Comparing SMGs of the major combatants

[John Kettler]

Brother George has had some experience with SMGs (don't recall offhand which ones) and doesn't consider them effective beyond 50 meters. Here is a very good Quora thread on comparing major combatants' SMGs. Some of those responding have owned one or more of the types listed and put many rounds through them. The only SMG I've ever fired was an Uzi, and that was in semiautomatic in a piss poor indoor range attempt at hip shooting! In the long Quora thread is a dazzling video (below) in which a heavily body armored and assault helmed a la OMON Kalashnikov firm gun expert puts over 900 rounds through a GPW PPSh41 practically as fast as he could change magazines. According to him, an assault rifle would've been done for at 500 rounds put through it in rapid succession.

 

https://www.quora.com/How-effective-was-the-PPSH-41-compared-to-other-WW2-SMGs-such-as-the-MP40-and-the-Thompson?share=1

 

Bizarrely, firing tests against a pipe with a Thompson, an MP40 and a PPSh41 resulted in a big dent, a smaller dent and a jagged hole from the last SMG, but paradoxically, Russian troops preferred the MP40 for its penetration, when its apparent advantages were greater range and single shot capability via much slower rate of fire. The Thompson, even with compensator, climbed like crazy. The PPSh41 , as you can clearly see in the video, pretty much doesn't climb at all. The master shooter says the recoli is no worse than a .22 Long Rifle because of the heavy bolt.The. below video pretty much left me in shock. Was also shocked to learn that drum magazines for the PPSh41, other than the two with serial numbers matching a particular SMG, often weren't interchangeable, because of sloppy tolerances which varied from shoop to shop. For some components, there might be as much as a centimeter!

 

Does anyone have any GPW period combat accounts of the effective range for the PPSh41? So far, the best number I've been able to find is 150 meters, and it doesn't say combat, just effective. At close range, the volume of fire the PPSh41 produced, and the hitting power and penetration of the Tokarev pitol cartrdge combined apparently to make the weapon capable of ripping off limbs. 

Regards,

John Kettler

 

 

[SimpleSimon]

Think part of the problem is different combatants used the term "effective" with wide latitude. It could mean quite different things from Army to Army. I believe the PPsh sight has settings for 100 and 200 meters. Germans used to capture them whenever able as I recall though-they found it a very favorable weapon for assault troops. Although this might've reflected shortages of the MP40 more than it being a "better" SMG. Most sub-machine guns were pretty similar during the war, and seem to have been valued for the service they provided storm troopers and assault teams than being quality guns. Most of them were manufactured with surprisingly low tolerances-some were made entirely out of metal stampings with just the barrel and bolt being lathed, and have a bargain basement feel in my opinion. 

Earliest models of the Thompson had an insane leaf sight up to 600 yards as I recall. This was dropped, but it might've been intended to be used in semi-auto. The Thompson's problem is that it was basically a World War 1 design, huge, heavy, and expensive. It fired a cartridge notorious for rapid muzzle energy loss after about 100m.