Greatest Submachine Gun of WWII

[RawRecruit]

How long did it take to change the Thompson over from .45 to cream splurges as the Americans were clearly prototyping in the pre-war documentary 'Bugsy Malone'?

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I second the Owen gun. Nothing was more rugged and reliable than this little beauty.

Regards

Jim R.

[Tank Ace]

Owen gun? What country was that from?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by TANK ACE:

Owen gun? What country was that from?

Tattooine, it was named after its inventor, Lars Owen.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Yes, nice try Michael. Almost!

It was an Australian designed SMG which had a top feeding magazine so even if the internal magazine spring lost its tensile strength the bullets could still feed through via gravity. The Australian Army grunts thought so highly of the weapon that they were still using them in the Vietnamese jungle during the 1960's long after virtually all other SMG's in other armies had been phased out.

Regards

Jim R.

[Sirocco]

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/owen.htm

Interesting comments.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

Yes, nice try Michael. Almost!

It was an Australian designed SMG which had a top feeding magazine so even if the internal magazine spring lost its tensile strength the bullets could still feed through via gravity. The Australian Army grunts thought so highly of the weapon that they were still using them in the Vietnamese jungle during the 1960's long after virtually all other SMG's in other armies had been phased out.

Regards

Jim R.

Not that they had a lot of choice...I have to imagine the FN SLR was a bitch to use in the jungle, though didn't some Aussies switch to the M16, too? Did the Aussies "officially" switch to the Sterling at some point as Britain and Canada did?

Thompsons and Grease Guns were also still used in Vietnam, for what that's worth, by the ARVN and some US special forces units.

[Omi]

Look is more important so I'll have to vote for the MP-40.

[Bergerbitz]

I just had a thought....

How did the British Sten gun stack up against the the PPSh, Thompson and MP40?

I've heard the Sten Mk V was a fairly decent SMG. Oh, and the Sterling L2A3 -- did that ever see action?

Yup, that's it.

[Duke71]

In my past I was stationed at the Norwegian Navy Museum. The director of the museum was an old weapons buff, and we had a large collection of all sorts of old weapons in the attic. We had the MP-40, the Tommy Gun, the Grease Gun, the Sten Gun and the Soumi among others. In fact we had about 10-12 Tommy Guns. The director used the weapons with live ammo and he praised the Tommy Gun. It had stopping power and was a delight to use, according to him. I had never the chance to try any of them but I "exercised" a lot with all of them, and I liked the Tommy Gun best too. It has a perfect balance and it's way cool! I've also held the Stug44, and that was not good. Too heavy and bulky in my opinion. But it's a tough looking piece of metal.

When it comes to modern submachine guns; nothing beats the MP5, that's a work of art!

Duke71

[Sergei]

Why is it that such simple words as Suomi or Finnish are almost always misspelled, but monsters like Nahverteidigungswaffe, Waffenhamstertruppen mit kleine Lederhosen or Panzerdivision Totenkopfschmerzen are always written correctly??? :mad: :mad: :mad:

You could just as well start calling it Somua.

[Andreas]

It's "kleinen Lederhosen".

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Bergerbitz:

I just had a thought....

How did the British Sten gun stack up against the the PPSh, Thompson and MP40?

I've heard the Sten Mk V was a fairly decent SMG. Oh, and the Sterling L2A3 -- did that ever see action?

Yup, that's it.

Given the juvenile nature of this thread to begin with, what kind of answer did you want to hear? No one has given any kind of indication which characteristics they are talking about.

Weight? If you are 6 feet tall and 250 lbs, weight likely isn't going to matter. If you're 4'6" you're already likely to be overburdened anyway.

Range? Irrelevant for an SMG, which the MP44 is not (it is an assault rifle designed to fire to greater distances, more accurately, than an SMG).

Reliability? Any SMG can be reliable if used correctly and kept in a clean environment. Soldiers hated the Sten but official reports usally condemned soldiers for not "realizing" it was intended as a "throw away" weapon.

Accuracy? The SMG is decidedly an area weapon, though the Sten Mk II was derided for its lack of accuracy even at point blank range. The Thompson too had its tendency to climb at high rates of fire, but at high rates of fire how necessary is it to get a five inch grouping? The Mk V Sten, as you point out, was apparently easier to control, given the fore grip and wood stock.

Did the Sterling see action? As a secondary weapon in the Falklands, I believe it did. It saw "action" in the FLQ Crisis in 1970. Like most SMGs it was not intended as a front line weapon but as a secondary weapon for AFV crews, MPs, truck drivers etc. One might consider an infantry section commander's primary weapon as "secondary" also in that he he generally leading the section and not using his SMG too terribly often but we can make that a seperate argument if that is seriously in dispute.

I rather suspect the initial discussion between the learned scholars Tank Ace and yacinator was intended more as a "which do you think was kewler" kind of discussion so if I've brought an unacceptable amount of analysis to what was conceived as a schoolyard discussion, I apologize.

I do agree that the MP5, and don't forget the Uzi, probably represent the penultimate in true SMG design, but again, either one will leave you just as dead should they happen to shoot you in the face.

Russian soldiers loved MP40s and German soldiers loved PPSh SMGs, it is not an indication of reliability or effectiveness, just the natural affinity soldiers have to acquire status symbols, and to regard their own stuff as "****" no matter how good it really is. Given a choice between a Kar98k and a PPSh, I would likely take the PPSh given battle ranges of 200 metres or so, so again, it is not being overly laudatory of the PPSh vis a vis the MP40, simply a demonstration of the other affinity for soldiers in the modern era - scrounging, or "finding a better 'ole".

[Duke71]

Sorry Sergei, I live in one of your neighbour countries so I should have checked that one better.

Actually the Suomi acted a little bit funny when we used it in our exercises. We had too few MP5s so some of us had to use the good old Suomi. We used recoil-enhancers (don't know if that's the right word) when we fired with blanks. The Suomi had a will of it's own and sometimes I emptied the whole magazine (32 rds) when I intended to fire just a couple of shots. It was impossible to stop the firing! Other than that it was a fine piece of weaponry, when I used it in '92 it was about 50 years old, but it *always* fired, in *any* type of weather.

Duke71

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Reliability? Any SMG can be reliable if used correctly and kept in a clean environment.

These conditions don't really make sense to me if we are talking about real army soldiers and their weapons. Or would you say that you'd like to go to a shooting war with a gun that ONLY works if kept in a clean environment? Presumably not, but from your post one might get the impression that reliability of a weapon has no significance of any kind to you. And while soldiers naturally had very biased views of the weapons they used, it doesn't mean that there weren't any actual differences in their reliability. How big those differences would be, is another issue. But if veterans said that Russian DP LMG had better tolerance for dirt than the Finnish Lahti-Saloranta LMG, I am inclined to trust their word unless proven otherwise.

But I agree with your main point. It is a bad tendency of gamers and such. Like "which was the best tank of WW2?" Just how many of those have these forums seen???

(T-34.)

[Duke71]

Some weapons suit the battlefield better than other. The Italians had a lot of mediocre weapons, as did the Japanese. And the "Grease Gun" was not popular by many of the users.

This may be a bit out of topic, but many of the modern American weapons have proved almost useless in the Norwegian winter. The M16A2 has a bad reputation in temperatures below -25 C. But with the right type of oil and proper mainteance that too could be used. So I agree with that reliability is important. And all wars are fought in much less than perfect environment! :cool:

Duke71

[guachi]

As far as WWII is concerned, I have a particular fondness for anything that was cheap and still effective.

Cost wise, I believe the difference between a Thompson and an M3 was $250 to $15.

Jason

[Duke71]

When you're in the mud crawling towards enemy positions you do care a lot about if your weapon works or not when you are going to need it.

The value in money of the weapon is kind of second nature then!

Duke71

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Accuracy? The SMG is decidedly an area weapon, though the Sten Mk II was derided for its lack of accuracy even at point blank range. The Thompson too had its tendency to climb at high rates of fire, but at high rates of fire how necessary is it to get a five inch grouping? The Mk V Sten, as you point out, was apparently easier to control, given the fore grip and wood stock.

Not too many hunters in the Western armies I guess.

The Suomi is a mule if you fire it full auto like you fire a regular rifle = press the stock to your shoulder and hold on tight for control.

Finnish SMG gunners were told or they learned to fire it like you fire a shotgun = hold it steady but not tight to your shoulder. That way even long bursts can be controlled and the shots are placed more accurately.

Like most SMGs it was not intended as a front line weapon but as a secondary weapon for AFV crews, MPs, truck drivers etc.

That is the Anglo-American tradition.

What about the Finnish and Russian traditions ? Finnish truck drivers and arty pukes where given such quality weapons like Terni PoS bolt action rifles (supposedly accurate enough for rapid fire LR head shots in America )

One might consider an infantry section commander's primary weapon as "secondary" also in that he he generally leading the section and not using his SMG too terribly often but we can make that a seperate argument if that is seriously in dispute.

Again, this is the Anglo-American tradition.

Russian soldiers loved MP40s and German soldiers loved PPSh SMGs, it is not an indication of reliability or effectiveness, just the natural affinity soldiers have to acquire status symbols, and to regard their own stuff as "****" no matter how good it really is.

Actually, that affection was more due to RoF than prestige.

Given a choice between a Kar98k and a PPSh, I would likely take the PPSh given battle ranges of 200 metres or so, so again, it is not being overly laudatory of the PPSh vis a vis the MP40, simply a demonstration of the other affinity for soldiers in the modern era - scrounging, or "finding a better 'ole".

Such triffle, insignificant arguments like ammor resupply in the combat zone do not affect the equation in the battlefield ?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Reliability? Any SMG can be reliable if used correctly and kept in a clean environment.

These conditions don't really make sense to me if we are talking about real army soldiers and their weapons. Or would you say that you'd like to go to a shooting war with a gun that ONLY works if kept in a clean environment? Presumably not, but from your post one might get the impression that reliability of a weapon has no significance of any kind to you. And while soldiers naturally had very biased views of the weapons they used, it doesn't mean that there weren't any actual differences in their reliability. How big those differences would be, is another issue. But if veterans said that Russian DP LMG had better tolerance for dirt than the Finnish Lahti-Saloranta LMG, I am inclined to trust their word unless proven otherwise.

But I agree with your main point. It is a bad tendency of gamers and such. Like "which was the best tank of WW2?" Just how many of those have these forums seen???

(T-34.) </font>

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

Yes, nice try Michael. Almost!

It was an Australian designed SMG which had a top feeding magazine so even if the internal magazine spring lost its tensile strength the bullets could still feed through via gravity. The Australian Army grunts thought so highly of the weapon that they were still using them in the Vietnamese jungle during the 1960's long after virtually all other SMG's in other armies had been phased out.

Regards

Jim R.

Not that they had a lot of choice...I have to imagine the FN SLR was a bitch to use in the jungle, though didn't some Aussies switch to the M16, too? Did the Aussies "officially" switch to the Sterling at some point as Britain and Canada did?</font>

[Alkiviadis]

My brother trained with the M3 Grease Gun when with the 101st in the '50s. He hated it, very inaccurate , said you could't hit the broad side of a barn at 10 feet & he's a big strong SOB.

[Bergerbitz]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bergerbitz:

I just had a thought....

How did the British Sten gun stack up against the the PPSh, Thompson and MP40?

I've heard the Sten Mk V was a fairly decent SMG. Oh, and the Sterling L2A3 -- did that ever see action?

Yup, that's it.

Given the juvenile nature of this thread to begin with, what kind of answer did you want to hear? </font>

[K_Tiger]

Thats from the World of Guns Site (Russian) about the PPSch41:

The main advantage of the PPSch-41 was bigger effective range (when compared to both Allies and Axis submachineguns of that era). It also was accurate enough and reliable. The main drawbacks were: heavy weight, lenght (too big for trench combat or for mobile operations) and the fact that the gun was sometimes prone (especially when weared enough) to unintended fire when dropped

My oppinion about the MP40 in comparsion: Its not the designed überweapon, but it fits all needs and you can equip all branches without drawbacks with it (Fallschirmjaegers, Tankers, Supporting Units..ect.).

As a "normal" Foot Soldier, you cant choose the environment where you have to fight...in Towns, Woods, in the open...ect. the best Weapon is the one who makes the best in all conditions....

For me, the PPSch...and Thompson are Weapons between MPs and Assault Riffels.... The Greesgun and MP40 are more the PDWs they are intended for.

[K_Tiger]

Its maybe from interesst, that the follower of the PPSch41, the PPS43 looks more like a MP40...Does this have anything to say?

PPS43