Born in the Heart of Besieged Leningrad: the PPS-42 (Ad-free)
Added 2022-11-11 14:00:10 +0000 UTCOne would think that the Shpagin PPSh-41 was as simple as a submachine gun could get, but that wasn’t the case in World War Two USSR. Barely had the PPSh gotten into real production than the Army was looking for something even simpler. An answer came from young designer Aleksey Sudaev with a completely-stamped gun that used about half the raw material and a third the machine time to produce as the PPSh. After winning the competitive trials, Factory 828 in Moscow was chosen as the lead production facility. They produced a series of drawings and preproduction guns in the summer of 1942.
Sudaev took those drawings into besieged Leningrad with orders to et up production in three factories within the city. The main one was Factory 209, and after fixing a few minor design flaws, the gun went into production in the spring of 1943. Sudaev PPS-42 SMGs pretty much went out the doors of the factory and right into combat trying to break the siege of the city. In total, about 46,000 would be produced before that siege was finally broken.
Meanwhile, Factory 828 in Moscow put a higher priority on policing the design than on immediate production. They implemented a substantial number of improvements, although the lack of communication into Leningrad prevented them from being used in the production going on there. Instead, the improvements culminated in the PPS-43 design, of which more than a million were made by the end of the war.
Comments
That gun looks absolutely pristine. Amazing condition for a weapon made during the Leningrad siege... Do you think those stampings were light to begin with? or perhaps the gun has been refinished? A really interesting story. Thanks.
Jeff Price
2022-11-12 13:35:38 +0000 UTCless than 3hours machine time... man that is short work! the 43 is SO SOOO outstanding with such a lightweight simple gun. hard to match. in those circumstances in particular.
Guido Schriewer
2022-11-11 22:05:24 +0000 UTCAlso explains why the Artillery bureau preferred it - it was their own design.
zspikez
2022-11-11 18:04:59 +0000 UTCSo that sounds like Sudayev just refined someone else's design?
zspikez
2022-11-11 18:04:20 +0000 UTCSudayev was ordered by the State Commission for Armaments to perfect for large-scale production the sub-machine gun design of Lieutenant I.K. Bezruchko-Vysotsky from the Dzerzhinsky Artillery Academy, who had created two prototypes in 1942; the second of these was the basis of Sudayev's gun.
zspikez
2022-11-11 18:03:24 +0000 UTCWikipedia says:
zspikez
2022-11-11 18:03:11 +0000 UTCThe Finnish Army met the first PPS-42s in summer -43. A decision was made to copy it to shoot 9mm using Finnish drum mags. The first trial guns were ready in November -43 but the problems in production and material supply delayed the start of the batch until late summer -44 when the armistice was declared. The Finnish m/44 had the upper receiver and shoulder stock from PPS-43 but the safety mechanism comes from PPS-42. About 10 000 guns were delivered in -44 -45. BTW, some factory in the besieged Leningrad also made direct but a bit rough copies of Suomi SMG in 7.62 Tok, called "Karelo-Finski".
Risto Alanko
2022-11-11 17:50:02 +0000 UTCgreat info as always
Mrgunsngear
2022-11-11 15:57:08 +0000 UTCI've had the opportunity to shoot a PPSh-41 from a friend's collection. Other than being a whole lot of fun, it's a very easy shooting and functionally reliable SMG. (Only downside is the corrosive ammunition.) Never seen a 42 or 43. Thanks for the detailed review!
The Bone Clock
2022-11-11 15:55:22 +0000 UTCWell now I find myself wanting to kick myself for passing on an golden opportunity to buy one of these real cheap a couple years back!!! Drat! 😠
Paul Beck
2022-11-11 15:38:33 +0000 UTCExcellent video! The ‘42 design is utilitarian and spare, and definitely a worthy candidate for “we need a good SMG RIGHT NOW”. With a little more time, the Moscow factory was able to make a couple of important improvements to make a good gun even better, while maintaining the things that made the ‘42 a valuable weapon. The resulting PPS 43 seems to be an ideal design, capable and efficient for use while easy to manufacture. I hope that Ian can give us a comparison between shooting this and the M3, as the PPS 42 and 43 seem to be superior designs on the face of it
Scott
2022-11-11 14:51:57 +0000 UTCThanks for the video. I learned of a new machinegun, I like the PPSh-41 better because of looks and was fun to shoot, never knew of the PPH-42, the PPH-43 looks uncomfortable to shoot but I have not shot one yet to confirm.
Steven E
2022-11-11 14:44:13 +0000 UTC
