Kanonier Reichmann Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 But surely the nickname should be in some way related to the weapon, which in this case it isn't. I wouldn't have a problem with the MP18 (Bergmann) being nicknamed the Schmeisser but saying one should be able to call the MP38/40 family of SMG's a Schmeisser when the well known weapons designer had absolutely nothing to do with it makes no sense at all. It would be like calling the Porsche designed Ferdinand a Benz Ferdinand. It's just plain wrong! Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 Personally, I blame Hogan's Heroes... This accounts for all WW2 stereotyping doesn't it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke71 Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 The nickname of the weapon is "Schmeisser" so there can be no big deal about that. I am aware that the name is not technically right for this SMG but everyone with a faint interest in WWII knows what a Schmeisser looks like. Every WWII-veteran I've ever heard refers to this particular weapon as the Schmeisser, cool name btw :cool: , or as the MP40. Duke71 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 But wasn't it only the Allied soldiers who called it thus? It was sort of like the way they misnamed the MG 42 the Spandau or the West Wall the Siegfried Line. The Germans didn't use those names. You are only perpetuating an error. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke71 Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: The Germans didn't use those names. You are only perpetuating an error. Michael [/QB]That may be true. I've never heard German veterans talking specifically about the MP40, so I don't know their nickname(s) of it. Didn't the Germans refer to SMGs as MPIs? (Machine PIstols) Did they have other names for it? Duke71 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucho Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 MP or Mpi is right (Maschinenpistole). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Marshal Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 I'm in for the OWEN gun also. I'm not biased in any way, except for the fact that my father liked it so much he named me after it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 What, he liked the idea of burying you in the mud as well did he? Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 Au contraire, Hugo Schmeisser did manage one of the factories which produced the MP-40.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Marshal Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 What, he liked the idea of burying you in the mud as well did he? No cheek from crow eaters. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 what? he called you gun? cooool. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dixon_el Posted May 9, 2004 Share Posted May 9, 2004 The M3 was junk. You expended half a magazine to get a couple of rounds on target, unless you were close enough to smack the target with the barrel. Of course it was solid enough to be used as an effective club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted May 9, 2004 Share Posted May 9, 2004 Originally posted by Bergerbitz: [snips] And the Sterling? I discovered that was developed 20 years after WWII. I must have been thinking about the Pratchett SMG it was based on. Oops. And the Pratchett was designed after WWII as well. Mr. Picky says that it's spelled "Patchett", to avoid confusion with the author of the Discworld series. According to Ian Hogg's "The sub-machine gun" (Phoebus, London, 1978, 64 pages packed with colour) G. W. Patchett, of the Sterling Engineering Company, Dagenham, submitted his design in response to a requirement issued in January 1944, and 20 guns were made for trials in April of that year, when the Ordnance Board considered them acceptable for service. Some of these original 20 were taken to Arnhem and used in action, so it did see combat, albeit in homeopathic quantities, in WW2. After a lull in interest after WW2, from 1947 to 1951, competitive trials for a new SMG were carried out. The Patchett design won in the end, and became known as the Sterling in service. I understand from documents relating to the Malayan Emergency that I've seen at the PRO that the BSA SMG was at one point considered the favourite, and consideration was seriously given to dropping SMGs altogether and using the EM-2 rifle "in the machine carbine role". And we all know what happened to the EM-2 procurement... All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted May 9, 2004 Share Posted May 9, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: So, what's the feeling on the Bergman or the Beretta? Oooh, no teen appeal, either of them. They're more your SMG for the pipe-and-slippers old-timey folks. The Beretta may have been a brilliant design, but anything Italian lacks kewlness. And the Bergmann may also have been brilliant, but it's altogether too woody for Schmeisser fans. In my role as a boring old fart I feel obliged to put in a word for the Lanchester. It looks like a Bergmann, lots of woodwork, but you get brasswork too, and, the key feature of a worthwhile SMG design to my mind, a bayonet lug. And I think it's fair to say that the Lanchester did everything the Royal Navy ever needed it to as a sub-machine gun. All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted May 9, 2004 Share Posted May 9, 2004 Originally posted by John D Salt: And I think it's fair to say that the Lanchester did everything the Royal Navy ever needed it to as a sub-machine gun.Which was to make sailors look suitably menacing while herding U-boat survivors, eh? Nice to see you back, BTW, John. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy the Panzer Slayer Posted May 9, 2004 Share Posted May 9, 2004 My vote... as always is for... Mr. Pointy :mad: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted May 9, 2004 Share Posted May 9, 2004 Originally posted by Lucho: MP or Mpi is right (Maschinenpistole). MPi, not Mpi. The Heereswaffenamt evaluation of the MPi40 was somber. "Very sensitive to moist, cold and dirt which cause frequent jams. Unreliable safety, causing several casualties. Even a rough landning on earth will trigger the mechanism causing uncontrolled fire. Troops normally improvise and secure the safety with a string, and avoid carrying loaded weapons. Feeding from magazines often malfunction, causing jams. Troops use magazines not quite filled to counter this. Magazine shape still cause problems when firing prone." Et ceteraaaw. Some of these problems were solved, most of them not. The MPi18/38/40 replaced pistols in the equipment tables, and were thus initially considered self defence weapons only. So it's not just an Anglo-Saxon approach. Well, most Germans are technically Saxons, and to a Finn all of them are, but you know what I mean. Still, it all sounds real primitive to me. M1 Garand and carbine seem the most intelligent mass-scale WWII solutions. Toting bolt actions and tuna-can smg's cannot have been very satisfying regardless of model. But of course, I would at any time prefer to have Kingfish's mudbaked exwife as sidearm instead. Cheers Dandelion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted May 9, 2004 Share Posted May 9, 2004 Nice to see you back, BTW, John. I second that. /Dandelion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted May 9, 2004 Share Posted May 9, 2004 Originally posted by Dandelion: Still, it all sounds real primitive to me. M1 Garand and carbine seem the most intelligent mass-scale WWII solutions. Toting bolt actions and tuna-can smg's cannot have been very satisfying regardless of model. If it wasn't for that goofy 8-round clip I might agree with you... M2 carbine has the advantage of being automatic also. As you point out, the MPis were usually carried by guys who had other stuff to do than stand around blasting at the enemy anyway. Tank crews, infantry squad commanders, officers, etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucho Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 But what about the SMG-Squads in the Russian army or in German Volksgrenadier and Füsilier units? Are they only specialised infantry for house-to-house combat or for use in woods? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Panzer Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Since the Sturmgewer-44 is an assult rifle id have to say the Owen or PpSH-41. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Originally posted by Lucho: But what about the SMG-Squads in the Russian army or in German Volksgrenadier and Füsilier units? Are they only specialised infantry for house-to-house combat or for use in woods? Such as Russian regimental SMG companies were meant to do assaulting. It was also customary e.g. in Finnish army to amass experienced SMG fighters from other squads into adhoc-storm teams to lead the attack. The Volksturm had great amounts of SMG's. I think it was an economic decision: SMG's are cheaper to produce and require less training than rifles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: If it wasn't for that goofy 8-round clip I might agree with you... M2 carbine has the advantage of being automatic also. Yes, the non-extractable Garand clip, how could I forget. Prevented mounting of a scope too didn't it? Should have been a magazine of course. I was thinking about the M2 as well, but became unsure. Was it available in WWII or was it a Korea enhancement? Cheerio Dandelion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Prevented mounting of a scope too didn't it?No 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Originally posted by Ant: NoI see. Looks like the scope is sort of snapped down on the left side. Was it movable? Or was the scope simply mounted on the left side instead of on top? Looks like a Korea photo that, no? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.