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

In other words, it depends on usage and application. All three guns mentioned are excellent guns in their own designers interpretation.

 

I don't disagree about the Japanese pistols, those were pretty bizarre models for use in a war. But I don't you think that the reported/experienced inaccuracy of the 1911 .45 ACP in later years could be attributed to the fact that with the exception of the US National Match models, none were produced for the military after 1945?

I wouldn’t be at all surprised that those were getting pretty long in the tooth and "well used" with lots of rounds going down the pipe by the time they were issued for service in Vietnam, and later.

See:

Colt 1911 .45 ACP Production Statistics and Serial Numbers

 

My understanding is that the military versions were made "loose" one reason they kept working under almost any conditions. If "accuratized" they were somewhat less reliable or at least required a bit more care. Accuritzed versions actually seem to have a very good reputation in that regard.

 

I'd go for the PPSh-41, purely out of patriotic reasons. I know that it was heavy, inaccurate and a pain in the rear to reload with the circular ammo disc, but I'll stick with it.

But if we put the patriotism aside, I would pick the Thompson. Very rapid firing speed, reasonable accuracy for an SMG, easy to reload, and it purely looks better than the other two

 

Between the three I would go with the PPSh. Don't need accuracy when fighting at close quarters plus the longer lasting drums helps.

 

Agreed!

The fire rate alone coupled with the light weight is enough for me. Besides, if I loose mine im almost sure to find another one laying near by or just take it of a German soldier as chances have it hes got one too.

 

My Grandfather loved it and I'm sure he used it for the same reason. I have seen plenty of photos of him carrying one.

 

only downside the PPSH was that it used pistol ammo, which gave it less of a punch than the other too, but then again if you spray enough bullets the punch doesn't really matter much, though I'm going to have to go with the Thompson, simply because its a close match for me and I'm American anyways so I'll just go with our gun.

 

The other two also used pistol ammunition.

In my opinion the MP40 was the better of the three, it was relaible, had good accuracy, high rate of fire (500 to 550 rpm) and was very conrollable in full automatic fire. I can't remember exactly who it is that said this, but I remember an old member of the SAS remarking that if he was to pick any of the SMG's available during WW2 for a modern operation then it would have to be the MP40.

 

PPSh 41. It has slightly more stopping power than the thompson, greater penetration, further range, higher muzzle velocity, and a higher rate of fire. plus it almost never jams, and it very simple to strip and clean.

 

I think a lot depends where the gun was being used. What would you rather use in the caves on Iwo Jima or Okinawa? Or with a banzai charge rolling your way?

 

I have heard these stories over and over, I wonder though how many times this scenario was played out. Officers and higher NCOs were usually the ones carrying the 38. Unless a unit was suprised or just being overrun by large numbers I would think a rifle calibre weapon would dispatch the enemy rather well. I wasn't there, so I can't say for sure.

 

Here is an excellent article that deals with the "problems" in the Moro Uprising. It also must be remembered that the rifles and pistols of that era were (for the most part) NOT smokeless powder powered, the change was underway to smokeless, but not completed. As a consequence the muzzle velocity and foot pounds of energy delivered was much reduced in the pistols. That business with the .38 Long Colt was a problem, and it was exaserbated by the bolo swinging, drugged up, leather strap bound, religious fanatic Moros who had been battling the Spanish for years before the Americans showed up. The Krag rifle, and a few trap-door Springfields were unweildly in "jungle" combat, and pistols were more widely distributed than they are today.

Goto:

.38 Long Colt

If you really want to read some "interesting" methods of retrieving data for military arms, see if you can find the Thompson-LeGarde reports. The PETA people would go into vapor lock if that was still done. It was the poor showing in the Philippines which brought those tests about, and they in turn influenced the .45 ACP development. Browning had already designed a fine autoloader, but in a smaller caliber. He simply adopted his existing design to a larger round.

BTW, the Thompson mentioned was none other than General John Thompson, father of the "Tommy gun", and he designed his weapon around the Browning/Colt pistol round.

 

It's funny but if you read the literature, it seems that Russian soldiers picked up MP-40s just as often as German landser PPsHs. In Tank Rider some of the author's comrades used MP-40s and in a autobiographical novel about Stalingrad, the recon platoon sergeant in the narrator-novelist's company was armed with one. The grass is always greener at the other side of the fence?

 

Here is a link to the Thompson-LeGarde report of 1904.

Goto:

Thompson-LaGarde

The human cadavers are one thing, the live horses, cattle (both genders), and "stags" which I would assume to be elk because of their listed weight are another all together. Be sure to read each "summary" paragraph as you find them.

 

I would of taken the Thompson M1A1, a very reliable weapon that did not jam often, the M1A1
was not capable of using the 50-round drum magazine, however used a "stick/box magazine"
holding 30 rounds which made the weapon less bulky and easier to carry.

 

I'll go with the MP40 any day.

Reasons:

MP40: I'ts lightweight, easy to operate and strip, very comfortable to use and pretty accurate(From what the vets tell me, don't have enough live fire experience with the Mp40 to confirm) and 9mm auto gets the job done for what SMG's are designed for. Not bad in terms of reliability but a little prone to jamming especially after not cleaning the thing for a while.

Thompson: I can't shoulder the damn thing, the stock is too long! It's pure firepower though, and I would imagine the thing to be popular among people who had it issued to them for a certain job. I don't like the weight, it's pretty heavy and even though mechanically speaking it's an excellent weapon, I find it to be very prone to jamming under dusty conditions. A thick greasing is needed, not just light oiling... I wouldn't want one, I prefer the M3 Grease gun in the same role.

PPSH: Fired it once and I liked it, but no further experience with the thing. It's light, simple and reliable and packs a punch. I've read a lot about German troops picking them up on the eastern front and I could see why. (Remember that doesn't mean they prefer it over the mp40, simply that they didn't have many SMG's especially early on in the war!)

Hope this contributes a little...

 

Seems to me that the weight and size issues are pretty minor.

The weight difference is between the empty M1A1 Thompson, the PPsH-41, and the MP-40.

4.76 kg Thompson M1A1 empty (10.49 lbs)
3.63 kg PPsH-41 empty (8.02 lbs)
4.03 kg MP-40 empty (8.88 lbs)

That is only about two pounds difference between them, empty weights, but the weight of the rounds has to be figured in, and the Thompson is definetly the "heavy hitter", and the heavier per round magazine in the group.

But they were all under 3 feet in length (MP-40 stock open). And all three could be fired from the "hip" or the "shoulder", so length of weapon wouldn't be that big a deal.

833 mm for the MP-40 with the stock open (32.76 inches)
843 mm for the PPsH-41 (33 inches)
856 mm for the Thompson M1A1 (33.7 inches)

Hope that helps too.

 

You're talking book stats here, not actual field use. I personally cannot comfortably fire the thompson from the shoulder, coupled with the fact it's heavy (two pounds difference ís a lot for a SMG) for it's intended use makes that I don't like it at all. The pistol grip is a lot bigger too.

 

The .45 round through a longer barrell than a pistol, almost 6" longer, was a very potent round. The other calibres also gain from extended barrell length, but a 230 grain bullet hits real hard.
That said, dead is dead when the smoke clears and everyone left is reloading.
I was looking at another post with pictures from the pacific, I saw a lot of marines with the Thompson with the drum magazine. Just how common was that in the field?