Was the STG-44 the best infantryman's rifle of the war?

Hmmm I sence an imminent closure of this thread...

 

Lets try steer this debate either back on track, a new thread, or via email as it is clearly going nowhere.

I would have an StG44 over any other weapon in WW2.

Its automatic so it is better at CQ than bolt action rifles,

It can be semi automatic (so it has a capability of accurate shooting at a decent range, just not as big as firearms that are semi automatics first and foremost. In a straight out fight at range, i would rather be the guy with the Garand. But as the distance decreases i would go with the StG44 more and more)

It has a larger calibre bullet than submachine guns, im not saying that the 9mm or the .45ACP was a particularly bad calibre, but the increase in size gives it some advantage over distance (as far as accuracy and power is concerned)

So yeah, for those reasons (and in my eyes the StG44 is gorgeous) i would have it over any other firearm of the era. Its just such a versatile weapon when compared to any other. This conclusion is based on general use, not in any special circumstance (e.g Stalingrad) because thats a whole different thing.

 

USMCPrice,

Your not using correct figures for your comparison. The muzzle velocity of the 7.92x33mm Kurz through the StG44 was/is 685 m/s, and the bullet weighs 8.1 grams. Those are the real stats. Converted to imperial units that is 125 grains at 2247 fps, which is a good deal more than the .30 cal carbine and similar to the 7.62x39mm M43 Russian.

As for propellant technology, well it has actually not come that far since WW2, esp. not until the late 1980's.

Anyway my response will be limited to this for now as I was operated on today and need to relax for a bit. Will be back shortly.

 

No, its neither pointless nor meaningless. The soldiers would still go in with the weapons shouldered and aim at the targets which appeared. They wouldn't go in swaying their gun from side to side, WW2 or today. No'ones saying they would enter in the coordinated way we do today, but they would neither enter in the rambo style you suggest. Weapons would be aimed, and a RoF of 550 or 900 rpm would make zero difference.

I see it the other way round, you ignoring the obvious superiority in firepower that the StG would bring to any squad into which it was added.

 

Too all, the M16 and AK47 topic's do not belong here, so please refrain from discussing it in this section of the forum, please keep it ww2 and related to the STG in particular.

Now Proeliator, I would like you too post a single post that I have made suggesting that the STG is not a capable weapon or in its own right a superior weapon to other small arms of the era, or any of my statements suggesting a 'rambo' style entry, you will not, so please do not put words in my mouth.

 

If I understand Proeliator's argument it is that the SG 43/44 was sufficently better that it could or would have made a significant difference in tactical combat. I think at this juncture rather than continued speculation it needs to be demonstrated that it did exactly that on at least a few occasions later in the war. After all, the weapon was belatedly issued in pretty large quantity to a number of units both in the East and West. There should be at least a few cases that can be identified where it makes a difference if it were a significant improvement over bolt action rifles in combat actions. If not, then there is justifiable reason to believe, by default, that it didn't make a significant difference by omission until such cases of improvement can be demonstrated.

I suggest that if the thread is continue some effort is made in this direction.

 

Hi,

a few years ago i talked to some German WWII Vet´s. They told me that they were jealous of your Garand. In their opinion the K98k was a not so accurate and a slow to handle rifle, the G43 was good but there were only a few of them and the STGW 44
was an not so bad assault rifle but they dont liked it for the long magazines. If you had to fire them in prone positon you gave a big silhouette. The next problem was the ammo, as they were running out of ressources they used all materials for their cases and the quality was poor so that the STGW often jammed. They told me in the last months of war they often used the Garands and the Russian PPSh.

Regards

Ulrich

 

This thread jumped the shark a long time ago.

 

In definitely made a difference, but it would've been small due to the fact that only 500,000 had to be dispersed along three fronts, and many of the soldiers who wielded this weapon in late 1944 onwards were inexperienced and ill trained.

Having a superior piece of kit is a good advantage to have, but if the operator behind it isn't sufficiently trained then it doesn't make much difference.

But a good example of how effective this weapon was when in the hands of trained personnel is some of the first combat experience German troops had with it. A huge amount of glowing reports about the weapon were recieved in 1943, containing many accounts of small units being able to fight their way through much larger enemy forces by virtue of the much increased firepower that the new weapon provided. German army battlefield investigators also reported on the weapons effect in combat with the few units who had them, describing the much superior firepower and ability to pin the enemy down with only a minimal amount of soldiers.

All these these reports were the reason behind Hitlers final acceptance of the weapon, esp. when combined with the increasing request from many high ranked commanders.

 

Knock off the personal jibes. Stay on track here or someone is going to be in time out.

 

I know that a good number of decent units did get equipped partially or fully with this weapon. For example, there are photos of the 4th Cavalry regiment / Kavaliere regiment Süd in their unit history that show nearly 100% of the front line troops had them by mid 1944. Many units in the Ardennes had as much as 50% of their infantry equipped with the weapon.
Regardless of training, there should exist concrete examples to back up a claim that it made a big impact.

This contradicts your first statement. If examples from 1943 exist as you claim here then post them up.

Then show some evidence to back this claim. That would go a long way to settling the discussion.

 

Mr. Tomcat sir,
I would like to request permission to leave the AK-47 in the discussion because I think it is relevant, for the following reasons:
1.) It really is contemporary to WWII. Development started in 1944, an early version the AK-46 was adopted in early 1946 and the AK-47 itself was adopted just 2 years after the cessation of hostilities.
2.) The round the rifle used was the 7.62x39 Model43, adopted in 1943 it is contemporary.
3.) The AK-47 and Stg44 are very similar in performance, employment and capabilities.
AK47 7.62x39Mod43 125grain bullet at 2200fps
Stg44 7.9mmx33 Kurz 125gr bullet at 2100fps

AK47 16.3in barrel-Stg44 16.5in barrel-AK47 600rounds per minute max-Stg44 500-600rounds per minute max and the effective range was basically the same.

I would like for you to reconsider your decision on this particular subject, but I will gladly abide by whatever decision you reach.
Thank you.

 

USMCPrice, again please know that the MV of the 7.92x33mm Kurz is 685 m/s (2247 fps) through the StG44. It's listed in the original manual for the StG44 Sturmgewehr as-well as the German military ammunitions handbook.

Furthermore I believe that Soviet 7.62x39mm M43 does 710 m/s (2320fps) through the AK47.

Both rounds, the 7.92mm Kurz & 7.62mm M43, are in a completely different league than the 1900 fps .30 cal Carbine round.

 

And there certainly are, but I am not living besides the German historical archives so I can only go by what authors such as Ian V. Hogg and Peter Senich write in their books.

How does it contradict anything in my first statement?? Late 44 isn't mid to late 1943, the situation was much different then, and the regular quality of troops much different as-well.

Some evidence? Such as? You want me to go find all the reports these various authors talk about and scan them for the forum to see? Is that it? That would be great, but I'd need to head down to the German archives first

But you know what, I will give it a try, cause I'd like to see the reports first hand myself. I will see what I can dig up online, might be some micro film of some reports I can get sent. Once got detailed schematics of the machinery used to manufacture German 88mm AP rounds from a US library.

 

Looking through some books, and it seems that in the west VolksGrenadier units got the bulk of the StG's issued there. And the issuing of this weapon was otherwise even, it wasn't given in any larger extent to elite units than regular ones, or the VG & VS.

 

Actually it is you that is using incorrect figures. The figure you state is quoted in a number of internet sources, including Wikipedia, but is for the 7.92x33 Kurz of postwar East German manufacture. WWII Kurz production had an average muzzle velocity of slightly over 2100fps. I took my data from a 1986 U.S. Army Command and General Staff College paper discussing the optimal rifle cartridge caliber for adoption by U.S./Nato forces. Their source for the performance data was:
William C. Benjamin Jr. and Joseph Dubay, The Effect of
Rifle Caliber and Muzzle Velocity on Experimental Probabilities
of Hitting as Obtained from Project Caliber (Aberdeen: Ballistic
Research Laboratories Report No. 964, 1955) Pp. 29 - 30.

As for propellent technology I was using the same paper as a source. The whole reason that they could develop a 1/2 in shorter round, the 7.62x51 NATO in the 50's, and still maintain the performance of the .30-06 was advances in propellent technologies.
.30cal M2 (.30-06) 150gr bullet at 2800fps
7.62x51 NATO (T65) 147gr bullet at 2800fps
Fairly comparable performance wouldn't you say?
The next proof is the fouling issues with the M-16 in Vietnam. The original 5.56 cartridge for the M-16 rifle was designed to use the new IMR powder, the military decided to use their existing stocks of the older '50's version of standard ball powder and this led to the fouling issues.

 

How unfortunate that he got the MV horribly wrong and that my figures aren't from wikipedia or any postwar east German manufacture.

Directly from original WW2 German infantry ammunitions handbook:

7,92mm Pist. Patrone 43 m.E.

Projektillänge: 25,80 mm
Projektilmasse: 8,19 g
Projektildurchmesser: 8,20 mm
Büchsenlänge: 33,00 mm
Zündhütchen: Zdh 88 oder Zdh 30/40
Pulver: Nz.R.P.(1,0 x 0,8 / 0,2)
Pulvergewicht: 1,57 g
Patronenlänge: 47,60 mm
Patronengewicht: 16,65 g
Projektilgeschwindigkeit: 685 m/sec.

Ah but then comes the explanation for the 2800 fps performance of the 30.06 with the M2 Ball projectile as being that it was downloaded for use in the M1 Garand, as it was felt loading the cartridge to near full specs would produce a too uncomfortable recoil. So like I said the similarity in performance between the 30.06 & 7.62 NATO is not because of an evolution in powder technology, but simply that one round was loaded closer to its maximum specs than the other.

For comparison the WW1 German 7.92x57mm S round, a 154 gr flat based Spitzer, had a MV of 890 m/s through the 740mm barrel of the Gew98 and 860 m/s through 600mm barrel of the K98k.

During WW2 the German produced the so called V-Patronen, V for 'Verbessert' meaning 'Improved', which were 7.92x57mm rounds with a different powder charge. These rounds propelled 193 gr SmK(H) flat based spitzer projectiles to 868 m/s, and 168 gr PmK FMJBT projectiles to 915 m/s.

 

For the SG 43/44 the misfire and jamming issue is likely to be significant. Late war German small arms cartridges are generally steel not brass. The bullet itself is usually steel with gilt metal (a zinc / tin alloy) jacket. So, fouling is increased over a copper jacket along with increased wear and, the steel cartridge is more likely to stick or jam particularly in a hot gun.
These problems were common to most German weapons including many larger caliber cannon so, they can be expected here too.

 

Which 'Ammunition handbook' did that drawing in post #157 come from?
Handrich has the Polte drawings only coming to light after being found by Ron Bridges in the IWM's collections in April 1988 in a set of factory papers, and then being translated/published under Jim Stonley in a series in 'Guns Review' in 1989.
He certainly cites that drawing (cleaned up a little in his book) as coming to him via Stonley.

Just wondering.

~A

 

Proeliator wrote:

Really, well the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College document, I referenced earlier, specifically states that the performance was due to newly developed ball powder. I quote:
"The Ordnance Technical Committee came up with a shortened version of the old .30 caliber M2 cartidge. This new cartridge, designated the 7.62 x 51mm T65, was not an intermediate power round. Although shorter by a half inch than the old Caliber .30 M2 round, it still propelled a 147 grain bullet at amuzzle velocity of 2,800 fps (848 mps) -- essentially identical to the old .30 Caliber M2 round. Newly developed ball powder allowed the use of a smaller cartridge case to produce pressures and velocities identical to the old full power .30 Caliber M2 round."

Also, I'd really like a source on the .30-06 round being downloaded for the M1. The .30-06 was the .30 cal military cartridge standardized in 1906. It was used in the '03 Springfield, the M1918 BAR and the .30 caliber machine gun water and air-cooled. If the recoil was acceptable in the Springfield why wasn't it acceptable in the Garand? Why would they reduce the power of the primary cartridge used in their machine guns?