PPSh-41, Thompson M1A1, or MP-40?

Back in 1985 I fired a AK, & susposedly the Rumanian model. It had a vertical psitol grip in front rather than the horizontal forstock.
When one changed the magazine this grip interfered, slowing the change considerablly. Then when I fired the weapon it JAMBED! On the second or third shot it locked up so tight the armorer had to use a hammer to free the bolt & extract the cartidge.

 

I vote for the PPsh-41, I am very impressed with the 7.62X25 round. The Thompson is heavy as hell. I'd rather carry more rounds. I have also heard that the drums weren't as favored as the stick mags. The energy produced by the 7.62X25 is not far off from the .45, especially out of a longer barrel.
The Sten is not as jam happy as most say, and is very controlable in full auto. I wouldn't feel ill armed with one of these in an urban setting.
Chow, Josh

 

From the images or actual smgs I saw in museums, I would go for the Thompson, for the quality, finnish, even the weight.

I think it's the kind of gun that could make you feel comfortable on the field, even if it's not rational.

 

well personally i like the Thompson for sheer killing power.

 

Indeed cheap and Sometimes the Sten just fell in pieces..

I'll go for the MP40

 

I'd have to go for the Tommy gun. Spraying lead on targets appering for a second or two, and then disappering, you'd want them to show signs of any hits you get on them. My grandfathers second cousin was hit by 4 9mm rounds in the stomach on the 9th of May 1945. He said it felt as if he was stung by a wasp.

 

The Thompson with a cutts compensator would be the choice I would think. A submachinegun is designed for work up to maybe 100 yards at most as all the WW 2 models fire what are essentially a pistol round.
Of those listed the Thompson has far and away more knock down power per round. That soft lead round nosed .45 ACP round just stops things in their tracks unlike the smaller, lighter and higher velocity 7.62 and 9mm rounds.
The compensator is important as it helps alot to maintain control over the gun in full automatic. Both the MP 40 and PPsH tend to climb quickly when fired making control more difficult.
Also, like the PPsH the Thompson had a reputation for reliability under almost any conditions; certainly something that cannot be said for the delicate MP 40.

 

Agreed. A Thompson Submachinegun firing a .45 caliber acp round was a superior weapon that would drop whom so ever that it was directed against in their tracks. The same cannot be said about 9mm rounds.

 

Is it not true that the MP-40's magazine (which, incidentally was where you held it) overheated rapidly and made it too hot to hold properly? That's what would take out my vote for the MP-40.

The PPSh-41, though, sounds like a tough weapon. In number of bullets, this gun outdoes the Thompson and the MP-40, with or without drum magazine. I would rather take 71 shots over 20 shots anyday.

But which gun really would do a better job? The Thompson or the BAR? The BAR is slow to reload and it sounds like it has a heck of a kick, but it also sounds like it cut down enemies in fewer bullets. Is this true?

 

Having fired a PPSh 41 in Russia that had spent the best part of 50 years in a bog, was cleaned up and immediatly ready to use, I'm afraid Mr Spagin gets my vote. I'd like to add, I didn't know about the dubious history of the weapon before I fired it, they have 'interesting' health and safety standards in Russia these days.

As for the usefulness of the SMG, well, I reckon the advent of the assault rifle has made it almost obsolete, a decent rifle is far more useful than any SMG. That said there are a few niches in which they are still useful, for vehicle crews and law enforcement for example. On the other hand, regarding the use of SMG's as offensive weapons they can't really be written off, after all, in a day and age where suppression is favoured over accuracy volume of fire has certain advantages however inaccurate. Apart from anything, since most studies indicate that (at least during WW2) around 2% of soldiers actually aimed to kill, perhapse th SMG has some advantages to commend it.

I am still always entertained by SMG sights that are marked out to 300m though.

 

The only SMG to be fired at distance is the MP-5. The SMG is as Stefan says for special duties. For a soldier the Assault rifle is a much better choice.

 

I prefer the PPSh-41 (with the drum) and the MP-40 in the battlefield because this rifles sees cooler than the Thompson M1A1 and i'm an fan of Russian and German weapons than US weapons!

 

The large magazines (the Thompson had a 50? round drum as well), from what I've read, tended to have problems. It required too much of the springs to maintain enough tension over time. The result was for the Thompson anyway the 20 round clip was preferred.

They're really suited to different jobs. From what I've heard the BAR didn't have that much of a kick (less than a bolt action rifle by quite a bit). That's because it was heavy and automatic. It was quite accurate at ranges over 100 yards where the Thompson wasn't. The BAR used the standard 30-06 rifle round where the Thompson used the standard .45 pistol round.

 

One of the reasons why the 50 and 100 round drums where not used is because they used to rattle, giving away the soldier's position.
The Thompson also had a slightly longer 30 rnd box also.

 

When it comes to WW2 SMG's the Suomi KP-31 gets my vote. PPSh-41 is based on the Suomi, but it is not as well made. A slightly longer barrel makes for greater accurancy.

In 1939 we were testing the Suomi out for the army. It was a big hit, but sadly only a few reached us before we needed them in 1940. However in the Regimental books it is noted as a battlewinning factor for the encirclement and destruction of German paratroopers around Lesja. In my grandfathers batallion there were two subaltern with experience from Finland. The swift ski patrols was used against the germans, and the firepower of the Suomi made up for the lack of MG's.

As a tribute to the Suomi it is worth noting that it was the backup weapon of the all time highest scoring sniper Simo Häyhä, who is said to have mown down a good 200 with his Suomi.

 

I think that Thompson was one of the most good weapons made everytime.Its high ratio was very powerful.Very good in short distances.

 

Actually the M1 Tommy gun had a ratio of fire between 600-700 rounds per minute.
The Mp 40 and the Sten down at 500 rounds per minute.
But the PPSh-41 and the Suomi have 900 rounds per miute.

Earlier Tommyguns had a higher rate of fire, but there were a lot of modefications done to make it cheaper to produce, and easier to operate. (grunts ain't geniouses you know)

 

If I was going to carry a smg into combat I would want the thompson for the stopping power but I would love to get my hands on an m1928 rather then the m1a1. I'd rather have a 50 rd drum than a 30 or 20 rd clip.

 

Indeed, if one looks at the military experience of the U.S. for the past twenty years, it seems the assault rifle concept leaves much to be desired. With the bulk of combat occurring in urban areas (because of demographic changes) and deserts (because of strategic considerations), the compromise that the assault rifle represents - being optimized for European combat - has been rendered moot by the Pax Americana. The U.S. military would be better served arming squads with .30 rifles and SMGs - just like WWII.

 

Not that this counts as definitive experience or anything, but this weekend I played Call of Duty for the first time. While I must admit the PPsh was spectacular, I found it much harder to use than the MP-40. Even in short bursts, it was like holding on to a fire hose, and it was ammo-hungry.