How useful exactly are submachineguns in combat?

In offensive missions Seperate Assault Gun Brigades are used to provide armored support for armor-poor formations.

 

There are plenty of sources to be found to support my statements...Inside the Soviet Army by Viktor Suvarov describes alot of what went on the Soviet side in WW2 and is where i got myg eneral impression of the soviet attitude of treatment nd education/training toward the common soldier in Russia - uniformly bad.

Some other quotes:

World War II Participants

Soviet mine clearing techniques using people to detonate them and having to pick up weapons from dead comrades:

Penal military unit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I wouldn't trust wikipedia further than I would throw it (And I can't, it's a piece of software).
Please find another source that says that Red Army soldiers picked up weapons from dead comrades.

 

Enemy at the Gates, haha

 

Nikolai Tolstoy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

marc780 also used Suvarov on his sources. Now, I'd stay away from him if I were you.
Also, regarding rifle availability, the germans had more troubles in getting rifles than the Russians did. I bet it was more common to see a German soldier taking the rifle of a dead comrade due to the fact that his replacement rifle was being horse drawn all the way from Berlin to Russia. Whereas the Russians had theirs delivered as soon as they got out from the factory... And the factory producing 3 or 4X more rifles a day than the German ones.



Cheers...

 

"Viktor Suvorov" (V. Rezun, a GRU captain who defected in 1978) is considered a source only by revisionist apologists. I'm not surprised you used him as a source, I wasn't expecting you to know any better. As you took so long to come up with a reply, and the reply was this, I take it you simply don't know what you're saying, which goes well with the rest of your posts here.

Mr. "Suvorov", finding himself in the West, after he had been debriefed from whatever info he posessed, after a time found himself in the streets and had to make a living, wisely, he capitalized on what he knew better, his experince in the Red Army. So it was easy to him and he found a public eager to know more on what was going on on the other side of the Iron Curtain, especially if what was written fed the same old fears, spiced with a few spectacular tidbits and 'tabloid truths'

The military doctrine of the Red Army on the eve of the Great Patriotic War: myths and facts | Military Thought | Find Articles at BNET

THE RUSSIAN BATTLEFIELD

 

I understand SMGs were often a temp issue to patrols in the Korean war. Should have been a great asset in this role.

At least one US Advisory team in RVN used M3s in bunkers for compound defense because RPG hits would stir up enough dust to jam carbines and M16s.

I have always been fascinated by the Italian army of the '60s equipping its inf sqd w Beretta SMGs and one BAR. Don't think this would have been too good in the mountains.

 

Pseudo science or rather military knowledge.

Meaning he is using false facts to back up his opinions and statments, such as white people believing that because white men have a larger head means they have a larger brain therefore the African is dumb and only useful as a slave.

This a basic translation from a book on Africa and the colonization of it by the Europeans concerning the Afrikaans'

 

Back to the matter in hand - When they were invented in WWI SMGs were intended to be used by assault troops as "trench brooms" to quote Gen Thompson, for close-quarter fighting. But by WWII they had become an NCO/officer weapon. This is because NCOs/Officers are not meant to fight, they are meant to direct others to do so, moving up and down the line directing fire etc. The SMG is only for close-in personal protection, the same way officers carry pistols. So the question of SMG or rifle does not really apply if they are used as intended, if you discount the Russians use of SMGs in urban combat.

 

Kinda slow "on the trigger" here (pun intended). The U.S. Army moved to the .45 caliber bullet after the failure of the .38 Long Colt to stop the Moro tribesmen in the Philippines and that .38 Long Colt definitely didn't even have the stopping power of the .38 Special designed the same year as the marginally more efficient 9X19 Luger Parabellum (1902). The man who pushed the Army into adopting the .45 caliber cartridge was Gen. John T. Thompson, later the father of the Thompson submachine gun (also in .45) and a member of the Army Ordnance Board during the time that what was to become the M1911 pistol was being developed by John Browning and Colt. After the disastrous showing of the Army's .38 Long Colt pistols in the Philippines, Gen. Thompson was committed to the idea that the Army should be packing a real man-stopper in its handguns, a big .45 caliber bullet. It was the cartridge tests conducted by Thompson and Major Louis Anatole LaGarde of the Medical Corps in 1904 at the Nelson Morris Company Union Stockyards in Chicago that resulted in the adoption of the .45 caliber as the official U.S. Army handgun cartridge.

They tested various calibers on live cattle and horses. And even fired into human cadavers to determine the best load. It was discovered by these "cavalry oriented" professionals that a .45 could drop a horse with a "chest shot" at five paces, none of the lower calibers could do so no matter the speed of the projectile nor lack of distance. If a man could "drop" a horse with his pistol, it was assumed by these cavalry men that this would be the pistol round of the future. Sure couldn’t hold these kinds of "real life" tests today could ya? The PETA people would go into "vapor lock"! From these tests it was determined that the .45 was the most effective cartridge for the new handgun. In their report, they state:

"...the Board was of the opinion that a bullet, which will have the shock effect and stopping effect at short ranges necessary for a military pistol or revolver, should have a caliber not less than .45".

In response to the Ordnance Board's specification, Browning, working with Colt, re-designed his existing .38 auto-loading pistol to fire the .45 ACP. As a result, Browning's first loading was a 200 grain bullet running at 900 feet per second, but the Army wanted a larger bullet. Browning responded with the loading we have today, a 230 grain bullet with a muzzle velocity of 830 fps. Both the .38 Special and the 9mm Parabellum were better than the .38 Long Colt, but both still less "powerful" against any adversary than the .45 ACP. BTW, Long Colt is only a designation to distinguish it from the Schofield pistol round issued in the same caliber, at the same time. It was shorter than the Colt round in overall length, consequently Colt pistols could fire both Schofield and Colt rounds, but Schofield pistols could only fire Schofield rounds.

In response to the effective range of the .45 ACP as fired through the Thompson SMG barrel, here is a portion of an interesting report (Philip B. Sharpe review of the M1928A1 Thompson from 1929):

"This .45 automatic pistol cartridge, in the arm designed for it, delivers about 810 foot per seconds velocity. In the 10 1/2-inch barreled Thompson it delivers about 925 f.p.s. Tests indicate that accuracy and penetration is quite respectable, even at the longer ranges. A single shot two feet from the muzzle, using the 230 grain bullet, tested on 3/4-inch yellow pine boards spaced one inch apart, ran through 6 3/4 boards. At 100 yards it would plough (sic) through six boards; at 200 yards through 5 1/4; at 300 yards, 4 1/2; at the 400 mark through four boards, and at 500 yards it could still stumble through 3 3/4 boards¾sufficient to cause very unpleasant sensations in the body of a recipient." [pg 1107]

I myself was always astonished at that damage and distance out of a Thompson, bet you almost had to aim at the sky to get it 500 yards downrange. Anyway, an M1A1 could be produced in half the time of a M1928A1, and at a much lower cost. In 1939 Thompsons cost the government $209 apiece. By Spring of 1942 cost reduction design changes had brought this down to $70. In February of 1944 the M1A1 reached a low price of $45 each, including accessories and spare parts. By February 1942 Auto Ordnance Corp. had delivered it’s 500,000th gun. By summer of the same year, the combined output from the Savage and A.O. production lines reached a rate of 90,000 guns a month.

Finally in 1944 when TSMG production ended, a total of 1,750,000 completed guns, and spare parts equivalent to another 250,000 guns had been produced. But, even the lowering of the final price for construction and delivery couldn’t save the TSMG from replacement by the "U.S. Submachine Gun, Caliber .45, M3". It was smaller, lighter, and could be made for under $20 in less than half the time. This gun fired at a much slower 400 rounds per minute (similar to the MP40) an in auto only. In the summer of 1943 the M3 was put into full production by the Guide Lamp Division of General Motors. But because of M3 production problems, Thompson M1A1 production continued until February 1944. By the end of the war only two years after its introduction and acceptance some 600,000 M3 "Grease Guns" had been produced, only one third fewer numbers than all the production years of the MP40.

Now, fired throught the shorter M3 "Grease gun" barrel, the .45 didn't have near the range or penetration of the TSMG, but slightly better than that of the 1911A1 ACP. A skilled operator could actually "squeeze off" single shots with practice using the M3. The "Grease gun" remained in US tanker service until the first Gulf War I have heard. Apparently somebody thought they were "useful" in combat, and for quite a long time it seems.

 

Compared to what?? A table lamp?

I'll approach the question by comparing it with the contemporary alternative, the rifle.

PRO WO 291/473 Army Operational Research Group, Memorandum no. 128, A comparison of rifle, bren and sten guns. (May 1944)

My experience as an instructor for the infantry is consistent with this report. A bit surprised that the Sten is better at ranges below 300 yards but my experience with the MP-5 at 200 meters blows the "50m-is-all-a-SMG-can-do" out of the water.

The SMG was invented during WWI to give the infantry offensive firepower. At the start of the war it became apparent that the Machinegun had increased the defensive firepower dramatically. Later with defensive fire programmes and the barbed wire, the infantry in attack was a bloody affair. There was two different ideas of how to overcome this. The British and French develeoped a mechanical solotuion the tank, and the Germans developed stormtrooper tactics and the SMG.

During the interwar years the British Army went back to policing their empire. Drastic military cuts and the 10 year rule would make life difficult for the development of new weapons and proper exercises during the mid 20ies through the 30ies.

Developing semi automatic rifles was done, but massive stockpiles of WWI vintage weapons, and the fear of a massive logistic tail if implementing automatic weapons prevented the Army from getting modern weapons. The General Staff decided that they preffered expert shots over lead pumpers. A decision that would cause the Army all sorts of trouble during the early years of the war. The infantry was robbed of the opportunity to generate enough firepower on their own to advance on the battlefield. The official doctrine called for combined arms, especially the Royal Artillery, to get the infantry on the target.

There was however one snag. When the barrage lifted, the PBI still had some 200 yards to cover before they were on their objective. These yards proved to be very difficult to close down.


So back to the original question about the SMG and it's usefulness.

I think it was a real gem of a weapon. It was cheap and easy to produce, it allowed the infantry to generate a lot of fire, and enabled the men to carry a lot of ammo.

Noticable drawbacks was the range (but hey, we have LMGs for that right?) and penetration power.

The SMG had the capability to kill/pin the enemy down as they manouvred around the battlefield, and "fire on the move capability*" encourage mobility.

*I don't have any reference for this, rather an observation from the training grounds. People seem more eager to move if they can blast away a few rounds.

The best option is of course the assault rifle that combine the SMG and the rifles best traits, and carry few of the drawbacks.

However it is more difficult to mass produce, and limit the ammount of ammo that can be carried.

Jaeger

 

ok Za Rudina didnt mean to bash the Soviets. They fought courageously in a brutal war that wiped out millions and what i said is not meant to slander em in any way. I have read so many accounts (The Forgotten Soldier by Sajer and many others) of Germans on the Ostfront that you cant help but feel sorry for the poor way the Russian soldier was treated.
I am reading a book right now called "In Deadly Combat" (by Gottlob Herbert Bidermann)a German soldier fighting in the Crimea, where he describes how Russian Tartar prisoners of war were glad to be taken prisoner, were fed better by the Germans than by their own side, and were happy to help fight against their former comrades.

 

Good post, Jaeger, I missed it the first time around.

 

Thank you Wolfy. Better late than never.