Hello all. This is a question I find to be rather amusing. Personally, I like the American Thompson submachine gun, despite its obvious drawbacks. I would like to know what your preferences are including, but not limited to, the MP40, the Ppsh and the Sten. Please provide a short description of why a particular gun was chosen. I would like to learn from this little questionnare. [img]smile.gif[/img]

__________________
"It was three hundred against one million..."

I like the Ppsh, but it's the mp40 for me. It's the icon of the german soldier in films, so much so that it shows up more often than it should. For example it appears in the Indiana Jones movies, all of which are set prior to 1938, when the gun was firms made. [img]graemlins/gi.gif[/img]

__________________

WWII Forums Rogues Gallery - send in your photo!
Comments, questions or feedback? Contact me at

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." Socrates

Personally, none of them (submachineguns) are worth a hoot in (#(#$ except for self defense or clearing buildings /urban fighting. But if I was going to have to tote one I'd choose either the M-2 carbine (the full auto one...it is essentially a submachinegun) or the M 3 "grease gun." The latter has the advantages of being light, compact and, capable of barrel changes for .45, 9mm etc. Rather useful as you can pick up ammo as you go some of the time.
Yes, it isn't real accurate, but then no SMG really is. One bullet hose is as good as another.

I did'nt know the 'grease-gun' had changeable barrels, TA.
How did the chamber handle 2 differant dia. loads?

My choice is the BAR.

__________________

It was fairly simple to change. Just unscrew the front of the 'cylinder,' remove the barrel and receiver, insert the new sized ones and screw the cap back on.
It was designed that way on purpose to allow use of captured and British ammunition essentially making the gun interchangable with the Sten (or MP 40) for ammo if necessary.
The US Army's big draw for this gun was it cost $18 to manufacture versus $55 for a Thompson (in then current US dollars).

TA's basically right - the SMG was wildly over-rated and quite inefficient as an infantry weapon.

But the Prof has raised a fair question - so I'll answer in a 'heart-ruling-over-head' fashion and go for the Thompson, probably the simplified M1/M1A1 variant.

The psychological factor seems very important when reading first-hand accounts of WWII. All SMGs have their weak and strong points, but the Thompson looks and feels like a terrific weapon and packs a real punch if you did manage to hit your opponent .

But, in reality, it's very heavy and I'd hate to have to lug it around all day.....

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

The Australian Owen was one of the best SMGs. It looked a bit odd with its top-mounted magazine but this helped to keep feed problems to a minimum and its reliability - the most important aspect of a weapon - was legendary.

Technically, of the SMGs which saw action in WW2 I'd go with the Hungarian Kiraly. This was chambered for the 9x25 Mauser Export, much more powerful than the usual 9x19 Parabellum. In conjunction with a longer barrel, a decent stock (on the original version) and a locked-breech mechanism, it had a far longer effective range than most and was more of a 'machine carbine' - like the .30 M2 Carbine which would be my alternate choice.

__________________
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

No one even mentions the Suomi?
Shame on you

__________________
Co nam obca przemoc wziela,
Szabla odbierzemy

Otto, I like the ppsh too. That was a gun!

I went to a gun show a few months ago, and I saw, among other things, the ppsh, sten(mk 1 to 5), an old Lewis, with the huge, heavy mount, SKS, AR-15, Glauberyt, RPK, many Remingtons, a puny little CZ, a Browning hi-power, Para-ordinance, and Berettas. I wish they had a ma deuce, an m-60, and most of all, a PK there.
Still, the show was great.

__________________
Co nam obca przemoc wziela,
Szabla odbierzemy

Well you all right in your own ways... the sub-machine gus IS overrated, and inifficiant, but they are cheep(normally), but then again, they are inificcian. i say ki8ll em with rifles and say we used sub--machine guns.

__________________
I hid my brain and forgot where I put it...