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

My father in law served with the German army and carried a russian smg rather than the MP40 because he prefered it as a weapon. He wasnt at all impressed by the grease guns he took from Paratroopers but like the feel of the Thompson but lacked enough captured ammunition to assess it other than its high quality machining. He never saw a sten close enough to comment but he did see some Potsdam devices the german copy he said they were okay but nothing special. He survived six years getting the iron cross first and second class and died at 88 so he must have been reasonably shrewd on such matters.

 

He must have been have been a very shrewed gentleman all round, just to survive the 6 years AND getting both First & Second Class Crosses,
Regards
tankie

 

MP-40 all the way. I enjoy the slower rate of fire and the fact that it used the folding stock as an accuracy option while it could even be hip fired with success.

 

Very impressive.

 

I fired both the Thompson M1A1 and the Erma MP40 with live rounds when I was out in Egypt working, and there was not really alot between them, the recoil on the thomson was more pronounced, but there again it was pitting a 45acp against a 9mm, the cone of fire from the Thompson was greater than the MP40, out of the two, I prefered the Thompson, it was heavier but there again that was down to the machined parts, also it had the single fire selector, and the MP40 only fires fully automatic. I later ues the MG42 with live rounds, now that is a babe, what an experience,

 

Yes he was Luftwaffe field regiment when in combat he had a number of speciallities so he did a bit of time off the line before the invasion of russia and after he escaped from a russian POW camp he was sent to Sicily for a rest working on the airfields thats why he felt he had survived since he spent some time off the line. Though he was in the spearhead in the initial invasion since he spoke russian, Polish and several ethnic minority langauges in Russia.


He got his first class iron cross not in actual fighting but keeping an air field in action when the German forces in North africa were pulling out. The allies were shooting hell out of the field he kept the naviagtion devices running whilst under air attack the italian ground crews had run off imediately and he was the in command he was awarded the medal because a whole unit including its general was evacuated on seeing the filed and the fact that even when the rest of his men were killed he kept repairing the navigation beacons alone so the transports could land he gave him the medal on the spot. He told me if he had time to think he should have run away as well.

He was quite a charcter he could speak 9 languages that I know of he ended up working for the US army after he was rescued from Yugoslav Partisans (I did not know a lot of the details till I read the US army documents in his files after his death). He was allowed to use US army shops till he died. It could have been diffrent the convoy he was in was attacked by left over deserters from the italians and croat forces one of the US soldiers black truck drivers hand him a gun and told him to help them he said he had a terrible choice the croats had been allies and he was presented with the drivers backs but he decided he owed them his life and the war was over so he helped them fight of the ambush getting a commendation from the US army.

He ended the war working for the the US army in the civilian side of logistics since he spoke English fluently.

Sorry this may have veered of the point a little.

 

How do you choose? they all were good SMG. They all served their purpose . When did range mean anything with a SMG?. maybe the Thompson had an edge with a 45. caliber pistol round. I once was at a range and a guy pulled up, and he had a Thompson ,and he asked me if I wanted to fire a clip in FULL AUTO, that was AWESOME.

 

Actually the PPSh-41 have compensator too and the 7.62x25mm Tokarev round produces little recoil. PPSh-41 is also accurate compared to other Submachine guns.

 

I think maybe the PPS-43 should be in the list.

The PPS-43 is basically a cheaper version of the PPSh-41(which is already very cheap) with a folding stock.

Its rate of fire is 600-700rpm but it only accept the 35-round magazine(Anyway most soldiers prefer box magazine over drum magazine).

Specifications:
Weight:3.04 kg (6.7 lb)
Length:820 mm (32.3 in) stock extended / 615 mm (24.2 in) stock folded
Muzzle velocity:Approx. 500 m/s (1,640 ft/s)
Effective range:100–200 m sight adjustments
Rate of fire:600-700rpm

 

Actually the PPSh-41 have compensator too and the 7.62x25mm Tokarev round produces little recoil. PPSh-41 is also accurate compared to other Submachine guns.

I have to question that. This is the first time the words "PPSh" and "accurate" were mentioned in the same breath to me, except the immensely entertaining but inaccurate game Call of Duty. A 7.62mm Tokarev was as powerful as the 9mm so I expect recoil to be in the same ballpark, but the PPSh-41 shot 900 rounds per minute so I'd say that recoil should be substantial.

The PPS-43 is basically a cheaper version of the PPSh-41(which is already very cheap) with a folding stock.

Sure about that? The 43 was another design made during the siege of Leningrad.

 

If you have noticed, most sources have stated the accuracy of the PPSh's accuracy as 200m compared to 100m for most other submachine gun. The 7.62x25mm Tokarev's higher muzzle also allowed it to have better ballistic characteristic compared to other pistol rounds and its recoil is noted to be low.

The PPS-43 is made because they needed a cheaper weapon to make during the siege of Leningrad. They need more cost-effective production methods than the PPSh-41. And if you notice the PPS-43 actually look similar to the PPSh-41 and shared the same 35-round magazine which indicates that the design is largely influenced by the PPSh-41.

Actually any submachine gun could be more accurate if the soldier knows how to fire his weapon in short burst instead of spraying.

 

And if keeps his eyes open.

 

I know the effective range and penetration were superior. That did not imply superior accuracy since velocity was only one factor of accuradcy. Muzzle rise and MOA deviation was independent of it. Recoil from a Tokarev shell might be weaker to a parabellum but 900 rounds per minute? Controllable full-automatic fire is generally thought to be arround 500-600 rpm. Incidentally that was the rate of fire for the Mp-40.

On the other hand, I'd be fascinated if you could post some of the sources.

Superficial resemblance and common parts used does not make mechanical designs identical or even related. The two designs used the same materials and machine tools in order to produce the weapon in cut-off Leningrad but nothing I have read so far argued that they are weapons of the same family. Commonality of magazines is nothing supecial. Both Sten and M3 Greasegun could use Mp-40 magazines.

Amen. Spray and pray was how most troops fired their SMGs. Unsuprisingly battlefield ccuracy was horrible in most cases.

 

The PPSh-41 have a high rate of fire but its muzzle brake is pretty effective. The MP40 does not have muzzle brake but its rate of fire is lower. That pretty much makes the recoil similar.

The MP40 may be better in very short range thanks to its better controllability but at longer ranges, the PPSh's better range and ballistic characteristic will allow it to hit its target provided that the soldier firing the weapon know how to not spray.

Some sources which states the accuracy of PPSh:
WW2DB: PPSh-41
PPSh-41 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The PPS-43 is resulting in right-hand side line from its predecessor the PPSh-41, of which it constitutes a still simplified version. It fires the same ammunition, the 7.62 X25 mm TT, but does not use any more the typical chargers drums of the Soviet infantry, limiting itself to the only right chargers of thirty five cartridges, to simplify the mechanism of locking of the chargers. The principle of operation remains that of the simple retreat, without locking of the cylinder head, this one being in open position before the shooting. The theoretical rate of shooting is however decreased by nine hundreds to seven hundred blows per minutes. because of lower mass of the weapon, so that this one remains easy to maintain at the time of constant gusts. It preserves also the cooling sleeve of its predecessor, but associates a brake of gun to him, to limit the retreat and the increase of the weapon during the shooting."-quote from PPS-43 - SpeedyLook encyclopedia

Trained soldiers should be expected to be able to fire his weapons in short bursts instead of spraying.

Russian troops are known to lack training, and german troops are known to be well trained. That effectively reduced the accuracy of the PPSh in combat. However, this topic only concern the weapon but not the soldiers operating it, right?

 

Odd. Both of which sites state effective range which is not exactly accuracy... a couple of people who had shot both that I have talked to (online) did not find either weapon to be substantially superior to another in accuracy. They were adequate for the task at hand. The PPSh-41 was probably tougher though. It came with a chromed barrel.

Trained soldiers should be expected to be able to fire his weapons in short bursts instead of spraying.

It was implicit in the design of certain German and Russian units that submachine guns were at times a substitute for sophisticated command and control as well as training because the ease with which a soldier can spray firepower on the enemy.

In late war German after action reports, sturm platoons deployed in what was called "hurrah" tactics, i.e. charging to the enemy position while screaming and more importantly, firing from the hip with automatics. It was apparently pretty effective in breaking the morale of enemy troops. I doubt too many late war soldiers would be what we call a well trained trooper now a days.

 

I had never shot any weapon except a M16 (during an army open house) because in my country guns are illegal and all the info i know are what i had read and not my personal experience. Therefore i might have missed out some information about both gun's characteristic.

I think the PPSh's advantage is its range(due to its ballistic characteristic and muzzle velocity) and firepower(due to its higher rate of fire) while the MP40's advantage is controllability(due to its lower rate of fire) and its small size(due to its folding stock).

Spray and pray is indeed the most common way of using a submachine gun in WWII. That make me wonder if firing in bursts was invented before or after WWII. Its quite a contrast compared to modern day soldiers using MP5. I thought WWII soldiers firing submachine guns is much like how insurgents fire AK-47 today. And it really seems to break the enemy's morale.

 

All the weapons listed have major cons. Recoil/weak velocity, but I think I'm rather partial to the Thompson w/ a drum loaded magazine.

 

They didn"t all have drums most had 20 round clips, some 30, and only a few had drum.:ak47:

 

I'm going for the ppsh-41 because -->light weight,fast reload,fast rate of fire and the magazine doesn't annoy you when you want to lay down in the battle.

 

Hands down I'm going to have to go with the Thompson, purely because of the massive .45 slug thats sitting in its magazine. No doubt that would stop an enemy advancing, I do have a soft spot for the mp40 because of its rate of fire but shooting it prone apparently is a bit of a doozy.

Why no m3 Grease gun ?!