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

I mentioned the M3 back in post #100, and a few others chimed in on the "grease gun" as well.

 

I posted this info on the Grease gun a while ago in an Information Request thread but if we are talking about it now I might as well throw it up again.

By the beginning of 1941, although the United States was not yet directly involved in World War II, the American military authorities had acknowledged that he sub-machine gun had a definite role to perform on the modern battlefield. They had to hand numbers of Thompson guns and more were on their way, but the appearance of the German MP38 and the British Sten indicated the production methods that could be employed in future mass produced designs. Using an imported Sten, the US Army Ordinance Board initiated a design study to produce an American Sten-type weapon. The study was handed over to a team of specialists who included the same George Hyde who had developed the Hyde M2 and to executives from General Motors, to whom the mass production aspects were entrusted. In a very short time they had designed a weapon and development models were produced for trials.

The first of these models were handed over for trials just before Pearl Harbor brought the United States into World War II. As a result the project got a higher priority and it was not long before the design was issued with the designation M3. The M3 as just as unpleasant-looking as the Sten. Construction was all metal with most parts simple steel stampings welded into place. Only the barrel, breech block and parts of the trigger mechanism required any machining. A telescopic wire butt was fitted and the design was simple to the point that there was no safety system fitted and the gun could fire fully-automatic only. The main gun body was tubular and below it hung a long 20-round box magazine. An awkwardly placed and flimsy cocking handle was placed just forward of the trigger on the right-hand side, and the cartridge ejection port was under a hinged cover. The barrel screwed into the tubular body. sights were very rudimentary and there were no luxuries such as sling swivels.

The M3 was rushed into production and once issued to the troops it soon ran into acceptance troubles. The very appearance of the weapon soon provided it with the nickname of 'Grease Gun' and it was regarded with about as much affection. But once in action it soon showed itself to be effective, but the rush into production on lines that were more used to producing motor car and lorry components led to all manner of in-service problems. The cocking handles broke off, the wire stocks bent in use, some important parts of the mechanism broke because they were made of too soft a metal, and so on. Consequently the M3 received more than its fair share of in-service development and modification, but what was more important at the same time, it rolled off the production lines in huge numbers for issue to the troops at the front.

The M3 never overcame the initial reception its appearance engendered. Whenever possible the troops in the front line opted for the Thompson M1 or used captured German MP38s and MP40s, but in the Pacific there was often there was often no choice other than to use the M3 and when this happened the design often gained grudging acceptance. For some arms of the Us forces the M3 became a virtual blanket issue. These arms included the drivers in the many transport units and tank crews. For both the M3 was easy to slow and easy to handle in lose confines.

From the outset the M3 had been designed to have the capability of being rapidly converted to 9-mm calibre by simply changing the barrel, magazine and breech block. This facility was sometimes employed in Europe when the M3 was dropped to resistance forces. A silenced variant of the M3 was produced in small numbers.

Simple as the M3 was to produce, it was decided in 1944 to make it simpler. The result of combat experience allied with production know-how resulted in the M3A1, which followed the same general lines as the M3 but with some quite substantial changes. For the soldier the most important item was that the ejection cover was enlarged to the point where the full breech block travel was exposed. This enabled the firer to place his finger into a recess in the block to pull the block to the rear for cocking, thus doing away with the awkward and flimsy cocking handle. The M3A1 was still in production when the war ended, by which time it had been decided to phase out the Thompson guns in favor of the M3 and M3A1.

Apart from the appearance problem, the M3 guns were not perfect weapons. They were rather prone to breakages, the ammunition feed was often far from perfect was often far from perfect and the lack of a safety often gave ruse to alarm. But it worked and it was available, and in war those two factors are more important than hankering after the something that might be better. Thus the M3 and M3A1 were used wherever the US Military went, and that was all over the world.

Chris Bishop

 

M1A1 Thompson because of it stopin power

 

how come theres no pps-43

 

My pick would be the MP-40. Robust, light and dependable, very controllable in automatic fire and a good rate of fire that's fast but not too fast that you can control how much ammunition you use. The PPSH is nice but the ridiculously high firing rate wastes alot of ammunition, The Thompson has excellent stopping power and reliability, but also too high a rate of fire and it's heavy as can be.

 

I said it before and will say it again. PPSh-41 for me!

Lighter and more reliable then the other two with a higher rate of fire, lower recoil and more ammunition. Not to mention that they were everywhere!

The Germans upon seeing a PPSH-41 laying next to a dead Russian soldier, would throw their P-40 out and pick up the PPSH for a reason. In fact, so many were captured that it became the second-most-common sub-machine gun used by German forces


Biggest issue that I have heard regarding the Thompson (from those who have actually fired one) was that it was extremely heavy weighing something like 11lbs empty. Thus making it extremely cumbersome (or so the Allied soldiers claimed).

 

I dunno, the weight difference is really pretty minor between the M1A1 Thompson, the PPsH-41, and the MP-40.

4.76 kg Thompson 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, and the Thompson is definetly the "heavy hitter" in the group. And 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)

The puny round of the PPsH is its only big flaw, it is the old Mauser 7.62x25 mm pistol round from the C-96 "broomhandle" after all.

 

Yeah I think I would change my pick to the PPSH-41 as well. I have recently seen it up close and it was alot smaller then I originally thought. Combining that with its godly rate of fire I think I would adore that it the urban battles of the ostfront.

 

That looks like it. Max Hastings said that the American soldiers complained that the Thompson was too heavy and demanded a lighter SMG like the MP-40. Our own vets on the forum said the same thing, that he liked everything except the weight. My personal feeling is that in sheer performance the M1 Thompson was the best SMG, but it was just too lavish a design to produce in a total war.

A quick question for you: Why not the PPSh-43? Out of the cheap stamped steel guns this one had an excellent reputation... definately a more modern design than the 41!

 

I thought these three pictures say alot about the PPSH....Compare them, its interesting!

 

I'll go with the Finnish Suomi KP/-31, the finest SMG of the entire war in my honest opinion.

 

Drum Mag with a Tommygun. .45 bullets can kill just about anything, and with the drum you can shoot just about anything.

 

Since the M1A1 Thompson cannot use the drums (50 or 100 round) your comment is not defensible. I love the Thompson, and it's round, but the drum had been "out" since the late twenties as standard feed abiltiy. Neither the M1 Thompson (original Armed Forces model), nor the M1A1 were drum capable. Stick magazines only.

 

Clint is right the M1A1 only using stick mags. But the M1928 was issued until the M1A1 came out in late 42 to early 43. and was used side by side with the M1A1 Thompson until the end of the war by the allies. It would only be fair to include the 1928 if you're forming opinions based on ammo capacity and best subgun used during the war, Just my opinion of course, Ray

 

Agreed RayG, but the OT only had the M1A1 Thompson up for consideration, that is why I put in the blurb about its stick mags. The M1928A1 was drum capable, of course, as you mentioned, but not included in the origianal choices. But then again neither was the M3A1, which I thought was an oversight or at least a "slight" since it was a capable weapon which served as "substitute standard" in the US arsenal until the second Gulf War. It was available to transport drivers, I believe that was because it was adaptable to both the .45 and 9mm round. I could be wrong on the reason, but that is a dang fine service record for an under $20 pressed steel "piece of emergency production".

 

Sorry to bring up an old thread but this one was just way too interesting to me, because smg's from WWII fascinate me. In a combat situation, I think I would have to go with the PPSh-41 due to its low maintenance, reliability, ammunition capacity, relative accuracy for an smg, compensator(however primitive), and plenty of ammo laying around due to the numbers built. I love all three weapons, but have never gotten a chance to fire one. I think they all performed well, but the Thompson and Mp-40 had more drawbacks. However, I hear that the PPSh-41 had feeding problems and its rof was so fast it cracked casings, is this true?

 

I dunno about the accuracy. It's a 900 rpm weapon with a pretty short barrel, compensator or no compensator, but it was a more dependable weapon than the MP-40 which allegedly cracked in severe winter conditions.The drum magazine was a major drawback of the PPSh, loading it to full capacity causes elastic fatigue of the springs and failure to feed. Troops load them at around 65 rounds. This was one of the reasons why the banana clips were issued later in the war.

The main fault of the Thompson was that it was heavy and expensive. Almost anyone who shot it loved it, from what I can gather.

 

I agree with the part "anyone who shot it loved it", that is a definite yes.

With cost cutting in the assembly process the Tommy gun was getting less and less expensive to produce as the war went on, but replacing it with the less costly M3 had already been decided on. As to the heavy part, it wasn't really all that much more than those in the choices.

The weight difference is really pretty minor between the 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.

And 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)

The puny round of the PPsH is its only big flaw, it is the old Mauser 7.62x25 mm pistol round from the C-96 "broomhandle" after all, and has less power than a M1 .30 Carbine.

 

Allegedly, those who were trained to use the Thompson, such as MPs, could knock down man-sized targets with their weapon at 200 yards. This is hearsay, of course. The .45 ACP actually is a very accurate round. Many competitive shooters use it for matches.

Until we have trained shooters (preferably a group!) who had tried them all and tell us about it, I would susbend belief on all claims of SMG accuracy. Everything I have heard to this point are annecdotal and contradictory to each other.

SW Pacific Vet found his M1 effective to out to 150 yards, and I really can't think of a reason to use a SMG beyond that range in any event, the poor killing power of 9mm or 7.62mm would make shooting at that distance inadvicible.

As for drums, I have serious doubts as to how effective they actually were. 71 rounds are a lot of bullets to tax the spring with, and even modern US GI magazines were not topped off. Drum designs are reportedly sensative to dirt as well; they have the extra disavantage of being relatively heavy and bothersome to load. This is not to say that the PPSh-41 was a poor weapon; but the 43 IMHO was much better.