There was a lot to do about the M1 vs K89 topic of 'Dori1234'. Most people said that you can`t compare a bolt-action rifle with a semi-automatic rifle. Here, you can compare the M1A1 Thompson with the MP40. Here some facts about the two weapons:

M1A1 Thompson: caliber: .45.
magazine: 30rd. (We`ll take the 30rd mag, because MP40 has a 32rd mag.)
rate of fire: 700 rounds p. minute.
effective range: 109 yards.
initial velocity: 307 yards/second.

MP40 SMG: calibre: 9mm (.35)
magazine: 32rd.
rate of fire: 500 rounds p. minute.
effective range: 109 yards. (same as Thompson)
initial velocity: 399 yards/second.

Good topic!
Im not a gun expert the following are my opinions

Thomson:

Pros:
lethal .45 rounds
fast rate of fire 800 RPM
good sturdy weapon and never heard that it jams.

Cons:
pretty inaccurate compared to other SMGs
expensive to manufacture (delicate wood stock, many fine parts)

MP 40:
pros:
light, compact and handy
pretty accurate smg
the 9mm round is reasonably lethal
simple manufacturing desing compared to MP38
hardly any recoil

cons:
it tends to jam in non favourable conditions

the MP40 was pretty awkward to handle, basically the only place you could hold it(while triing to fire accurately) was the magazine.

lower rate of fire ( 5oo RPM)


Both are great weapons, but Id go with the MP40.
Its so hand that it would bother any1 while carrying it, yet its pretty accurate weapoin.
I would feel pretty darn safe with an MP40 on my shoulder.
Pik-Pak rdy to fire.

so this was my opinion

hum...this is the way i see it...

thompson m1a1 is effective up to 50 meters with powerful .45 cal acp at the high rate of 800 rpm, 20 or 30 round stick magazine, and very well made.

50 meter effective range is short, with too high of 800 rpm to burn off 20 or 30 round magazine, and costly to make.

maschinenpistole 40 is effective up to 100 meters with common 9mm at 500 rpm, large 32 round stick magazine, cheap to make, revolutionary folding stock.

much further distance than thompson smg, with lesser powerful 9mm ammo, but since it's slower, which means slower to burn off already a large 32 round magazine.

i personally would pick a thompson because of it's quality...

Yes, but is there a great difference in damage because of the .45 and 9mm rounds of the weapons? In Brothers in Arms I often swap my M1A1 Tommy gun for an MP40. The MP40`s bullet travels faster than a Thompson`s. I think stengun and MP40 come prettey close to eachother. In short distances the Tompson would be more suitable. We in Holland call it indd "Loopgravenbezem", that means nothing else then an trenchbroom or trenchsweeper. The MP40 was realy popular with the risistance.

Most of you guys are used to playing video games or you live in a country which limits you to firearm use. One thing I have to say is the .45 is an EXTREMELY capable bullet for an SMG I have fired both a .45 and a 9mm (out of pistols of course) and the .45 seems more accurate with ALOT of punch

My grandpa was in the police force and the ARMY. He carried a 1911 when in the police force... he said if you shot someone in the arm at close range with a .45 for example it would completely shatter there arm's bone structure and blow off the arm from the point of impact and below. On the other hand i keep hearing storys of troops over in Iraq with a berreta 9mm sidearm not being able to put down an inssurgent with just one shot, it must take 2 or 3 on average... and when I shot those pistols (1911 and berreta 92) I found the .45 to be more accurate but that may be dew to the barrel length (the 1911's was bigger)

WEIGHT - on a gun to me is not an entirely bad thing... if the barrel of a gun was heavy that that means it would have less recoil and be more accurate and usually a more stocky weighty gun is more sturdy and reliable. My grandap was the BAR man of his squad and he said that barrel was so heavy it was the most accurate weapon he has ever fired

JAMMING - during qualifaication with the Thompson it was very muddy and rainy outside... he said he couldnt get off more than 5 rounds with a thompson without it clogging up on him.. he said this was due to it fireing in an open bolt mechanism

I cant say much about the mp40 except I can critisize the 9mm round cause i have fired it

but if anyone has fired a rifle the light it is the more kick it will have...

theres my 2 cents lets have other people post..

the .45 ammo is trully strong, but I heard from other people that the 9mm wasnt weak back with the MP40.
And Im pretty sure that the MP was much accurate than the thomson, BUT! the .45 could be more accurate in a pistol. I fired the Beretta and was impressed with it, but yet to fire a .45 pistole :P

"the light it is the more kick it will have..."
LOL seriously? Thats againts physics.
If a heavier objects kicks, than the recoil gonna be bigger due to weight being moved.
the lighter the gun it should be easier to controll recoil.

the lighter the gun not the lighter the round

i know by experience I own, shoot, and hunt with an assortment of berreta shotguns 12 and 20 guages I find that my berreta 303 which is a 20 guage (same gas action as my 391)kicks much harder than my 391 which is much heavier... when the weapons round is on its way to the target it puts a recoil on the firearm and if the firearm is light it will be knocked around but if it is heavier the shot will have less effect dewto the weight

like for another example if you put a 9mm fitted in a cannon then you put a 9mm fitted in a light way carbine what would kick more, the recoil from the 'cannon' or from the carbine

im no gun expert but the mp40 trounces the thompson,the germans had superiour weapons to the allies

quote:

Originally posted by NJCL43:
im no gun expert but the mp40 trounces the thompson,the germans had superiour weapons to the allies

i would kinda agree on this...but not entirely...

like,

gewehr 43 have larger magazine and semi-auto as m1 grand, but reload time is slower and less damaging.

MG42 have faster rate than 30 cal m1919a6, weights less, but faster rate means frequent barrel change for the MG42.

stg 44 have larger magazine than bar, but slight less powerful than bar m1918a2.

kar98k sniper have a slight faster rate of reload time each round than springfield 1903 due to springfield's scope location. however, it isn't quite powerful as springfield.

now back to mp40 and m1a1. you have to decide what is more important. a large magazine size and takes a lot of 9mm ammo to bring down your enermy? or have a smaller magainze but able to bring them down quickly???

they all have their pros and cons...i wouldn't say one is better than the other...

you mean the thompson and the mp40 not the m1 and mp40

i was refering to the guns build,its reliability and engineering more than its firepower/usefullness

the germans had the best army,best guns,worst leadership.......if they had churchill or rooservelt we would had been in severe poop

quote:

Originally posted by ragingpaseo:
now back to mp40 and m1a1.

quote:

Originally posted by NJCL43:
you mean the thompson and the mp40 not the m1 and mp40

military thompson = m1a1

quote:

Originally posted by NJCL43:
i was refering to the guns build,its reliability and engineering more than its firepower/usefullness

i have heard the mp38/40 can miss fire when dropped or accidently hit against something like a wall...

Ragine!

Mg42 vs .30 cal

The MG42 barrel could be replaced in seconds, faster then the belt of ammo itself.

In .30 cal you cant change barrel (fast) so if it happens to overheat you are F*****.

BUT BACK TO M1 Thomson vs Mp40

^^^isn't that pretty much what i said??? haha...

I've only handled replicas of both, so I can't give any personal testimony over which is better.

I do from a show on the History Channel that a Thomspon is a noisy weapon just to carry around:

Shake it, and you'll hear the bolt or some such rattling around like a marble in a tin can.

And that do it's breech design, it was very easy to clog up with dirty, mud, sand, etc.

Having fired both the Mp-40 and the thompson, I much prefer the lethality of the .45 cal M1A1. Elmer Keith (a noted authority on firearms) once said, "Never go to combat with a weapon thats caliber doesn't start with at least a 4." I tend to agree with that. The Mp-40 is a well made weapon for what it was, it just was not issued in the numbers that war films show it to be, usually only to fire team or squad leaders. (Yes there are exceptions) the same holds true for the Thompson.

Personally, given the choice of weapon during WWII I would have to pick the Garand above all others. Why? Take inot consideration typical combat distances can range from 1 meter to 300 meters. At one meter the thompson and Garand will both kill you, but at 300 meters the Garand has the advantage everytime. 2 words sum up close quarters combat, "Don't miss"

quote:

Originally posted by DarkAutumn:
I've only handled replicas of both, so I can't give any personal testimony over which is better.

I do from a show on the History Channel that a Thomspon is a noisy weapon just to carry around:

Shake it, and you'll hear the bolt or some such rattling around like a marble in a tin can.

It was only noisy when equipped with the 50 round drum, which was rarely used during the war. The bolt and internals of the weapon itself don't rattle around.

The rounds sit loosely in compartments of the drum so they tend to roll around a bit giving the marble in the tin can effect you mention. The 50 round drums are also a royal pain in the butt to reload. You must take the drum apart set the rounds in it, reaasemble it then wind the spring for it to operate correctly. Not something you'd want to worry about in combat.

As for which was better, my vote would be the Thompson (with stick magazines rather than a drum). Hard hitting, very well made and quite a reliable weapon.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Willys-MB,

First, I just have to say that the comment on lack of german leadership is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.

This said both weapons have their own highpoints and lowpoints, like anything else.

The thompson does have good knock-down power with its .45. However, the Thompson also suffers from more recoil then the 9mm MP40.

Also, I would like to say that a bullet is a bullet. If you got shot by a 9mm im sure it would hurt just as much as a .45. The real difference is how much damage is actually caused. When someone gets shot, they normally go out of combat immediately unless trapped on a front. The caliber would just change the actual damage cause and recovery time.

For my money, I would take the more accurate and more maneuverable MP40.

As for the M1 garand distance arguement. Yes the M1 was invaluable to the allies. But a severe difference in WWII over WWI is the rise of close range fighting that took place.

All of these comments are interesting. I do agree the German leadership comment was dumb. I once heard it said that if you put the following together you get the best of WWII. Americain equipment, Canadain soldiers, British Tactics and German Leadership. Put them all together in one and you have an Unstoppable force.

Anyways I like boths Smg's but if I had to make a choice I'd pick Thompson. It just makes the ulitmate close quarters weapon. It takes down the enemy quickly. Forgetting about all the other ticky tack **** about the 2 smgs, I'd rather have a Thompson that will take down the enemy faster than 9mm wounding weapon(mp40)

what made canadian soldiers so good? British tactics? didnt all the allie forces use the same tactics?.... besides maby the US because they had a semi auto rifle opposed to bolt action.

I would also like to know why britian never had a semi auto rifle