>"The Bren gun is better than the Spandau" Prove

>>32278368

But he never said that.

>>32278368
>Spandau

>>32278368
Shit quality bait, OP.

Why do you autists keep making threads about this unwashed ketamine addict? Hes just a retard with a camera, why do you give his opinions such credence that you sperg over them?

>>32278368
Did he shag your mum once again OP?

This is some oddly dedicated shitposting.

>>32278368
The sten gun is better than the MP40.

>>32280862
Depends on what you want out of the weapon

If I'm going to chose, I'd go with the MP40

Stems are amazing, don't get me wrong but I'm not trying to arm a militia out of a two car garage - on to of that they wouldn't be suppressed since I'd just try to make as many as possible with as little material as possible

They had their purpose, they have a higher rate of fire and those are the one claims the Sten can hold onto

With the MP40, you get more reliability and more safety since IIRC MP40s are not open bolt like the Stens

File: samethreadeverysecondday.gif (47KB, 408x410px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 408x410px

Come on OP, are you really that butthurt over his videos ?

>>32278368
All british guns are garbage. WWII was solely won by the US.

>>32278368
tanks with unhardened steel are better then tanks made to standards

>>32280995
>and more safety since IIRC MP40s are not open bolt like the Stens
mp40s are open bolt

>>32281529
Kek. Didn't the commies put a flag on top of the reichtag?

>>32278368
Madsen is superior to all

>>32280862
In strategic terms this is true, particularly for later model stens. They're cheaper, significantly easier to produce and ideal weapons to give to partisans/untrained militias (concealability and ease of reverse-manufacturing). Later models were not much less reliable than MP40s and most flaws are traceable to the near-identical magazine both designs shared (and which caused issues for the MP40 also).

>>32281848
Whilst I wouldn't agree with the frankly outlandish claim that the USA 'solely' won WW2 the USSR was reliant on lend-lease for almost all of its logistics. Even before the USA supplied it a good chunk of the early war (1941) medium tanks, heavy tanks and effective fighters were from British lend-lease.

>>32281529
Actually the British contributed more to the war than the US and the USSR. Americans like to brag about the Pacific but they forget that most of the Japs were fighting the British in the Burma Campaign.

>>32282522
>Actually the British contributed more to the war than the US and the USSR. Americans like to brag about the Pacific but they forget that most of the Japs were fighting the British in the Burma Campaign.
Don't forget the Australians anon. And don't ask them about MacArthur.