The Thompson and Ken Hackathorn ... again

[thirtyround]

For Your Enjoyment or Aggravation......

 

 

 

[06AngusSG]

I have never heard of Ken before. Don't know who he is. I know the other is associated with the James Julia auctions. But... So many false statements there... Is Ken supposed to be an authority of some kind?

[Speeddemon02]

Yes, mostly known for 1911 training and various military specialized training.

[Got Uzi]

Yeah you might want to do a little research into Ken....everyone is entitled to their opinions.

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

Forget Ken. Ponytail (Ian McCollum) opinion sounds like a 10 year-old girl's impression of baiting a hook with a worm.

"This pig of a submachine gun I personally really dislike...Eeeewww!"

[Gaffshot]

The gun is what it is. One person's opinion doesn't really matter but I enjoyed hearing his anyway. I enjoyed the video. Thanks for sharing. The Thompson is a bit heavy....

[TD.]

Opinions are nice but facts really matter. It is hard to believe that the great majority of personnel serving with Allied Forces in World War II hated the Thompson gun. After all, 1.5 to 2 million of these Thompson guns saw service during the war (including in the German army). Somebody must have been impressed with General Thompson's old trench broom! And yes, it is heavy - but so is everything else during this time period.

[Got Uzi]

TD-the M3/M3A1 was much lighter if looking at WWII SMGs

[R67]

Opinions are nice but facts really matter. It is hard to believe that the great majority of personnel serving with Allied Forces in World War II hated the Thompson gun. After all, 1.5 to 2 million of these Thompson guns saw service during the war (including in the German army). Somebody must have been impressed with General Thompson's old trench broom! And yes, it is heavy - but so is everything else during this time period.

 

In the spirit of debate I offer that you are missing the point of the video. Hackathorn is saying that the Thompson has a place in the Army for those with special needs, but lacked in capabilities that most Combat Infantryman found desirable in battle. Its a valid point. I have personally spoken with an Artillery Veteran who just loved his M1 Carbine. Most folks say the Carbine was underpowered, problematic in dirty conditions, bad magazines... Ect. But this old guy loved his Carbine: because it was so light and handy. He used it late in the war in combat, but most of the time hauled it around. I am sure there are guys who loved the Thompson for the work they did. Paratroops made excellent use of it, as did commandos and people who needed higher firepower at close range.

 

I do think that Hackathorn is missing a vital element of the TSMG: it's a first generation submachinegun for pete's sake. It was the first of its kind in America and did the best it could do. It was reliable and deadly. I think both McCollum and Hackathorn take a great deal for granted in the era of the Modern Black Rifle that will literally run for thousands of rounds without being cleaned or maintained. For example, he talks about .45 being heavy. Compared to what? 30-06? .30 Carbine? .45 was comparable to all of those in weight. Again, I think he is coming from the land of .556 and 9mm and forgets the time and place of WWII.

 

But I do think that these guys are right. They both shoot quite a bit. McCollum does a lot of SW rifle/carbine matches. Hackathorn has trained people how to kill and defend all his life, and has fired the TSMG enough to feel confident making conclusions about its performance. It is not that great of an option for most combat found in the Second World War. Personally I would carry an m1 Garand. It lighter than the Thompson: better range, better accuracy, better penetration, arguably equally reliable.

 

The TSMG is heavy to carry. Taking it out of the truck, walking to the range, shooting at one place, and then walking it back does not count. Not even close. Sling it with 50 pound of gear and a helmet on, then go for a 10 mile hike with elevation changes. Then you can start to understand how the combat mentality works.

 

Overall: It really does not matter. No one uses the TSMG to kill anymore, and they are relics of a bygone era and important history. Opinions are just opinions, and everything is nuanced. But get this: even though Hackathorn talks S*** about the TSMG for 30 minutes straight in this video: he still owns one.

[Sandman1957]

There are Thompson's still in service with various Nations. FWIW at the beginning of WWII there were no carbines, nor M3s. The Thompson was heavy but worked. Marines couldn't wait to trade up the REISINGs for Thompson's. All depends on where you were and your MOS. The BAR was heavy too and worshiped.

S/Fi,

Sandman1957

[full auto 45]

Opinions are nice but facts really matter. It is hard to believe that the great majority of personnel serving with Allied Forces in World War II hated the Thompson gun. After all, 1.5 to 2 million of these Thompson guns saw service during the war (including in the German army). Somebody must have been impressed with General Thompson's old trench broom! And yes, it is heavy - but so is everything else during this time period.

 

My grandfather was in the 85th ID, the Custer Division (CD) in Italy during WWII. As he said, "I walked that entire damn country. From the toe to the top of that God-damn boot."

When I got my M1 Thompson, I had a few Garands. He said how much they did not like the Thompson. "Nobody wants to carry that heavy som bitch around? It's so damn heavy. I had one and got rid of it first chance I got. Got me a Garand."

I told him the Thompson weighs about the same as a Garand. "There ain't no God-Damn way. Besides, I like shootin' them Germans far away. You know, I killed so many I lost count. I could pick one off every time they popped up." And, he wasn't lying. He was one hell of a shot, up until just a few years before he died in 2006.

[NFA amnesty]

I really like the M3A1 grease gun regarding how it handles on full auto and ability to fire single shots with trigger control. However something iconic about the Thompson.

[dalbert]

I have personally spoken with an Artillery Veteran who just loved his M1 Carbine. Most folks say the Carbine was underpowered, problematic in dirty conditions, bad magazines... Ect. But this old guy loved his Carbine: because it was so light and handy. He used it late in the war in combat, but most of the time hauled it around.

 

You'll find that there's no middle ground with the Carbine. They are either loved or hated by veterans who used them.

 

I did not agree with Ken Hackathorn's statement about there being a huge difference in controllability between the 1928A1, and the 1921. He said the M1928A1 was "dramatically more controllable" than the Model of 1921. It made me wonder whether he had experience with both, or if maybe he was just repeating some hype. It was contradicted by his earlier statement about the controllability of the Thompson, and his demonstration of such, but perhaps he intended to limit that comment only to the M1A1 that was on-hand during the video conversation. BTW, Ken attended a Friday of the TATA All Thompson Show and Shoot, sponsored by the Hill family several years ago. I believe he was there because the department he worked for was selling some Colt Thompsons. He's been exposed to the Thompson collector community. He's obviously an MP-5 fan, but apparently also likes the Thompson. I own both weapons. I love the Thompson, and I like the MP-5 a lot. It's all about "keeping the Thompson history alive." It's an amazing history that weaves through so many different eras, groups, conflicts, countries, and the Thompson is itself, iconic. The MP-5 is a superbly designed, accurate submachine gun. It has some history, but is probably best known for movie action in the Die Hard series, and some will also remember its use at the 1972 Munich Olympics. With almost 50 years between the 1921 Thompson, and the MP-5 Submachine Gun, it's amazing to me how well designed the Thompson is...the engineers who designed it were brilliant. Yes, it was expensive, but it was also the first American Submachine Gun, and arguably the greatest submachine gun ever fielded. Take a look at the Medal of Honor and Victoria Cross pinned post of heroes who used it during their brave and gallant actions in support of the U.S., and the British Commonwealth. It has no equal in its history.

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

[huggytree]

when i shoot my 1921 kit in my 1928 i am less accurate....i can shoot singles with my factory 1928...no chance i can do that with the 1921 kit in it

 

if i was in ww2 id prefer the m1 garand if the targets were beyond 50 yards and the thompson if they were less than 50 yards......both pretty much weigh the same...id pick the m1 garand if i had to use my gun as a skull crushing device though.......me and my son often discuss which we would choose had we been in ww2. The .30 carbine would be my last choice....the guns were heavy, but they had slings

 

i think the biggest issue with the early thompsons is the Lyman sight...while the m1 garand sights are spectacular

 

i found the video entertaining to some degree

Edited August 23, 2018 by huggytree

[Speeddemon02]

At distance in the woods is one thing. Room clearing in villages and short distances in ruined cities is another. The scenarios used are used to the advantage of the arguing party. The point I do not hear is that both the Garand and Thompson were used together excelling in its area for a great overall combat effect. Not that this was the sole or major contributing factor, but gave evidence none the less to the intermediate cartridge being the ideal combat round.

[Adg105200]

Entertaining. Some good points I suppose, but it should all be taken with a grain of slalt. Opinions and facts are two different things. Just because Ken hasn't ever met anyone that loved the Thompson doesn't mean no one did. It all had to do with the given task, situation, or personal opinion of a given GI at the time. There really weren't too many weapons that were what you'd call light back during ww2. And as far as controllability and accuracy, a part of that had to do with the level of use and training.

 

Nothing against Ken, but while he's at it he might as well argue the myth that Tiger tanks we're the most dangerous and feared tank of ww2. Lol

 

Andrew

[jim c 351]

Show me a soldier that thinks a Thompson is overly heavy and I'll show you a soldier that never carried a BAR.

Jim C

[Ron Mills]

Show me a soldier that thinks a Thompson is overly heavy and I'll show you a soldier that never carried a BAR.

Jim C

Or the guy who had the pleasure of lugging the M1919 .30 cal

[Sandlewood_3]

The real problem with carrying a thompson for combat would be the ammo weight not the weapon itself. 230gr ball adds up quickly on the belt. What was a standard load 200 rounds? Probably want more than that for a subgun in a conflict zone.

[jim c 351]

And 240 rds of 30-06 for the BAR and 250 rd belt for the 1919 was light???

WW2 firearms were all heavy, except for the carbine, but the got the job done.

Jim C

[R67]

And 240 rds of 30-06 for the BAR and 250 rd belt for the 1919 was light???

WW2 firearms were all heavy, except for the carbine, but the got the job done.

Jim C

 

Exactly. Its super important to remember the time and place for old guns.

 

Don't race a Model A roadster against a Tesla Roadster. I think Hackathorn was inadvertently comparing the TSMG to an MP5 or Modern Assault weapons.

[Sandman1957]

2003 IZ invasion

 

Back to the "facts" on the weapons (mix). Individuals may have acquired or swapped out a weapon now and then, or added sidearms but, the rifle squad and rifle platoon was mixed with rifles, subguns and Light Machineguns (BARs). Depending on the date time group of the unit (such as Marines)

they started with 1917 Enfields, 1903 Springfields, for Riflemen, 1 BAR per fire team (4 men) Three fire teams per squad of 12 Marines with a squad leader who had a Thompson. (later Reisings), then 1928A1 Thompsons replacing the Reisings in front line infantry units, and later the M1 Thompsons.

The platoon commander and platoon sergeant carried a 45 ACP and whatever else they wanted, rifle, shotgun or subgun. When the Garands came in the bolt actions went to the headquaters types and rear area echelon troops.

 

As carbines came in, leadership and radiomen usually got those. In the jungles Raiders I knew would not let many Marines carry them because they did not have the knock down power. 30-06 was preferred by the 0311 infantry men, because they needed it in the thick jungles and for the killing power. Subguns and shotguns were needed for close in and protecting the lines during banzai charges. If your primary job was not infantry, such as Dog handlers, radio men, messengers, corpsman, wiremen, mortars, artillery spotters etc, they had something lighter as they also had other stuff to carry.

 

It isn't the individual... its the team. I never have heard anyone say I only wanted my entire unit to have light under-powered weapons. Ask the Marines when the m16 first came out in Vietnam. Many hated to give up their M-14s. Weapons also chage on terrain. In Jungles Marines rarely saw the enemy. There were few "long shots".

 

Yes, every Infantryman has hated the weight he carried, and those who still carry it. I personally saw that as alot of gizmo's got added to M4s etc over time alot of that stuff got taken off. We called it "Fobbit gear". Yes we worshiped the Aimpoints, lazers and forward grips, and suppressors when needed, but that got heavy too!

IZ 2007 Fallujhah 2004 Fallujah

 

Varios photos of gear I carried in Iraq in 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2007 one crazy pic of trying to get the gear sorted out so we could go out..

 

 

[MG08]

Daughtridge-Hume (2).jpg2003 IZ invasion

 

Back to the "facts" on the weapons (mix). Individuals may have acquired or swapped out a weapon now and then, or added sidearms but, the rifle squad and rifle platoon was mixed with rifles, subguns and Light Machineguns (BARs). Depending on the date time group of the unit (such as Marines)

they started with 1917 Enfields, 1903 Springfields, for Riflemen, 1 BAR per fire team (4 men) Three fire teams per squad of 12 Marines with a squad leader who had a Thompson. (later Reisings), then 1928A1 Thompsons replacing the Reisings in front line infantry units, and later the M1 Thompsons.

The platoon commander and platoon sergeant carried a 45 ACP and whatever else they wanted, rifle, shotgun or subgun. When the Garands came in the bolt actions went to the headquaters types and rear area echelon troops.

 

As carbines came in, leadership and radiomen usually got those. In the jungles Raiders I knew would not let many Marines carry them because they did not have the knock down power. 30-06 was preferred by the 0311 infantry men, because they needed it in the thick jungles and for the killing power. Subguns and shotguns were needed for close in and protecting the lines during banzai charges. If your primary job was not infantry, such as Dog handlers, radio men, messengers, corpsman, wiremen, mortars, artillery spotters etc, they had something lighter as they also had other stuff to carry.

 

It isn't the individual... its the team. I never have heard anyone say I only wanted my entire unit to have light under-powered weapons. Ask the Marines when the m16 first came out in Vietnam. Many hated to give up their M-14s. Weapons also chage on terrain. In Jungles Marines rarely saw the enemy. There were few "long shots".

 

Yes, every Infantryman has hated the weight he carried, and those who still carry it. I personally saw that as alot of gizmo's got added to M4s etc over time alot of that stuff got taken off. We called it "Fobbit gear". Yes we worshiped the Aimpoints, lazers and forward grips, and suppressors when needed, but that got heavy too!

DCP_2266.JPG IZ 2007 Fallujhah DCP_2273.JPG DCP_2258.JPG 082.JPG 2004 Fallujah

 

Varios photos of gear I carried in Iraq in 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2007 one crazy pic of trying to get the gear sorted out so we could go out.. 350.JPG

 

362.JPG 374.JPG

Good times. Just some general observations from 40+ years of carrying an M16.... Military and civilian. We used as basic a weapon as we could get away with. Even operating at a low ready for a while in low risk areas gets tiring. Hanging a bunch of doodads off the rifle adds weight without a commensurate increase in tactical advantage. Also, shit breaks. As noted by many, the situation often dictates what is a "better" choice - I have carried an M16, M16A1, M4, M249 and M60. Had the option of a M203 on my M4 and at times used it. My Dad was a Navy vet from WWII, in the Philippines he was running mail to the front lines. He swore by the M1 carbine. Liked the Thompson, but when he did talk about it felt the weight and limited range were downsides. The Carbine worked well for him in the jungle / roadside ambush stuff he was dealing with. M1 rifle was big, heavy, and as he put it "over penetrated". He loved the UZI when I brought one home once, thought it as a great close combat item. Funny side note - I was 14 and found a Garand for sale in the local classifieds. My Dad's comment was "too much firepower for a kid, and you will not be able to feed it". I ended up with an old Mauser to play with.

 

Reliability is what you define it as. Watch old combat footage - there are a lot of interesting things to see, like out of battery events, failure to feed, failure to eject etc. If you watch the old videos from WWII you will note that many "Auto" weapons are fired semi. ammo load is critical, and weapons heat up fast. Korea was different in that entrenched units were repelling human wave assaults. If you read the Marshal report, you find even the venerable 1919A4 had limits. I had Vietnam Combat vets in my unit in the early 80s, and there were still a number of guys with direct jungle experience. Not everyone hated the M16. I have a good friend who Fought at Dai Do ( 4 day battle, about 500 Marines against 10,000 NVA) he was the FAC for Golf company. He swore by his M14 and M79. Until it got so hot he could not hold it, had to dip it in a creek to keep firing. They fired their M16s util they ran out of ammo, then picked up AKs to continue the fight. I am surprised how many of the documentaries from Afghanistan show units having to disengage because they are low on rifle and MG ammo. My basic load was 12 30 rd mags. We carried a spare bandoleer of ammo in the ruck or light pack. Combat in a built up area (MOUT) is a lot different than open terrain or in the jungle. each has it's peculiar aspects, and not all combat arms are equally "good" in all applications. Imagine how great it would be if we issued good old long range shootin' M1 Garands to the kids in the Afghan mount these days ?

 

I was teaching MOUT at Camp P. as a consultant in 2001, some special people and some 1st MARDIV. Long out of the Navy myself, was doing some vacation work for a private company contracted with the Navy.

 

SEAL shoot house at camp P, CA

[Sandman1957]

We most likely worked with some of the same folks... spent time at Bragg, Little Creek, and Damneck. Forgot to mention, the gear got heavier as I got older. After 2007 spent most of the time in the JOC.

S/FI,

Sandman1957

[Waffen Und Bier]

Another writer of his era, Chuck Taylor, loved the Thompson, IIRC. (Automatic weapons editor of SOF Magazine before Gary Paul Johnson or Johnston, it's been a lot of years) and Pete Kokalis). One of tbe first three machine guns I ever shot (between it, the Uzi and the MAC, it's all a blur now). I love it (sorta like a short chunky red head with big boobs).