Best SMG of WWII

[boko123]

lol they'l all kill you just the same .

[Mark V]

Some discussion you guys are having here, after reading all the 16 pages im having major headache.

I too have had that same headache for some time.

Finns to would have not done as good as we did with out our KP, and im pretty sure Russians too would have been suffering without theirs.

As an whole variables like quality of one model of small arm have so little difference in fighting ability of any particular army that it is totally unnoticeable *** outside squad/platoon enviroment - but i think you are right. In case of Suomi M/-31 and PPSh-41 (+PPS-43) - those weapons did indeed have some (i wouldn't say great) improving effect on overall fighting power of FDF and RKKA, and that is huge accomplishment for any invidual firearm. In Finns case it was many times because there were no other weapons to compensate plus Suomi SMG fit perfectly for few hard nosed inviduals to make the difference in small unit combat that had elevated importance here - for many reasons the fighting in here was more about small unit activity, terrain being not the least of them. In Soviets case it was first true mass deployment of selective fire invidual weapons, revolutionary development in itself - SMGs were significant part of mid/late war Soviet development of massed firepower, seeking improving combat power of Soviet infantry for offensive purposes in face of diminishing human resources, same time keeping the compact, easily handled unit sizes they had adopted.

Both Finns and Soviets had pretty perfect SMGs for their needs.


Regards, Mark V


*** The same reason why clearly inferior invidual firearms and chamberings just soldier on - it does not make enough of an difference to upgrade...

[Soldat12thSS]

I just want to say, shoot with both guns and you have no doubt which is better
It is Suomi, and personally I'd rather take MP38/40 than Thompson.
BUT, I haven't been on frontline with those, so I speak only about shooting.

Scharf
btw: 9,00mm kills...this is like young hunters talking "do I need 12/89 shotgun to duckhunt.... old ones do the same with 12/70 or 20/76" ( I speak about the time when we used lead, not some tin,molybden,wismut/bismuth-crap )

Just my thoughts

Oh yes Finnish lobby

Like I said Thompson M1928, best firepower, ergonomy and quality of manufacture.

Note: Like I said, M1928, not M1928M1 or M1 or M1A1

The 45 APC round is one of the best man stoping pistol caliber ever made so its only logical that a Sub-Machine gun carrying that caliber would work quite well. And of course its Bad boy american Ganster look makes not only effective but very cool gun to have

[Topspeed]

Could the German owners of the Tikkakoski Ltd. have been one reason behind the British desicion not to adopt the Suomi SMG? Or was it just the issue of the Finnish Government and Aimo Lahti?

You keep talking about mute argument. Britis copied German gun anyway. They could easily copy Suomi if they chose so. No problem

Hear our great expert here! Thank you for your (always) kind words. I think your opinions are based on your own (non existing?) experience on SMGs and especially on the m/31 Suomi SMG?

The problem in "copying" is not that easy you think. For example Finnish companies "copied" British aircraft (Karhumäki Bros. deHavilland Moth) without a licence or produced during the war without paying licence fees (VL Blenheim I and IV bombers). After all these fees had to be paid after the war. Also British should have had to pay on each produced Suomi SMG. After the war Finns copied and developed, based on AK-47 Kalashnikov, an improved assault rifle m/62. The original Kalashnikovs were bought from Poland and no licence fees were paid to Soviets!! By choosing a German weapon for their "starting point" British simply could ignore any extra licence fees.

Trade policy actually plays an important role behind the weapons trade. In the 1930's Finns bought British weapons because our export exceeded our import from UK. Thus it is clear "the best" were not necessarily obtained but the most
meaningful just to balance the mutual trade. After all those who made the actual decisions in obtaining SMGs in UK kept these in mind despite of the technical test results. I think we can't in most cases know these actual arguments. And although the British did something we can't either say they chose the best SMG. They just chose the most reasonable option available then.

I think this would be clear anough also for our "Captain"?

I had no idea Karhumäki bros copied their Moths ???

[Trackhead M2]

No doubt Thopmson M1928 offers best firepower, outstanding ergonomy and quality of manufacture. Clearly the best submachine gun available during WWII.
It offered modern features like pistol grip, forward pistol grip, hi capacity feeding device, chambered in meaningful caliber and etc.

Dear HK,
You will find no bigger fan of the "Chicago Typewriter" than me; it is a sound design, uses a man stopping round, and holds up under field conditions. Its replacement in US service the M-3 is an attempt to clone the British Sten Gun in .45 ACP. The results are a failed cloning experiment. If you are looking for an overall champ; cheap to produce, good round, a cyclic rate which is high enough to be effective while low enough to make carrying enough ammo without a vehicle, and field survior: the Sten Gun wins.
Strike Swifty,
TH-M2

[ChristopherPerrien]

No doubt Thopmson M1928 offers best firepower, outstanding ergonomy and quality of manufacture. Clearly the best submachine gun available during WWII.
It offered modern features like pistol grip, forward pistol grip, hi capacity feeding device, chambered in meaningful caliber and etc.

Dear HK,
You will find no bigger fan of the "Chicago Typewriter" than me; it is a sound design, uses a man stopping round, and holds up under field conditions. Its replacement in US service the M-3 is an attempt to clone the British Sten Gun in .45 ACP. The results are a failed cloning experiment. If you are looking for an overall champ; cheap to produce, good round, a cyclic rate which is high enough to be effective while low enough to make carrying enough ammo without a vehicle, and field survior: the Sten Gun wins.
Strike Swifty,
TH-M2

Nah, STEN guns had a somewhat reputation as not "reliable", they jammed. As to cheaper , I venture to guess the M3 was slightly cheaper than a STEN and a little more reliable. If you lose an m3 in the US army they cost $6.00 to replace, whereas even an M1911 will cost you $11.00

And if you have handled both fully loaded, the Grease Gun at least feels like a gun, the Sten feels like you are holding a lopsided pipe thingamajig.

As to cheapest SMG and probably the 3rd best overall( behind the Fin SMG and the M1- also the two most expensive/well made SMG's), I think that would be the Pssh-41-43, A fine weapon and VERY cheap. Overall i give them the best rating for WWII, all things (economics,effectiveness, reliability) considered.

[Trackhead M2]

No doubt Thopmson M1928 offers best firepower, outstanding ergonomy and quality of manufacture. Clearly the best submachine gun available during WWII.
It offered modern features like pistol grip, forward pistol grip, hi capacity feeding device, chambered in meaningful caliber and etc.

Dear HK,
You will find no bigger fan of the "Chicago Typewriter" than me; it is a sound design, uses a man stopping round, and holds up under field conditions. Its replacement in US service the M-3 is an attempt to clone the British Sten Gun in .45 ACP. The results are a failed cloning experiment. If you are looking for an overall champ; cheap to produce, good round, a cyclic rate which is high enough to be effective while low enough to make carrying enough ammo without a vehicle, and field survior: the Sten Gun wins.
Strike Swifty,
TH-M2

Nah, STEN guns had a somewhat reputation as not "reliable", they jammed. As to cheaper , I venture to guess the M3 was slightly cheaper than a STEN and a little more reliable. If you lose an m3 in the US army they cost $6.00 to replace, whereas even an M1911 will cost you $11.00

And if you have handled both fully loaded, the Grease Gun at least feels like a gun, the Sten feels like you are holding a lopsided pipe thingamajig.

As to cheapest SMG and probably the 3rd best overall( behind the Fin SMG and the M1- also the two most expensive/well made SMG's), I think that would be the Pssh-41-43, A fine weapon and VERY cheap. Overall i give them the best rating for WWII, all things (economics,effectiveness, reliability) considered.

Dear CP,
At Canada's Long Branch Arsenal in 1944 a Sten Gun cost $ 4.00; I don't know if that was USD or CD, but for the money it wasn't a bad disposable well suited to dropping to arm resistance groups.
Strike Swiftly,
TH-M2

[ChristopherPerrien]

No doubt Thopmson M1928 offers best firepower, outstanding ergonomy and quality of manufacture. Clearly the best submachine gun available during WWII.
It offered modern features like pistol grip, forward pistol grip, hi capacity feeding device, chambered in meaningful caliber and etc.

Dear HK,
You will find no bigger fan of the "Chicago Typewriter" than me; it is a sound design, uses a man stopping round, and holds up under field conditions. Its replacement in US service the M-3 is an attempt to clone the British Sten Gun in .45 ACP. The results are a failed cloning experiment. If you are looking for an overall champ; cheap to produce, good round, a cyclic rate which is high enough to be effective while low enough to make carrying enough ammo without a vehicle, and field survior: the Sten Gun wins.
Strike Swifty,
TH-M2

Nah, STEN guns had a somewhat reputation as not "reliable", they jammed. As to cheaper , I venture to guess the M3 was slightly cheaper than a STEN and a little more reliable. If you lose an m3 in the US army they cost $6.00 to replace, whereas even an M1911 will cost you $11.00

And if you have handled both fully loaded, the Grease Gun at least feels like a gun, the Sten feels like you are holding a lopsided pipe thingamajig.

As to cheapest SMG and probably the 3rd best overall( behind the Fin SMG and the M1- also the two most expensive/well made SMG's), I think that would be the Pssh-41-43, A fine weapon and VERY cheap. Overall i give them the best rating for WWII, all things (economics,effectiveness, reliability) considered.

Dear CP,
At Canada's Long Branch Arsenal in 1944 a Sten Gun cost $ 4.00; I don't know if that was USD or CD, but for the money it wasn't a bad disposable well suited to dropping to arm resistance groups.
Strike Swiftly,
TH-M2

Gotcha, my prices for the M3 and M1911 were based on replacement costs in the late 1980's due to people losing them and/or having them run over WITH A TANK, I actually do not know/remember the costs as manufactured back in the 1940'sfor an M3.

I forgot , track head.

[Trackhead M2]

No doubt Thopmson M1928 offers best firepower, outstanding ergonomy and quality of manufacture. Clearly the best submachine gun available during WWII.
It offered modern features like pistol grip, forward pistol grip, hi capacity feeding device, chambered in meaningful caliber and etc.

Dear HK,
You will find no bigger fan of the "Chicago Typewriter" than me; it is a sound design, uses a man stopping round, and holds up under field conditions. Its replacement in US service the M-3 is an attempt to clone the British Sten Gun in .45 ACP. The results are a failed cloning experiment. If you are looking for an overall champ; cheap to produce, good round, a cyclic rate which is high enough to be effective while low enough to make carrying enough ammo without a vehicle, and field survior: the Sten Gun wins.
Strike Swifty,
TH-M2

Nah, STEN guns had a somewhat reputation as not "reliable", they jammed. As to cheaper , I venture to guess the M3 was slightly cheaper than a STEN and a little more reliable. If you lose an m3 in the US army they cost $6.00 to replace, whereas even an M1911 will cost you $11.00

And if you have handled both fully loaded, the Grease Gun at least feels like a gun, the Sten feels like you are holding a lopsided pipe thingamajig.

As to cheapest SMG and probably the 3rd best overall( behind the Fin SMG and the M1- also the two most expensive/well made SMG's), I think that would be the Pssh-41-43, A fine weapon and VERY cheap. Overall i give them the best rating for WWII, all things (economics,effectiveness, reliability) considered.

Dear CP,
At Canada's Long Branch Arsenal in 1944 a Sten Gun cost $ 4.00; I don't know if that was USD or CD, but for the money it wasn't a bad disposable well suited to dropping to arm resistance groups.
Strike Swiftly,
TH-M2

Gotcha, my prices for the M3 and M1911 were based on replacement costs in the late 1980's due to people losing them and/or having them run over WITH A TANK, I actually do not know/remember the costs as manufactured back in the 1940'sfor an M3.

I forgot , track head.

Dear CP,
I wasn't trying to gig anyone. By the way; M-60's or M-1 Abrams' when you treadheaded? Take a Look the Roberts Armory Website if you'd like to see some of the units working WW 2 tanks and vehicles in action. If your are in the midwest we have a reenactment coming up in Lowell, Indiana the weekend of May 5th and you can see it live.
Strike Swiftly,
TH-M2

[Satter]

While I love German weapons for how cool they look the best was the PPSH-41 IMO. Let's look at what we already know. Easy to manufacturer with Chrome lined barrel which could take the crappiest made ammo. In this case it was the 7.62x25. It could also fire the Mauser 7.63 round. Loose fitting parts that could not stick together in freezing weather. Extremely easy to field strip and maintain as the receiver hinged open to reveal just a simple bolt and spring setup. Cycle rate ranged from 900 to 1000 rpm. A rudimentary compensator helped to steady the climb of the muzzle. The only downside was its weight. 12lbs when loaded with the drum magazine. The "Papasha" was not only highly favored by the Soviets, but also highly regarded by the Germans who wrote a manual on how to use it.

[Clive Mortimore]

Similarly although the successful Australian Owen SMG had a top-feed mag and a quick-change barrel like Bren; standard SAW of the time; it hardly makes the Owen a SAW. Since the crew-served feature was such an integral part of the SAWs used in WWII one can only wonder why you have such troubles differentiating between individual and crew-served weapons (or basing your text on credible sources and facts).


Markus

"Well Bruce, it took 16 pages to get the Owen mentioned"
"No worries Blue. if it takes another 16 pages for everyone to realise what a good gun it is then we have more time for some beers."
"Good idea mate"

[Trackhead M2]

Similarly although the successful Australian Owen SMG had a top-feed mag and a quick-change barrel like Bren; standard SAW of the time; it hardly makes the Owen a SAW. Since the crew-served feature was such an integral part of the SAWs used in WWII one can only wonder why you have such troubles differentiating between individual and crew-served weapons (or basing your text on credible sources and facts).


Markus

"Well Bruce, it took 16 pages to get the Owen mentioned"
"No worries Blue. if it takes another 16 pages for everyone to realise what a good gun it is then we have more time for some beers."
"Good idea mate"

Dear CM,
Sorry for the delay. The thread bogged down over cartridges and national pride. The Owen and Austen guns deserve as much mention as the others. It's a good thing we didn't get into the Charlton Conversion of the SMLE and Pedersen Device being installed on M-1903's.
Strike Swiftly,
TH-M2