Top Five Submachine Guns

Status
Not open for further replies.
1. Thompson M1928 (Turned the tide in WW2 along with the Garand)

2. Heckler And Koch MP5 (Ultra-Reliable Favored by Spec-Ops)

3. IMI Uzi (Ultra-Reliable Pulls IMI into the lime-light)

4. The PPsh (Russian Ingenuity Gives us a preview of Arms to come)

5.The Villar-Perosa (The First SMG Ever)
 
1)Thompson-Though not the first, one of the earliest and certainly vies for "best in class", even among modern SMG's. It's only drawback is weight, but it would be difficult to control a lighter .45 SMG with such a high rate of fire.

2)MP-18-it really was the first, though an ugly and cumbersome weapon with a low rate of fire that doesn't help an already anemic round.

3)Uzi-It's an icon, for one. But it's also one of the most robust and simple designs ever that maintains quality. Yeah, the M3 and Sten were cheap and effective, but they don't have the Uzi's appeal.

4) MP-5. It is the definitive SMG of the late 20th/early 21st and a benchmark for quality, controllability and accuracy from such platforms.

5) MP7 and P90- They have addressed the primary shortcoming of the SMG, which is effectiveness against armored targets. The rounds pale in comparison the intermediate assault rifle cartridges, but in the 21st century we are seeing more and more armored combatants. This attribute will be an important one for those rear eschelon troops who would normally have a sidearm or conventioanl SMG.
 
OK. Here are my top five SMGs, listed in no particular order, along with the reasons I believe justify their incorporation into this thread.

The Finnish Suomi SMG has been mentioned by some of our members as a good design that inflicted heavy casualties upon enemy forces. It was the Suomi, along with good tactics, that allowed Finland to inflict huge losses upon invading Soviet forces during the Winter War of 1939. This conflict demonstrated the utility of the SMG to all nations, particularly the Soviets. But the true significance of the Winter War was to demonstrate the poor tactics of the Red Army to Adolf Hitler, who believed the Soviets were so incompetent that he approved the decision to invade the Soviet Union in 1941. Indeed, the Suomi played a role in enabling the small Finnish military to perform so well.

The Soviet PPSh41, also called the Shpagin, resulted from the poor performance of the Red Army during the Winter War. The Shpagin gave the Soviet military a high rate of fire which proved useful following the German invasion in 1941. So successful was the PPSh that over five million were produced for the Red Army during the "Great Patriotic War". The PPSh fit well into Soviet offensive tactics of closing with the enemy forces. The Shpagin was truly one SMG that played a significant role in ground combat.

The German MP38/40 deserves incorporation because it was not only a reliable design but it also fit well into the German doctrine of blitzkrieg (lightening war). The MP38/40 gave German airborne forces the firepower they need in 1940 against the Allied powers. In addition, the MP40 version was the first SMG that could be massed produced from steel stampings, thereby reducing the cost of the weapon and simplifying production. This set the stage for other SMG productions by other nations.

If cheapness is a characteristic for inclusion into successful submachine gun designs, the Sten SMG designs would be king. The Sten was adopted to provide the beleaguered British Army with a reliable submachine gun after the dark days of Dunkirk. Millions of Stens were produced for British and Commonwealth forces during the Second World War. In fact, the Sten also proved an ideal weapon to equip the French Resistance forces in occupied Europe. Given the wide use of Sten designs, it certainly merits consideration as a successful SMG.

Finally, we come to my personal favorite SMG: the Thompson. The Thompson was not an inexpensive or cheap design to produce. But the Thompson was a reliable weapon that was appreciated by all who used it. It gained famed initially as a weapon of gangsters and G-men during the interwar period. Then it was adopted by the United States Army in 1938 and went on to provide badly needed firepower to troops in the Pacific Theatre of operations. In Europe, it gave airborne forces the firepower they required when deployed behind enemy lines. It also was useful in urban combat after the Allies landed in Europe in 1944. The Thompson continued to soldier on into the Korean War, long after its replacement, the M3, had been adopted. This is a fine testimony for any weapon.


Timthinker
 
I'll repeat everything Tim said, but add the Uzi onto that for a 6th entry to the top five.
 
top five submachine guns that you, our contributors, believed were most significant in warfare

1. Thompson
2. MP38/40
3. PPSH41
4. Sten
5. Soumi

I chose the first four because they armed significant portions of the major combatants in WWII and beyond. I chose the Soumi because of the role it played in the Winter War and how it influenced the USSR to issue the PPSH to huge numbers of its troops. Later SMGs like the Uzi and the MP5 while nice weapons have not played, IMO a significant role in warfare since the widespread adoption of the assault rifle.
 
Hank, you are a mind reader. If you pay close attention to my top five, then it become obvious they all participated in World War Two. After that conflict, the assault rifle began to gain popularity with the major military powers. Whether the SMG is still useful to modern militaries is an open question, one I may raise in another thread.


Timthinker
 
top five burp guns, IMHO

Thompson, it made the SMG a "household name", due to limited used in '20's and '30's (Most of the gangsters actually preferred the BAR)
PPSh-41, mass produced, cheap and reliable, stopped the Germans in WW-2, and then exported communism to China and Europe.
STEN - ushered in the idea of the ultra cheap SMG - before they, like the Tommy gun, were made like shorter range rifles (Look at the rear sight on an M-1928 if you don't believe me)
(TIE) UZI, Ingram MAC-10 - brought the dying idea of the SMG back into the general eye in the late 70's, 80's when it was being eclipsed by the assault rifle concept. The Ingram was of limited use, short range, hard to control and hang on to, but its mere size made it visually interesting.
and a shout out for Armalite's Folding Sub-gun, which folded up almost like a butterfly knife. A neat idea come too late to the table.
 
PPsH - can be crudely made quickly. Issued in mass numbers by the Russians and very popular even with the Germans who captured them.
Uzi - not the first SMG to have a telescoping bolt (the Czechs beat them to it), but certainly the most popular and it was widely issued among Israelis. At one time, the probably the most popular SMG in the Western World.
Sten - Not the most reliable, but like the PPsH can be easily made without extensive use of machine tools.
Villar-Perosa - the granddaddy that started the genre. Best known today for its brief appearance in the Indiana Jones movie, The Last Crusade. You can see one that is mounted on the handlebar of a bicycle at the Indiana War Memorial in Indianapolis.
Thompson - The SMG that came to symbolize gangland violence. Thought at one time to be the first weapon used in drive by shootings, it was preceded by the bow which was fired from a horse drawn chariot. :p Its heavy weight, outmoded manufacturing techniques (machined as opposed to stampings or modern plastics), makes this fun gun more of a museum piece than a modern combat arm.
 
The Suomi, Thompson and the MP38/40.

Incidently, Finnish sniper Simo Häyhä made about 250 of his 500+ kills with a Suomi subgun.
 
What kind of madness is this, no props to the Owen?

Suomi, PPSh-41, PPS-43, Owen, and MP-40.

All the Thompson has going for it is nationalism, it was heavy overcomplicated (Blish lock, anybody?) and hideously expensive. The Greasegun was chintzy. The STEN was impressive, and almost made the list, but was so chintzy it was dangerous. The Beretta 38 wasn't anything special, the MP-38 wasn't either, and the PPD-40 never really saw use with anybody but the NKVD.
 
Vaarok said:
All the Thompson has going for it is nationalism, it was heavy overcomplicated (Blish lock, anybody?) and hideously expensive.
The July 2006 edition of the magazine "Small Arms Review" had an interesting article about the Thompson and the "Blish lock" on page 50.
The authors obtained a 1921 Thompson, and in order to test the Blish lock (a controversial device even from the gun's inception) and obtained a second Blish device. They milled off the trunions (the two "ears" on either side that keep it running inside the inner slots of the Thompson's receiver). This kept the actuator locked to the bolt, but eliminated the device insofar as it causing the "delayed blowback" it allegedly caused. The Thompson so equiped ran at a rate 200 RPM faster than the gun did with the device.
The Blish did, in fact work; but the authors came to a new conclusion; the device didn't work as originally thought. There was no "differential of friction" involved; it depended upon a leverage principle, since the angle the Blish used inside the bolt was different than the angle of the slots in the receiver.
The authors concluded that the rate of fire would have been retarded better by a different recoil spring, or a more solid bolt. The Blish worked, but was more complicated than the gun needed to be.
I think the later WW2 development of the M1 and M1A1 Thompson pretty much demonstrates the device wasn't needed; but still, the fact that the device didn't work the way Mr. Thompson & Mr. Blish claimed was pretty interesting.
 
The historical importance of the SMG has little to do with its ballistic virtues but with the fact that for a great number of WWII combatants it was all they had.

Consider that whole battalions of Soviet soldiers were armed with SMGs. (The same can be said of the Chinese in the Korean War)

It was sometimes the only weapon available to partisan/resistance fighters.

It was the last ditch weapon for tank crews.

The SMG won its place in history by being compact and cheap. If ever the need arises to arm the masses with a $10 bullet squirter, we’ll see the SMG rise again
 
Concept is great, but as I said before, it's the answer to a question no one asked. FWIW, I've never had a maneuverability problem in tight quarters with a full 22" barrelled M1A, so I don't see what all the hype about ultra-short bullpup carbines/SMGs is anyway...

Trying swinging that extra 11" or so around inside a Tank Cabin, or the back-seat of a fully-loaded medivac Humvee and then rethink what you've said. The P90 was primarily design as a PDW for vehicle crews, but also proved just as effective for SpecOps working in heavily urban areas.

Think about real close-quarters for a minute, the tight profile and close-in way you hold a P90 vs. a full-sized battle rifle makes it a mite better at CQB sheerly because there's less 'grab' potential for a Tango/Badguy to grab hold of your rifle coming 'round a corner or jumping out of concealment, for starters. Also it can be slung and unslung more easily and quickly for free-hand use for non-combat things, like splinting an injured ally's leg or operating local machinery.

But as far as classics, the Sten and the MP-40 get my vote; the Sten mostly as a nearly successful God Mode attempt by British/French forces during WW2 by designing a cheap, stupidly easy to build SMG that would also leap in useful ness every time they captured a german choke-point or command ad-hoc; they'd also capture a buttload of MP-40 ammunition, which the Sten used.

Gotta love a weapon you can re-stock by simply emptying the pockets of the soldier you just shot with it.
 
The Russian PPsh, the British Sten & Sterling, and German MP-40 are probably the only four that had any major influence on the outcome of a battle in WWII.

You can take the Sterling off that list. It entered service in 1953. Still one of my favorites, though.
 
The PPSH41 was the most issued submachine gun of WW2 and saw a massive amount of action in the Battle Of Stalingrad, Battle of Kursk, Battle of Berlin and so on where they were issued in massive amounts. As far as small arms goes it turned back the Nazis from Russia and saw the defeat of Germany. It should really be number one on the list.

I would put the Thompson as number 2. It saw large scale use by the allies, police forces and criminal gangs and was the first one to have any real success. It had many flaws, but still works really well.

Number 3 I would put the MP38/40. Mass produced sheet steel thrown into a handy design that worked really well in a variety of roles. It is a shame it's life was cut short by not being used in particular number after WW2 with the denazification efforts.

Number 4 on the list I would put the H&K MP5. The fact it been used by pretty much every counter terrorist, special forces and so on makes it a must have on the list and is perhaps the pinacle of submachine gun technology.

Number 5 would have to be the Sten. It convinced the allies to drop the Thompson for quick production and led to the Grease Gun and a whole bunch of other designs such as the Sterling. Not the best submachine gun in the world but it brought every other nation into the 20th century.

6th place I would put the Uzi. Its an icon of the 80s and fairly effective.

Plenty of more to add to the list. You could act the Mac10 and so on because of its influence amongst criminals and gangmembers I guess.
 
The MP5 is used for a whole lot of practice but has actually seem comparitively little combat. The Suomi, on the other hand, was so significant it can be given a tremendous amount of the credit in Finnish success in the Winter War. Yeah, they lost, but the retained their country unlike the Baltic nations, and remained non-communist unlike Eastern Europe. One small nation in one off-shoot of WWII to be sure, but the Suomi established the success of subguns in combat at that time, convinced the Soviets to issue them en mass, and was a more reliable, more rugged machine than the STEN. Of course, it was much more difficult to produce than the STEN, but all things considered, it had a far greater impact in the theatre of war in which it served than probably any other subgun used in WWII. The MAC was a TV and Movie prop more than a weapon.

In no order, I would say

STEN
MP-40
Suomi
Thompson
PPSh

Others might have been distributed more but as far as significant contribution few can hold a candle to what a handful of Finnish soldiers, along with Father Winter, did to a million Soviet troops.

Ash
 
What about significant in a negative way?

As phrased, if country X goes to war with a really crappy subgun, and that contributes to their loss, shouldn't that be on the list?

How would Guadacanal have turned out if the marines had quality weapons instead of that junky resling SMG?

How many battles has something like the above taken place that we don't know about?

What if the Koreans had better SMGs, or what if the Somalis had a ton of PPSh 41s with 71 shot drums during Blackhawk down. They were just mostly spray and pray with AKs anways, they probably would have been more effective with less recoil and more shots, and what 2 PPSh for every 1 AK? Would this have allowed them to overrun more US troops turing it into a route?

I have been told by WW2 vets that the japanese with no culture of personal arms, couldn't shoot worth a darn with their rifles, but their proclivity to run up and bayonette you even if that meant your buddies would shot the japanese dead seconds later was what was feared. So, isn't the most significant SMG the subgun that the japanese failed to produce? Seems to me running up and blasting 3 guys with your SMG and then dying is better than running up and bayonetting one guy. And it seems to me the SMG would have been very handy in a lot of the jungle fighting that went on. Part of the machineguns contribution to WW2 is how cheaply you could make a M-3 greasegun compared to an M1 garand. I've seen japanese literature about civilian prep for a US invasion of the mainland, they were training the civilians with sharpened bamboo spears (not that different than charging with a bayonette I guess) Now, have the japanese figure out how to make their equivalent of the Greasegun and have the civlians armed with that instead, would japan have decided to 'wait and see if they drop a 3rd bomb, after all, half the men in the country has an XYZ gun!'
 
Thompson because they created the sub-machinegun, the Sten because it was used to kill nazi's during ww2, the Uzi, because it defended isreal when it had to fight for existance, the grease gun, because it was used during battle in ww2 and some in 'nam, and the mp5, because it is used worldwide, and is the new benchmark for quality, and relialibility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top