Jump to content


Whats the best(or just your favorite) SMG of WW2?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
110 replies to this topic

HighSpyker #41 Posted 31 May 2014 - 08:29 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 36874 battles
  • 6,322
  • [IRN]
  • Member since:
    09-12-2013
I'll agree many SMGs are open bolt, but it's not a defining feature, any more than it's required for machine guns.  The  .30 Carbine is between the 7.62x25mm and  .357 in power.

Dennis420b #42 Posted 31 May 2014 - 08:48 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostHighSpyker, on 31 May 2014 - 03:29 PM, said:

I'll agree many SMGs are open bolt, but it's not a defining feature, any more than it's required for machine guns. The .30 Carbine is between the 7.62x25mm and .357 in power.


I wont argue about the lackluster performance of the round as a rifle (around 200 yards is the effective range, not good), but its just not an SMG. It has no feature in common with an SMG. It uses conventional self loading rifle mechanics. It was intended to be a small arm for drivers, artillery men, MPs and other positions that may see combat but not likely. It was light weight and handy but it is not an SMG, that has its role of assault by front line units. During WW2 they were handed out to front line men after discovery of its usefulness when mixed into infantry units.

The M1 Carbine always reminds me of the FN P-90. Not quite a rifle, not quite an SMG. An in the middle design looking for a home.



GUNMETALGREY1 #43 Posted 31 May 2014 - 08:59 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 23287 battles
  • 817
  • [C-X-L]
  • Member since:
    10-13-2013
Sorry to go off topic but someone mentioned MG34 and 42. I always thought it was interesting about the differences between German and American tactical doctrines. A German rifle squad was designed to support the MG 34 or 42 whereas in the American squad the .30 cal was for supporting the rifle squad. Sorry to interrupt, please continue.

Nocturnal814 #44 Posted 31 May 2014 - 09:02 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 16690 battles
  • 9,952
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013

View PostDennis420b, on 31 May 2014 - 09:48 PM, said:


I wont argue about the lackluster performance of the round as a rifle (around 200 yards is the effective range, not good), but its just not an SMG. It has no feature in common with an SMG. It uses conventional self loading rifle mechanics. It was intended to be a small arm for drivers, artillery men, MPs and other positions that may see combat but not likely. It was light weight and handy but it is not an SMG, that has its role of assault by front line units. During WW2 they were handed out to front line men after discovery of its usefulness when mixed into infantry unit
The M1 Carbine always reminds me of the FN P-90. Not quite a rifle, not quite an SMG. An in the middle design looking for a home.

Maybe a bit more comparable to the m4 carbine of today...



something, something, something, dark side...

HighSpyker #45 Posted 31 May 2014 - 09:55 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 36874 battles
  • 6,322
  • [IRN]
  • Member since:
    09-12-2013
Dennis, what you said has some merit, but the two defining features of the SMG are handgun cartridge and full auto fire.  The M2 has both.  (The M3 was originally planned to be in  .45 and  .30 Carbine, btw.)... No, Noc, the M4 is capable to an effective range of 500 meters, and is now the general issue rifle for the US Army.

Nocturnal814 #46 Posted 31 May 2014 - 10:03 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 16690 battles
  • 9,952
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013

View PostHighSpyker, on 31 May 2014 - 10:55 PM, said:

Dennis, what you said has some merit, but the two defining features of the SMG are handgun cartridge and full auto fire. The M2 has both. (The M3 was originally planned to be in .45 and .30 Carbine, btw.)... No, Noc, the M4 is capable to an effective range of 500 meters, and is now the general issue rifle for the US Army.

My point being that they are both CARBINES, I.e. shortened rifles, not smgs.



something, something, something, dark side...

HighSpyker #47 Posted 31 May 2014 - 10:18 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 36874 battles
  • 6,322
  • [IRN]
  • Member since:
    09-12-2013
Okay.  I can say this slowly:  submachine guns only have...TWO defining characteristics.  One is a pistol-caliber cartridge.  The other is fully automatic fire.  That's it.  There have been expensive and inexpensive ones, finely crafted and stamped-out  ones, wooden, metal, and synthetic-stocked ones, open and closed-bolt ones.  But they all shot a PCC and could fire fully automatic.  ...Carbines, OTOH, can either be defined as short rifles OR ones firing a less powerful cartridge.  The M1 Carbine you incorrectly assumed I meant originally- and have since been trying to backtrack- met both definitions, being both shorter and  firing a weaker cartridge.  Adding FA fire, however- since the  .30 Carbine is clearly a handgun-power cartridge, being less powerful than the common  .357- makes it a submachine gun.  If it fired an intermediate cartridge, it would be an assault rifle.

WidowMaker1711 #48 Posted 31 May 2014 - 10:39 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11837 battles
  • 10,002
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostHighSpyker, on 31 May 2014 - 11:18 PM, said:

Okay. I can say this slowly: submachine guns only have...TWO defining characteristics. One is a pistol-caliber cartridge. The other is fully automatic fire. That's it. There have been expensive and inexpensive ones, finely crafted and stamped-out ones, wooden, metal, and synthetic-stocked ones, open and closed-bolt ones. But they all shot a PCC and could fire fully automatic. ...Carbines, OTOH, can either be defined as short rifles OR ones firing a less powerful cartridge. The M1 Carbine you incorrectly assumed I meant originally- and have since been trying to backtrack- met both definitions, being both shorter and firing a weaker cartridge. Adding FA fire, however- since the .30 Carbine is clearly a handgun-power cartridge, being less powerful than the common .357- makes it a submachine gun. If it fired an intermediate cartridge, it would be an assault rifle.

 

Just a little aside in the Band of Brothers book Richard Winters says that one of Easy Company found a way to file the mechanism of the M1 Carbine to make it full auto. Surely that makes it an SMG???


For Russ and the Allfather

 

 


HighSpyker #49 Posted 31 May 2014 - 11:25 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 36874 battles
  • 6,322
  • [IRN]
  • Member since:
    09-12-2013
...just as the M2, a factory-standard FA is, yes.  Colt has been making a "M16 looking" SMG in 9x19mm for years ( http://www.colt.com/...bmachineGun(SMG).aspx ).  Similar semi-automatic rifles in 9x19 are pistol caliber carbines.

HighSpyker #50 Posted 31 May 2014 - 11:25 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 36874 battles
  • 6,322
  • [IRN]
  • Member since:
    09-12-2013
sorry, that's http://www.colt.com/...bmachineGun(SMG).aspx

HighSpyker #51 Posted 31 May 2014 - 11:27 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 36874 battles
  • 6,322
  • [IRN]
  • Member since:
    09-12-2013
Well, dammit.  The forum refuses to translate it correctly.  Can be found on Colt's site, though.

Dennis420b #52 Posted 01 June 2014 - 02:34 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013
I am with you partially. I dont really think the M1 would be a good SMG, or a good rifle. Not to say that it would not be a good weapon, but rather that it would do no role well. Its round is certainly underpowered by rifle standards, but has more powder than a 9mm, yet due to the ballistics of the light weight bullet it does not retain velocity or accuracy past 250 meters consistently. And the vast majority of them produced were the semi-auto models. The M2 was a late war version. The definitive version was the M1

HighSpyker #53 Posted 01 June 2014 - 02:42 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 36874 battles
  • 6,322
  • [IRN]
  • Member since:
    09-12-2013
I'm a big fan of 7.62x25mm: 9mm recoil, but incredible penetration for a pistol round.  Unfortunately, the Russki stuff just has worse ergos than US.  The M1/M2 just feel better in the hands than most submachine guns, and US peep sights are so much more useful.

KSI Sydewynder #54 Posted 01 June 2014 - 02:47 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 9880 battles
  • 989
  • [PASTA]
  • Member since:
    08-10-2013

View PostTheMEagle, on 30 May 2014 - 03:16 PM, said:

I'm going to go hipster on this and say PPS42/43. A better usable less wasteful stamped steel weapon first mass produced while all hell was breaking loose around the makers in Leningrad.

Pps 43 was the most powerful one too due to the 7.62x25 cal round. I have two parts kits for a 43 and will build them one day



>>>ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛABΣ<<<

rainsilent #55 Posted 01 June 2014 - 05:31 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 4252 battles
  • 2,967
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013
I'm not going to double quote but I want to go back to the BAR if I may. I know the BAR was a bit of a tweener gun but it was still a very good gun. That is why they are trying to make a modernized version to replace the current lmgs in us military service. From a lmg perspective it has many flaws. That however is not how I would utilize it in my military, especially at the time. I would use the BAR as basically a heavy assault rifle and not as a squad suppression weapon. It was beloved by many troops because it was a proven gun. I have personally heard a handful of vets and a few historians say, outside of a lmg role, it had only one flaw. You may say it is due to sentimental feelings but personally I think the BAR is the second best weapon of WWII second to the M1 simply for what it did for the soldier in the foxhole. As one historian put it, "it had a sound all to its own. You could line up 100 guns on the line and the BAR would stand out. A soldier would hear a BAR open up and and he knew he wasn't alone." That is unmeasurable in importance. By the way that quote, not 100 percent accurate, is from Gun Stories.

http://forum-console.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/25926-package-fixes-and-suggestions/

My list of suggested package changes. Matthew J35u5 has one as well. I suggest you take a look at his too and make your own suggestions in either.


HighSpyker #56 Posted 01 June 2014 - 07:23 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 36874 battles
  • 6,322
  • [IRN]
  • Member since:
    09-12-2013
Don't get me wrong: I'd love a BAR.  I think the current US M249 is better for the role, though, despite the smaller caliber.

MrWuvems #57 Posted 01 June 2014 - 09:39 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 10629 battles
  • 8,091
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013

In a similar vein: M1 Garand vs M1 carbine vs SVT-40 vs G43 vs StG 44

 

or rather, M1 vs StG, because the soviet and German rifle-round guns were... quite flawed (the SVT may be because of lax standards due to the need for as many guns as possible)



Cammy1RHF #58 Posted 02 June 2014 - 08:51 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 28883 battles
  • 779
  • [-OS-]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

for pure stopping power id have the Thompson, those .45 rounds will leave you in a world of hurt. the german weapons mp38/40 were simply over engineered. the sten was too unreliable and prone to jamming, and the open bolt design meant that it was prone to accidental discharges.

the mp44,m1 and all the others don't come into this as they are long barreled weapons firing rifle ammunition. as HS says the definition of a sub machine guns is a carbine sized weapon firing pistol ammunition either fully automatic or burst fire.

 

just my opinion


 


Party Poison91 #59 Posted 02 June 2014 - 02:07 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 16129 battles
  • 2,650
  • [X-OFF]
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013

View PostWidowMaker1711, on 31 May 2014 - 07:41 PM, said:

 

Id choose the BREN over the BAR. 

Yep, I'd say our rifle and the BREN where superior. The STEN wasn't bad either for what it was designed for.


"That's a typical, shabby NAZI trick!"

WidowMaker1711 #60 Posted 02 June 2014 - 03:06 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11837 battles
  • 10,002
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostParty Poison91, on 02 June 2014 - 03:07 PM, said:

Yep, I'd say our rifle and the BREN where superior. The STEN wasn't bad either for what it was designed for.

 

The SMLE in WW1 was reported as feared as a platoon could put down so much fire that they thought it was MG fire.

 

Shows how much regard for the LE is held that American collectors will pay top dollar for a good one.

 

Love that the BREN was used by the Commonwealth forces and the Axis forces in its Zb.26 family form as a support weapon.

 

Early Stens had same problems as the Early SA80 filled with dust easily, fell apart, prone to jamming. BUT once they solved the problems in both they become world beaters.


For Russ and the Allfather

 

 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users