• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Thompson vs MP40 vs PPSh41

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#41
7.62x25 has the same muzzle velocity of a 357 Magnum cartridge. It is one of the few pistol cartridges that will penetrate body armor. The GOVT. considered banning the importation of pistols and cartridges fearing it would be used as a cop killer.

Back in WWII though. Their was no body armor unless you were in a tank. So a .45 was the best pistol, or SMG cartridge of the three. The only advantage the other two had was a flatter trajectory.

As for the Sten. We've discussed that already. The MP40 is superior, and fires the same cartridge. So there is no reason to have it here. I'm not saying the Sten isn't a good weapon. Just not the best.
 
Upvote 0
#42
There was *some* body armor around, it was mostly experimental stuff if I recall though, and amounted to sheets of metal that covered some of your body. Kinda like armor plates instead of tactical armor like we think of today. I know I've seen pictures around somewhere (at work or I'd link).


Thompson all the way though, to be sure. Love Soviet weaponry, but the Thompson is just an all around better gun IMO. Compared to either of them, the MP40 is as cheap as it...well...is :)
 
Upvote 0
#44
FatPartizan said:
Hm, hundred cartridges for Thompson how many weigh? Thompson how many weighs? Cop do not do marches of long 70 kilometers. Cop do not run in attack after tanks. For gangsters and policemen only. In army it could get only if there was no choice.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Thompson and the .45 cartridge are heavier than the other two. That is the same argument people use for the M16 and the 5.56 cartridge. I'd rather have fewer cartridges with more stopping power per shot.
 
Upvote 0
#45
Keep in mind that both the Thompson and the PPSh-41 were much more likely to be issued with magazines than drums. The Thompson could not even use the drums starting with the much more common M1 variant, and the PPSh starting in 1942 was issued more and more with stick magazines and less with the drums, despite what video games tell you. Once the stick magazines were introduced the PPSh was normally issued with only one match-numbered drum with the rest being 35 round magazines. That says a lot about how finicky the drums were! So basically you lose the high-capacity advantage after only one drum.

The higher velocity is not a huge deal imo. Open bolt smg's are not very accurate at range anyway, so a slightly flatter trajectory isn't going to help that much. Also, muzzle velocity does not always equate to more stopping power. A short, stubby fmj pistol bullet has no way to transfer that extra energy to its target, even if it tumbles it doesn't help much. Bigger bullets make bigger holes, hence the American preference for the .45 ACP as a 'better stopper.' The stopping power of small, high velocity pistol rounds increases greatly with modern ammo that is designed for expansion.

All three guns are heavy, robust submachine guns by modern standards, and are very controllable in automatic fire. The Thompson is still the heaviest of the bunch, all of them are over 10 pounds, but none of them are light weights. It's too tough to decide between them without any other details on the situation you'd use it. If you were going to hand me one of them today for my own recreational use, I'd choose the Thompson, mostly because I'm an American, no other reason.
 
Upvote 0
#46
The body armor was overlapping steel plates, but it wouldn't even stop 9mm under 50 yards... which is where you'll see the most use in an SMG. Remember: the short sight radius and basic inaccuracy means you shouldn't be taking shots much past that and expecting to hit.

On the folding stock deal... the only reason to do so is to make the gun more compact for transporting it. In combat it's going to be fired with the stock extended, because it's not going to be very easy to aim without a stock. Even though these guns are designed to be used in full-auto mode, you still want to aim them, and controlling them without the stock would be a royal *****. Even in tight quarters, their lengths are short enough that you should be able to pie pretty much any corner properly without putting your muzzle around it before you've checked the whole room.

An SMG, no matter who made it, is meant to be used in short range. It's going to be automatic to enhance the stopping power of the pistol rounds they fire. While this means that stopping power isn't AS important, it's still close-quarters combat, where stopping power is ALL important. That's why vs un-armored enemies, most people prefer a combat shotgun.
 
Upvote 0
#49
Lo and behold, OP has added a page on the CZ52, and they tested it on a kpot vs .357 mag, 9mm and .45 ACP (oh, and 7.62x39 and 5.56, which everybody knew would blow thru the helmet.)

Conclusions? 7.62x25 does go through kevlar better than .45 ball or 9mm ball (both failed to penetrate the kpot versus the CZ52.) However... It doesn't pack much punch when it comes to doing damage to an enemy's tissues. (Top honors for that among the pistols in that test would go to the .357.)


Stopping power out of our three? .45 ACP. Bigger, heavier, does more damage. Best penetrator? 7.62 Tokarev. Good balance of the two? 9mm.

But then, body armor wasn't an issue in WWII. I'm standing by the Thompson.
 
Upvote 0
#50
It's all speculation that goes on for decades, usually with everyone voting for his country's gun(s). None of us has shot all of them. Moreover, noone has used, abused and his life dependant on one of them.

One of my books says, that from a wider perspective, taking things like manufacturing costs etc. into consideration, the list goes:

1. PPS43 (cheapest, decent performance and reliability, more reasonable ROF than the PPSh41)
2. PPSh41 (obviously) and Sten (bad ergonomics, same problems as MP40, but unit costs are unmatched)
3. MP40 (relatively cheap, very comfortable to shoot, magazine problems) and M3A1 (not as Gucci as a Thompson but comes at a much more reasonable price)
4. Thompson M1A1 (probably best finishing of them all, not a wartime weapon, too complicated to manufacture)

And these rediculous effective range stuff that spills from world.guns.ru over the whole net is just plain rubbish. What is "effective range" in that context anyway? Distance at which a bullet still penetrates? Distance at which a gun can hit a man sized target with decent probability? If so what probability? The whole concept is fishy to say the least.

Anyway, stating an MP40 had twice the "effective range" (whatever that means) of a Thompson is simply wrong. Moreover i can't help but laugh at the supposedly 200m effective range of a PPSh41. For suppression fire maybe, yeah, but the other two guns could that as well at that range.
 
Upvote 0
#51
You're all wrong.

M1 Thompson - My grandfather used on of these in Papua during World War Two. He had to keep it wrapped in an oily rag and would only pull it out seconds before a contact. It was far too finicky for any kind of extreme conditions.

Mp40 - Cheap to build, well designed, but bloody uncomfortable to shoot when hot. The whole thing heats up and means you can only really hold it from the magazine, and it does bad things for feeding.

PPsh41 - Cheap, nasty little round that can zip through just about anything. It's up there, for sure, but isn't half as amazing a firearm as what the books would make you believe.

The Owen gun was the best sub-machine gun of World War Two.
 
Upvote 0
#52
Not that the owen was necessarily a bad gun but I would never be caught even dead with it, it is the ugliest machine pistol that I've ever seen.:eek: It looks like what might have come out had the sten(ugly as hell) and the thompson mated. Also I'm not in favor of a magazine on the top of the gun like that it looks like it would make reloading difficult and you couldn't fire concealed very well with that magazine sticking up into the air like it is. Sorry but I wish there was a smiley to show puking because in my opinion it would fit perfectly with my post.
 
Upvote 0
#55
Marlon said:
You're all wrong.


The Owen gun was the best sub-machine gun of World War Two.
Click to expand...


The Owen gun was OK but the bizarre clip arrangement limited its practicality.

For best SMG I would take either the Finnish Suomi or the Italian Beretta (early war models). They're head and shoulders above the rest. They were actually accurate out to a couple hundred yards and could even be used like a rifle.

The American Marlin was excellent too. Much better than the (overrated) Thompson.

As far as PPSh, MP40 or Thompson goes, it's a toss up. None are as good as the Suomi, Beretta or Marlin.
 
Upvote 0
#57
MP40 - Accurate and easy to control in full auto. Moderate magazine capacity.

PPSh41 - High rate of fire with high ammo capacity and easy to control.

Thompson - Over rated. Raddles too damn much. Making noise is the last thing I would want to do in close combat.

In the end it's a tie between the MP40 and PPSh41. I would take either one. If I was a Fin I would take the M31.
 
Upvote 0
#58
thedonster said:
For best SMG I would take either the Finnish Suomi or the Italian Beretta (early war models). They're head and shoulders above the rest. They were actually accurate out to a couple hundred yards and could even be used like a rifle.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt the Suomi could be used as effective as a rifle over a couple of hundred yards, considering it is using a 9mm. A quick internet check shows the Suomi clocking in at around 800-900 RPM, roughly the same as the PPSH-41. Although I have never handled the firearms in question, I don't understand how you can claim that a 9x19 will outperform 7.62x25mm over the course of a few hundred yards, given the TT's flatter trajectory and higher muzzle velocity.
 
Upvote 0
#59
Sichartshofen said:
MP40 - Accurate and easy to control in full auto. Moderate magazine capacity.

PPSh41 - High rate of fire with high ammo capacity and easy to control.

Thompson - Over rated. Raddles too damn much. Making noise is the last thing I would want to do in close combat.

In the end it's a tie between the MP40 and PPSh41. I would take either one. If I was a Fin I would take the M31.
Click to expand...

Rattling weapons aren't a bad thing. Loose internal tolerances make them more dirt and temperature tolerant. AK-series rifles have a lot of spare room inside them - they can get dragged through about anything and still cycle. AR-series rifles have very tight tolerances - they've gotten better, but you still don't want to slam your reciever into the mud, drag it around in said mud and then get in a gunfight.

Venkman: you can't rule it out entirely. There might be differences that add up. It's pretty well accepted that Finnish Mosin-Nagants are more accurate than the Soviet models. Things like barrel thickness and sight radius can add up big. So can ammunition quality (let's face it, Soviet quality control ****ed) and some other things.

Judging solely on the ammunition a weapon is using isn't the best way.
 
Upvote 0
#60
{YBBS}Sage said:
Venkman: you can't rule it out entirely. There might be differences that add up. It's pretty well accepted that Finnish Mosin-Nagants are more accurate than the Soviet models. Things like barrel thickness and sight radius can add up big. So can ammunition quality (let's face it, Soviet quality control ****ed) and some other things.

Judging solely on the ammunition a weapon is using isn't the best way.
Click to expand...

I know there are many factors that change both the quality and accuracy of a weapon. It's a given, and we all know the Russians are not known for their Quality Control Department. However, given the weapons in question, we are talking about some of the finest submachineguns manufactured during the war, both in effectiveness, and quality. 9x19 is simply not going to outperform 7.62x25 in ballistics, especially over a range of hundreds of feet. Except for the cartridge differential, the weapons are essentially the same, with the PPSH-41 'borrowing' some design concepts. Yeah there are a few things that change how dependable a weapon is, but in this case I don't think the Suomi outclasses the PPSH-41 by any means, especially being 'used as a rifle'.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu