PPSh-41, Thompson M1A1, or MP-40?
Posted 09 July 2007 - 05:29 PM
Posted 09 July 2007 - 05:43 PM
3ball44, you know that you can posts polls right? Some of these questions might work very well as a poll. Just a suggestion.
- Martin Bull likes this
Comments, questions or feedback? Contact me at
Posted 09 July 2007 - 08:40 PM
Lighter then both Thompson and the MP-40, faster rate of fire, cheaper to produce, more reliable and faster muzzle velocity not to mention the greater range.
Posted 09 July 2007 - 09:01 PM
Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra...
Posted 09 July 2007 - 09:03 PM
Posted 09 July 2007 - 09:33 PM
Posted 10 July 2007 - 02:50 AM
"CURRAHEE"-War-cry of the US 506th PIR.
"Everybody thinks that they are going to get the chance to punch some Nazi in the face at Normandy-and those days are over, they are long gone"-Lt Chris Burnett
Posted 10 July 2007 - 06:42 AM
I like the mp40 because I have one
Well, this is one thread where I can say I have all three ( although of course, this being the UK, all deacts ).
I can only go by what I've read, but in combat it'd probably be the PPSh 41. Comfortable to hold and carry, colossal rate of fire with a sensibly-sized magazine, and minimal maintenance/high reliability.
So much for head ruling over heart. The Thompson looks fantastic, feels well-made , makes you feel like a hero just holding it and of course, it would have had massive 'stopping power'. But it just seems to weigh an absolute ton ! I really can't imagine hauling it around all day.....
And of course, the MP40 is the 'Luger' of submachine guns. Vorsprung durch Technik - just holding it makes you feel like an instant Knights Cross holder.....
In truth, sub machine guns - designed for close-in fighting - were all virtually as good as each other. The three weapons mentioned were all indisputably great firearms which, importantly, their respective Armies were proud of and felt confidence in. It's interesting that all of them were valued 'war prizes' coveted by opposing forces.....
Posted 10 July 2007 - 02:48 PM
Apparently, It would work under any conditions, and is dirt cheap. (If it broke, it was cheaper to build a new one than repair a broken one). I think one of the marks costed just £2! It also looked good (just my opinion!). Oh yes, and it was british.
Posted 10 July 2007 - 03:35 PM
I think that I would prefer both the PPSh-41 and the Thompson over the Mp-40. Mostly due to caliber, for anything within 100 yards the .45 is tough to beat. Although the Thompson was heavy, this also gave it great balance when firing and reduced its inclination to climb. With a Submachine gun, I prefer to have a high rate of fire, so that gives the PPSh-41 the advantage, which I believe fired around 900 rounds per min. The Thompson wasn't far behind, but I believe the MP-40 only did about 500-600 rpm. I have also heard how the Thompson had to be kept relatively clean in the field or it did not function properly, so this is a knock on the Tommy gun, reliability is a nessessity.
Magazine capability is really quite even between these weapons, If I am not mistaken, the MP-40 had a 32 rd. box, the Thompson had 20 or 30's, and the PPSh-41 had 34's. I am not a big fan of the drum magazine, at least not in combat.
Posted 10 July 2007 - 05:27 PM
It inspired little affection among British troops ( in contrast to, say, the Bren and Vickers ) and acquired a number of unflattering nicknames ( 'the Woolworths gun' being one of the most common ). Jamming in dusty or sandy conditions was a serious problem and just about any account you read of Arnhem refers to jammed Stens being thrown away and replaced by captured MP40s.
Posted 11 July 2007 - 02:47 PM
Posted 11 July 2007 - 02:50 PM
Posted 11 July 2007 - 03:33 PM
Simply because there'll be more replacement parts and ammo laying around, (considering the volumes made/used by the Russians).
House to house there can't be much difference, unless it jams, or you run out of ammunition.
Thomson is more fun (with drum, but is heavy).
I know American soldiers (who could)(didn't use them much) who traded Thomsons/Garrands for Carbines, for no other reason than the weight.
I'm sure human nature was present in most armies.
Posted 11 July 2007 - 04:09 PM
Actually, the sten used a 9mm cartridge just for that reason-If it jammed replace it with a MP40.
I think that should be 'when'......
Posted 11 July 2007 - 06:39 PM
It ain't how many rounds go down range. It's how many hit something. Beyond 50 or so yards a rifle is going to be alot more effective than a bullet hose.
This is why in standard German infantry squads only the leader had a machine pistol. He had it for defense not to normally fight. His primary job was to lead not shoot.
The US issued their infantry company a dozen Thompsons (or M 3 grease guns) to issue to the various units as needed since it was recognized for most purposes they were unnecessary.
For the Soviets it was more a matter of mass production and cheapness that led to widespread use of SMGs rather than rifles.
Posted 12 July 2007 - 01:47 AM
Subs (not the ones you eat;)) are not only good for Urban warfare, but they have their place in other terrains as well. I believe a unit with mixed weapons ranging from subs, the standard long rifle, carbines, etc., preform the best. Even in the woods when you have the enemy at 100+ yards, you can lay down some quick cover fire with a sub to help out your comrade with a Garand or whatever. Even though I am defending the sub right now, and a Thompson sure is a cool weapon, I think if it came down to it, I would prefer to have a Garand in combat over a sub, unless I was hungry.
Posted 12 July 2007 - 04:04 PM
Posted 12 July 2007 - 08:04 PM
I am not a big fan of the drum magazine, at least not in combat.
Have you ever used the drum magazine on a sub machine gun in combat?
Posted 13 July 2007 - 02:01 AM
Posted 13 July 2007 - 07:20 AM
After all, I'm not exactly going to be able to fire a Tiger's 88 or fly a Hawker Typhoon, but by all accounts I reckon they were pretty useful weapons....
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users