Small Arms

[Junkie]

Hello, this is my first post!

I've been playing CMBB for about a year now, but one thing bothers me. I don't know what the in-game difference between various small arms is. How do MP-40 stats compare to MP-44 ones, for example?

Also, how do different rifle stats compare? This is worse for me since I have trouble telling apart the different rifle types at all.

So anyone have any information?

[ May 12, 2005, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: Junkie ]

[junk2drive]

Try this CMBBdb

[JasonC]

Select a unit. Hit enter. You get the firepower contributed by each of its weapon types, and the overall for the squad, at each of several ranges. If you just divide each number in that table by the number of weapons of that type, it is easy to see how much each is contributing. Do it for several different types of squads.

What you will notice is all the automatics have very high firepower at close range, so much that they are practically all of it at 40m. Semi autos like the US M-1 carbine have OK fp at those ranges, but it takes a lot of them to add up to what automatics get.

At ranges above 100m, on the other hand, none of the SMGs contributes anything. Squad fp at that range is dominated by the main MG type weapon, with all the rifles contributing the rest. The overall total is lower.

There are also national differences. For instance, with German squads the single excellent LMG provides much of the firepower at long range - and with 2 LMG squad types this is even more pronounced. With the US, on the other hand, the much weaker BAR contributes significantly, but there are so many decent M-1s they outweigh it.

At long range, the rifles are contributing a wee bit each, and the LMG carries as well as it can. But no squad infantry has much real firepower beyond 250-300m. Some HMGs carry better, though they suffer from being single weapons only. HMGs often have as much firepower as a full squad at long range, but only half as much at the 40-100m distances.

I hope this helps.

[Junkie]

Yes, thanks. I've been playing under the assumption that SMGs only worked at about 50m and in, and rifles at 400m and in, but stil not knowing if different SMGs had different stats or were just skins was bugging the hell out of me.

[Generaloberst Guderian]

The SMG firepower values are interesting, and personally, I disagree with some of them. For example, the MP40 from a Rifle '41 squad has a firepower rating of 36 @ 40m and 9 @ 100m. The PPsH on the other hand, has a rating of 50 and 11 respectively. Now I've fired both weapons personally, and don't think that these values accurately reflect each gun's capability. First off the PPsH is a very rapid fire weapon that shoots 7.62 x25mm Tokarev rounds from an open bolt. The ammunition is small enough that there really isn't any appreciable recoil, but that being said, it is not a terribly accurate weapon, and is difficult to fire in burst of less than 3-4 rounds. Furthermore, you find yourself working through the 35 round box magazines very quickly. Despite these inherent flaws, it is a very formidable weapon at close combat ranges. Were I writing these values, I would probably raise its close range firepower, but reduce its longer range effectiveness dramatically.

The MP40 on the other hand, is a very controllable and well rounded weapon that holds up pretty well over a longer set of distances than the PPsH. The 9x19mm Parabellum round is considerably heavier than the Tokarev ammunition and has less of a drop over range. The story of the Thompson and the M1911 proves that stopping power and lethality is an important consideration in combat and I would probably increase the firepower of the MP40 to reflect this. I would also increase its longer range power, as I know it would fare better at 100m that a PPsH.

In the end, both guns are very serviceable, and I'm not sure if one is clearly "better" than the other. Sometimes with the PPsH you get hit in the face with your spent casings, and the finish and quality of the weapon is generally lower overall, but there really isn't any gun I'd rather have in a close assault.

[JasonC]

The PPsH can be fired semi auto. It has a full shoulder stock. The round has far higher muzzle velocity - the energy of the round is that of a 357 magnum. WW II era 9mm rounds were not high power ammo, they had the energy of a 38. The ranged FP number is entirely correct. It is just a better weapon, period. Germans who captured them used them all the time. (Ammo wasn't a problem since the round is a copy of the mauser 30 cal).

[Wartgamer]

Many barrels overheated and would droop as this picture shows. This weapon, like JasonC, needs some Viagra.

[Generaloberst Guderian]

I really don't think its that clear cut. I know that Germans captured and used them all the time, but I really think that is just as much personal preference and field adaptation that it is a theoretcial advantage of one over the other.

For starters, muzzle velocity with small arms is not necessarily the biggest consideration, but rather muzzle velocity relative to the mass of the round. The 7.62 round naturally has a higher velocity as it weighs less while using only slightly less powder. Most 9mm ammuntion is 115+ grain, whereas all the Tokarev ammo I've seen is 85 grain, but it is much smaller. And while the muzzle velocity of the Tokarev round might be similar to that of the .357, the magnum round, take my word for it, is much heavier and is in a completely different class of ammunition. I've actually seen lever-action rifles that have been chambered to fire .357 and .44 magnum round that compare favorably to traditional Winchester .30-30 rifles. The Tokarev round on the other hand, is more or less just a pistol-type ammunition.

.38 ammuntion is actually larger and heavier than 9mm Luger, with .38 being generally 10-11 grams and 160 grain and 9mm being 7.5 grams and 115 grain

Regardless of all that, a full wooden stock is nice at times, but given the range of the weapon, isn't much more advantageous that the weight saved by the folding metal stock. The PPsH also fires from an open bolt and can go off if it is dropped, whereas most of the saftey issues in regards to premature firing in the MP38 were fixed in the MP 40. Another step that the Russians took to complement the high ROF was to develop the 71 round drum. I can tell you right now that they are difficult and time consuming to load with ammunition, are prone to getting filling with dirt and other debris, and are in general less reliable than the shorter stick/box magazines.

I'm not saying that the MP40 didn't have drawbacks--it did. What I am saying is that I think it was all in all a more well rounded firearm, even if it was outclassed by the PPsH in close combat.

[flamingknives]

Actually, JasonC said that the energy of the 7.62 was comparable to a .357 magnum.

As kinetic energy is .5*m*v^2, a small gain in velocity gives a much more significant increase in energy than an increase in projectile mass

[Generaloberst Guderian]

You're right, that is what he said. I apologize, there really isn't much point in arguing about such things anyway. The fact that the Russians produced 5x as many PPsH 41s than Germans did MP40's makes it a more successful weapon right there, so in the greater contex of the war, you are probably right on that count.

My assertion though, was not that one weapon was better than the other, and I acknowledged that both weapons had their own unique advantages and disadvantages. I simply don't think, that given what I know about both guns, and my experience with each, that German squads should get roughly 70% of the firepower from their SMGs when the disparities between the PPsH and MP40, if any, were not nearly as significant or as decisive as the disparity between the 98k and semi-automatic rifles such as the SVT-40 and the M1 Garand.

[JasonC]

Full 357 mag loads do go considerably higher, up to 900 joules. That is still much less than carbine ammo - even the M-1 had 1350, the MP44 1500, and AKs and M-16s are in the 2000-2400 joule range. A good +P modern 9mm round is comparable to the Tokarev, in the 500-600 joule range. Yes that is pistol ammo. It is just a bit better than the 300 joule range of small 32s and 38s pistols. I only mention it because some seem to think as a 30 cal that it is some wimpy .32 pistol round or something - it isn't. (Even 45 ACP supposedly renowned for its "stopping power" has only 600 joules. +P "hot" loads can raise that, but weren't used in WW II).

As for saving weight, the MP40 is heavier than the PPsH even with a full wood stock for the latter. The wood stock is much less likely to bend, and stabler when firing braced from the shoulder, which is important for 100m and over firing. So is semi auto, for better control. You wouldn't want to duel a rifle at range with one, but I'd rather shoot 100m with a full stock braced at the shoulder on semi, than hip fire it, auto, with a folding stock. At 25m who cares, but the question was long range. On the large drums, they may have been slow to reload but they also went twice as long before needing to change. But it is academic, since the Russians mostly used box mags half that size anyway, and certainly had them.

As for the PPsH higher point blank FP, that is pure ROF - 900 cyclic vs. 500. The same kind of edge the German LMGs had over Allied ones. That only matters very close with an SMG - nobody can keep up that rate. But it means in a snap shot situation, the PPsH throws more lead during a brief period of exposure. That it was simpler and more rugged are additional strengths, it didn't really have significant weak points as an SMG. Compared to a carbine or rifle, sure, but not compared to other SMGs of the day.

[Generaloberst Guderian]

Fair enough, those are all good points. The real difference at range, is as you point out, the semi-automatic fire, which was something I overlooked initially. Some of the later model PPsH did not have a selector switch and were full-auto only, as was the one I fired at the Greater Pittsburgh Gun Club. Until you pointed out the semi-auto feature I didn't realize that was one of the gun's capabilities. My real argument against the weapon was that without the selector switch, the weapon cylces too fast for really effective shooting at longer ranges, wheras the slower ROF (thanks to the telescoping closed bolt) of the MP40 makes burst firing easier when accuracy counts. Its slow enough that with a bit of trigger work you can fire one round at a time, much in the same way that soldiers could shoot a single round with the full-auto M1918 A2 BAR.

That, and getting sprayed in the face with hot cartridges isn't fun, no matter what you are shooting, and my guess is that most Russian soldiers were not wearing eye protection.

[Wartgamer]

The Germans did bother to convert captured PPsh to 9mm.

[Generaloberst Guderian]

I read several articles about that...seems to be a relatively easy process, although I had heard that one of the reasons for the conversion was that too many Germans carrying captured guns were being killed by friendly fire, as anyone who saw a PPsH shot on sight, namely due to fear of partisans etc. The 9mm coversion on the other hand used the straight MP-40 mag, which was quickly recognizeable to all German soldiers and helped mittigate the problem.

Damn its early in the morning.

[JasonC]

Not remotely all of them. As goes without saying, to all but the trolls.

[MikeyD]

"...killed by friendly fire"

I've heard of more than one story of panicky soldiers firing blindly in the direction of a sound. Fear of attracting fire was one of the reasons for the seeming inability to get many U.S. G.I.s to use their firearms during a battle (according to one study). If you're a German firing a Russian firearm you might fool the enemy into hesitating before firing on you - but you're more likely to fool your German comrades to fire blindly in your direction.

[Bigduke6]

Some things to remember about about the Shpagin SMG:

1. According to the people that should know - Red Army infantrymen - the really important thing about the Shpagin was that it was utterly reliable. Jams were almost unheard of, and the weapon would operate in the worst conditions. The weapon at least according to Red Army tradition could take miles more abuse than say the MP40, never mind the Tommy gun. The most accurate weapon in the world doesn't do you much good if it won't shoot.

2. The picture above is of a test-model Shpagin designed for shooting around corners. It looks funny but according to the reports it worked. Thing was Red Army ordnance thought about it and decided grenades did the same job a whole lot easier.

3. The point to the weapon was big volumes of close range fire, for which you need not just reliability and a high cyclic rate, but of course ammo. Any one out there know how much a PPsh cartrige weighed as opposed to a MP40 cartidge? I bet if you have to carry the ammo, PPsh gives the carrier a good deal more firepower

4. The Soviets produced the 70-round drum first and only later in the war went to conventional magazine. Reason was weight; the PPSh is a very dense chunk of mass with a full drum in it. I have tried to quick-point the weapon loaded with magazine and drum, and frankly I don't want to be snap-shooting with the drum.

[Wartgamer]

Many Soviets captured and used MP40. I doubt it was worth thier while to convert them.

It would be interesting to know the velocities of the two bullets at 100m and 200m. The lighter bullet may actually scrub off more velocity than the heavier one. It may actually be more subseptible to wind effects.

I would think that captured PPsh converted to 9mm would be meant as 'long-term' personal weapons for the German soldiers. Captured 'stock' PPsh could be used as expediant weapons for crews or to bolster a defense (each position gets a 'final-fire' capability in addition to its regular carbine or other weapon).

[Foreigner]

Just quick point to supplement Bigduke6's excellent post...

According to Soviet memoirs I've read, the 71-round drum magazine was introduced (some claim - on the personal insistence of Stalin himself) as a result of the bitter experience of being on the receiving end of Finnish SMG fire in the Winter War, and was modeled on the drum magazine of the "Suomi" SMG. However, the major complaint about the drum seems not the weight, but the fact that it jutted sideways and thus impeded crawling - therefore, pre-1943 recon detachments of the Red Army had more preference for the German models. Starting in 1943, the Soviets actually had a choice of two box-magazine SMGs - the PPS-43 and the redesigned PPSh-43. The former, being lighter, simpler, and foldable, went mainly to vehicle crews; apparently, the mainstream infantry units by and large still preferred the large ammo capacity of the drum magazine, while the recon elements went for the box.

One other thing to note is that for Soviet WWII small arms to come to Pittsburgh, that would have been a long, and probably tortuous, journey. The gun "Guderian" describe smost likely had taken part in at least one "proxy conflict" after 1945, and endured harsher than average treatment, which will probably degrade its performance. Unless, of course, it's a replica or a copy, but then all bets (and arguments) are off. Herr Generaloberst, it would be interesting to learn the history of that gun!