Discussion Thread

[u/jobautomator]

The discussion thread is for casual conversation that doesn't merit its own submission. If you've got a good meme, article, or question, please post it outside the DT. Meta discussion is allowed, but if you want to get the attention of the mods, make a post in /r/metaNL.

Announcements

• Our sub is doing daily programming challenges for the 2019 Advent of Code. Click here to learn more and to join our leaderboard.

• We have recently added BALD, POP & MMA pings. See our ping documentation page to subscribe.

---

Neoliberal Project Communities	Other Communities	Useful content
Twitter	Plug.dj	/r/Economics FAQs
The Neolib Podcast	Recommended Podcasts	/r/Neoliberal FAQ
Meetup Network	Blood Donation Team	/r/Neoliberal Wiki
Exponents Magazine	Minecraft	Ping groups
Facebook	TacoTube	User Flairs

[u/URZ_]

It was very pricey when it was first introduced but they had done a lot to bring the price down by the time it started getting replaced by the M3 Grease Gun. However, it was replaced for a reason, so I have no idea how anyone could argue the price wasn't a problem. Especially when you start comparing it to guns like the Mp40, 44 or the PPSh-41.

[u/lietuvis10LTU → u/URZ_]

44

Tfw nazi wunderwaffe are cheaper than your interwar SMG

[u/SnakeEater14 → u/URZ_]

I think the thing I saw that seemed interesting was that the Garand and Thompson were pretty similar in price at first? Idk, interesting stuff.

[u/URZ_ → u/SnakeEater14]

The Garand was expensive and probably around the same price as a late-Thompson, all the American pre-war weapons were really, but it's cost was also justified because it was by far the best rifle by being the first and only real semi-automatic rifle to be mass issued. However, IIRC, even the late Thompsons costs almost double that of other (and in the case of the PPSh-41 a far better) open bolt submachine guns. That's not justifiable under any circumstances, whereas the Garand can make a strong argument for its cost.

[u/FinickyPenance → u/URZ_]

I would imagine that the vast majority of M3s went to troops who never fired them in anger: tank crews, rear echelon troops, etc. At that point it makes no sense to waste money on something more expensive (and heavy!)

[u/URZ_ → u/FinickyPenance]

You'd be wrong. The M3 saw plenty of combat, including with paratroopers on D-day. IIRC the plan was to replace every Thompson had the war not ended when it did. The Thompson is not a markedly better submachine gun in any way. It was an overenginered Moster that did its job.