MP40 vs. PPsh41

[s***@gmail.com]

I believe the ppsh41 is a better gun than the mp40 because of fire rate mass production, cheap ammo , cheap reliable parts and its able to hold a drum mag.

[news]

Post by s***@gmail.com
I believe the ppsh41 is a better gun than the mp40 because of fire
rate mass production, cheap ammo , cheap reliable parts and its able
to hold a drum mag.

Mass production is a strange criterion by which to rate a weapon. The
parts were not all that reliable and the drum magazine had problems. It
was uncomfortable to carry and use. It took a long time to refill the
magazine and they were unreliable. Later versions were made with heavier
metal than the early ones, but springs were always a problem. Being
cheap and easy to produce compensated for some of its weaknesses.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by news

Post by s***@gmail.com
I believe the ppsh41 is a better gun than the mp40 because of fire
rate mass production, cheap ammo , cheap reliable parts and its able
to hold a drum mag.

Mass production is a strange criterion by which to rate a weapon. The

No, it's very important in war; the best weapon in the world is useless, if
you don't have enough of it/them. Or if it's hideously expensive to produce,
etc.

Mike

[Chris Morton]

Post by news
Mass production is a strange criterion by which to rate a weapon.

German tankers would disagree.

They were drowned in T-34s and Shermans.

Of course it's hardly strange even when dealing with smallarms.

How many Swiss Furrer SMGs do you think the Germans could have turned out versus
even MP-40s, never mind Stens or PPSh41s or PPS43s?

[news]

Post by Chris Morton

Post by news
Mass production is a strange criterion by which to rate a weapon.

German tankers would disagree.
They were drowned in T-34s and Shermans.

That is a matter of numbers, not the quality of the weapons or weapons
system. Some of the tanks were so much better than the Shermans and
T-34s that the best tactic was to outflank them and overwhelm them.

Post by Chris Morton
Of course it's hardly strange even when dealing with smallarms.
How many Swiss Furrer SMGs do you think the Germans could have turned out versus
even MP-40s, never mind Stens or PPSh41s or PPS43s?

That would make for a more economical and more readily available weapon,
not a better weapon.

Dave Smith

[Chris Morton]

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:50:07 -0400, "news"

Post by news
That would make for a more economical and more readily available weapon,
not a better weapon.

An available weapon is ALWAYS better than one never produced.

[Michael Emrys]

Post by Chris Morton
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:50:07 -0400, "news"

Post by news
That would make for a more economical and more readily available weapon,
not a better weapon.

An available weapon is ALWAYS better than one never produced.

Or one produced in such relatively small numbers that it seldom made it
into the hands of the troops.

Michael

[Chris Morton]

Post by s***@gmail.com
I believe the ppsh41 is a better gun than the mp40 because of fire rate mass
production, cheap ammo , cheap reliable parts and its able to hold a drum mag.

A higher rate of fire is beneficial up to the point where it makes the firearm
uncontrollable by the average user, wasting ammunition.

An alternate school of thought says that a SLOWER rate of fire is superior.
I've fired the M3A1 "Greasegun" and it is indeed VERY easy to control, even
chambered for the .45acp cartridge.

[Alan Meyer]

Post by s***@gmail.com
I believe the ppsh41 is a better gun than the mp40 because of fire rate mass production, cheap ammo , cheap reliable parts and its able to hold a drum mag.

A long time ago I posted a message in this group under the heading
"Submachine gun oddity", asking why so many nations fielded guns with
stick magazines when drum magazines held so many more bullets. There
were dozens of responses, including many interesting ones. See:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/4V3LgZGp5YU


In addition to magazine and caliber differences, there is also a
difference in muzzle velocity between the German and Russian weapons.
The PPsh-41 is said (by the Wikipedia authors) to have 488 m/s vs. 400
m/s for the MP-40.

Is that significant? I would think that depends on the environment. In
street fighting it might make no difference. In fighting in open
fields, it might confer a usefully longer range and flatter trajectory.
Given that the man carrying a submachine gun is not carrying a rifle,
having a longer range weapon might well be significant.

However there are other factors in range besides muzzle velocity. I
think that the ballistic coefficient of the bullet and the bullet weight
are also significant.

The Wikipedia articles state 100 meters as the range of the MP-40 and
150-250 meters as the range of the PPSh-41. I don't trust those because
I don't know what range means in this context. It could, for example be
a measure of how good the sights are, or how likely the shooter is to
hit something rather than how far the bullet will travel with enough
punch to knock out an enemy. It could be highly subjective.

Alan

[David Wilma]

I would say that as a rule a higher muzzle velocity, longer range, and
even a heavier bullet is always preferable, but how often do these
differences make a difference? 100 yards vs. 150 yards is 50 yards,
but a soldier still has to hit the target 50 yards further our. With
a machine-pistol/submachine gun weapon is this realistic?

I would say the important factors would be numbers deployed,
reliability, and training.

[GFH]

Post by David Wilma
I would say that as a rule a higher muzzle velocity, longer range, and
even a heavier bullet is always preferable, but how often do these
differences make a difference? 100 yards vs. 150 yards is 50 yards,
but a soldier still has to hit the target 50 yards further our. With
a machine-pistol/submachine gun weapon is this realistic?
I would say the important factors would be numbers deployed,
reliability, and training.

Many factors enter. The environment is very
influential -- jungle is shorter range than
the open vistas of western Russia. Weight is
an important factor. A lighter cartridge means
more can be carried. Recoil is less with lower
power firearms. There are reasons why not
every soldier carries a BAR.

GFH