I’d wonder why this propaganda, excuse me “training” movie was made. Perhaps soldiers (like my father) hated the grease gun, and this movie was made to convince them otherwise. If the M3 was obviously better, no propaganda would have been needed.
I’ve never fired any submachine gun, but remember that my father, who served in France, Belgium and Germany in 44-45, insisted that the grease gun was a piece of shit compared to the Thompson. He thought that it was poorly made and tended to jam. Fortunately, he was in an artillery battalion, so it was all academic.
I will grant you that Dad always cared about the looks of a gun, and that might have something to do with his lasting resentment at having to carry an M3.
Back in my younger days I got to fire both a Thompson and a M3A1 side by side, putting a couple of magazines through each. I can categorically state, without a doubt, that I can’t hit the floor with either one of them. The best I could do was to get most of the rounds to go “easterly, kinda.”
I agree that the standard of rifle practice (marksmanship and rate fo fire) was much higher in WWI than in later wars, but WWI was really an artillery war; 70% of casualties were caused by artillery, and only about 30% by small arms.
It is so damn simple to make one, it just uses a piece of steel tubing for the receiver. There are plans readily available and you cut out the full sized blueprint, wrap it around the tube and cut out the holes with a hand drill, saw and file.
There were several variations, and a variety of manufacturers, of the Sten gun. I’m sure there was some difference in quality between bare-bones ones some random guy made out of a pipe in a couple of hours, and well-manufactured post-war models.
There are fourth top of gun in this thread.
Lesser than a light machine gun, a submachine gun is involved in this thread because the sten is a submachine gun. The definition of submachine gun is that its designed to use piston rounds, which have lesser recoil
The sten is a submachine gun, the typical round for a sten is the 9x19mm Parabellum pistol round. See 9×19mm Parabellum - Wikipedia
The different is utterly clear in the energy of the round. Its ~500J vs ~1400J of a Nato round light machine gun.
These days there are also large pistol like things called personal defense weapons (rather ambiguous in name), and compact assault rifles (using Nato rifle round) , which encroach on the general territory (WRT barrel length, projectile speed, projectile energy, cartridge charge ) of submachine gun covered back when.
This topic reminds me of something related to the Thompson machine gun that I found quite odd would even be said. I read Dimitry Loza’s book about commanding Sherman tanks during WW2 which was quite interesting considering his previous experience in the T-34. He also did a interview titled “I Remember” that’s easy to find and discusses some things not talked about in his book. One thing brought up was about the Thompson gun supplied in the Sherman’s and I’ve been puzzled by it since. Here’s a quote from the interview:
“- Each Sherman came with two Thompson submachine guns, in caliber 11.43mm (.45 cal), a healthy cartridge indeed! But the submachine gun was worthless. We had several bad experiences with it. A few of our men who got into an argument were wearing padded jackets. It turned out that they fired at each other and the bullet buried itself in the padded jacket. So much for the worthless submachine gun. Take a German submachine gun with folding stock (MP-40 SMG by Erma -Valeri). We loved it for its compactness. The Thompson was big. You couldn’t turn around in the tank holding it.”
Seems hard to believe that padded jackets at relatively close range would stop .45 cal bullets? There were some parts of the book I also found a bit hard to believe but everything else makes sense and is totally plausible so a bit of a mixed bag. The only thing I can think of was if some of the .45 cal ammunition supplied to them was defective? Would such a thing produce those kind of results?
Ammunition powerful enough to cycle the weapon would tear up a padded jacket, along with the wearer, at close range. Anecdote is bullshit. One should take anything from Soviet descriptions of the war with a truckload of salt.
Yes, that makes sense. He did have pretty favorable comments to say about most of the American equipment supplied to them, especially the durability of the Sherman vs the T-34 when they did a pretty lengthy road march to Manchuria to battle the Japanese. Seems odd that he would make up something so silly but maybe it’s something as simple as him being drunk when the incident he mentions happened.
Nope, exactly the same if you use the surplus parts kits to obtain the barrel, bolt, stock, etc. Those parts are not regulated and could be purchased at shows or online. Now the latest versions may have different receiver designs then the early ones, that I don’t know. I have shot a home built MK III and it ran like a scalded cat on a hot tin roof in a hurricane.
Bolding mine. I suspect part of this difference (re:markmanship) is that in WWI, they where using bolt actions like the M1903 instead of the semi-auto M1 Garand.
Yes. And moreover it’s always been strange how many stories about .30 Carbine (7.6233mm) rounds failing to penetrate winter clothing when the US side was also wearing winter clothing (the UN side was suffering in the cold but of the 1950/51 winter campaign but the Communist side more so) and you don’t hear a lot of stories of the 7.6225mm Tokarev rounds fired by the Soviet type submachine guns ubiquitous with the North Korean forces bouncing off US soldiers. And, the most common SMG carried by the Chinese Peoples Volunteer forces in that campaign was…the Thompson*, a combination of weapons made in China (most Thompson’s in the world prior to WWII were Chinese copies), given as Lend Lease to the Nationalists during/after WWII and captured by the Communists, and those given directly by the US to the Communists during WWII. Not many stories at all of .45 rounds from CPV Thompson’s bouncing off US soldiers, like no such stories at all AFAIK.
*Later on in 1951 the Chinese forces in Korea were reequipped with mainly Soviet small arms. But in the initial 1950/51 winter campaign where the .30 carbine’s reputation took a big hit (for the real reason of less resistance to extreme cold than the M1 besides the ‘bounging off’ myth) their most common rifle among a wide variety was the Japanese Type 38, most common SMG the Thompson, no dominant LMG among a similar wide variety but many BAR’s (US and Belgian FN models).
One easy though not that strong form of argument is just to reject any information from a govt source you don’t like as ‘propaganda’. It’s not falsifiable. But I think the simplest explanation for that film is that that’s what would happen with typical soldiers firing at an exposed target at that range. The low cyclic rate of the M3, clear in the film, is an objective reason to think it was more controllable. Not optimal necessarily overall if suppressive fire was an important mission, which it was for such weapons. But for the set piece test in the film it would be.
The M3 was a POS in terms of materials and manufacturing standard compared to the Thompson even simplified WWII M1 Thompson. But see .30 carbine rounds bouncing off Communists. With due respect to individual WWII combatants common stories or beliefs weren’t always well founded. Especially if things get vague, like what does ‘POS’ mean exactly?
Another piece of evidence arguing against the idea that the M3 was ineffective was that it (M3A1’s) remained in US Army service in limited numbers until the early 1990’s.
These two points are probably key, but it should be emphasized that they affect each other.
The M3 was made from stamped parts and cheaper materials, the Thompson has a machined receiver, shiny black metal, and wood furniture. Of course the Thompson is preferred, it’s pretty and much more expensive. But the firing of a bullet was very similar- in both, a .45 ACP cartridge is fired by the normally open bolt striking it, and the bullet travels don a barrel of similar length.
For an artilleryman, the primary weapon was the cannon; the personal firearm was backup and rarely, if ever, used. So the M3 was partly intended to get a ‘good enough’ quality weapon in the hands of artillerymen, tankers, ad others who did not use a rifle as their main weapon faster and more economically than a Thompson or even the .30 carbine.
I had some computer issues so wasn’t able to come back to my own thread last August. I did read it, though, and follow the wikilinks. Thanks for all the replies.
But, a Question: what do you mean by «submachine» gun? My understanding of the terminology is that «semi-auto» fires a round and chambers the next cartridge with one pull of the trigger, while full auto keeps firing cartridges as long as the trigger is pulled (hence a «machine gun»).
But what is sub-machine gun? Is that a different term for semi-auto, or is it a fulll auto that fires pistol calibre cartridges?
