Missing SMG

[winterflaw]

Just realised - there are no M3 grease guns in COH/BKM.

[kwok]

I think infantry doctrine combat engineers have m3 grease guns. Also most crew weapons on the US faction have grease guns.

[Walderschmidt]

US riflemen get grease guns when you upgrade them with SMGs.

Wald

[winterflaw]

Ah, I hardly play American, I'd not seen it.

I watched a Forgotton Weapons video about the M3 and understood from it they were the main SMG in WW2, but all I remembered seeing for the US were Thompsons.

[MarKr]

"Main SMG" is sort of wonky term. I think that in Forgotten Weapons (and some other videos too, I think) they said that Thompsons were more known and iconic SMGs of the USA during the war but the M3 was better in several aspects. I am not 100% sure but I think they mentioned that M3 was lighter, easier to reload (mainly when visibility was bad (e.g. at night), cheaper to produce and also easier to control when shooting.

As I watch the video, he sas there "in WW2 the vast majority of guns used were the original M3" and then he says that "there were 600 000 of M3 and only about 15 000 of M3A1". It can be interpreted in more ways but I would understand the first quoted part as "the vast majority of the grease guns were the M3 and only a few of the upgraded versions", not that the M3 was the main gun used in general.

[winterflaw]

"Main SMG" is sort of wonky term. I think that in Forgotten Weapons (and some other videos too, I think) they said that Thompsons were more known and iconic SMGs of the USA during the war but the M3 was better in several aspects. I am not 100% sure but I think they mentioned that M3 was lighter, easier to reload (mainly when visibility was bad (e.g. at night), cheaper to produce and also easier to control when shooting.

I may be wrong, but I think the main issue was price. The original Thompson was 200 USD per unit. The cost-reduced version was 43 USD per unit. I don't know how much the M3 was, but I expect it was a few dollars per unit.

The Wikipedia has an interesting claim, that the weapon was intended to be disposable, rather than repairable. When it stopped working, it wasn't repaired - you were just issued with a new unit.

The M3 was entirely adequate as a weapon, and indeed it seems quite good, and so then when you consider the price, it's way ahead.

As I watch the video, he sas there "in WW2 the vast majority of guns used were the original M3" and then he says that "there were 600 000 of M3 and only about 15 000 of M3A1". It can be interpreted in more ways but I would understand the first quoted part as "the vast majority of the grease guns were the M3 and only a few of the upgraded versions", not that the M3 was the main gun used in general.

Yes. Also, 600,000 units is not enough to equip the armies in the field.

My suspicion was, given the prices and the dates of manuacture, that the M3 would be common in WW2, and so I expected it in COH/BKM and it is in fact there.

[MarKr]

I may be wrong, but I think the main issue was price. The original Thompson was 200 USD per unit. The cost-reduced version was 43 USD per unit. I don't know how much the M3 was, but I expect it was a few dollars per unit.

The Wikipedia has an interesting claim, that the weapon was intended to be disposable, rather than repairable. When it stopped working, it wasn't repaired - you were just issued with a new unit.

The M3 was entirely adequate as a weapon, and indeed it seems quite good, and so then when you consider the price, it's way ahead.

If Wikipedia is to be believed, then cost of M3 was about 15 USD. All the major countries wanted to produce an SMG that would be cheap, easy and fast to produce, and at the same time relatively reliable. Nazis had MP40, Russians had PPS43, Brits went too far with the savings and produced not very reliable Sten guns and USA came up with Grease gun. So for USA as a country the main concern was the price for sure.

But they also say that once soldiers got the chance to use the weapon in combat, they actually liked it a lot and here the lower weight and overall easier handling comes into play - a soldier doesn't care how much his weapon cost, only how good it is. So for soldiers the other factors were more important than price.

[speeddemon02]

There were far more Thompsons than there were GGs in WWII. The GG did replace the Thompson as the main SMG, but not in use or numbers during the war. It was used during the war, but not in any significant numbers when compared to Thompsons.

Reloads are different to say the least when comparing the two. The GG is quicker to change mags for those not familiar with the Thompson, but the GG does not have a last round bolt hold open typically requiring extra motions to get in the fight again.

Reception on both weapons will be mixed and unreliable at best as most people even today will not be familiar with either one. Those with limited full auto experience will tend to prefer the super slow ROF compared to the faster, but not overly that fast ROF of the Thompson. The Thompson is nicer to shoulder with the wood stock compared to the wire stock of the GG.

There is a lot of info comparing the two. Both have the other beat in certain categories with the only commonality between them really is the cartridge, but the Thompson is a more reliable/rugged go to war gun.