MP-44 vs SMG discrepancies

[M Hofbauer]

Now this might seem nitpicky or ridiculous but I am dead serious about this.

My complaint is that the MP44 (aka StGw44 or StG44) is not modelled powerful enough, at least in comparison to the MP40 and other SMG's out there (in CM land).

The MP-40 is a submachine gun that fires pistol ammo, 9x19 Parabellum. This ammunition has an Eo of 580 Joule when fired from an MP-40, and, as is usual for any SMG, it strays considerably.

The MP-44, despite it's designation, is an assault rifle, firing modified rifle ammo, the Kurzpatrone 7.92x33, at an Eo of 1,500 Joule; the more powerful ammo had considerably better penetration power than the 9mm projectiles which travelled at half the speed and had a larger cross-section. The StG 44 could be fired selectively on full auto and on semi-auto, needless to emphasize that accuracy was much higher than with the MP-40 or any other SMG, but it still retained the full auto capability just like the MP-40. Both weapons fired from 30/32 round magazines. Yadayadayada - all in all, the StG-44 / MP-44 was essentially a revolutionary weapon that was -for average combat use- superior to both the Rifle and the SMG/MP-40. Nobody seriosly questions that (or so I thought).

well I was really looking forward to my MP-44 equipped squads taking the fight to the enemy. But when I checked the abstracted firepower value in the squad unit info, I found that the MP-44 made almost no difference whatsoever. In fact, it was even inferior:

Firepower at given ranges

---------------40m---------100m-----------250m

2xMP44--------60-----------24-------------4

2xMP40--------72-----------22-------------1

the MP-40 is actually better than the StG-44 at 40 meters, and at 100 meters is is rated practically equal to the MP-40!!

what's similarly startling is that the Thompson and even the decrepit Sten, an SMG hated by it's users because it could almost be depended upon to have a jam, have better values than the MP-40!

---------------40m---------100m-----------250m

2xMP44--------60-----------24-------------4

2xMP40--------72-----------22-------------1

2xThompson--90-----------22-------------1

2xSten---------80-----------22-------------1

that the StG-44 has a better rating at 250m doesn't really mater since a firepower of 1 OR 4 will not really scare anybody.

In other words, CM rates the Thompson and the Sten higher than the MP-40, and all of these are rated effectively higher than the Sturmgewehr 44. This is contrary to the consensus of the small arms literature that I have encountered so far in my pastime of small arms.

I would really be interested to know why BTS chose to model them that way? I know that they even did a check on some of these weapons themselves, so maybe they have a special reason for their decision?

[This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 08-08-2000).]

[Guest KwazyDog]

Interesting.....One thing you didnt mention was the Rates of Fire with the seperate weapons, which I imagine will also have an affect on these stats. Do you have them available? Off of the top of my head the Thommy gun had a rather high rate of fire, with the MP40 being slower and I *think* the MP44 about the same as the mp40, maybe a little faster. I believe I have them at home, though currently I am at work.

Maybe facts such as lesser recoil and the smaller size (thus being easier to use as close quarters) have come into play here too....

Anyways, just some thoughts Oh, and remember that the stats given in CM are just a abstracted guide to CM's weapons stats with far more detial going on behind the scene.

[This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 08-08-2000).]

[robo]

I have to agree with Hofbauer here. All I can think of is that there's an error in the display of FP stats for those weapons - hopefully they are modeled correctly in the game. Which brings to mind, I really wish all the data were editable within a text file loaded when the game starts up.

[Aussie Smith]

Hof

Interesting...very much so that I had to get out some of my books on the subject.

The MP40 was without doubt the better SMG of WW2 (though in bad conditions it would have an awful tendency to jam). My copy of Janes shows it has a higher rof (900+ rnds per min) than all the other common use SMG's and that it was more accurate than the others as well...as to hitting power - well having fired both 9mm and .45acap and ball ammo I'd have to say the .45 wins out every time up to a range of about 100 metres where for some god knows why reason the 9mm rnd seems more accurate (you ballistic experts out there know why this is? - Air resistance maybe??).

The MP44 is rated as the premier infantry mans weapon of WW2 in both my Encyclopaedia of WW2 weapons and "Last Years of the Reich" book. It had some issues early on with jamming but the blowback mechanism was fixed and after that it became a very faithful servant.

Its got to be testimony to these weapons that after Normandy there was a scramble for Brit and US soldiers to get these weapons whenever they could - there is no greater compliment to the ability of a weapon that it being used by the other side.

On a side note I read an interesting article by a BAR gunner in Normandy (I wish I could remember the book the account was from but it was a long time ago) where he stated that they would sometimes damage the BAR so they would have an excuse to use the MG34/42. It seems BAR gunners hated the fact that a 20 rnd mag for a support weapon didn't make the grade and that the Germans could hear the click of a mag being changed - having said that has anyone noticed if BAR's are modelled in CM?

Craig

[This message has been edited by Aussie Smith (edited 08-08-2000).]

[pritzl]

I think those stats are spot on. It's obvious from the numbers that the StGW 44 is, overall, a superior weapon. However, as a cross between a rifle and an SMG, it makes compromises that make it better and worse than both of the weapons it replaces.

Close in, a large, low veloicity round is going to do a lot more damage to a soft target (human body) than a high velocity, low mass round. It's a matter of simple physics. For close in fighting, the SMG is still a superior weapon. That's why they still manufacture them (e.g. the H&K MP 5) Compare this to the endless debate as to whether the 9mm or .45 cal pistol is a better sidearm.

The StGW 44 is no wonder weapon. Combat Mission does a good job of dispelling that myth along with a number of others. That being said, the StGw would definitely be my choice if I were a German soldier in WWII. It offers the best compromise solution to any number of tactical situations. That is what makes the assault rifle such a great weapon.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Pritzl is correct. So is Kwazydog's point about lesser recoil and the smaller size (thus being easier to use as close quarters).

Some of the data mentioned above is incorrect. Here are a few stats (from Hogg's "Infantry Weapons of WWII"):

Sten Mk. V

Caliber: 9mm

Magazine capacity: 32

Rate of fire (cyclic rpm): 600

Muzzle velocity: 1250 ft/sec

Weight: 8.75 pounds

MP40

Caliber: 9mm

Magazine capacity: 32

Rate of fire (cyclic rpm): 500

Muzzle velocity: 1250 ft/sec

Weight: 8.75 pounds

MP44

Caliber: 7.92mm

Magazine capacity: 30

Rate of fire (cyclic rpm): 400 (from "Testing the War Weapons" by T. Mullin)

Muzzle velocity: 2125 ft/sec

Weight: 11.31 pounds

Thompson M1

Caliber: .45 (11.4mm)

Magazine capacity: 30

Rate of fire (cyclic rpm): 700

Muzzle velocity: 900 ft/sec

Weight: 10.75 pounds

Observations & Notes:

1. The Sten Mk. V and the MP40 have nearly identical data here, the only difference being the higher ROF for the Sten. This is reflected in CM by the Sten's slightly better FP at 40m (i.e. spray-and-pray range ).

2. Later models of Sten, like the Mk.V, were considered sound, reliable weapons.

3. The MP44 has a lower ROF than the MP40, is heavier and longer, and it fires a smaller bullet (the "kurtz" round, specially-made for the MP44) - hence its lower FP at the closest range. Of course its higher muzzle velocity makes it a more accurate weapon (more like a rifle) so it does better than the MP40 at all other ranges. NOTE: Muzzle velocity is a measure of accuracy, not damage-to-humans capability. Almost any bullet is going fast enough to wound or kill. In fact, sometimes high-speed bullets (like from rifles) can go fast enough that they pass right through a person and do (a little) less damage than slower bullets.

4. The Thompson's .45 caliber bullets and 700rpm ROF rule the day at close range. It gets the highest rating at 40m. However, its extra hitting power and higher ROF are balanced out by its low muzzle velocity, so its rating at longer ranges is not higher than other SMGs.

5. Yes BARs are modeled in CM.

Charles

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 08-08-2000).]

[M Hofbauer]

Thank you BTS/Charles for taking the time and interest to answer to this thread, I appreciate it. I now see the reasons why you chose to model the weapons as you did. I hope you don't take it personally but as a sign of objective interest to the issue at hand if however I take the liberty to strongly question with that decision.

In detail:

"Some of the data mentioned above is incorrect." I don't see where any of the data you cite from Hogg contradicts my post, unless you were referring to other posts.

"1. The Sten Mk. V and the MP40 have nearly identical data here, the only difference being the higher ROF for the Sten. This is reflected in CM by the Sten's slightly better FP at 40m (i.e. spray-and-pray range )."

cyclic ROF is a two-edged knife. n one hand, yes, a higher rate of fire might make for more bullets within a given time of "spray and pray". OTOH however, since we are talking 30-round magazines (never fill up those magazines to full 32!), a higher ROF also means the magazine is empty faster. This means, if you are going for "spray", then lower ROF means a longer, more controllable "garden-hose" spray, which can be a desirable effect with a SMG.

"2. Later models of Sten, like the Mk.V, were considered sound, reliable weapons." The Mk.V indeed was the late-war and short post-war version of the Sten. Yes it was considerably improved, but it retained that basioc fault that was not one of the weapon itself but of its magazines. You see the main problem with the Sten was actually that magazine thing (the security thing was remedied with the Mk.V). The single feed magazines' lips tended to wear out / bend and then the correct ammo feed failed. Since the Mk.V retained those single-feed magazines it still had that same basic problem of jammed ammo feed.

"3. The MP44 has a lower ROF than the MP40,"

this is debatable. ROF varied between the different versions of the Maschinenkarabiner that lead up to the StG-44. My sources, german small arms literature (that I will gladly disclose shopuld anybody care), indicate exactly the opposite, namely a cyclic ROF of 500/min for the MP-44 and 400/min for the MP-40. Either way, the diference is minimal, since it is only a _cyclic_ rate of fire, and at a magazine capacity of 30 rounds any difference in cyclic rate doesn't have any influence on the practical ROF.

"is heavier and longer,"

the MP-44 has a length of 94cm compared to the MP-40s 83cm; besides, the construction of the MP-44 means that mosdt people will find it to be more ergonomic, nicer to handle, foreguard and all, than the MP-40

MP40 4.61kg fully loaded, the MP-44 has one kg more; but when firing an automatic weapon you are happy about every additional gram of weight because it will make the weapon more controllable (less kicking), so while it might be a disadvantage for carrying it around all the time, for those critical moments of combat it's actually a plus.

"and it fires a smaller bullet (the "kurtz" round, specially-made for the MP44) - hence its lower FP at the closest range. Of course its higher muzzle velocity makes it a more accurate weapon (more like a rifle) so it does better than the MP40 at all other ranges. NOTE: Muzzle velocity is a measure of accuracy, not damage-to-humans capability. "

muzzle velocity _is_ a measure of damage-to-humans capability if the enemy human is not in the open but behind cover of various kinds, because a high velocity makes -ceteris paribus- for a higher penetration. Penetration depends upon energy/inertia and cross section (and some other factors not relevant here). As stated before, the MP-44 bullet has thrice the energy of the MP-40 / Sten and Thompson bullets. An earthen dike or a wooden bunker wall that might stop an MP-40's or Sten's 9mm Para considerably might not stop enough the 7,9mm Kurz. Of course that does not really matter in CM where 9mm rounds injure people despite them taking cover in heavy buildings because it is all abstracted, but it is just that abstraction and the abstracted FP value that is the issue here. Because the StG-44 ammo has more punch, it should have a higher FP value.

of course since the FP thing is an abstracted value it is your choice what factors you weigh in what manner, just as it is your call on what exactly the FP value represents. However I will continue to disagree with the fact that a Sten is considered a more effective weapon than the StG44 by CM.

Anyhow, thanks again for a great game and for responding,

yours sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

[Guest Big Time Software]

M.H.,

Please keep this in mind with regards to our discussion: the 40m FP ratings in CM represent "close quarters combat range". Thus, I used somewhat different criteria to create them than I used at all other ranges.

Cyclic ROF, in my opinion, is important at very short range. Yes you use up a clip faster, but this means that the firer is exposed to the enemy for a shorter period of time. Pop out from behind cover, shoot, and duck back in. You fire X number of bullets in less time than a weapon with a lower ROF. At any range beyond "close quarters", this is probably a waste of ammunition. But up close - very close - it can be deadly. Note that CM only takes cyclic ROF into serious consideration at the 40m range rating, not beyond.

As for specific ROFs for MP40 and MP44, it seems that your sources differ from mine. Steve Grammont found another source that disagrees with both of ours! So it seems that more research may be useful here.

You say that the MP44 is "just one" kilogram more, but this makes it a 30% heavier weapon than the MP40. I think that's significant for close-quarters fighting. Also, the length you quote for the MP40 appears to include the "open" buttstock, which is not quite the same as having a fixed, unchangeable weapon length like the MP44. Again, these issues only matter in close quarters combat (i.e. range 40m FP rating in CM).

Your point about higher muzzle velocity penetrating cover better is fair enough, and I agree with it in principle. But please note that, again, I am making an exception (sort of) in the case of the 40m/close-quarters rating: it's intended to be a "melee" firepower value, which assumes that troops are mingled and battling at close range, often without (or with less) benefit of cover, usually due to an enemy soldier on an immediate flank. Since combat mission doesn't track single bullets through single trees, etc., obviously some averaging must take place when I create FP values. So for 40m/close-quarters, I'm considering penetration value less. At longer ranges it is considered (going hand-in-hand with greater accuracy as well), and that's why you'll see that SMGs in CM pretty much stink at all except very short range.

All that said, I will consider these issues. It might be fair to add, say, 1 or 2 FP to the MP44 at ranges 40m and 100m. Maybe 0.5 at 250m.

But even without that, in playing CM I have found that I greatly prefer to have troops armed with the MP44 to the MP40. The MP40 only has an advantage at very close range - and the advantage is slight - such that two things occur:

1) It's relatively rare that you even get to combat at such close range. Much more fighting takes place at ranges where the MP44 is far superior to the MP40.

2) Even when close-quarters fighting does occur, the MP44 is close enough to the MP40 that the difference is not major. The MP44 will already have taken out (or at least suppressed) a lot of enemy soldiers in the 150m-250m range (where the MP40 is near useless) so giving up a few points in close just doesn't matter so much.

We can debate the close-range FP values, but I think you'll find that CM does model the MP44 as a superior weapon to the MP40 overall.

Charles

[Andre76]

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

Close in, a large, low veloicity round is going to do a lot more damage to a soft target (human body) than a high velocity, low mass round. It's a matter of simple physics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you seriously saying that you would rather be shot by a M16 (low mass, high velocity) than a regular pistol 9mm("high" mass, low velocity)?!?

I was a medic (sanitet) in the norwegian army, although it's only 9 months of service we learnt a bit of shot wounds. And I can say that I would rather be shot by a 9mm pistol any day of the week than the M16! Have you heard of exit wounds? Do you think they're nice, round and clean? I think you'd better check out some bullet wounds before you make these sort of comments.

André

[Jarmo]

First, it's surprising to see sten with such a high ratings, I was

under impression it was considerably less accurate than MP40.

While it doesn't matter at close, I'd expect it to be important

at 100 meters and above.

Second, I'm at work and don't have access to the charts, but how

does the MP44 compare to garand? It should be just as effective to

around 500 meters. Maybe even more so, as the bigger clip gives

a better ROF.

BTW, does CM model moving to single fire at longer ranges?

In ammo expenditure, I mean.

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

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[howardb]

christ it's hard to (be a nisseman) satisfy grogs

[IntelWeenie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andre76:

Are you seriously saying that you would rather be shot by a M16 (low mass, high velocity) than a regular pistol 9mm("high" mass, low velocity)?!?

I was a medic (sanitet) in the norwegian army, although it's only 9 months of service we learnt a bit of shot wounds. And I can say that I would rather be shot by a 9mm pistol any day of the week than the M16! Have you heard of exit wounds? Do you think they're nice, round and clean? I think you'd better check out some bullet wounds before you make these sort of comments.

André<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think a key phrase to insert here would be "all other things being equal". I think the original post was only considering actual kinetic energy and not any other factors.

I remember this sort of debate from the .45 vs. 9mm pistol debate back in the late 70's. I also remember having to endure my (ex-marine) step-dad's lengthy explanations as to why he preferred the M-14 to the M-16 in Viet Nam. He about bashed me once when I mentioned the M-93 ammo's tumbling effect causing bigger wounds than a 'clean' shot from a 7.62 weapon.

I, for one, am one of the high velocity crowd. Remember when Pres. Reagan and Sec. Brady were shot? Reagan nearly died and Brady was, sadly, crippled for life. And that was from a piddly .22LR (small bullet, high velocity)!

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

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

[Mark IV]

Originally posted by Jarmo:

how does the MP44 compare to garand?

Garand & Mauser stats:

......40...100..250.500

2xM1...26...14...6...2

2xK98..13...11...6...2

The critical 100m rating is a little puzzling, with STG44 (post, above) at nearly twice that of the M1, but I suppose a case could be made for that based on all the factors here (RoF and recoil issues).

My personal belief is that the SMG ratings are too high for 100m but not enough to get exercised about (max effective range of the .45 ACP Grease Gun was rated by US Army at 90m).

Most seems about right, really. I won't get into wound ballistics again, but pistol bullets just don't stack up against rifle bullets, except in close-range RoF issues.

It should be just as effective to

around 500 meters. Maybe even more so, as the bigger clip gives

a better ROF.

Not sure which way you meant that, but after 250m the STG should be rated lower (RoF differences were incremental anyway, and not much of a factor at 500m). The lighter round has less retained energy downrange, and extreme ranges are where the difference is most dramatic. .30-06 is WAY scarier at long range.

[Andre76]

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

Viet Nam. He about bashed me once when I mentioned the M-93 ammo's tumbling effect causing bigger wounds than a 'clean' shot from a 7.62 weapon.

I, for one, am one of the high velocity crowd. Remember when Pres. Reagan and Sec. Brady were shot? Reagan nearly died and Brady was, sadly, crippled for life. And that was from a piddly .22LR (small bullet, high velocity)!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the kenetic energy inflict a greater trauma and send shock throughout the body.

This can cause further damage (internal bleeding, cracked liver...) But ofcource, I don't want to be hit by a tumbeling bullet! (or anything else for that matter! )

.22LR? I always thought it was with a 9mm, a polise special or something. Scary!

André

[Jarmo]

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

Not sure which way you meant that, but after 250m the STG should be rated lower (RoF differences were incremental anyway, and not much of a factor at 500m). The lighter round has less retained energy downrange, and extreme ranges are where the difference is most dramatic. .30-06 is WAY scarier at long range.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it was an assault rifle, not SMG. It would be accurate at

500 meters, and have more than enough energy left to kill a man.

Traditional rifles would be effective beyond a kilometer.

The problem, and the reason for everyone to now uses assault

rifles, is that not many can hit anything far away, or even

see the enemy.

At 250 meters, it doesn't really matter if the rifle is powerful

or not, and neither does the long range accuracy.

If the sights were inferior to garand, that would explain the

difference. But whatever the case, the value, if off at all,

is off by so little it doesn't really matter.

As for 100 meter values, it's hard to say. I'd say it's a bit far

to fire effective bursts. But it's too close for the riflemen to

aim carefully if the enemy is shooting back.

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

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Guest Heinz 25th PzReg]

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

christ it's hard to (be a nisseman) satisfy grogs <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The above statement can only be understod by Norwegians.

LOL

Greetings from Oslo

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

"To subdue your enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence." - Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Visit my AAR site:

home.online.no/~andhess/cm/

[Fionn]

Ah the old high velocity, low mass vs high mass, low velocity debate.

In reality it is kind of pointless since the IDEAL bullet is one which doesn't exit the human body at all. The biggest problem with most high-velocity bullets is that they can exit the body. While this often proves fatal when a thorax hit occurs it isn't as effective when an outer extremity hit occurs.

And the high mass, low velocity bullets generally expand FAR too much of their energy in the first few cms of clothing and body and, as such, do too little damage to the internal organs.

What you REALLY want if you are looking to ensure 1 hit, 1 kill ( or 1 combat ineffective) is a bullet which will:

a) only begin measurable decceleration after penetrating through the outer layer of fat ( say 2cms.. this allows it to penetrate webbing, clothing and outer layer of fat).

generally expends all its energy after about 5 or 6 cms of internal travel.

The benefits of this are that

1. the VAST majority of the KE is thus dissipated at a location very internally and quite close to the organs ( thus ensuring much greater damage is done to the organs)

2. It complicates any surgical repair and lengthens the time in surgery thus drawing down on the enemy's surgical resources and ensuring more people die while waiting to be treated,

3. If it hits an extremity it will dissipate far more of its energy in that extremity than a high velocity bullet will. End result is more ripped off arms and legs ( which increases enemy combat ineffective rates).

For all of these reasons I would have to favour an intermediate round ( or the large but slow round). I don't think the large but slow is the best option since I don't think it truly dissipates most of its energy sufficiently deeply internally ( it's a good choice for police officers though who might be expected to shoot a person and still take him or her in alive)... A large but slow round does too much external or surface damage but not enough internal damage for the purposes of killing IMO.

A nice intermediate round is definitely best (if you're looking to kill the enemy).

[dNorwood]

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

I, for one, am one of the high velocity crowd. Remember when Pres. Reagan and Sec. Brady were shot? Reagan nearly died and Brady was, sadly, crippled for life. And that was from a piddly .22LR (small bullet, high velocity)!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I decided long ago to stay out of the "which gun is better" debate, but part of the discrepancy in Reagan's comparatively mild wound (he was back at work in two weeks)and Brady's was that Hinckley used exploding ammunition and the one that struck Reagan failed to explode.

[KiloIndiaAlpha]

Something often forgotten about the Sten is that it could be fired while lying down- due to the magazine being horizontal. It was much more difficult/impractical to fire the MP44/40 while lying down.

[Mark IV]

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

the Sten ... could be fired while lying down- due to the magazine being horizontal. It was much more difficult/impractical to fire the MP44/40 while lying down.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which could be modeled in the "spottability" of the unit, but not its FP.

I respectfully point out that foot-pounds, or the metric equivalent (for god's sake people, catch up ) are a more accurate representation of a bullet's lethality beyond 40m or so (see, I can do metric) than muzzle velocity (or meters per millihour).

Within the 40m range, all bullets are sufficiently lethal against soft targets as to be even, and other factors like RoF and maneuverability really matter a lot.

Much beyond it, retained energy and sectional density start to rear their attractive heads. I happen to think 100m is a critical range because it's a range at which many infantry firefights are nearly inevitable, and at which hits are still very likely.

At this range most "true" rifles even out. They will all incapacitate an enemy soldier and still have a very reasonable chance of hitting one. The heavier bullets will go through more stuff (e.g., 15mm of armor, or an 8" fir tree) and still manage to subtract one from the OPFOR OoB, but the differences between them are marginal, unless you're engaging HTs and it's go-no go, pass-fail!

This is not the case with SMGs (any of 'em). They are pistol bullets. At 100m they are unlikely to place many (if any) rounds on target, and will not penetrate diddly-squat except totally unprotected human flesh, if they connect with it in the first place.

The MP/STG-44 round (7.92 kurz) is a rifle bullet. It may be "intermediate" by WWII standards but is an order of magnitude more powerful (in ft/lbs), 100m downrange, than any of the pistol bullets fired by Sten, MP38/40, Thompson, etc., which are nearing the outside edge of utility at those ranges.

It is not as powerful (ft/lbs) as .30-06, .303, or 7.92mm but is much closer to them, than to the pistol family of cartridges.

SMG bullets cannot hit or penetrate much at 100m. No, I wouldn't want to try to catch one in my teeth, but they (the bullets, nor my teeth) are simply not designed for this task and they are not good at it.

Most of the more recent and complete ballistics test one finds on the net are for law enforcement purposes, and concerned with handguns' "stopping power". Between handgun loads at 1-25m such comparisons are valid (and Fionn's point about expending the full energy of the round in vital tissues is paramount).

However, rifle bullets incapacitate people at virtually any distance, within their maximum effective range, and 500m nominal is good enough for me. Stopping power is no longer a factor at 40m+, 'cause down is down. Stopping synaptic reflexes in milliseconds with underpowered handgun projectiles is no longer the primary goal at those ranges (like it is with law enforcement handgun loads).

SMGs are rated a tad over-effective at 100m, in my humble opinion. A rather minor pecadillo.

[The DesertFox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Something often forgotten about the Sten is that it could be fired while lying down- due to the magazine being horizontal. It was much more difficult/impractical to fire the MP44/40 while lying down.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

KIA,

Don´t get me wrong, but have you ever fired with these guns while lying down ? If you would have, you would have seen that there is no problem at all firing them while lying down. One comparable example of todays weapons would be to fire the AK 47 while lying down. No problem either.

Helge

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

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

[Andre76]

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

For all of these reasons I would have to favour an intermediate round ( or the large but slow round). I don't think the large but slow is the best option since I don't think it truly dissipates most of its energy sufficiently deeply internally<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you REALLY want ( )is a high velocity bullet that break up after impact. Thus all the kinetic energy is transferd to the body. And the surgons have to find a lot of splinters from the bullet.

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

André

[Tekman]

When Hitler asked a jr comander on the eastern front what weopons he needed thinking he would ask for Tigers, Panther or some wonder weopon the answer was "give us more MP44's."

the MP44 is the father of the AK47 in fact the desighn is stolen from the Germans. Its classed from what i have read to be the best assault rifle of the war.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Helge,

I think the difference here is that you can fall prone and get into a solid firing position much easier with a Sten than an MP40 or MP44. I just tried it witH my MP44 (non firing unfortunately!) and you have to fall with the weapon in a decidely non-firing postion. Then you have to prop your elbow up to full position, adjust the weapon, then aquire the target.

Not saying that this makes long mag guns a liability per se, but compared with a side mag SMG there is a noticable difference. Interestingly enough, the akwardness of prone firing was noted in MP44 training manuals IIRC. Also just got done reading a nice article on the Soviet RPK squad automatic wepaon. Now THAT has a long mag

Steve

[Olle Petersson]

I'd like to point out a few things;

1) Cyclic rate of fire.

The numbers listed in various sources are all estimates.

Take for example open bolt SMGs, like MP40, Sten, Grease gun, etc.

The cyclic ROF of these guns can easily be adjusted by modifying the spring. Pull it to increase ROF or squeese it to reduce ROF. This way you can have ROF anywhere between say 400 - 1000 rpm. The upper limit is set where the bolt never pass the trigger catch, so that once it's released it will continue firing until out of ammo or jammed, whichever comes first. The lower limit is where the bolt constantly hammers the back of the gun.

Another example from which I have experience is the FN GPMG. Listed ROF 600-800 rpm. I've fired it at about 150 rpm, which allowed for readjustment between shots. It's also possible to increase ROF to a point where you have two rounds travelling down the barrel simultaneously, the second one being fired before the first one leaves. How long does it take for the bullet to travel down the barrel?

None of these extreme settings are recommended or within regulations, but they do appear.

When I did my military service 10 yrs ago, many MGs in the company broke down because the grunts had them set at too high ROF so the piston overheated. No problems with my MG though, keeping ROF at the lower end...

2) Useful ROF, excepting MGs

Full auto fire is only used in close combat. At any longer range single shots or very short bursts are recommended. Therefore the MP44 could be considered a semi automatic carbine at ranges above 40m.

3) Firing SMGs from prone

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Helge,

I think the difference here is that you can fall prone and get into a solid firing position much easier with a Sten than an MP40 or MP44. ...

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with this. However, once in that "solid" position, the MP40 has better accuracy since one can use the clip to support the gun.

I haven't used a MP40, but I've used the Swedish k-pist m/45 quite a bit, which is essentially the same. I had no problem grouping shots within 15cm at 100m range when firing single shots from a prone position. I even once managed to get all shots within 6cm, and that's not too bad if you consider that a fixed gun has 10cm spread at that distance.

Of course nobody was trying to shoot at me when I did this.

Also, when shooting in a standing position the Sten is probably less accurate and definately more cumbersome because of the side heavy configuration, unless it's fired from the hip when the left hand is used to support the clip.

I think my statements above pretty much game wise levels out any differences between the MP40 and the Sten.

Cheers

Olle

[This message has been edited by Olle Petersson (edited 08-11-2000).]