Underrated and Overrated Small Arms in CM

[Warmaker]

Question to our firearms history gurus here: Before the introduction of the HK G3 rifle, didn't the Germans want the Belgian FN FAL as their service rifle?

[Slapdragon]

Not only did they want it, it was adopted as the G2 and used in limited numbers until it was retired when the G3 was introduced.

Germany basically supported the NATO standard rifle program, which is why they and England adopted the FAL (which had more teething problems than anyone can believe. People speak with love and fondness about it now, but when it first came out it was soundly hated).

When the US backed out of the NATO standard rifle and tank systems, Germany, disapointed at the FAL in service, dumped it for the superior G3 from the new arms company Heckler and Koch. The French had already turned their nose up at the FAL, and also turned their nose up at 7.62x51mm, choosing instead the 7.5mm French round fired out of the SAFN. The rest of NATO but the US and Italy adopted the FAL. Italy adopted the excellent BM-51 after carrying 7.62x51mm M1s for several years, while the US adopted the M-14 which was a complete failure in services, and whose production was ended in 1962 by Defense Secretary McNamara, leaving some US forces, primarily the Navy, National Guard, Army Reserve and training formations using the Garand until the end of the 1970s.

The G2 was kept in reserve for some time by the Germans, but since they had never had very many of the weapons it was really not even issued for training, so it is less common for reservists from the 1950s and 1960s to have used the weapon.

[lcm1947]

Quote:

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

while the US adopted the M-14 which was a complete failure in services,

--------------------------------------------- Why was it a failure? The cartridge or because of the rifle itself? Any details would be appreciated as I find this interesting having used the old M14 myself not that I liked it either.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947:

Quote:

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

while the US adopted the M-14 which was a complete failure in services,

--------------------------------------------- Why was it a failure? The cartridge or because of the rifle itself? Any details would be appreciated as I find this interesting having used the old M14 myself not that I liked it either.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The M14 was to light to replace the BAR (casuing the M-60 to migrate down to the squad where it was not really suited) and did not have the firepower or suppressive power of its main opponent, the AK-47 / AKM.

The M14, according to the McNamara report, was "less reliable than other weapons in its class, harder to maintain, more expensive, harder on logistics, and more difficult to produce". Attempts to solve its problems led to brick walls.

Of course, when the M16 came out, everyone fondly remembered the M14 (just like the IW and the FAL0, but it has to be remembered it was pulled from production after only an eigth of the weapons planned were made. Its SAW version, the M15, was never produced in quantity because it was impossible to fire, and the proposed M14A1 never saw issue because it never solved the basic issues with the rifle.

The only place the M14 made any headway was in Vietnam with the issue of the M-21, a sniper version of the M-14NM (National Match) originally developed for service rifle competition. The M-21, in the hands of a skilled soldier, not being dragged through mud, bagged around in an APC and the like, proved to be almost as accurate as the various bolt guns in use. Its post M16 popularity mostly comes from its use as a sniper or target rifle.

[SenorBeef]

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

Not only did they want it, it was adopted as the G2 and used in limited numbers until it was retired when the G3 was introduced.

Germany basically supported the NATO standard rifle program, which is why they and England adopted the FAL (which had more teething problems than anyone can believe. People speak with love and fondness about it now, but when it first came out it was soundly hated).

When the US backed out of the NATO standard rifle and tank systems, Germany, disapointed at the FAL in service, dumped it for the superior G3 from the new arms company Heckler and Koch. The French had already turned their nose up at the FAL, and also turned their nose up at 7.62x51mm, choosing instead the 7.5mm French round fired out of the SAFN. The rest of NATO but the US and Italy adopted the FAL. Italy adopted the excellent BM-51 after carrying 7.62x51mm M1s for several years, while the US adopted the M-14 which was a complete failure in services, and whose production was ended in 1962 by Defense Secretary McNamara, leaving some US forces, primarily the Navy, National Guard, Army Reserve and training formations using the Garand until the end of the 1970s.

The G2 was kept in reserve for some time by the Germans, but since they had never had very many of the weapons it was really not even issued for training, so it is less common for reservists from the 1950s and 1960s to have used the weapon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, this isn't true - The germans were very interested in the FAL.. but belgium - through genuine fear, or grudge refused to sell them the license to build it. Only then did they turn to the CETME design of Spain (by some germans who fled after the war) and turned it into the g3.

Oh, and btw - the FAL was originally supposed to support one of the newer intermediate cartridges (.280 enfield? I can't remember) - but it was pushed into a 7.62 by the US adherence to the round.

[JunoReactor]

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

Mikhail Timofeevich Kalashnikov

Over 70 million sold!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, this is the guy whose little toy has imprinted its image onto the second half of the 20th century and beyond. Wow.

[Slapdragon]

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

Actually, this isn't true - The germans were very interested in the FAL.. but belgium - through genuine fear, or grudge refused to sell them the license to build it. Only then did they turn to the CETME design of Spain (by some germans who fled after the war) and turned it into the g3.

Oh, and btw - the FAL was originally supposed to support one of the newer intermediate cartridges (.280 enfield? I can't remember) - but it was pushed into a 7.62 by the US adherence to the round.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the FAL always was designed for what was then called the T30 NATO standard cartridge. The British had an alternative round, .280 Enfield, based actually on the .276 Petersen round, but it was never used in any weapon except the Enfield Personal Weapon System, a completely admirable weapon that looks just like the current British IW.

I was not aware that FN refused HK the license on the FAL. HK produced maybe 10 thousand of the weapons, but I have no information on the assembly line, so it is possible they built from parts. Certianly FN sold the rights to its designs to every other country in barking distance. Of course the NATO standard GPMG, the MAG-58, was refused by German because it was already producing the MG-1 (MG-42 in 7.62x51mm) and this caused problems, multiplied by the fact that the US went and adopted a slightly less reliable GPMG, the M-60 (now retired 40 years later in favor of the original NATO standard GPMG, the MAG-58).

[SenorBeef]

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

No, the FAL always was designed for what was then called the T30 NATO standard cartridge. The British had an alternative round, .280 Enfield, based actually on the .276 Petersen round, but it was never used in any weapon except the Enfield Personal Weapon System, a completely admirable weapon that looks just like the current British IW.

I was not aware that FN refused HK the license on the FAL. HK produced maybe 10 thousand of the weapons, but I have no information on the assembly line, so it is possible they built from parts. Certianly FN sold the rights to its designs to every other country in barking distance. Of course the NATO standard GPMG, the MAG-58, was refused by German because it was already producing the MG-1 (MG-42 in 7.62x51mm) and this caused problems, multiplied by the fact that the US went and adopted a slightly less reliable GPMG, the M-60 (now retired 40 years later in favor of the original NATO standard GPMG, the MAG-58).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did a quick search to reinforce my point, and here:

http://www.gunsworld.com/belg/fal/fal_art_us.html

German Denial

West Germany purchased test lots of the FAL in 1957 and were very happy with the guns. They called their version the Gewehr- 1 or G1. The government had every intention of adopting the rifle to completely rearm the Bundeswehr, Germany’s defensive army.

However, when the Germans approached the Belgian management of FN to obtain a manufacturing license, it was summarily denied. It is pretty clear that the denial was the result of grudges held against the Germans for the Nazi invasion and occupation of Belgium.

The Germans began to look for other options and decided to go with the Spanish CETME rifle, which was based on German designs brought to Spain by refugees of the Nazi arms industry. The West German government easily obtained permission to manufacture and market the CETME rifle and soon had it in production by Rheinmetall and Heckler & Koch (HK) as the Gewehr 3 or G3.

HK marketed the G3 aggressively against the FAL. The G3’s major appeal was its relatively inexpensive tooling and the ease to manufacture in an unsophisticated or small industrial base. Also, licenses to manufacture it were easier and cheaper to obtain.

As a result of this aggressive marketing by HK, many countries that perhaps would have adopted the FAL, instead opted for the G3. Indeed, some 38 countries that purchased FALs ended up switching to G3s, not because the gun was necessarily better, but largely because it was cheaper.

Very likely, if the West Germans had been licensed to produce the FAL in the first place, they would have instead marketed the FAL around the world and the FAL would have dominated much more than it did.

Nevertheless, the FAL was still used by more nations than the G3, even though the G3 was manufactured in slightly more countries.

EDIT: Same article:

While the SAFN rifle was the approximate equivalent of the M1Garand, experience in World War II with the German 7.92mm Kurtz Stg44 assault rifle indicated, to many of the forward thinking arms designers, including Salve, that a selective fire assault rifle chambered for an intermediate cartridge was the infantry rifle of the future.

As a result, Salve took his well-proven SAFNN design, chambered it for the short 7.92mm Kurtz round, and reconfigured the rifle to have a readily detachable magazine, a straight line buttstock with a separate pistol grip, and a selective fire capability. This was the first version of the FAL.

---

Both the EM2 and the FAL were modified to chamber the U.S. T65 round as well as improved versions of tile British .280 round. In December 1953, following extensive testing both here and in England, a committee representing the newly formed North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) bowed to U.S. pressure and recommended the adoption of the .30 T65 cartridge. The next year it was officially adopted as the 7.62mm NATO.

Thus, because of U.S. pressure and influence, the FAL evolved from a lightweight, selective fire, assault rifle firing an intermediate cartridge to a full-size battle rifle firing a cartridge ballistically equivalent to the .30-‘06.

---

In effect, the FAL—which promised to be a truly superior selective fire assault rifle chambered for a 7mm cartridge—became a much bigger and heavier conventional rifle firing a full-powered rifle round.

Our insistence on the .308 doomed the FAL to a reputation as a poor weapon for full-auto fire. Indeed, many if not most FALs were manufactured as semi-auto because they were uncontrollable on full automatic because of the substantial recoil of the .308.

[ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: SenorBeef ]

[Slapdragon]

This was a mistake on my part, the G-2 was the StG-58 and not widely adopted, the G-1 was the FAL. Ellis puts the failure to adopt G-1 as a quality and political issue, which does not rule out problems with Belgium.

[Triumvir]

Incidentally, did FG42s make it into CMBO? When looking at FJ squads, MP44s seem to replace FG42s. Since the FG42s fire a 7.92x57 cartridge, I'd think that they'd be slightly better at long distance than the MP44s.

Admittedly, there were only about 7000 made, but that should have been enough for at least a few to make it into CMBO timeframes.

Or is this an abstraction, since the two were somewhat similar?

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Incidentally, did FG42s make it into CMBO? When looking at FJ squads, MP44s seem to replace FG42s. Since the FG42s fire a 7.92x57 cartridge, I'd think that they'd be slightly better at long distance than the MP44s.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think it made it, to bad it was used quite a bit by the FJ, the Allies captured alot of FG42's makeing it appear that it was more common then it was.

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Triumvir]

A shame... but that would make FJs even more gamey meatgrinders than they already are.

I still recall seeing veteran FJ squads with a +2 Combat leader putting nearly 400FP onto some poor British squads in the open...

Incidentally, for those of you who collect Dragon miniatures, I saw two new FJ figurines recently; one from KG Hansen (the FJs riding on KTs) and one from the Caen timeframe.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

I don't think it made it, to bad it was used quite a bit by the FJ, have a photo of an FJ Squad in the Monte Casino ruins with 2 FG carrying FG42s.

Regards, John Waters<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to Ezell, only about a thousand were made, and they were not widely issued. They are often admired ( The US loved the idea of the full-sized cartridge) but they were not liked by the paratroopers who were assigned it. Firing them automatic was difficult, they were not hammers like the US BAR and required a lot more TLC, and were soon in any lost in action, several hundred alone being captured in Italy in 43.

I do not know if this swayed BTS or not. The paratroopers certainly still had a few of these weapons around in 1944, and as we know about the Germans, they used anything.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

According to Ezell, only about a thousand were made, and they were not widely issued. They are often admired ( The US loved the idea of the full-sized cartridge) but they were not liked by the paratroopers who were assigned it. Firing them automatic was difficult, they were not hammers like the US BAR and required a lot more TLC, and were soon in any lost in action, several hundred alone being captured in Italy in 43.

I do not know if this swayed BTS or not. The paratroopers certainly still had a few of these weapons around in 1944, and as we know about the Germans, they used anything.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've read varying reports on how the FG felt about the FG42, some luved it some hated it I dunno bout the auto comments as it was designed to fire full auto with a closed bolt & open bolt in semi to allow the barrel to cool off & it fired a full power round unlike the MP44. Reminds me of the M-16 that required TLC to especialy in sandy enviroments .

Hogg states it was doubrful if as many as 7000 were ever produced. Either way the Allies captured some in Italy,France & on the Russian Front.

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-06-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Slapdragon]

Ok -- here is something odd, everyone has a different idea of how many where made during the war:

Rhienmetal (the prime contractor) 1000

Ezell: 5000 ordered

Hogg: 7000

Dockery: Not a common weapon (?)

Go figure

[Mr. Johnson--]

I was asking about this the other day.

Actually it seems more like a BAR to me. Jumbo pray and spray. But if it used the same round as the STG44, why use it? Only held like 20 rounds right?

[Triumvir]

But that's the point; it used a full power rifle cartridge. And presumably it wasn't a spray and pray weapon because of that.

In any case, spray and pray is a terrible idea. The CW idea of individual marksmanship is far, _far_ more effective, especially when combined with the USAn idea of massive artillery support.

[Slapdragon]

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

But that's the point; it used a full power rifle cartridge. And presumably it wasn't a spray and pray weapon because of that.

In any case, spray and pray is a terrible idea. The CW idea of individual marksmanship is far, _far_ more effective, especially when combined with the USAn idea of massive artillery support.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was like the Bar, but it only massed 4.5 kilograms. At that mass, it had a large muzzle rise. It was lighter than the M-14, but fired a cartridge with more muzzle energy. The M-14 was rarely used full auto because it was to light.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Ok -- here is something odd, everyone has a different idea of how many where made during the war:

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What preytell is odd about that

Regards, John Waters

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Johnson-<THC>-:

I was asking about this the other day.

Actually it seems more like a BAR to me. Jumbo pray and spray. But if it used the same round as the STG44, why use it? Only held like 20 rounds right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was selective fire, with an 20rnd Mag. Oddly eneough the magazine feed was on the left side so it caused unbalance, & thats about the one thing that hasn't been copied off the design. It fired a 7.92 X 57 round at 2,495ft/sec(760m/sec)with a cyclic rate of 750rpm.

Regards, John Waters

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

What preytell is odd about that

Regards, John Waters<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just that it was not some top secret device. Rhienmetal bases its claim of a thousand on the number of serial numbers stamped. Everyone else bases them on some form of Luftwaffe records, either for the numbers ordered, reported on hand at some point, or projected.

The Germans were so anal they counted condoms issued to Blue Division troops and kept the damn records, so that now we can judge the individual prowess of companies in that unit by their "consumption" of this expendable item. But they failed to keep clear track of how many damn FG42s they had. Makes no sense.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Just that it was not some top secret device. Rhienmetal bases its claim of a thousand on the number of serial numbers stamped. Everyone else bases them on some form of Luftwaffe records, either for the numbers ordered, reported on hand at some point, or projected.

The Germans were so anal they counted condoms issued to Blue Division troops and kept the damn records, so that now we can judge the individual prowess of companies in that unit by their "consumption" of this expendable item. But they failed to keep clear track of how many damn FG42s they had. Makes no sense.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL don't get me started on anal record keeping I have some interesting data the US Army compiled on VD cases mess tin issue & other junk lying around here somewhere .

As to the numbers nothing realy new their half the SA authors cant even agree on MP38 -40 production numbers or MG34 - 42 production for that matter either.

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-06-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Mr. Johnson--]

"The Germans produced the widest range of special and modified items for their Airborne troops. The most famous item was the FG-42, a gas operated semi-automatic rifle made only for the Airborne. Only about 10,000 were made. It was an advanced design that fired full automatic from an open bolt - for cooling - and semi-automatic from a closed bolt - for accuracy. The weapon had a small bipod and fed from a 20 round magazine on the left side. It weighted nearly ten pounds fully loaded. It fired the full size 7.92 MM military round which was really too powerful for the weapon. Even with a bipod it was difficult to control when fired on full automatic."

Interesting, found it at Feldgreu.com