Transition to Thompson M1 Engineers

[Ron Mills]

Does anyone here know what engineers were directly involved with the transition from the 1928A1 to the M1 model? Was George Goll was in on it? I don't have my AT books with me at sea so I naturally thought to ask the fellas here on the board.

 

Thanks and Season's Greetings to all---

 

Ron Mills

[Chopper28]

I think the engineers at Savage developed the M1 TSMG

[j.hayes1942]

Answer: "Savage Chief Engineer John Pearce and the Stevens Company's designer Nicholas Brewer were credited with designing the new Thompson." American Thunder II, p. 222. jh

[buzz]

They did an awesome job.

 

AO should have had those guys on staff in 1921.

 

If AO had sold M1A1s in 1921, the company probably would have been a huge success instead of limping along for 20 years

 

the gun was just needlessly expensive and overbuilt as a consumer product

 

A case in point would be the Lyman sight. It's a nice sight but who really needs it? Show me the shot you cannot make with the M1A1 sight.

[timkel]

The elimination of the blish lock was pitched by Savage to col Thompson. He refused to give up on the blish lock. It was his patient and considered it the heart of the weapon. Edited December 17, 2014 by timkel

[Gio]

The year is 1917 and two men Eickhoff and Payne produced a machine gun that was a beautiful as well as functional weapon. Thompson demanded they use the Blish lock. It could use a drum as well as magazines, had a removable buttstock, was for the time lightweight and easy to carry. They did this on a shoestring budget in a room next to a machine shop. Nearly 100 years later their original design is still revered by collectors all over the world.

 

About 24 years later it is designed to be produced cheaper. To me this was no great feat. The original Colt 15000 guns were mechanical art. I don't think if the design was originally like the M1 and the gun was a little cheaper the sales would have been that much greater.

 

Frank

[Ron Mills]

Thanks fellas, I really appreciate it.

[buzz]

The M1A1 wasn't "a little cheaper" than the 1928.

 

The 1928 cost the US government $3,551 each in 1939 (in 2014 dollars). That is incredibly expensive for a submachine gun.

 

The M1A1 cost the US government $603 each in 1944 (in 2014 dollars). That's about the same as an M16 assault rifle currently costs.

 

That means you could buy almost 6 M1A1s for the price of one 1928.

 

That's a huge cost savings.

 

 

As far as the features of the gun goes, I own both a pre-war 1928 and an M1A1.

 

I don't see any reduction in effectiveness as a weapon for the M1A1.

 

Can someone explain to me what job the M1A1 version could not do?

 

I mean in the practical sense, not as an iconic collector item.

 

If the US military wanted any of the deluxe features of the 28 they would have put them on the M1 version.

 

 

The 21 and 28 version of the Thompson have a metric ton of character and they are off the charts in terms of collector appeal, but let's face it, it was a flop as a commercial product.

 

They barely managed to sell 14,000 of them in 20 years.

 

$3500 is just too expensive, and in this case needlessly so.

Edited December 17, 2014 by buzz

[reconbob]

One thing to remember is that when the Thompson was being designed it was virtually the first gun

of its type. Other than the MP-18 I don't think any other submachine gun existed - and the MP-18 used the

snail drum from the Luger.

The designers were doing everything for the first time. I agree that the Lyman 55B sight is over-engineered

but back in WW1 it was a textbook tactic to have large numbers of troops - entire companies and battalions -

fire their rifles at area targets over 1000 meters away. This is why all the rifles of the era had sights out to

2000 meters - not for aiming at individual targets but for organized area fire. So the Thompson designers stuck

with the doctrine of the day and put a long range sight on it. If the sight wasn't there, military customers would

have rejected it.

Look at the early motor cars. They did not have to, but they started out making self propelled horse drawn

carriages as opposed to automobiles. We've all seen pictures of the old cars where the driver sits in front

outside in the rain, while the passengers sit inside undercover. This is exactly how the carriages of the day

were designed and it took a while for them to realize they could change it.

The early Thompsons were unique in that they were a machine gun made with the precision and care of

a fine sporting rifle. That will never happen again.

 

Bob

Edited December 17, 2014 by reconbob

[gunhistorian]

I think you have to consider that the '21 was introduced during the Depression and the production of this gun probably kept quite a few workers employed by Colt. The question might better be put: how much did the '21 and '28 cost to produce? (How much did AO pay Colt per gun?) I am not sure that "efficiency" -- especially engineering or production efficiency" was a major consideration in those days. Note the complicated -- almost "Rube Goldberg" -- firearms that were either on the market or in prototype form during the 1920-40 period: especially some of the semi-automatic rifles tested by the U.S. Army during that time. I'm not sure why that was except that there seemed to be an attitude that "complicated is better". I note this attitude in the research I've done for my book manuscript on American Armament, the Miranda brothers, and other private arms traffickers of that era. Look even at the operation of the Reising or of the Hyde: simpler than the TSMG '21 or '28 but still somewhat complicated in design. And I'm not even going to get into some of the unusual and complicated aircraft designs of that era. . .

[jim c 351]

Well , just learned something new. I always thought the depression began in Oct 1929 and by that time all Thompsons were manufactured and in storage.

First I've heard that the depression started in 1921.

It just goes to show, I'm not a historian.

Jim C

[buzz]

Bob,

 

I understand your point and agree 100%.

 

It's a matter of evolution.

 

They had a name for that long range suppressive fire, I think it was called "firing for effect".

Edited December 17, 2014 by buzz

[jim c 351]

"Fire for effect", years ago, was an artillery term.

After the target was bracketed, meaning the shells were hitting where the forward observer wanted them, then the command was given "fire for effect."

At this point the entire battery would open fire.

Until today I never realized the same term applied to Tommy guns.

I'm really learning a lot today.

Jim C

[gunhistorian]

To Jim c 351 (and others): Mea culpa! Simply a misfiring of the brain! The Depression DID begin in 1929, NOT 1921. I think, from my research, that the period between 1918 and 1921 was very prosperous with a change in the U.S. from being mostly agrarian to industrial (e.g. the song: "How You Gonna Keep'em Down On The Farm After They've Seen Paree"). This period of solvency may explain why "things" -- machines, etc. -- sometimes were "over-engineered": not only because they COULD be, but because there was sufficient money to produce an over-engineered product. Labor was cheap, even skilled labor. Sorry about the slip on the year of the stock market crash. I believe that it is necessary to consider the social and economic factors at the time of the invention, design, and/or production of "machines" -- and a firearm really is a machine (IMHO). . .and one, I believe, must also consider the moral or philosophical climate of the times. Or maybe I am just too oriented to the details of "history" and miss the "bigger picture". . .

[richard w.]

Hugo Schmeisser had a 20-round box magazine designed for his MP18.I at the time it was introduced, but the German Army made him use the snail drums.

 

I love the Thompson, but I can't help think that the MP18.I with a box mag is better in every way as a SMG.

[Chromebolt]

Jim:

 

Your subtle postings go a long way to nudge corrections for factual errors.

[dalbert]

I just hid several posts in this thread. Let's remain civil, and move forward...

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

[Ron Mills]

Thanks, David. I sure didn't expect a s***-storm by starting a thread. And an additional thanks to those who provided the info I needed!

 

Easy does it---

 

Ron