Soviet Small Arms

[Applecart]

Hi all. This my first post, so please forgive me for anything I may possibly do wrong the first time out.

With CM:BB on its way, I'm curious to know how the typical Soviet infantry squad was outfitted in terms of small arms. I'm familiar with German, American, and Commonwealth weapons, mainly thanks to all the great posts on the forum, but I've not stumbled across any talk of Soviet weapons, and I've been keeping an eye on the forums daily for the past 6 or 7 months now. So any information any one could give me would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance!

[Preacher]

And be nice to this guy. Trust me, you wouldn't want to upset *him*.

Preacher

[dalem]

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

And be nice to this guy. Trust me, you wouldn't want to upset *him*.

Preacher<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As long as no one starts telling him he should be full of oranges I think we're okay.

Seriously though, Applecart, there are hundreds of folks here who can give you more detailed info than me, and links to weapon specs, etc., but the basics were

Sov rifle: Mosin-Nagant bolt-action 7.62mm.

Sov LMG: Dpshk - a pan mag-fed beastie with bipod. I've read that it was bad, I've read that it was fine, I don't know myself.

Sov MMG: Those wheeled Maxim-type babies with little shields. Water-cooled, I believe.

Sov SMG: PPsH - nasty little bugger.

Lots of ATRs and other stuff I know nothing about.

-dale

[Skipper]

Well, hmm, Mosin-Nagant was not the main rifle, DShK is not an LMG by any means (it is roughly a .50 cal), and PPSh was by far not the only SMG available.

The subject itself is rather big, and armament varied throughout the war - whatever was available. Ex, in early 1942, when there was a problem with small arms manufacturing, all sorts of half-obsolete stuff were pulled from storage and given to troops. Lewis MGs, Mosin rifles etc, etc.

[dalem]

See?

[gatpr]

If Moisin-Nagants weren't the main battle rifle could you tell the mass of uninformed humanity exactly what rifle was? The PPsh wasn't the only sub-gun but it sure was the most common.

[Michael Dorosh]

Mosin Nagants, in both 1891 rifle and M1944 carbine form, were the most common rifle, as far as I know, along with some SVT semi-autos.

Pray tell, Skipper, don't keep us in suspense.

[Grisha]

The Mosin-Nagant was the most common rifle(7.62) in the Red Army, and was bolt-action. The Tokarev SVT 40(7.62) though a good semiautomatic rifle was too complex for consideration during wartime production and was discontinued. The Mosin Nagant DP & DPM (both 7.62)were the main light machineguns, the most common versions having a drum clip on the top. Belt versions also existed. The most obvious difference between the DP and DPM was that the DPM had a pistol grip, but both were nearly identical designs. The DPM was in fact an improved version of the DP. For submachineguns, the initial main version was the PPSh41(7.62). It had a rifle stock and a drum clip. In 1943 the PP43 started coming out into main production. It had a folding stock and a banana clip.

[dalem]

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

The Mosin-Nagant was the most common rifle(7.62) in the Red Army, and was bolt-action. The Tokarev SVT 40(7.62) though a good semiautomatic rifle was too complex for consideration during wartime production and was discontinued. The Mosin Nagant DP & DPM (both 7.62)were the main light machineguns, the most common versions having a drum clip on the top. Belt versions also existed. The most obvious difference between the DP and DPM was that the DPM had a pistol grip, but both were nearly identical designs. The DPM was in fact an improved version of the DP. For submachineguns, the initial main version was the PPSh41(7.62). It had a rifle stock and a drum clip. In 1943 the PP43 started coming out into main production. It had a folding stock and a banana clip.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

THAT'S what I meant. DPM. The one I said was that big 12.7mm mother, right?

[Grisha]

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

THAT'S what I meant. DPM. The one I said was that big 12.7mm mother, right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, DShK was the 12.7mm HMG.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

The Mosin-Nagant was the most common rifle(7.62) in the Red Army<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a technical addition - the ammunition is referred to today as 7.62 x 54R (for Rimmed), to differentiate it between 7.62 x 51 (aka 7.62 NATO or .308 calibre).

[von Lucke]

Hey, what about the good old Tokarev 1930/33 7.62mm automatic pistol?

I also seem to recall that something like 140,000 Thompson .45 SMGs were sent via Lend Lease.

[gatpr]

I believe the most common Soviet pistol was the Nagant 7 shot revolver. Sending smgs to the USSR is the greatest example of sending coals to Newcastle I've ever heard.

[JasonC]

Grisha has most of it right. Here are some additional details.

The Mosin-Nagant was certainly the basic battle rifle. 17 million of them were made during the war. It was 4 feet long (w/out the bayonet) with a 29 inch barrel, 5 inches longer than that of the US M-1. It fired a full powered rifle cartridge, 7.62x54, with a 148 grain bullet propelled by a 48 grain charge. The muzzle velocity was 2850 fps and the muzzle energy 2900 foot-pounds. It weighed a little over 11 lbs with bayonet and sling. It was bolt action with a 5 round magazine.

Heavy but accurate out to long ranges, it had one principle defect as a WW II battle rifle. The rounds fed into the non-detachable clip one at a time. So you could top off to 5 rounds available to fire, but reloading after all 5 was relatively slow. This compares to the US issue with the 8-round M-1 clips, which could be reloaded rapidly as whole clips, but could not easily be topped off in battle, because all 8 rounds had to be fired to eject the magazine.

The same rifle was used for a cut-down version, the 1938 and 1944 carbines, which had only 20 inch barrels. These were intended for service troops and weapons teams, to save weight. It was usual for a cut down carbine, but these weapons used the same full power cartridge as the rifles. The shorter barrel resulted in a modest loss of muzzle velocity, only about 7%. But the accuracy was lower and the "kick" significantly worse. The 1944 version was meant to be used by fighting troops, and had a folding bayonet attached. This helped move the center of gravity forward again and reduced kick.

The Russians did not develop shorter sub-rifle cartridges until after the war, really. They did design a 7.62x39 in 1943, but it wasn't incorporated into a purpose-built weapon until the SKS-45, which went into mass production only in 1949. The AK-47 added selective fire and other improvements, but wasn't fielded until 1953.

On the sub-machineguns, the main model was the famous PPsh-1941. It used a 7.62x25 cartridge, considerably smaller than the SMG bullets of the other powers. The bullet was 86 grains and the charge 8 grains - pistol ammo. The round is 3/4 the weight of a 9mm, and only 3/8 the weight of a 45 caliber. But the muzzle velocity makes up for this. The initial MV is 1500 fps, giving an actually higher muzzle energy than a Sten. But the bullet being lighter, it bleeds the energy a bit faster with range. They used 35 round box mags or 71 round drums, and had a high cyclic rate of fire of 900 rounds per minute. They were famously sturdy guns, and continued to serve well through Korea.

The PPS-1943 was a cheaper wartime expedient, much like the US grease gun. The cyclic rate of fire was reduced somewhat to 700 rounds per minute, and the accuracy was somewhat lower because the gun was less stable (and sometimes used without any stock at all). But it fired the same ammo and at close range was still an effective weapon. However, it only accepted the 35 round magazine, not the big drums.

For squad level SAWs, they had both automatic rifles and light machineguns. The AR was the Tokarev SVT-40 which Grisha mentioned. He says they proved "too complicated", but I don't think that was it, actually. The SVT-40 was a simplified version of a 1938 version that had indeed failed as a design. But the 40 was reasonably reliable, and over 1 million of them were made between 1940 and 1942. That exceeds German MP40 and MP38 production for the whole war, so they were not exactly scarce.

The main problem with the Tokarev - which is in most respects a similar weapon to the US BAR, with similar weight and length, etc - is that it used only a 10 round box magazine, compared to the BAR's 20 round boxes. That was simply an inadequate ammo load for a true SAW. It fired the same rifle bullets as the standard MN-91/30s, with almost the same MV (2756 fps - slightly lower because the barrel was only 24 inches long). In other respects it was a useful weapon. It was undoubtedly phased out when enough DPM light MGs became available to provide a SAW with a greater ammo supply.

The early DP model was similar to the later DPM, as Grisha says. Both used primarily the 48 round "pan" style horizontal drum magazine, resting flat on the top of the gun. Both used the standard rifle ammo with similar MVs and MEs to the rifles (again, slightly lower because of less than 29" barrels). Both had standard Allied MG rates of fire of about 550 rounds per minute.

The DP weighed only about 21 lbs, while the DPM weighed 27 lbs. One of the issues with the lighter, earlier gun was difficulty of control in sustained firing, and the lightness of the bipod at the end, which sometimes bent from the recoil. The DPM solved these problems. They can be compared to the Bren in firepower, though with 48 round vs. 30 rounds magazines.

Belt fed versions of the DPM were eventually made, but use of them during the war was limited, and no tripod version was fielded. The primary heavy machinegun was the water-cooled Maxim, usually on a wheeled carriage and often with a small gunshield too. With water, shield, and carriage the whole thing weighed about 100 lbs, not counting the ammo. The ammo came in 250 round belts, and was a different round. The bullets for these were heavier at 185 grains (25% more weight) with a 50 grain charge. Like all Maxims, they had a 550 round per minute rate of fire and the ability to keep it up for very long periods reliably. This is basically comparable to the US HMG-1917 or the British Vickers.

Overall, the Russian SMGs compare favorably to the other powers, with the huge ammo supply of the PPsH with drum particularly useful. The smaller rounds could be carried more easily in high quantities, and their superior muzzle velocity mostly made up for the light weight of the bullet, at the ranges SMGs are used.

The rifles are akin to the K98, with high accuracy and good range from full powered cartridges and a particularly long barrel. But the clip size is small, and reloading comparative slow. The carbines for service troops are similar to the rifles, with somewhat reduced accuracy at range because of their kick and shorter barrels, but better range than e.g. a US M-1 carbine, because of the full powered rifle cartridge.

The SAWs are intermediate, and not as good as the German MG34 or MG42. The Tokarev is like a BAR with limited ammo to throw per clip, and phased out by mid war as enough LMGs become available. The early LMGs had a few problems with stability, but are like Brens and had a good ammo supply for a non-belt fed MG. The later ones are fine SAWs for the war, comparing favorably to the BAR and Bren, though again still not true belt fed MGs. The HMGs are like the British ones, without the lightness and speed of US MMGs or the ROF of HMG-42s, but reliable and capable of high sustained rates of fire.

I hope this helps.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

hi this is my first time writing on here, in regards to dalem saying the soviet smg was a nasty lil bugger, i hope you meant literaly, it was far from a well crafted gun, and was commonly used in human wave attacks against fixed german positions in leningrad, the gun was awful, but deployed in wave attacks it did its job simply by spraying bullets at the enemy with the cost of many soviet lives

[Applecart]

Wow, I wasn't expecting such speedy replies!

But thanks to everybody who took the time to say something, wether it had anything to do with the topic or not

And as always, JasonC comes through, I was really hoping he'd show up and set everything straight so thanks! And can I just say, you sure do know a hell of a lot about a whole damn lot! :eek:

Thanks again everybody!

Applecart

[Applecart]

Oops! I forgot to say ---> I love this forum!

And ---> Anybody wanna thrash a newbie? I've yet to play a human opponent, although I have been playing the AI for about 4 months already, but that isnt helping me any. If you do want to play a game or two, send me an email.

Applecart

[Applecart]

Oops! I forgot to say ---> I love this forum!

And ---> Anybody wanna thrash a newbie? I've yet to play a human opponent, although I have been playing the AI for about 4 months already, but that isnt helping me any. If you do want to play a game or two, send me an email.

Applecart

[JasonC]

What will this translate to in CM2 terms? Obviously I am just guessing, or saying how I'd do it. But I'd expect the following sorts of weapon fp lines and infantry squad mixes -

rifle - 5.25 - 4.5 - 3.3 - 1.25

Tok AR - 20 - 12 - 8 - 4

SMG - 40 - 8 - 0 - 0

DP MG - 36 - 24 - 18 - 9

DPM MG - 42 - 27 - 20 - 10

Or some such. They might not bother to differentiate the DP from the DPM.

early war rifle, 14 men - 1 Tok AR, 1 SMG, 12 rifle

fp lines 113 - 65 - 41 - 17

lots of men, not a lot of fp close but still decent at range. Low relative firepower from the underpowered SAW.

early war guards, 13 men - 1 DP, 2 SMG, 10 rifle

fp lines 169 - 85 - 51 - 22

better overall firepower from the better SAW, and close in from the 2nd SMG

late war rifle, 12 men - 1 DPM, 1 SMG, 10 rifle

fp lines 135 - 80 - 53 - 23

somwhat underpowered compared to squads built around MG34 or MG42, or SMG heavy squads.

late war guards, 12 men - 1 DPM, 3 SMG, 8 rifle

fp lines 204 - 87 - 45 - 20

a solid squad mix with decent capabilities overall.

mid war or later SMG squads, 10 men - 10 SMG

fp lines 400 - 80 - 0 - 0

Enourmous close in firepower, not much better than average at 100 meters, nothing at long range.

The guards will be good, and the SMGs will be their own special form of hell to deal with. The standard rifles will be big in manpower terms but not heavy on firepower.

One man's expectations...

[Applecart]

Has anyone noticed in the screenshot of CMBB at CMHQ, the one with the T-34/85's and the infantry, that one of the squads are selected, and it shows 11 men, but on the weapon breakdown, I'm only counting 8, 2smg's

1 AR, 4 rifles and one other i dunno?

Does that mean there are some guys running around in that squad unarmed? or am i missing something here?

[Scott B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

hi this is my first time writing on here, in regards to dalem saying the soviet smg was a nasty lil bugger, i hope you meant literaly, it was far from a well crafted gun, and was commonly used in human wave attacks against fixed german positions in leningrad, the gun was awful, but deployed in wave attacks it did its job simply by spraying bullets at the enemy with the cost of many soviet lives <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Odd then that those same submachineguns were so popular with the Germans, don't you think?

[offtaskagain]

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

Has anyone noticed in the screenshot of CMBB at CMHQ, the one with the T-34/85's and the infantry, that one of the squads are selected, and it shows 11 men, but on the weapon breakdown, I'm only counting 8, 2smg's

1 AR, 4 rifles and one other i dunno?

Does that mean there are some guys running around in that squad unarmed? or am i missing something here?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BTS has said the weapons count graphics are just placeholders, not the real thing.

[Ts9]

The SVT-40 and the BAR are very similar in lenght, but the Browning is a much heavier weapon than the SVT-40, weighing twice as much. The SVT-40 comes in at about 9 pounds with ammo, the BAR at 20 with ammo. The SVT-40 was semi-automatic, the AVT-40 was both full or semi-auto. I think the SVT-40 would be better compared to the Garand as a semi-auto infantry rifle rather than to the BAR as a squad support weapon. The draw back to the SVT was its light construction (The Garand just feels much more "substantial") and a gas system that must be kept very clean to function properly. I've been told captured SVT's were popular with the Germans who lacked a semi-auto rifle of their own.

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

hi this is my first time writing on here, in regards to dalem saying the soviet smg was a nasty lil bugger, i hope you meant literaly, it was far from a well crafted gun, and was commonly used in human wave attacks against fixed german positions in leningrad, the gun was awful, but deployed in wave attacks it did its job simply by spraying bullets at the enemy with the cost of many soviet lives <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Chef-

What I meant when I said that the PPsH was a "nasty little bugger" was that I have read that it was extremely effective at its job, which was to reliably spray lots of bullets in the vague direction of a close-ranged enemy for a good price. I do think it was very 'well-crafted' for said mission.

(Personally I respect what the Red Army achieved without admiring their methods. But it's not like they had a lot of choices.)

And as it turns out, looks like I got everything right the first time except for my DShK/DPM gaff - woo hoo!

-dale

[ 10-04-2001: Message edited by: dalem ]

[Slapdragon]

One thint you will likely see more than urban legend would have it is the SVT 38 / 40. With over 6 million made (4 million on hand at wars start) they were the back bone of the northern Russian units. Germans who captured them would use them in place of the K98 because they wre good rifles (just expensive). The Russian plan was to equip every soldier in its army with the rifles, but they had only finished part of the army by barbarosa.

By 1943 the SVT was relegated to use by squad leaders because there was too few of them and production had tapered off.

The Germans captured more than a half million of these rifles, and used them as long as they had ammunition for them.