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

I did not take into account the differences between the m1928 and the M1a1, my bad. However, something else dawned on me after I wrote that. The Sten and MP40 both used 9mm while the Thompson( both models) used the heavier .45 and the PPSH used a cut down 7.62 round. This would mean in a suply situation German and English forces could use each others ammo, not so for Russian or American forces. However in A Bridge Too Far, several English Paras can be seen using MP 40's In Arnhaim after they were cut off and low on ammo. Is this Hollywood hukom, or did the paras prefer the German weapon?

 

At Arnhem, British airborne forces used anything they could get hold of, including K98k's and MP40s ( interchangeability of 9mm ammo with the Sten was an advantage ).

Ironically, the Sten Mk V with its wooden furniture was highly-prized as a captured weapon by the Waffen-SS troops at Arnhem ; several photos exist to prove it.

 

Beleive me, I fully understand to use whatever is at hand to fight when you are cut off from help. I was just trying to say that I never understood Why the US has always insisted on using different calibur weapons than its allies. It still does this today.

 

Not true. While we did break from the 7.62x51 for our rifles, we still retain it for our medium MG. And our allies have followed our lead with the 5.56mm rifle. Pistol-wise, we changed over from the .45 to the 9mm almost thirty years ago. So it's a two-way street, and now there is full commonality.

 

Some caliber differences are justified. For one thing. I'd rather be armed with an M1911A1 than a Walther or that .38 revolver British officers were issued. Also, the US armed forces hasn't completely switched over to 9mm. Special Forces tend to favor the .45 over the 9mm, and it isn't too difficult for a officer to obtain a 1911, even today.

Personally, I'd choose the Thompson. .45 rounds tended to have a stopping power advantage over 9mm rounds back then, and the Thompson was rather reliable. The PPSH was a good SMG, but it could accidentally discharge when dropped, which isn't good.

 

Sorry, tinman - I should have expanded mine a bit. In reading several personal accounts of Arnhem, the Airborne forces in many cases did prefer the MP40 as the Sten - even the improved MkV - suffered badly from jamming in the sandy conditions prevalent there. Apparently, the MP40 was more reliable.

The Germans enjoyed posing with the MkV Sten as more of a victory trophy, I think.....

 

Well, I can understand that from the Germans. I hate the taste of trout, but if I CATCH one I still want a photo.

 

The factors involved with weapon choices is varied. Given a choice of the three, it would be the Thompson with the straight clips, preferably the 30 rd. The impact of a .45 rd is going to make a big difference in stopping power. The straight clips are easier to carry, more reliable, and a person can fire three 30 rd magazines faster than two 50 rd drums. The Thompson was a good choice for the U.S. Army due to the fact that the .45 was in common use with the 1911A1.

The German weapons had good design features and the earlier models had good quality control, but later models were often rushed out with a design that was not tolerant of being thrown together. And don't forget that the Germans could also fall in love with some designs that were not appropriate to combat. The Luger was one of those designs. The P38 was so much a better design than the Luger, it is not funny.

 

Thompson M141, because you never know where the enemys are gonna pop up so just to keep the gunshot up you need to be able to kneel and rapid fire.

 

Joe - I suspect your prejudice vs. the Thompson is to do with the weight of the thing? (I fully agree, by the way - SMGs oughtta be portable, dammit.) Still, I loved the antique Lanchesters the RN were still toting in the 1960s - brass mag housings & buttplates - no good for infantry use, but OK to give boarding parties a bit of clout. But I reckon my all-time favourite SMG was the Sterling: that folding butt gave you a genuine room-broom for close-quarter work in urban settings.

Klive

 

Sorry to be pedantic, Miller - but Hugo Schmeisser had nothing to do with the MP-40. He is credited with designing the excellent MP-18, but Heinrich Vollmer was a prominent engineer at Erfurt Maschinenwerke when the MP-38 was first produced. Schmeisser's original hollow bolt/firing pin assembly was retained, but Vollmer incorporated it into Erma's unique telescoping return-spring-loaded-tube action. Doesn't matter what you call it - Schmeisser or (?)Vollmer - it was still a v.good weapon.

Klive

 

Klive

Schmeisser will always point at the MP 40. It has been (faulty) called that since the war, and will probably be called that for another 60 years. BTW Welcome to the forums.

 

YouTube - WWII guns

 

Hah! I knew it! Youtube Members are the most Misinformed people in the world! How could anyone get confused between the MP40 and Sten, and they even said this;

Duuuuurr! It's an MG34!

 

well yeah I just thought it was a cool video. If I could chose one weapon it would be the Sturmgewehr 44.

 

Thanks, Jaeger. It's a lively forum; I look forward to some interesting discussions in the future.

Klive

 

Thompson: Heavy but excellently produced, great stopping power with .45 caliber ACP rounds, but expensive.

MP40: Cheaper than thompson, not too heavy, 9mm round has average stopping power, more ammo than the thompson.

PPSh: Less stopping power bue to 7.62 mm rounds but lots of ammunition and a fast rate of fire, which made it an excellent close-quarters weapon. It was also cheap and easy to produce and maintain.

 

I would choose between mp40 or thompson

 

How about the M-3.

 

So? How about you enlightening us as to why you would pick a particular weapon. Not that those who actually served in the field really had a choice.