The Instigator
THE_OPINIONATOR
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
joshuaXlawyer
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

The Russian PPSH-41 was a more effective weapon than the American Thompson sub machine gun

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
joshuaXlawyer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/2/2010 Category: Technology
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,510 times Debate No: 13540
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

THE_OPINIONATOR

Pro

The Russian PPSH-41 is a better weapon system than the American Thompson sub machine gun. I will let my opponent post his argument first. Me nor my opponent are NOT ALLOWED to vote for ourselves in this debate. If one of us break this rule then the other debater should get the better conduct vote. I wish the challenger of this debate good luck and may the best man win.
joshuaXlawyer

Con

Fully automatic, the Thompson is an all-round field weapon of .45 caliber. It weighs 12.5 pounds when fully loaded with a 30-round magazine and is 33 inches long. The M1928 Thompson fires between 600 and 700 rounds per minute.

Saunders carried extra 30-round stick magazines inside his jacket. Some soldiers carried magazine pouches on their belts that held up to three magazines. According to the Army-Navy Guide from 1942, the Thompson "is used by motorcyclists, and is usually one of the weapons on armored vehicles." And, in Combat!, used by blond sergeants.

The Thompson was the only submachine gun mass produced in any Allied country during WWII. The French and British ordered them by the tens of thousands during the war. Though they were less efficient and costlier than the German submachines guns, they had the great advantage of being readily available for Allied use!

The fact of the matter is which one will kill the target in only a little matter of time, and the higher caliber is the thompson because its a .45 caliber and was mass produce cheaply however the PPSH-41 is 7.620 mm rounds less than a 9 mm hand gun. All in all in an urban combat with short range the thompson will put you down faster PPSH is almost like a BB gun.
Debate Round No. 1
THE_OPINIONATOR

Pro

The PPSh-41 was a Russian submachine gun that was mass produced and there were approximately 6,000,000 produced. It fires the 7.62mm Tokarev pistol round. The gun is blowback and bolt action, and it has an effective range of 200m and a max range of 300m. The PPSh-41 shoots 900rps(rounds per minute) and a muzzle velocity of 1,600.6 feet per second. The PPSH-41 weight is about 8 pounds unloaded, length 33.2 in with a barrel length of 10.6 in. The feed system is either a 35 round magazine or a 71 round drum clip. The PPSH-41 was designed for maximum productivity with only 87 components and could be produced in 7.3 machining hours.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The PPSh-41 was light and cheat to produce and short range fire power. The Russians would arm regiments and sometimes whole divisions with the PPSH-41. During the battle of Stalingrad the Russians had more firepower than the Germans who were still using bolt action rifles. The PPSH-41 was cheap rugged in the field and had a hinged receiver which helped during cleaning.

The PPS-41 became the second most captured submachine gun of WW11 perferd by Germans because of the similarity of the 7.63 Mauser pistol round.
Fire power isn't everything the PPSH-41 was cheap to produce and had less parts. The PPSH-41 was desighned primarily for urban warfare.
joshuaXlawyer

Con

First i must say that my opponent did not address my case at all, so he must agree with it but the one main part i would like to point out that he did not refute is (The fact of the matter is which one will kill the target in only a little matter of time, and the higher caliber is the thompson because its a .45 caliber and was mass produce cheaply however the PPSH-41 is 7.620 mm rounds less than a 9 mm hand gun. All in all in an urban combat with short range the thompson will put you down faster PPSH is almost like a BB gun.) He never refuted this, thefore he must agree that the thompson was more effect when it comes to killing your enemy faster and more effectively.

Ok i will now address my opponents case,

1.The PPS-41 became the second most captured submachine gun of WW11 perferd by Germans because of the similarity of the 7.63 Mauser pistol round.
Fire power isn't everything the PPSH-41 was cheap to produce and had less parts. The PPSH-41 was desighned primarily for urban warfare.--- Besides the grammatical error, this only proves how the Russian gun was more effective than the German Sub-machine gun.

2.The PPSh-41 was light and cheat to produce and short range fire power. The Russians would arm regiments and sometimes whole divisions with the PPSH-41. During the battle of Stalingrad the Russians had more firepower than the Germans who were still using bolt action rifles. The PPSH-41 was cheap rugged in the field and had a hinged receiver which helped during cleaning.--- Ok good you can clean it thats wonderful , also again this proves only it was better than the Germans i would ask my opponent to find points on how its better than the thompson not the germans because its irrelevant.

3.The PPSh-41 was a Russian submachine gun that was mass produced and there were approximately 6,000,000 produced. It fires the 7.62mm Tokarev pistol round. Ok as my point also says this gun shoots pistol rounds, this gun would definitely not conserve ammo if i have to unload 10 shots to kill someone.
Debate Round No. 2
THE_OPINIONATOR

Pro

The PPSH-41 was the second captured submachine gun in WW11 this proves that the Germans liked this gun over the Thompson submachine gun because ammo was easy to obtain and the PPSH-41 is light and simple. The Germans even tried to make their own variation of the PPSH-41.

The Thompson submachine gun was reliable and powerful yes, but in order to clean the gun you had to take it apart. The PPSH-41 was built to be cleaned in battle condition, as the Thompson was not. The PPSH-41 is a lighter gun weighing 8 pounds . The average Russian soldier traveled very light and usually chose the PPSH-41 over the Thompson Thompson was very hard to mass produce and was not at all cheap, costing over 400 dollars per gun. The Thompson was very reliable and yet was very heavy, weighing 10.62 Lbs. unloaded.

In my opponents third point he states that the PPSH-41 shoots pistol rounds but isn't the .45 a pistol round as well? He also states that the PPSH-41 would take ten rounds to kill a man and that it wouldn't conserve ammo. The 7.62mm pistol round is cheaper than the .45 round. The PPSH-41 is cheaper to produce than the Thompson. The Russians could have a sustainable amount of ammo and a gun for the cost of one Thompson.

I ask the readers of this debate to vote PRO because even though the Thompson is more powerful, the PPSH-41 is cheap to fire, build and its lighter. I would rather have a less powerful lighter weapon than a powerful heavy weapon because in battle conditions speed is more important.

http://historyofww2.webs.com...
joshuaXlawyer

Con

The Thompson submachine gun was reliable and powerful yes, but in order to clean the gun you had to take it apart. The PPSH-41 was built to be cleaned in battle condition, as the Thompson was not. The PPSH-41 is a lighter gun weighing 8 pounds . The average Russian soldier traveled very light and usually chose the PPSH-41 over the Thompson Thompson was very hard to mass produce and was not at all cheap, costing over 400 dollars per gun. The Thompson was very reliable and yet was very heavy, weighing 10.62 Lbs. unloaded.

In my opponents third point he states that the PPSH-41 shoots pistol rounds but isn't the .45 a pistol round as well? He also states that the PPSH-41 would take ten rounds to kill a man and that it wouldn't conserve ammo. The 7.62mm pistol round is cheaper than the .45 round. The PPSH-41 is cheaper to produce than the Thompson. The Russians could have a sustainable amount of ammo and a gun for the cost of one Thompson.

So vote for the thompson!

I ask the readers of this debate to vote PRO because even though the Thompson is more powerful, the PPSH-41 is cheap to fire, build and its lighter. I would rather have a less powerful lighter weapon than a powerful heavy weapon because in battle conditions speed is more important.

Ok45. is stronger, one it was cheap and easily manufactured..
The Thompson submachine gun was Saunders' weapon of choice. It is popularly called a Tommy gun.

Saunders guarding German Prisoner with Thompson Submachine GuneFully automatic, the Thompson is an all-round field weapon of .45 caliber. It weighs 12.5 pounds when fully loaded with a 30-round magazine and is 33 inches long. The M1928 Thompson fires between 600 and 700 rounds per minute.

Saunders carried extra 30-round stick magazines inside his jacket. Some soldiers carried magazine pouches on their belts that held up to three magazines. According to the Army-Navy Guide from 1942, the Thompson "is used by motorcyclists, and is usually one of the weapons on armored vehicles." And, in Combat!, used by blond sergeants.

The Thompson was the only submachine gun mass produced in any Allied country during WWII. The French and British ordered them by the tens of thousands during the war.
According to The Unofficial Tommy Gun Page: "In 1939, Thompsons cost the government $209 apiece. By Spring of 1942 cost reduction design changes had brought this down to $70.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Quickpaw 6 years ago
Quickpaw
First of all, this Debate was rather disappointing. Both Debaters showed little regard to Debate format, or the syntax of the English language.

Another gaping hole in this Debate is the fact that the Thompson was a better weapon overall. It carried far more stopping power then that of the PPSH. Now, the resolution of this debate is that the PPSH was more *effective*. The debater in affirmation of this resolution conceded this but made a platform that the PPSH was cheaper. The fact is, the term effective doesn't yield any regard to cheapness- only the effectiveness- "capable of producing intended result". Cost doesn't matter when discussing how "effective" weapon is.

Another point of the affirmation was that the PPSH was lighter. While this may be true, they were both fairly light weapons. Additionally, Germans utilizing blitzkrieg tactics traveled light anyway- they didn't need to get lighter. As to the platform that the PPSH was easier to clean... well the Thompson is regarded by "Gun Magazine" (#32) as more reliable.

I concede the fact that the PPSH might be easier to clean, but that really isn't a reason that outweighs the enhanced stopping power of the Thompson, nor the increased reliability.

So... which gun is better? The one that's easier to clean, or the one that's more reliable and deadly?
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Objection!!

Yours doesnt even look new to me.
Great debate btw.
Posted by THE_OPINIONATOR 6 years ago
THE_OPINIONATOR
ahh tht was a good debate, nice rebude joshuaXlawyer.
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 6 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
Because it looks like something from the 1700's lol
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Objection!! How is my suit gaudy?
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 6 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
Objection!!! Edgeworth your suit is clearly guady lol
Posted by THE_OPINIONATOR 6 years ago
THE_OPINIONATOR
or he could pick up in the next round but that wouldnt look good
Posted by THE_OPINIONATOR 6 years ago
THE_OPINIONATOR
or he could pick up in the next round but that wouldnt look good
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
post argument or ur toast :P
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by olsonne5 6 years ago
olsonne5
THE_OPINIONATORjoshuaXlawyerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Awed 6 years ago
Awed
THE_OPINIONATORjoshuaXlawyerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
THE_OPINIONATORjoshuaXlawyerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04