STG-44 vs. PPSh-41

I split the difference at 6,ooo,ooo and you still b*tched so I drop it to a 1,ooo,ooo and you're still not happy.
Look, issuing the weapons to soldiers was only part of the equation tactics and doctrine had to be developed to implement the weapon into service to make it useful. There is no way the Germans were going to do that in 2 years or even 3.

 

I think you got the wrong idea as to what this is about. It's certainly not about making anyone happy by spitting out random numbers.

That's rubbish. Educating an already fully trained, and in many cases, battle hardened soldier on how to operate a new firearm will NOT take years, that's an absurd thing to claim, and something you should know being a former military guy yourself. Consider that German soldiers were trained in the usage of all the std. issue smallarms in the German army inventory to begin with, and as such were very much familiar with how to correctly operate fully automatic & select fire weapons. Therefore all that needed be done was to instruct the soldiers in the basic operation of the weapon, have them train with it abit so they could familiarize themselves with it, and then ideally have personnel trained in the tactical implementation of the weapon further educate them; albeit the last part the soldiers themselves would soon come to learn by experience largely all by themselves.

As proof of how easily the soldiers adjusted to the new weapon the first company who recieved the weapon on the eastern front blasted their way directly through an otherwise impenetratable Soviet incirclement, the Soviets believing they were facing a German regiment, whilst in actual fact they were fighting against a small company armed with StGs. That's the extent to which the StG increased the firepower at company level, imagine what effect entire divisions mainly equipped with this weapon would've had.

 

Well you need to train the trainer first, field test new tactics on a small scale, adjust after you recieve feedback, re-train and re-test with your adjusted tactics, re-publish the doctrinal field manuals with the correct tactics, rotate Infantry units out of the field to recieve the equipment and training while not eroding front strength. I was a part of exactly this process in Afghanistan in 2008 when we fielded them the M16 in place of the AK-47. Its not as simple as you might think and it takes time. To take full advantage of an assualt rifle's firepower at the squad and platoon and company level in both defense and offensive roles the Germans would need a major doctrinal shift away from their MG-centric thinking. That in particular makes what you suggest a very difficult prospect when your talking about mostly veteran troops and leadership.

 

Cite your source.

As for my "Random" numbers I showed where I got the numbers from and if you think for one minute that every swinging Wilhelm, that could be spared after June 1944, wasn't packing a rifle on or near the front lines you are gravely mistaken. The Luftwaffe had an Infantry Division for crying out loud, so I find it hard to believe that other support troops wouldn't have been pressed into service the closer the Allies got to Germany. At one point Hitler even cleaned out Peenemunde and sent everyone to the Eastern Front.

Who's Military were you in again?

 

Getting back to the merits of both guns. As I've never fired a PPsh 41 I can't comment on with experience on it's value as opposed to a MP44.
However I do have a MP44 and can comment on it. The MP44 was mostly to be used only as a semi rifle with aimed shots and in that capacity it is very accurate for the average 100-300 yrd combat ranges. I know mine is. Basically the FA was only supposed to be reserved for emergency closer quarter conditions. In that capacity I have fired mine FA and find it to be very easy to control on target. Probably because of it's weight and a long bolt throw and a heavy bolt.
I do know that the 7.62X25 Russian rd used in the ppsh is not a peep squeek but is close to that of the US M1 carbine rd. in velocity and power. And would be practially the same if the barrel was the same length as the carbine only it has a lighter bullet.
So this puts the ppsh at level above the standard smg in that it has greater range and pentrating power.
However still not in the class as the MP44 rd.
I'm sure most of the folks here had heard stories of the M1 carbine lacking in stopping powder. This is mainly because off the lower velocity and full jacket bullets that just punch clean holes in a target unless a bone is hit.
So a thought, the heavier 8mm Kurz bullet combined with a higher velocity produced more shock and stopping power on a human target both in close and at a distance.
So even though I am not really qualifed to give an opinion, but if I did, I would base it on that the MP44 full auto capacity is there when needed in close in encounters and provides better aimed and distance fire then the PPsh. And in both cases better stopping power. So even though I have not shot a ppsh, the things I mentioned have nothing to do with the machanics of it but I feel are compeling enough to make an opinion on which one I would choose and that would be the MP44. Just some thoughts, Ray

 

Ofcourse it would take time if they were to make use of the StG's absolute full potential, that is not the point however, the point is that; trained in the best possible application of the StG or not, the average rifleman would gain tremendously in combat efficiency by just recieving the weapon and training with it for a couple of weeks, being taught the basics of how to best deploy it on the battlefield. But let's not forget that they would have from early 1943 to mid 1944 to theorize, test and implement new doctrines around the use of the StG.

So I'm really failing to see the issue here.

 

Source for what, the available manpower ? (Can be found almost anywhere) Or for SS Wiking's first achievements with the StG ? (Mkb42) [Peter R. Senich]

 

Um, no. Just no. It's got 72% the bullet mass and even out of custom-built AR-15 uppers w/ 16" barrels it's still a good 150 FPS slower. That comes to 66% the KE of the 7.62x33mm.

It's a hot pistol round to be sure, but it's not equivalent to the M1 carbine.

Which is pretty much irrelevant for military cartridge comparison because everyone will be using FMJ for everything.

That seems like a reasonable evaluation.

 

Oddly, my copy of Senich's 'German Assault Rifle 1935-1945' doesn't refer to this at all, but possibly it's an earlier edition (1987). He merely states that comparative testing of the Haenel MKb42(H) and Walther MKb42(W) was ' reportedly conducted...within various field units' ( P.43 ). In the MP 43/1 chapter, he does make the following observation (p.65) '...weapons from the MP series were issued to combat units along the Eastern Front during the fall and winter of 1943, with Army Group North known to have received the MP43/1 as early as September 1943'.

Again, he doesn't mention any individual actions, stating only that 'the weapons were favourably received by the units to which they were issued'. ( p.65 ).

 

Not necessarily. For instance if you have a full auto capablity there is a tendency to use it. This may gain you an edge in the intial fire fight but if you burn through too much ammo leave you in a rather perecarious position if the fight lasts for an extended period of time or there are mutitple attacks prior to gaining resupply. Given that much of the time the Germans operated under signficant logistical constraints this is not a minor problem. If you use it in semi automatic mode it has far less impact and indeed becomes somewhat inferior to the Garand.

The US had a lot more time than that to work on the M-14 and M-16 and needed it.

Obviously.

 

It's just a difference of opinion and I understand the point your trying to make, I just see it differently. WWII was a true combined arms war and the incidence of casualties indicates that small arms weren't decisive in a strategic or operational sense. The small tactical advantage that an assault rifle might lend to Infantry troops in specific circumstances isn't enough to change much of anything in my opinion. I personally don't see this as some sort of isolated assault rifle vs. bolt or semi-auto rifle rate of fire competition, mass industrial wars aren't fought in that way.
The combat Infantry Soldier is just one cog among a great many in the combined arms machine, so increasing his efficiency is beneficial to the machine in an overall sense but not in any decisive way. The machine is just too large.

 

Ofcourse the StG was never going to change anything all by itself, the only point I've been trying stress is that it could've perhaps provided that last push needed to win some of the more closely decided battles of the war.

 

This:

Seems to be quite a ways from this:

However your most recent comment raises the question which "closely decided battles"?

 

The STG's revolutionary design spawned a new generation of assault rifles. Especially the Kalashnikov series. The German Army needed something with some relative accuracy to Kar98 but, the magazine capacity and close quarters combat capability of the MP-40. The STG was too late to really have a major effect. (October 1944) Its versatility was the forerunner to modern assault rifles. For example it could be modified with a ZF 4 telescopic sight for "sniper rifle" capability. As seen in this photograph. View attachment 12836

A drawback to the weapon was it's heavy steel receiver which tended lock up the bolt making jamming quite commonplace.

 

Soviet weapons manufacturing turned out the PPSH-41 with outstanding efficiency. (over 6 million being produced) The Soviets needed a squad automatic weapon to be able to counter the German MP-40. The Soviets knew the Mosin Nagant bolt-action rifles would soon be obselete.

Pros:
relatively light weight at 8lbs
great ammunition capacity. 71 rd drum magazine could be used. (copy of Finnish M31 Suomi Mag)
excellent close quarters weapon (perfect for soviet infantry tactics)
low recoil

Cons:
open bolt tendency for jams. (stove pipe)
the drum magazines had a tendency to jam
open bolt exposed to the elements. easy to get clogged.

 

I don't see it as quite a ways from it, considering that single battles can turn the tides of war.

The StG could have, by allowing the Germans victory in a number of key battles, greatly prolonged the war.

The battle for Normandy would be one. If over 50% of the German infantry in France were armed with StGs by June 6th, I don't believe the Allies would've come as far as they did before they would've been pushed back into the sea. Not to mention that the job of the paratroopers who were dropped during the night would've been made a lot more difficult.

 

Are you high?

50% of the inf in France armed with StG would have meant NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING.

The Allies used strategic surprise that meant that a lot of those 50% of infantry were holed up in Calais.

The one thing that slowed down the advance to Caen on day one was the armoured counterattack.

The paratroopers took a few key locations, if they had met more resistance they would still have acheived their main mission; keeping the enemy away from the beaches.

The assault rifle doesn't add that much more firepower to the infantry squad. Least of all to the Germans. With fast firing MG's the germans won the feuerkampf in small engagements most of the time.

What the Germans lacked was a resources to keep the Luftwaffe flying. A few geschwaders of interceptors over Normandy at any given time, and a steady stream of fuel and spareparts for the panzers would have swung the battle for them, a new small arm would not.

The Germans were defeated Strategically, Operationally and Tactically in Normandy. And for those who are serious student of the history of warfare, rather than armchair generals, the Normandy battle was only going to be an Allied win.

It was the culmination of 5 years of fighting experience from the British, and american ingenuety and production.

The FG42 was an invention made out of necessity (and not to successful either), the StG 44 wasn't. As it turned out Paratroop warfare with the technology availiable in WW2 was a dead end.

Like all first generation weapons it was not ideal. It has a big wow factor, but at the end of the day there are too many things that needs to be attended. (like people have mentioned on the thread already)

 

You took the words out of my mouth.....

Although this thread is now veering 'way off topic , the balance in Normandy would not have been swung on the question of smallarms ; it could as well be claimed that the British and Commonwealth troops could have broken out faster if they'd all been armed with M1 Garand rifles.

 

If so, me and Larry Vickers have been smoking from the same pipe.

That might be, but the Allies did run into fierce resistance upon landing in Normandy, resistance that would've been even stronger had the German troops there been armed almost entirely with StG's. This in turn would've bought the Germans extra time to get their Panzers into the fight.

 

Well, just to lighten this thread up a little, and also to show both sides of an argument.....

YouTube - Larry Vickers and the Sturmgewehr 44