who made the best cc weapons in WW2?

[FrodeMk3]

Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Funny that you spend so much time discussing the calibers and muzzle velocities. You should look at battle records instead.

The Suomi kp was extremely rugged and reliable with 9mm ammo which everyone here seem to diss completely. Yet the patrols wielding it were nicknamed the white death by the russians. The weapon had a low recoil, relatively high fire rate with a high ammo capacity and it was accurate for what it was. And it proved extremely effective in combat.

Tactics' get to be another discussion entirely, MrRipley. They tend to get left out in a discussion based solely on the technical aspects' of the gun itself.

Battle records' should really reflect the soldiers themselves, in that case. For example something technically obsolete like a P-40 suddenly becomes a war-winning weapon when you go by unit merit, such as the American AVG.

[Charon]

The Soumi's chambers' the 9mm, right? Probably the major one right there.

I had thought it was also 7.62 x 25.

In any case, the SMG category seems to be one where you had the greatest parity among weapons, with all sides but the Japanese fielding some reliable and effective weapons. The Russians and Germans making the most use of them it would seem.

Charon

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by Charon
I had thought it was also 7.62 x 25.

In any case, the SMG category seems to be one where you had the greatest parity among weapons, with all sides but the Japanese fielding some reliable and effective weapons. The Russians and Germans making the most use of them it would seem.

Charon

The first iterations of the Sten gun (british) we're not at all reliable nor effective.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
The first iterations of the Sten gun (british) we're not at all reliable nor effective.

The Sten gun was a panic response to the lack of SMGs. In 1940 only the royal navy of the british armed forces used SMG's, namely Thompsons. There wasn't enough SMG's for the army and Thompsons were too expensive and bulky, which also were the only choice after germans had invaded most of the Europe. Instead of buying bulky Thompsons for a high price the brits quickly came up with the Sten gun - Which initially had alot of problems due to the brits inexperience with SMG's and lack of time. However it was inexpensive and it could be manufactured with simplier machinery, which meant a quick retooling of the factories. The production costs and the complexity of the machinery are important in a war, especially for an isolated country.

Thompson is actually quite a poor SMG, even after the introduction of the less bulkier M1A1 which was to be more suitable for the battle conditions. It was still expensive to manufacture, heavy, not as accurate as 7.62mm and 9mm SMG's and had a bigger recoil.

[lasersailor184]

They didn't take the Thompson to the 1000 yard matches at Camp Perry for ****s and giggles.  That's not what it's meant for.  Under 50 yards, where it had all of it's power, it had no problems with accuracy.  

Yes, it was expensive.  It being heavy meant the recoil wasn't as bad.  The recoil was a little heavy, but manageable.  That is unless you were a limp wristed European.

Very few people could get up from a .45 with a smile on their face.  No one was getting up after getting clipped by several .45's or more.  The same can't be said for the 7.62x25 or 9mm.


The Thompson was one of the best SMG's to cross that war.  But of course, since it was American ingenuity, it sucks in your eyes.  Especially since it helped to win that war.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

The Thompson is anything but poor. It is still one of the finest and most effective  SMG's ever produced. It also remains VERY desirable, and very collectible. Thompsons command a premium price, and are sought after by collectors every where.

As to recoil and accuracy, I find the Thompson to be accurate, powerful, and manageable.

[B@tfinkV]

they didnt call brit infantry 'tommy' for no reason

[AquaShrimp]

Lets not forget that the M1 Garand has the gas port at nearly the end of the barrel, making it have less muzzle jump than other similar calibered rifles.  This makes it extremely accurate.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
The Thompson was one of the best SMG's to cross that war.  But of course, since it was American ingenuity, it sucks in your eyes.  Especially since it helped to win that war.

Wow, that's quite an argument, it gives a whole new perspective to the definition of a best weapon.

By the new definition I choose the fist of homo sapiens as the best weapon, because it helped to win that war. The bare fist weapon was utilized by the russians and it was the best because, by the definition, they helped to win that war.

Anyway, I'd like to see you guys haul around a tommy gun instead of PPSh for couple of years in a war. Not to mention that due to the price, your division will have less SMG's than the enemy.

[FrodeMk3]

Originally posted by Fishu
Wow, that's quite an argument, it gives a whole new perspective to the definition of a best weapon.

By the new definition I choose the fist of homo sapiens as the best weapon, because it helped to win that war. The bare fist weapon was utilized by the russians and it was the best because, by the definition, they helped to win that war.

Anyway, I'd like to see you guys haul around a tommy gun instead of PPSh for couple of years in a war. Not to mention that due to the price, your division will have less SMG's than the enemy.

I'll see your fist, and raise you the backs' and brains' of American Industry-outproducing the Axis' is what ultimately won the conflict.

The Thompson was heavy-But when being fired on Full-auto, that weight works to advantage, in helping to dampen the recoil.

America could afford the Thomson's-And whoever didn't get one, got the excellent M1 Garand, so that's a win-win right there.

[AquaShrimp]

I read an account of a soldier on D-day, after disembarking from his landing craft in chest deep water, who went to fire his Thompson.  He pulled the trigger but nothing happened.  The magazine had fallen out of the gun on its own due to a design flaw!

[Viking]

Our all time favorite Gunny compares the Thomson to the Schmeisser:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuhQdvkORu4


Can't argue with that conclusion!




But however good the Thomson and the MP40 was, neither can match the PPSh-41 in sheer volume of fire (and look how stable it is):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VQpJj1TF7M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggS-UZIpezs&NR=1

Can't argue with that.

[AquaShrimp]

Tommy guns had drum magazines too.

[Viking]

Sure, but not that rate of fire. And not that controllability.

[AquaShrimp]

PPSh-41 Rate of fire 900 rounds/min  

Thompson submachine gun  Rate of fire 600-1200 rpm, depending upon
model

The Tommy gun was originally made in 9mm.  Super high rate of fire, low recoil in this caliber.  It only began having teething problems in .45 caliber.