Thompson Auto-Ordnance Releases WWII Commemorative “Tanker Thompson”

Exciting news for history buffs, collectors and Tommy Gun fans:

(Greeley, PA) – Thompson Auto-Ordnance, maker of the famous “Tommy Gun” and other classic firearms throughout history, is excited to introduce the special edition WWII themed Tanker Thompson.

“Built like a tank” is a phrase that has entered the American lexicon as a means to describe hardware that is durable, strong and nearly indestructible. The term may have originated in describing armored fighting vehicles, but it also clearly describes the Tommy Gun. It is only fitting then, that Auto-Ordnance continue the series of WWII commemorative guns with the “Tanker Thompson,” dedicated to the memory of the brave American soldiers who faced the enemy in steel chariots like the M4 Sherman Tank.

Nearly 50,000 Shermans were produced during World War II, seeing action primarily in Europe against Nazi Germany. Just like the Thompson, these Shermans were a vital part of the war effort. Though the crews that took them into harm’s way were often outgunned by German tanks, they took the fight to the enemy and achieved victory despite the odds.

Auto-Ordnance is proud to honor America’s armored warriors with this commemorative Thompson. Each Tanker Thompson is Cerakoted in Army O.D. Green. The white star of the Sherman Tank is engraved just in front of the magwell. The “U.S.” logo is engraved on the buttstock. Like every Thompson, the gun is all steel with high grade walnut furniture. The 16” barrel is exceptionally accurate. Owning the Tanker Thompson gives the modern shooter the opportunity to own a piece of history while honoring the memory of the brave tank crews who delivered on America’s promise to achieve final victory in World War II.

The Tanker Thompson, model TM1C1, is chambered in .45 ACP, features a walnut fixed stock with U.S. logo and vertical foregrip. It comes with 30-round and 20-round stick magazines, Kerr sling and a mag pouch. Contact your local firearms dealer to order your Tanker WWII Thompson! MSRP is $1749.

Kahr Firearms Group and Outlaw Ordnance have partnered together on the design concept and promotion of this product, and several other custom firearm projects. Outlaw Ordnance, based out of West Monroe, Louisiana, has seen substantial growth in the last few years. They are changing the firearm industry with custom designs and innovations. Check out their Instagram Channels to see what else is new.

comments

  1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    Looks cool. A bit pricey for me, since I already have a 1928-style semi.

    1. avatar Madcapp says:

      They’re heavy as a tank too. Show me to the MP5.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Yep. With a full mag you’re looking at 11 pounds. Makes my mosin nagant look like a lightweight.

        1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

          My pop got to shoot one for grins when he was in ‘Nam.

          Said it was heavier than it looked, but was a butter-soft shooter on FA…

        2. avatar jwm says:

          The first time I shot one I was 10. Different world then. .45 acp is a fairly low pressure round and the gun weighs more than a Garand. Because of the shape of the stock they tend to muzzle climb. And they have a fairly high rate of fire.

        3. avatar New Continental Army says:

          I shot one recently (rented just for shits and giggles) and it had absolutely zero recoil or muzzle climb. Inside 100 yards it was like a laser gun accurate too. I could write my name into a wall with it. But yes, quite heavy for an SMG.

        4. avatar CA ST says:

          It doesn’t take glock mags, so I’ll take the Kriss Vecotor please.

  2. avatar Michael says:

    I’d rather get a plain vanlla one and pay the $200.00 tax stamp for a legal 10″ barrel, if I had one, I’d have it for shootin’, no safe queens for me, thank you. -30-

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Check Forgotten Weapons. They recently had videos on the history of the Thompson. And the guns shown are up for auction.

  3. avatar Southern Cross says:

    The Shernans were outgunned because of a flawed doctrine that made the tanks infantry support vehicles and enemy tanks were to be engaged by tank destroyers. Of course in reality this doctrine never survived first contact. At least the person who formulated and imposed this doctrine got themselves killed in Normandy.

    The 75mm gun in the Sherman was an Americanized French field gun from 1897. Okay in 1942 and for lobbing HE at enemy positions. But inadequate in 1944 when it couldn’t penetrate the frontal armour of a Panther at pistol shooting distances.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      An effective HE round was of supreme importance to tankers during ww2. What research I’ve done, and I’m far from an expert, says that about 80% of main gun rounds fired during ww2 were HE. And it didn’t matter much which country you were tanking for. By far the largest killer of tanks was anti tank guns and infantry weapons like the panzerfaust. HE was the answer to that problem.

      British tankers suffered terribly in the opening stages of the war because their 2 pounders, which were credible anti tank weapons, were supplied with solid shot only. The brits were happy to get American built tanks with decent HE shells. And the brits figured out in the desert war that the german 75mm had a better projectile for AP work than the American supplied AP round. So they took captured stocks of german AP rounds, pulled the projectiles and then put them on the American rounds.

      Panthers and Tigers were deadly tanks. But they were few and far between. The bulk of them faced the Russians in the east. Shermans could and did kill the best of the german armor. Wittman and his Tigers were torn apart by Shermans that were in good defensive positions.

      1. avatar bryan1980 says:

        A good bit of the time, Tigers were used as stationary guns, since their mobility was so poor. And when they did get stuck, there really wasn’t a recovery vehicle with the capability to get them unstuck (at least in a timely manner).

        IMHO, the Panther and the T-34 were the best tanks of the war. The T-34 would have really been the best if it weren’t for poor workmanship in the Soviet tank plants.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          The Panther was good. But to complicated. intensive use of man hours, expensive, resource hungry, on and on.

          The t34 was rude and crude. And crew survival was dismal when the tank got hit. Remember, your crews are the heart of your armor and they are the most expensive part. The Sherman was a very survivable tank when it was hit. Easy to get out of and with improved ammo stowage not nearly as combustible as it had been.

        2. avatar Scoutino says:

          JWM, Shermans did often burst into flames when hit anywhere. Hence German’s nickname for them – Tommy cooker.
          T-34s were crude, simple, noisy and uncomfortable, but their diesel fuel made them much less likely to start burning after otherwise non-lethal hit.

      2. avatar TomC says:

        If your only tool is a hammer, you treat every problem as a nail.

        80% of rounds fired by tanks were HE because that was what they had on board. One reason they had so much HE on board was because the AP rounds were nearly worthless. Your best chance was to hit an enemy tank with an HE round that might (with a lot of luck) damage the gun or sights or (with a little less luck) might break the track leaving the enemy tank stuck so you could maneuver away from it – then come from behind if it really needed to be knocked out.

        Yes, American Army doctrine and British Army doctrine called for using anti-tank weapons and “tank destroyers” against enemy tanks. But you have the chicken and egg backwards there. Our tanks weren’t undergunned because they weren’t tank destroyers our tanks weren’t tank destroyers because they were undergunned for the task. The choice of tank main armament was largely limited by the room required for a higher velocity gun and its recoil and its ammo. Tank destroyers were on an open chassis that provided room for the gun but without the protection of armor.

        Yes, Tigers were rare. Panthers weren’t nearly as rare, and the armor on the Panther was more than adequate to stand up to anything a Sherman could throw at it until very late in the war.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          The Panther had weak side and rear armor. The Shermans of the American army handled the german panthers roughly at Arracourt.

          Most of the german ‘success’ in tanks came from the fact that they were defending and the allies were attacking. This puts the attacking side at a very large disadvantage. When the german tanks came out in the open to fight they had a very rough time.

        2. avatar b725 says:

          My father was a platoon leader with the 610th Tank Destroyer Battalion in Europe. Came ashore in Normandy. As you mentioned they had an open top and were designed differently than regular Shermans. The doctrine was to operate almost independently, ahead of the front if possible, and use ambush, artillery and air support (which came later) to take out German armor. The goal was to move fast and to engage on terms that were advantageous. He once told me his company took out more tanks using directed artillery than direct engagement.

      3. avatar Leadslinger says:

        The British nickname for the Sherman was Ronson, like the cigarette lighter, because “it lights up the first time, every time.”

      4. avatar Prudiikal says:

        we all know the German Maus (mouse) Tank is the best

    2. avatar bryan1980 says:

      Yup, if the German tanks didn’t have their own flaws (mechanical complexity, along with weight in the case of the Tiger), the results would have been even worse. Plus, they just flat out ran out of fuel near the end. One good thing about the Sherman, it was easy to produce, so we pretty much just threw numbers at them.

      1. avatar TomC says:

        That was a lesson that both the US and USSR learned in WWII: A whole lot of mediocre tanks will beat a handful of great tanks every time — especially if you are willing to squander them.

        For some reason, the US chose to disregard that lesson throughout the Cold War.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          In ww2 we didn’t have Roll on/ Roll Off ships. American tanks had to be transported cross ocean. They had to be loaded by crane onto ships. The cranes in ports in those days usually topped out at 40 tons.

          It’s more complicated than ‘disposable machines with disposable’ crews that people looking back 70 years and only a little knowledge of the subject want to make it.

    3. avatar Aaron says:

      actually, the Sherman was far superior to the German tanks in reliability, mobility, and recoverability. much better for the offense since tank-on-tank battles were a rather small part of what Shermans did. most knocked-out Shermans were put back into service whereas most knocked out Panthers and Tigers could not be recovered and repaired and were abandoned. war isn’t just about one weapon vs one weapon – that’s a simplistic view.

      even in the Korean war, after the M-26s eliminated the T-34s, the US switched back to Shermans

    4. avatar James W Crawford says:

      The biggest problem with the Sherman Tank was the combination of designing the tank to use a large diameter radial aircraft engine (but as production surged bastsrdized abortions were often substituted as alternatives) mounted in the rear and locating the transmission in the front of the hull with a driveshaft connecting them. The location of this drive shaft compelled the designers to mount the turret higher requiring an extremely tall, marginally sloped front hull. (The effeftiveness of armor is inversely proportional to the Cosine of the slope angle squsred.) As a result, the Sherman was the tallest, easiest to hit target armored vehicle on the battlefield with compromised armor effectiveness.

  4. avatar el Possum Guapo Standartenfuher " they think we're making pizza's Oberst von Burn says:

    Creosote a Thompson? I’d like to get my hands on one of them Ford motors they used in some of them Sherman’s

    1. avatar bryan1980 says:

      Ah yes, the Ford GAA V-8. Very advanced engine for its time.

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

        A lopped-off V-12…

  5. avatar little horn says:

    “built like a tank” i’m assuming they mean weight ratio, then yes it is.
    sucker born every minute.

  6. avatar Matt o says:

    No thanks. Even if it had the correct sbr barrel and blued finish, the insides are completely different and that would bother me

  7. avatar Lowell says:

    Binary trigger? No? Nevermind.

  8. Remarkable how comments on a specialized Thompson was hijacked by a thread on tankers. Not that it isn’t fun and informative, mind you, but definitely tangential.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      The ‘Tanker Thompson’ and the references to M4s in the post sorta left it an open subject.

      1. Kinda’, sorta’. Sure.

  9. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    This is an expensive semi automatic replica. I can get a 1022 conversion kit for about $300, that does the same thing using cheaper ammunition.

  10. avatar bontai joe says:

    I hear that someone made a Thompson replica out of stone and it was 2 pounds lighter….

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email