StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I just saw the movie Stalingrad last night, it was depressing and not as exciting as say Saving Private Ryan but still it was interesting to see it from a German point of view, rare in the movies but definately a Das Boot kind of feel and there was some preachiness against nazism (if it makes contemporary German audiences feel better, that's fine with me) but there was one aspect that intrigued me, as usual a side issue. There was a submachine gun we see alot of in the movie, its Russian and the German soldiers eschew their own weapons in favor of this gun. One of the enlisted men claims that it never jams unlike their own weapons.

My question of course is, what gun was that? It was a small submachine gun, circular magazine like a Tommy gun. I'm just curious because Russian equipment is usually looked down upon in some WWII circles (save of course their tanks like the T-34.) so I wanted to know what was this gun that the Germans loved so much and in the movie, you invariably see German troops sporting them almost as much as their own equipment. It looked pretty sturdy and rugged and thought it might be a precursor to the Kalishnykov.

Sorry if this question is obscure, but these little details are usually what interests me in war movies.

Most likely the PPSh, the Russian sub machine gun. It was cheaply mass produced, and only had one way to fire, full auto.

That or it could be a Tokarev, but I really couldn't see that happening, seeing that it was based off a German weapon.

Soviet PPSH - super cheap and easy to manufacture on top of it's other merits.

Frank Hipper wrote:Soviet PPSH - super cheap and easy to manufacture on top of it's other merits.

THAT's IT Frank!!! Thanks! So was it true that it was super reliable compared to the German submachine guns? It must have been a bitch during the long campaoign to find ammo for the thing if you were a German soldier.

Yup, the PPSh, incredibly cheap to manufacturer, they could be stamped out incredibly fast because of the high usage of stamped metal.

The Russian subgun might have been slightly more reliable in cold conditions than the German army's MP40, but the difference would have been slight - provided you took reasonably good care of it, the MP40 was a very reliable weapon. The German's did like using the PPSh41, but the real reason was that it was slightly more compact than the MP40, and featured a 71 round drum magazine, as opposed to the MP40's 32 round box. The German soldiers liked the extra firepower.

What was the caliber and range stats of this?

The MP-40 was only accurate out to about 40 yards. After that, no telling where you would hit.

NF_Utvol wrote:What was the caliber and range stats of this?

The MP-40 was only accurate out to about 40 yards. After that, no telling where you would hit.

The PPSh41 used a 7.63mm bottleneck cartridge. It was still a pistol cartridge (also chambered in their Tokarev TT33 pistol), but was smaller caliber than the 9mm MP40. It fired a lighter, smaller caliber projectile at higher velocity, which gave it a flatter trajectory, and theoretically, this means longer range. In practice, however, weapons designed for cheap mass production, and which have plenty of loose tolerances to ensure reliability in extreme conditions, are not famed for their accuracy. Effective range then, would have been about the same for both weapons - about a 100 meters max. and usually they'd be employed at shorter ranges than that.

Interestingly, the Germans captured so many of these things that they found it worth their while to convert large numbers to fire their own 9mm ammo. The Russians issued subguns on a larger scale than any other army; their were whole divisions armed with nothing else.

That is what I was thinking, what with the Russian obsession with .30 caliber.

I thought it was the same that went with the Tokarev pistol, but, I wasn't 100% sure.

Of course, the 9mm would be a better round for this usage, because of its better stopping power at short ranges, and I am sure this thing would be hell to fire at anything past 20 or 30 yards.

PPSh was a great weapon, Russia built millions by sawing rifle barrels in half that where in storage.

Da comrade! The legendary Psitolet Puljemot Shpagin.
Only drawback was the heavy wooden stock.
Another reason the MP-40 was often discarded was that you quickly burned your hands since it had no handguards and it was a full-auto only weapon, while the PPSh had a select fire switch..

Cpt_Frank wrote:Da comrade! The legendary Psitolet Puljemot Shpagin.
Only drawback was the heavy wooden stock.
Another reason the MP-40 was often discarded was that you quickly burned your hands since it had no handguards and it was a full-auto only weapon, while the PPSh had a select fire switch..

No, it didn't.

Pablo Sanchez wrote:

Cpt_Frank wrote:Da comrade! The legendary Psitolet Puljemot Shpagin.
Only drawback was the heavy wooden stock.
Another reason the MP-40 was often discarded was that you quickly burned your hands since it had no handguards and it was a full-auto only weapon, while the PPSh had a select fire switch..

No, it didn't.

I'm afraid it did. The Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons of World War II, by Ian V. Hogg (one of the world's leading experts on the history of small arms) lists its system of operation as "blowback, selective fire". The selector lever is the small switch housed inside the trigger guard, just in front of the trigger. Sliding it forward gives full automatic fire. Pressing it rearward activates the disconnector to give single shots. The safety was a bolt lock, which also served as the cocking handle.

I was unawares of that.

Possibly a later model?

I am almost certain that the first ones, at least, were only full auto.

NF_Utvol wrote:I was unawares of that.

Possibly a later model?

I am almost certain that the first ones, at least, were only full auto.

I've never seen one without that selector lever. I am quite certain they were all selective fire. A second source, Small Arms in Profile, Vol. 1 (A.J.R. Cormack, ed.), gives even more detailed info about this weapon, and its production history, and is complete with detailed photographs, showing close ups of various parts of the weapon. They all have a selector lever, and the introductory paragraph, which describes the gun's origins describes it as a selective fire weapon. The chief point of recognition between the early and late models is the sights. The earliest ones had a tangent rear sight, while later ones have a simpler two position flip over rear sight, with one aperture set for a range of 100m and the other for 200.

Perinquus wrote:

NF_Utvol wrote:I was unawares of that.

Possibly a later model?

I am almost certain that the first ones, at least, were only full auto.

I've never seen one without that selector lever. I am quite certain they were all selective fire. A second source, Small Arms in Profile, Vol. 1 (A.J.R. Cormack, ed.), gives even more detailed info about this weapon, and its production history, and is complete with detailed photographs, showing close ups of various parts of the weapon. They all have a selector lever, and the introductory paragraph, which describes the gun's origins describes it as a selective fire weapon. The chief point of recognition between the early and late models is the sights. The earliest ones had a tangent rear sight, while later ones have a simpler two position flip over rear sight, with one aperture set for a range of 100m and the other for 200.

Hmm, well, maybe I was just mistaken.

But that little rifle with sights set for 100 and 200 meters? I coulnd't see that thing shooting anything with any accuracy that distance.

Perinquus wrote:I'm afraid it did. The Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons of World War II, by Ian V. Hogg (one of the world's leading experts on the history of small arms)

You're correct, I just misread Mr. Hogg's entry in his Military Small Arms of the 20th Century book. In it, he states:
"There was no selector lever on some of the late models, when the gun was capable only of automatic fire..." (p.152).

NF_Utvol wrote:

Perinquus wrote:

NF_Utvol wrote:I was unawares of that.

Possibly a later model?

I am almost certain that the first ones, at least, were only full auto.

I've never seen one without that selector lever. I am quite certain they were all selective fire. A second source, Small Arms in Profile, Vol. 1 (A.J.R. Cormack, ed.), gives even more detailed info about this weapon, and its production history, and is complete with detailed photographs, showing close ups of various parts of the weapon. They all have a selector lever, and the introductory paragraph, which describes the gun's origins describes it as a selective fire weapon. The chief point of recognition between the early and late models is the sights. The earliest ones had a tangent rear sight, while later ones have a simpler two position flip over rear sight, with one aperture set for a range of 100m and the other for 200.

Hmm, well, maybe I was just mistaken.

But that little rifle with sights set for 100 and 200 meters? I coulnd't see that thing shooting anything with any accuracy that distance.

Broomhandle Mausers have tangent sights graduated to 1000 meters. They fire essentially the same cartridge as well. M1928 Thompson's also had a rear sight graduated to 600yds. Let's just it's a common thing for pistol and submachine gun designers to have adjustable sights with rather, ah, "optimistic" ranges on them.

Stravo wrote: My question of course is, what gun was that? It was a small submachine gun, circular magazine like a Tommy gun.

THE PPSh-41

Perinquus wrote: Broomhandle Mausers have tangent sights graduated to 1000 meters. They fire essentially the same cartridge as well. M1928 Thompson's also had a rear sight graduated to 600yds. Let's just it's a common thing for pistol and submachine gun designers to have adjustable sights with rather, ah, "optimistic" ranges on them.

Hmm, good point. I have an old Mauser pistol that has the graduated sites out to 500yd...

NF, nothing personal, but I used you to make a point. Do NOT over use the quote button (read the announcement about it). six quotes inside quotes finalized by a single line phrase of your doing is not efficient space management.

Remember that in the future, people.

As for finding ammo, Stravo- you'd be interested to know that so many Germans used it (after all, the Soviets made 5,000,000 of the things) that they rechambered it for 9mm Parabellum.

hmm what about the stamped metal smg made in Lenningrad the one even easier to make than the PPsH? I hear there was no wood in it

Typhonis 1 wrote:hmm what about the stamped metal smg made in Lenningrad the one even easier to make than the PPsH? I hear there was no wood in it

PPS-43.

That was the PPS-42 and PPS-43 (which is an improved version). The only non-metal parts are the wooden grips, and a small piece of leather acting as a buffer for the bolt.