Having fired the Mp40, PPSh 41 and PPS43 under reasonably rigerous conditions my vote goes for the PPSh 41. I fired a weapon that spent 40 years in a bog, was dug out, cleaned up and had no problems emptying several mag's under pretty serious weather conditions (-15 degrees C without wind chill). When I fired an MP40 in the UK in spring it jammed several times, easy to clear but still a pain in the backside, the PPS43 was similar (in fact, I think I may be the only person in history to break one by cocking it too hard).

That said, SMG's don't win wars, men, blood and bigger weapons do.

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

The germans didn't win technically with tanks at the start of Barbarossa, the PzIII was no match for the T-34's, the Russians were just not prepared for the Germans at the start, but once they got organized the t-34 did well although inferior against the panther and the tiger, but hta tis when the bigger boys come in.

__________________
They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them. Lest We Forget

Interesting points...

almost as interesting as if WW2 was fought by swords!

Its experience, training, good judgment and good leadership that I think would win your engagements. I think the weapons are pretty much the same in their flaws and goods. I'd rather run out with a MP-40 than with nothing at all

__________________
Time is only enemy you'll never get rid of.

The differences between weapons within each category of small arms were not significant enough to matter. The MP 44 introduced a new category which did, on average, give an advantage to those units which had it, but I suspect that the effect was rather marginal.

__________________
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

Ever hear the story of Chuck Yeager talking to an air force general who insisted that it was the aircraft that made the difference, not the pilot. Yeager took this as a challenge and so the pair had a mock dog-fight with Yeager in an F86 and the general in a P-51, Yeager won. They then swapped aircraft and Yeager won again. I think the same logic applies to small arms, it's the men behind the weapons that make the difference not the weapons themselves.

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

Twenty or more years ago, the local National Guard fighter wing participated in the Air Force's competition between the various fighter wings to determine who had the best dog fighting skills. The National Guard wing here, made up of older men who had flown their aircraft for many years longer than had had the Air Force pilots, defeated the Air Force wings, even though they were at a disadvantage flying thier F-4 Phantoms against the newer F-16s and F-15s. I worked with one of the men from the Guard wing and he said that they were just more knowledgeable about their aircraft's abilities, having anywhere from 3 to 5 times or more time in the air over the Air Force pilots, who were promoted out of the cockpit and to a desk.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

This thread is incredibly untidy. It reads infantry weapons, and the focal point started out with small arms, and now we are comparing level of training of the men. Za Rodinu pointed at the 12cm mortar which is what I was thinking on when I saw the thread.

Hawkerace has a point, but for the sake of the thread let us carry on.

The Red Army had an enormous lead on the Germans in terms of weaponry. The weapons were easy to operate and sturdy. The Red Army had infantry support weapons that the Germans were nowhere near. The AT guns, mortars and artillery were larger than the Germans. If it had not been for the Luftwaffe the early days of Barbarossa would have been a bit too interesting for the Germans.

Please bear in mind that it was essentialy the same wepons in use during the Russian counteroffensive that fought in the start. The germans used the war to upgrade their weaponry to match their enemies. This beacuse of the early armament period. The US started arming during the war, and they enjoyed an advantage of not clinging on to outdated equipment because it was there.

__________________
'We march. The enemy is retreating in transport. We follow on foot.' Lt.Neil McCallum 5/7 Gordons 19th November 1942

Actually, the Germans might hold a lead when it comes to machine-guns. But that's about the only category where they have an advantage in.

Might? The German Mg 42 and 34 were both the first all purpose machine guns capable of being used effectively in a defensive role with the tripod's and stands and in offensive roles a drum aattachment. The Mg42was a feared weapon in the hands of trained Soliders. The later German tanks seem to be forgotten, as well as the German Luftwaffe's ability's over the Soviet Air Force.

__________________
They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them. Lest We Forget

Yeah, for quite obvious reasons. You could swap the infantry weapons of most nations around it wouldn't make much difference, it's experience, training, tactics, doctrine and so on that make the difference, not which of the vaguely comparable bolt action rifles people have.

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

very true points Stefan. I agree the main killers are artillery no small arms.

__________________
"Goddam it, you'll never get the Purple Heart hiding in a foxhole! Follow me!" Captain Henry P. Jim Crowe - 13th January 1943 - (Guadalcanal)

Agreed as well; I was reading about a platoon from 2nd Battalion, King's Own Scottish Borderers, and the platoon commander who served with the platoon from Oct. 1944 to May 1945 said that over 80% of the casualties thay suffered, including wounds, was caused by mortar or artillery fire (some of it friendly).

__________________
"Live as brave men; and if fortune is adverse, front its blows with brave hearts." - Cicero

Hufflepuff

Would that be 'With the Jocks' by David White??

__________________
'We march. The enemy is retreating in transport. We follow on foot.' Lt.Neil McCallum 5/7 Gordons 19th November 1942

I think there is way too many variables involved to really make a clear choice, if forced to choose I would take a German Mauser and a Russian SMG. Both of them would be best depending on the circumstances.

Tomcat - enlighten me regarding the MG 34/42 "drum attachment". I was under the impression both weapons were belt-fed only. I know the post-war MAG 58 featured a belt-tray clipped onto the side of the gun; likewise the Minimi. Not aware this feature was available in WWII belt-fed guns.

Klive

Here you go Klive

50rnd drum
The belt drum 'Gurttromml 34' was a simple metal drum which kept a rolled up 50rnd belt with starter tab. Inside the drums, an arrow was painted to show the gunner which way the belt had to be rolled up. When attached to the MG, it had a sliding dust cover that had to be kept closed till used, in order to keep out any dust. The later models of the drum were replaced by a spring loaded dust cover instead of the sliding dust cover. The drums were less and less used towards the end of the war and almost discontinued. Part of this being that the MG42 had such a high rate of fire, and could empty a drum in less than two seconds. The drums were mostly used with the light machine gun role and not with the heavy role, which needed as high rate of fire.



75rnd drum
The twin saddle drum 'Patronentrommel 34' normally used in the AA role or on aircraft mounted guns, could hold 75rnds. Looking similar to the MG15 saddle drum, you could not use the MG15 drum on the MG34, but could use the MG34 saddle drum on the MG15. When used with the MG34, a special feed cover 'Deckel mit Trommelhalter' had to be used to hold the saddle drum in place. These saddle drums were replaced by the simpler more useful 50rnd drums before the war started. These 75rnd drums were still used with some MG units.




I cant find one on the net of the Mg42 with the drum fixed but I do have on e in my book which I can scan for you if you want

__________________
They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them. Lest We Forget

Hmmm....Zulus and the Boer War, Lord Kitchener and the Mahdi....Muhammad Ahmad might disagree. Certainly those using the weapons must be well trained.

************************************************** *******

Now, as to Russian vs German Weapons. In Modern terms most SF and elite forces use and praise the HK MP-5, a German Weapon because it is a superior SMG and extremely well designed. However, more than less nations of the world and various forces in them, use the AK-47 and variants. Why, because you can drag it through the mud and because of loose tolerance design, it functions rather well under adverse conditions, also it is cheap to make or buy versus the expensive MP-5.

If we are compairing the PPSh-41 to the MP-38/40, The Russian weapon had roughly twice the ammo in magazine that the German weapon had, given you don't load to absolute capacity due to jamming.

The Russian weapon was easy to mass produce and the fact that German Soldiers used them on the field of Battle indicates some preference, although also perhaps the availability of ammunition.

The less time you have to change clips the more time you can keep your eyes on your opponent.

Reliabilty as mentioned before was perhaps another reason why the PPSh-41 may have been preferred over the MP-40.

I am familiar with the MP-40 and its characteristics but I have never fired a PPSh-41, only an SVT-40, which was a weapon I would feel confident with.

The k98 K was a much better rifle than the Moisin.

The G-43 was accurate and well made.

The StG-44 was a reliable and sought after weapon.

But this Infantry weapons is a huge and broad topic.....pistols, MGs, Motars, Panzerschrecks, Panzerfausts.....Ah yes reading Ian Hogg and Ballantine books when I was very young. Those were fun paperbacks, little did I know I would have the privilege of firing some of those weapons when I got older.

It is interesting to note that the G-3 which is a verson of the MG-42 is still in use today.

Jaeger could comment on the Norwegian reserves using K-98s and other German equipment in the recent past.

__________________
Coir a glaive

Nemo me impune lacessit

On the lines of 'weapons don't win battles' look at the Australian militia troops and there lack of training and weapons, and they held back the Japanese on Papua New Guniea.

I read once that an Australian private in the militia on Papua fought on the kododa from the start to finish, and as they were leaving the field for the final time the private turned to his sergeant montioned his rifle to him and said, "Now can you show me how to use this"

The point I am making here is that it could have been any rifle in anytime from anywhere and it would never have mattered.

__________________
They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them. Lest We Forget

I wasn't in the service in the '50ies. However the modified k-98 is responsible for killing deer every year.

The MP-40 and Mauser was used but quickly replaced with US equipment, to be changed back to German equipment again in the 60ies.

G-3 is an assult rifle that stopped production in the 70ies. I have one in my house that happen to be my service rifle.

The MG-3 is a continuation of the MG-42 that is used by several services today. It is a marvoulus gun, but less effective in attack. (the main drawback for any GPMG)

__________________
'We march. The enemy is retreating in transport. We follow on foot.' Lt.Neil McCallum 5/7 Gordons 19th November 1942

No, I read about it in an Infantry Tactics Book

__________________
"Live as brave men; and if fortune is adverse, front its blows with brave hearts." - Cicero

I understand, But you guys said PPSH is meant for "street fighting". PPSH wasn't only for running it, it was good in all aspects, like defending. Thats when the effective range of the PPSH comes in. If you ever watched the movie, They fought for Motherland, you see when the Russians were defending with PPSH and you could of saw the better weapon, like it showed that PPSH was better in Effective Range. Germans had MP40 but they were too far but as for the PPSH they were shooting them all down. And you see the guy behind with the Anti Tank Rifle =) I think I'm starting to like the Anti Tank Rifle more and more =) Very Reliable