two questions for the experts

[Guest Turret]

I read that American rifles often gave away positions as the gunpowder was not smokeless. Are American units spotted or identified easier when they fire? Just curious if that was a factor that maybe kept the American floating "Star" more accurately placed in general.

2) What is the general impression of the differences of a typical 9 man German squad on the move firing vs an American 12 man squad on the move firing (All else equal).

Would the American weapons, Semi-automatic Garands and a BAR) as well as the number of men would make a significant difference over the 9 soldiers with KAR98k (single action), one SMG, and a MG42 firing at a reduced rate.

side note: I'm trying think how the MG42 was fired on the move, anyone have any background on that?

Have people found that the Germans do much when they limit movement?

[This message has been edited by Turret (edited 09-01-2000).]

[Teamski]

You are correct about the gun powder. US soldiers did have a problem with their positions being given away, usually under 500 yards, depending on the visiblity.

The M1 Garand gave the US soldier unequaled firepower. He could fire off his clip over the edge of his foxhole, while the German had to run the action of his Mauser either by exposing himself or lowering himself into the foxhole to do it. The only drawback to the Garand was that the soldier tended to empty his clip pretty damn fast. And when that happens, the gun gives off a pecular (sp) sound as the clip was jettisoned after the last round went off. The germans often took advantage of the situation and attacked the poor bastard before he could load his gun.

Anyways, it's a hell of a lot easier to fire a semi-auto on the run than trying to move the action of a Mauser 98!!! I would think it would be pretty hard to fire any weapon with belt loaded ammo on the run....

-Ski

If I'm BSing, let me know.........

------------------

"The Lieutenant brought his map out and the old woman pointed to the coastal town of Ravenoville........"

[This message has been edited by Teamski (edited 09-01-2000).]

[Mark IV]

Originally posted by Teamski:

The M1 Garand gave the US soldier unequaled firepower.

Unequalled by the Mauser, I'm sure you mean. MP44 would be another matter.

The only drawback to the Garand was that the soldier tended to empty his clip pretty damn fast.

The high recoil hindered rapid fire accuracy, somewhat.

Anyways, it's a hell of a lot easier to fire a semi-auto on the run than trying to move the action of a Mauser 98!!! I would think it would be pretty hard to fire any weapon with belt loaded ammo on the run....

Well, I saw this documentary with Sylvester Stallone once where it was no problem at all...

The Garand would definitely have some edge over the K98 under 40m at a walking pace. Running, you'd have to be even closer to do anything effective with a semi-auto rifle (and it would be even worse with a bolt).

It's pretty damned hard to hit anything while you're running, however, no matter what you use.

[Pvt. Ryan]

I read stories where the GIs took advantage of the peculiar ( ) sound the clip made by dropping spare empty clips even though they still had rounds in the rifle in order to fool the Germans into thinking they were reloading. Or was this just in the movies?

And in the Stallone chronicals, belt fed weapons can only be fired on the run.

------------------

No me llamo Samuel, me llamo Pedro!

[Teamski]

The MP44 was a pretty scarce weapon. But, people like to see it along with the RARE Wirblewind and Ostwind tanks because of it's "cool" factor. The gun was cheaply made and couldn't hit the broadside of a Terrapin....

What gets me about the MP44 is the fact that it looks soooo much like the AK-47, yet they have two different types of actions.....

Would you agree?

-Ski

------------------

"The Lieutenant brought his map out and the old woman pointed to the coastal town of Ravenoville........"

[pzvg]

The mg42 in the LMG configuration was actually relativly easy to fire on the move,as it used small drum-like clip on ammo cans,thereby removing the problem of keeping the belt feeding properly, of course this gave a mainly psychological boost to the soldat, since it is uniformly impossible to lay down accurate fire with any LMG while moving (Sorry Rambo, but it's true).

The main noticeable difference between US and German squad firepower is that US squads had a pretty much standardized range in which all the squad's weapons were effective, and this was generally greater than a German squads, if you want to try matching up toe to toe, try Fallschrimjagers versus regular American infantry, I think you'll find the firepower a close match.

------------------

Pzvg

"Murphy's law of combat #10, never forget your weapon is made by the lowest bidder

[David Aitken]

Pvt. Ryan wrote:

> Or was this just in the movies?

Sounds like a good tactic. Chances are it's true.

Reality is stranger than fiction... you'll find far more bizarre occurrences in war than you will in any film.

David

------------------

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[von Schalburg]

Firing the MG42 on the move is no great problem, even if it's belt feed.

Grip the bi-pod with one handn the pistol-grip with the other and fire away.

The chance of killing anybody is rather small, but it will still suppress the enemy.

The metod is still practiced in the Danish army, and we still use a variant of the MG42.

------------------

In god we trust, the rest we monitor...

von Schalburg

[Ellros]

The MP44 does look similar to the AK-47 because the Mp44 is what Mr. Kalishnakov used as a template for his infamous weapon, just as we used the MG42 as the base for the M60.

[Formerly Babra]

I've done competition ranges with bolt action rifles (Lee-Enfield No. 4) and had no trouble getting off an aimed shot every five seconds during the rapid fire exercise from a prone position. No radical changes of body position are required. Only the head moves a bit to the left to clear the bolt. Accuracy was not as good during this exercise, but it didn't suck either.

The distinctive sound emitted by the empty Garand is generated by the clip ejecting from the rifle, not hitting the ground. I'm not sure how you'd fake that noise.

------------------

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

[Pvt. Ryan]

You could carry a portable MP3 player with that sound recorded on it and mount some Bose cube speakers on your helmet. I think they would be called Multimedia Infantry.

------------------

No me llamo Samuel, me llamo Pedro!

[David Aitken]

Ellros wrote:

> just as we used the MG42 as the base for the M60.

MG42 and FG42. The similarity to the latter is striking.

Formerly Babra wrote:

> The distinctive sound emitted by the empty Garand is generated by the clip ejecting from the rifle, not hitting the ground.

Depends what kind of ground it hits.

David

------------------

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[Coolguy101]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan:

I read stories where the GIs took advantage of the peculiar ( ) sound the clip made by dropping spare empty clips even though they still had rounds in the rifle in order to fool the Germans into thinking they were reloading. Or was this just in the movies?

And in the Stallone chronicals, belt fed weapons can only be fired on the run.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know a korean war vet who told me they use to use that trick.They would drop there empty clips and still have there loaded ones in and wate for the enemy.

[Formerly Babra]

I've seen many weapons fired in anger, but never a Garand to my knowledge. I'll take your word for it.

------------------

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

[Tiger]

There's a book out where they test-fire and evaluate the german small arms including the mg42. Hip-firing the mg42 while moving was quite uncomfortable and not very accurate.

-johnS

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tiger:

There's a book out where they test-fire and evaluate the german small arms including the mg42. Hip-firing the mg42 while moving was quite uncomfortable and not very accurate.

-johnS<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who needs accuracy with an MG42

Regards, John Waters

----------

"die verdammte Jabos".

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Teamski:

The MP44 was a pretty scarce weapon...The gun was cheaply made and couldn't hit the broadside of a Terrapin...What gets me about the MP44 is the fact that it looks soooo much like the AK-47, yet they have two different types of actions<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I wouldn't really agree. I used the term "MP44" generically (like Hogg and most others) to cover the production variants, from MP43 up through StG44. There were plenty enough in the late war, but more importantly, they are liberally available in CM scenarios, which is what concerns us here.

Whence your accuracy comments? Are you basing this on anything in particular? I'm always interested in small arms testimonials from the practitioners.

Cheaply made? You mean the "pressings and stampings"? Not on critical path components. They weren't pretty, but the "drive train" of the MP44 family of weapons was excellent(and they were in production from mid-43 through the end, in many shops and factories, so there are certainly quality variations).

As for not resembling the AK-47, you've got the intermediate cartridge, delayed gas-operation, piston tube above the barrel, delayed tipping or rotating bolt, cocking lever diagonal upper left, and the esteemed Mr. Hogg and every other writer of note crediting Kalashnikov with "improvements", "modifications", and "copies" to and of the original Schmeisser design, based on StG44 right down to the cartridge itself.

I'm not knocking the M1 at all, because it made best use of the existing technology at the time of its development, and commonality of ammo with the light MGs. But in a sense it was an evolutionary cul-de-sac. Its cartridge was too powerful for the role its action could support. The M14 showed the reluctance of conventional wisdom to part with the big-bullet "man-stopper" while the Soviets rushed headlong into the more versatile intermediate cartridge, based on the StG44 action, to transform modern infantry squads into multi-purpose close or long-range suppression teams.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Teamski:

The MP44 was a pretty scarce weapon. But, people like to see it along with the RARE Wirblewind and Ostwind tanks because of it's "cool" factor. The gun was cheaply made and couldn't hit the broadside of a Terrapin....

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know if the MP44 could realy be classed a scarce weapon. Thousands were issued to troops participating in the Ardennes offensive. Danny Parker states in his Battle of The Bulge , that the MP44 was "the most common German infantry weapon in the Ardennes".

Now I wouldn't put it's availability up their with the 98 or MP40's etc but eneough were apperently issued issued late 1944 - 45 to make it at least somewhat available to troops. I have seen pictures of US troops useing MP44's well.

Don't know about its accuarcy I always assumed it was similar to the AK 47's accuracy at short medium ranges, but I have never fired an MP44, and most sources conflict on the MP44's accuarcy,while most claim it was an aqccurate weapon, some claim it was effective at up to 1000ms in semi automatic mode while others say 800ms etc.

Parker also stated that the MP44 was "more appropriate to the skills of many of many of the inexperienced German troops in late 1944 then the old Mauser".

Accuracy realy wasn't an factor with most of the Inf battles takeing place at 100ms or less ROF was generaly considered more of an priority at least from reading how GI's would stick the Thompson or Garand above a hedge or around a corner and spray the entire magazine in the direction of the Germans while reading the Germans did the same with the MP40 & MP44, and reading the same about Vietnam, gave me that impression , as well as some personel experiences, where accuracy was the last thing worried about at the time.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

Make way evil, I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hamster!

[Bobbaro]

The empty clips weren't dropped, they were bounced off of a hard object, like a steel pot. Seen it demonstrated.

[IntelWeenie]

Once, long ago, I got to fire a few rounds from a MP44 (and a few other old full-auto jewels, too ). The thing that impressed me most about it was the weight. over 11 pounds empty! Seemed to make it fairly controllable in "mag-emptying" mode compared to other guns. Bad part, I only got to shoot 24 rds. Broken recoil springs can ruin your whole day

------------------

"Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

[guachi]

MP43, MP43/1, MP44 production numbers:

Date: Sept 44 to May 45

Numbers: 425,000

Kar98k production numbers:

1935-1945

14,500,000 +

Production in 1944:

Kar98k - 2,068,055

MP44 - 281,860

As you can see, there were over 30 times more Kar98ks produced than MP44s. In 1944 alone there were 7 times more Kar98ks produced than MP44s.

Jason

[pzvg]

Production numbers are not the best indicator. If you are going to issue a weapon to 2 different groups of troops, example 1 Luftwaffe reserve troops used for guarding POW camps, example 2 regular army troops at the front, who gets which weapon?

(it's an obvious answer)

Regarding the legendary accuracy question,

All the US Army's experience has shown that a light weapon with full auto capability is inaccurate if fired fully auto, yet troops will use it fully auto in almost any given instance, hence the introduction of the burst limited action of the M16A2.

Another note, any LMG is uncomfortable to fire on the move, they put a bipod on them for a reason as far as accuracy, it's called "suppressive fire" it don't have to be on target, just in the neighborhood.

And finally, just on a whim, I took 2 of my rifles out in the woods yesterday, Here are the results.

M1 Garand, very easy to fire on the move, reloading while moving is difficult, accuracy is fair (2 hits on target for 10 shots)

Lee Enfield, bolt action caused me to constantly slow my pace while working the bolt, reloading was about as hard as M1, side effect of slower pace, accuracy was better (6 hits on target for 10 shots)

Note: this was all done on a 200 meter rush, the target was at 200 meters, I tried to make it to the target in best possible time

(allowing for my own safety though)

------------------

Pzvg

"Murphy's law of combat #10, never forget your weapon is made by the lowest bidder

[Teamski]

Great thread guys! I think that the Schmeiser was a far more used gun than the MP44.

I believe you can actually hear the Garand's sound on Saving Private Ryan. They must of used blanks in the real things.

Talk about a garbage gun, the M1 carbine is it! If fired one once and I felt as if I was firing a BB gun. I know a lot of guys dumped them. Yeah I know it was supposed to be a "side arm", but the paras, of course had them mass issued. I read that after the Normandy invasion, most of the guys in the 101st swapped to the Garand.

The one thing with the Garand was it's relative range. Since you use the expelled gasses to load the next round, some of the power of the gun is lost. That's basically why US snipers still used the M1903. I'm sure that this didn't matter much since it affected only the higher ranges anyways....

------------------

"The Lieutenant brought his map out and the old woman pointed to the coastal town of Ravenoville........"

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ellros:

The MP44 does look similar to the AK-47 because the Mp44 is what Mr. Kalishnakov used as a template for his infamous weapon, just as we used the MG42 as the base for the M60.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This raises a point that has always puzzled me. Why did the Americans make so many changes to the basic MG 42 design to finally end up with the M60 which, form all accounts was a less reliable & more complicated design.

I'd be interested to hear from someone who may just happen to know the rationale behind the design changes. Perhaps simply national pride that dictated that America MUST be able to make a better designed MG than the Germans?

Regards

Jim R.

------------------

Whoa mule, WHOA!.....when ah sez Whoa ahz mean WHOA!!! ....Whang....

Ya flea bitten varmit...

Ah hate dat Wabbit! (or Gerbil or Hampster or Rattus Rattus...insert preference)

[19 Echo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

The only drawback to the Garand was that the soldier tended to empty his clip pretty damn fast.

The high recoil hindered rapid fire accuracy, somewhat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

High recoil? My grandfather said he loved the Garand because of its low recoil. He told a story about a time he was demonstrating a Lee-Enfield to his platoon, and when he fired it he found himself on the ground. Said he thought he'd dislocated his shoulder at first. He was very happy when they were issued Garands.

Since I've never fired one, I wouldn't know. But I've never heard that the Garand had high recoil.

-- Mike Zeares