Talk:MP 40/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article needs work

This article is in some need of heavy attention: the specifications section in particular is of very low quality, lacking specifics such as mode of operation (open or closed bolt), key design features (IE the folding buttstock, the handgrip style magazine well), etc. I will give the article a once over after some research, it would be great to have some help. --Banana! 02:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The scanned picture from the book...

...shows an MP38. I know it says MP40 under the picture, but that book is wrong. The MP40 had a "waffled" (don't know the english term) magazine well, whereas the MP38 had a flat one (like the picture shows). The cuts in the tubular part of the receiver (can hardly be seen due to low quality of the picture) also point to MP38.84.152.114.43 08:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

About the Thompson replaced by MP-40 quote

I'm am still not satisfied with this quote because of the lack of sufficient evidence of it being used and how the only resource is a tv episode, supposedly aired. Also only one or a few people can varify this. Even if that one veteran said that his squad prefered the MP-40 does not mean the Whole army did the same. For example: just because My grandfather and his buddies prefered the German Stick Grenade over their American Pinapple grenade doesn't mean the entire United States army did. Because of its rarety it should not be in this article.CarStuff 07:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

i have to agree with you with that remark. and the fact mp40 were issued to only platton and squad learders and such made having ammo much mroe aharder to find. and the relibilty of it to feed would of made it seem less desirable if one did not know how to corect this probolom. User Eskater11

It depends on which time period your talking about. Later in the war the Heer had special Sturm units armed with nothing but the MP40, Stg44 and MG42. I know for a fact that the SAS prized the MP40 and individual soldiers were loath to let them out of their sight.Veritas Panther 04:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yea SAS probly liked it becuase as they were behind enemy lines far from supply it would be eaisy to get ammo for it then say if a american GI could just go back to the rear lines and the fact the sten is a horrible weapon. P.S foreverDEAD is eskater11(ForeverDEAD 02:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

Duh, British forces used the 9x19mm themselves and didn't necessarily to rely on captured ammunition.84.152.71.185 16:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Shooting around corners?

Can anyone shed any light on a variant, or maybe an attachment, that enabled the Schmeisser to fire around corners? David T Tokyo 00:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

there isnt an attactedment to this but i know for a fact from seeing it theres one for the sturmgewher 44

Yeah, it was called the "Krummlauf." I have seen an example of it at the Patton Museum in Ft Knox, KY. It uses a curved barrel and a periscope. --DOHC Holiday 17:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"Brownings"

I am deleting the line "Just as all semi-automatic pistols are called 'Brownings,' it is entirely possible that all German submachine guns were 'Schmeissers.'" I have been involved with firearms, modern and historical, for the better part of 25 years, and I have never heard of an automatic pistol referred to as "a Browning." Even the ubiquitous Browning Hi-Power and M1911 aren't called "Brownings," but "Hi-Powers" and "1911's," respectively. --DOHC Holiday 18:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Bullet Weight

This article lists the weapon's muzzle velocity, but without the bullet weight the muzzle energy and momentum can't be calculated. (The article on 9x19mm lists many bullet weights, and the velocities on that page are for pistols.) What was the standard bullet weight for 9mm Parabellum at the time? Boris B (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

people should really stop putting so much attention to muzzle velocity and the likes, it really isn't a fixed number. velocity varies by powder load, length of barrel, ambient temperature, elevation above sea level, air humidity, brass or steel cases and lots of other complicated stuff with horribly long mathematical formulas to calculate.

9mm in particular is a high-velocity, high pressure round that has, and is, loaded to alot of diffrent levels. high pressure SMG loads for example will at the least wear a pistol excessively in a very short time, and at worst may literally blow it up (I've seen pics of a Walther P-38 blown up by British WW2 vintage 9mm which, to be fair to the P-38, was pretty hefty stuff that you don't put in old or questionable guns).

The original 9mm, the Pistolen Patrone 08 was a brass cased, jacketed lead RN weighing in at 124 grains, the two wartime material shortage versions was the Pistolen Patrone 08 S.E. (S.E. standing for Sintereisenkern or pressed steel core) a steel cased, jacketed steel RN weighing 89 grains and the Pistolen Patrone 08 m.E. (m.e. = mit Eisenkern or with iron core) and was a steel cased, jacketed steel RN weighing 99 grains.

The steel cases were lacquered to help with the extraction in the blowback MP40, and as such they simply did not fit properly in the more finely machined luger and walther chambers. Therefore those boxes are often marked nur für maschinenpistolen (for machine pistols only) not because they were extra 'hard', but because the lacquer on the case changed the diameter to interfer with chambering and extraction and sometimes flaked off to jam the pistols.

But 9mm comes in lots of variations, another example is from the Norwegian armed forces, who started running newer and 'harder' 9mm (modern 9mm IS loaded harder than alot of the old stuff, for example the Swedish M39B is pretty hefty stuff that will wear\break older guns.) This gave the old MP40 trouble with it's rate of fire etc. and the solution was to change the spring. simple fix, but when the ammo started breaking older lugers and walthers still in supply, they went back to slightly weaker stuff. That was a very bad idea, as now with harder MP40 springs the bolt wouldn't lock back when you released the trigger because the harder spring would short-cycle the bolt and the thing would happily burp out all 32 rounds without a break. Not fun when the shooter doesn't expect it. Martin Sandbekken (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 9

Footnote 9 appears to be broken. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Copies and Post War Usage

The line "After the war the MP 40 was still the standard submachine gun of the Israeli army and was often used in the Palestinian area. It remained the official submachine gun of the Israeli paratroopers until 1956." is incomplete, as nowhere around that line does it say what war. Aswed123123123 (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

slow rate of fire?

the rate of fire doesnt seem that low. can someone provide a direct quotation from the cited source. from the wikipedia entries on other WWII SMGs it seems to be on par with the other weapons of its day in its category.

PPSH-41 900RPM Thompson 600RPM Beretta Model 38 600RPM PPS 600RPM MP40 550RPM Sten ~500RPM M3 greasegun 450RPM

--24.203.116.49 (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

North Korea ?

This monument [1] in Pyongyang shows one of the soldiers holding an MP40 with a folded stock. I guess that should mean North Korea also used some examples of the MP40 for a while, since I doubt they would make a statue of a soldier, holding a Nazi weapon. I will add North Korea as an operator, if there are objections, you can feel free to reply. - Tourbillon ^A ? 19:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Which soldier? I don't see any MP40s. Koalorka (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

From the first three - the one on the right, in the center of the sculpture overall. That thing he's holding looks pretty much like an MP40.- Tourbillon ^A ? 19:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it somewhere near the Grease Gun? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There are 3 weapons on the sculpture. A PPSh-41 in the hand of that woman on the left; a rifle of some sort, probably a Mosin-Nagant, carried by the man behind the soldier with the furry hat; and the gun in the hands of the soldier / boy in front of the furry hat guy. I guess you are talking about the same gun. It might be an M3, although I am not sure. - Tourbillon ^A ? 20:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That's an M3. Koalorka (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK, sorry, my mistake. - Tourbillon ^A ? 13:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

North Korean army used a lot of MP-40 provided by Soviet Union. They can be seen in many DPRK North-South war movies, e.g. "Order 27". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.80.151.165 (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Design

Tho photo captioned "Soldat Kilis Russian Liberation Army with an MP 38." What on earth is going on here? This is an English-language article, to start. Get it together, editors! Unacceptable. o0drogue0o 13:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by O0drogue0o (talk • contribs)

Magazine as hand grip or no? Conflicting information.

In the design section in the last paragraph, it says the magazine should not be used as a hand hold. Then at the end of the variants section it says other weapons copied the features of the MP40 including the magazine as hand hold. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.52.110 (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Both. Other weapon designs (PPS, M3, etc.) copied the "magazine as a grip" design, but holding the magazine puts unneeded pressure on the mag which reduced reliability, and thus it really shouldn't be held like that. So both are correct. --Gamerdog6482 (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Israeli MP 40

I have added Israel to users. Also added a provisional cite needed. I have just moved flat and my library is boxed, basically but there is a solid ref to usage in 48' up to at least 1950 by the Paratroopers Brigade. It's in the classic Osprey, Sam Katz title, "Israeli special forces (units?) since 1948" Does anyone have a copy to hand with ISBN and details? Mines buried at the mo. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

ISBN 085045 8374, Israeli elite units since 1948, London: 1988, p. 9 (it's isareli parachute unit 101)(KitFistoPL (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC))

• Really appreciated :D Irondome (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

7 March 2015

As of today, I have massively improved the article. I'm going to nominate it for GA-status. Enormous thanks to everyone who contributed to the article. Best, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Main image

Focus of the main image should be on the weapon itself, not a soldier carrying the gun. I would therefore recommend using File:MP 40 AYF 3.JPG in the infobox. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I think File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-278-0899-26, Russland, Soldat mit MP 40 im Schnee.jpg is better because it shows the gun clearly and shows which country used the weapon most. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 16:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

And also which country designed and produced the gun. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 16:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

See main image on Sten, Sterling submachine gun, M3 submachine gun, Thompson submachinegun, PPSh-41, MG 42, SMLE, K98, MG 34, MP 18, MP 34, M1 Garand, M1903 Springfield etc. All show the weapon itself. The image here appears to be concentrating more on the individual than the weapon, and is distracting. The assertion that it is showing the gun clearly is incorrect because only an image of the weapon itself is "clear". The argument that it shows who used it most is a bit desperate, and seems to be vaguely tied to WP:MOSFLAG. I suspect you just like the picture of the soldier. I would support removal and substitution with the recommended new image. Irondome (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I concur in this assessment! If placed correctly, the picture with the soldier is a good supporting image. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I am sure we can find room for it somewhere. Just not as the primary image. Irondome (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I have replaced the infobox/main image with File:MP 40 AYF 3.JPG and used File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-278-0899-26, Russland, Soldat mit MP 40 im Schnee.jpg as a supporting image. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Very very good Jonas. The main issue remaining is the Reliability of the new source, although this is for the upthread section. Whatever it's verifiability, I am uncomfortable with relying too much on one source, where a more varied basket of excellent, solid diverse sources adds strength to the total sum of article structure. Suggest we continue this dialogue in the section upstairs colleagues. Irondome (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Made a comment above regarding the source. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Use of Military Factory website as a source

The website Military Factory has been used extensively in this article. A look at the site makes me question whether this is a WP:RS. Could you please address how this website is considered to meet the reliable source criteria? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree. Loads of excellent citations appear to have been trashed wholesale. The users section has been ruined basically. Just an example, the Israeli Unit 101 cited usage has been removed?? Far from improving it, I would say the article has been damaged. Reinstating the Samuel Katz reference and readding Israel. The Military factory site looks dubious as a RS User:Peacemaker67. Im actually a bit miffed Irondome (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks like this (MASSIVELY improved the article!) edit on 18:21, 7 March 2015‎ by Jonas Vinther was the root cause for this situation. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, I introduced and used Military Factory abundantly when I improved the article in my sandbox. The website powerfully convinced me that it was reliable. Military Factory is a registered trademark, the website has a copy + paste protection and reserves all rights; I don't see anything wrong with it. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 11:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Jonas, but none of those points relate to WP:RS. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The article is currently nominated for GA. With multiple citations referencing this website we require clear guidance ASAP. Given the current assessment of this website, the article fails criteria 2 of WP:GACR. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Jonas, It would have been nice to have put an announcement on the T/P so that others could have collaborated and commented, before you started. WP is based on discussion and collaboration. I always stick up an announcement on T/P's before I start article cleanups, etc, so colleagues know the score. Just saying, but it would have been helpful. Irondome (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

What is your "evidence" in proving that Military Factory is not a WP:RS? Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 16:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

As I have stated right above, I would like to see some arguments against Military Factory when it comes to reliability. As Peacemaker67 pointed out, being a registered trademark, having a copy + paste protection and reserving all rights does not relate to WP:RS, but is still positive. I personally feel the website gives a very professional image. Lastly, I would be in favor of replacing any Military Factory cites with book or other sources, but I was unable to find any via the internet or Google Books when improving the article, which is why I've used Military Factory so much. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The main issue remaining is the Reliability of the new source, although this is for the upthread section. Whatever it's verifiability, I am uncomfortable with relying too much on one source, where a more varied basket of excellent, solid diverse sources adds strength to the total sum of article structure. I think there were some good sources prior to the change Jonas. Irondome (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Much content was unsourced when I began editing it. I did not remove any well-sourced cites. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The user section was well sourced with diverse works. Maybe mainspace, not so. But I still think any source changes should have been discussed prior. I have said that above. My main issue has been over reliance on MF as source in users. There may have been sources which were good in mainspace, but should have been discussed on a case by case basis. That has been my main issue. Communication on this well intentioned change. Also the entire section on post war copies has been removed. That was useful. we could have reworked it, but not just chopped. Uzi, K98 and many other articles discuss subsequent copies and clones. Irondome (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

My point about Military Factory and its reliability (or lack thereof) is that WP:RS expects us to base articles "on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The obligation in that respect falls upon the editor wanting to use it, assuming the challenge to the reliability isn't spurious. I don't believe my challenge is spurious, and Jonas has provided no information about the reputation of the site for reliability. Has it been used as a source for other reliable published works? Text on the site is authored by "Staff Writer", and the people behind the website are not identified. There is no claim that the people behind it are academics, acknowledged experts in the field they are writing on, or even that they have published anything other than what is on the website. There is no footnoting or even a list of references to support the text on each page. A look at several pages revealed typographical errors. It appears to me to be a fairly ok fanboi site, but that is it. I wouldn't use it for anything, myself. All of the information ever needed on WP regarding the MP40 should be available from Jane's and other highly reliable secondary sources published by solid publishing houses. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I failed to discover any sources, both online and via Google Books, which can support the claims cited by Military Factory during my improvement of the article. I see no problem with Military Factory and would cite it abundantly, but that's just my take on this, just like Peacemaker67, in contrast, wouldn't use it. If anyone else, however, does have sources at hand or can provide sources to support claims cited by Military Factory, I would totally be in favor of replacing them, but I fail to believe sources can be found to replace everything Military Factory supports. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• A request for comment was posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms. I've been spearheading an effort on that page to review sources used for firearms articles to help improve coverage of the topic. See Source discussion. We have not yet reviewed this source. Here are considerations to help you with your review.
• It is used in hundreds of WP articles. [2]
• It has been discussed at :Talk:Fiat G.50#specification source, Talk:PLZ-45#Bangladesh, Talk:War pig#Monkeys, Talk:Mondragón rifle#removing categories, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 98#Multiple reference reliability questions, User talk:GEOsword#More about your edits on Georgian Land Forces, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 129#Reliable source?, User talk:Faizan/Archive 5#militaryfactory.com. (And perhaps other pages where it isn't mentioned by name - it's time consuming to review them all)
• From those discussions I get these comments: An IP says it doesn't look like a good source. An editor says that on one page "all users there opposed it and described it as an unreliable source." Another accuses sources like it of being lazy and mindless in copying info from other sources. An editor says it contains user-contributed info. In a recent discussion an editor said, "I don't see any reason why it should be considered reliable. None of its articles are sourced, it's not associated with any organization of note, and I never heard of any of the article authors." An editor says it relies on Wikipedia. I did not find any discussion which considered it reliable.
• I can't find any "About us" page that says who writes or edits the articles. The domain is registered to an auto parts company.
• Based on those considerations I would say that this site does not generally meet WP's standards for reliable sources. However I have not reviewed the reliability of individual pages used as references for this article. Rezin (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm getting the strong feeling the people are not in favor of using Millitaryfactory.com as a source. And if that is the case, the GA-nomination is a bad joke! Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 23:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

If I may say, the list of printed sources includes many excellent references. If those were relied upon instead this article could be a very good candidate for GA. I'd be happy to help provide inline citations for the books I can access. However it may take some time to bring the article all the way up to GA standards so perhaps it'd be best to revoke the nomination for the time being. Once it's close a peer review may be a good interim step. Rezin (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Searson: has been able to replace the militaryfactory.com citations with cites to better sources. That seems to take care of the main issue with this article. That being the case, I see no reason not to proceed with the GA nomination. Rezin (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Mike Searson did an excellent job there. Looks like the GA-review is still alive! Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 08:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

{{WWIIGermanInfWeapons}}

@ Jonas Vinther, your rework of the article broke the template {{WWIIGermanInfWeapons}}. The removal of the subsection "Variants and developments" broke the link *[[MP 40#Variants and developments|MP 41]]. You might want to fix this? MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Quite right. I have re-added the template and added a subsection for the MP 41. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The broken MP 41 link is also fixed now. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually it is not fixed (yet). It needs to link to the correct subsection MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

When I click the MP 41 link it redirects me to this article, specifically the part about the MP 41? Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 16:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Now it does. The syntax is [[MP 40#MP 41|MP 41]] Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:MP 40/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Royroydeb (talk · contribs) 16:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on the review. Please, ping me when my attention is needed. Otherwise, I might not see it as I got a lot of projects going on right now. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 16:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• descended from its predecessor the MP 38 - what does descended here mean?

It means "to come down from a source; derive". Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Schmeisser - any particular reason of calling it by that name when the person was not involved with the gun?

Schmeisser had designed the MP 18 which bared some resemblance to the MP 40. As the MP 18 was well-known to the allied military, the MP 40 was often erroneously referred to as the "Schmeisser". This is explained in better detail in the "Development" section. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• The MP 40 submachine gun - make it guns

Done. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• The MP 38 receiver was made of machined steel, but this was a time-consuming - why time consuming, explain

Source does state exactly why, just that it was time-consuming. Sorry! Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• the MP 40 was generally reliable - why reliable?

As the article later explains, "the magazine was also sometimes misused as a handhold which could cause the weapon to malfunction when hand pressure on the magazine body caused the magazine lips to move out of the line of feed, since the magazine well did not keep the magazine firmly locked". Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• There is a citation needed tag

Yup, fixed. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Add some sentences to operators.

Done. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Some inbox infos lack citations.

Added the remaining. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jonas Vinther: RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Royroydeb:, Thanks for your thorough review. I believe I've responded to all your points. Let me know if there is anything else. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, passing it though I am making a minor edit that the WWII ended in 1945. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Rumor

I've never heard of this rumour that the allies preferred the MP40 over there own SMG's, can you tell me where you read this? Oberiko 12:02, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I heard it from an interview with a GI on some discovery channel show. the reason being that the MP40 was much lighter and easier to use than a tommy gun, yet still had comprable lethality. According to this veteran, everyone in his unit that was suposed to carry a thomspon eventually ditched it in favor of captured mp40s. Vroman 12:54, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)~

Dont forget you also had dead Germans with allot of ammo still on them after you kill him you take his ammo In history you will notice that soldiers will take enemy guns becuse of the ammo availibility or they are sometimes better Dudtz 7/23/05 1:35 EST

This is one reason for the widely usage of Soviet Weaponary by the Wehrmacht or earlier by the Finns, but I don't think, that the ammo situation of the German soldier (despite of some elite formations) was better than that of the American. So why wait for killing a German officer or Unteroffizier for grapping some magazines, when you can get more by your own support lines? Nekka 10:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

From my Osprey Men-At-Arms book on The Red Army of the Great Patriotic War 1941-5 by Steven Zaloga, there is evidence (including a photo) that Russian scouts preferred using captured MP38/40s over the Shpagin, trading off the firepower and reliability of the PPSh-41 in favor of the Schmeisser's lightness and compactness. Also, using the Schmeisser helped confuse the enemy and camouflaged the fact they were Soviet forces.--YoungFreud 10:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I read once in a translated journal of a german soldier that the reverse was true. The germans would swap their MP38's/40's in favour of the russian gun because it had increased ammo capacity due to the drum magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.215.75.4 (talk) 04:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a link to the Mp38, which just redirects back to the MP40 article. Userpie 00:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The "staged" photo of the American soldier using the MP40 is a still from the file Kelly's Heros

Which under the fiar use provision of US copyright law, would only make it eligible for inclusion on articles about that film, no? So I think it will have to go, which really is a shame. Shinobu 14:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there any point in having 2 photos of the gun, both with their stock extended? One could go... Graham Bould 14:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

ABitConfused 20:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Actually my bad (I made the comment about Kelly's Heroes)- the photo is taken from "The Bridge at Remagen" 1969. The gentleman holding the MP40 is Ben Gazzara, who played Sgt Angelo. I guess that as Gerbrant says it's probably against copyright to use the picture.

I have edited down the 'Operators' section to remove the more specific, un-cited claims. I have left the core message that the MP40 saw some unofficial use, and tagged as 'citation needed'. 90.199.137.178 (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Foreign "copies"

I checked the source (Small Arms of the World (9th ed) of the claim that Z45 is a 'variant' of the MP 40. In the book Smith wrote that: "The Z45 is modeled on the MP 40...", and he names the diffrences between the two. Looking at the pictures of both of the submachine guns reveals that actually they share only the folding stock and overall layout. I suggest that the fragment about Z45 should be rephrased, additionaly the section named 'Copies and post-war usage' should be changed to 'Influence and post-war usage' as there were no direct copies of MP 36, MP 38, MP 40 nor MP 41 (other than the commercial copy of MP 38 - BD 38). Both Z45 and M56 might have been influenced by Vollmer/Schmeisser designs but in no way they are similar enough to be even considered copies of the aforementioned designs. (KitFistoPL (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC))

What is the complete quote on that? A link would be good. I support a reworking of that section. The implications of the above should be incorporated. Irondome (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

full segment about the Z45: The standard submachine gun of the Spanish is the Star Model Z45. The Z45 is modeled on the MP40 and differs from that weapon only in the following: (1) The bolt handle of the Z45 is on the right rather than on the left as on the MP40. (2) The Z45 has a metal barrel jacket; the MP40 has none. (3) The barrel and jacket of the Z45 can be removed rapidly by twisting the compensator. The barrel of the MP40 is not easily removable. (4) The Z45 is a selective-fire weapon; the MP40 has only automatic fire capability. (5) The Z45 has wooden grips and handguard; the grips and handguard of the MP40 are plastic. The Z45 has been made with a fixed wooden stock in addition to the more common folding steel stock.The Z45 has been supplied to Chile, Cuba, Portugal, and Saudi Arabia.(14:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KitFistoPL (talk • contribs)

I would support a reworking of that section completely, based on that info given above. Cheers Irondome (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yugoslav Zastava M56 should be added. Other foreign copies too. Please check STEN article. Many foreign copies are included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.123.128.177 (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

East Surrey's Photo is not showing an MP 40

The long-standing photo of the East Surreys patrol in Italy does not show an MP 40. It is fact a Beretta Model 38, to be precise, the Model 38/44 Special or Model 1, with an MP 40 style folding stock.[3] If you zoom onto the East Surrey's pic,[4] you will note several marked differences to the MP 40. It has a very prominent knob on the rear of the action. Nothing like an MP 40 but exactly like the Beretta Model 1. It has deep, apparently wooden furniture between the pistol grip and the magazine. The pistol grip in the picture is different to the MP 40 but is an exact fit for the Model 1. The magazine is not vertical, as with the MP 40, but is at a slightly forward angle, as on the Model 1. The muzzle and front sight are obscured as the bloke seems to be holding it at that spot with his right hand. Please check out the pics I have provided for comparison. Superficially they are similar, especially at first glance in a 75 year old pic, but if you zoom in the diffs are very clear. What we are looking at in the Surrey's pic is essentially this (bottom image) [[5]]. Irondome (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Alternative Name origin

Schmeisser litterally means "thrower" or "slinger." I think "Schmeisser" might even have been, in the minds of the Allied translators, a partial calque of "leadslinger." I've got to track myself down a copy of Karl May's work, who was Wild Western writer and immensely influential in global German culture, to see what words he uses. Stardude82 (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Simone Segouin image

70.72.208.5, this is the place to discuss your concerns, not in further edit warring summaries which may result in you being blocked. The image seems to be relevant as it's an example of one type of operator mentioned in that section, and its relevance is strengthened by the fact that this person is notable enough to have their own article. Your arguments about her not representing the average operator would hold more water if you were actually trying to replace the image with one or more other suitable images, but instead you're just removing it as though that's an improvement. Your use of terms like "prominent" and "front-page" are also confusing as each article on this site is only a single page and this image is the farthest down that page, making it the least prominent. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm also very confused about what type of source you're asking for. How do you give a reference for an image? Do the other images here have a source? There's a link to the person's article, which certainly has sources if you're disputing that this person exists (which I assume you're not, but again I can't tell what you want a source for). -- Fyrael (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Added discussion of MP 40 "tube guns" to "Civilian ownership in the United States" section.

Apologies if I did not initially provide a citation for the paragraph on tube guns, that has now been added. GMan552 (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Romania au folosit mp40 ?

da sau nu 2A02:2F01:8A0C:8500:793C:CECC:12D0:2937 (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Vigneron can't use MP40 magazine?

The article on the Vigneron states very specifically that these similarly designed magazines are incompatible, and that the MP40 magazine will not work in the Vigneron. I have no knowledge or experience in this myself, but somewhere in one of the two articles there is some kind of error to be corrected. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)