Great laker: My father fought in France and Germany in WW2, he told me that if any of
the soldiers somehow ended up with a Thompson they traded it off for a
Garand because "they wanted something they could aim and hit something".
The Exile: I'd say go with the grease gun. I recall hearing that it could swap between
45 and 9 with a kit but with that slow rate of fire you can shoot longer
and more accurately if your just vaguely shooting towards the enemy. Might
hurt if your clearing trenches or buildings but no guns perfect.
TheFireArmGuy: I love the Grease gun. Here is my video explaining it in further detail -
Steve Miller: M3 is more accurate because of it's slow rate of fire.
eogg25: That's pretty good shooting with the grease gun. they should have included
Steve Lempitski: The MP40 was the best of them - reason was the bolt was so heavy in it the
recoil was minimal for a fully auto firearm. Thompsons were replaced as the
Government was paying 225 bucks apiece, 5 times the cost of a Garand.
Daniel SCHNEIDER: Well of course in a WW2 training/propaganda film your'e going to dog the
enemy's weapon.....my gramps was a rifleman in the ETO and remembers a
training film shown stateside that said to the effect that the German
MG42's "bark was worse than its bite". His exact words on that were "what a
bunch of crap!!"
Rahleyboy: Being very familiar with all three weapons, SMGs are limited by their
pistol cartridge to close-range, urban and heavily-wooded fighting. In
open, rural areas, the rifle cartridge dominates because if it's longer
range. Unfortunately, the GI couldn't pick and choose the weapon that he
was issued when going into different combat zones.
R J Macready: The thompson is an early model judging by the compensator ans location of
the bolt. Its rate of fire was like 800 rpm if i remember right. Later in
the war the thompsons were turned down to like 400 or 500 rpm that matched
the grease gun. They were phased out and the m3 grease gun took their place
because they were more expensive to make. Thompson is a much finer smg.
cameron sturgess: All 3 guns have different strengths and weaknesses so they should have
built the M1A1 Thompson, The M3 and either copied or captured as many MP40s
Jeremy VetTech: Lots of childish anti-American anger in these comments. LOL. Insecure much?
Nobody needs to point out the clip was propaganda - everybody already knew
that. I'm no expert, so my opinion on which is best is worthless (like 90%
of yours are), so just put on your big boy pants and get over the fact that
not all SMGs are created equal.
Serge Gaggiano: schmeisser est l'usine de fabrique de ce pm 38 .40. mais son
vrai nom est erma du concepteur ... pas pareil !!!
unwindout: Someone, I don't remember who, told me that, if a GI with a grease gun
could get ahold of a Schmeisser with a good cache of ammo, he'd throw is
grease gun away and use the German gun.
VN Dustoff: The thompson was faster then the MP40 IMO
Otto Fick: Sounds legit to me...hee-haw
Jon Applegate: WWII propaganda to sooth the troops and their families. These were very
close range weapons. You would be very hard pressed to pick out one from
the other if you were on the wrong side of it within 50 feet.
Karen Jamal Omidi: good nice but I like the thopson gun more
kenneth mcgriff: 45. acp has more stopping power than the 9mm ill take the m3 over the mp40
batterman mccormick: M3 for the win!!
Herceg Bosna 90: What is ''obviously''
ABOlsen69666: Very true. Of course one should show this kind of vid back then, goes
without saying. Due to the way things are today between the US and western
europe, stuff like this is just not really that important. That is what I
tend to find a bit funny and annoying at the same time. When someone wants
to do a good docu on modern weapon systems, guns, forces ect. some of the
productions get a wee bit "US patriotic" and on an ultra rare occasion, put
down or disrespect what other countries are doing.
Matthew Arenson: ya the mp40 was slower then the tommy gun and the grease gun was slower
then the mp40
WW2GM: for me mp40 was and is a futuristic weapon. i have one, not a replica but
an original and i tinck that the mp40 and the mp43 or stg43 are futuristic
Ghastly Grinner: i hate WW2 propaganda just makes things seam silly
Eddie Hayes: You need to check the PPSH record.It was so poorly made that the mag-Drum
it came with was hand fitted to work in that gun only.If you tried a
different mag jams,the mag just falling off,double feeds etc.We covered the
beach landing,the push to take back Italy,all of France then to
Germany.Nearly three times the amount Russia took back.Stalin just went to
Germany because he wanted Hitler alive which he didn't get.
Eddie Hayes: Not true at all.You could not use the enemy's gun but in a emergency
Nick Graham: depends on the theatre of war. if we are just talking about the europian
theatre then no russia is far larger also counting the eastern bloc
countries and the good chunk they took of germany. the allies only took
north africa, half of italy, france , and a third of Germany.
Great laker: My dad served in Europe 44-45, according to him the troops preferred the
standard issue rifle over the Thompson. He said, "you couldn't hit crap
with the Thompson".
big daddy: 75 yards did he say? WOW!!! Notice all those guys where E-5 or E-6, those
sergeants where experts and their technique for that time was perfect. It
sounded like the German SMG fired at a faster rate actually. The M3 which
is something I carried when I served has a very slow rate of fire. It is
very easy to use but the sights really suck. I give all 3 guys credit to
have such accuracy at that distance with those weapons.
logerbad19: agreed the ending was like telling us that american submachine gun was
really accurate but all of them are really great
Caleb Hu: The Tommy Gun had a 700-800 rpm rate of fire. The MP40 had 400-600 RPM rate
of fire. The M3 had a 200-400 rpm rate of fire. The Tommy Gun was expensive
but had an high quality. The M3 and MP40 were designed to be cheap. The
Tommy Gun was by far the best.
1945Ace1: I dont know about you guys, but ill stick to the mp 40
Lucas Trakinat: actually the soldiers prefered the m3 over the thompson because of its
Matthew Arenson: ya I'm right. u sure you don't mean the M50 Reising?
Eddie Hayes: Damn Graham,get over it.LMAO!!
Kroenen117: mp40 wins everytime. the person sucked
Caleb Hu: The M3 was, very unimpressive in its rate of fire.
djgoziggaga: just a bad shooter :D
1edgyguy: ummmm as an AIRBORNE RANGER / RECON SCOUT I need to know what you meant
when you said the Tiger (1 or 2) Tank was fagile ,what the hell does fagile
means pal ! Is it like saying FUBAR , SNAFU , BOHICA or something similar ?
Tennnnnnnnnhut Carry-on !
Nick Graham: the mp40 jammed because it was adverse conditions like russia where mud,
ice and thick dirt is common. the Tommy gun was actually more problematic
compaired to the mp40 because it was a work of art much like the lugar all
its parts where complex and had tight tolerances where as the mp40 had
looser tolerances so it could take a bit more abuse. it also was very
expensive to produce hence the reason why we chose to produce the m3 over
1945Ace1: what does choosing the ideal submachine gun have anything to do with my
patriotism? this film is obviously propaganda and I called out on it and
made a decision. "we need people to make things better"? are you referring
to quality of products"? or overall economy and moral? I guess your just
being a little overly sensitive about the topic because of how close we are
to independence day or more so just an troll looking to start a little
argument for the fun of it.
RagnarOdinsson: MP40 didn't design it either........ come on just playin about.
RagnarOdinsson: Well if the productions are made in the US, of course they will showcase
the US as the best. There are a lot of shows related to this stuff in the
States, most of what I watch is pretty fair. Discovery did a show called
top 10's. They take what they believe is the top 10 of any military used
weapon from tanks to battle rifles and breakdown which is best based on
many factors. I see you are Danish, my great grand parents were from
Videobros Schlacters: The noise is a moral killer.....
Matt K: The M3 grease gun WAS A PIECE OF crap..............read some primary source
accounts from WWII GI's who were issued them, and discarded them in favor
of a Thompson or other weapon. I don't give a crap how long it was in
service for...........that doesn't mean it was a good gun, it means the
Gov. had surplus amounts on hand and issued them. I got 5 votes for my
comment, you got crap...................so that tells me who's right!
ABOlsen69666: It was a misspelling,,, pal. Fragile was what I meant. The German tanks
were in many ways very good, but they were not reliable and had major
issues with cold and muddy terrain. Also, as with the Panther, the
production costs and time was way too high. That was what the hell I meant.
I've been in the Danish Huntsmen Corps (Jaeger Corps) myself btw.
brandoneiger: TROLL ALERT!! TROLL ALERT!!!
ABOlsen69666: Not really sure about what you mean. What I'm saying is that many of the
docs about US millitary just put the US stuff up as the best no matter
what. As an example, saying that the SEALs or USMC are the best when they
are not. Now Rangers and the Danish FKP are interesting. The Sherman was in
critical ways better than the Tiger. It didn't bog down or break, yes the
Tiger was fast and had better armor, but it was too fagile. The best of
them all in WWII, was the T34, just because of sheer numbers
triggerhappybullets: If in USD, how much was the MP40?
1edgyguy: Deutcheslande Uber Alles "/
Schools: Learn how to get phlebotomy training in California! The job pays decent money for the amount of schools needed to graduate.