# PPSh-41 SMG Vs Thompson M1928A1 SMG



## Zniperguy114 (Jan 31, 2010)

Here are two famous WWII SMGs. Which do you think is better?

Here are some Stats:

PPSh-41 Thompson M1928A1

Calibre: 7.62mm M1930 .45 ACP M1911
Rate of Fire: 900 rpm 700 rpm
Weight: 8 lb 10.75 lb
Lenght: 33 inches 33.75 inches

Vote for the one you like best and have fun!


----------



## timshatz (Feb 1, 2010)

Like both of them but would rather have the PPsh. More functional. 

Have heard from multiple sources that you had to be careful with the Thompson and clean it after every use or it would gum up and jam. Never heard that about the PPsh. While the round is bigger on the Thompson, the reliability seems to me to trump that point.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Feb 1, 2010)

Have to vote PPsh, larger clip, plus better reliability.


----------



## Torch (Feb 2, 2010)

Ditto on the PPsh. Thompson was expensive to manufacture at that time, Russians could produce the PPsh in mass.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 2, 2010)

Ive at least seen a Thompson, but have only ever read about the PPSH. I would say that in terms of production costs, the PPSH was superior. It was lacking in many refinements, but this made it cheaper to fabricate. In terms of build quality, I would say the Thompson was better. . Ill hazard a guess and say that the thompson was more accurate. It was slightly heavier as well, which would make it a bit more controllable, but harder to lug around.

The PPSH had the advantage in ammunition supply. It could be fited with either a 35 round detachabale box, or a 71 round drum. The Thompson also had a drum magazine in its early forms, but few were made, and the usual ammunition supply was by 20 or 30 round magazine

In the final analysis, I think one can say that the PPSH could have replaced the Thonpson, but the thompson could not have replaced the PPSH. I say this on the basis of production costs. The PPSH was so cheap to build it could (and did) be turned in the tens of millions. The Thompson, totalled something like 1.7 million copies produced, which is impressive, but still overshadowed by the Russian design. 

The PPSH was not a pretty weapon, but it was very functional, and still effective...just ask any German who was on the receiving end and they will tell you.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 2, 2010)

I was told by a guy who carried one that the barrel moved back and forth in the sleeve when the weapon (the PPsh that is) fired. Anybody confirm that?


----------



## evangilder (Feb 2, 2010)

Moved this again to the polls section. SitRep is for the modern military matters.


----------



## claidemore (Feb 2, 2010)

Pa-Pa-Sha! 
Simple, inexpensive, high velocity round for better down range performance, high capacity mag, lower profile when firing prone with rotary mag, weapon weighs less, ammo weighs less.


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Feb 2, 2010)

sorry evangilder, this is my first thread and i kinda srcewed up. sorry and thanx for fixing it.


----------



## B-17engineer (Feb 2, 2010)

The Ppsh was probably more functional. Towards the end of the war you seem Germans with Ppsh's instead of the Mp40..it was their choice after their gun ran out of ammo or broke. So they must have thought something of it.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 2, 2010)

Ive fired both and the PPsh is the better weapon from just about every standpoint...

Actually quite a comfortable gun...


----------



## parsifal (Feb 2, 2010)

lesofprimus said:


> Ive fired both and the PPsh is the better weapon from just about every standpoint...
> 
> Actually quite a comfortable gun...




Very cool Dan, always wanted to know how to load those drums....they have a spring system...correct???


----------



## Kurfürst (Feb 3, 2010)

They have a spiral spring inside the drum. IIRC you can load the rounds from the feeding point, and also by opening the drum. I have two of these puppies, though I cannot shoot them (full auto etc., they are disabled). 

IMHO its a gun that scores 10/10 on firepower, and 0/10 on ergonomics. The whole gun is awkward with the drum, very nose heavy, even when empty... I can imagine its even worse with a fully loaded drum..! And you have to be quite creative to get a grip on the thing with your left arm... From what I have heard, its rather stable while firing despite its huge RoF and powerful Tokarev rounds, due to its heavy nose weight, and the primitive compensator. But is the last thing I would like to carry with me... at least with that idiotic drum magazine. From the Soviet PoV, it was probably the ideal weapon for semi- or not at all trained infantry... give them a firing hose with a huge clip, he will hit something with it.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 3, 2010)

Soviet doctrine in almost everything was firepower, whether that be derived from numbers ofr just simply having huge motherf*king guns hanging off things. They applied to their aerial assets, to their artillery, their tank forces and their Infantry. The Infantry used the heaviest concentration of autometic weapons of any any army, accepted hevay casualties in their advance, so that these lead spewing formations could get into close combat situations with the Germans. It was a strategy profligate with lives, but actually reduced casualties for the Soviets eventually. if they had tried more sophisticated tactics, they would have actually have lost the war. Reducing weapons options to commanders who barely knew their jobs, with Infantry who barely knew how to shoot, required that firepower be maximised, and the battle problems simplified


----------



## Kurfürst (Feb 6, 2010)

Well said, Mr. P.


----------



## lm2f (Mar 14, 2010)

parsifal said:


> having huge motherf*king guns hanging off things. They applied to their aerial assets, to their artillery, their tank forces and their Infantry.



Speaking of which


----------



## jugggo (Mar 17, 2010)

Well I am sure someone already said this but, the Tommy gun has the sure stopping power. Most Germans were crapping themselves when they heard that distinct thud the Tommy gun made when fired. The PPsh1 was the Spray and pray of choice for most Germans if they came across them during combat. it simply out performed the MP40


----------



## riacrato (Mar 17, 2010)

1. "Most Germans" were afraid of getting shot by an automatic firearm. In fact, most people are. The Thompson is no different than any other smg in that regard.

2. The PPSh was used by the Germans because they had only very limited numbers of automatic firearms. Only machinegunners, NCOs and some select few specialist troops had them in general. An smg is simply superior to a bolt action rifle in most cases of WW2 infantry combat.

3. The PPSh was overall more reliable and had more ammo. Although the magazine was very problematic as well, it was the overall better gun.

4. ...and still the MP40 was liked by both the Germans and also the Russians. And it was frequently used also by the latter despite the much larger numbers of smgs in the Soviet Army. It was also used by the British and the Americans when captured.

So to me it seems the fact that there were too few automatic firearms in pretty much all armies was much more important than the individual qualities of the gun. Mid-war the Soviets were soon ahead of anyone in this regard, having the most mass producable smg. The Brits second and Germans third.


----------



## proton45 (Mar 17, 2010)

riacrato said:


> So to me it seems the fact that there were too few automatic firearms in pretty much all armies was much more important than the individual qualities of the gun. Mid-war the Soviets were soon ahead of anyone in this regard, having the most mass producable smg. The Brits second and Germans third.




I was wondering why the "Sten gun" was left out... The Sten was the original "mass production" SMG.

They built around 4 million Stens (maybe a little more, all in all)...

6 million PPSh-41's

and about 1.5 million "Thompson's"...


----------



## Demetrious (Mar 18, 2010)

The Thompson was indeed an expensive weapon to produce, but by the time WWII rolled around, it had been in production as a police-issue firearm, so quality took precedence over unit-cost. The M3 Grease Gun was the US's answer to the need for a cheap, mass-producible SMG, like England, Germany and Russia were using, and in fact when the M3 was released, the Thompson was designated as a second-issue gun in favor of the M3.

However, if we're going to compare the Thompson and the PPSh, gun for gun, in terms of quality, that award goes to the Thompson. The Thompson switched to the box magazine because the high-capacity drum magazine was easily fouled in field conditions and the spring was too weak to properly feed, and if I recall correctly, the PPSh was officially switched to a 35 round box mag for exactly the same reason (though drum-fed ones remained in the war till the end, Soviet production capacity, priorities, and logistics being strained as they were.) Considering that, I don't give the "ammo capacity" argument much weight.

The 7.62mm Tokarev and the .45 Thompson compare favorably with one another, penetration and range to the Tokarev, stopping power to the .45, but not by a great margin either way. 

Ergonamics: This is where the Thompson really takes the lead, in my opinion. Take a look at these two guns and you'll see why. The "drop" in the Thompson stock is more pronounced, making it far easier to shoulder, and it actually has a pistol grip on it, making it a lot easier to handle and _especially_ to "shoot from the hip," as well as when you're trying to hold down recoil. By comparison, the PPSh is basically a rifle stock with an SMG action on it, which is poorly suited for the kind of combat an SMG is meant for. The PPSh also had a rather higher rate of fire, which I consider a negative- too slow is bad, but too fast and it makes it very easy to put most of your magazine into the ceiling. 

Reliability: When people speak of "reliability" there seems to be two different kinds they talk about- the ability to kick your gun down a flight of stairs and have it still function well, and the ability to leave it in the kid's sandbox for a month and still have it fire.

In my opinion, the first is crucial and the second, not so much. I've never read anything, anywhere, about the Thompson being a delicate weapon, so I think they both break even on that count. As for field conditions, though- well, frankly, I think the ability to leave a gun in a sandbox for a month is highly over-rated. Any solider with decent training is going to know how to field-strip his weapon and clean it every now and then, and it doesn't even have to be that often. This comes up all the time in M-16 vs. AK-47 debates. The thing is, the AK-47 is only superior to the M-16 in "durability" terms if it's in the hands of peasants with two weeks of training that are sleeping in bogs and dragging it through the mud and don't actually own a bore brush and solvent bottle. The reason the AK is the weapon of choice for insurgents the world over is because those people generally *are* peasants with two weeks training who are hiding in bogs all day and don't even know what a cleaning kit looks like. 

The way you get a gun to tolerate sand in the action and junk like that is to build it with looser engineering tolerances- which is usually the consequence of a weapon designed for super-cheap mass production in the first place, anyways. You can keep a weapon like that in your flowerpot. But by consequence, it's going to be inaccurate. If your soldiers barely know how to march in a line and can hardly recognize the muzzle from the stock, then that's the gun you give them. But if they're properly trained- and your military can actually afford to kit each one out with a bore brush and a double-well solvent bottle- then for God's sake give them the better-machined gun.


----------



## Juha (Mar 19, 2010)

I haven’t fire either but having used Suomi smg during my military service, only as a secondary weapon, my personal weapon was a Rk-62 assault rifle, I’d say, that Suomi smg was surprisingly accurate weapon with automatic fire and fairly easy to control, one didn’t need a pistol grip for a good control. 70-round drum magazine was reliable but not very easy to fill. And in WWII battlefield dust was very common, thanks for plentiful use of artillery, so dust resistance was very important for automatic weapons. And Soviets had understood that very well, better than others, I think. That’s why their opponents liked to use automatic weapons they had captured from Soviets. They were usually robust and reliable weapons and that was a most important thing for a military weapon.
On the bottom of this page one can see an appraisement of firing a Suomi which i agree.
FINNISH ARMY 1918 - 1945: MACHINEPISTOLS PART 1

Juha


----------



## JoeB (Mar 22, 2010)

Some Thompson cost/prices. The original relatively small number of Model 1921's were being sold in the 1920's for around $160 dealer wholesale. When the gun was finally mass produced from 1939, the M1928 that is, the first contract for 10,000 Savage was $67 each. The last lot of 400,000 M1928A1's from Savage was $59, and the company got $34 for most of the M1 and M1A1 Thompsons it produced. The cost of M3 'Grease Guns' was around $20. So the simplified mass produced Thompson's cost might not have been much greater than PPSh-41 which had wood furniture and in general wasn't as bare bones and production oriented as the M3, or Sten, or PPS-43.

But, the relevant comparison would be what US manufacturers would have bid to make the PPSh for, which we really don't know. The Soviet price even if anyone here might know it, I don't, is meaningless to compare to US weapon prices because not only the finished product but prices of all components, material, labor, capital expense of plant etc in Soviet system were determined by bureaucrats semi-arbitrarily. And, the exchange rate from US$ to Ruble was set almost completely arbitrarily.

Joe


----------



## parsifal (Mar 23, 2010)

It is difficult to make any real price comparisons of ujnit costs for Soviet weapons to any other nation because of the artificial pricing mecahnisms and subsidies that tend to hide the real cost of any goods and services in a communist regime. However, it is almost certain that it was far far cheaper to build than anything in the US. It seems about 7 million were produced, very roughly, to 1.7 million Thompsons. Yet the Soviets had an Industrial base far smaller than that of the US during the war....for example they produced about 2 million tons of steel to the Us 20 million ( I think) Further the Soviets in almost every category of weapons outproduced nearly everyone (naval craft excepted). Soviet build quality was simple to the extreme, and sometimes they cut just too many corners, but in the main it was the Soviet forte to build things cheaply, and field tons of thiose items....eg the t-34


----------



## JoeB (Mar 23, 2010)

parsifal said:


> However, it is almost certain that it was far far cheaper to build than anything in the US. It seems about 7 million were produced, very roughly, to 1.7 million Thompsons. Yet the Soviets had an Industrial base far smaller than that of the US during the war....


With all due respect I don't see much validity to that argument. The Soviets produced a lot more SMG's because they had a bigger army, and their doctrine and tables of organization and equipment derived therefrom included more SMG's per unit. If you scan over TO&E's of WWII US infantry formations there were relative few SMG's authorized, many were for vehicle crews. SMG's were often provided in excess of TO&E, as can be seen in photo's, and in heavy concentrations in a few cases (eg. some airborne units) but all in all the weapon didn't play nearly as big a role in the US Army as Soviet (or German). And that wasn't due to a dire shortage, since many US produced SMG's went to other countries, in contrast to say the M1 rifle, which was really a key 'can't get enough of' production item for the US Army for most of the war and hardly given to other countries during the war (in 1944-5 a fair number were given to the rebuilt French Army, that was the main exception in terms of number sufficient to equip multiple large units).

But anyway SMG production was a quite small % of either country's war output. By far the largest US consumer of steel was shipbuilding for example, which the Soviets did relatively little of. I don't see any possiblity of sensible results about SMG cost by trying to back it out of the whole huge defense industrial effort in both countries when SMG production was a small % in Soviet case and miniscule % in US case.

I think the best we can do is just look at the weapons. The PPSh required a degree of machining and used wood furniture. It was replaced by an all metal weapon made almost wholly of stampings, the PPS. The simplfied Thompson (M1) required a degree (significantly less than M1928 ) of machining and used wood furniture. It was replaced by an all metal weapon made almost wholly of stampings, the M3. But the M3 was still 60% the cost of the M1 Thompson, not some small fraction, and again much simpler and more mass-production oriented than the PPSh; the M3 was more like the PPS. So I think it's questionable whether the PPSh was much cheaper than the M1 Thompson.

Joe


----------



## riacrato (Apr 18, 2010)

The receiver was still milled and the empty weight is still considerably more than that of the PPSh. I think its safe to say machining hours and raw material costs were still way higher than that of PPSh 41 and MP-40.


----------

