Firepower and Ballistics - Sten Gun 9mm vs. Thompson .45 ACP

[Michael Dorosh]

Okay, since we seem to have an over-abundance of challenge threads these days...maybe something more serious now....

...I am curious. I am not disputing the research that went into the decision to rate the in-game firepower of Stens and Thompsons differently, but am wondering what real life issues might cause this?

From my amateur's perspective, they are quite similar.

Sten - 28 round box magazine, fully automatic, approx 500 rpm (?)

Thompson - 20 or 30 round box magazine (high capacity drums were also used by the CW but not well liked due to noisiness and weight), approx 500 rpm (?)

Is the difference in the fabled .45 "stopping power" alone enough to account for the FP difference in CM terms?

[JasonC]

Actually the ROF of the Thompson is considerably higher, 700 rounds per minute (cyclic rate) vs. 550 for the Sten.

The bullets are twice the weight - 230 grains vs. 115 grains - but slower, 920 ft per second vs. 1250 for the 9mm. So only 8.3% more muzzle energy, but more of it from weight rather than velocity.

The Sten had 32 round box mags, but shouldn't be fully loaded to avoid misfeeds. 28 sounds about right. The Thompson in military use had either short 20 round mags or long 30 round ones. (Civilian round drums carried 50 and 100 rounds for two different models, but weren't used by the army).

Besides ROF and round weight the Thompson is a much stabler firing platform. It is a heavier gun with a full stock and real grips.

I suspect from the ratings given to other weapons, though, that ROF is the primary factor in CMs fp rating. I say this because the PPsH, with a still higher cyclic ROF, is given a still higher fp rating, despite its much lighter bullets (only 86 grains, going still faster at 1750 ft per second).

The M3 Grease (which was usually also 45 ACP, though some were modified for 9mm) is given only 38 fp at range 40. It had a lower ROF, 500-550. The Sten has 550 ROF and gets a 39 fp rating. The MP40 gets a 36 fp rating, while the MP44 and BAR each get 34. So it would appear the higher Thompson fp is given for its higher cyclic ROF, not for any alleged superior "stopping power" of larger bullets vs. higher velocity as the source of round energy.

[Waycool]

Think the weight of a .45acp bullet is 230 grains (not grams my error) when compared to a 9mm para at 115gns -124gns we are talking almost twice as heavy a slug. Seeing we are talking SMG's the mag capacity is very similar whereas in modern discussion the volume of ammo that can be carried is one of the prime reasons people tout the 9mm. Interestingly enough in recent years .40cal and 10mm weapons have become popular pistol size caliber. I would like to see the Canadians in CMAK equipped with Thompsons as was the norm.

9mm Luger (AKA 9x19mm Parabellum)

Bullet Weight: 115 JHP

Muzzle Velocity: 1160 fps

Muzzle Energy: 340 ft. lbs.

Introduced: 1902

45 ACP

Bullet Weight: 230gr FMJ

Muzzle Velocity: 850 fps

Muzzle Energy: 369 ft. lbs said

SMG 385ft.lbs IN LINK

Introduced: 1905

Below link has some interesting military testing info.

.45 cal info

Medical dept firing tests of cartridges on Cows and Cadavers

[ January 20, 2004, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: Waycool ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JasonC:

[QB] The Sten had 32 round box mags, but shouldn't be fully loaded to avoid misfeeds. 28 sounds about right. The Thompson in military use had either short 20 round mags or long 30 round ones. (Civilian round drums carried 50 and 100 rounds for two different models, but weren't used by the army).

Commonwealth troops did use the drums, but as indicated, didn't like them much.

Besides ROF and round weight the Thompson is a much stabler firing platform. It is a heavier gun with a full stock and real grips.

The Sten Mk V did have a a foregrip and wooden stock - but I do believe the rest of your analysis gives me my answer (ie ROF, weight of bullet, etc.) The grip and stock probably wouldn't make the airborne Sten any different in game terms, then. Thanks.

I too would like to see the Canadians use the Thompson in Italy, Waycool.

[ January 19, 2004, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[JonS]

Thompson in CMAK timescale/geographic area:

[*] Canada

[*] Britain

[*] Australia

[*] Poland

[*] New Zealand

[*] South Africa

Sten in CMAK timescale/geographic area:

[ ] Canada

[ ] Britain

[ ] Australia

[ ] Poland

[ ] New Zealand

[ ] South Africa

Regards

JonS

[Snowbart]

If I had a choice, I'd much rather have a Thompson over a Sten anyday. A better made gun flat out. And .45 beats 9mm all day long.

I haven't checked the game, but it's hard to believe a Thompson would get a higher FP rating over a Stgg-44. I would give the MP-44 a higher rating for reasons of more powerful cartridge and higher mag capacity. And if you're looking at squad FP, wouldn't the guys armed with those '44's have normally carried 98k's? That would be a massive change in squad FP.

BTW, I love the .40 Waycool. Perfect compromise between the pure accuracy of the 9mm and the stopping power of the .45.

[Fishu]

Thompson was less accurate than 9mm SMG's and quite heavy compared to others.

11 lbs versus 7-8lb of the other common SMG's, Sten being a bit less than 7lb

However I'd take almost any other SMG over Sten...

Thompson has cyclic rate of 600-725rpm

I would probably prefer high cyclic rate with 9mm, for better accuracy over range.. thats where the infamous Suomi M/31 comes into the picture

[Krazy Canuck]

A real life observation.

My father, who was with Canadian Transport but assigned to the Engineers for most of the war he saw, claimed that he and all is buddies carried the Sten.

His words, "it was the most reliable of 'em all". I assumed he meant sub-machine guns. He was in Europe June '44-May-'46.

KC

[flamingknives]

Stens are super-cheap.

ISTR a figure of about £5 per gun (compare that with today, where a modern assault rifle costs £500-1000 new.) Even allowing for inflation, it's still very cheap.

They also had a single shot setting, allowing for more accurate range shooting

[Mark Gallear]

The drum was used on the Thompson in the early war period by the British as Mike Dorosh has pointed out as it was the only magazine available. For some reason it is not modelled in CMAK. It was disliked because it was unreliable and expensive - the desert conditions with all that dust cannot have helped. It was replaced with stick magazines - I suspect made in the UK.

The cheap and nasty Sten was notoriously unreliable and developed during the war to give Britain its own SMG. (The Commandos kept their Tommy Guns but the Paras had to use the Sten.) I think the decision to make the Sten was on cost they could not afford to equip although Empire troops with the expensive Thompson or even make it.

I would have thought reliability would be the most important factor to simulate the difference between the guns.

The Sten was slowly improved as the war went on and appeared in a number of marks.

[HeinzBaby]

IICR, the original sten was a prewar design, rejected by Germany which went for the MP38. The Brits picked up the sten out of desperation for a smg early in the war

[Code13]

I think the reliability of a gun would mean more to troops in the field than anything else.

Followed closely by how heavy it was and how much ammo I could carry for it.

This is a silly thread really, why not ask for weapons by period, as they all clearly improved as the years passed.

Me, Id take a sten, stopping power is naff all use if the gun wont fire and you cant actually hit anything with it. Plus you could have the goober suppressed version

[flamingknives]

I think capacity my have had something to do with the choice of the Sten.

The Sten, being cheap and cheerful, could be produced in far larger quantities than the Thompson.

Plus, AIUI, the Sten was, in most cases, a backup weapon, issued when needed in instances such as urban fighting.

[Kozure]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

The drum was used on the Thompson in the early war period by the British as Mike Dorosh has pointed out as it was the only magazine available. For some reason it is not modelled in CMAK. It was disliked because it was unreliable and expensive - the desert conditions with all that dust cannot have helped. It was replaced with stick magazines - I suspect made in the UK.

The cheap and nasty Sten was notoriously unreliable and developed during the war to give Britain its own SMG. (The Commandos kept their Tommy Guns but the Paras had to use the Sten.) I think the decision to make the Sten was on cost they could not afford to equip although Empire troops with the expensive Thompson or even make it.

I would have thought reliability would be the most important factor to simulate the difference between the guns.

The Sten was slowly improved as the war went on and appeared in a number of marks.

I had also heard that the drum magazine, although having a much higher capacity, had a tendency to rattle and otherwise make noise as the drum used up rounds. This greatly reduced the stealth of soldiers using it. I'm not sure if this story is apocryphal, though.

In addition to cheapness, I've read that the reason for adopting the Sten was the massive shortage of SMGs of any kind in the opening years of the war. The British went so far as to copy a German pre-war design (the MP-28) wholesale as the Lanchester to make up inventory in the short term, which were almost as promptly turned down by the army and banished to naval use (but not before quite a few were produced). As others have already mentioned, the Sten was cheap and easy to make, which was certainly not always the case with the Thompson. I suspect that the case of adopting the Sten is much like the Hurricane was to the RAF - quicker and cheaper to make than Spitfires; and if all of the production effort had gone into make Spitfires all the time, the supply could not have kept up with demand.

As with many weapons, anecdotes regarding the Sten seem to vary widely - some people loved it as reliable and accurate while others thought it unsafe and of little use. Much is made of its "runaway" firing when dropped but I suspect this is the result of one or two stories (one of which, published in a magazine about an incident in Korea and apparently widely read) being told and retold out of proportion to the actual occurences.

Not as universally loved as the Thompson, perhaps, but effective enough in its intended use to soldier on throughout the war. One thing fairly common to most wars is that useless weapons or equipment are quickly recognized and wherever possible (when supplies, alternatives or political commisars permit) discarded.

[flamingknives]

IIRC, the Sten MkII had a nasty little flaw whereupon it fired if the butt was struck on something solid, even if 'safe'. This was, apparently, quite repeatable.

[Fluf]

Another 'real-life' anecdote about .45 slugs. A bud of mine was working in a bar in Hull, Quebec in the '70s - a rough bar. One night a drunk pulled out a .45 automatic and waved it around before shooting two men standing across the table from him. My buddy said that they were literally knocked off their feet and "they flew through the air" from the impact of the slug. He knew his pistols because he was a member of a shooting club. A grim example of the brutal power of big-bore pistol/SMG rounds at close range. I have read accounts of the 9mm pistol round failing to have this kind of impact during shootouts between criminals and police officers in the U.S.A. Perhaps some of our American buddies could elucidate on the old .45 versus 9mm controversy. I recall quite a debate on this topic not that long ago when the US armed forces converted to the 9mm Beretta from the .45 Colt auto.

[Sgian Dubh]

I remember reading an excerpt from an FBI report (this was at least 12 years ago) that was conducted when many of the US police forces were switching over to the 7 & 9 mm pistols for the increase velocity (amongst other issues).

The FBI report concluded that the 45 ACP still had the best "stopping power" of all of the handguns that were used in the test. For certain I can remember the following calibres were used in the test because I had some heated discussions with friends over certain results: 45 ACP, 44 Mag, 357 Mag, 38 spl., 7 mm, 9mm. But the list was much, much longer.

Let's put it another way. If my wife weren't against it, there would be a 45 ACP model 1911 (modified) at my house and not a Ithaca 12 Ga DeerSlayer with buckshot. The only thing that might make a better stopping gun would be a double-barrel Wells Fargo sawed off 12 Ga. with buckshot.

[SirReal]

Originally posted by Fluf:

Another 'real-life' anecdote about .45 slugs. A bud of mine was working in a bar in Hull, Quebec in the '70s - a rough bar. One night a drunk pulled out a .45 automatic and waved it around before shooting two men standing across the table from him. My buddy said that they were literally knocked off their feet and "they flew through the air" from the impact of the slug. He knew his pistols because he was a member of a shooting club. A grim example of the brutal power of big-bore pistol/SMG rounds at close range. I have read accounts of the 9mm pistol round failing to have this kind of impact during shootouts between criminals and police officers in the U.S.A. Perhaps some of our American buddies could elucidate on the old .45 versus 9mm controversy. I recall quite a debate on this topic not that long ago when the US armed forces converted to the 9mm Beretta from the .45 Colt auto.

"they flew through the air"?

Well, I suppose if the drunk weighed ten times more than the targets, and the .45 in question had a muzzle velocity at about 2000m/sec, and could deposit all that energy into a single body, then yes, that's believable.

In practice, such "effects" come from bodily reactions (muscle spasms etc) and spectator imagination, and not from any magical "stopping power". The amount of damage done to a target from a given small-arms round varies wildly, to be sure, but the energy delivered to the target does not exceed the energy imparted on the firer (excepting strange things like exploding bullets..).

On effectiveness in-game, generally speaking, muzzle velocity is much more important than bullet weight (which is measured in grains, not grams as a previous poster stated) or bullet configuration.

This is simply because a faster bullet flies straighter for a longer distance, making it easier to hit the target, and any non-trivial damage has a good chance of putting the average joe out of commission due to shock and fear.

[flamingknives]

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x mV^2?

[Los]

I've fire both submachineguns a number of times and prefer the Thompson all around. It's heavier and much more stable to fire, thus more accurate. Just my opinion, but then again I probably have more trigger time behind both of those SMGs (and others too btw) then most.

Los

[Agua Perdido]

Originally posted by SirReal (regarding folks shot by big-bore handguns "flying through the air"):

In practice, such "effects" come from bodily reactions (muscle spasms etc) and spectator imagination, and not from any magical "stopping power".

I once saw a video called "Deadly Weapons," in which guys shot all sorts of stuff to debunk Hollywood-style perceptions of guns. The demonstration on the myth of "knockdown power" was quite striking (pun unintended): a man in a heavy ballistic vest balanced on one foot while another man shot him in the chest with a FN-FAL from three feet away (the FN-FAL is a full-power .30 cal rifle, roughly on a par with an M1 in terms of "BANG!"). The target guy flinched, but didn't even wobble. He certainly didn't fall over (and remember, he was balancing on one foot).

Another fun demo debunked the old "gas tank explodes when shot" canard. They got a half-full gas tank and shot it with an M-16. Nothing. They shot it with tracers. Nothing. They eventually had to put a pot of burning rags over a open trough of gasoline and shoot that to get any sort of fire, much less an explosion. Everything's easier in Hollywood.

Agua Perdido

[Waycool]

Sirreal thanks for catching my error grains versus grams . At 230gns the 45acp slug is 14.9grams.. The energy of the .45 is more the 9mm para and the stopping power has been documented at length being greater. Greater kinetic energy and lethality.

BFC should revise all commonwealth units to reflect Thompsons

[ January 20, 2004, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: Waycool ]

[Michael Dorosh]

A search of my posts will find that I previously quoted extensively from an official CMHQ report regarding the Sten and its use in NW Europe. Wasn't trying to reopen that discussion here. The salient points were that the Sten was considered a disposable weapon and that troops often were not properly trained in its use.

[Snarker]

If a man struck by a bullet "flys" backward, doesn't basic physics tell you the shooter (assuming equal weight) should pretty much "fly" backwards also?

Pure Hollywood.

Anyway, here's a nice, clinically graphic discussion on bullet size / weight / expandability etc for handgun rounds, which the .45 and 9mm being discussed here are.

Here is the conclusion of the article, link to the full article follows:

Conclusions

Physiologically, no caliber or bullet is certain to incapacitate any individual unless the brain is hit. Psychologically, some individuals can be incapacitated by minor or small caliber wounds. Those individuals who are stimulated by fear, adrenaline, drugs, alcohol, and/or sheer will and survival determination may not be incapacitated even if mortally wounded.

The will to survive and to fight despite horrific damage to the body is commonplace on the battlefield, and on the street. Barring a hit to the brain, the only way to force incapacitation is to cause sufficient blood loss that the subject can no longer function, and that takes time. Even if the heart is instantly destroyed, there is sufficient oxygen in the brain to support full and complete voluntary action for 10-15 seconds.

Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth. The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding. Penetration less than 12 inches is too little, and, in the words of two of the participants in the 1987 Wound Ballistics Workshop, "too little penetration will get you killed." Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet. Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs from less than optimal angles is not acceptable. Of those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the bigger bullet.

Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness

My note: .45 cal does have the edge because it meets all the requirements and is larger.

[exSpecForSgt]

Originally posted by Snarker:

If a man struck by a bullet "flys" backward, doesn't basic physics tell you the shooter (assuming equal weight) should pretty much "fly" backwards also?

Pure Hollywood.

No, it's not. Done it, saw it, don't want to talk about it. (To me, it's =real= - you know, like real nightmares - and not some 'theoretical discussion'.)

and "knock down" power is a myth.

Gee, then I guess I -really =was= off in Never-Never Land.....

My note: .45 cal does have the edge because it meets all the requirements and is larger.

=MY= note: the .45-cal had the 'edge' because it worked when it had to. I've used the Thompson and one of the Stens (it's been almost forty years, okay? - I don't remember which model/mark it was) in the field, against 'the bad guys'. The Sten was a piece of crap and having to use it once was twice too often!

Yes, the Thompson was heavier, yadda yadda .. but it worked when and how I needed it to, and kicked some =serious= a$$ while doing it! I'd =still= have it today, if they hadn't taken it away from me. It was one of the sweetest weapons I've ever used, period.

As far as 'ballistics tests' and 'studies' go, you can prove or disprove anything you've already decided you want - I've seen it done. OTOH, if you actually pay attention to the voices from the field, to the voices who've had to use something to stay alive, you may get 'results' the boys in the labs in their nice, clean white coats may not 'like'. To them =I= say, "Tough noogies! I'm interested in staying alive, not being your stupid lab-rat." <shrug> YMMV, of course, and probably will. I'm alive today, that's all I need to know.

However, as has already been said, the Thompson was a well =machined= piece of weaponry, which took time. The cost per unit was reflective of that. The Sten was a quickly stamped out, even disposable, ::thing::. It was not 'inexpensive' - it was :cheap: .. and the troops could tell it. And at the end of the day, when =all= is said and done, the only thing that matters is: are you still alive, what helped you stay that way, and what is =most= likely to do that tomorrow?

[ January 21, 2004, 03:16 AM: Message edited by: exSpecForSgt ]