Having fired a PPSh 41 in Russia that had spent the best part of 50 years in a bog, was cleaned up and immediatly ready to use, I'm afraid Mr Spagin gets my vote. I'd like to add, I didn't know about the dubious history of the weapon before I fired it, they have 'interesting' health and safety standards in Russia these days.

As for the usefulness of the SMG, well, I reckon the advent of the assault rifle has made it almost obsolete, a decent rifle is far more useful than any SMG. That said there are a few niches in which they are still useful, for vehicle crews and law enforcement for example. On the other hand, regarding the use of SMG's as offensive weapons they can't really be written off, after all, in a day and age where suppression is favoured over accuracy volume of fire has certain advantages however inaccurate. Apart from anything, since most studies indicate that (at least during WW2) around 2% of soldiers actually aimed to kill, perhapse th SMG has some advantages to commend it.

I am still always entertained by SMG sights that are marked out to 300m though.

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

The only SMG to be fired at distance is the MP-5. The SMG is as Stefan says for special duties. For a soldier the Assault rifle is a much better choice.

__________________
'We march. The enemy is retreating in transport. We follow on foot.' Lt.Neil McCallum 5/7 Gordons 19th November 1942

I prefer the PPSh-41 (with the drum) and the MP-40 in the battlefield because this rifles sees cooler than the Thompson M1A1 and i'm an fan of Russian and German weapons than US weapons!

The large magazines (the Thompson had a 50? round drum as well), from what I've read, tended to have problems. It required too much of the springs to maintain enough tension over time. The result was for the Thompson anyway the 20 round clip was preferred.
They're really suited to different jobs. From what I've heard the BAR didn't have that much of a kick (less than a bolt action rifle by quite a bit). That's because it was heavy and automatic. It was quite accurate at ranges over 100 yards where the Thompson wasn't. The BAR used the standard 30-06 rifle round where the Thompson used the standard .45 pistol round.

One of the reasons why the 50 and 100 round drums where not used is because they used to rattle, giving away the soldier's position.
The Thompson also had a slightly longer 30 rnd box also.

__________________

When it comes to WW2 SMG's the Suomi KP-31 gets my vote. PPSh-41 is based on the Suomi, but it is not as well made. A slightly longer barrel makes for greater accurancy.

In 1939 we were testing the Suomi out for the army. It was a big hit, but sadly only a few reached us before we needed them in 1940. However in the Regimental books it is noted as a battlewinning factor for the encirclement and destruction of German paratroopers around Lesja. In my grandfathers batallion there were two subaltern with experience from Finland. The swift ski patrols was used against the germans, and the firepower of the Suomi made up for the lack of MG's.

As a tribute to the Suomi it is worth noting that it was the backup weapon of the all time highest scoring sniper Simo Häyhä, who is said to have mown down a good 200 with his Suomi.

__________________
'We march. The enemy is retreating in transport. We follow on foot.' Lt.Neil McCallum 5/7 Gordons 19th November 1942

I think that Thompson was one of the most good weapons made everytime.Its high ratio was very powerful.Very good in short distances.

Actually the M1 Tommy gun had a ratio of fire between 600-700 rounds per minute.
The Mp 40 and the Sten down at 500 rounds per minute.
But the PPSh-41 and the Suomi have 900 rounds per miute.

Earlier Tommyguns had a higher rate of fire, but there were a lot of modefications done to make it cheaper to produce, and easier to operate. (grunts ain't geniouses you know)

__________________
'We march. The enemy is retreating in transport. We follow on foot.' Lt.Neil McCallum 5/7 Gordons 19th November 1942

If I was going to carry a smg into combat I would want the thompson for the stopping power but I would love to get my hands on an m1928 rather then the m1a1. I'd rather have a 50 rd drum than a 30 or 20 rd clip.

Indeed, if one looks at the military experience of the U.S. for the past twenty years, it seems the assault rifle concept leaves much to be desired. With the bulk of combat occurring in urban areas (because of demographic changes) and deserts (because of strategic considerations), the compromise that the assault rifle represents - being optimized for European combat - has been rendered moot by the Pax Americana. The U.S. military would be better served arming squads with .30 rifles and SMGs - just like WWII.

Not that this counts as definitive experience or anything, but this weekend I played Call of Duty for the first time. While I must admit the PPsh was spectacular, I found it much harder to use than the MP-40. Even in short bursts, it was like holding on to a fire hose, and it was ammo-hungry.

I did not take into account the differences between the m1928 and the M1a1, my bad. However, something else dawned on me after I wrote that. The Sten and MP40 both used 9mm while the Thompson( both models) used the heavier .45 and the PPSH used a cut down 7.62 round. This would mean in a suply situation German and English forces could use each others ammo, not so for Russian or American forces. However in A Bridge Too Far, several English Paras can be seen using MP 40's In Arnhaim after they were cut off and low on ammo. Is this Hollywood hukom, or did the paras prefer the German weapon?

__________________
"Goddam it, you'll never get the Purple Heart hiding in a foxhole! Follow me!" Captain Henry P. Jim Crow

At Arnhem, British airborne forces used anything they could get hold of, including K98k's and MP40s ( interchangeability of 9mm ammo with the Sten was an advantage ).

Ironically, the Sten Mk V with its wooden furniture was highly-prized as a captured weapon by the Waffen-SS troops at Arnhem ; several photos exist to prove it.

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

Beleive me, I fully understand to use whatever is at hand to fight when you are cut off from help. I was just trying to say that I never understood Why the US has always insisted on using different calibur weapons than its allies. It still does this today.

__________________
"Goddam it, you'll never get the Purple Heart hiding in a foxhole! Follow me!" Captain Henry P. Jim Crow

Not true. While we did break from the 7.62x51 for our rifles, we still retain it for our medium MG. And our allies have followed our lead with the 5.56mm rifle. Pistol-wise, we changed over from the .45 to the 9mm almost thirty years ago. So it's a two-way street, and now there is full commonality.

Some caliber differences are justified. For one thing. I'd rather be armed with an M1911A1 than a Walther or that .38 revolver British officers were issued. Also, the US armed forces hasn't completely switched over to 9mm. Special Forces tend to favor the .45 over the 9mm, and it isn't too difficult for a officer to obtain a 1911, even today.

Personally, I'd choose the Thompson. .45 rounds tended to have a stopping power advantage over 9mm rounds back then, and the Thompson was rather reliable. The PPSH was a good SMG, but it could accidentally discharge when dropped, which isn't good.

Sorry, tinman - I should have expanded mine a bit. In reading several personal accounts of Arnhem, the Airborne forces in many cases did prefer the MP40 as the Sten - even the improved MkV - suffered badly from jamming in the sandy conditions prevalent there. Apparently, the MP40 was more reliable.

The Germans enjoyed posing with the MkV Sten as more of a victory trophy, I think.....

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

Well, I can understand that from the Germans. I hate the taste of trout, but if I CATCH one I still want a photo.

__________________
"Goddam it, you'll never get the Purple Heart hiding in a foxhole! Follow me!" Captain Henry P. Jim Crow

The factors involved with weapon choices is varied. Given a choice of the three, it would be the Thompson with the straight clips, preferably the 30 rd. The impact of a .45 rd is going to make a big difference in stopping power. The straight clips are easier to carry, more reliable, and a person can fire three 30 rd magazines faster than two 50 rd drums. The Thompson was a good choice for the U.S. Army due to the fact that the .45 was in common use with the 1911A1.

The German weapons had good design features and the earlier models had good quality control, but later models were often rushed out with a design that was not tolerant of being thrown together. And don't forget that the Germans could also fall in love with some designs that were not appropriate to combat. The Luger was one of those designs. The P38 was so much a better design than the Luger, it is not funny.

__________________
Lord, let me be the person my dog thinks I am.

Thompson M141, because you never know where the enemys are gonna pop up so just to keep the gunshot up you need to be able to kneel and rapid fire.

Joe - I suspect your prejudice vs. the Thompson is to do with the weight of the thing? (I fully agree, by the way - SMGs oughtta be portable, dammit.) Still, I loved the antique Lanchesters the RN were still toting in the 1960s - brass mag housings & buttplates - no good for infantry use, but OK to give boarding parties a bit of clout. But I reckon my all-time favourite SMG was the Sterling: that folding butt gave you a genuine room-broom for close-quarter work in urban settings.

Klive

Sorry to be pedantic, Miller - but Hugo Schmeisser had nothing to do with the MP-40. He is credited with designing the excellent MP-18, but Heinrich Vollmer was a prominent engineer at Erfurt Maschinenwerke when the MP-38 was first produced. Schmeisser's original hollow bolt/firing pin assembly was retained, but Vollmer incorporated it into Erma's unique telescoping return-spring-loaded-tube action. Doesn't matter what you call it - Schmeisser or (?)Vollmer - it was still a v.good weapon.

Klive

Klive

Schmeisser will always point at the MP 40. It has been (faulty) called that since the war, and will probably be called that for another 60 years. BTW Welcome to the forums.

__________________
'We march. The enemy is retreating in transport. We follow on foot.' Lt.Neil McCallum 5/7 Gordons 19th November 1942

YouTube - WWII guns

Hah! I knew it! Youtube Members are the most Misinformed people in the world! How could anyone get confused between the MP40 and Sten, and they even said this;
Duuuuurr! It's an MG34!

__________________