Jump to content

Bil v C3K AAR – Germans v SMGs in Woods


Recommended Posts

I have never heard or see that the pistol ammo used by smgs were more powerful than normal pistol rounds.

well its still done today, Mp5 for example like hot loads and police or special forces take advantage of that.

not sure if hot loads where done for "tons" of ppsh in soviet army. that may be less likely, i dont know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The round used by the pssh41 is technically a "pistol" round, but is hotter than the .30 cal round used in the M1 carbine from what sources fimilar with both have said.

Sounds like its far hotter than a 9mm or 45ACP.

From the looks of what Ive just looked at the Ppssh is something between a SMG and assault rifle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The round used by the pssh41 is technically a "pistol" round, but is hotter than the .30 cal round used in the M1 carbine from what sources fimilar with both have said.

Uh... no. Not even close. Standard load M1 Carbine ammo fires a 7.1g bullet at about 600m/s. In contrast, hottest 7.62x25mm Tokarev round produced in large numbers that I am aware of launches a 5.5g bullet at about 510 m/s. So the carbine round is both heavier and faster.

It is true, though, that the Tokarev round has better Mv than e.g., 9mm Parabellum or .45 ACP. Not necessarily more energy, but more velocity. Standard 9mm Parabellum typically comes out of an SMG at about 400m/s. This matters a lot for accuracy at range because the faster, smaller 7.62/25mm round has less ballistic drop over distance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, all WW II era machine pistols fired actual pistol ammunition, not carbine ammunition.

Second, bullets can produce more muzzle velocity out of longer barrels than shorter ones, simply because the powder has more time to burn and its expansion more time to accelerate the bullet. The consequences of that differ materially by cartridge - those with long cases and slow burning powder do not reach their peak velocity until fired through much longer barrels (e.g. 357 magnum), while others with short cases and rapidly burning powder may see only small velocity increases with barrel length.

But those differences are material for real carbine length barrels e.g. 16 to 18 inches, compared to pistols. They are relatively minor for the small variations in pistol barrel lengths e.g. 3, 4 or 5 inches; they can be a bit more for very long barreled pistols like some magnum revolvers.

The barrels of WW II era machine pistols were not that long. Not carbine length, though longer than pistol lengths. The Sten has an 8 inch barrel, for example, and the MP 40 a 10 inch barrel. The PPsH used a 10.5 inch barrel, as did the Thompson. For the 9mm that can translate into 10-15% more muzzle velocity than a 4 inch pistol barrel, for the Thompson's 45 about 10% (of a much lower base velocity).

The main difference is not the barrel length, is it between the cartridges. The 7.62x25 Tokarev is a small, 85 grain bullet traveling at 1600 feet per second, vs 115 grains at 1250 for the 9mm out of an MP 40, and double that size 230 grains moving at a subsonic 850 feet per second for the Thompson.

The smaller Russian round is getting its energy from velocity rather than mass, in other words. It has 21% more energy than the 9mm and 31% more than the Thompson (yes Virginia, the big slow 45 has less energy than either of the smaller caliber bullets - it has 44% more momentum - linear in velocity - but less energy, velocity squared).

Higher velocity translates to a flatter trajectory and less bullet drop at the same ranges. In half a second, the PPsH round is 250 yards down-range, while the .45 is only 125 yards and the 9mm is about 200 yards downrange. Slightly offsetting that, the heavier bullets lose less velocity to air resistance (which also rises with velocity, incidentally), but in the practical ranges that doesn't have time to matter as much as the huge initial velocity difference.

The Russian round simply has a longer reach, as a result of all of those factors. It also penetrates protection like helmets better, with a lot more energy in a small cross section. It doesn't leave as wide a wound channel as the big 45, to be sure. The round is also lighter, allowing much more ammo to be carried than the 45 does, and somewhat more than the 9mm.

The Russian round is pretty much a direct copy of the Mauser 30 cartridge developed in Germany for their C96 automatic pistols at the turn of the century, and famous in the WW I and Russian civil war period as their "broomhandle" pistol, which the Russians copied and produced right after their civil war. When the Russians were looking for a cartridge to use in their own automatics in the late 20s and early 30s, the Mauser 30 was the round they were most familiar with in such actions and a natural choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh... no. Not even close. Standard load M1 Carbine ammo fires a 7.1g bullet at about 600m/s. In contrast, hottest 7.62x25mm Tokarev round produced in large numbers that I am aware of launches a 5.5g bullet at about 510 m/s. So the carbine round is both heavier and faster.

It is true, though, that the Tokarev round has better Mv than e.g., 9mm Parabellum or .45 ACP. Not necessarily more energy, but more velocity. Standard 9mm Parabellum typically comes out of an SMG at about 400m/s. This matters a lot for accuracy at range because the faster, smaller 7.62/25mm round has less ballistic drop over distance.

Interesting. I've seen references that past 125 yards the M1 carbine round peters out while the Tokarev is effective well past that range. I think that may be in reference to dropping hogs.

I don't know much or used Russian stuff except the 7.62x39. My impression of the ppsh is its referred to as a smg, but performance wise its something between a smg and assault rifle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. I've seen references that past 125 yards the M1 carbine round peters out while the Tokarev is effective well past that range. I think that may be in reference to dropping hogs.

For some reason, the M1 Carbine always seems to get an undeservedly bad rap. Not sure why; to be sure, it's nowhere near the power of a full rifle round like .30-'06, and it's also weaker and ballistically inferior to the various assault rifle rounds, but it's a heck of a lot more powerful than the pistol rounds it was intended to replace.

Whether you look at Muzzle Velocity, Velocity at Range, Projectile Mass, or Total Projectile Energy, the .30 Carbine round short from an M1 Carbine beats a 7.62x25mm Tokarev round shot from a PPsh-41 or any similar platform, hands down.

Now it might be that a specific Tokarev round has more wounding power than a specific .30 carbine round (for example, a hollow-point Tokarev vs. a plain-old ball .30 carbine), but that's not really a fair comparison. Compared like with like, the .30 Carbine is a much more powerful round and will therefore, on average, inflict much more significant wounds.

If you were forced into the choice of getting shot with one or the other, the Tokarev is the clear choice, doesn't matter whether you're a hog or a human.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me there is nothing wrong with the game.. I was merely saying that finding infantry can be very troublesome.. of course you want to leave time to spot.. I was just saying that the MG42 crew has binos, and so does about 3 of my Lt's on line in the woods..and although I have two tanks online facing then enemy buttoned.. they do hav vision slits and rangefinder correct? I know it is harder to spot when moving... all my units on line facing the hedgerow and buildings are only 100-120m, but they have been stationary for 6 minutes... Just saying they are pesky... and can be moved with the right amount of Lead!

Semper Fi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some reason, the M1 Carbine always seems to get an undeservedly bad rap. Not sure why; to be sure, it's nowhere near the power of a full rifle round like .30-'06, and it's also weaker and ballistically inferior to the various assault rifle rounds, but it's a heck of a lot more powerful than the pistol rounds it was intended to replace.

Whether you look at Muzzle Velocity, Velocity at Range, Projectile Mass, or Total Projectile Energy, the .30 Carbine round short from an M1 Carbine beats a 7.62x25mm Tokarev round shot from a PPsh-41 or any similar platform, hands down.

Now it might be that a specific Tokarev round has more wounding power than a specific .30 carbine round (for example, a hollow-point Tokarev vs. a plain-old ball .30 carbine), but that's not really a fair comparison. Compared like with like, the .30 Carbine is a much more powerful round and will therefore, on average, inflict much more significant wounds.

If you were forced into the choice of getting shot with one or the other, the Tokarev is the clear choice, doesn't matter whether you're a hog or a human.

You're looking at the round only. But look at the platform that shoot it. If you're going to be shoot by a soviet armed with a PPSh41 in 1944, you probably will be hit by more than one round and in a fraction of a second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 30 carbine hits harder than the PPsH. It suffers because it is always being compared to the 30-06 M1 rifle, while the PPsH is typically being compared to pistols or 9mm SMGs. But ballistically the 30 carbine is an intermediate carbine cartridge, within about 10% of the punch of the German 7.92 kurz, though weaker than the Russian 7.62x39. If you have heard people comparing the M1 carbine to a Russian round unfavorably, it is likely the latter was meant, or someone confused the two.

The M1 carbine fires at 110 grain bullet at 2000 ft per second, compared to 85 at 1600 for the Russian 7.672x25 and 124 at 2400 for the Russian 7.62x39. The carbine thus has *twice* the muzzle energy of the PPsH round, but only 62% of the energy of the AK round (and 76% of the energy of the standard M-16 round). Twice the energy of the highest energy pistol caliber is carbine territory and not pistol territory. It is not in 30-06, full rifle territory - the standard US 150 grain load for those is going 2800 ft per second for 2.67 times the energy of the M1 carbine - and 5.34 times the energy of the PPsH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

batteran - the US carbine was fielded in full auto form too, though that was more common in Korea than it was during WW II. It was quite a capable weapon, very handy, reliable, high rate of fire, accurate etc. It was also almost universally panned for its stopping power by troops who used full power 30-06 all the time, and whose only other small arms point of reference was the slow but very large 45 caliber, in pistol or SMG form. US forces in the field had the same complaint about the 5.56mm, which has a third more muzzle energy than the M1 carbine.

Full rifle rounds just truly have *a lot* more stopping power than carbine ammo of any kind - let alone pistol ammo. Those used to using them in battle miss them if they don't have them, whatever the quartermasters say about the adequacy of carbine ammunition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was a surprise.. Ken had a team rushing through the open obviously looking for my flank...

14195665665_cf38902e62_b_d.jpg

...well he found it... 2nd Platoon is on the move on that edge of the woods and quickly turned the enemy team in the other direction.

14192381181_75c440e51e_o_d.png

The 2nd Platoon squad on my left has seen no enemy on this side of the map.. so they are picking up the pace and moving as indicated.

14009028900_020750f680_b_d.jpg

Finally this image shows the current situation.. 1st Platoon has pulled back into its second line. They are still settling in for any enemy advance.

14008997629_dcc2e11e31_b_d.jpg

And that is pretty much as far as we got... so why did I share this little vignette? Well my aim was to show that if properly handled the Germans can indeed put up a respectable fight against Russian SMG troops in close terrain like woods.

I also wanted to illustrate a proper delay drill.. the goal when attempting a delay is to cause as many casualties as possible, slow your opponent and trade space for time. The formation in the woods is very effective and facilitates a delay, as when your forward line withdraws the second line is already set and ready to take the lead role while the withdrawing units can recover from the action that forced them to pull back. Timing the repositioning of your forward units can be tricky and if you let it go too long they can get suppressed and overrun. You can take a few casualties, just dish out more than you give.. I believe in this one I caused from two to three times the number of casualties I suffered (9 confirmed, at least 2 or 3 more suspected, to my total of 4 casualties).

Whether Ken will ever return the next turn or not doesn't really matter.. I think I have shown in the 5 minutes we did play that the original contention that Russian SMGs were unbeatable in close terrain is not necessarily always the case.

Bil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some reason, the M1 Carbine always seems to get an undeservedly bad rap. Not sure why; to be sure, it's nowhere near the power of a full rifle round like .30-'06, and it's also weaker and ballistically inferior to the various assault rifle rounds, but it's a heck of a lot more powerful than the pistol rounds it was intended to replace.

It mainly comes from Korea, where troops tried to use it like a front line battle rifle, which is never what is was supposed to be. This is a good article that discusses it in pretty good detail: http://shootersjournal.net/putting-the-m1-carbine-in-the-right-context/

The true case study for the M1 Carbine’s bad rap was Korea. This is where the Carbine was told to do something it was never designed to do. In Korea ranges were much longer and the clothing was very heavy because of the bitter cold. Because the carbine was a whole lot more fun to tote than a Garand, an inordinate number of them found their way into front line service in a conflict that easily exceeded the design parameters.

The little 110gr bullet just didn’t have enough punch to close the deal under these conditions; clearly this was a job for a Garand and it’s superb .30-06 cartridge.

So the bad reputation came from pressing a tool to do something it was never intended to do. I don’t see how we can pan the M1 Carbine as worthless just because it didn’t do what it was never intended to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether Ken will ever return the next turn or not doesn't really matter.. I think I have shown in the 5 minutes we did play that the original contention that Russian SMGs were unbeatable in close terrain is not necessarily always the case.

Bil

Wow - that's not what I took away from it.

What you showed us was an immensely valuable display of how to trade space for time.

But you hardly put up a fight - really, you just ran away slowly. If the goal of the Russians was to take the forest, then they won.... at a cost, but, they won. I for one came away from this episode feeling like the contention is very much substantiated... if this is all that the best player on the board can do against Russian SMGs, then they are unbeatable!

GaJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LukeFF - I have never bought the "heavy clothing" nonsense. I sincerely doubt that padded jackets ever stopped a carbine round, or even a pistol round. The experience shooter John George, who served in the pacific as a sniper, liked the M-1 carbine and reported never having any problem hitting or dropping people with it. Lots of soldiers did make the complaint, and clearly thought they were hitting without stopping. Some of those probably were not hitting, and others hitting but only wounding. But not because of an inch of clothing - that is an attempted explanation that does not pass physics 101, or ballistics testing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easy to see why the German were so fond of the PPsh. Some sources mentioned it became the second most widely used SMG on the Eastern Front by the Germans. I don't think there is a way to verify that one way or another.

Doesn't that kinda only mean it was more popular than any other captured SMG, since the Germans didn't issue any SMGs other than the MP40 until the last months of the war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow - that's not what I took away from it.

What you showed us was an immensely valuable display of how to trade space for time.

But you hardly put up a fight - really, you just ran away slowly. If the goal of the Russians was to take the forest, then they won.... at a cost, but, they won. I for one came away from this episode feeling like the contention is very much substantiated... if this is all that the best player on the board can do against Russian SMGs, then they are unbeatable!

GaJ

Look at the force ratio. Straight up headcount, globally, it's a little worse than 3:2 against Bil, which doesn't sound so bad, but locally where the action is happening right now it's much worse -- Bil is currently actively engaging with less than half his force. Without looking at C3K's thread so I don't spoil anything, I'd estimate the local odds where the shooting is currently happening are something like 3:1, possibly worse. Bil also does not have any fortification advantage that a defender typically has -- no foxholes, trenches, mines, TRPs or barbed wire. So this really represents an in situ defense rather than a prepared defense.

Against these kinds of odds and without a fully prepared defense, regardless of terrain a defender can't hope to execute a "stonewall" defense against a concentrated attack -- he needs to trade terrain for time and bodies until the enemy is sufficiently attrited and/or disjointed that he can counterattack. The only real exception to this would be situations were there is an extreme weapons capabilities mistmatch that allows the defender to hit the attacker with little or no fear of retribution-- e.g., a defender with a few HMGs could stonewall a very large force of SMG-only infantry trying to advance across open ground as long as the initial engagement range is >300m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't that kinda only mean it was more popular than any other captured SMG, since the Germans didn't issue any SMGs other than the MP40 until the last months of the war?

Probably says as much about the German supply and logistics situation on the East Front as compared to the Western Europe than anything else. With long distances, units spread thin and ongoing engagements with partisans much from the East border of Germany all the way to the front line, makes a lot of sense that especially rear area security units and other non-front line units would scrounge Soviet weapons and ammo to reserve the main supply for the front lines. And front line units, too, might find it useful to keep a stock of Soviet weapons around for when supplies ran thin and scrounged Soviet ammo was more available than German calibers.

Not that the PPsh-41 wasn't good. IMHO, it probably was better than the MP40, Sten, Thompson or M3 Grease Gun. But there are factors beyond simple performance that contributed to why it may have been more frequently picked up and used by Germans than other similar enemy weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't that kinda only mean it was more popular than any other captured SMG, since the Germans didn't issue any SMGs other than the MP40 until the last months of the war?

Probably. I really never heard of German troops being fond if the Tommy gun, Sten or other smg, but the Ppsh is another story.

150 meters for an smg is impressive and the sights could be adjusted fir 500 meters. If its capable at that distance that quite a feat for something classified as a smg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm kind of with GAJ on this one, it is too early to say the result. In essence so far C3k has bumped into Bil's force and Bil caught him advancing, inflicted some casualties and withdrew.

So round one -the initial contact goes to Bil, but I don't think anyone expected different and I certainly do not expect Bill will just fold or not exact some blood in the process. It is round 2 and possibly 3 that would be at least for me a better indicator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard the padded jacket and carbine story before. The Army started issuing flak vests in Korea. Maybe they had captured vests under the padded jackets or some sort of homemade copy?

Does sound suspicious a padded jacket would stop a bullet. What were these padded jackets made of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I started this the intent was only to show these initial turns... my goal was not to stand toe to toe with Ken's troops but to illustrate a solution for engaging them in close terrain. Why fight on his terms?

Take it for what it is. But my goal was never to hold on to the woods, only to make Ken bleed while keeping my bleeding to a minimum.

If this wasn't valuable to you then I apologize for wasting your time.

Bil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

150 meters for an smg is impressive and the sights could be adjusted fir 500 meters. If its capable at that distance that quite a feat for something classified as a smg.

Not really. The PPsh-41 has a better range than most contemporary SMGs, but not that much better.

It ultimately depends on exactly what is meant by "capable". After all, even a .22 LR round can wound and even kill at ranges of well over a km, but this doesn't mean my .22 target rifle is really an effective weapon at 1 km ranges.

500m is generally considered to be about the effective limit of aimed fire for full-power rifle cartridges (e.g., .30-'06, 7.92mm etc.) when fired over iron sights -- a limitation that has as much to do with limitations of the unaided human eye as the weapon itself. Carbines like the M1 Carbine and also short-barrel assault rifles like the modern 5.56mm M4 Carbine are generally considered effective about to about 300m. With a somewhat slower Mv than the carbines and generally poorer ballistics, PPsh's effective range would be shorter than this.

Sight increments are a very poor indicator of effective range. Some WWII battle rifles had sights that were adjustable for ranges out to 1,000m and beyond, but this doesn't mean they were effective at ranges like this. Maybe for a highly trained sniper using a scope, but not for the average shooter firing over iron sights.

EDIT to add: the Chinese & NK padded jackets in Korea were a heavy canvas outer with cotton batting. Thick, bulky. They're thick enough that I suppose they might occasionally prevent a wound from a ricochet or even a slow shell fragment, but they're certainly not going to stop a direct hit from even a pistol-caliber round, let alone a .30 carbine round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...