PPSch41 vs all

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Because it makes so much fun, here another comparison. (J = Joule kinetic energy = Eo)

MP-40 = 32 rounds, 400 rpm, 576 J

Sten MK-2 = 32 rounds, 500 rpm, 576 J

Thomson = 30 rounds, 700 rpm, 588 J

PPSch41 = 71 rounds, 1000 rpm, 688 J

Now let's compare to CM firepower value (fp). As you see above, the Eo for all weapons except the PPSch41 is nearly identic!

MP-40 = 36 fp

Sten = 39 fp (+100 rpm = +3 fp)

Thomson = 45 fp (+300 rpm = +9 fp)

BTS this looks at least like a straight math calculation of the fp .

If I calculate the fp for the PPSch41 this way (+600rpm = 18 fp) and give +20% because of the highe Eo, compared to the MP-40 (=7 fp) I end at 61 fp for the PPSch41.

Even if you don't use a strictly math formula to calculate the fp, I see no technical reason to weaken the PPSch41, but some to make it still better: reliably, ammo, uncomplicated...

Someone said a German SMG squad is gamey?

German SMG Squad, 8 men = 288 fp

Soviet SMG Squad, 8(?) men = 488 fp

Poor Fritz :eek: !!!

[ February 09, 2002, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

[Stoffel]

LOL,thanks for this comparing.

What about the other german smg's not listed in CM?

Like the mp 35 and 28?

I read the Waffen SS units used them cause the magazines were inserted from the side instead of below.

[The Commissar]

Tee-hee-hee...*dreams about CQB with these puppies*

Does unit experience influence fire power? Or perhaps just accuracy?

[Patgod]

muhahaha 430fp muhahahaha BOOM *nebwerf lands 300m away, squad changes to routed* "WHAT!!!!!!!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! damn you conscripts!"

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Originally posted by Patgod:

muhahaha 430fp muhahahaha BOOM *nebwerf lands 300m away, squad changes to routed* "WHAT!!!!!!!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! damn you conscripts!"

FAFLIFAFLAFFAFLUFF (Elite Soviet MP-squad pops up behind German regular Rifle company) WRRRRRRRRRRRRRR .....

Well, let's close the curtain over the unpleasant details...

[PJungnitsch]

Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon:

[QB]Even if you don't use a strictly math formula to calculate the fp, I see no technical reason to weaken the PPSch41, but some to make it still better: reliably, ammo, uncomplicated...

PPsch41 had greater effective range, but otherwise had problems. 71 capacity drums were tough to fill and carry and not too reliable, so were replaced by 35 round curved magazines. The gun was heavy, long, and prone to fire when dropped. High rate of fire was also a problem (MP38/40 had a rate of fire reducer to keep them at a more controllable 400-500 rpm).

Still a good gun, just not a 'wonder weapon'. It was retired from the Soviet army immediately after WWII and was replaced by the PPsch 43, which was smaller, used the 35 round magazines, lower rate of fire, etc.

[Doodlebug]

I did a similar calculation some time ago but didn't publish because of the contentious nature of the conclusions I'd reached. I confidently await the justifications from the SMG wielding West Front Ubers when these sort of numbers do not make it to the East Front.

[JasonC]

Higher than the others it should be, because it has higher ammo capacity and cyclic ROF. And the accuracy is no worse, due to the higher MV (though the much lighter rounds do lose MV faster with range than e.g. the Thompson's big .45 rounds). But any addition for the total ME in joules would be quite out of place.

To see this, just look at the MEs of other small arms. The MP44's ME is 1500 J, more than twice the PPsh. The M-1 Carbine is 1350 J. And rifle MEs (and true MGs, which fire rifle-like ammo) are 2500-3000 J. But each bullet is not modeled as four times as effective, or even twice.

Instead, higher ME just gives added range. Meaning a slower drop-off in FP at 100m and 250m, not any bonus at 40m. But the small difference in ME between the PPsh and other SMGs is not enough to make much difference there, and as mentioned most of that added ME is gone by the time you get out to 100m anyway, because air resistance slows a light bullet faster than larger ones.

I'd expect the PPsh to have ratings around 50-10-.5, to 45-8-.5. I'd also expect Russian SMG squads to be rather large, however, by the standards of German late-war SMG squads. More like 10 men. Which means a PPsh squad is going to have awesome point blank firepower. Half squads of them with fire as powerfully as full squads of ordinary infantry.

So you better stop them before they get close. People are going to discover that the basis of German small arms strength is not SMGs, it is the superiority of the true belt-fed MG42 (and early, the MG34), over the drum and clip fed LMGs of their rivals. In more open terrain, the extra ranged firepower they give the squad will be the big story.

Early on, the Russian infantry will also generally be rifle armed and low quality. But inside cities (or forests, come to that), watch out, the Russians are going to rock from mid-war on.

Especially the mobile troops - every tank corps (the equivalent of a German Panzer division) sports three battalions of SMG armed tank riders - half its infantry. At range they will rely on the tanks to beat MGs, while in close the SMGs will cover the tanks against German infantry AT weapons.

Hold your fire until they get close, and the SMGs will kill you. Open up early to brush the infantry off the tank decks, and the tanks will halt outside schreck range and just blast everything visible. That was the idea.

[Mr. Johnson--]

I thought the strength of german small arms was the scheer volume of lead being pushed out. The MG34, MG42 and MP-40 backed up with accurate rifle fire simple overwhelmed soviet troops in the first 6 months of fighting on the eastern front.

All soviet troops that survived battle with the germans complained about their inabilty to match the automatic weapons of the german herr.

[Slapdragon]

Since most bullets suppress rather than kill, energy of the weapon would not be a big issue.

Post war studies showed that the ultra high rate of fire of the MG34 was wasted, and indeed the MG1 moderated the wartime designs rate of fire. This is because the primary function in modern combat of a machinegun is to suppress return fire, and supression occurs best when bursts of fire are directed at an area in which soldiers are, forcing them to quit firing and duck. Suppressive effect weapons have higher ROF, but not extreme rates of fire, which just wastes ammuntition.

Basically any center of mass hit by any bullet on any person not wearing modern body armor will take them out of combat for the duration of an action and cause them to be WIA.

Germans loved using captured PPSH41 and the Russian autoloading rifles not because of any issues of firepower, the literature does not support troops figuring out their fire power ratings with individual weapons. They loved the weapons because they were more reliable than the early German autoloading rifles and the MP40 in harsh conditions, and because of that natural tendency of every army to think the other guy has a better gun (look at Vietnam where the NVA prized the US M16 and US troops loved the AK47, even though the average dogface was never allowed to retain it).

Weapon stopping power comes into play usually in very limited situations of face to face confrontation is close combat, where a person who is still capable of jerking a trigger is still dangerous. Also, muzzle energy, while a factor in stopping power, is not the only factor, nor is it linear. The .357, with lower muzzle energy than the .44 magnum, has a much higher hit to kill ratio in FBI studies based on street shooting incidents, while the .45 and the 9mm are much closer together in ball type loadings than legend would have it. (In tactical loadings usings high technology hollow points the bullets diverge more).

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Yep, I wasn't sure about the Eo, just want to see what will happen .

Anyway, even we cut it out, the high rpm and the double ammo compared to the MP-40 will make it a serious weapon. Even with a fp of 'only' 50, imagine a SMG squad with 8-12 soldiers, and AFAIK the Soviets tended to larger squads!!!

[Kwazydog]

Puff, yes, Ppsh armed squads are indeed nasty to come up against, as least at shorter ranges. Your math is off quite a bit though, although I cant tell you where as I dont know the details. I can tell you that a Russian SMG squad (in mid 43 at least) has 9 men. Hehe, Steve and I just had a battle in a small village where we both ended up with some SMG squads and it wasnt a pretty picture

Something which is different about using SMG squads in CMBB is the rate at which they will go through ammo, so you do have to be very careful as to how you use them. They will fire they weapons quite fast at shorter ranges, but if you allow them to do so unchecked they will likely use up the bulk of their ammo very quickly.

Dan

PS : Oh and lets try and keep similar discussions all in one spot guys, so that we dont end up with 5 topics on the first page about the same thing

[ February 10, 2002, 04:34 AM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[PJungnitsch]

Another bit of info on the PPsch41, from the On War forum:

I have two disarmed PPSh in my little home so I have some basic knowledge on their interior. They are not simple, I tell you, the MP40 is much more simple in the inside. The PPSh was easier to make, thanks to its crude appearance but this doesn’t mean that it was simplicity itself. Germans liked it, yes. Why? Few soldiers in the Wehrmaht and not too many in the Red Army was equipped with SMGs. Basically, only special assault units on both sides plus officers and sergeants. So what the simple grunt had was either a Mosin or a Mauser, not the best thing for urban combat; of course they took the first enemy SMG from the enemy. Use it then throw it away, there always another one. The western allies also liked the MP40 very much, so what? Front soldiers often took the enemy weapon as a prize, as a symbol of their courage. But since I had both the PPSh and the MP40 in my hands, I would choose the MP40, simply because it FITS, it’s so much more user-friendly. I regard such a quality the most important, screw the RPM or ammo load, if I win a half a second due to that I don’t have to trouble around with my awkward SMG, that well save my life in close combat. Just look at how many modern SMGs are based on the MP40`s characteristics and how many on others. I don’t really say that the PPSh was very unreliable or such, but I hate such nonsense’s which state that the PPSh was reliability itself while the MP40 jammed all the time - something I will hardly believe after I saw both SMGs broken down to their smallest parts. I just prefer the MP40`s qualities (compact, accurate, VERY handy) vs. the PPSh`s (high ROF, large magazine), that’s all.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Paul Don't believe in other forums!!! Wisdom can be found only here .

Dan Yes master, no more double threats . BTW - is it impudent to ask the fp of the PPSch41? Of course it is, but will you tell anyway?

[Tero]

Again the überFinns sweep the table ?

Lets not forget the Suomi SMG:

72 round drum (Soviets copied it for the PPSh)

9mm (vs 7,something mm for the PPSh) = that much more Eo over the PPSh.

Captured PPSh's were converted to 9mm, and after a while somebody realized the Soviet magazine could take the 9mm ammo without any modifications (being a copy of the Finnish design). The barrel needed to be replaced of course.

[Kwazydog]

Paul, interesting read. After actually using the Ppsh though, I must admit that I would probably have to disagree with the above. It worked flawlessly (unfortunately the MP-40 didnt) and seemed very controllable.

Puff, just trying to be fair to other members whom are trying to get their thread read Hehe, and no i cant, as I have no idea if the figures I have here are final. The figure I have is somewhat less though than yours though.

Dan

[ February 09, 2002, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Indeed there were two Soumi MPs

The Modell 1926, 36 rounds, 750 rpm, 433 J (7,65 x 22, 380 m/s)

The Modell 1931, 20-71 rounds, 800 rpm, 578 J (9x19 ammo, 380 m/s)

It was also asked for :

The Schmeisser 28, 20-50 rounds, 500 rpm, 578 J

The Bergmann 35, 32 rounds, 350 rpm, 548 J

Dan No problemo :cool:

[ February 09, 2002, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon:

Indeed there were two Soumi MPs

The Modell 1926

Which was not very common.

The Modell 1931, 20-71 rounds, 800 rpm, 578 J (9x19 ammo, 380 m/s)

I have seen a figure of 396 m/s for the MV and 900-1000 (the 1000 figure having been a one time test result I think) for the rpm.

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

Decent clip if you can wait for it to download...

[Eric Young]

My take after firing the MP 40, PPsH, Thompson, and Sten in live fire at 25, 50 and 100 yards.

The loudest was the PPsH. (deafening)

The most accurate was the MP40. (Thompson close second)

Most worthless and unpleasant to shoot was the Sten. (Jammed a lot and hurt to shoot it)

Hardest to reload was the PPsH. (Both loading and changing mags)

Easiest to reload was the MP 40.

Best penetration firing through phone books was the PPsH.

Worst penetration was the Sten and or MP40.

Which one would I like best in a firefight? The MP 40.

E

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by tero:

Captured PPSh's were converted to 9mm, and after a while somebody realized the Soviet magazine could take the 9mm ammo without any modifications (being a copy of the Finnish design). The barrel needed to be replaced of course.

It's been posted in an earlier SMG thread that according to this site: http://guns.connect.fi/gow/suomi1.html,

Finns tried to convert Pepesha for using 9mm, but found it too difficult. Apparently Germans had better success, Steve had plenty of sources saying that converted PPSh was used by Germans at least to some extent.

[Kwazydog]

Fairbairn, cool mpeg, hehe. Yup, I certainally wouldnt want to be on the recieving end of that.

Id suggested you guys check it out if you can, as it shows just how stable it can be when firing a long burst (maybe the entire drum?). Im guessing the fact that it had the large drum at the front weighting the weapon down may be part of the reson for this. It also shows you how quickly you can use up ammo if your not careful

Dan

[ February 09, 2002, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[gunnergoz]

Impressive film, glad I saw it.

[gredeker]

Two observations about that film:

1) That seemed darn steady for an SMG.

2) That barrel got smoking hot in just a few seconds. It looks like you'd need to be really careful when changing magazines so you don't get burned.

[JasonC]

"using SMG squads in CMBB is the rate at which they will go through ammo, so you do have to be very careful as to how you use them. They will fire they weapons quite fast as shorter ranges, but if you allow them to do so unchecked they will likely use up the bulk of their ammo very quickly."

Yippie! That is great, just the ticket. I can't wait to try them out.

On the comparison between the various SMGs, one thing I note about the MP40 is that some of its mags were unreliable if fully loaded, due to the load on the spring. This may account for the conflicting reports on jam frequency, some finding it reliable and others saying it suffered jams. I've read that vets used to load a little under 30 rounds, into a 32 round clip, to reduce the chance of misfeeds. Once that was corrected, it seems it was otherwise reliable. A slight reduction in ammo capacity for greater reliability is obviously a worthwhile trade. I don't know this from any personal experience with any of them, but it sounds plausible to me. Many other guns have suffered from such (avoidable) mag and feed quirks.