Strength of mg42 and mpp44

[Snake Eyes]

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

Supression is caused by the supressee worrying about getting hit...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think those suppressed are intimidated by more than that, especially when the incoming rounds are hitting things nearby. I agree that ROF is the most important factor in suppression and when targeted while in light cover the sound of impacting slugs and those passing overhead will send men to ground, no matter what the caliber. However, when targeted by a .50 cal while in a building or heavy woods and things start flying apart all around you at a magnitude significantly higher than expected, I would think that the terror of such a situation would be harder to overcome due to the chaos and damage being inflicted on said cover.

[Slapdragon]

Research shows that the suppressive effect of weapons is related to:

Rate of fire - this a curve, since twice the rate of fire does not equal half the chance of hitting the deck.

Training- Soldier training that teaches them to fire back while they duck effects this. A soldier that fires back is less suppressed.

Visibility of comrads- The more friends still in action a soldier can see, the more likely they will resist suppresion.

Size of the bullet fired is not an issue except that you cannot suppress someone who feels safe from fire, and a .50 cal can blow bigger chunks in walls.

[Snake Eyes]

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

Size of the bullet fired is not an issue except that you cannot suppress someone who feels safe from fire, and a .50 cal can blow bigger chunks in walls.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's my point. It's harder to find 'safe' cover when the power of the slug is tearing things apart, especially things that are protecting you from those incoming rounds. Men are going to seek better cover, in effect becoming sppressed as they do so.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snake Eyes:

That's my point. It's harder to find 'safe' cover when the power of the slug is tearing things apart, especially things that are protecting you from those incoming rounds. Men are going to seek better cover, in effect becoming sppressed as they do so.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is correct for people under some form of cover. Cover reduces suppression if it allows a method of firing back from some sort of safety. Take that safety away in the form of a 105mm direct fire howitzer firing at the brick wall you set up on, and suppression will occur much faster than if you pepper the guys with 9mm -- even though the two weapons may technically be just as dangerous.

[Username]

Suppression is also linked to the velocity of the weapon doing the firing.

A SMG firing at 900 RPM and a HMG firing at 900 RPM for equal bursts dont suppress the same.

The HMG is firing a supersonic bullet that even if it misses the target and just flys by, creates a very uncomfortable CRACK. It is physically felt as well as audibly scary.

The higher velocity bullet also kicks up more dirt, bark, stones, dust, etc. It also penetrates cover better as other mention.

Suppression is part of paying respect to a weapons system. When it snaps the whip, you go for cover.

Lewis

[Pak40]

MG42 gunner,

One thing that went into consideration, I think, was that the MP44 was not a very reliable weapon when compared to the MP40 and especially the Thompson. It is a beautiful looking weapon but it's actually made of cheap stamped metal parts.

Here's a quote from the HANDBOOK ON GERMAN MILITARY FORCES:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> This weapon has not proved very successfull because it is impossible to repair in the field and because of its poor firing characteristics. The stampings forming the gas cylinder and body casings are made of thin material and are very easily damaged. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This weapon deserves some respect because it was the first "Assault Weapon" but it was the Russians who improved it into the powerful AK47.

BTW, I play DOD also. Day of Defeat doesn't take into account weapon jams and poorly constructed casings. Believe me, if had your choice of a weapons that worked as well as the Thompson and and one the broke quite frequently, you'd choose the one that's reliable. Nothing's worse than getting killed while trying to fix your weapon.

[ 08-27-2001: Message edited by: Pak40 ]

[Hanns]

Originally posted by Pak40:

It is a beautiful looking weapon but it's actually made of cheap stamped metal parts.

Whoever wrote the summary on the StG45 doesn't know a thing about it. Gas Tube?!!? What the Hell is that? The StG45 uses a roller locked delayed blowback design. There is no gas operating rod like in a Garand or Ak-47. Cheap metal stampings?!?!? Die formed metal stampings are very strong and cheaper to make than milled receivers. The Russians were not able to successfully copy the German design after the war and therefor the first generation of AK-47s had a milled receiver. This increases the weight quite a bit and also drastically increases the effort required to manufacture it. I may be biased because I own a HK91 which is a direct decendant of the venerable StG45 but the supposed "cheap stamped parts" have gone on to become the G3 rifle and some of the most respected and widely used SMGs in the world; the MP-5. The part about the weapons being easily damaged is suspect also. Easily damaged in what context? In use as a club or pry bar? The wall thickness of most HK weapons is around .060" or 16 gauge. Not thin by my definition. I do agree that some WWII stamped weapons lacked in the accuracy and dependability area. This would include the Sten and M-3 greasegun. I've used a M-3 before and found the design to be lacking in many areas. Just because a weapon is made of stamped parts does not automatically make it inferior to milled or cast parts. It's the engineering and skill of craftmanship that determine the quality, both of which the Germans had and still have in obvious abundance. Hanns

[Hanns]

Originally posted by Snake Eyes:

[QB]

Take a look at this photo comparison of slug sizes. L-R: .50cal, 9mm, 7.62mm.

I think those might be 50 cal, 7.62mm and 5.56mm. No 9mm round I've even seen is of spitzer design with a boattail. Also a 9mm bullet is significantly shorter than a 7.62mm bullet. FWIW, Hanns

Edited because I found where that pic is from. The center round is a 9x90mm MEN round. Basically a shortened, necked down .50 BMG round that was designed for the WSG2000 sniper rifle.

[ 08-31-2001: Message edited by: Hanns ]

[Herr Jung]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40:

MG42 gunner,

One thing that went into consideration, I think, was that the MP44 was not a very reliable weapon when compared to the MP40 and especially the Thompson. It is a beautiful looking weapon but it's actually made of cheap stamped metal parts.

Here's a quote from the HANDBOOK ON GERMAN MILITARY FORCES:

This weapon has not proved very successfull because it is impossible to repair in the field and because of its poor firing characteristics. The stampings forming the gas cylinder and body casings are made of thin material and are very easily damaged.

[ 08-27-2001: Message edited by: Pak40 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, well, do I sense a bias here? When we are talking about the US Army's official take on German weaponry, we are inevitably fed with the cliche "MG42 bark is worse than its bite," "MG42's cheap metal stampings and loose specs are indicative of the material strain the Germans are experiencing," etc. To them, it is obvious that .30 cal. Browning is better than MG42, Colt .45 is better than P08/P38, Grease gun is better than Thompson is better than Schmeisser (MP38/40), etc.

MP44 was also one of the most underrated and misunderstood weapons by the US Army which could not embrace the concept of selective fire assault rifles using reduced power rifle rounds until much later on. The German Army ventured ahead, and the troops using it - especially on the Eastern front - immediately saw its utility. Hitler later became a convert of the weapon, and christened it 'Sturmgewehr.' I don't know what the heck "poor firing characteristics" means.

The fact of the matter is that metal stampings are the way to go for military small arms because milling chunks of steel blocks into intricate parts just is not cost effective. The cost and weight advantage of metal stamping construction is negated if the design and production flaws make it prone to breakage. The idea is to make it strong enough so it will survive most battlefield usage. I forgot which but several (US Army?) weapons going the way of metal stampings were considered to be failures because of sorely lacking stamping designs.

The accounts I've heard of front line soldiers actually using the MG42 and MP44 are nothing but positive. Some people who have handled the weapons later on claim MP44 cannot hit the side of a barn or that they are unreliable. A simple case of a weapon outliving its shelf life? Sure it may not be as reliable as MP40 or Thompson, but does that mean it was so unreliable as to become a liability (surely better than a Sten)? It's a quite an interesting subject that I'd appreciate hearing more of.

Herr Jung

[mg42 gunner]

Thanks for your posts guys but as i mentioned before this post is about strength of mp44 and mg42 not about supprresive fire and .50 cal ammunition

[Pak40]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Herr Jung:

Well, well, do I sense a bias here? When we are talking about the US Army's official take on German weaponry, we are inevitably fed with the cliche "MG42 bark is worse than its bite," "MG42's cheap metal stampings and loose specs are indicative of the material strain the Germans are experiencing," etc. To them, it is obvious that .30 cal. Browning is better than MG42, Colt .45 is better than P08/P38, Grease gun is better than Thompson is better than Schmeisser (MP38/40), etc.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neither I or the HANDBOOK OF GERMAN MILITARY FORCES said any of this. This book is was not a propaganda tool like what you mention above. It was an educational tool that was published before the war was even over. This book gives credit whrere credit is due, but it only had negative comments on the MP44.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Herr Jung:

MP44 was also one of the most underrated and misunderstood weapons by the US Army which could not embrace the concept of selective fire assault rifles using reduced power rifle rounds until much later on. The German Army ventured ahead, and the troops using it - especially on the Eastern front - immediately saw its utility. Hitler later became a convert of the weapon, and christened it 'Sturmgewehr.' I don't know what the heck "poor firing characteristics" means.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While the M1 Carbine is not in the same league as an assault rifle, it did use a shortened round and it did have versions with selective fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Herr Jung:

The fact of the matter is that metal stampings are the way to go for military small arms because milling chunks of steel blocks into intricate parts just is not cost effective. The cost and weight advantage of metal stamping construction is negated if the design and production flaws make it prone to breakage. The idea is to make it strong enough so it will survive most battlefield usage. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I completely understand why they used metal stampings. It was easy, cheap and fast. The handbook, however, views the stampings on the MP44 as thin and hard to fix on the battlefield. This is not the only source where I have read this.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Herr Jung:

I forgot which but several (US Army?) weapons going the way of metal stampings were considered to be failures because of sorely lacking stamping designs.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The grease gun didn't have the reliability(or the looks) that the Thompson did. What's your point? I think all countries at some point, developed cheap guns so they could easily be mass produced.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Herr Jung:

Sure it may not be as reliable as MP40 or Thompson, but does that mean it was so unreliable as to become a liability (surely better than a Sten)? It's a quite an interesting subject that I'd appreciate hearing more of.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was simply stating a possible reason why the MP44 doesn't have more firepower than the MP40 or Thompson(in CM)

[PJungnitsch]

I've got the 'Handbook on German Military Forces' as well, and although it is interesting as a snapshot of what the US Army (or at least what the person writing it for the US Army) thought at that point in time from the observations that were made up to then, by no means is it a definitive work. Some of it, like that of the MP-44 given, is, as far as I know, simply wrong.

But that was not the point of the Handbook. It was something thrown together quickly to give an idea of what the US would be facing in the last few months of the war, not meant to be the be-all and end-all.

[Herr Jung]

Since it looks like MP44 is getting the bum rap, I went to my source "German Automatic Weapons of WWII" by Robert Bruce:

... MKb42 machine carbine and subsequent developments were cheaply and quickly mass-produced from welded and riveted sheet metal stampings. They used a simple and hardy gas operating and bolt locking system that was exceptionally reliable despite soldier abuse and severe environmental conditions.

The remarkable battlefield effectiveness of these weapons came from a newly invented cartridge midway in power and range between 9mm pistol/sub-machine gun and 8mm rifle/machine gun ammunition. This unique gun and ammunition package gave the German rifleman a single weapon that could adequately (though not fully) perform many of the tasks previously assigned to specialized firearms. Battle reports from the civil war in Spain . . . "fire superiority" was decisive . . . troops either press forward or retreat, based on their instinctive perceptions of the effectiveness of their outgoing fire and that of incoming rounds. But mere volume was not enough, German observers insisted; the fire had to be "hard-hitting" as well.

Weighing almost 11lbs (4.9kg), it was rather on the heavy side but extremely sturdy, and simple to manufacture due to the sheet metal stampings ... reveals its inherent strength and reliability ... simplicity ... dust cover ... Manufacturing tolerances were purposely kept loose so that the weapon would continue to function reliably with minimal attention. Even so, field stripping is easily accomplished with the single take-down took issued, and cleaning is fast and simple.

It is easy to see why the weapon became a favourite of the Wehrmacht in Russia. More powerful, accurate, and a lot safer to handle than a sub-machine gun. Production contracts were soon awarded to several manufacturers, and thousands of the newly-designed Machinenpistole 43 began to find their way to the Eastern Front.

The effect on the morale of the soldiers lucky enough to receive these new weapons must have been spectacular. Its effectiveness and "soldier-proof" reliability instilled great confidence. The StG 44 - with its compactness, accuracy, selective fire capability, simplicity and economy of manufacture, and deadly efficient 7.92mm Kurz cartridge - was an outstanding combat and industrial success story. In spite of all dificulties more than 425,000 are said to have been manufactured; luckily for the Allies, less than one third of these are estimated to have reached the front line, most of them in the East.

The first open mention ... mid-1944 ... (US) Army's monthly "Intelligence Bulletin" ... the gun was rated as inferior to the woefully underpowered American M1 carbine, largely on the basis of the MP43's supposedly excessive weight, and was said to offer "no apparent advantage except for the slightly higher muzzle velocity." Shameless progaganda was not exclusively a German and Russian practice.

(discussing live fire testing)

recoil (light, as expected), muzzle jump (negligible), sound report (moderate), trigger release (as most modern assault rifles) ... slow, deliverate single shots ... acceptable group ... fast semi-auto ... not nearly as accurate as that of comparable weapons directly attributable to magazine as monopod ... full auto ... jagged upward right disgonals, confirming common tendency of all hand-held automatic weapons ... short full auto bursts were found to be impressively controllable, also when shap shooting from the hip (due to weight, ammo, cyclic rate, front heavy balance, good ergonomics, linear recoiling mass over the barrel, etc.) A lot of practical shooting experience had obviously gone into the original MKb design. ... several stoppages were experienced; all, however, were directly attributable to the 50-year-old steel cased ammunition, and to one dented magazine.

All told, the performance of this remarkable seminal design was soberingly impressive. Given that the weapon was of 1945 vintage, built under the worst possible conditions, and fed distinctly "utility grade" ammunition, it was impressive that it still functioned at all. That it shot so well is yet another testimony to the genius of Hugo Schmeisser.

Herr Jung

[PzKpfw 1]

The Handbook is a great table look at what the US thought they knew about German equiptment etc, at the time but by no means is it's data to be taken as set in stone as their are errors in the Handbook as many others have pointed out since it was released.

Regards, John Waters

[Marlow]

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

Originally posted by Pak40:

It is a beautiful looking weapon but it's actually made of cheap stamped metal parts.

Whoever wrote the summary on the StG45 doesn't know a thing about it. Gas Tube?!!? What the Hell is that? The StG45 uses a roller locked delayed blowback design. There is no gas operating rod like in a Garand or Ak-47. Hanns<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From the pictures of the StGw44 that I have seen, it sure looks like it is gas operated. What the heck is that thing above the barrel if it is not a gas tube?

[Slapdragon]

Having taken apart an StG-45 I can tell you it is most definately a gas operated weapon with the unlocking cycle started by gas tapped from the barrel. The G-3 is only a very distant cousing of the StG-45 series, although people mistake it for one because of its similar looks. In reality, the AK-47 is a linear descendent of the StG-45, while the G-3 derives from the CETME rifle design, and uses a set of rollers retarded by gas to hold back the recoiling bolt of the weapon -- completely different than the StG-45.

[Kurtz]

How did the StG 45 enter this discussion? It is an entirely different weapon than the StG44/MP44.

The StG44/MP44 have a gas operated action whereas the StG45 have a roller-locked action.

The StG45 later evolved into the G3, the StG44/MP44 is the ancestor of the AK-47 and many other assault rifles.

[Slapdragon]

It may have been the 44 we had a chance to take apart.

[Pak40]

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

Whoever wrote the summary on the StG45 doesn't know a thing about it. Gas Tube?!!? What the Hell is that? The StG45 uses a roller locked delayed blowback design. There is no gas operating rod like in a Garand or Ak-47. Cheap metal stampings?!?!? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong weapon, Hans. MP43 / MP44 is the topic of discussion.

[Hanns]

Whoops Need to pay better attention to the thread I guess........ Anyway, does anyone have a good link to German WWII weapons? Looking for full stats, pics of weapon broken down, weight, MV and all that good stuff. Most sites just have a general overview of the weapon not the grog info that I'm interesting in Thanks, Hanns

[Slapdragon]

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

Whoops Need to pay better attention to the thread I guess........ Anyway, does anyone have a good link to German WWII weapons? Looking for full stats, pics of weapon broken down, weight, MV and all that good stuff. Most sites just have a general overview of the weapon not the grog info that I'm interesting in Thanks, Hanns<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have pictures of the weapon I worked with, plus an overview written, if I ever get time to post it...

[JasonC]

"a good link to German WWII weapons"

http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust.htm

Despite the name, it covers rather more than just fausts...

[JasonC]

It is slightly amusing that the same folks crowing about the MP44 as the revolutionary rifle of the future because it is less than full power but selective fire, in the same breath diss the M-2 carbine as "hopelessly underpowered".

In fact the muzzle energy of the M-2 is ~87% of that of the MP44 (~1300J to 1500J) and well above that of true machine pistols. The muzzle velocities of the two weapons are nearly the same; the energy difference basically all comes from a larger, 125 grain bullet vs. 108 grains for the M-2. Both carry 30 round mags and have selective fire. The M2 is also considerably lighter. Its cyclic rate of fire was higher than that of the MP44, too.

The big advantage of the MP44 over the M2 is that its heavier bullet doesn't lose energy quite as rapidly with range. Both are effective beyond the range of machine pistols but lack the range of a full rifle. But the MP44 has a longer effective "medium" range. The "underpowered" M2 still hits as hard at 150m, in raw energy, as a .45 pistol does at point blank.

As for the question why the MP44 has the fp values it does in CM, I think it is reasonably clear it is meant to be the stand out favorite at ~100 yards. Which is where a lot of the fighting happens. The idea that that is where much of the -infantry- fighting happens, is at least half the point behind rounds with only 33-40% of the muzzle energy of full rifle bullets.

At the 250m window, the fp is lower than standard rifles, because the round is losing velocity. The relative performance is best in the window when accuracy still matters but rate of fire is coming to the fore. And undoubtedly, this is where much of the firing is supposed to be happening.

The 40m figure, below that for true SMGs, seems to have caused considerably confusion. It gets the same rating as the BAR. Part of the thought, it seems to me, is that with aimed bursts at longer range the main role of the weapon, it cannot afford to burn ammo so rapidly in close. I mean, SMGs do not face the ammo "demand" that either the MP44 or the BAR face.

The BAR is aided by others in the squad carrying ammo for it, by a bipod, and by full rifle muzzle energies. But those do not give it a higher fp than a submachinegun, at close range. Both weapon types must ration their clips over medium and short range fire. Comparatively speaking, the SMGs can "let themselves go" and just burn off whole clips when in close. Because the occasions when they will be so close aren't likely to be repeated or sustained.

The MP44 gunner has to stretch his 7 mags over all his 100m+ firing, as well as the close range stuff. He is presumably doing so by using shorter bursts, and trying to aim them better. You have to look at both range brackets, then you can see the point. The MP40 is 36 then 9, 45 between them. The MP44 is 34 then 12, 48 between them.

The two have similar total ammo loads, but the weighting of where they expend it is somewhat different. Of course, the longer bracket usually sees more firing time, as well, making it comparatively more important.

[ 08-31-2001: Message edited by: JasonC ]