Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

STG-44 vs. PPSh-41

wwii soviet german

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
136 replies to this topic

#51 formerjughead

formerjughead

    The Cooler King

  • TrusteeOKF Trustee
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,062 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 04:03 AM

.....Problem is that your theory just doesn't hold any water since the 7.92mm Kurz was made using not just the same equipment as that used for the manufacture of 7.92x57 ammunition, but at the same time also using the exact same materials at just half the cost for each round.

.....


It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the standard service round at the time had a casing length of 57MM and the 'kurz' had a casing length of 33MM; were they going to just miracle away those 24MM ? They had a choice: either cut and re-neck casings for the standard rounds or produce new casings to match the shorter 'Kurz' ammunition. So it's pretty appearent that using the same equipment would have been more time consuming either way you look at it.

Posted Image Posted Image

Posted Image

The 'kurz' also fired a lighter 125g bullet than the standard 181-190g bullet of the K98k. So, along with either remanufacturing or producing new casings they also had to make smaller bullets.

8x57mm IS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia....ki/7.92x33_Kurz

It's not nearly as cut and dry as you pretend. I am not even going to get into the difficulties of reshaping steel in comparison to brass or the recalibration of equipment to accomodate changing from one round to the other between production runs.

While we're at it the cost per round of Kurz ammunition is only cheaper if the casing is produced at 33mm, because if they are remanufacturing the kurz cases from the standard 57mm not only do they have the material expense of starting with a larger case; but, the included expense of cutting and necking the cases to 33mm.

Edited by formerjughead, 10 February 2011 - 04:11 AM.


#52 MikeRex

MikeRex

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 82 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 06:32 PM

I'm reasonably sure they made that x33 stuff new, if only because the idea of mass production by cutting down and re-necking existing cases is too asinine to seriously consider.

AIUI, case manufacture is done by drawing metal through a series of dies. Since the x57 and x33 share the same case head dimensions and outer diameter, some of the dies could probably be re-used. This might save a little bit of time in tooling up for mass production and probably saved time in R&D, but I doubt there would be any other long-term benefits.

Re: 7.63x25 Mauser Export and 7.62x25 tokarev, yes, they have the same dimensions, but the Tokarev cartridge is loaded to substantially higher pressures and is not safe to put into 7.63 weapons. You could do it the other way, but the lower powered round might not cycle the action. In any case, I doubt the Germans were sitting on loads of 7.63mm, they'd switched to 9mm some time before.

Identical case dimensions with different powder loads were pretty common in early autoloading pistol rounds. The Italian 9mm glisenti is identical to 9x19 parabellum, but just loaded to lower pressures due to the weak glisenti pistol action.

#53 Proeliator

Proeliator

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 615 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 08:38 PM

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the standard service round at the time had a casing length of 57MM and the 'kurz' had a casing length of 33MM; were they going to just miracle away those 24MM ? They had a choice: either cut and re-neck casings for the standard rounds or produce new casings to match the shorter 'Kurz' ammunition.


Why are you stating a given?

It has already been stated that the 7.92mm Kurz was just a cut down 7.92x57mm round, the rim and first half of the cartridge being near identical. The only difference was the length of the cartridge, size of the bullet & propellant charge, something I've mentioned countless times by now. The beauty of this was that the same machines used to manufacture the 7.92x57 round could be used to manufacture the 7.92mm Kurz, the machinery requiring only one simple recalibration for length, which at the same time would cut down on time & costs to make a single round.

To quote myself from earlier: smaller cartridge, smaller projectile, smaller powder charge = less expensive and faster to make.

So it's pretty appearent that using the same equipment would have been more time consuming either way you look at it


How on earth did you come to that conclusion? You really believe that making a shorter cartridge using the same equipment would take more time? The whole point of the 7.92mm Kurz design was that it would be made by the same machinery used to make 7.92x57mm ammunition, making the transition an instant & painless affair. In short, transitioning to 7.92mm Kurz production over 7.92x57mm production could've only increased the nr. of rounds manufactured each month, not the other way round.

The 'kurz' also fired a lighter 125g bullet than the standard 181-190g bullet of the K98k. So, along with either remanufacturing or producing new casings they also had to make smaller bullets.


And once again the bullets could be made using same machinery as-well, being the exact same caliber and using the exact same type material as the already manufactured 7.92mm bullets, only difference again being the amount of material needed to complete each round = the 7.92mm Kurz was a cheaper & faster ammunition to produce.

It's not nearly as cut and dry as you pretend. I am not even going to get into the difficulties of reshaping steel in comparison to brass or the recalibration of equipment to accomodate changing from one round to the other between production runs.


What is it that I pretend ? I've only stated it the way it was actually done. The plants which it were decided should start manufacturing 7.92 Kurz instead of the IS round, would only need to make a single and very simple recalibration to their cartridge making machinery in order for them to spit out 33mm casings instead of the 57mm ones; and this quite simply because all dimensions except length were identical between the two rounds. So one simple length calibration and you're rolling Kurz catridges off the production line. It couldn't have been easier..

While we're at it the cost per round of Kurz ammunition is only cheaper if the casing is produced at 33mm, because if they are remanufacturing the kurz cases from the standard 57mm not only do they have the material expense of starting with a larger case; but, the included expense of cutting and necking the cases to 33mm.


Why would they produce it from already made 7.92x57mm ? Ofcourse they'd leave the stockpiles of already made 7.92x57mm alone to be used up by the army, and make new 7.92mm Kurz ammunition.

Edited by Proeliator, 10 February 2011 - 09:05 PM.


#54 Proeliator

Proeliator

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 615 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 08:53 PM

So what we have is a 'cheaper & faster-to-make' gun firing 'cheaper & faster-to-make' ammunition.

Thus had the Germans decided in early 43, when the StG was ready for full scale production, to replace the K98k with the StG as the std. service rifle (granted the führer would allow it), then it would certainly have had quite an impact on the war.

We're talking about increasing the individual soldiers firepower to something over 10 times greater than previously, whilst the weapon and ammunition he uses to gain this increase at the same time is cheaper & faster to make.

So you're increasing the combat effectiveness of your troops on the battlefield whilst at the same time making it less expensive to equip them.

Edited by Proeliator, 10 February 2011 - 09:03 PM.


#55 formerjughead

formerjughead

    The Cooler King

  • TrusteeOKF Trustee
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,062 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 10:42 PM

So what we have is a 'cheaper & faster-to-make' gun firing 'cheaper & faster-to-make' ammunition.

Thus had the Germans decided in early 43, when the StG was ready for full scale production, to replace the K98k with the StG as the std. service rifle (granted the führer would allow it), then it would certainly have had quite an impact on the war.

We're talking about increasing the individual soldiers firepower to something over 10 times greater than previously, whilst the weapon and ammunition he uses to gain this increase at the same time is cheaper & faster to make.

So you're increasing the combat effectiveness of your troops on the battlefield whilst at the same time making it less expensive to equip them.


Exactly and if Germany would have done that in 1935 or even 1940 it would have been effective. It would have given them years to stockpile the 'kurz' ammunition and fully integrate the StG into service. But, in 1943 when German production is running at full capacity changing or diverting any stage of the process is going to cause a ripple effect.

Commercial ammunition manufacturing is not the same as reloading on your bench in the workshop.

When the 7.92x57MM casing is referred to as the 'parent case' for the 7.92x33MM Kurz that is saying exisiting 57MM casings were utilized to produce 33MM casings.
125g bullets can not be made in the same molds as 181g neither can the same equipment be used to apply the brass or copper jackets.
The dies for seating the bullets in the casing may have been able to be utilized but, they would have needed extensive recalibration. The only thing that would not have needed to be adjusted is the base die.

In order to produce the 7.92x33MM Germany would have had to divert resources that were already at 100% production and this would be done at the peril of production for the more widely used 7.92x57MM ammunition.
It just was not feasible for Germany to divert resources in 1943 on scale that would have made the StG a game changer.

End of subject.

#56 Proeliator

Proeliator

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 615 posts

Posted 11 February 2011 - 01:59 AM

End of subject.


Not quite.

Changing to 7.92mm Kurz in 1943 wouldn't have caused any ripple effect other than that of more rounds being manufactured because it was a faster & cheaper type of ammunition to manufacture. Furthermore, just as it was in 1944, the recalibration of the various manufacturing machines for the production of 7.92 Kurz instead of 7.92 IS would've been completed very quickly, and from then on 7.92 Kurz would be rolling off the production line. Just as it was done in 1944, where this whole process was accomplised extremely quickly despite the much more deperate situation Germany was in by then. The only difference is that had the StG been accepted for mass production in 43, then the change would've been done on a larger scale (more factories converting), whilst 7.92 IS production would be stepped down instead of increased as it was in 43.

The goal would've been to have the StG arm 50% of the German battlefield infantry in service by mid 1944, some 1½ years later. So that means making approx. 2 million rifles in 1½ years, which should've been possible considering that from April 44 to the end of the war some 1 million StG44's & G43's were produced, and this was done in supplment to the still ongoing K98k production. Had it been decided in early 43 that the StG would replace the K98k, then K98k production would've been gradually ceased along with the start of StG production. Furthermore the G43 would've no doubt been abandoned in favour of the StG as-well. So that's the resources spent of producing two more expensive and more slowly made weapons made available for the mass production of the StG. Add to this the much better production capabilities in 1943 (By mid 44 German industry had taken a pounding) and it should've definitely been possible to manufacture 2 million StG's by mid 1944.

And with 50% of the infantry at the front being armed with StG's it would've definitely made a major impact. Would it have saved the war for the Germans? No, I don't believe so, the odds were simply too great. But it would've definitely prolonged the war a significant amount.

Edited by Proeliator, 11 February 2011 - 02:05 AM.


#57 formerjughead

formerjughead

    The Cooler King

  • TrusteeOKF Trustee
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,062 posts

Posted 11 February 2011 - 04:06 AM

........The goal would've been to have the StG arm 50% of the German battlefield infantry in service by mid 1944, some 1½ years later. So that means making approx. 2 million rifles in 1½ years, which should've been possible considering that from April 44 to the end of the war some 1 million StG44's & G43's were produced, and this was done in supplment to the still ongoing K98k production. Had it been decided in early 43 that the StG would replace the K98k, then K98k production would've been gradually ceased along with the start of StG production. Furthermore the G43 would've no doubt been abandoned in favour of the StG as-well. So that's the resources spent of producing two more expensive and more slowly made weapons made available for the mass production of the StG. Add to this the much better production capabilities in 1943 (By mid 44 German industry had taken a pounding) and it should've definitely been possible to manufacture 2 million StG's by mid 1944.

.......


So not only would Germany add an additional round to their production they would have to increase production of the 7.92x57MM ? and the end result is that they only prolong the inevitable? Great logic, best case scenario they take an Atomic Bomb for Japan.....brilliant.

#58 Proeliator

Proeliator

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 615 posts

Posted 11 February 2011 - 09:08 AM

So not only would Germany add an additional round to their production they would have to increase production of the 7.92x57MM ? and the end result is that they only prolong the inevitable? Great logic, best case scenario they take an Atomic Bomb for Japan.....brilliant.


What? 7.92x57mm production increased ? Where did you get that from? I specifically wrote that it would be stepped down, and NOT increased as it actually was in 1943 before the StG had ever recieved clearance for mass production by the führer. If it had been decided in early 1943 that the StG was to replace the K98k as the std. service arm then the production of 7.92 IS would've naturally been decreased gradually along with an obvious increase in 7.92 Kurz production.

What's happening is that as more and more K98k's are replaced by the StG, the demand for 7.92 IS decreases and so less and less 7.92 IS is being produced, and it would keep decreasing until only the amount demanded by the various machine guns & other special purpose weapons chambered for it is being produced. Meanwhile 7.92 Kurz production is gradually stepped up at an equal rate as, once again, more and more StG's are replacing the K98k's in service.

I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer than that...

#59 Proeliator

Proeliator

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 615 posts

Posted 11 February 2011 - 09:20 AM

and the end result is that they only prolong the inevitable? Great logic, best case scenario they take an Atomic Bomb for Japan.....brilliant.


Not sure why you are stating this. Did I write that the StG could win the Germans the war? No. All I wrote was that introducing the StG earlier would've significantly prolonged the war. The end result would most likely still be the same - you can't really trumph an atomic bomb unless you have one yourself.

#60 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,362 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 11 February 2011 - 02:13 PM

...To quote myself from earlier: smaller cartridge, smaller projectile, smaller powder charge = less expensive and faster to make.
....

Less expensive? After produciton reaches a certain point sure. Question is what's that point.
Faster? Just what steps do you think given the equimpment of the time would be faster?

So what we have is a 'cheaper & faster-to-make' gun firing 'cheaper & faster-to-make' ammunition.

Or not. You've yet to prove the faster part of the ammo. As for the rifle. The Germans already had rifles it's a lot faster to make a few replacement K98 say than make enough of a new rifle to reequip the Heer. Not to say cheaper.

Thus had the Germans decided in early 43, when the StG was ready for full scale production, to replace the K98k with the StG as the std. service rifle (granted the führer would allow it), then it would certainly have had quite an impact on the war.

That's one opinioin. Not well supported at this point however.

We're talking about increasing the individual soldiers firepower to something over 10 times greater than previously, whilst the weapon and ammunition he uses to gain this increase at the same time is cheaper & faster to make.

So you're increasing the combat effectiveness of your troops on the battlefield whilst at the same time making it less expensive to equip them.

Highly debateable. Not sure where your 10 times factor came from. It's not even clear that there would have been a significant increase in combat effectiveness.

Edited by lwd, 11 February 2011 - 02:19 PM.


#61 Black6

Black6

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 317 posts

Posted 11 February 2011 - 02:36 PM

The Germans were actively trying to develop a weapon that ultimately became the Stg series since 1923. The concept was first put forth and championed by COL Thorbeck and General von Tayson as a means to solve issues identified in WWI associated with Infatry firepower. Make no mistake though, the rifle was never meant to be the primary weapon of the German Infantry in a doctrinal sense. The riflemen pretty much existed to carry ammunition for and to protect the machine guns. That being said, any new Infantry rifle was not going to be any kind of a game changer on the battlefield without a major shift in doctrinal thought and tactical employment. German Infantry tactics were centered on the machine gun, that wasn't going to change and is also the main reason for the sluggish search to find an auto-loader prior to the war. Notice that the MG34 and MG42 set the standard for light MG excellence? The Germans could have produced something along the lines of the Stg series years earlier, but to them there wasn't much reason for it considering everything was MG-centric. If you carry more magazines for your Stg, then that means you carry less ammunition for the MG which makes zero sense through the doctrinal thought process of the German Infantry squad/platoon.

Another major reason for the Stg not being any kind of a game changer and to me the most obvious is that something like 80% of all front line casualties are caused by artillery. Factoring in MG's and grenades the rifle's piece of the pie is actually very small. Now replacing the K98 with the Stg across the board seems like a huge increase in firepower, but in the big picture its close to irrelevant. Rifles already are responsible for causing casualties, so what kind of increase in that percentage can you honestly expect? Just because the Stg has greater firepower it doesn't subsequently increase a Soldier's ability to carry ammunition for it, increase the ability to supply it at the front, etc.
Would the divisions facing Operation Cobra have fared any better if they had truckloads of Stg's and ammunition? My guess is that if the Germans had huge quantities of Stg's in Normandy it wouldn't have changed much of anything. The time and place for the Stg to have a dramatic effect on warfare was 1914-1918. In my opinion in the context of WWII no rifle was going to be a game changer, the technology of other weapons had moved far ahead (artillery, aircraft, tanks, etc.).
  • lwd likes this

#62 formerjughead

formerjughead

    The Cooler King

  • TrusteeOKF Trustee
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,062 posts

Posted 11 February 2011 - 02:54 PM

Not sure why you are stating this. Did I write that the StG could win the Germans the war? No. All I wrote was that introducing the StG earlier would've significantly prolonged the war. The end result would most likely still be the same - you can't really trumph an atomic bomb unless you have one yourself.


The reason I siad that is because had the war in Europe gone on past July 1945 (3 Months) Germany would have become the glowing example of the Atomic Age.

#63 Gebirgsjaeger

Gebirgsjaeger

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,321 posts

Posted 11 February 2011 - 04:06 PM

The chance to equip their troops with the Stgw was near zero. The bad situation on basic resources had cancelled this. The ammo was the next point, they developed steelcases and tried it with other materials but no matter what it was to less of it. A good report is the "Wehrwirtschaftsbericht" and out of it "Die Lage an Kriegswichtigen Rohstoffen, Frühjahr bis Herbst 1944". In that report is to find that it was impossible to switch over to the Sturmgewehr in 1944 and later. And as i said at an other place: Not the rounds per second will win a battle, the hit´s per round are important for that.
Regards, Ulrich

Horrido!

"We're surrounded. That simplifies our problem!" LtGen. Chesty Puller.

#64 Proeliator

Proeliator

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 615 posts

Posted 12 February 2011 - 04:47 AM

Naturally hitting your target is the most important, and the StG was also perfectly capable of this, and at much greater distances than any SMG.

I'm not sure why so many people are denying the huge impact the assault rifle has had on the manner in which wars are fought and at what pace. We're talking about giving the common infantryman the ability to reach out and touch individual targets out to 300 meters with great accuracy whilst at the same time also being able to lay down massive amounts of suppressive fire during CQB; that combined ability is something neither the bolt action rifle, semi auto rifle or SMG can provide.

There's a reason every self respecting army in the world today issue assault rifles as their std. service rifles. The increase in firepower it adds over not just a bolt action or semi automatic rifle, but also a SMG, is significant.

And regarding the StG, and how it could've had a major impact, I can't really explain it better than I've already done. Smallarms do have an impact on the battlefield, a large one, as demonstrated countless time through history, so there's absolutely no point in denying it.

Larry Vickers, a retired US Army veteran who spent 20 years in Special Operations, sums up what difference the StG could've made pretty well I think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jrlCPq5stE

As Larry Vickers puts it:

"But what if, the Sturmgewehr had been widely distributed to the German army in 1943? It would've negated the advantages of the M1 Garand, had a major impact on the Russian front, and would've provided a dramatically different level of response to the Normandy invasion"

"The earlier adoption of the Sturmgewehr would've most certainly rsulted in far greater allied casualties, and could've tipped the scales in close battles such as Monte Cassino, Bastogne and Stalingrad."

#65 formerjughead

formerjughead

    The Cooler King

  • TrusteeOKF Trustee
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,062 posts

Posted 12 February 2011 - 05:04 AM

.....And regarding the StG, and how it could've had a major impact, I can't really explain it better than I've already done. Smallarms do have an impact on the battlefield, a large one, as demonstrated countless time through history, so there's absolutely no point in denying it.

.....


There's something else that has an even larger impact on the battlefield and that's LOGISTICS. Germany did not have the logistical mechanism sufficient to implement the StG in large enough numbers to make a difference.

#66 Proeliator

Proeliator

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 615 posts

Posted 12 February 2011 - 05:21 AM

There's something else that has an even larger impact on the battlefield and that's LOGISTICS. Germany did not have the logistical mechanism sufficient to implement the StG in large enough numbers to make a difference.


If they had started in 1943 there is no reason to believe they couldn't have, esp. when you look at the nr. of StG44's & G43's manufactured alongside the K98k from mid 44 till the end of the war. There's no doubt that had StG production replaced that of the K98k & G43 in early 1943, then 2 million or more rifles could've been manufactured by mid 1944.

#67 formerjughead

formerjughead

    The Cooler King

  • TrusteeOKF Trustee
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,062 posts

Posted 12 February 2011 - 05:56 AM

If they had started in 1943 there is no reason to believe they couldn't have, esp. when you look at the nr. of StG44's & G43's manufactured alongside the K98k from mid 44 till the end of the war. There's no doubt that had StG production replaced that of the K98k & G43 in early 1943, then 2 million or more rifles could've been manufactured by mid 1944.


The German Army consisted or 18,000,000 soldiers throughout the course of the war and they suffered nearly 6,000,000 casualties so even if there were 12,000,000 still fighting in 1943 and you were able to give 2,000,000 of them StG's you would need to provide somewhere near 60,000,000 rds of 7.92x33 per month, and you would still need to provide 7.92x57 for the other 10,000,000; that's not even including training and supplying the Volksturm.

I just think 1943 is too late to implement the weapon in large enough numbers. 1941 or 42 maybe it could have had an impact; but, 1943 the Allies were hammering all of the German production and transportation. If you look at things realistically actual ground combat was only a small portion of the war and an even smaller portion of that was ground forces engaging one another with rifles.

If you take the battle of Stalingrad, for instance, the Germans didn't lose because the Russians had better rifles; they lost because they could no longer supply their troops. Russia just kept throwing people at them. Even once the Allies landed in Normandy they didn't lose because we had better rifles, they lost because they were being bombed night and day 7 days and could no longer support their troops.

It's just not always about the rifles that decide wars.

#68 Proeliator

Proeliator

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 615 posts

Posted 12 February 2011 - 10:40 AM

The German Army consisted or 18,000,000 soldiers throughout the course of the war and they suffered nearly 6,000,000 casualties so even if there were 12,000,000 still fighting in 1943 and you were able to give 2,000,000 of them StG's you would need to provide somewhere near 60,000,000 rds of 7.92x33 per month, and you would still need to provide 7.92x57 for the other 10,000,000; that's not even including training and supplying the Volksturm.


The German military lost 3.25 million men during WWII, 6 million is adding civilian losses. And there's certainly no point in listing the nr. of men who served with the German military throughout WW2, as that doesn't depict the average number of men fighting at the frontlines in certain time period.

For example, at no point during the war was German military manpower more than 3 to 3.5 million on the eastern front, and remember that this includes the Heer, LW & KM. Manpower in the west & south combined was approx. 2 to 2.5 million, and again this includes the Heer, LW & KM.

So producing 2+ million StG rifles by mid 1944 would be enough to arm roughly 40 to 50% of the German infantry at the frontlines.

I just think 1943 is too late to implement the weapon in large enough numbers. 1941 or 42 maybe it could have had an impact; but, 1943 the Allies were hammering all of the German production and transportation. If you look at things realistically actual ground combat was only a small portion of the war and an even smaller portion of that was ground forces engaging one another with rifles.

If you take the battle of Stalingrad, for instance, the Germans didn't lose because the Russians had better rifles; they lost because they could no longer supply their troops. Russia just kept throwing people at them. Even once the Allies landed in Normandy they didn't lose because we had better rifles, they lost because they were being bombed night and day 7 days and could no longer support their troops.

It's just not always about the rifles that decide wars.


No'one is suggesting that it is always the rifles that decide wars, esp. since normally there isn't a very big difference between the smallarms fielded by opposing sides. But in the case if the StG it was a huge leap forward compared to the other std. rifles then in service that it actually could've made a major difference, providing the units equipped with it unrivalled firepower, often allowing them to fight themself out of otherwise inescapable situations.

#69 Gebirgsjaeger

Gebirgsjaeger

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,321 posts

Posted 12 February 2011 - 02:14 PM

There is an Articel in the German "Waffen Revue" to that topic. I translated it with google to save time, for this reason "sorry for some errors". It may give fodder to someone.

Some excerpts from the article:

14.4.1942
Meeting Speer - Hitler
The leader takes the position that is not the machine carbines, but still the single shot rifle for the future is, as long as the force may be equipped with enough MG 42nd

15.4.1942
Meeting Speer - Hitler
The leader believes that the MK, to replace several weapons, the disadvantage of many universal weapons has to be suitable for any purpose that is correct.

The guide notes the following deficiencies and disadvantages:
a) insufficient firing range, the current conditions and eastern front, he can not be generalized
B) different types of ammunition against imported handguns (disadvantage manufacturing and supply terms)
c) the long magazine cover makes possible for the shooter

Introduction rejected
The guide is available, but on the view that one state has a technical advantage arms, who provides the first individual shooters with a useful automatic rifle

6.2.1943
Meeting Speer - Hitler
.. The leaders decided that the MP is not 43 is to be introduced since the launch of a new type of ammunition can not be accepted. Moreover, the weight of the MP 43 is too high

6.3.1943
His (the leader) holding to the 98k is understandable when one knows that the larger cartridge more possibilities for special designs (tracer, projectiles with blinding, explosive projectiles, etc.) provided.

12.6.1943
Evaluation of gene. Lindemannvom AOK 18
1. MP 43 in use well proven vol replaced the MP 38/40 and an essential part of the rifle and MG le
2. MP 43b has not yet proved better as closed. Contamination risk is low.
Some drawbacks: high sight, muzzle flash too bright (1945 trials of mouth dampers)

25.9.1943
The pos. Setting of the HWA to this new type of weapon is apparently the OKW not without effect. Finally, like the savings of material in the short cartridge is a very important role to play.
(Propellant: g 2.8 to 1.5, Cartridge weight: 25.45 to 16.0 g)

27.9.1943
Through the experience reports will also change the view of Hitler.
Report of the Org.Abt. III of the OKH
- Handy and easy in training
- Good melee weapon
- Up to 400 good accuracy in the single shot and continuous fire. Even as a scope rifle useful.
- Force has full confidence in the weapon
- 74% are for replacement of the MP by MP 43 of 38/40
- Considered a substitute for LEMG in only a few reports


30.9.1943
The leader agrees that the MP 40 through MP is 43ersetzt

7.1.1944
The ultimate goal is not only considered the essential part of the K98 by the MP 43 will be replaced, but the LEMG

24.4.1944
The Chief of the Tank Corps in a secret directive:
For the future, we later (renamed 06.04.1944) the full equipment of the force with an MP 44th
Savings of at least one, preferably two per group in the LEMG PzGren.

10.5.1944
SS-Command Main Office shall transfer:
- Burst max. 3 rounds
- Evidence of ammunition tactics: 1 magazine for free disposal of the shooter, 2 and 3 Magazine on the orders of the only groups or platoon commander, 4th Magazine may only be opened upon arrival of the new ammunition

5.12.1944
Using the StuG 44 (other name change) as a shutter gun for Panther and Tiger B, in carriage-round fire and flight control and target board as a weapon.

9.12.1944
Finally, with effect from 12.09.1944 the StuG 44 in the Army Technical Official Gazette dated 02/01/1945, where known
This was the tug of war ended with the troops at this such a popular weapon


Conclusion:
Hitler's decision against the MP 43 (MP 44, StuG 44) is probably almost entirely in the dislike of a new ammunition type founded and the goodwill towards the K98. He was well aware of the benefits, but saw the disadvantages as too heavy.
The problems with high ammunition consumption played a minor role, especially as it is felt prepared by the action of the Guidance on the fire discipline.
The training was easier because the shooters, the repetition and the right grasping the bulb neck does not need to practice. This time saved can then be used to practice fire discipline.

Edited by Gebirgsjaeger, 12 February 2011 - 02:29 PM.

  • Martin Bull likes this
Regards, Ulrich

Horrido!

"We're surrounded. That simplifies our problem!" LtGen. Chesty Puller.

#70 Martin Bull

Martin Bull

    Acting Wg. Cdr

  • TrusteeOKF Trustee
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,754 posts
  • LocationLondon, England.

Posted 12 February 2011 - 02:42 PM

Thanks for that work, Gebirgsjager ! Waffen Revue is highly regarded but it's a little frustrating for us English-only-speakers......:o
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

#71 Gebirgsjaeger

Gebirgsjaeger

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,321 posts

Posted 12 February 2011 - 02:59 PM

Thank you Martin! Yes they are good and very informative. I own somewhat of 50 or so of their Magazines. If you ever have a question.....!
Regards, Ulrich

Horrido!

"We're surrounded. That simplifies our problem!" LtGen. Chesty Puller.

#72 judge death

judge death

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 12 February 2011 - 04:30 PM

I would say it depends on the situation: In close combat or suburban areas I would choose the SMG which is easier to aim with fully automatic fire. The STG44 gets bit harder to aim with and less ammo in the mag.
But for normal battlefield and longer ranges and in overall I would had choosed the STG 44 easily. Good enough to use today in my opinion.

#73 Martin Bull

Martin Bull

    Acting Wg. Cdr

  • TrusteeOKF Trustee
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,754 posts
  • LocationLondon, England.

Posted 12 February 2011 - 05:04 PM

I'll just chuck in a thought here which I don't recall seeing before : possibly due to the low-grade steels available to the Germans at the time, the steel used for the MP-44 is surprisingly flimsy. If roughly handled, the bodywork/receiver area of the weapon can be dented quite easily, and if this happens it cannot be stripped-down easily for repair. The PPSh-41, in contrast, is built like a tank.......
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

#74 Gebirgsjaeger

Gebirgsjaeger

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,321 posts

Posted 12 February 2011 - 05:27 PM

I'll just chuck in a thought here which I don't recall seeing before : possibly due to the low-grade steels available to the Germans at the time, the steel used for the MP-44 is surprisingly flimsy. If roughly handled, the bodywork/receiver area of the weapon can be dented quite easily, and if this happens it cannot be stripped-down easily for repair. The PPSh-41, in contrast, is built like a tank.......


Not a bad thought Martin! To make it better understandable, the available amount of steel was very low. I read an Report of the Wehrwirtschaftsamt, Abteilung Rohstoffe (Department for resources) from June 1944 for the delivering of steel from France to Germany, it sunk down to 40% of the quote and copper was down at 5.000tons from expected 25.000t. Not a rosy future to see for them.
Regards, Ulrich

Horrido!

"We're surrounded. That simplifies our problem!" LtGen. Chesty Puller.

#75 formerjughead

formerjughead

    The Cooler King

  • TrusteeOKF Trustee
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,062 posts

Posted 12 February 2011 - 07:25 PM

No'one is suggesting that it is always the rifles that decide wars, esp. since normally there isn't a very big difference between the smallarms fielded by opposing sides. But in the case if the StG it was a huge leap forward compared to the other std. rifles then in service that it actually could've made a major difference, providing the units equipped with it unrivalled firepower, often allowing them to fight themself out of otherwise inescapable situations.


Well then I'll put it differently. What good would the Atomic bomb had been if there was no way to get it to Japan? All these little 'wet dream' game changers that Germany came up with during the war didn't do anything except deplete resources.

The German Army historian Dr. Rüdiger Overmans published a study in 2000 that estimated German military dead and missing at 5.3 million (World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I guess we won't consider the Half Million German POWs in Russia by 1944 (German prisoners of war in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and the other Half Million or so that the US and GB had scattered around (Prisoner of war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

You might want to take a look at this:

The Heer initially consisted of 21 Divisional sized units and 3 Army Groups to control them, as well as numerous smaller formations. Between 1935 and 1945 this force grew to consist of hundreds of Divisions, dozens of Army Groups and thousands of smaller supporting units. Between 1939 and 1945 close to 13 million served in the Heer. Over 1.6 million were killed and over 4.1 million were wounded. Of the 7361 men awarded the initial grade of the highest German combat honor of WWII, the Knights Cross, 4777 were from the Heer making up 65% of the total awarded. (Feldgrau :: Heer - The Army 1935-1945)


I am not just pulling this stuff out of my a**

2 million StG's was not going to do much if they hit the ground in 1943. 1941 if they had 2 million troopers armed with StG's and kept making them different story.

Too little, too late.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users