The best sub-machinegun?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

The best sub-machinegun?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> The best sub-machinegun?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

The best sub-machinegun? - 8/7/2001 7:31:00 PM

Rundstedt

Posts: 149
Joined: 7/23/2001
From: Sweden
Status: offline

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. :D Regards, Rundstedt

_____________________________

"We never underestimated the Red Army, contrary to the general conception. The last German military attach� in Moscow, General K�string - a very competent man - had kept us well-informed about the condition of the Red Army. But Hitler refused to believe h

Post #: 1

- 8/7/2001 8:11:00 PM

Belisarius

Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline

I guess it depends who you ask, Rundstedt. ;) A good many, especially Resistance and partisans, would say that the Sten was best. :P 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.

_____________________________

Got StuG?

(in reply to Rundstedt)

Post #: 2

- 8/7/2001 8:36:00 PM

bumper

Posts: 21
Joined: 5/15/2000
From: Hilversum, The Netherlands
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

(in reply to Rundstedt)

Post #: 3

- 8/7/2001 8:48:00 PM

JTGEN

Posts: 1279
Joined: 11/21/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

(in reply to Rundstedt)

Post #: 4

- 8/7/2001 8:52:00 PM

Larry Holt

Posts: 1969
Joined: 3/31/2000
From: Atlanta, GA 30068
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Never take counsel of your fears.

(in reply to Rundstedt)

Post #: 5

- 8/7/2001 9:33:00 PM

mucius

Posts: 14
Joined: 8/21/2000
From: germany
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

derint dum metuant

(in reply to Rundstedt)

Post #: 6

- 8/7/2001 9:34:00 PM

Jeff_Ewing

Posts: 45
Joined: 7/16/2001
From: Staten Island, NY, wargame captial of the US
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

(in reply to Rundstedt)

Post #: 7

- 8/7/2001 9:46:00 PM

Hot Shot

Posts: 21
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Tenerife
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

(in reply to Rundstedt)

Post #: 8

- 8/7/2001 9:57:00 PM

Grumble

Posts: 471
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Omaha, NE, USA
Status: offline

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....

_____________________________

"...these go up to eleven."
Nigel Tufnel

(in reply to Rundstedt)

Post #: 9

- 8/7/2001 10:18:00 PM

mucius

Posts: 14
Joined: 8/21/2000
From: germany
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

derint dum metuant

(in reply to Rundstedt)

Post #: 10

- 8/7/2001 10:19:00 PM

Belisarius

Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline

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?

_____________________________

Got StuG?

(in reply to Rundstedt)

Post #: 11

- 8/7/2001 10:22:00 PM

mucius

Posts: 14
Joined: 8/21/2000
From: germany
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

derint dum metuant

(in reply to Rundstedt)

Post #: 12

- 8/7/2001 10:41:00 PM

mucius

Posts: 14
Joined: 8/21/2000
From: germany
Status: offline

@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

_____________________________

derint dum metuant

(in reply to Rundstedt)

Post #: 13

- 8/7/2001 10:45:00 PM

Gen. Maczek

Posts: 72
Joined: 5/9/2001
From: Tychy, Poland
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

(in reply to Rundstedt)

Post #: 14

- 8/7/2001 11:12:00 PM

Hot Shot

Posts: 21
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Tenerife
Status: offline

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 ;) )

_____________________________

(in reply to Rundstedt)

Post #: 15

- 8/7/2001 11:16:00 PM

CaptainBrian

Posts: 59
Joined: 12/27/2000
From: California
Status: offline

quote:

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.

_____________________________

CaptainBrian

(in reply to Rundstedt)

Post #: 16

- 8/8/2001 2:02:00 AM

TheOriginalOverlord

Posts: 440
Joined: 6/20/2000
From: The Marines
Status: offline

quote:

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. :mad: 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! :D

_____________________________

Semper Fi!

Jeremy

(in reply to Rundstedt)

Post #: 17

- 8/8/2001 2:20:00 AM

TheOriginalOverlord

Posts: 440
Joined: 6/20/2000
From: The Marines
Status: offline

quote:

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.

_____________________________

Semper Fi!

Jeremy

(in reply to Rundstedt)

Post #: 18

- 8/8/2001 2:51:00 AM

General Mayhem

Posts: 180
Joined: 6/13/2001
From: Country of six thousand lakes and one truth
Status: offline

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 ]

_____________________________

----------------------------- Sex, rags and and rock'n roll! ------------------------------

(in reply to Rundstedt)

Post #: 19

- 8/8/2001 3:03:00 AM

General Mayhem

Posts: 180
Joined: 6/13/2001
From: Country of six thousand lakes and one truth
Status: offline

quote:

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 ]

_____________________________

----------------------------- Sex, rags and and rock'n roll! ------------------------------

(in reply to Rundstedt)

Post #: 20

- 8/8/2001 4:12:00 AM

Gen. Maczek

Posts: 72
Joined: 5/9/2001
From: Tychy, Poland
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Overlord: 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.

:D Yup, thats the way to solve it, but at the risk of being severely chewed off by 'higher authority'...My uncle said everyone knew of this method, but it wasnt in any manual, and most were scared to do it as it was 'outlawed' (after all Soviet weapons couldnt possibly be flawed :rolleyes: )...Also not too handy if you found yourself having to fire the weapon in a hurry. Regards. Gen. Maczek [ August 07, 2001: Message edited by: Gen. Maczek ]

_____________________________

(in reply to Rundstedt)

Post #: 21

- 8/8/2001 7:14:00 AM

Tombstone

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline

I heard that the only reason why Sturmgewehr was called machinenpistole was to ok the project with hitler or something. He was against the development of the assault rifle or something. Just cause I call it a thing doesn't make it a thing. Tomo

_____________________________

(in reply to Rundstedt)

Post #: 22

- 8/8/2001 8:05:00 AM

troopie

Posts: 996
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Directly above the centre of the Earth.
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Tombstone: I heard that the only reason why Sturmgewehr was called machinenpistole was to ok the project with hitler or something. He was against the development of the assault rifle or something. Just cause I call it a thing doesn't make it a thing. Tomo

Hitler wanted the Wehrmacht to keep using the Mauser 98k. After all, if a bolt action rifle had been good enough for him... I'd say the UMD 1942. A very reliable SMG, easy to manufacture but for some reason not issued to US forces. I've fired the MP38, Thompson, PPSh, and Sten, and of those I'll take the PPSh. The Suomi may be better, but I have no experience with it. troopie

_____________________________

Pamwe Chete

(in reply to Rundstedt)

Post #: 23

- 8/8/2001 8:41:00 AM

Bonzo

Posts: 676
Joined: 9/3/2000
From: Peace River, AB, Canada
Status: offline

Hi General Mayhem,

quote:

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.

The SMG I think you are referring to is the PPD-1934/38 that was produced in the USSR from 1934 to 1940. It had an action derived from the German MP18 and the magazine is a direct copy from the soumi. It does bear an external resemblance to the Finnish weapon, but is mechanically different. Personally, my 'vote' for the finest SMG of WW2 would have to be the American UD M'42. A fine weapon produced in small numbers by the Marlin Firearms Company & relegated to the back pages of history.

_____________________________

Robert (Bonzo) Lindsay, Webmaster 28th (North-west) Battalion Headquarters Main http://www.nwbattalion.com E-mail

(in reply to Rundstedt)

Post #: 24

- 8/8/2001 10:05:00 AM

troopie

Posts: 996
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Directly above the centre of the Earth.
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Bonzo: Hi General Mayhem, The SMG I think you are referring to is the PPD-1934/38 that was produced in the USSR from 1934 to 1940. It had an action derived from the German MP18 and the magazine is a direct copy from the soumi. It does bear an external resemblance to the Finnish weapon, but is mechanically different. Personally, my 'vote' for the finest SMG of WW2 would have to be the American UD M'42. A fine weapon produced in small numbers by the Marlin Firearms Company & relegated to the back pages of history.

Thanks that's the one I was trying to think of. troopie

_____________________________

Pamwe Chete

(in reply to Rundstedt)

Post #: 25

- 8/8/2001 11:03:00 AM

Mike Rothery

Posts: 180
Joined: 10/9/2000
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

Any SMG that can't be relied upon to fire reliably just shouldn't rate......amazingly this would confine about half the SMG's ever made to the dustbin of history. I love the talk about the "mystical" stopping power of the .45 ACP cartridge, which has been proven beyond doubt to be a really poor performer in its military full metal jacket guise......short range curve, poor penetration, low energy transfer. An SMG for infantry can be larger and heavier than that designed for vehicle crews, and would normally have a longer barrel. That's why the UZI did well an SMG for vehicle crews, but quickly got replaced by assault rifles for the grunts. In Australia, the only SMG the Army was ever happy with was the Owen Machine Carbine. The Thompson and Patchett were only issued in small numbers, the AUSTEN (modified STEN) never saw combat, and only the Owen was kept post-war. After going to WWII, Korea, Malaya, Borneo and Vietnam the small number of Owens was finally worn out and were replaced by the F1 (a modified Sterling). The F1 was never a real success, and only saw limited use in Vietnam, mainly as a crew weapon. The Owen was also seen in the hands of British troops during the Malayan Emergency. The problems with the Owen were caused by it being too well made. It was slow to produce, a bit on the heavy side, and it had a fairly small cone of fire (you have to really wave it around to spread the fire). However it was reliable, accurate, well made, and very strong. But the proof of its worth comes from the simple fact that it went to 5 wars and saw frontline service for over 20 years.

_____________________________

MikeR

(in reply to Rundstedt)

Post #: 26

- 8/8/2001 12:07:00 PM

swagman

Posts: 103
Joined: 8/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline

I recall a digger who fought in the Pacific saying the Australian Owen SMG was the best, atleast in that theatre. It was simple, light and reliable. In addition it was easy to clean and would keep on firing regardless of mud or water. In the Pacific where troops often had to carry their own supplies for long distances in appalling conditions, a light weapon was extremely important. The Thompson was heavy and its ammo was heavy...above all its recoil kicked up...so that it was difficult to maintain aim or get a controlled arc of fire. The beauty of the Owen was it kicked to one side, so it actually created its own arc of fire...no digger would EVER throw away his Owen.

_____________________________

(in reply to Rundstedt)

Post #: 27

- 8/8/2001 4:31:00 PM

Belisarius

Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by troopie: Hitler wanted the Wehrmacht to keep using the Mauser 98k. After all, if a bolt action rifle had been good enough for him... I'd say the UMD 1942. A very reliable SMG, easy to manufacture but for some reason not issued to US forces. I've fired the MP38, Thompson, PPSh, and Sten, and of those I'll take the PPSh. The Suomi may be better, but I have no experience with it. troopie

I think one of the main reasons for Hitler's opposition to the StGw44 was yet ANOTHER kind of ammo. He wanted a weapon that could use the standard Infanteripatrone 7.92x57. As the truth dawned on him, he cancelled the project but at that time it was already being in front line use, and the military convinced him that the weapon was needed. Note: StGw44 uses the Kurzpatrone 7.92x33 ammo.

_____________________________

Got StuG?

(in reply to Rundstedt)

Post #: 28

- 8/8/2001 5:50:00 PM

Rundstedt

Posts: 149
Joined: 7/23/2001
From: Sweden
Status: offline

This is how I would describe the four most abundant sub-machineguns issued to troops during the war: Sten Gun; Cheap and easy to maufacture, poor performance and unsafe. MP-40; Easy to handle and adequate penetration values, somewhat expensive and prone to jamming. PPsh ("The Russian One"); Cheap to manufacture and high rate of fire, poor stopping power and accuracy. Thompson; Good stopping power and reliable, very expensive and quite poor penetration values. Note: I've listed two advantages and two disadvantages with each weapon. :) Regards, Rundstedt :D

_____________________________

(in reply to Rundstedt)

Post #: 29

- 8/8/2001 5:51:00 PM

Jarkko

Posts: 75
Joined: 1/6/2001
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Bonzo: Hi General Mayhem, The SMG I think you are referring to is the PPD-1934/38 that was produced in the USSR from 1934 to 1940. It had an action derived from the German MP18 and the magazine is a direct copy from the soumi. It does bear an external resemblance to the Finnish weapon, but is mechanically different. Personally, my 'vote' for the finest SMG of WW2 would have to be the American UD M'42. A fine weapon produced in small numbers by the Marlin Firearms Company & relegated to the back pages of history.

Actually, even more exact Soviet copy of Finnish 9mm Suomi M/31 SMG existed. Soviets made a small number of almost exact copy in Leningrad during seige, I think it was called "karelo-finskij automat m.42" (aka KF-42). Anyway, Suomi SMG is my favorite WWII SMG. Quite a good pages about it: http://guns.connect.fi/gow/suomi1.html

_____________________________

(in reply to Rundstedt)

Post #: 30