I'll go with the Finnish Suomi KP/-31, the finest SMG of the entire war in my honest opinion.

Drum Mag with a Tommygun. .45 bullets can kill just about anything, and with the drum you can shoot just about anything.

__________________
To the German Commander-- Nuts.

-- The American Commander

Since the M1A1 Thompson cannot use the drums (50 or 100 round) your comment is not defensible. I love the Thompson, and it's round, but the drum had been "out" since the late twenties as standard feed abiltiy. Neither the M1 Thompson (original Armed Forces model), nor the M1A1 were drum capable. Stick magazines only.

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

Clint is right the M1A1 only using stick mags. But the M1928 was issued until the M1A1 came out in late 42 to early 43. and was used side by side with the M1A1 Thompson until the end of the war by the allies. It would only be fair to include the 1928 if you're forming opinions based on ammo capacity and best subgun used during the war, Just my opinion of course, Ray

Agreed RayG, but the OT only had the M1A1 Thompson up for consideration, that is why I put in the blurb about its stick mags. The M1928A1 was drum capable, of course, as you mentioned, but not included in the origianal choices. But then again neither was the M3A1, which I thought was an oversight or at least a "slight" since it was a capable weapon which served as "substitute standard" in the US arsenal until the second Gulf War. It was available to transport drivers, I believe that was because it was adaptable to both the .45 and 9mm round. I could be wrong on the reason, but that is a dang fine service record for an under $20 pressed steel "piece of emergency production".

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

Sorry to bring up an old thread but this one was just way too interesting to me, because smg's from WWII fascinate me. In a combat situation, I think I would have to go with the PPSh-41 due to its low maintenance, reliability, ammunition capacity, relative accuracy for an smg, compensator(however primitive), and plenty of ammo laying around due to the numbers built. I love all three weapons, but have never gotten a chance to fire one. I think they all performed well, but the Thompson and Mp-40 had more drawbacks. However, I hear that the PPSh-41 had feeding problems and its rof was so fast it cracked casings, is this true?

I dunno about the accuracy. It's a 900 rpm weapon with a pretty short barrel, compensator or no compensator, but it was a more dependable weapon than the MP-40 which allegedly cracked in severe winter conditions.The drum magazine was a major drawback of the PPSh, loading it to full capacity causes elastic fatigue of the springs and failure to feed. Troops load them at around 65 rounds. This was one of the reasons why the banana clips were issued later in the war.

The main fault of the Thompson was that it was heavy and expensive. Almost anyone who shot it loved it, from what I can gather.

I agree with the part "anyone who shot it loved it", that is a definite yes.

With cost cutting in the assembly process the Tommy gun was getting less and less expensive to produce as the war went on, but replacing it with the less costly M3 had already been decided on. As to the heavy part, it wasn't really all that much more than those in the choices.

The weight difference is really pretty minor between the M1A1 Thompson, the PPsH-41, and the MP-40.

4.76 kg Thompson M1A1 empty (10.49 lbs)
3.63 kg PPsH-41 empty (8.02 lbs)
4.03 kg MP-40 empty (8.88 lbs)

That is only about two pounds difference between them, empty weights, but the weight of the rounds has to be figured in, and the Thompson is definetly the "heavy hitter", and the heavier per round magazine in the group.

And they were all under 3 feet in length (MP-40 stock open). And all three could be fired from the "hip" or the "shoulder", so length of weapon wouldn't be that big a deal.

833 mm for the MP-40 with the stock open (32.76 inches)
843 mm for the PPsH-41 (33 inches)
856 mm for the Thompson M1A1 (33.7 inches)

The puny round of the PPsH is its only big flaw, it is the old Mauser 7.62x25 mm pistol round from the C-96 "broomhandle" after all, and has less power than a M1 .30 Carbine.

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

[QUOTE=Triple C;424800]I dunno about the accuracy. It's a 900 rpm weapon with a pretty short barrel, compensator or no compensator, but it was a more dependable weapon than the MP-40 which allegedly cracked in severe winter conditions.The drum magazine was a major drawback of the PPSh, loading it to full capacity causes elastic fatigue of the springs and failure to feed. Troops load them at around 65 rounds. This was one of the reasons why the banana clips were issued later in the war.

The drum mags were fixed pretty early in the war, though. Soviets used thin metal(0.5mm) at first to craft the drum magazines and their springs inside left much to hope. Springs wore down and then the jammings begun.
Later on, the thickness was increased to 1mm and each weapon got a designated drum which worked well for that particular weapon.
Accuracy was limited(ppsh-41) for an SMG but its barrel was 10.6 in, while the mp-40 barrel was 9.9 in, and the thompson's was 10.5 in. So, as you can see, barrel length does contribute to accuracy but is not the sole factor. The thompson recoil made aiming a tad bit harder(the m1a1 had no compensator).
The mp-40 is pretty accurate but suffers from quite a bit of unreliability. This could be easily cured by a good shake or maintaining your gun properly, but still gave you battlefield complications.
I'm not sure which has the better accuracy,the mp-40 or the ppsh-41, but both had pretty low recoil.(despite its rpm the ppsh-41 had a compensator and felt-rounded bolt to reduce recoil, plus its Tokarev round wasn't known for making recoil a problem)
So I'm still gonna have to go with the ppsh-41.

Allegedly, those who were trained to use the Thompson, such as MPs, could knock down man-sized targets with their weapon at 200 yards. This is hearsay, of course. The .45 ACP actually is a very accurate round. Many competitive shooters use it for matches.

Until we have trained shooters (preferably a group!) who had tried them all and tell us about it, I would susbend belief on all claims of SMG accuracy. Everything I have heard to this point are annecdotal and contradictory to each other.

SW Pacific Vet found his M1 effective to out to 150 yards, and I really can't think of a reason to use a SMG beyond that range in any event, the poor killing power of 9mm or 7.62mm would make shooting at that distance inadvicible.

As for drums, I have serious doubts as to how effective they actually were. 71 rounds are a lot of bullets to tax the spring with, and even modern US GI magazines were not topped off. Drum designs are reportedly sensative to dirt as well; they have the extra disavantage of being relatively heavy and bothersome to load. This is not to say that the PPSh-41 was a poor weapon; but the 43 IMHO was much better.

Yeah drum magazines are pretty unreliable. The common loadout for a red army infantryman was often a ppsh-41 with one drum mag and five or six stick mags, which were more reliable but emptied fast due to the rpm. But keep in mind this is the only major flaw of the ppsh-41.
I'm sure well-trained soldiers could shoot accurately with the thompson, and it was also a great weapon, but its heaviness and recoil were significant drawbacks.
As for the mp-40, it is a close second behind the ppsh-41 in my opinion because of its accuracy, overall controllibility, low recoil(low rof and recoil buffer), ammo with very good ballistics(9mm), and compactness. But I hear everywhere that its single feed magazine was prone to causing jams(as well as making it difficult to fire when lying prone), the steel wartime ammo caused further jams, and the folding stock was quite flimsy? Could anyone tell me if this is true, and if it occured often? Because knowing this might change my position on the best of these smgs.
**I havent shot any of these weapons so I can't say anything for sure.

+1

Russians copied their purp gun from it after the Winter War by special order from Stalin(!)
That should tell you something.

The Suomi had one great disadvatange though (according to my gandfather who used one during the whole war). In combat after few hundrer rounds the slug sometimes jammed inside the barrel due overheating. When this happened one had to replace the barrel which apparently was not an easy task. According to my grandfather the only way to get the red hot barrel out was to twist it with your fingers.
A design flaw which resulted many bad burns.

__________________
Dixi et animam levavi

This used to be a topic which my granddad used to talk a lot with me. Except he used the Sten gun instead of the PPSH. He always said that he liked the Thompson, mainly because it felt better in his hands and was easier to reload he thought.
I think all 3 guns were exceptional though, and I can not pick between the three.

hello guys!
Well PPSh-41's rate of fire is unmatched ,but also its accurecy is unreliable
MP-40 has slow rate of fire &more accurecy ,but the german soldier was unable to fire from it in prone mode!! because of its long clip!!

The best is Thompson ,because of its high rate of Fire &good accurecy!!= Two in One!

__________________
Spec Ops Motto 1=100

Hey just wondering about mp-40 reliability. The magazine was prone to jamming and misfeeds due to its single feed single coluomn operation and debris getting in it easily, which a good shake would often cure(loosened debris, but I dont know about misfeeds due to the mag operation). But other than this how was it in terms of reliablity? Any other problems encountered?

The PPSH41 firing rate made it very innacurate and loud because of using drum mags (ammo inside was moving loudly during shooting). Altough high rof and high effectivity when shooting small distances it was also incomfortable when holding a drum magazine. I have airsoft thompson and real has a much of stopping power but i think the most usefull weapon would be Mp40 because of medium firing rate and small recoil. The Sten is very uncomfortable at holding and u have to bend hand to shoot it accuratly. Sorry for bad english

The PPSH-41 is a very unique gun, very well made too. But I just probably wouldn't use it because holding the drum as a fore-grip might be uncomfortable. Thompson would be nice too, but I'd like my gun to be as light as possible. So most likely I'd choose the MP-40.

The PPsH-41 was a mass produced, and not "well made". It was however as well made as necessary for combat use where the weapon may have a "shelf-life" of less than a day. The drum wasn't a "great" idea actually, and the Red Army soldiers preferred the stick magazines due to their ease of loading, better dependability, and easier "quick change" from empty to full again.

As to weight, the weight difference is really pretty minor between the M1A1 Thompson, the PPsH-41, and the MP-40.

4.76 kg Thompson M1A1 empty (10.49 lbs)
3.63 kg PPsH-41 empty (8.02 lbs)
4.03 kg MP-40 empty (8.88 lbs)

Only the higher weight of the rounds of the more potent .45 ACP make the "Tommy gun" heavier by huge amounts. But then again, 20 and 30 rd stick magazines in pouches don't add to the weapon's weight by much really. Empty weight is only between 1.5 and 2.5 pounds heavy for the Thompson compared to the others. And the .45 ACP round through that longer barrel was "killer powerful" compared to the 9.mm of the MP-40, or the 7.62mm of the PPsH.

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

Can anyone tell me how much ammunition were the Russian sub-machine gunners usually issued each time? And how did they load the drums as well? With the high rate of fire of those PPSH-41, the Russians would surely have expended their ammunition quickly and to load their magazines seems like more than a nuisance.

The amount of ammo was probably "unlimited" as to issue, now as to how the drums and sticks were loaded that is a greater query. I would assume the sticks could be loaded pre-battle by anyone, and in battle by the soldier carrying the weapon if he had loose rounds or access to ammo boxes.

The drums are another question as they were labor intensive to load, had flaws in feeding, and might be supplied "loaded" to the soldier pre-battle along with pre-loaded sticks. This site implies much the same:

The PPSh-41 (Pistolet Pulemjot Shpagina model of 1941 = Shpagin submachine gun) was one of major infantry weapons of the Soviet troops during the World war 2. Total number of PPSh's manufactured during WW2 estimates to more than 6 millions. The gun became one of the symbols of the Great Patriotic War. Retired from Soviet Army service soon after the WW2, the PPSh was widely exported to some pro-Soviet countries around the world, including China, Vietnam and many African countries.


It was effective, but somewhat crude weapon, reliable in combat but not without certain flaws. It has somewhat excessive rate of fire, and its drums were uncomfortable to carry and prone to feed problems once spring is weaken.

The PPSch-41 was designed as a cheap and simple but effective war-time weapon. It featured simple blowback operated action, and fired from open bolt. To decrease the recoil stress, gun was fitted with bolt buffer at the rear of receiver. The buffer was made from fiber and was attached to the return spring guide rod. The striker was permanently fixed to the bolt face. PPSh-41 was a select-fire weapon, with fire selector switch located inside the triggerguard, ahead of trigger. The safety was integrated into the charging handle and locked the bolt in forward or rearward position. The receiver and the barrel shroud was made from stamped steel. The front part of the barrel shroud extends beyond the muzzle and acted as a muzzle brake / muzzle flip compensator. Early PPSch-41's were issued with drum magazines with capacity of 71 round, similar to ones used in PPD-40.


Such high capacity increased the firepower but the magazines were too slow to refill and not too reliable, so in 1942 a curved box magazine was developed. This magazine held 35 rounds and was much more comfortable to carry in pouches. Early magazines were made from 0,5 mm sheet steel and were somewhat unreliable. Later magazines were made from 1 mm steel and were completely satisfactory. Usually, infantrymen carried one drum in the gun and some box magazines in the pouches or pockets.

See:

Modern Firearms - Shpagin PPSh-41 submachine gun

I would guess that the drums were discarded when empty, and replaced with 35 round sticks in the "fight", and then retreived and reloaded post-battle if possible. Also just a guess on my part.

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

For reliability, the PPSh without question. But all in all, I love the Thompson, so I'll have to go with that as my favorite.

__________________
Best Regards, Hufflepuff

I love the grip and versatility of the Thompson. I dont have a real one, but I do have a full metal airsoft version. Very effective might I add.

In fact, I have had a chance to test all of these guns and based on my own opinions and experiences, here are some pros and cons of each gun:

PPSh-41:

+ good rate of fire
+ penetration capability of the bullet
+ ammunition capacity
- lack of accuracy to longer range

Thompson M1A1:
+ effective caliber
- not very easy to control

MP40:
+ very easy to control even in full-auto fire
+ small (stock folded) and relatively light

Based ONLY on these experiences and if I would be choosing a gun for myself from these candidates, I would definately choose MP40. But if I would have to put up some factories to manufacture guns for 20 million soldiers, I would definately choose PPSh-41 for them.

Otherwise, I think you missed some other guns as well. Someone already mentioned Suomi M31 -submachinegun, but that is very heavy - which helps you to control it in full auto though... Also it was very hard to manufacture, which made it expensive and the quantities too low.

Two other guns are also very good choices, which both include the capabilities of MP40, but with the manufacturing prospects of PPSh-41. These are PPS-43 and the Finnish copy of it, Submachine-gun M/44.

But, as I said - if I would choose one WW2-era submachine-gun for myself, it definately would be MP40.

__________________
==========
Swine flu *oink*
==========

The PPSH is gwad-awful ugly :Short barreled; chunky, nasty stock; industrial-looking stamped metal parts; cheap unrefined appearance overall...but boy-oh-boy, was it effective in the urban environment! It was so effective, that it was often adopted by the Germans. In fact, they copied it and started producing their own version chambered for the GERMAN Mauser 7.63X25 round. The PPSH had a low recoil due to its built-in muzzle brake. It was generally reliable, rugged, and had low maintenance requirements. It was lethal and had twice the magazine capacity of its counterparts.

The Thompson M1 submachine gun was an aesthetically pleasing well-made weapon. It fired the very potent and lethal 45ACP. While it was heavier than its counterparts, its weight was also a positive factor, assisting with the control of its recoil/muzle climb. It was also used in Korea and Vietnamn. The fact that it was expensive to make, even though it was a fine weapon, led to its own demise. It was replaced by the M3 Grease gun, a cheap mass produced sub. I've fired both, the latter extensively, and hated the M3.

The German Scheisser MP40 was a fine weapon generally highly regarded. It was compact and fired the 9mm round. It had some feeding problems but frankly, this appears to have been a common issue with all submachineguns.

Given a choice for my own personal weapon for an urban or close-support environment only, I'd choose the Thompson...good firepower, lethal round, and accurate if you know how to shoot it. However, for anything over 50yds., give me the old reliable Garand M1

The Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) was not a submachinegun. It was a squad based weapon with the ability to reach out and touch someone. It had an effective range from 0 to beyond 1000 yds. It shot the powerful 30-06 bullet. Like the Garand, it had a healthy recoil. The BAR/submachinegun were not comparable weapons.