I like both 45 and 9mm for diff reasons. Rifles beat both.

Growing up our neighbor had 4-5 bullet wounds across his abdomen/chest that I can remember & all he ever said was he was shot by a German with a MP40 and he would have been dead if he would have been shot with a tommy gun.....

TJ,

You do bring up good points on tactical philosophy as well. Lightning war was part of the philosophy of the time.

The Germans were ahead of us in the use of stampings to produce light, cheap, faster produced weapons. We did go to the M3 to retain the .45 round while cutting production cost and time to increase the number of fieldable SMGs. The M1 Carbine was another light weight alternative and it also uses a stock designed for aimed fire and a small, light, fast moving projectile to provide a sidearm alternative.

My Great Uncle landed on Omaha beach with an M1 Garand that got damaged by shrapnel or small arms fire (damaged the receiver to the point that the bolt wouldnt cycle, but he didn't waste a lot of time figuring out what it got hit with.) and he picked up a Thompson and fought his way in behind German pill boxes and began clearing them using the Tommy gun. He said he liked the ability to spray fire into a bunker, but hated the weight. He picked up a MP40 and used it as well. He later made sure he got another Garand but hung onto the MP40 for the handiness and lighter ammo payload. He liked teh German piece for spraying into dense hedge-rows where area fire seemed to be a good supressive mire method, but liked the reach and power of the Garand for hitting identified targets or punching through light cover.

Lost him to throat cancer about 8 years ago, but he was a wonderful source of perspective on the War.