Thompson vs. PPSh

lolwhassup

lolwhassup

Active member
When i say Thompson i mean every model and variant. Same for the PPSh. Well these are SMGs and they both have the same applications, but i would prefer a Model 1921 or M1928 Thompson with a 100 round drum rather than a PPSh. The .45 ACP cartridge fired by the Thompson carries a big punch and leaves a much larger wound than the 7.62x25. Not only that but, a 1921 Thompson fires 1000 RPM which is slightly faster than the PPSh's 900 RPM.
 
Well, it is a poor comparison to have to make, the only thing they have in common is that they are both SMGs. The Thompson was a forged and machined weapon costing approximately US$45 during 1942 -1945 and the PPSh was all pressed and spot welded costing about US$2 to produce, using cut down and rechambered surplus .30 cal. rifle barrels.

The Thompson's cyclic rate for all models bar those without the Blish lock was quoted as 600 - 700 RPM the simpler versions (M1 version) 750 RPM, these figures are from the Thompson Auto Ordinance Handbook (Civillian) and The US Army Basic Field Manual FM 23-40.

I think that I'd be very safe in saying that the PPSh killed at least ten times as many enemy, as did the Thompson. So in general terms of effectiveness per dollar, the PPSh would win hands down.
 
Last edited:
senojekips said:
Well, it is a poor comparison to have to make, the only thing they have in common is that they are both SMGs. The Thompson was a forged and machined weapon costing approximately US$45 during 1942 -1945 and the PPSh was all pressed and spot welded costing about US$2 to produce, using cut down and rechambered surplus .30 cal. rifle barrels.

The Thompson's cyclic rate for all models bar those without the Blish lock was quoted as 600 - 700 RPM the simpler versions (M1 version) 750 RPM, these figures are from the Thompson Auto Ordinance Handbook (Civillian) and The US Army Basic Field Manual FM 23-40.

I think that I'd be very safe in saying that the PPSh killed at least ten times as many enemy, as did the Thompson. So in general terms of effectiveness per dollar, the PPSh would win hands down.
Click to expand...


Massed produced and distrubiting helped the PPsh get around the theatre of Soivet Operations, and the weapon getting more action around the globe. The Soviet Union did not mess around with arming up to fight Nazi Germany, thus found an easy to produce and reliable weapon. Even wound it's way into the fighting in Vietnam, both the French and American conflicts there.

The Thompson did however see allot of action before the war in the hands of the infamous "Public Enemies" gangsters, and bank robbers of the depression era U.S.

As for firing , a high rate of fire is nothing without control, so I would also choose a well cut and forged compensator.

However I do not know but, can't you place a 100 round drum on the M1A1 version as well?
 
Last edited:
Neither the M1 or the M1A1 Thompsons accept any type of round drum and it only fired at 750 RPM. Well the Model 1921 had 1000 RPM but came with a forward pistol grip and cutts compensator. The Thompson also was unofficially carried into Vietnam by SVA and US Army troops in small numbers. It was expensive and intricate true, but it was reliable, powerful, and fast. the kill count ratio wasn't as wide you think, the PPSh saw a lot of combat true, But so has thompson before the PPSh was even designed. However i do agree with you about this being a poor comparison seeing as the Thompson was a 1st Generation intricate SMG while the PPSh was a 3rd generation stamped steel SMG like the MP40 or M3.
 
There were only ever 1.7million Thompsons made until the end of production of the M3A1, in contrast there were 6 million PPSh 41s made just in the years 1941 -1945, these weapons are still held in reserve by the Soviet military forces for issue in emergency. The rate of issue to front line units was far higher for the PPSh than for the Thompson. If anything, I think my previously quoted kill ratio would heve been on the extremely conservative side.

Thompson submachine guns were widely exported commercially prior to and after WW2; Many guns were supplied to Britain and USSR through Lend-lease program during WW2. It must be noted that Soviet troops generally not liked Tommy guns, because of excessive weight and lack of bullet penetration, compared to 7,62mm submachine guns such as PPSh-41 or PPS-43.
Click to expand...
Source: http://world.guns.ru/smg/usa/thompson-e.html

On the site listed above the PPSh has a rating of 168+ and the Thompson as 118+

So once again the PPSh wins hands down in both economic and practical terms.
 
Last edited:
No disrespect for the illustrious, expensive, reliable, exquisitively made Thompson, but it weighed about 11 lbs, as heavy or more than the M1 Garand, not to mention the weight of the 230 grains .45 slugs. Jumping the bush with all it was probably not fun.
 
Last edited:
This topic dwindles down to personal preference now.

As for the later generation Thompson not having drum magazines, heres one question , could you take a M1A1, design a drum mag with a extend peice that goes up like a stick mag and enters the weapon like a normal 20 round clip?

As for weapon balance who knows.
 
Yossarian said:
This topic dwindles down to personal preference now.

As for the later generation Thompson not having drum magazines, heres one question , could you take a M1A1, design a drum mag with a extend peice that goes up like a stick mag and enters the weapon like a normal 20 round clip?

As for weapon balance who knows.
Click to expand...

Drum magazines did have drawbacks, they were a pain to carry around and prevented the soldier from firing over a foxhole. Even the Russians discardard the drum in favor of magazines with the PPsH-43

The one comment I'd make about the PPsH-41 is that many of 6.1 Million Spike quoted were of dubious quality. While some were produced by true armament factories, many others were assembled it whatever backyard (given the Russian situation in the early part of the war) that could be found using whatever materials that they had on hand. This lead to some very questionable reliability issues.

It was pure chance if a Russian soldier was issued a true factory made weapon built to exact specs..or the homemade version.
 
The PPSH does have a quality in common with the sten, even the Type 99, a firing mechinism with a magazine stuffed into it, nothing extra, and no frills.

But in effective simplicity and ease of manufacturing, utterlly elegant.

Don't see that in modern military marvels like the ARX 160 and such, can't jerry rig a polymer frame out of house hold materials in your back yard when you are in a pinch.
 
LeEnfield said:
Most of these guns were based on the British Sten Gun, except for the Thompson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sten
Click to expand...
No, I think that you will find that the PPSh was actually the Russkie attempt at duplicating the Finnish Soumi KP-31, which at the time was recognised as perhaps the allround best SMG in the European theatre of Operations.

Source: Smith and Smith's Military Firearms of the World 1963, Pg.352
 
Last edited:
I like the PPSH better. Many soldiers who used it said that although it was hard to maintain, its firepower, etc... were unmatchable. Also, I like the look of it
 
Sub guns use burst fire & multiple hits. The highly effective .45ACP round in this case is more powerfull than nessesary. Using the high velocity 7.62X25, or 9mm, ect, gives advantages in total rounds carried & better control when firing.
 
George said:
Sub guns use burst fire & multiple hits. The highly effective .45ACP round in this case is more powerfull than nessesary. Using the high velocity 7.62X25, or 9mm, ect, gives advantages in total rounds carried & better control when firing.
Click to expand...

World Guns said:
It must be noted that Soviet troops generally not liked Tommy guns, because of excessive weight and lack of bullet penetration, compared to 7,62mm submachine guns such as PPSh-41 or PPS-43.
Click to expand...
Source: http://world.guns.ru/smg/usa/thompson-e.html

Penetration was a major concern especially during the Russian winters when troops wore multi layered clothing, the 7.63 x25mm round was found to have superior penetration over the .45cal.

PPSh
 
senojekips said:
No, I think that you will find that the PPSh was actually the Russkie attempt at duplicating the Finnish Soumi KP-31, which at the time was recognised as perhaps the allround best SMG in the European theatre of Operations.

Source: Smith and Smith's Military Firearms of the World 1963, Pg.352
Click to expand...


You are right. After the Winter War, the Russians noticed the Finnish Soumi KP-31's effectiveness and duplicated it.
That's not to say that the Russians were the only ones. It's my opinion that 90% of the world's guns were duplicated from other guns
 
Hands down, PPSH, vastly cheaper, less resource intensive, and more reliable. It had a chromed barrel, one of the first guns to have so, that massively increased it's resistance to corrosion. And it's based, as was mentioned above, o nthe Soumi, an awesome gun in its own right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top