Why was this garbage adopted by the US military?

>>33945518
when you're a nation of mongrels then it's safe to say half the shit won't make sense.

>>33945518
cheaper, easier, and faster to produce than the thompson while fulfilling the same role

>>33945518
Bruh take a close look at the thing. They were just cheaper to make.

>>33945533
>>33945538
>cheaper = good
Ameritards everyone

>>33945518
They were cheaper to manufacture.

>>33945518
Because the Thompson was shit.

>>33945551

huh? Wow you'll use any excuse to hate on America. I guarantee we have better quality and more of it today, my nig. You should take that impotent internet rage and use it to unfuck your shit country so we don't have to babysit you anymore.

>>33945518
Same reason the AR was.
It was an expedient and fairly cheap option compared to what they had.

File: 1331417004065.jpg (116KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 500x500px

>>33945551

2/10

>>33945551
welcome to WWII retard

>>33945551
no the equation is
>life = worthless
and thus the grease gun was born

File: Grease 'em.gif (291KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 320x240px

>>33945518
So people could say they "greased" someone.

M3s weren't garbage. Sure, they weren't as refined and beautiful as the Thompson, but if properly maintained, they worked. And given that WWII strangled both the population and resources of every nation involved, it was better to have a lot of "good enough" than a few "excellent". That's why the M4 and T-34 tanks proved strategically superior to the German Tigers.

>>33945551
There's this thing called war production.
You might have heard of it.

>>33945914
>Tigers
>excellent
underpowered engine m8

>>33945924
"Strategically superior"; Big Picture. The PzKw6 was a resource hog, with less than 1400 specimens being produced. There were too few, and those that were around were gas guzzling, maintenance-heavy machines. 1-on-1, they were nightmares. But they were, ultimately over-run by the 100k combined might of allied mediums. Also, aside from few numbers, the German super tanks broke down regularly and ran their fuel reserves dry, leaving infantry exposed. Strategic flop. Vehicles like the PzKw4 Auf. F2+ were far more effective, per cost.

>>33945551
>>Cheaper=good
No, Cheaper=more, and more=good.
Fucking drongo, didn't your math teachers tell you to show your work or were you too busy chugging the elmers to care?

File: m3greasegun#21.jpg (34KB, 740x414px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 740x414px

>>33945551
because
you could either buy a 1919 with tripod and ammo
or a Thompson

even the M1A1 was
>heavy
>expensive
>time consuming to manufacture
>used high quality steel that was needed everywhere else

the M3 wasn't the best subgun ever made, but it was one of the better ones to come out of WW2
pic related
the M3A1 stayed in service until the mid 90's

File: DSC02180.jpg (406KB, 1400x1050px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 1400x1050px

Lol wtf are you talking about nigger, M3 Grease gun was literally the best subgun in WW2.

>>33945518
Eh, the M3 was not bad and honestly I wouldn't feel under gunned with one.

Even today.

File: skull_longer_version.gif (988KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

988KB, 500x281px

>>33945860
>Grease 'em

OP, just because it's a troll post doesn't mean it isn't still stupid.

>>33945518
They were cheap and easy to use, much like your mum.

During WW2, you could buy 3 of these for less than the price of a M1.

> Thompson SMG
> $209 (In 1939)
> $70 (in 1942)
> $45 (In 1945)

> M3 “Grease Gun”
> 1942 – $22
> 1945 – $15

The M3A1 stayed in service until Desert Storm. It was a very successful design, much more so than any other submachine guns of that era.

File: 1493913249408.png (20KB, 701x394px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 701x394px

More compact than a thompson, lighter than a thompson, at least as reliable as a thompson, what's the downside again?

>>33945924
>give me all the gas, I've got a war to lose

>>33945518

what are you talking about? its overpowered in rs2 vietnam.

>>33947060
>>33947576
>it wuz in service until the 90s!
and you know who got them? mechanics. not Infantry, not anyone else in the combat arms, wrench turners. they never even shot them. I spent 14 months as a company armorer in the mid 90's. we had two of them in the arms room for the maint team. the only reason we ever shot them was because I went out and bought 100 rds of .45 and we took them to some range where automatic fire was not authorized and shot them anyway. the box mags were fucked and we could get maybe 10 rounds into them.

>>33945518
It certainly was not garbage. It was a war time SMG which met all of its requirements. It was used in Korea and to a lesser extent Vietnam and was issued to Tankers into the 80's. I think history proves your statement is inflammatory and inaccurate. Enough said.

>>33945551
>what is a maverick 88

>>33948748
Correct. I was a mechanic in the 80s, and had one as part of my vehicle's load out. Only got to shoot them once in 2 units (no combat). Heavy, slow rate of fire, but simple as a brick to operate and maintain. We preferred them to the more fragile M16A1s, which, in fairness, were probably just worn out leftovers from the 70s.

>>33947651
Ugly and not plastered in Hollywood movies like the Tommy gun.

The M3A1 is underrated as fuck and has a perfect ROF for a SMG.

>>33948748
>fucked
Were they really? Because they do have a really heavy spring, there's even a loading stool in the stock.

>>33945518
>The American Sten gun
>Bad

This must be a bait thread.

>>33945518
Didn't it have a slower fight rate than the Thompson so GI's wouldn't waste ammo?

>>33949386
>there's even a loading stool in the stock
>look at ops picture
>what? where?
>nooo
> look at >>33946945
ok, now I see it