In WW1 submachine guns were considered inhumane, how effective were they by WW2?

In WW1 submachine guns were considered inhumane, how effective were they by WW2?

Attached: ppsh_feature-630x320.jpg (630x320, 43K)

Start of WW2, kinda crap but generally functional. 1942-1944 is when they got pretty good.

they were good at close combat, but had trouble at range
used as a specialist weapons
a platoon generally only carried a single SMGunner for close encounters

all-SMG armed squads were saved for specialist purposes for when sheer firepower was needed over range

The Thompson SMG was the most effective SMG of ALL time. I know this because a boomer on the history channel told me so. I mean 45 acp has enough stopping power to knock a grown man off his feet, and throw him backwards atleast 4 feet.

The inhumane part comes from the other guy having no chance against a full auto SMG with his rifle in close quarters.

The SMGs did not change THAT much, nor did the idea behind their usage.

Russians made heavy use of whole platoons and companies armed with PPSh-41, primarily for city fighting.

These sort of weapons were pretty damn effective. The fire volume, especially compared to bolt action rifles, was extreme and they were quite a bit more handy (though many were larger and heavier then modern carbines).

Partly it was that shooting someone repeatedly with a pistol-caliber weapon, or shooting them with a shotgun, was seen as a crueler way to kill them then a single high power round from a rifle or machine gun. Weirdly, they didn't complain about artillery being inhumane, despite causing nightmarish wounds with fragments.

Seems odd that people would have a problem with SMGs but not with flamethrowers.

>The Thompson SMG was the most effective SMG of ALL time
you have many mistakes in word PPS

The big difference between WW1 and WW2 was magazines reliability. The MP18 smg of 1918 was still in use by the British who manufactured it as the Lanchester smg. The Sten was mainly a cost reduction idea and still struggled with the magazine. Meanwhile the Russians were using a PPSH magazine that was reliable but a bitch to reload. American, czech and Italian smgs seemed to resolve the magazine issue better. Australia said fuck it and went for top magazines. But beyond this, the smg of WW2 was largely the same as the smg of WW1 only with improved manufacturing methods. Just as deadly and just as heavy to carry around.

>but not with flamethrowers.
They did.