Here we go folks. A new thread to derail. Tompson PPSh-41 PPS-43 United defence M42 STEN M3 MP 38/40 Beretta 38
I really don't know enough about any of them. Anecdotally I have heard that the MP38 was. I think I remember that the Russian SMG was practically indestructable. What would be the parameters for 'best'? I would think: a) reliability b) reliability c) ease of production d) weight. I don't think accuracy would really matter much, and higher rates of fire could actually be a bad thing.
Jeees, reliability matters, but to a lower extent! I would add effective distance of fire+rate of fire
In defense of the owen, it was created for a specific theater of war, jungle warfare, and for this it was great. By having the magazine on top it gave the soldier the possibility of using it effectivelly while lying flat on the ground when hidding in the bushes, which wasn't possible with the other models.
The Sten was a piece of crap. The grease gun, the M3, wasn't really better. The Beretta and the MP38/40 suffered by using too light a round, it didn't had any punch compared to the thompson and the russian PPsh 41. Also a big plus is that both the thompson and the ppsh41 could use 50-rounds magazines. I make it a tie between those two, but i prefer the thompson for historical reason.
The Russian PPSh-41 which fired an incredible 900 rounds per minute. The German STG-44 was a predecessor for the modern assault rifle, though as I understand it was not produced in great enough numbers to make a difference...plus it was very heavy. Not a good trait for a sub-machine gun, if we're going to consider it an SMG. The PPSh on the other hand was manufactured by the millions, and had the added advantage of flinging so much lead it could clear a room during close quarters combat. I would pick the PPSh over the MP-38, and a distant third to the Thompson, which was powerful but not very accurate.
Neither were the ppsh or the mp-38... The ppsh rate of fire means it was a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) to keep on target and the short barrel of the mp-38 reduced its accuracy greatly. In any case, if you want accuracy then pick a rifle, not a smg.
I would say abundance is best. No SMG is any good if you don't have it, and as the Russians were the only ones who made even close to enough of their SMG so that everybody could have one I see it as being best. Seeing as most Russian draftees went to war without having even been issued a weapon it seems that the accuracy of whatever weapon he finally managed to get would not be that big of a concern for him.
I had heard the .45 ACP round is too powerful for a small sub machine gun...plus the PPSh-41 suited the type of warfare the Russians were fighting in battles like Stalingrad. Going from room to room in bombed out factories and buildings. You didn't need sniper like accuracy, for that they had the Mosin-Nagant. The PPSh was so good in fact, for this type of fighting that many Germans used them. The MP-38/40 was issued mainly to NCOs, so the average German infantryman carried the long bolt action Mauser, which was not deal for this close quarters combat environment. The Russians had the advantage, you break into a room occupied by bad guys and don't even bother aiming. Two Russian soldiers equipped with a PPSh each could clear the room, and this weapon was produced in large enough numbers that almost every soldier could carry one. I would go so far as to say it was the decisive weapon in the Battle of Stalingrad. The Thompson is well built and a solid weapon with some serious knock down power but I believe the round is too powerful for any sustained cover fire. You would need to fire short bursts which is less advantageous in close quarters fighting wherein you literally spray and pray. There's no time to aim, any hesitation and whomever you are shooting at could shoot at you first. The PPSh-41 was a mass produced, reliable and effective weapon for it's intended purpose...clearing a room...and clearing rooms was a typical scenario in Stalingrad. The precision shooters, who had time to aim and prepare before shooting had the equally reliable and effective Mosin-Nagant. All scenarios were covered...it was the Germans who wanted the combination precision fire, rapid fire all in one weapon and they designed the STG-44. A compromise between the accurate but slow fire bolt action Mauser, and the rapid fire, but inaccurate MP-38/40....but the Germans couldn't mass produce this new "assault" type weapon and field them in any numbers that would be effective. Meanwhile the Russians were cranking out airplanes, tanks, sub-machine guns, rifles by the hundreds, thousands and often times...the millions. They overwhelmed the Germans with fire power as did the Allies to he West. The PPSh-41 is a symbol of what won WW2 as is the M-1 Garand. Effective, reliable and wtih design specs that had low enough engineering tolerances they could be mass produced by semi-skilled laborers in a factory, and fielded in very short order.
My vote, obviously, went to PPS-43. While PPSh-41 had somewhat higher rate of fire, PPS-43 kept the main advantage of PPSh-41 - powerful cartrige. It was designed in the sieged Leningrad, thus was totally superior model in production, than PPSh-41. PPS-43 required 2 times less metal and 3 times less time than PPSh-41. It also had better ergonomics and was lighter. PPS-43 with 6 magasines (210 bullets) had a weight of only 6,72 kg. The thing was so damn good teh Dgormanz reverse-engenered it and started to produce it (МР 709) in the end of the war. Though, both Tompson and PPSh-41 are good enough to share 2-nd place.
It all depends on where it's been used. If in the jungle you want an Owen Gun. If in an urban setting you want a PPSh-41. If you're in an open space you want an MP-40.
Why would you want MP-40 in the open? It is beaten in effective range by PPS-43,PPSh-41 and Beretta model 43.
PPSH-41 is best. The only negative about it is the fragility of its drums. Other than that it is solid in every aspect. Thompson and MP-40 are great guns too though.
The PPSh fired the same round as the Tokarev pistol, a necked-down 9mm with about the same range as some rifles. It suited their style of fighting even in open country. It was so popular that only a few gun geeks know what a Mosin-Nagant is. That makes it probably the best.
I own a Mosin-Nagant, a very nice rifle but in my opinion the best bolt action out of WW1 and 2 was the Lee-Enfield....the best rifle? The M1 Garand of course. "ping"
The M1 Garand (officially designated as United States Rifle, Caliber .30, M1, later simply called Rifle, Caliber .30, M1, also abbreviated as US Rifle, Cal. .30, M1) is a semi-automatic rifle chambered for the .30-06 Springfield rifle cartridge. It was the first standard-issue semi-automatic rifle. AboveAlpha
Semi-automatic rife is known as a carabine. Okay. It is not in the same group with bolt-action rifles, thus can't be "picked" out of them. Otherwise STG 44 would be the best "rifle".
There was an M1 Carbine and an M1 rifle. I think you're confusing the two. The M1 Garand is a rifle...by anyone's technical definition. The M1 Garand rifle is arguably best in class of any rifle used in WW2, even when compared to the StG 44 "assault" rifle as the StG 44 was not mass produced on the scale of the M1 Garand. 425,977 StG 44 variants of all types were produced during WW2 5,700,000 M1 Garand rifles were produced during WW2 Given ease of production, reliability in the field, accuracy, stopping power of the caliber, speed of semi-automatic trigger pull compared to bolt-action...the M1 Garand was best in class of anything in the era.
Partly yes, I do. I've confused the two.. But still, semi-automatic rifle can't be picked out of bolt-action rifles. As I said, that kind of logic would lead to Stg 44 being picked as best "rifle", despite being out of the whole different class of "assault rifles". It makes no sence.
A carbine is either a rifle with a barrel shorter than the rifle it is based on or shorter than other contemporary rifles if it's not based on another rifle. The main German rifle of WW2 was bolt action and a carbine.
