Thompson SMG in WW2

The 20 was offered with the civilian Thompson and the 30 was brought into existence with the M1. There was undoubtedly more 30s available as the war progressed. I don't think It was a case of they got these and they got those but a matter of availabiity. There were a lot more 30s around.

the drums also saw some use, but not much.

IIRC sop was to start with the drum, run it dry and drop it for a stick mag

Referring to the book U.S. Infantry Weapons of World War II by Bruce N. Canfield the Thompson Submachine Gun shows up quite a bit in WW II photographs. The initial designation was "Thompson Submachine Gun, Model of 1921. Then came subsequent models like the Model of 1928 U.S. Navy and the Model of 1928A1.

The WWII images show troops with 20 and 30 round stick magazines as well as 50 round drum magazines. The M28A1 was issued with 20 round sticks and 50 round drums.

The book gets into much more details but that is it in a nutshell. For those with an interest in WW II infantry weapons U.S. Infantry Weapons of World War II by Bruce N. Canfield is a pretty good read on the subject.

Ron

The 20 round mags and 50 round drums were used with the Model 1928A1 Thompson used in the start of the war. The use of the drums was discontinued after problems were discovered with their reliability, the weight, and the noise of the round slapping back and forth inside the drum during movement.

The M1 Thompson was a simplified version that was easier to manufacture. One of the changes was that the cuts in the receiver required to use drums was deleted. This meant it could only use stick magazines.

The 30 round mag was developed and issued after the M1 and M1A1 were in wide use. Although these held more rounds, some troops preferred the 20 round mags as they were shorter and allowed the user to get closer to the ground in prone and because the extra weight of the loaded 30 round mags sometimes caused malfunctions. The 20's were no longer being manufactured though and the 30's were standard issue.

I have read a couple different accounts that the airborne would jump in with the drum mag in place then ditch it for the stick mags once empty.

The Marine Raiders used the same approach -- using a Type C (100 rounds) drum, then dropping it when it was empty.

My Adviser team had a Thompson in Viet Nam -- we kept it in the jeep, "just in case." But for general use, I could never make sense of carrying a weapon that weighed more than an M1 rifle, and only shot a pistol cartridge.

My father was a Navy Seabee in the Philippines during WWII.
He carried a Thompson as a 'tail gunner' on a bull dozer building runways.

All he had was stick mags, but I don't know if they were 20 or 30 round.

He was of the opinion it was a great gun to keep Suicidal Japanese at bay.
But he also said it and the ammo was more then he would care to carry on foot all the time.

He had an 03 Springfield for that.

rc

But for general use, I could never make sense of carrying a weapon that weighed more than an M1 rifle, and only shot a pistol cartridge.

Click to expand...

That's an excellent point. My father-in-law was an NCO in the North African Theater (Tunisia) in WW2. He told me that although he was initially armed with a Thompson, the first chance he got he switched it for an M1 Garand. The Thompson didn't have enough range for that type of terrain. (Later, he was transferred to the OSS and dropped by parachute into German-occupied territory in the Balkans. I believe he had an M3 Greasegun on that mission.)

That's an excellent point. My father-in-law was an NCO in the North African Theater (Tunisia) in WW2. He told me that although he was initially armed with a Thompson, the first chance he got he switched it for an M1 Garand. The Thompson didn't have enough range for that type of terrain. (Later, he was transferred to the OSS and dropped by parachute into German-occupied territory in the Balkans. I believe he had an M3 Greasegun on that mission.)

Click to expand...

I have some experience with the M3A1 -- and extend my sympathy to your father. No man should have to go into combat with that thing,

Germane to this is that the Thompson was not designed as a modern SMG would be. The magazines did not share a common method of attachment. The drum magazines slide in from the side (which is why the receivers have a T-shaped cut. The stick magazines ride up an impossibly long slot milled in to the front of the trigger assembly.

As to the magazine pouches, the 5 x 20 did not have the best of ergonomics. The 3 x 30 pouch was not nearly so wide, and hung better from web gear. More importantly, it could also carry M-3 magazines, so the pouch was usable for two different SMG (technically, the 5 x 20 could also carry Reising mags, but that was less of an issue).

I had a Thompson in Vietnam. Lots of 30 rd. mags. Never saw any other type. Never used the thing as it was way too big and heavy for my purposes. Eventually gave it to a VNAF friend. Despite its limitations, the M3A1 was my choice. It also had big heavy 30 rd. mags. Main purpose was as a back to the wall defensive weapon.

The 3 x 30 pouch was not nearly so wide, and hung better from web gear. More importantly, it could also carry M-3 magazines, so the pouch was usable for two different SMG

Click to expand...

M3 Greasegun magazines are too long for Thompson 3-cell pouches. I mean, they'll fit, but the flaps won't close. Incidentally, Thompson (and Greasegun) pouches don't "hang" from web gear (using wire hangers) but instead have tunnel loops that the belts pass through.

I have some experience with the M3A1. No man should have to go into combat with that thing

Click to expand...

I own an M3, have shot it, and I have to disagree with this. The cyclic rate is low enough that the gun is easily controllable. It may be ugly and heavy, but it's a neat compact package. When I was thinning out my collection, I sold my Thompson but kept the M3. That should tell you something.

AlexanderA said:

When I was thinning out my collection, I sold my Thompson but kept the M3. That should tell you something.

Click to expand...

Thompsons bring more money?

Great weapon ,BUT

I have had the pleasure of shooting a few when I was an LEO [ my agency had a Naval model with a 3 digit serial # ].

BUT it was HEAVY and cumbersome,and remember I was young and strong back then !.

I owned a semi auto [ yes the REAL Tommy gun ] and it too was a burden to hump.

During a enemy charge it would have been GREAT to have,humping it through any boondock would REALLY stink !.

If y'all remember the TV show "Combat" with Vic Morrow,that was his weapon as commander and he wore stick mags.

the drum mag was VERY HEAVY and a true PITA to carry while in the gun.

Not much better in a mag pouch [ grab 100 rounds of .45 acp and add about another box to simulate the weight of empty mag = NOW hang that about 14" from the front of a 9 POUND gun ].

The M1 versions would not take a drum mag.

A major drawback (IMO) of the Thompson and the M3 not mentioned yet is that they both fire from an open bolt.

scaatylobo said:

I have had the pleasure of shooting a few when I was an LEO [ my agency had a Naval model with a 3 digit serial # ].

BUT it was HEAVY and cumbersome,and remember I was young and strong back then !.

I owned a semi auto [ yes the REAL Tommy gun ] and it too was a burden to hump.

During a enemy charge it would have been GREAT to have,humping it through any boondock would REALLY stink !.

If y'all remember the TV show "Combat" with Vic Morrow,that was his weapon as commander and he wore stick mags.

the drum mag was VERY HEAVY and a true PITA to carry while in the gun.

Not much better in a mag pouch [ grab 100 rounds of .45 acp and add about another box to simulate the weight of empty mag = NOW hang that about 14" from the front of a 9 POUND gun ].

Click to expand...

Scaatylobo, I recall that show -- COMBAT! -- very well from my misspent youth. In fact I have it on DVD now and it still holds up. Well, it's about WW2 and I guess it really doesn't matter so much when a WW2 show was made if it was done well... In line with your comment on the weight of the Thompson;
Actor Rick Jason (Lt. Hanley) was originally supposed to have carried the Thompson. Rick Jason was not your average Hollywood liberal. I really don't know what his politics were but he WAS an avid hunter and he reloaded his own specialty ammo. He knew what it was like to "hump" a gun around all day long and when the COMBAT! prop man handed him the Thompson, he refused it and asked for the lightest rifle they had, which is how his character wound up with the carbine.
Actor Vic Morrow "inherited" the 1928 Tommygun (which he called the "jammomatic") and after a couple of weeks he complained about the weight.
In response the MGM prop department built him a wooden dummy Thompson.
Now, among COMBAT! fandom there's a segment that try to analyze each shot to try to determine if the Thompson Vic Morrow was carrying was the real deal or the wood version.

I've handled a real Thompson at gunshows and have a dummy Thompson (made from a real 1928 with a aluminum receiver) as a wallhanger, a photo of which I use on websites as an avatar) so I agree with your assessment of the weapon.
But, remember it was actually a WW1 design. AND, it's an ICONIC weapon.

Germane to this is that the Thompson was not designed as a modern SMG would be.

Click to expand...

The Thompson was the very opposite of what a SMG should be. The idea behind the SMG was a cheap, easy to manufacture weapon to arm poorly trained men. The Thompson was an expensive, elaborately machined weapon -- with no more capability than a cheap, stamped-out SMG.

i love my savage

"...the Thompson was not designed as a..." It was a 1st Generation SMG. Designed for clearing trenches.
"..."Combat" with Vic Morrow..." Pretty much why my gun safe has one commercial hunting rifle, a shotgun, a .22 and the rest are milsurps. Well, Sgt's Saunders and Rock.

Tommygunn wrote:

I.....have a dummy Thompson (made from a real 1928 with a aluminum receiver) as a wallhanger

Click to expand...

If someone is going to the trouble of building a display Thompson, using real parts, I recommend using a machined steel "80%" receiver from Philadelphia Ordnance or Doug Richardson. Although these are pricey (Richardson's particularly so), they replicate the heft and feel of the originals, and if by some chance the Hughes Amendment is ever repealed, they can be completed into working Thompsons.