Submachineguns

[Crank_GS]

Just a curiosity here; maybe one for the grogs...

What were the qualitative differences between the US and German SMGs? Now, I guess I might need SMG defined. I know the Thompson is a US SMG, but the BAR is not, right? I have read and heard that the Thompson was a very reliable, effective weapon, feared by the Germans. Was it more effective than theirs (the MP-40, right?) I had also heard that the Sturmgewehr was also an extremely goo German weapon, although it arrived pretty late. Is it true that the Russians used it as the design basis for the AK-47? Or is that just Cold War propaganda? How was the Soviet PPsH (is that even the right designation??)

This was occuring to me as I thought what weapon I thought I would want to carry. I came up with the Thompson, partly because I am a US guy, partly because I bet it was so effective in the tight bocage or city terrain of the west front, and partly because Tom Hanks and Ted Danson looked so darn cool carrying it .

What do you all think?

[flamingknives]

A submachine gun is an automatic weapon that fires pistol calibre ammunition.

Various ones used in WWII are:

Sten (UK) 9x19mm

Thompson (US and commonwealth) .45cal

M3 'Grease gun' (US) .45cal/9x19mm

MP 40 (Germany) 9x19mm

PPsH (Russia) 7.62x ~20mm

The US guns fire a larger round, but have a slightly smaller magazine (20 as opposed to 28) They are also heavier and more difficult to produce.

The cheapest to produce is almost certainly the Sten, but then you get what you pay for.

[nevermind]

I'd go with either the MP40 or the tommy.I like the better effective range that the MP40 has,but look for yourself.

Link

[Michael Emrys]

While the Thompson was generally a good weapon, the muzzle had a very strong tendency to climb. This is frequently a problem with all hand-held automatic weapons, but due to the rather more extreme location of the Thompson's stock in relation to the barrel's axis, it was worse than most.

Michael

[JasonC]

The BAR fires full power rifle ammunition. That means the energy at the muzzle is something like 4000 Joules, and the round will carry accurately to 1500 yards. Even without a scope, a decent shot can hit things at 500 yards, 800 if he is good. It is a much heavier weapon than any of the others you mentioned, more like a Bren or DPK LMG.

The MP44 fires carbine ammunition. That means the energy at the muzzle is around 1500 Joules, and the round is accurate to a few hundred yards. It is comparable to a US M-1 carbine rather than a BAR. Of course it could fire full auto - as could the M-2 carbine. It was marginally more accurate, with about 10% more muzzle energy. Compared to true SMGs (covered below), it has far longer effective range. Compared to full MGs or rifles, it has considerably shorter range.

The US Thompson and "grease gun" were designed for 45 caliber ammo. Some versions of the grease gun were rechambered for 9mm instead, a smaller round. The muzzle energy of a 45 is only around 450 Joules, so you can see what a step down pistol ammo is from either carbine or rifle ammo. The result is very limited range - 100 yards at most, with 40 to 80 more like effective range. At 150 yards the bullet has dropped more than a foot since leaving the muzzle, for example. Accuracy drops off when that happens.

The grease gun was an el cheapo weapon compared to the Thompson. 45 ammo is pretty effective if it hits anybody, but that matters somewhat more with simple pistols - where only one round is likely to hit - than with SMGs, which might hit 2-3 times if the burst is accurate. Generally, being shot by an SMG will ruin your whole day regardless of how small the caliber is. And the flip side of the bigger 45 bullet is that it is harder to carry lots of them.

The German MP40 used 9mm ammo. Do not, however, confuse with is the high powered stuff fired from modern Glocks and the like. It had only about 350 Joules muzzle energy, whereas some modern high powered 9mm have considerably more than 45s (from faster muzzle velocity). Range would be marginally lower than the Thompson, but only marginally. It also had a flimsier stock, making it harder to shoot accurately at longer ranges. (Not that any of these SMGs are meant for that). On the plus side, smaller rounds meant easier ammo carrying. The mags were designed to hold 32 rounds, but in practice loaded with fewer to avoid stressing the spring inside them. Fully loaded mags tended to misfeed and jam.

The Sten had all the el cheapo drawbacks of the grease, firing 9mm ammo like the MP40. The side seating of the mag was disliked by some as making misfeeds more common, liked by others as making changing mags faster in combat. Misfeeds were particularly likely if you held the gun by the mag, as is had some "play" and would wiggle as the gun recoiled. The gun was a bit awkward to hold the right way (very thin, unbalanced off to the mag side when held both hands on the center line, etc).

The PPsh was in my opinion the finest overall SMG of the war. It was only 7.62mm aka 30 caliber, short pistol rounds. But the muzzle velocity made up for the light weight of the rounds, giving a muzzle energy comparable to the Thompson - just more from initial speed than from weight. This did limit the range modestly compared to the heavier Thompson - but all of them are very close range weapons in the grand scheme of things.

The PPsH also had a very high cyclic rate of fire. It is famous as the "burp" gun of the Korean war, because the discharges are so close together it sounds like one continuous tear. (The same was true, incidentally, of the German full MG-42). The light ammo made carrying a large load easy, and 70 round drum mags were made them them. Smaller 30 round banana clips were also used.

The gun was also very rugged, taking field punishment and abuse without complaint. The stock allowed reasonably accurate fire at middling ranges. Not the lightest SMG, but many excellent characteristics (reliability, light abundant ammo, high rate of fire, stability when firing).

As for the postwar AK47, it was not based on the MP44. The assault rifle idea was the same certainly, but the linear ancestor of the AK was the SKS series carbine, a semi-auto firing cut down 7.62mm ammunition, meant to replace the full rifle ammo carbines the Russians were issuing in the later part of the war (which had too much oomph in the round for the size of the gun, resulting in large muzzle flash, climb, and the like).

The best of the ones you mention is certainly the BAR, but it really isn't in the same category so that isn't really saying much. The next best is the MP44 aka Sturmgewer, simply as a modern assault rifle concept that is inherently superior to the short range, pistol ammo, pure SMG concept. Again it is not really in the same category as the others (you'd have to compare it to things like the US M-1 carbine and the Russian SKS). Of the SMGs, some would undoubtedly pick the Thompson - easily the most expensive and "refined" of the SMG models - but I'd go with the PPsh. A bigger ammo load from lighter bullets, high ROF, and rugged simplicity would be my reasons. For accuracy's sake, I'd prefer either of those two to the folding metal stock varieties. Just because it is full auto doesn't mean you don't need to aim...

[Crank_GS]

Wow, great info. Thanks Jason. I was hoping you'd respond to my question.

[flamingknives]

How does he find time to write all this stuff?

[PiggDogg]

Knives,

How does he find time to write all this stuff?

JasonC is a hermit monk who lives in the remotest and farthest reaches of the Himalaya mountains. He has no other life than CM. :eek: :eek: :eek:

I'm kidding !!!! He is a knowledgable and good guy who knows his stuff. We appreciate and thank him, and one can listen and learn.

Cheers, Richard

[Little Pete]

I read that the MP-40 was an excellent weapon and allied soldiers would sometimes use captured ones rather than their own SMGs (this was taken from a book about the Normandy campaign).

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Little Pete:

I read that the MP-40 was an excellent weapon and allied soldiers would sometimes use captured ones rather than their own SMGs (this was taken from a book about the Normandy campaign).

The MP40 had to be carefully handled. It was far from perfect.

[flamingknives]

It was still probably a weapon with fewer vices than the Sten MkII. Being that the ammunition was interchangable between the two weapons, it would make sense for British Soldiers to occasionally use MP40s

Apparently the Soviets also liked the MP40, sometimes in place of their PPsH.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Apparently the Soviets also liked the MP40, sometimes in place of their PPsH.

A lot of the pictures where you see this seem to be Razchedviki (scout) troops. I am beginning to think that this is not because the Soviet soldiers thought that the MP40 was better than the PPSh, but rather because it would help to confuse the Germans in a firefight. Whitaker mentions this reasoning in 'Tug of war' for the use of German weapons by his battalion recce platoon in the Antwerp area 1944.

[stikkypixie]

I've read that the germans also liked PPsH and used it (even rechambring, not sure though).

Maybe it was a cultural exchange thing...

[JasonC]

The Germans certainly used PPsHs, but they didn't have to rechamber them, and certainly didn't rechamber them for 9mm. The Russian 7.62x25 pistol round was essentially a copy of the 7.62mm Mauser - you know, those famous little WW I era automatic pistols with the box magazine in front of the trigger guard, and the long thin barrel? So they had a round they could use in them, produced in Germany.

As for Russian use of MP40s, perhaps occasionally for the misleading sound as one fellow suggests, but it can't have been all that common. The Russians made something like 5 times as many PPsHs as the Germans made SMGs of all kinds. And they didn't have any regular source of 9mm ammo, as it wasn't a round they used.

[stikkypixie]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The Germans certainly used PPsHs, but they didn't have to rechamber them, and certainly didn't rechamber them for 9mm. The Russian 7.62x25 pistol round was essentially a copy of the 7.62mm Mauser - you know, those famous little WW I era automatic pistols with the box magazine in front of the trigger guard, and the long thin barrel? So they had a round they could use in them, produced in Germany.

As for Russian use of MP40s, perhaps occasionally for the misleading sound as one fellow suggests, but it can't have been all that common. The Russians made something like 5 times as many PPsHs as the Germans made SMGs of all kinds. And they didn't have any regular source of 9mm ammo, as it wasn't a round they used.

Ah yes thank you for correcting me

[JasonC]

Actually looking into it I have found some evidence that some PPsHs were rebuilt for 9mm. It involved replacing the barrel. The first to do so were apparently the Finns, who didn't have domestic "Mauser 30" production and didn't use that caliber, but did use 9mm. The Germans might have done so as well, for limited numbers. But they continued to use the 7.62 versions as well.

[Maj. Battaglia]

Originally posted by Little Pete:

I read that the MP-40 was an excellent weapon and allied soldiers would sometimes use captured ones rather than their own SMGs (this was taken from a book about the Normandy campaign).

I have read this as well. But I have also read many first-hand accounts that say that practice did not last long. The distinctive sound they made (the "burp" if you will) caused those who fired them to at best cause confusion or panic and at worst draw friendly fire. All the accounts I have read mention that they were kept as souveniers but not used in combat (except the ones where the guy used it and got shot at by his own guys--then he pretty quickly stopped or was dead).

When you say "Allied," though, I am only talking about US. I don't know about the Commonwealthers.

JasonC, one note about the M3 Grease Gun: the M3A1 version was made so that by changing the barrel, bolt, and adding an adapter to the magazine 9mm ammo could be used. Although I'm not sure how readily available these implements were to troops, it would seem that all were capable of being so modified. If one had the implements it would be a fairly quick procedure.

[Munter]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The PPsh was in my opinion the finest overall SMG of the war.

Well, no. The origin of their concept was even better, but I'm really being partial in this.

http://guns.connect.fi/gow/suomi1.html

M

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The Germans certainly used PPsHs, but they didn't have to rechamber them, and certainly didn't rechamber them for 9mm. The Russian 7.62x25 pistol round was essentially a copy of the 7.62mm Mauser - you know, those famous little WW I era automatic pistols with the box magazine in front of the trigger guard, and the long thin barrel? So they had a round they could use in them, produced in Germany.

The Germans did rechamber these weapons to 9mm.

http://www.continet.com/montyipsc/ppsh2.html

http://www.continet.com/montyipsc/Wehrmt.htm

[ January 25, 2004, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[JasonC]

Look down two posts, Tittles - I already said as much.

[Mr. Tittles]

I dont think the Finns rechambered though.

[JasonC]

http://www.continet.com/montyipsc/finn.html

Evidentally tried it, only experimental, not large scale.

[ January 26, 2004, 01:33 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Mr. Tittles]

"They were formidable opponents. We were urged to kill almost every Siberian twice, and most tough boys still a third time", told many Finnish veterans of wars: "Russian lads, coming against us in closed formation, intoxicated with vodka and singing Le Internationale, were bunny-boys but the Siberians were born soldiers! We met them in February 1940 and we learnt to respect those slant-eyed imps... !" Two bullets were enough for "bunny-boys" but five hits were necessary to dispatch a Siberian "imp". Sometimes they fought back despite ten or twelve wounds from 9 mm bullets.

Perhaps CM should model imps and bunnys?

[JasonC]

And untermenschen and Aryan supermen? Give me a break. It is transparent propaganda...

[Mr. Tittles]

Calling the enemy tough is propaganda? This is a quote from a Finn mind you.

The quote does have racist overtones but is actually commenting on the fact that not all soldiers are the same targets. Just as tanks can be tougher, so can humans.

People from rural/remote areas usually have a physically demanding life. Much more so than people from cities. It would not make much of a difference if the firer was using rifle rounds, but in the case of pistol rounds, it does make a difference. Most military rifles can take down big game.

SMGs are short ranged weapons. They are used against the enemy soemtimes within grenade range. The ability of a SMG to incapacitate an enemy is important.