The best sub-machinegun?

[Rundstedt]

A friend of mine began an argument about the best SMG during the war. I think it was the Russian one (don't have the time to look uo the name, you Pppshhsps or somehting), and he claims the Thompson was better. I then told him it actually depended on what situation you were planning to use it. He wouldn't listen. What's you opinion? And I would be really happy if you said I was right.

Regards, Rundstedt

[Belisarius]

I guess it depends who you ask, Rundstedt.

A good many, especially Resistance and partisans, would say that the Sten was best.

I don't have that much knowledge in this subject, but if you consider refinement and quality, the Thompson is a very fine weapon.

But I wouldn't be surprised if the Russian PPSch-41 was better for combat.

[bumper]

I thought the Finnish Suomi was the best of all (except for the Stgw 44 that is)

Patrick

[JTGEN]

Finnish Suomi smg is wery good. Accurate for an smg and with 80round magazine gives a lot of firepower. It was designed in early '30's and I suppose was influencing the design of the PPSH.

I have personally handeled some of these(checking if they were in good oil in storage as I was a wepons guy) when I was in coastal arty in 1995. Unfortunately I was on a leave when the guys went to shooting range to try them out. They were enjoying themself that day. I do not now how many of them are still serving our military as being a bit outdated, but I suppose they are good enough for guys that are manning a bunker in an island.

[Larry Holt]

The Thompson was a good gun but extreamely more complex than the Sten and other "stamped out guns". If you are a partisan, hanging out in the woods with no proper gun smith or repair parts or if you are a US Infantry man with a supply line like a Christmas tree you would have different ideas of which was better.

[mucius]

hi,

as a weapon for military troops, not partisans, I think the StGw 44 (MP 43) was the best, it is still in use today under the designation AK47 .
For the Sten MPi I wouldn't have used the early versions (as I would have denied the guy behind me to use one) as they had a round in the chamber when cooked but no safety trigger. But the MK. V would have been my weapon of choice for commando/partisan operations.
As I read from comments of people who used the Tommy Gun, it was no good gun. It was heavy, unprecise and had a, compared to other MPis, low ROF. In addition it was to expensive and due to its complicated design, to hard to maintain. It was only issued as an ordonance weapon from 1928 on. But its replacement, the M3 (grease Gun)was a very remarkable gun.

mucius

[Jeff_Ewing]

For looks and high-quality machining I'd favor the Beretta. The STEN was detested, IIRC for it's propensity to jam, due to the single feed. All around, the PPSh would be a pretty good choice

Jeff

[Hot Shot]

I agree with the view that it depends on who is using it. But perhaps to be the best you must be easy to maintenance, easy to shoot with, and cheap to manufacture.
By the way, the really son of STG44 is the Spanish CETME series, made by the authentic fathers of the STG. Then the design was licensed to West Germany to build the G3 and sucesors.

[Grumble]

I would define "best" as: easy for the average troop to strip and maintain, delivers a volume of fire that is high enough to spray targets yet low enough to actually hit something, and light enough that guys won't "lose" it but heavy enough to control (see above). Finally it should be able to fire easily from the prone position.
Give these criteria, I would submit the Suomi/PPsH 41, or maybe the Australian Owen.
Notes on the Sten reminded me of a story my uncles, who were in the Canadian Army, had about it. Both absolutely hated the weapon, it had acquired a reputation for breaking due to a lack of quality control, and "picked up" an MP40 as soon as they could....

[mucius]

Hot Shot, to be really precise on that:

The StGw 44 and the AK47 share the same casing and bolt mechanics, even the design of both weapons is looking very similar.

The G3 is based on a prototype rifle called StGw 45(M)(Mauser, the StGw44 was designed bei Hugo Schmeisser)that never saw combat during WWII.

Ludwig Vorgrimmler, who participated in the development of the StGw 45(M), brought his knowledge then to CETME project. These weapons have the delayed roller locking system in common.

mucius

[Belisarius]

Err... technically, the Stgw'44 is an assault rifle, not a SMG. :p
It was designed to get a weapon with high sustained fire rates, like the SMG's and still be as practical and easy to use as an ordinary rifle.

You are free to say that I'm wrong but that's the impression I've got from reading about them. Comparing today's guns, a typical SMG is e.g. HK5 or Uzis. Assault guns are M16's, AK47's etc. There's a difference. But maybe your original question wasn't limited to SMG's, Rundstedt?

[mucius]

Here is a picture of the StGw 45(M)
I really like this weapon

[mucius]

@belisarius

Hm, you are right, did not read this carefully enough. But to see it the other way, the StGw 44 was introduced as MP (Machine Pistol) 43/44 and had instead 7,92x57 only 7,92x33 rounds to reduce recoil. Lets agree on the StGw. 44 being a mixture of SMG and Assault Rifle.

mucius

[Gen. Maczek]

The PPSh was a good weapon, far more reliable and rugged than the Sten or Thompson...However it was also bloody dangerous. I have heard numerous (be it post-war) stories of people tripping up with these weapons when slung over their shoulder and nearly blowing their owners heads off...There was no safety catch on this baby, and it gave many new recruits sleepless nights (my uncle for one). However saying that, personaly I would much rather go into combat with a PPSh or a Suomi than a Sten, Thompson or MP38.
Regards.
Gen. Maczek

[Hot Shot]

Yes, Muscius, you are right, sorry.
The CETME and later the G3 are based in the Muasr STG45, which must had to replace the STG44 but never view action (it was cheaper to produce than the STG44, about a half of working hours to produce one).
Again, please excuse me.
(I have a picture of the other side of STG45, if you are really in love with it )

[CaptainBrian]

Originally posted by mucius:
@belisarius

Hm, you are right, did not read this carefully enough. But to see it the other way, the StGw 44 was introduced as MP (Machine Pistol) 43/44 and had instead 7,92x57 only 7,92x33 rounds to reduce recoil. Lets agree on the StGw. 44 being a mixture of SMG and Assault Rifle.
mucius

All SMGs fire pistol cartridges, not rifle ammo. This is what makes the StGw 44 a rifle and not a SMG.

The intermediate cartridge, such as the 7.92 X 33 round, was developed for weapons that compromised between the range and accuracy of rifles and the hitting power of SMGs ...i.e. Assault Rifles.

As far as the Thompson goes... in 1945 they cost $200+ to produce !!!! Not a very economical use of resources.

[TheOriginalOverlord]

Originally posted by Gen. Maczek:
The PPSh was a good weapon, far more reliable and rugged than the Sten or Thompson...However it was also bloody dangerous. I have heard numerous (be it post-war) stories of people tripping up with these weapons when slung over their shoulder and nearly blowing their owners heads off...There was no safety catch on this baby, and it gave many new recruits sleepless nights (my uncle for one). However saying that, personaly I would much rather go into combat with a PPSh or a Suomi than a Sten, Thompson or MP38.
Regards.
Gen. Maczek

Pull the bolt all the way back and the top of it is a little sliding bar. Push the bar towards the receiver of the PPSh and it will lock the bolt to the rear.

Sten had a similar problem. It was often carried with an empty chamber and a magazine inserted. If it was dropped butt first in this condition the bolt would move far enough back (due to inertia) to pick up a round and then fire it, usually injuring sombody.

As for my choice it's a toss up between the MP40 and the Thompson. MP40 is very good overall but for pure stopping power there is no substitute for .45ACP slugs from a Thompson. Only thing bad with an MP40 is if you have one with a "wobbly" stock assembly, you accuracy will fall off greatly as you can't keep proper sight picture with the stock shaking all over the place...Thompson doesn't have that problem as it's weight and fixed stock keep the weapon steady when firing.

So my answer is...I'd carry both!

[TheOriginalOverlord]

Originally posted by CaptainBrian:


As far as the Thompson goes... in 1945 they cost $200+ to produce !!!! Not a very economical use of resources.

Actually Thompson production was curtailed in Dec'44 and the unit price of the last contract Savage made guns was $34.

[General Mayhem]

Who knows well Russian submachineguns
and their history?

Reason is that I have recollection that some Russian submachinegun was was copy of Finnish Suomi SMG. But if so, which one?

In 30's, one Finnish person defected to Soviet Union, carrying blue prints of Suomi sub machinegun. So it may have something to do with it.

Best submachinegun....Suomi submachinegun
of course!. Accurate and reliable. Which is
quite well from II world war SMG's. Atleast
I wouldn't use Sten.

[ August 07, 2001: Message edited by: General Mayhem ]

[General Mayhem]

Originally posted by JTGEN:
Finnish Suomi smg is wery good. Accurate for an smg and with 80round magazine gives a lot of firepower. It was designed in early '30's and I suppose was influencing the design of the PPSH.

I have personally handeled some of these(checking if they were in good oil in storage as I was a wepons guy) when I was in coastal arty in 1995. Unfortunately I was on a leave when the guys went to shooting range to try them out. They were enjoying themself that day. I do not now how many of them are still serving our military as being a bit outdated, but I suppose they are good enough for guys that are manning a bunker in an island.

I was on 'leave' too(broke my leg, aunt died, granny died etc.), but I as I understood they were given to second line troops. Like people manning artillery pieces. I was told we were last batches to see them, as we would now have in case of real war have assault rifles.

Really makes one feel wanted and needed.NOT.

[ August 07, 2001: Message edited by: General Mayhem ]