Questions on machine guns

What was the chief Allies machine gun? I already know that the Germans used the MP40, but I may be wrong, please correct me if I am.
Also, what was the best machine gun in the war?
Was the Thompson machine gun used often in the war?

 

The mp40 is a sub machine gun not a mg sub mgs are basically machine gun pistols
they fire rounds like the 9mm or the .45 cal.
Germany-Mp40 mybe Mp18
US-Thompson
British-Commonwealth wealth used Thompsons to and stens Mk 3 i believe
Japan-Type 100
Soviet- ppsh-43 and other variants
Best machine gun? well that depends if you want a high rate of fire Mg42 reliable Dp Degtyaryov machine gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia i guess and Fire power that would be the browning 50 and the m1919 .30. Then theirs others like the British vickers and the Japanese nambu with was basiclly a Jpanese made french hotchkiss MG.

 

Thanks, Mark4

 

I think you are asking some very difficult questions to answer here! I'll try to give some simple answers:

All the allied and axis nations used a very large selection of machine guns - this link is a good place to start to get some idea of quite how many there were, but be aware this only lists the common ones, there were many more;

List of common World War II infantry weapons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term machine gun defines an automatic weapon firing full power rifle calibre bullets or larger, such as the MG34, Bren, Chatellerault, Browning.30cal etc., whereas weapons such as the MP40 and Thompson are usually described as sub-machine guns or machine pistols.

The main British sub machine gun was the Sten, after that was the Thompson and the Lanchester.
Main infantry Machine guns were the Vickers, Bren and Lewis .303

The main US sub machine gun was the Thompson, followed by the M3 'grease gun' and they also used many of the M1 carbine, which was somewhat comparable in use.
Main infantry machine guns were the Browning .30 and the BAR and the Browning .50 cal

The main Soviet sub machine gun was the PPSh-41, they also used many PPD-40 and PPS-43
Main infantry machine guns were the Maxim 1910, the DP1928 and the DShk1938

Other allied nations used a variety of these and many of their own weapons as well.

The Germans main sub machine guns were the MP38/40, MP28 and many captured weapons or those inherited from occupied countries
The main German infantry machine guns were the MG34 and MG42, although many older and foreign models were also used.

What was the best machine gun in the war? That question cannot be easily answered.

The cheapest to make, generally reliable sub machine gun would have to be a contest between the Sten, the PPS43 and the PPSh out of the main ones.

The best sub machine gun would be a contest between probably the Thompson, the MP28 and the Italian Fnab-43, but they were expensive and not ideal for wartime production.

The best compromise between cost, ease of manufacture, good operation and popularity would be probably between the later model Stens, the MP40 and the Finnish Suomi.

In terms of the war, the Sten probably wins overall.

Light machine guns the contest is easier, it is between the Bren and the MG42(light role) and the MG42 probably wins.

Medium machine guns The MG34 and MG42 were better than all those produced in significant numbers - incidentally the MG42 is still in service with minor changes as the MG3

Heavy machine guns - the Browning .50 cal is the only sensible choice for best - it is still in service relatively unchanged and is extremely effective.

All the above are very closely debated and most people have their own favourites.

Finally;

Yes, the Thompson was often used, mostly by British(and Commonwealth) and US forces, and some were used by the USSR.

I hope this answers most of your questions, and hopefully others will present their ideas to give you a more balanced view.

If pressed to choose what in my personal view was the single best portable automatic weapon of any type at all used during ww2, then I would have to say the German MG42, but i would prefer not to as the question means nothing.

Hope this helps

 

You are talking about submachine guns, and in my view the best sub gun of the war is the Russian PPsh. Crude but reliable and simple, it was perfect for the largely iliterate Russian soldiers who used it.

The MP40 was plenty good but had problems with jams due to its single stack magazine design. Same goes for the Sten, which had even worse problems with jamming and was a gun that many British soldiers hated.

The Thompson was reliable when kep clean but too heavy and too complicated, and took too long to make. The US came up with the M3 submachine gun (the "grease gun") which was cheap and easy to make but again, had some problems with jamming (the single stack mag problem again).
For a while in the beginning, the US Marines used a submachine gun called the Reising. It was a terrible gun, very unreliable in the field and the marines soon got rid of them all.

Incidentally the Germans invented the sturmgewehr (assault rifle) concept with a new weapon introduced in 1943, called the Mp44. It was intended to replace all German rifles (whcih fired a too powerful cartridge) and submachine guns (which fired weak pistol caliber cartridges) and was a revolutionary idea, indeed; as all the world's armies are now armed with weapons of this category.

 

For those who don't speak American, the 'Maw Deuce' was the M2 .50 cal Browning heavy MG

And thanks for bringing up The Mp44 Marc, it certainly could be considered the most influential automatic weapon of the war on future designs, and certainly deserves to be on the list.

 

I'd disagree with some of this:

The Sten was notorious for jamming. I'd put the M3 Grease gun ahead of it. This gun also has the ability to have its seer and barrel changed to use .45 ACP or 9 mm ammunition. I think that is a useful feature as well.

I'd put the Italian Beretta Moschetto ahead of other smg that nation produced. It remained in production post war and in slightly modified form was used as a standard smg by the Germans as the MP38/42.

The Sten was cheap junk by any standard. Again, the M3 was better manufactured. It singly was probably the best made cheap smg of the war although the PPSh 43 might be an equally good challenger.

I'd say overall that the PPSh in its various forms was the best military smg during the war hands down. AJ Barker sums up the Sten nicely in British and American Infantry Weapons of World War 2 thus:

I'd give the MG 34 top billing with the MG 42 in second.

Here I'd put the Vickers and US Browning M1918A2 water cooled ahead of the German guns. While the German guns do have interchangable barrels this is a nusiance in sustained fire. The two Allied guns also have a better indirect fire set up as well as a better intradiction / planned fire capacity. That is the Allied guns can be pre-set to various lines of fire and their settings recorded. The gunner can then lay the gun at night or through smoke etc., along those lines for effective interdicting fire.

The .50 is a rather unique machinegun. There are few weapons comparable to it in capacity. The Soviets had a few similar sized guns like the DshK1938 but none of these was as reliable, popular and, widely used as the US .50 M2.

 

I'll be interested to see once we have a few more submissions how many people tend to favour their own nation's weapons. Even if it is subconscious.

I think on reflection I agree with you about the Beretta. The later mark Stens were not considered junk by many, particularly the Germans who liked them a lot. The MG34 over the MG42 is a difficult choice, the earlier one was better made and more reliable, the later one cheaper and easier to make and had a much higher rate of fire which I think made it superior.

I also believe the MG34 and 42 could be set up for pre-designated fire when on the tripod, although I don't know if this was an inferior design. IMO The vulnerability and weight of water cooled machine gun jackets way offsets the greater sustained fire ability they have, although they certainly have a place defensively.

 

I know that for submachine guns, I like my own nation's Owen gun. Though originally used as a stopgap when imported weapons were temporarily unavailable, the Owen gun's reliability in extreme jungle conditions made it popular among the troops.

In fact, the Owen gun was so popular that the Australian Army continued to use it in the Korean and Vietnam wars.

I can't say that this gun surpassed classics like the PPSh or the Thompson, but in its own little theatre it was an effective weapon.

 

There are a number of very good weapons developed by minor nations that often get overlooked. A great example are those of the Brno arms company of Czechoslovakia. Their ZB vz/26 and 30 became in slightly modifed form the BREN. Their ZB vz/53 machinegun became the BESA tank machinegun in British service as well as being used around the world on its own as a very reliable and well liked machinegun.
The ZB vz/60 in British hands became the 15mm BESA machinegun for armored cars and light tanks early in the war. This particular gun got bypassed in favor of heavier weapons once the war started so it remained relatively obscure in British use.

 

I must say that the Sten was garbage, even for a improvised war time SMG it is quite pitiful in comparison to the Soviet counterpart. I understand that people like to give it credit for the fact that it "got the job done" but that is really putting on the blinders to the fact that the British could have came up with something far better then that, I mean the Sten was really a projectile firing weapon* in it's simplest form. Look at for example at the German MP3008, that was a carbon copy Sten, and they were making that because thats all they could do at that point in time with the time being right before the wars end. The Sten came about at a time where another design could have been tooled in and mass produced.

The fact that it was notorious for jamming when you needed it, firing when you didn't want it to and maiming and killing Allied soldiers at random instances really makes it blatantly obvious that somebody was very lazy in the upper echelon for not doing something about it.

 

No argument from me that the Sten was a fairly horrid thing ; I'd have hated to have to rely on it.

But I do think that you're overestimating the situation Britain was in. The decision to make an MP40-type weapon was taken in June 1940, the Sten was first demonstrated in January 1941 and entered production in June 1941. All at a time when 'Britain stood alone' and British industry was certainly facing problems of raw material supply and the threat of direct air attack. Truly desperate times.

The real scandal was the snobbery and inertia of the inter-war years, when the need for such a weapon was denied by using the idiotic phrase 'gangster weapon'.....

 

And with post war production methods and quality control the French made a good Sten that saw service until quite some time later.

 

It gets even worse. The Germans also came up with the more even more simplistic EMP44.

 

EMP-44 looks like an abominable weapon. How the hell was the operator going to escape third degree burns from holding the gun?

 

More importantly would you trust a gun made out of parts you got at ACE Hardware? The EMP44 is made largely from sheetmetal and plumbing pipe.......

 

what about the ultimate in plumbers nightmares, the Sputter gun;

 

Of the ones I've fired, the PPSh-41 was the best. It has a very high rate of fire, but its 72-round drums will keep it fed pretty well. Simple blowback action, and its Tokarev rounds pack a real punch.

The Thompson is a good, slightly slower gun that fires the legendary .45 ACP round, so it's very good in a short-range knockdown skirmish.

I have only very limited shooting time with the MP40 and the "Stench," so I can't really comment, though both worked just fine.

But for the other question about the best MG (or SMG), the real question is, "For what job?" Taking down enemy fighters - get a .50 M2. Covering flanks - get a MG-42. Going room to room - get a SMG that's reliable (and a few grenades).

 

The 9mm conversion kit consisted of barrel, bolt, and magazine. No change of fire control components is necessary (assuming 'seer' refers to the 'sear'). Unfortunately, the 9mm kit was abandoned early on when the Brits passed on the M3 in favor of their Sten. It was revived by the OSS who planned on equipping resistance groups and agents. An initial order of 25,000 kits was placed but this number was soon reduced. So, the 9mm kit was not an option for "regular" troops.