Which would you prefer in the field and why?

__________________
Weapons are cool.

Why is the Sten not in your list? Or the Owen Gun?

__________________

I like the mp40 because I have one, but the thompson would probably be better, even including other weapons like the sten.

3ball44, you know that you can posts polls right? Some of these questions might work very well as a poll. Just a suggestion.

__________________

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

Im going for the PPSH-41 ( with the drum )

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.

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

Greater range? What do you expect to hit farther from spitting distance with a SMG?

__________________

Hey, might not be that much greater but still, even an additional 50 yards can come in handy.

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

I would whatever came to my hands. If it shoots, I would use it. If something better came to my feet, I would pick it up and use it.

__________________
Time is only enemy you'll never get rid of.

I would go the M1A1 Thompson....stopping power over all!

__________________
"GARRY OWEN"-Traditional war-cry of the US 7th Cavalry.
"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

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.....

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

I would have chosen the sten, but it's not on your list

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.

__________________

Sorry I left the Sten off the list, even though I may not like the weapon, it should be mentioned with the other three.
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.

__________________
Weapons are cool.

Youtube:
MP40.
PPsH-41 Drum.
Thompson.

I like them all
... as long as nobody ever points one at me.

Cheers,
Adam.

The Sten was incredibly cheap to produce and could be turned out in large quantities. A major plus was the ease with which it could be stripped down into its major components ( making it very popular among Resistance movements ).

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.

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

Actually, the sten used a 9mm cartridge just for that reason-If it jammed replace it with a MP40.

__________________

How about forget worrying about your gun jamming all the time, move up to the better cartrige of the .45, and you've got yourself a Thompson!

__________________
Weapons are cool.

I don't really like the Thompson very much.

__________________

PPSH 41 Drum

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.

__________________
There's one way to find out if a man is honest-ask him. If he says "Yes", you know he's a crook. Groucho Marx

I think that should be 'when'......

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

Given the choice, none of the above. SMGs are only good in urban combat, close quarters, and for self-defense. As an offensive weapon in the field they are nearly worthless. I'd far prefer a semi-automatic long rifle or even a quick action bolt action rifle like the SMLE.
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.

I second that.

__________________

I would like to third that, but I have one more bit.
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.

__________________
Weapons are cool.

Actually I would probably prefer a LMG (no, I would just prefer a Bren). Sure, it's heaver, but the Bren was accurate (like a rifle) and fast(ish)firing(like a SMG). Not that i would use it as a rifle, but it was accuate.

__________________

I like the MP-40. I have never shot one but I like the distinctive look and sound. Of course those are no factors for a combat weapon. Only a purely aesthetic love for the schmeisser. I can't really make a good decision until I have fired each of these weapons.

Have you ever used the drum magazine on a sub machine gun in combat?

__________________

Quite true, firing them is the true test, but I think we can make some pretty educated picks here just on knowledge of the weapon. The only one I have fired of the group is the Thompson, suprisingly, that is the one I would prefer.

__________________
Weapons are cool.

Agreed, firing them is the truest test but deductions can be drawn from many excellent books and first-hand accounts of WWII which are now available.

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....

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