, this was not a problem technically.
              And the PPP was also a simple PP from a technical point of view.
            2. hohol95
              hohol95 23 October 2020 13: 33
              +1
              On July 5, 1944, the army command ordered the production of a batch of 9-mm barrels for the PPSh assault rifles "in addition to the 10000 already supplied."

              It turns out that the Germans tried to overload at least 10 thousand PPShs.
              But again, information from the Internet ...
            3. gross kaput
              gross kaput 25 October 2020 10: 14
              0
              Quote: Sea Cat
              But the whole question is how cost-effective is the re-barrel and alteration of the receiver and the shutter, how many of them could they make?

              It is cost-effective, the pipe is held on the PCA by a check, we knock out the check, we put a new-made pipe under 9X19, the store receiver, stamping of the simplest form, is put in place of a regular store without any modification of the donor, that's all, no more interventions are required.
              1. Catfish
                Catfish 25 October 2020 10: 20
                +1
                So it is surprising that instead of re-barreling the PPSh, British clones began to drive.
                1. gross kaput
                  gross kaput 25 October 2020 12: 14
                  0
                  PPSh rearrangement was carried out in the troops, the industry simply supplied pipes and receivers, and the work was carried out by repair shops, and they went into service with regular units. Yes, and there was not such a large number of damaged PPShs, the fokssturm was planned, in fact, by the national militia, i.e. millions of trunks were needed in a very tight time.
      3. Avior
        Avior 23 October 2020 00: 16
        +2
        Used not only PPSh, but also another small arms.
        The police and non-combat units were often armed, which did not conduct intensive hostilities and the ammunition consumption was small, and trophy cartridges could be dispensed with, and there were no problems with supply.
        But the PPSh was also used in combat, including those that were not converted.

  • Avior
    Avior 22 October 2020 23: 58
    +1
    Sten is technically very simple, perhaps the easiest to manufacture PPs of the Second World War.
    There is really no problem to do it with three inexpensive machines and a welding machine.
    Any artisan will make it without big problems if there is a trunk.
    It is completely incomprehensible and inexplicably prohibitively high cost of production for the Germans
    1. Mooh
      Mooh 23 October 2020 06: 51
      +1
      I think it's a matter of quantity. In the manufacture of any product, development and implementation costs are included in the cost. Therefore, the first copies always cost exorbitant money, and then, with gross production, the price gradually decreases to a reasonable one.
      The second possible option is manufacturing using a bypass technology, that is, not on the main conveyor, but in pilot production, by the best workers of the company by hand. The cost is prohibitive too.
      In any case, in case of mass production, the price of this device would be significantly less than that of the MP-38.
      1. Avior
        Avior 23 October 2020 07: 02
        0
        But not with the same ratio.
        Sten does not require any special technologies, and high qualifications of workers are not required. No special hardware required. A lathe of a low accuracy class, drilling and a couple of operations on a milling machine.
        And plus the cutting of water pipes, even if it is production waste, the chamber and the barrel are similar to the German ones, the cartridge is the same.
        It just can't make such a difference in price.
        For example, if stamping was used there, then it is clear that the larger the batch, the lower the price per piece, the punch and die are expensive, you need to do at least one copy, at least 10 thousand.
        But for Stan, there was no such problem.
        1. Mooh
          Mooh 23 October 2020 07: 11
          +1
          It is clear that the equipment is not expensive, but you still need to buy it. The existing one is occupied by products already in production.
          Therefore, in the first batch, the price of three machines, a press and several welders sits. And perhaps also the construction of a new workshop and all kinds of workbenches and estimates.
          1. Avior
            Avior 23 October 2020 07: 48
            0
            This is the peculiarity of the Wall, which distinguishes it from other inexpensive PCBs of the times of the war - a press is not needed, special equipment is not needed, technology development is not needed, almost any machines that are not involved in production are suitable, they can be spaced apart for final welding and assembly, any room will do.
            Therefore, I was surprised by the high price.
            And there were at least thousands, or even tens of thousands, and not just a few.
            But, probably, there was some reason if the price turned out like that.
            1. Mooh
              Mooh 23 October 2020 11: 26
              0
              The end of 44 is in the yard, there are no free machines, there are no free workers and nowhere to take, half of the factories are bombed, scarce materials are distributed by personal orders of the minister. Less than 500 units were manufactured.
  • gross kaput
    gross kaput 25 October 2020 10: 52
    0
    As for the German copies of WALLS, it is necessary to divide them into two parts - "sabotage" products - that is. full copies up to chekukh, and PP Volkssturm based on STEN.
    As for the first, stories about water pipes and other heresy appeared after English jokes on this score, in fact, the WALL box was made of seamless seamless pipe 1-1 / 2X0,05, as it is not difficult to guess, taking into account the difference in the measurement systems of Britain and Germany , pipes of this range in the Reich still had to be very much looked for smile With pipes for the butt, the same parsley, in addition to this, STEN also had stamped parts that required the manufacture of equipment, for the serial production of the remaining elements, special devices, templates, patterns, etc. were required. As a result, with such a small order of 25000 pieces, the price tag for V.7081 or the Potsdam product turned out to be cosmic, since all the costs of preparing for production were smeared with a rather thick layer on each unit of the product, plus there was also a charge for the urgency of the order.
    Products for the Volkssturm were supposed to be large-scale Mauser prototype V.7083, it was significantly simplified, the MP 3008 from Schmeisser and from Blom and Voss were a bit more complicated, but it's not worth pulling a price tag from Potsdam on them, it is unlikely, if the Germans had enough time to deploy mass production, the price would be higher than the British prototype.