Volksgrenadiers

[flamingknives]

Oh, goody. Getting hit by a 9x19mm round is just like being hit with a rolled-up newspaper? I must remember to tell that to all the people hit by fire from Stens, MP40s, Owens, Stirlings, HK MP5s, Uzis etc, not to mention thso ending up on the wrong end of all those sidearms chambered for that calibre since 1908.

Except I can't.

Because a great many of them are dead.

Not to say that the Parabellum is a great combat round, but I certainly wouldn't stand around with a bunch of them whistling past my ears, whether they were being fired from 50m or 250m.

Oh yes, and the British army used the Sterling SMG up until 1982 at least.

But, most importantly, Andreas is right.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

But, most importantly, Andreas is right.

You were always marvellous at pointing out the obvious.

[flamingknives]

Just trying out the sycophant procedures.

Now, about these ludicrous amounts of heavy artillery for the CM weekender...

[Andreas]

There's going to be more of it. You are doing well in being on the right end of things, while others [cough]Mark[/cough] make fun of my hair. I wonder if he went to boarding school?

Please continue, you are on the right track. Always think about it - that poor chap on the receiving end of that 107mm Corps artillery FOO, it could be you. If you are not careful.

[blue division]

Originally posted by Krautman:

Because police officers usually don't take part in 250m distance firefights...

What they need is a lightweight weapon for self defence, effective in an urban area/close quarters.

This area was where the infantry was fighting.

With the tanks becoming more and more powerful, it was them who ruled the open terrain in ww2. The infantry was consequently driven to difficult terrain, where smgs are more useful than a rifle.

Remember: In 1941, you could take out many tanks with an AT rifle at long ranges- in 1945, you needed a giant gun to do so.

A few points:

SMG's have a maximum effective range of 50m - you talk of fights to 250m. What do the VG troopers do for the other 200m?

Byt the way, 50m is for a skilled operator - for a recruit in the heat of battle, it is probably nearer 10m.

Also what about the ammo expenditure?

And also the Wehrmacht had to fight outside of cities and difficult terrain too. I think you will find a lot of it was fairly flat and open, what would you do with a weapon that could not fire over 50m away?

I think you are getting confused here with the argument for Assault Rifles, which can fire out to 400m or so.

Tanks were not everyhwhere on the front. And you can bet that the Russians would try and attack where there was only infantry in 1944.

The perfect historical pair is soviet T-34/85 tanks with smg infantry riding on them- Extremely effective.

Tank riders in the Red Army took terrible casualties. They were the first target for MG's as the men were exposed and bunched together. A perfect target.

Thus, some Infantry Divisions were merely re-named to VG Divisions, and others were raised from newly drafted men. In CM, you could represent VG units with mostly regulars (representing experienced NCOs leading inexperienced draftees), some vets and some green.

Agreed. But as these new division were quickly chewed up in a few weeks/months - they quickly turned into division of older men or boys. I wouldn;t have have thought then that they would be of much use morale wise - most of them would just want to get back in one piece.

Also think of the almost mythical connotation the term "Volk" had for Hitler and Himmler. Giving new names (like making a "Schütze" to a "Grenadier") was also used to boost morale.

Bit off subject here - but I think calling thing VOLKS was a bit of crude politics - the Nazi Party had effectively taken over the Wehrmacht after the July 1944 plot, and calling things 'Volks' was their way of trying to gloss over this fact (by giving the impression that the people are behind everything. And I suppose to give the impression that it is a 'peoples struggle' of Total War. I suspect Goebbels was behind this one.

[blue division]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Oh, goody. Getting hit by a 9x19mm round is just like being hit with a rolled-up newspaper? I must remember to tell that to all the people hit by fire from Stens, MP40s, Owens, Stirlings, HK MP5s, Uzis etc, not to mention thso ending up on the wrong end of all those sidearms chambered for that calibre since 1908.

Except I can't.

Because a great many of them are dead.

Not to say that the Parabellum is a great combat round, but I certainly wouldn't stand around with a bunch of them whistling past my ears, whether they were being fired from 50m or 250m.

Oh yes, and the British army used the Sterling SMG up until 1982 at least.

But, most importantly, Andreas is right.

I think you need to read some of the accounts about the use of the Sten - you could put a burst into the enemy at close range and they would keep coming at you.

I think some 9mm weapons these days are modified to fire bursts or very rapidly to get around this shortcoming of the round (with a hollow point round)

9mm simply does not have the mass to definetely stop the target. That is why in the Pacific the Americans treasured the Thompson with its 45 cal round (much much better) that could stop a banzai charge in its tracks. (They also liked shotguns too).

Similarly a lot of people in law enforcement today go for a heavier round too for this very reason.

9mm was used simply because the ammo could be found everywhere - ideal for a stopgap weapon like the sten. After all, that was designed for quick manufacture from non-specialised workshops - a good way of quickly equipping new troops. I believe the 8th Army captured tons of 9mm ammo from the Italians, which made the case for sten guns even more favourable to the Brits in 1940/41.

As for having a 9mm round fired at you at 200m or so I expect the rounds would tumble everywhere. They wouldn't be landing anywhere near you.

[ March 24, 2005, 03:02 AM: Message edited by: blue division ]

[blue division]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Oh yes, and the British army used the Sterling SMG up until 1982 at least.

I think the Sten was issued to primarily Territorial (National Guard) units and rear echelon troops.

Perhaps they didn't trust a part time soldier with a full rifle such as an FN/SLR? I suspect this was the case....

Was it also not known as the Sterling SMG by then?

A proper weapon - unlike the Sten that looks like it has been made out of spare bits of plumbing pipe.

[ March 24, 2005, 03:27 AM: Message edited by: blue division ]

[Krautman]

I'm not sure about that, but don't you get a severe nerve shock when a bullet strikes you? Be it 9mm low velocity, 7.92mm medium velocity or 5,56mm high velocity.

If it doesn't kill you, it should make you incapable of fighting any longer anyway.

[blue division]

Originally posted by Krautman:

I'm not sure about that, but don't you get a severe nerve shock when a bullet strikes you? Be it 9mm low velocity, 7.92mm medium velocity or 5,56mm high velocity.

If it doesn't kill you, it should make you incapable of fighting any longer anyway.

Low velocity round (which are all that tend to come out of hand guns / MP's) just produce a hole in the target. There is no surrounding tissue damage.

Full powered rifles (or mid-powered ones as well) are much more powerful and produce a shock wave in the target that makes a mess of all the surrounding tissue.

That is why you tend to die after being shot with a rifle, whereas with pistol ammo you can be patched up.

A general rule of course, there are exceptions.

Also, The larger the calibere, the bigger the hole and the more bleeding is another rule.

[Krautman]

"Full powered rifles (or mid-powered ones as well) are much more powerful and produce a shock wave in the target that makes a mess of all the surrounding tissue."

Oh my, that's a bit more information than i wanted to have... imagine that poor fellow ("the target"). Couldn't you have described it a little less doctor-style? But well, i asked for it.

Yet isn't there a contradiction in your argument? After all, the smg's 9mm IS bigger than the rifle round. Of course a rifle is more powerful, but up to 100m, the 9mm might be more than enough.

[blue division]

Originally posted by Krautman:

"Full powered rifles (or mid-powered ones as well) are much more powerful and produce a shock wave in the target that makes a mess of all the surrounding tissue."

Oh my, that's a bit more information than i wanted to have... imagine that poor fellow ("the target"). Couldn't you have described it a little less doctor-style? But well, i asked for it.

Yet isn't there a contradiction in your argument? After all, the smg's 9mm IS bigger than the rifle round. Of course a rifle is more powerful, but up to 100m, the 9mm might be more than enough.

The 7.92 is a lot longer - 3x maybe? somebody look this up If it were to hit bone and start tumbling - it would be very messy....

I expect the 7.92 round to also weigh more - someone like to look this up as well?

So no contradiction there.

There is a lot of difference between 9mm and 7.92 full size. Basically one you have to shoot someone with several times to ensure they go down. The other you shoot someone with once and it is the end of the story.

[Krautman]

Blue Division,

"Also, The larger the calibere, the bigger the hole [...]"

that was what i meant with "contradiction". But maybe i got that wrong.

"Basically one you have to shoot someone with several times to ensure they go down. The other you shoot someone with once and it is the end of the story."

Well i'm pretty sure you would have to shoot me only once to make me go down- i'd even go prone if you only pointed a weapon in my general direction, that's for sure...

[JasonC]

On tank riders - a perfect target doesn't get you killed with reply fire from 10 cannons and 20 machineguns the minute you open up. If fired on at range, the infantry just dismounts and the tanks kill the shooters. If the defenders hold their fire, the SMGers get close. MGs have range, but panzerfausts don't. It worked just fine.

On stopping power silliness, the reality is where you got hit matters far more. If it was anyplace important you will have a bad day. If a full rifle round hits a fleshy part of your arm, you aren't going to die from hydrostatic shock. Oh and no bullet has "the physical force" to stop anybody. It has the physical force absorbed the firer's shoulder. It just concentrates it better.

Does infantry fight in an open field without tanks on defense? No, because men are not brain dead. Defenders pick their ground and the weapons to deploy at each point. If there is a hill, it protects by putting it between defenders and targets, lookouts and wait-a-minute MG nests at the military crest. Or they dig in to elaborate trench systems. Or both.

What does SMG equipped infantry fight with at 250m? Same thing all infantry fights with at 500-1000m - radioed fire missions from div arty, mortar fire from organic mortars, MGs firing bursts. What do riflemen generally hit at 500-1000m? Not a darn thing. A few specialists or men with scopes, sure - and the VG had those too.

Rifle and LMG infantry gets more than half its firepower at range from just the LMG. You can keep all of that and not have short range surge FP. Or you can have much higher short range surge FP, and give up the rifle half of the distant stuff.

Since small arms are a minor part of the distant stuff, infantry prefers to remain stealthy to revealing themselves by ineffective long range fire, you still have all the heavy weapons and the MG half, you have rifle pattern infantry still organic as well - it is a minor thing to give up.

When you can have both because you have true assault rifles, you take both. Oh and you don't need a 4000 joule rifle round, a carbine round will do, because the firing that matters will generally take place at 300m or less. You can carry twice as much of the lighter rounds, too. That is what everybody did after the war - and the Germans started doing during it.

[blue division]

Originally posted by JasonC:

If fired on at range, the infantry just dismounts and the tanks kill the shooters.

So the VG are sitting there in this situation twiddling their thumbs... Waiting for the tank to try and knock out a dug-in enemy with a single shell. They may have a long wait...

On stopping power silliness, the reality is where you got hit matters far more. If it was anyplace important you will have a bad day. If a full rifle round hits a fleshy part of your arm, you aren't going to die from hydrostatic shock.

I expect that you would have your arm nearly taken off with a full powered rifle. Without immiediate medical attention, yes you could die.

A 9mm rouind will just put a hole there.

Oh and no bullet has "the physical force" to stop anybody. It has the physical force absorbed the firer's shoulder. It just concentrates it better.

You are getting carried away here. I don't know what you are trying to say here.

Can you clarify? Who said bullets don't hurt? I didn't...

Does infantry fight in an open field without tanks on defense?

Yes you do and they did then.

No, because men are not brain dead. Defenders pick their ground and the weapons to deploy at each point.

Up to a point - other times you have do bite the bullet and defend unfavourable ground. That's where a SMG equipped squad would come to a bad end.

What does SMG equipped infantry fight with at 250m? Same thing all infantry fights with at 500-1000m - radioed fire missions from div arty, mortar fire from organic mortars, MGs firing bursts.

Today yes, but 60 years ago no. Then they had to make do with rifles and HMGs for suppresion of the enemy at distance. Yes, sometimes they may have had a FAO, but a lot of the times they are on their own.

What do riflemen generally hit at 500-1000m? Not a darn thing.

Have you heard of suppresion and its effect on the movement of an enemy?

Rifle and LMG infantry gets more than half its firepower at range from just the LMG.

Yes, but rifles are also good at laying down suppresive fire at distances, and do it very economically. An MG burns its ammo up in a short period of time. If you are in a forward position for a long time then you need single shot weapons.

When you can have both because you have true assault rifles, you take both. ... because the firing that matters will generally take place at 300m or less. You can carry twice as much of the lighter rounds, too. That is what everybody did after the war - and the Germans started doing during it.

Agreed - but aren't we talking about SMG's?

Don't we know they have an actual combat distance of 10m?

Does that not make discussion of ranges to 400m a bit irrelevant?

From what I have heard, recruits in the British Army were trained to use SMG's to clear out buildings. No other real value was placed on them. You would point the barrel around the corner and pull the trigger and use the entire clip. No point trying to aim the thing, because the bullets would anyway go everywhere (the barrel would be kicking all over the place). An alternative to using grenades...

[blue division]

Originally posted by Krautman:

Blue Division,

"Also, The larger the calibere, the bigger the hole [...]"

that was what i meant with "contradiction". But maybe i got that wrong.

"Basically one you have to shoot someone with several times to ensure they go down. The other you shoot someone with once and it is the end of the story."

Well i'm pretty sure you would have to shoot me only once to make me go down- i'd even go prone if you only pointed a weapon in my general direction, that's for sure...

No contradiction - it is really three points here.

(1) A high-velocity round from a full powered rifle causes a shock save to pass through the victim around the entry hole. This causes massive injuries.

(2) A low-velocity round just drills a small hole.

(3) The larger the hole, the more bleeding will occur because of the larger area. This is seperate from the 'shock wave' effect caused by high velocity rounds. (And in addition too it).

In this way, there are three points, some of which can act in tandem and therefore with no contradiction.

I remember someone on TV giving advice to travellers in countries that have poor security (Africe for example).

The advice was

(a) if someone points a pistol at you - don't panic unless they are very close - they probably won't hit you as pistols are too inaccurate and difficult to shoot accurately (unless you have a marksman shooting at you).

( if someone points a rifle at you - run - because they are trying to kill you.

[ March 24, 2005, 07:25 AM: Message edited by: blue division ]

[stikkypixie]

I'm curious where do you get that 10m range for a SMG?

[Sergei]

WW2 SMG's could hit accurately up to 100m and reasonably accurately to 200m when used in single shot mode. The claim that only a marksman could hit to 50m is just bull****.

[blue division]

Originally posted by Sergei:

WW2 SMG's could hit accurately up to 100m and reasonably accurately to 200m when used in single shot mode. The claim that only a marksman could hit to 50m is just bull****.

I suggest you learn about pistols and their capabilities.

[ March 24, 2005, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: blue division ]

[Sergei]

I'll rather trust the people who have fired SMG's like Suomi or PPSh in real life.

[blue division]

Originally posted by Sergei:

I'll rather trust the people who have fired SMG's like Suomi or PPSh in real life.

All of these weapons use the blowback method of operation. (MP40, Suomi, Sten PPsh etc.)

As such, they are very difficult to control, even uder firing range conditions. You have to use certain techniques whilst firing to counteract the tendency of the recoil to shift the barrel one way. For example, using the shoulder strap or placing a thumb on the back of the breech block.

In combat (ie in practice), all of this technique goes out of the window.

That is why a lot of soldiers said that you couldn't hit much with a Sten under combat conditions. The gun would constantly be shifting its aim every time you fired a bullet out of it.

And then you get onto the dangers of automatic discharge, which is another subject entirely...

[blue division]

Originally posted by Sergei:

I'll rather trust the people who have fired SMG's like Suomi or PPSh in real life.

So do I. People who were in the army and fired stens. They were trained to point the gun into houses and fire it - and that was about it. Not much other training on the sten really was needed.

[Sergei]

Sten? Don't assume that just because the crappiest SMG in WW2 was crap, the best SMG's were crap as well.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by blue division:

As such, they are very difficult to control, even uder firing range conditions. You have to use certain techniques whilst firing to counteract the tendency of the recoil to shift the barrel one way. For example, using the shoulder strap or placing a thumb on the back of the breech block.

You don't use full auto at longer ranges.

[blue division]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by blue division:

As such, they are very difficult to control, even uder firing range conditions. You have to use certain techniques whilst firing to counteract the tendency of the recoil to shift the barrel one way. For example, using the shoulder strap or placing a thumb on the back of the breech block.

You don't use full auto at longer ranges. </font>

[blue division]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Sten? Don't assume that just because the crappiest SMG in WW2 was crap, the best SMG's were crap as well.

They all used the same flawed firing method - the Sten was a copy of a german design.

The flawed firing mechanism made them very difficult to shoot accurately.

And the 9mm cartridge gave the same limitations whatever the weapon. (.45 cal thompson was even more difficult because of the heavier round - therefore more recoil - more difficult to control). Hang on wasn't the PPsh firing roughly a .45 cal round too (by weight)? Maybe someone can fill me in on this - don't know off the top of my head.