Thompson M1A1

[SamMarlowPI]

seems to me they were only issued to Lieutenants and higher...is that correct?

 

[Jovan]

I'm not so sure about that, though they eventually just started using the much cheaper M3 and M3A1 mid-war. (Though I'm personally not convinced they were as effective or reliable -- stamped metal and locked on a slow fire rate... eugh.) The Thompson M1A1 has little difference from M1 besides internal changes.

 

[AeroDillo]

I believe it was senior non-coms and higher, if memory serves. Of course, depending on the breed of officer in charge, the relative position to rear echelon types, and the mission of the unit, just how strictly the distribution was watched might vary.

 

[Jovan]

I'm sure it was watched pretty carefully; even with the latter two military versions that cheapened the production the most, they were still pretty expensive to make!

 

[SamMarlowPI]

i've been told, from multiple parties, that the grease gun was quite reliable for being stamped and somewhat cheaply made...

 

[eightbore]

Thompsons are heavy and were expensive to produce. The weight difference between the Tommy and Grease Guns amounts to the equivalent of more than a little bit of ammo to be carried by the soldier. If I'm in the field, I really want more ammo rather than a super pretty and perfectly machined SMG composed of milled steel and carved walnut. Further, if reliability suffers from 99% on the Thompson to 98% on the Grease Gun but I can carry 50 or 100 extra rounds of .45 because of the weight difference, I'll take the Grease gun every time. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the panache, engineering and craftsmanship of a Thompson, but the notion of a heavy steel and walnut SMG for the battlefield is a bit bizarre.

JMHO,

eightbore

 

[Twitch]

It could have started out as an officers' weapon but certainly wasn't for long. Talked to too many that weren't that used it.

One I talked to noted how the Thompson muzzle would rise if held lightly. He and his compatriots used that to advantage and adjusted their slings so that the weapon was hung horizontal and a press of the trigger would sweep the weapon fire left to right as the muzzle recoil moved the gun.

 

[SamMarlowPI]

nice strafing technique...

 

[Jovan]

eightbore has a good point... however, the heavy weight coupled with its fast fire rate would certainly help each other when it comes to the Thompson. [huh] The advantage it also has is its ability to be fired semi-automatically if need be. Now, the M3 can certainly be fired in single shots, but I wouldn't trust tapping the trigger to do that, for safety reasons.

The interesting thing I note is how drum magazines eventually just fell out of favour, maybe because of cost to make them compared to simpler magazines. Both the Soviets and Brits/Americans used SMGs with a drum magazine for the start of battle and then they'd switch to a regular box magazine when that went out. But then came the PPSh43 to replace the 41, and the Thompson M1 to replace the M1928A1 -- both of which couldn't support drums made for the previous versions. Interesting.

 

[AeroDillo]

I have a drum for mine. It's fun, but I can definitely see why it lost out to the stick mag. Not only the weight, but adding a drum makes the profile of the arm in question much wider, which tends to get in the way when you need quick handling. Plus, look at the construction. The drum has to have a winding mechanism, a key, a faceplate, and a body, plus a number of other small parta, as opposed to a stick, which is basically a metal box with a spring, floorplate, and follower. As such, they have more parts to fail. Mix that in with a hassles of a tropical climate and the things are more hassle than they're worth.

I should also point out that loading drums takes a while - not the sort of thing you'd want to be doing in a foxhole at night whilst waiting on the next banzai charge.

 

[Jovan]

They do, but that's why they switched to a box magazine after that went out. I certainly would never reload with another drum either.

 

[MrBern]

A lot of reenactors want the thompson til theyve carried one for a full day.

Ive known a Sgt who carried one in the Pacific. He was always impressed that it would lift an enemy off his feet. He was more than disappointed in the Carbine's performance in the jungle.

 

[thunderw21]

According to "Kelly's Heros" each man in a squad specially created for the sole purpose of stealing German gold would get a Thompson, that is except for the two BAR men.

 

[Jovan]

There were two BAR men in a squad? I thought there was only one. Then again, that makes sense considering the BAR's low ammo capacity compared to what today's automatic riflemen carry.

 

[thunderw21]

There were two BAR men in a squad? I thought there was only one. Then again, that makes sense considering the BAR's low ammo capacity compared to what today's automatic riflemen carry.

I believe one of the BAR gunners was taken out during the landmine scene, which is why two soldiers were sent back into the field to get it.

You're right about the capacity. A rifleman was usually designated to carry spare BAR ammo along with the BAR gunner.

 

[Marv]

Whilst in Vegas one year I went to a shooting club where I fired a WW2 Thompson and a WW2 Grease gun that they had there.
The Thompson was excellent to fire, accurate and easy to handle even though it was mentioned that the muzzle tends to rise to the right when firing.
The Grease gun however was poor, sloppy loose action and not very accurate even at close range.
I also fired the MP5, AR15 9mm carbine plus a number of handguns but overall the Thompson, considering it's age and construction was the best, a real "kick in the balls" sub-machine gun.

 

[eightbore]

the heavy weight coupled with its fast fire rate would certainly help each other when it comes to the Thompson. [huh] The advantage it also has is its ability to be fired semi-automatically if need be. Now, the M3 can certainly be fired in single shots, but I wouldn't trust tapping the trigger to do that, for safety reasons.

The interesting thing I note is how drum magazines eventually just fell out of favour, maybe because of cost to make them compared to simpler magazines.

While it makes sense that weight cancels out higher cyclic rate of fire to a degree, one needs to think of the implications of this on the battlefield. It means that a soldier needs to carry a heavier weapon so he can then have the duty of carrying more ammo. More weight to justify more weight does not seem like good wartime strategy to me especially since it also means that more ammo needs to then be produced on the home-front taking resources from other things. A lighter and less expensive/labor intensive weapon that discourages the "spray and pray" attitude with a lower and more controllable rate of fire makes quite a lot of sense.

Also, I don't imagine the semi-auto function on the Thompson got used very much. Frankly, I'd find it an annoyance and I wonder how many GIs had to be buried because they were shot while fiddling with the safety trying to get it from semi to full. In the realm of big game hunting, messing with a safety or a scope is the #1 reason for losing opportunities. Solution...eliminate (minimize) safety and use only fixed power optics. If one needs more training to handle the rate of fire and mechanics of a Thompson, this also takes people off the front lines at least temporarily. As for relative accuracy....if you want that, grab a Garand.

Best,

eightbore

 

[dakotanorth]

While it makes sense that weight cancels out higher cyclic rate of fire to a degree, one needs to think of the implications of this on the battlefield. It means that a soldier needs to carry a heavier weapon so he can then have the duty of carrying more ammo. More weight to justify more weight does not seem like good wartime strategy to me especially since it also means that more ammo needs to then be produced on the home-front taking resources from other things. A lighter and less expensive/labor intensive weapon that discourages the "spray and pray" attitude with a lower and more controllable rate of fire makes quite a lot of sense.

Also, I don't imagine the semi-auto function on the Thompson got used very much. Frankly, I'd find it an annoyance and I wonder how many GIs had to be buried because they were shot while fiddling with the safety trying to get it from semi to full. In the realm of big game hunting, messing with a safety or a scope is the #1 reason for losing opportunities. Solution...eliminate (minimize) safety and use only fixed power optics. If one needs more training to handle the rate of fire and mechanics of a Thompson, this also takes people off the front lines at least temporarily. As for relative accuracy....if you want that, grab a Garand.

Best,

eightbore

However, there is, and possibly WAS (??) something called an "AG"- Assistant Gunner. Guys carried belt ammo for the .30 cals, maybe a pal would carry a few clips of Thompson ammo for ya too?[huh]

 

[SamMarlowPI]

good ol' "Johnny-On-The-Spot" Upham really mucked up the AG job in SPRlol
yah Garands were good...could load up on a lot of clips too...

 

[up196]

A technical point . . .

Also, I don't imagine the semi-auto function on the Thompson got used very much. Frankly, I'd find it an annoyance and I wonder how many GIs had to be buried because they were shot while fiddling with the safety trying to get it from semi to full.

The Thompson had two separate levers on the side of the lower receiver. The safety allowed the gun to fire or not fire; the selector allowed the user to choose between semi-automatic and full-automatic fire.

On the subject of drum magazines, not only were they more expensive and difficult to manufacture than box magazines, the drum was more difficult to load and took up as much space on a belt as a pouch for three 30 round magazines, which gave the soldier 90 rounds instead of 50.

Regards, Tom