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

Kiraly 39M had much more stopping power

 

Was this weapon in the original poll? Did I miss it's inclusion somewhere?

 

No but only 3 SMG's is a bit limited...

 

While that is certainly true, notice that the much more ubiquitous STEN and M3 "Grease Gun" were also NOT in the list for consideration either.

 

Also true.

 

Its merely a representation of the Idea of Germany,USA and USSR of being the major powers (Not True!). A Poll would have been much better.

 

I toted a Thompson 1928 for 2 years during WWII. I was with the 2/9/3rdMarine Division on Bougainville, Guam and Iwo Jima.
I cannot compare this weapon with any other SMG but I will swear by the Thompson as a very capable and trusty companion. It was somewhat heavy (4.88kg) and required cleaning and maintenance. With a muzzle velocity of 280mps and a barrel with 6 grooves, rh, anything hit with a .45 ACP round went down and stayed down. Further, at 700 rpm,the choice of 20 or 30 box magazines as well as the heavier, clutzy 50 round drum (once set and ready to go can give you a strong sense of security). On the down side, even with a well adjusted compensator, it was difficult to control and this led to the need to fire short bursts - which in the final analysis was probably a good thing.

The effective range was in excess of 100 yards but in jungle terrain one is only concerned with accurate, rapid fire at up to ten or twenty yards.

On Iwo I carried an extra M1 .30 cal carbine as well as the TSMG. As it turned out I needed both.

 

Now that is a combination I can relate to. I owned a little sweetie M1A1 .30 Carbine folding stock for years. I bought it in the fifties out of a surplus box at my local Gambles hardware store here in MT., and loved it until I lost it in one of our range fires here in MT. a few years back.

I have a real good friend who was a Deputy Sheriff here in Montana, and the Department had been given two SMGs in the sixties for some reason. Both in the .45 ACP designation. An M3A1, and a Thompson in the A1 version (clip only). Pete got permission to take them out "for maintainance, testing, and cleaning", and asked me along on the condition that I would buy the bullets for us both.

I didn't leave too much smoke as I headed into the local gunshop to buy a few hundred rounds of .45 ACP. Shot them all off that afternoon. I think I stopped grinning the next week or so.

 

In the Pacific Theatre Australian troops found SMG's very useful in jungle fighting. At first they were issued with tommy guns, but these were replaced by owen guns.

they found that the 9mm didn't have as much stopping power as the .45, but the owen's reliability and ruggedness and the fact that they would opperate when very dirty compensated for the difference in calibre.

the australian army initially wanted to issue the "Austen" which was a modified sten it was a POS and thankfully the owen was issued instead, very much lovedby they troops and was used in vietnam as well

 

What do you guys think was the better sub-machine gun of the two? Which do you think preformed better all around and which assissted their respectful armies the most?

I believe that the German Maschinenpistole 40 (MP-40) is the better gun, beating the Russian PPSh-41 in construction and usefullness. While it was slightly heavier then it's Russian counterpart, the MP-40 was more compact and easier to carry around,and in,the tough battle conditions. The MP-40 was manufactured better, and less were manufactured and distibuted so the ones that were, were sure to be constructed better than the PPSh-41 which was mass produced and most likely more sloppily made. Also, the Russian sub-machine gun (with it's drum magazine) had a tendency to jam, while the MP-40 with it's straight magazine was less likely to jam if held and used properly.

All of this is just my opinion, so what does everyone else think?

 

http://www.ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/19459-ppsh-41-thompson-m1a1-mp-40-a.html

 

oops, guess I should have looked harder.

 

happens the best of us...

....especially today it seems...:eh:

 

Threads merged due to multiplication of same topic.

 

PPSH for me, easy to manufacture than the other guns, more mag capacity. The thompson is the most durable because this was made to last a lifetime. Not an MP40 fan because 9mm rounds really have no stopping power compared to the thompsons 45, also awkward ergonomics.

 

People always talk about stopping power being the desciding factor in a sub machine gun weapon. Well in my opinion is that I don't think it really matters. Most Sub machine guns are used for trench clearing and urban fighting where the distances are so short it won't matter what type of bullet it is, you hit someone they are still going to go down. A 9mm Pistol bullet in the right place will have the same result if you were to use a 7.62 Rifle bullet at the same range. The only problem is hitting that spot.

 

Actually, it's not as simple as that.

At close ranges, and high velocities, a 7.62 rifle slug, in the absence of yaw inside the victim's body, will sometimes actually produce less damage than a pistol round. That's because FMJ military rifle slugs do not expand and have been known to produce nothing more than a very small wound channel. If no vital organs or large arteries are hit, the victim will not be incapacitated. I am aware of at least four instances of this actually happening; two in Viet Nam, one in the Nicaraguan invasion, and one in Grenada. In three of the four cases, the victims simply had the entry and exit holes bandaged and continued to fight. In the fourth case, probably because of an elevated adrenalin level, the person was not even aware of being hit until well after the fight ended.

An FMJ military pistol round will also not expand, but will impart more of it's energy to the victim's body and will create a larger temporary expansion cavity by virtue of having a lower velocity. In this case, it is the frontal area of the bullet that determines how much damage is done to the victim. A heavier, larger diameter bullet, like the .45 ACP, does have more "knockdown" power than either 7.62 MM (.301 diameter) rifle bullet, in the absence of yaw, or the 9 MM (.380 diameter) pistol round.

Granted, these cases are probably rare in combat, but they do occur. The difference in "stopping power" between the 9 MM round and the .45 round is probably offset by the fact that the heavier .45 bullet makes the Thompson a bit harder to control in full auto fire, than most SMG's firing the smaller, lighter 9 MM round. And as you pointed out, the significant problem is hitting the right spot, or sometimes even hitting any spot, at all.

 

Hello Tomcat,
You are right on target there. For urban combat training in the Bundeswehr we tape two Uzi's together and just toss them into the respective building.

As for the above choice I would opt for a PPSh-41.

Regards
Kruska

 

Indeed. On another forum I frequent one of the former regulars told of an encounter he had (from some of the details I believe he was telling the truth). During Vietnam he engaged in a fire fight at about 12' with a VC. He took an AK-47 bullet to the arm before he finished the fight with his M1911. He is by all acounts an excellent shot but almost emptied his clip before hitting the VC and there was little or no cover involved.

 

the M1911 isn't the most accurate handgun in the world but it sure has some "knockdown" power. The absolute worst handgun of WWII was probably the Japanese Nambu.