Don't Look So SMG!!

[Irinami]

Yes Lady and Gentlemen, this post's topic is about SMG's, possibly pronounced either "Ess-Emm-Jee" or... "Smug." One's an unlikely Korean-sounding name, the other's a good pun. So let's go to work!

What SMG's do you like, and why? How do you utilize them in your force structure? When do you use them?

I like the Thompson and the Bergman, personally. Since I've mostly been playing the Imperial Japanese in Long-WWII, I tend to grab a platoon of Engineers and upgrade them to Bergmann-armed Engineers ASAP! Since they're not so hot at ranged combat anyway, the Bergmann really gives them some good defense in close range... plus that Bergmann squad has an F/T... meaning anyone who closes within their range is dead, roast meat!

I tend to upgrade all my Infantry Platoons to those outfitted with the Type-100, except one which I give the 7.7mm's and use for reserve or for pinning the enemy in place in those rare long-range occasions. The Type 100, despite being a short-range and inaccurate SMG, certainly does the job in the jungle... especially considering that the squad has an LMG and a 50mm mortar for longer-ranged work. (Yes, this tactic is rather historically inaccurate, as the Type 100 was produced in rather low quantities.)

How 'bout you all?

[Buzzard45]

Upgrade? Like changing weapons with-in the units? Do you do that in PBEM games? or only against the AI? I have no experience with editing.

[Irinami]

My mistake, I should have clarified: In the Long WWII Campaign (vs. AI, though apparently you could PBEM it), I upgrade them.

[Raskolnikov]

In a campaign, just as you can replace units which have been destroyed, you can replace units which have not been destroyed - effectively upgrading them, e.g. you start with a platoon of Pz38(t)es, blow up about 300 M3s with them and change them, one by one, to say, KTs. You are effectively rewarded for taking fewer losses by being able to spend replacement points on upgrades.

Upgrades are essential for you armour in any long campaign as your tanks will become obsolete. Less critical for infantry, tho' units can be tailored to specific roles - such as by replacing rifle-armed units with SMG-armed units. Inf AT weapons are one type of weapon that definitely benefit from being upgraded, tho' their value as core forces in a campaign is questionable.

One annoying thing is, if UK or GE, your troops can actually worsen during a campaign. This happens when you upgrade them: the FC of your BR Inf Sec will drop from 4 to 3 when you upgrade them after early 1943; similarly, GE Inf decline from 3 to 2 later in the war, tho' their armament obviously improves (Pzfaust:D ). Whilst this FC decline represents a dilution of the professional elite in the Br Army/Wehrmacht - as is nice and realistic - it is frustrating in long campaigns as those carefully-shielding Inf Secs actually get worse.

Going (just a little) off the point here - but it does need noticing:

1. BR SMGs suck. Sten guns are awful. BR Paras are suicide squads.

2. BR forces in a long campaign suffer from being unable to improve their troops. All other major armies have better infantry types one can upgrade grunts to, e.g. GE: Rifle-FJ-SS; SO: Conscript-Rifle-Guard, whilst US troops get a hell of a lot better as the war progresses and they learn which end of the gun to point at the bad guys. BR forces do not have this: if you upgrade to Paras, their effective combat range shrinks to two hexes; Commandos and SAS also suck like this. There ought to be Guards units for BR formations, if only to allow this upgrade potential.

3. Sten guns suck. Even more than Bren carriers. And Cruiser IIs.

4. US Rangers vs SAS. Noted in recent Iraq conflict interesting difference between US and UK terminology - at least amongst the media - specifically the meaning of the term 'Special Forces'. UK 'Special Forces' are SAS/SBS and nothing else - a tiny elite. US 'Special Forces' actually outnumber the British Army. Back to the first point - why are SAS forces not elite in SP:WaW?

5. Umm... oh yeah, I hate Stens.

Sorry for rambling.




Rask.

[rbrunsman]

I thought that it was inarguable that Thompsons are the best SMG. I like to have them as US and I fear them as the Germans. This just may be my luck with them. Aren't they the best?

Oh, yeah, and Stens suck. i.e. Range 2, never hits anything even if you do get close enough.

[Buzzard45]

Originally posted by Raskolnikov


1. BR SMGs suck. Sten guns are awful. BR Paras are suicide squads.

3. Sten guns suck. Even more than Bren carriers. And Cruiser IIs.


5. Umm... oh yeah, I hate Stens.


Rask.

Why is this? The sten broke down a lot and maybe it needed to be cleaned and oiled more often AND the soldiers disliked them but they were acurate while they worked. The Thompson used pistol ammo. How can it be judged more accurate at any range over 20 yards?
The snipers aren't much different. A British sniper can have a hit chance of 90+% and still miss. While some Ranger grunt with a short barreled carbine hits him on the return fire. I think the OOBs have gotten out of hand. A 50 Cal should not be able to out-perform a 20mm AA in anything but quick response, but it does.

[Teräspantteri]

Originally posted by rbrunsman
I thought that it was inarguable that Thompsons are the best SMG. I like to have them as US and I fear them as the Germans. This just may be my luck with them. Aren't they the best?

Oh, yeah, and Stens suck. i.e. Range 2, never hits anything even if you do get close enough.

Thompsons and Finnish Suomi SMG's are the best ones. They have exactly the same stats: range 4, kill 4, accuracy 2.

[Raskolnikov]

Originally posted by Buzzard45

The snipers aren't much different. A British sniper can have a hit chance of 90+% and still miss. While some Ranger grunt with a short barreled carbine hits him on the return fire. I think the OOBs have gotten out of hand. A 50 Cal should not be able to out-perform a 20mm AA in anything but quick response, but it does.

I agree with you completely.
IMHO, Rangers in particular are phenomenally over-powered.

[Capt. Pixel]

About the only time I regularly consider whether my units are SMG-equipped is within my scout forces. I don't really want them shooting things anyway, but if they must, it should be up close and with a good punch. (It's probably gonna be their last shot)

SMG equipped squads are just too vulnerable in most situations excepting extremely short range visibility (like 1 or 2) or dense forest or buildings. In those situations, I'd definitely prefer the SMG (particularly the Soviets). under most other situations, give me a rifle, dam#it! :p

When comparing squad performance, you should remember that the number of men in the squad and the Fire Control values have a major impact on their offensive abilities with their primary weapon.

Oh, and BTW, What is a Lancaster (UK) ?

[tracer]

Originally posted by Capt. Pixel


Oh, and BTW, What is a Lancaster (UK) ?

A long-range, medium bomber. Do you mean a Lanchester?

[KG Erwin]

If you go by these subjective ratings, then the Thompson wins. I saw a picture yesterday of a Marine at Guadalcanal posed beside his 30 cal M1919A4. He had a Thompson in his lap. This is interesting for two reasons--(1) the standard secondary weapon for an MG crew in 1942 was the old M1903 Springfield. (2) This was obviously a publicity shot, as the guy is standing upright beside the MG. The Thompson may have been scrounged from who knows where . ((Historical note: Marines were (are still are) notorius for acquiring weapons not listed in their TOEs. The Army always got dibs on the new stuff in the early part of the war, so the Marines did do some unauthorized scrounging now & again, and I can't blame them for doing so. One story goes that while the 164th Army Regiment was landing at Guadalcanal in late 1942, an enemy bombardment drove the soldiers to ground, leaving many equipment boxes unattended. The Marines, accustomed to this daily harassment, decided to liberate some Army supply boxes of their contents. This was how some Marines acquired the new M1 Garand Rifles before they were officially issued to them in 1943.))

[Irinami]

Originally posted by Buzzard45
The Thompson used pistol ammo. How can it be judged more accurate at any range over 20 yards?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the definition of a submachine gun includes the fact that it uses pistol ammunition. That's why the "MP-44"/StG-44 is not a true SMG/"MP"; closest it could be is an automatic carbine.

So how can it be accurate over 20 yards? Simple. A major factor of accuracy is velocity. In part, this is because velocity effects energy and momentum: the faster something is moving, the harder it is to slow it down in any direction--which includes altering it's course. (This is a very basic description.) What's this have to do with the SMG? Simple. A pistol fired from an M1911 pistol has roughly 3-4 inches for pressure to build up, pressure which propels the bullet. Fired from a Thompson, it has somewhere around 12-18 inches, if memory serves correctly, to build up pressure. This pressure increases it's muzzle velocity. That increases it's accuracy (which is also quite dependent on the operator) as well as it's impact/killing/stopping power.

Also note that in SPWAW, weapons are rated as per their normal use. Thus, the Thompson can also be "accurate" (defined as "able to hit the target") at a longer range simply by virtue that you send several rounds downrange at each target.

I'm back. ;p

[rbrunsman]

From my visit to the British Imperial War Museum (awesome) several years ago, I recall seeing a movie about the Thompson that said you definitely did NOT want to be hit by its .45 cal pistol bullet. The soldiers in the interview said that if you hit someone with one of those, they simply went down due to the force of that huge bullet's impact, so you didn't need to be all that accurate to stop the enemy in his tracks.

[Capt. Pixel]

Originally posted by tracer
A long-range, medium bomber. Do you mean a Lanchester?

Yep a long-range medium bomber :rolleyes:

I knew I couldn't get back to this thread quickly enough to correct my mistake.

What I meant was the Lanchester - a shoulder arm in some British squads.

[Buzzard45]

Originally posted by Capt. Pixel


What I meant was the Lanchester - a shoulder arm in some British squads.

I found this on a website:
The British Army entered the Second World War without an adequate submachine gun of its own. During the battles on the Continent in 1940, the need for one was made apparent. At the time, only US Thompsons were available. A British copy of the German MP 28, called the Lanchester, was rushed into service, but it was complicated and not easily built in large numbers.

In early 1941, a prototype was put forth by the Royal Small Arms Factory in England, inspired by captured German MP40s. It was named by using the initials of its its designers, Major RV Shepherd and Mister HJ Turpin, and adding them to the first two letters of Enfield, the location of a small arms factory and arsenal. The Sten Gun was first used at Dieppe by Canadian troops. It completely replaced the Thompson in Northwest Europe by the time of the Normandy landings in June 1944.

The Sten's compact size, simplicity of manufacture, and ease of dismantling (and hiding) made it a favourite among Resistance groups on the Continent. As well, it could use captured German 9mm ammunition. In fact, the magazine was a very close copy of the German MP40 magazine, which unfortunately meant that like the German version, it was prone to jamming.

Hmmm? Same rounds as an MP40. According to the OOBs The MP40 and Lanchester share the same Accuracy/Kill rating of 8/3. The MP28, M3 SMG and Sten share the rating of 4/3. Or half the accuracy. the Thompson? 8/4. Misc small arms 8/2. The encyclopedia changes these ratings somewhat, but that is based on the range at which it has an unadjusted (I could be corrected on this) hit chance of 50%. So still twice the effective ranges for similar weapons using interchangeable ammo.

[Belisarius]

Originally posted by tracer
A long-range, medium bomber. Do you mean a Lanchester?

MEDIUM?! A Lancaster has twice the payload of a B-17!! What's a Flying Fortress then - a light bomber?? :p


Bel - splitting hairs

[Irinami]

Originally posted by Buzzard45
So still twice the effective ranges for similar weapons using interchangeable ammo.

Again, the round is not everything, not by far. Here are but a few things that can effect accuracy:

1.) Barrel length, as stated above, modifies muzzle velocity via pressure.
2.) Chamber pressure limitations. Linked to barrel length--if the chamber can't take the pressure, your gun breaks. Thus, you have to bleed off the pressure somehow before your gun breaks.
3.) Rate of Fire. It is quite possible that the rate of fire can reduce the muzzle velocity by bleeding off pressure if gas-operated. Also consider gun buck, which can be exacerbated by recoil or blow-back operation.
4.) Weight. Weight can absorb the effect of recoil, by simply giving the weapon a heavier mass to have to buck, thus making it buck less than a lighter weapon.
5.) Other recoil absorption, such as springs, pneumatics, etc. Quite rare in WWII.
6.) Average height of operator: Oddly enough, a shorter operator will in general be slightly less effected by recoil. I recall reading that the US Army at first assigned the BAR to the shortest man in each squad because of this. It's effect, however, is rather anecdotal.
7.) SIGHTS!!!!!!!! This is the biggest kicker. Assuming the two weapons are otherwise comparable, which the ones in question appear to be, the sights will make the difference. Most simple-manufacture weapons skimp on sights. Vertical adjustment usually is thrown out second, horizontal third, but the first thing to go is usually the degree of adjustment. Why? These things are tiny, and require precision tooling and manufacture... the opposite of simple manufacture. Despite Hollywood (question: What do you Europeans call the movie industry? I mean, what's your "Hollywood"?), there is a hell of a lot more to using a weapon than point-and-click. Sights are important to all weapons (though the hand grenade is provided in standard issue by two integral stereo-optics in every soldier ).

[Belisarius]

Good post, Irinami. Very informative.


And yeah, I guess we Euros call the movie industry "Hollywood" as well - at least the part shooting for crowd-pleasing effects and thin storylines.

And welcome back! How was the doghouse?

[Irinami]

... I can't answer that with any detail in a family-oriented forum.

[Buzzard45]

Other than Aim, which is dependant on the operator more so than the weapon, Projectile shape, charge size and barrel lenghth (assuming its rifled) have more to do with the accuracy than the other factors once you get beyond 50 -75 yards.

Projectile spin keeps it tracking straight. Shape and material also help keep the trajectory flat and in line. Short fat projectiles, like pistol ammo, have a tendency to tumble rather than spin after a certain distance traveled. I have seen 22cal from a rifle "key-hole" a target at 20 yards. The jacketed bullets of rounds like the 50 cal, also its long pointed shape, are less likely to distort and thus reduces the likelihood of tumble. Tumble acts like the spin on a baseball that makes for curveballs or sliders but in this case its unpredictable.

Heavy caliber rounds like the 45 of the thompson need more muzzle velocity to travel the same distance as a lighter round. A 130 grain .270 round of my deer rifle, will travel flatter and hit harder at 300 yards than even a 160 grain of a 30.06, and both will far out-preform and 30-30 with its smaller casing and charge. The Thompson likely did have better sights than the rest but the point and shoot nature of the SMG is what we are looking at.

The question remains, How can different weapons of similar design and barrel lenghth, using the same ammo have such different accuracy ratings?