"PPSh-41 range compared to other SMGs" Topic

I'm very new to World War II gaming, so one thing struck me as odd as I am coming from more of a small arms knowledge base. In the rules I've looked at, all SMGs are grouped together with a certain range, all rifles with a certain range, etc. For rifles this makes perfect sense, as the slight variances of an Enfield faster cycling and the Mauser's more solid action make little impact in the abstraction of gaming. For most SMGs, I'd also agree. A Thompson or Sten or MP40 all have about the same effective range, say 50-100m.

The PPSh, however, is a different animal. I know for simplicity's sake, saying it has a similar range works, but from what I've read of the weapon, it has a much further range that the standard 50m engagement distance. As I'm gaming the Eastern Front, seeing PPSh armed troops unable to do anything beyond incredibly close distances makes all the pictures of PPSh armed troops on the open steppe seem ridiculous.

Does anybody know of rules (whether written or house ruled) that accomodate this? A quick wikipedia search gives 50m to 100m for the standard SMGs (M1A1 Thompson, MP40, and Sten) while a 150-250m range for the PPSh. The 7.62x25 round is one hot round in a pistol, moreso out of a SMG length barrel, which I would assume is the reason for such a longer effective range.

Any thoughts?

A smg after the first round fired is an area effect weapon. You are trying to get as many rounds into a man size target. Sure somev weapons are probably more accurate then others, but for game purposes keeping them all together simplifies it.

I would also attribute the extra range to the significantly higher muzzle velocity of the 7.62 x 25. That said, the likelihood of the extra range of the ppsh vs a German SMG having any influence on a battle is pretty small in my opinion. Just pick your favorite rules and bump out the range if you want to.

The PPSh is also heavy compared to the german smg, especially with the drum magazine, which ought to help hold the muzzle down…

There are people that can hit a man-size target with pistols at 200 meters, so the whole 50 meter range for any SMG is rather arbitrary. Heck, there were reports from Katanga in the '60s of mercenaries shooting from about 200m with SMGs (I believe they were reported to be using Sterlings) and hitting.

Heck, it is often stated that the effective range of an M16A1 is 300m (or less), but I could, in my younger days, reliably hit a man-size target 9 out of ten times (or better) at 480m (that's 500 yards, right?).

The whole thing about the real world is that there isn't some magical wall at a set range, in front of which you can reliably get hits and beyond which a firearm is incapable of hitting.

With respect to which has more range, the trick is the sighting system--and how much bullet drop you get. I suspect the bullet drop of a Tokarev round versus a Luger or ACP is not that much different at 120m. In other words, WWII SMG effective ranges are pretty much the same.

Rob

I would say that the degree of effective difference between the PPSh (I own a long barreled semi-auto version of one – great gun, and loads of fun to shoot, but a royal pain in the rear to clean) and other SMGs is no greater than that between the bolt action rifles you mention. If you willingly accept the abstraction of grouping the rifles together based on their technical similarities and similar tactical usage, then the SMGs should probably be grouped together too.

Doug

In the 1980s Marine corps we trained to hit targets at 500 yards with the M-16A1, and wished we could have had M-14s with longer range.

Range is not its advantage , ammo supply is

"…so the whole 50 meter range for any SMG is rather arbitrary."
Exactly! I've found it odd that almost all rules give SMGs a range of about 50 yards, acting like the rounds just die and fall to earth. To keep this brief, I'd group all SMGs together, because the 7.62 round of the PPSh is going to go about as far as the 9mm of the MP-40 and the .30 or .45 cal round of the Thompson.

I do agree that they should not be as effective out to their max range. For skirmishy rules, if you have a rifle getting one firepower dice from close range out to max effective range (let's call it 500 yards), I let SMGs shoot out to 300 yards. They get three firepower dice out to 75 or 100 yards, then one firepower dice out to 300 yards.

I think this idea of SMGs being accounted for only at 50m or less grew out of some rules writers' idea that SMGs were primarily carried by small unit leaders that wouldn't be engaging the enemy except at very close range. I agree with that concept, but just because the Sgt isn't engaging at 300 yards doesn't mean the weapon can't. Furthermore, this ignores, as the OP brought up, the idea of equipping entire units (squads/platoons) with SMGs.

Oh, and I was in the Corps from 95-04, and you still fire the KD course, 10 rounds at 500 yards, and even the worst shooters hit at least half of them (granted, known distance, no one shooting at you)…

V/R,
Jack

It's range is better. Look at the ballistics of the Tokarev TT-33 compared to 9mm. The PPSh-41 is about 100 ft/s better than the TT-33.

I met a rather old chap a few years ago who was a mercenary in Africa in the early 60's. He said the PPSH, was a good gun out to 120 yards, beyond that it was iffy. Everyone he knew wanted one because it was reliable and put out a lot of firepower.

From John Salt's WO compendium -

WO 291/476 Comparison of rifle, Bren and Sten.
This paper investigates four theories about small-arms effectiveness:
1. Rifle and Bren shooting is generally so poor that the real accuracy of these weapons is never used;
2. Rifles and Brens are rarely used at long ranges except by snipers;
3. For semi-skilled troops, automatic weapons are disproportionately better than single shot;
4. The advantage of automatic over single-shot is increased by battle conditions.
Trials conducted at the School of Infantry confirm 1, 2 and 4. "It is admitted that all the above trials have been on a small scale and that and that the sample of men was probably not representative of the Infantry as a whole; but it is expected that the trends shown will hold for all except possibly the first class shot."

With accuracy results -

Another set of trials, each of 20 rounds, was shot on a 30 yard range, and the following results obtained. It was noted that "the average firer has a higher overall chance of hitting an enemy at 200 yards with a Sten than with a rifle."
Weapon Fire type 90% zone % chance of a hit on a man at 200 yds
(inches at 25 yds) single shot 4-rd burst
Rifle (unrested) 3.1 57
Bren single 2.9 60
burst 4.0 90
Sten (unrested) single 5.6 31
burst 10.4 40
Sten (rested) single 4.6 40
burst 6.7 68

With a higher MV one could argue for potentially more accuracy from the PPSH than the Sten.

As to lethality -

Shooting was done lying with weapon rested; an improvised backsight was fitted to the Sten for shooting at 300 yards. An extra trial to confirm the lethality of Sten bullets at 300 yards was performed with ¾" deal targets covered in two thicknesses of webbing. All hits were "throughs".

Now the 7.62x25 is 30 percent lighter than the 9mm. The question would be whether the presumed higher impact velocity would offset the lighter weight. There are some external ballistics calculators online where one could examine that aspect.

P.S. Seems to even worse than usual trying to format this. Suppose I should do an image and upload and link it. Msybe next time…

Individually the weapons can be rated against st each other but more I portantly is 'how' they were used within tactical doctrine…….

Interesting discussion here on the prevalence of the Ppsh…..

link

"There are people that can hit a man-size target with pistols at 200 meters, so the whole 50 meter range for any SMG is rather arbitrary."

Did they actually have sights intended for more than 50m? I see that in the firing tests they built an improvised backsight for the Sten.

The rear sight on the PPSh (later models like mine, anyway) flips between a 100m setting and a 200m setting. I understand on early models there was a sliding tangent rear sight as found on most rifles. My (translated) manual for the thing has amusing diagrams of how to use it in an air defense role.

Doug

Lighter bullet with higher velocity or heavier bullet slower velocity, they all have their pros and cons and some stuff winds up as a wash in the big scheme of things when it comes to SMG's and effective fire.

It only had full-auto setting.
Heck some of the ww1 rifles had settings for 1600 meters, do you think they were hitting man sized targets at that range with aimed fire?

Oh just in case I didnt get the point across the ppsh round is not more effective, it carries about the same kinetic eneregy as its american and european counterparts.

@Petrov
"It only had full-auto setting."
I read that too somewhere awhile ago. But, then recently I found another site which said it was selectable. There was a picture of one with two triggers. ???

"The submachine gun was capable of both semiautomatic and full-automatic fire, with an automatic cyclic rate of 900+ rounds per minute. The sliding mode of fire selector is located inside the trigger guard, forward of the trigger. The full automatic position is forward, semiautomatic to the rear."
sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=2204

"There was no selector lever on some of the late models, when the gun was capable only of automatic fire"
Page 120 of Military Small Arms of the 20th Century, 5th Edition by Ian V. Hogg and John Weeks.

So it would appear some were, some were not.

Definitely like the reference to Military Small Arms of the 20th Century! I happen to own the 7th edition of that book and find it to be one of my favorite references.

I enjoyed all of the input here. I think Gaz0045 hit a point that I would like to expand upon, and that is how it's used in tactical doctrine.

A whole battalion armed with nothing but PPSHs is a whole different story then only a handful having a SMG. Are there rules that account for this?