THOMPSON VS MP 40

What do you think is better? The MP 40 or the THOMPSON? Both of these weapons are submachineguns or machinepistols.

cartridge: THOMPSON: .45 ACP MP 40: 9x19 parabellum
RPM: THOMPSON: 800 RPM MP 40: 550 RPM

As you can see in those statistics the THOMPSON apears faster and more powerful.
So can you tell me, what did the MP 40 have that the THOMPSON didnt have?


ALL credit goes to the company that made the book i have which i got the info from =P

 

dealt with in at least one previous thread.

 

Alright I will look for it and i hope you come back to this page to read this message: Thanks alot =]

 

That is the best plan, use the search function first.

If you have something to add to the existing threads, bump it up and add to it.

 

You might want to consider more than just rate of fire in comparing the two weapons. Putting lead downrange is important but there is more to the equation, don't you think. Ease of maintenance, reliability and how well each weapon was made are things to consider as well. Method of operation is also a factor, ; some will say that a gas operated gun has advantages or disadvantages (don't remember which.) The difference in the cartridges is also something to discuss as some say that the advantage of the .45's size is offset by a bad balisitic coefficient and insufficient powder (power) downrange. The 9 will be the flatter shooting cartridge while the hole it makes in your enemy is smaller (the bigger the wound the more likely the guy dies orstays out of action.) The weight of the gun, which helps the shooter control recoil is also important, as the presence or abscence of a compensator.

Just some thoughts.

 

For the Germans, a German manufacturer.....

 

Is there a problem with people discussing a topic on this forum? Is there a rule prohibiting discussing something twice?

 

"Mongo like search feature" :


http://www.ww2f.com/search.php

 

Having fired both and taken a good hard look at the internals, I'm going to have to say that the MP 40 has it all over the Thompson. I'll try to explain, since as the OP demonstrated, the Thompson definitely looks better on paper.

-The MP40 is waaaaayyyy simpler. This has tactical and strategic implications. There's just less to go wrong with the MP 40. The MP 40 was also far better designed for mass production, meaning more could be delivered to the troops.

-The MP 40 has better human factors/ergonomics/MMI whatever you want to call it. It's lighter. The MP 40 isn't lightweight by any stretch of the imagination (IIRC it's just as heavy as a K98, just more compact), but the Thompson is a freaking pig. The charging handle is on the left side of the MP 40, and therefore faster for a right-handed shooter to manipulate using their off hand. The safety is simply rotating the handle into a cutout in the receiver; not ideal ergonomically, but still way less fiddly than those tiny little switches on the side of the Thompson. The stock on the Thompson is definitely better, however.

-I didn't go out of my way to break my host's precious historical artifacts, but I got the distinct impression that the MP40 is stronger than the Thompson. The furniture on the Thompson is attached in a fairly wobbly manner. The MP40 felt far more solid by comparison, and with the exception of the stock, everything is one big rolled up stamping.

 

I have to wonder what is going on here. I've never heard of the bolt being on the left for a gun used by the predominant population (right handers.) I can't think of a semi-auto or auto that I have seen or used for which the bolt was on the left. If I half a simple jammed cartridege or poor ejection I want to pull the bolt back while the weapon is still at my shoulder. Time wasted, no?

 

K43s and STG-44s also have the charging handle on the left side, as do a number of post-war rifle designs including the FAL and G3. For a right-handed shooter it's faster because you can use your left hand to operate the handle. This means you can maintain your grip with your right hand, keeping the rifle shouldered so you don't have to re-acquire the target after you're done reloading or malfunction clearing. In my experience it's definitely faster.

 

No doubt the weapons were designed by competent men but I would go with my preference. I keep the weapon at my shoulder with my left hand (positioned further out where it can easily support the weapons weight) while operating the bolt with my stronger and more coordinated hand (right.)

 

I forgot to mention, there should be a weight difference, the .45ACP round is something like 100 grains heavier just in the projectile. Add powder and casing and you will have part of that weight. That additional weight will also be seen in the design, as you mention the substantial stock of the Thompson; this will weigh more as well. I wouldn't mind the weight if I wanted to control the weapon...comes in handy.

 

Let's not forget the medium RoF of the MP40 (500 to 550 rpm) also makes it easier to keep on target during fully automatic fire. The Thompson has a nasty habbit of climbing during full auto fire due to the higher RoF and stronger recoil of the .45 ACP - not that a guy used to it can't handle it ofcourse, it's just not as easy as with the MP40.

Still though, not many WW2 SMG's can beat the Finnish KP/-31, the finest SMG I have ever laid hands on.

 

In battle i would prefer to carry a Thompson, hands down. A submachine, any sub gun is intended for ranges less then 100 meters, way less, and pretty much useless beyond that range except for possible plunging fire. Marines in the Pacific expressed frustration at the Thompson's inaccuracy at anything beyond 50 meters.

(Remember that both mp-40 and thompson, and every other WW2 sub gun, fire from an open bolt, meaning the bolt is normally in the rearmost or BACK position until the trigger is pulled; at which point the bolt strips a round, fires it, and repeats until the trigger is released or out of ammo.) The .45 is by far the more powerful round, and much more likely to stop the enemy before he can shoot back at me! US forces continued to use the Thompson, officially and otherwise, after WW2 in Korea and even in Vietnam (refer to the weapons writer Chuck taylor) so this says something about how highly the troops thought of the thompson.

As a weapon for a modern army, the Mp40 is the clear winner. It was by far easier and quicker to produce then a thompson due to having fewer and simpler components, and minimal machining requirements, the barrel and bolt being almost the only parts that were not made of stampings. The Germans redesigned their earlier model mp38 into something that could be made more cheaply with less machining and this was of course the MP 40. It was, like the MG42, a genius of steel stamping design and was fairly simple, inexpensive and effective without being something as crude and barely usable as the Sten or PPsh 41. It did however have a tendency toward jamming, primarily due to its single stack magazine design (modern auto and semi auto shoulder weapons tend to use double stack magazine design due to better feeding and greater reliability).

 

Well if you want to compare cheap and easy to produce there's always the M3. Fired the .45 as well....

 

While I don't doubt that the Thompson was a bit less than useful in some instances, it was also widely non-respected for its actual ability. Under "test" conditions the weapon had much more range and accuracy than most soldiers ever understood or were trained for. As to the range and accuracy of the Thompson firing the .45 ACP round, I think too many people try to compare it to other types of rounds, and forget just how good it did perform in that SMG configuration.

This .45 pistol cartridge, in the arm designed for it, delivers about 810 foot seconds velocity. In the 10 1/2-inch barreled Thompson it delivers about 925 f.s.

Tests indicate that accuracy and penetration is very good, even at the longer ranges. A few feet from the muzzle the 230 grain bullet, tested on 3/4-inch yellow pine boards spaced one inch apart, ran 6 3/4 boards. At 100 yards it would plough through six boards; at 200 yards through 5 1/4; at 300 yards, 4 1/2; at the 400 mark through four boards, and at 500 yards it would still stumble through 3 3/4 [Page 1107] boards, sufficient to cause very unpleasant sensations in the body of a victim.

The accuracy of the sub-machine gun is decidedly interesting. File records of the Auto-Ordnance firm indicate that in a Mann rest test fired at Hartford, Conn., May 2, 1921, the mean radius using a Remington Standard 230 grain bullet at 100 yards ran 1.89 inches. At 200 yards mean radius was 4.92 inches; at 300 yards 7.63 inches at 400 yards it increased to 18.31; while at 500 yards it jumped to 20.45 inches. Accordingly, one can assume that the accuracy of the more or less spent bullets is quite uncontrolled at the longer ranges. This writer suggests that the effective range of the weapon is under 300 yards. (emphasis mine)

At 200 yards,, using the gun from the sitting position, I experienced no difficulty in placing deliberate fire in "killing" portions of the standard Colt Police Pistol "silhouette" target. It is safe to state that an officer could readily "get his man" at that range. which is well out of normal revolver range.

Further factory figures of Mann rest tests fired at 200 yards on June 10, 1922, include six lots of ammunition, commercial and Government. One lot of war ammunition showed an extreme vertical deviation of 37.6 inches as compared with 18.04 inches average for the other five lots. Even with this poor lot included, the tests show an average extreme horizontal deviation of 15.9 inches; extreme vertical average of 21.3 inches; and an average mean radius of 5.8 inches.

Goto:

THE THOMPSON SUB-MACHINE GUN

 

Well I think the thomson wins in stoppping power with its .45 but the mp40 is more accuret due to its lower rate of fire sorry if some one said this already I just jumped to the bottom.