MP44

[coe]

Hey are there any anecdotes about the effectiveness of the Sturmgewehr 44 (i.e. it saving the day like an M-1 Garand might have, etc. etc.)

Conan

[Fishu]

It's said it could've made the war much longer if it would been in bigger numbers and earlier (aka full hitlers support instead of development in secrecy)

[ May 02, 2003, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: Fishu ]

[MikeT]

I do remember the story of when Hitler first heard of the new gun.

There is a staff briefing and Hitler asked his generals is there is anything else they need.

One spoke up and mentioned how great the new rifle is (was) and if he could get more?

Hitler, look around and asked, what new gun?

The other generals had to brief him rather quickly on the rifle and why he didn't know anything about it.

Would love to have seen that discussion.

MikeT

[Michael Dorosh]

I thought the reason MP 44 had two designations (Sturmgewehr 44 and MP 44) was because of Hitler's intervention in the earliest design phases.

Does anyone honestly believe the bolt action rifle was the sole reason for Germany's loss in WW II? They could have all had assault rifles, it wouldn't have mattered a damn in the long run.

EDIT - from Hofbauer's Panzerfaust site:

These were to be kept secret from the high command, especially Hitler himself, as he was a strong opponent to the idea not the least because he feared the large-scale introduction of yet another ammunition type. Hitler nevertheless found out about the limited production and ordered the it to be halted immediately.

However, development continued under the cover of an alibi project of producing a carbine for the accepted Mauser rifle ammunition at the company Gustloff. Several aspects of the Walther Mkb 42(W) were incorporated, the gas-operated mechanism was improved and the weapon was given the designation Maschinenkarabiner 43 (G) for the company Gustloff, again to deceive Hitler.

Like the chicken bone the witch is shown in Hänsel & Gretel, Adolf was always shown the official Mkb 43(G) that was designed for the regular Mauser 7.92mm rifle cartridge. The weapon that used the actual Kurzpatrone was simply called MP 43 machine pistol in the hope that Hitler would see this as a submachine gun.

Eventually the truth surfaced and Hitler ordered the project stopped. However, in the meantime the army that had used these weapons in the trials was so enthusiastic about this new weapon that they eventually succeeded in convincing Hitler to produce the weapon as a replacement for the MP 40. First large-scale use of this new weapon was with the 93rd ID in the northern sector of the eastern front. After small changes the weapon was called MP 44.

It was not until July 1944 when several Division commanders personally begged Hitler in his headquarters that the weapon was given production priority. In December of that same year the weapon was given the suggestive name Sturmgewehr or Sturmgewehr 44, abbreviated StG 44 or StGw 44.

[ May 02, 2003, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Warmaker]

Edited: Don't need to repeat something that's already been said.

[ May 03, 2003, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: Warmaker ]

[Franko]

I have one. Its bitchen'.

[tracer]

Yeah, got a buddy that I bought a G-43 sniper rifle off of, and he has a firing MP 44, sweet shooting little bugger. The G-43 shoots acurate as hell, compared to my SVT-40 russian auto rifle, I would take the G-43 auto rifle any day. But if the germs could've issued out more MP-44s thw allies would of had a real problem. I have fired the thompson sub, and sten 9mm (I own one) and the M1 garand. The Germans really had the better weapons the way I see it. The russians had some all right ones. I have fired the Mosin Nagant rifle and the PPsh sub gun, and they seem kinda short comming in the accuracy part, but if I were to rate the weapons I would put the germans first, the U.S. second, The rusians and U.K. about the equal. But some might disagree after firing them. As far as the french, italians, well I have a MAS 36 and a Carcano rifle, and I would put them below U.K. and russia, but above the japanese, because the type 99 rifle I have shoots alright but is a little clunky. And the Nambu pistol just plain out sucks, (I sold it).

[Snowbart]

There is no way in hell that the MP-44 would've prolonged the war. The rifle would've helped the fighting chances of the men, but it's an extreme long shot to think it by itself could have prolonged the inevitable.

[tracer]

why hell no it couldn't prolong it, not at the late stage it was introduced in the war, but like the V-2 rocket, and jet, if they would have been introduced earlier in the war, yes they could have prolonged it. But crap IF, is a big word, if Hitler would'nt have been a complete lunatic, millions of innocents would'nt have died either, or there would'nt have been a WWII for that matter.

[Snowbart]

Very true Tracer. Yes, if the ban on jet developement had not been in place and they could have been around much earlier, that would have made a huge difference. Also, if Doenitz had had his way and all Naval production concentrated on medium U-boat production would be another "what if". Germany only had 52 boats at the start of the war, but could easily have had 300. In all of 1939, I believe only 6 boats went to sea. I am pretty sure England could have been knocked out if there were that many boats at sea in the early years, before effective countermeasures were developed.

Another big "what if" that I feel would have made a huge difference, is if the Japs had attacked Russia from the East in '41. Allies help each other out, right? Once it was clear they were not a threat, Stalin released all those Siberian divisions to the west, and we all know the rest.

[Michael Dorosh]

If the Germans managed to win from 1939-1941 with bolt action rifles, and if the Allies managed to win (Americans excepted) from 1944-45 with bolt action rifles, why should we believe that self loading rifles would have spelled the difference between victory and defeat for the Germans?? :confused: :confused:

[Fishu]

In russia, had the MP44 been developed quicker, instead of in secrecy behind Hitlers back and then mass produced immediately, it could've done a big difference.

Which one is better at shooting alot of people, a rifle or an assault rifle? :>

and most resources were used in east.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Fishu:

In russia, had the MP44 been developed quicker, instead of in secrecy behind Hitlers back and then mass produced immediately, it could've done a big difference.

Which one is better at shooting alot of people, a rifle or an assault rifle? :>

and most resources were used in east.

And how many riflemen actually fired their weapons in combat? SLA Marshall thought he had the answer, but there are serious doubts about his findings.

Strome Galloway, on the other hand, suggested that his riflemen - he commanded British troops in North Africa as a company commander, and Canadian troops in Sicily, Italy and Holland as a company commander and sometime battalion commander - could have fought to and arrived on the objective with pitchforks, for all the difference it would have made. The Lee Enfield could be fired accurately and quickly, but it simply wasn't a factor in directly inflicting enemy casualties, as he saw it. He himself carried a revolver, and used it exactly once, despite seeing very vicious fighting with his men. He shot a barking dog at the start line of a battle that was unnerving him.

An understanding of squad and section level tactics necessarily leads one to the conclusion that it was the light machine gun that did most of the killing. Certainly, casualty statistics will show most injuries among front line riflemen were due to artillery or machine guns. Bayonets accounted for less than 1 percent; I would tend to believe rifle fire would have been little higher, but am open to correction. There are problems with the way this data was collected, also, as I presume it was garnered from those who lived long enough to be evacuated to the field hospitals to be counted - the dead, or those wounded lightly enough that they did not go back beyond the aid station for medical attention would not be included.

The rifleman's job in combat was not to be a super-sniper; he got in close, with the section's machinegun providing suppressive fire, so he could use grenades, or the section leader could rake the enemy with a tommy gun. I don't know that Hollywood has ever gotten this right (though check out the scene with Robert Blake in Pork Chop Hill), and I've never been in combat myself. I do remember our section battle drills on my basic training, with the climax of the assault on prepared positions being the lobbing of grenades, after a careful tactical advance under the cover of the section machine guns. We used SLRs, but only to keep the enemy's head down while we got within grenade range.

If the rifle was chiefly a security blanket, I don't suppose it mattered much if it fired 5 rounds single action, or carried 28 rounds which could fire semi-automatically.

Unless of course my understanding of section and squad tactics is all wrong - in which case I look forward to being corrected.

Of course, this all ignores the other factors in the equation of why the war was won or lost; I won't go into the obvious economic disparaties between the Third Reich and their enemies, that has been done well before.

But on its own merits, the idea that the type of rifle might have mattered is, in my opinion, unsupportable. Accurate rifle fire just wasn't a huge contributor to battlefield casualties. If a machinegun firing 1200 rounds per minute isn't providing your 9 man section enough firepower, I'm not sure what would?

Let's look at a typical situation:

If your German platoon is moving on an advance to contact, and comes under fire from a section plus of enemy infantry - when does the battle end, and how?

Does anyone wish to suggest that the German platoon should simply order its riflemen to lie flat, pick their targets, and end the firefight by killing every Russian?

I don't think that platoon commander would last long in his job. I don't know what the German contact drills were, but I should imagine the thing to do would be to get the machineguns firing in the direction of the enemy firing.

The battle will end when one of several things happens

a) the enemy pulls out

the platoon commander orders his platoon to withdraw

c) the platoon commander sends his men forward to get in close, preferably via the flank or using terrain to his advantage. In this instance, the tommyguns and grenades will likely decide the outcome. The enemy may be killed, but more likely they will realize they are being flanked and withdraw, or surrender.

The platoon commander may well decide to call down artillery, if any is available, or use the platoon mortar to fire HE or smoke at the enemy. He may send back for tank support, if he is really lucky.

I have a hard time envisioning a shootout, OK Corral style, with German riflmen blazing away especially against dug in Soviet troops who were, as the Germans admitted time and again, masters at camouflage and concealment.

Though again, if anyone can produce an after action report that goes into this level of detail or scale, I would be interested in reading it.

[ May 05, 2003, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Fishu]

I'm only wondering how you got to such conclusions from my post :>

An assault rifle is kind of a machinegun, at it's ranges.

Better to assault defensive location with assault rifle than single shot rifle, regardless of the machinegun.

Same was true with SMG, but it lacked the range badly, whereas an assault rifle gave it the range.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Fishu:

I'm only wondering how you got to such conclusions from my post :>

An assault rifle is kind of a machinegun, at it's ranges.

Better to assault defensive location with assault rifle than single shot rifle, regardless of the machinegun.

Same was true with SMG, but it lacked the range badly, whereas an assault rifle gave it the range.

And what was the typical range at which enemy soldiers could actually be seen and typically engaged by aimed fire?

[Troy Ilium]

Nahhhh....it wouldn't have made a difference. We would have dropped an atom bomb on them and the would have surrendered anyway.

Good rifle though!

[JonS]

Michael,

in general I agree with you, but don't overstate your case. Consider; there has to be some reason that every single professional army moved from bolt action rifles to semi-automatics during - or reasonably shortly after - WWII.

Regards

JonS

[Fishu]

Michael dorosh,

I'm not talking about great ranges.

Good example is comparing an SMG, AR and rifle squads in assault and defense.

Pretty surely AR's would be the best all around invidual weapon of the three.

Why else would there been complaints of SMG being too inaccurate at range and rifle lacking the firepower at closer ranges?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

Michael,

in general I agree with you, but don't overstate your case. Consider; there has to be some reason that every single professional army moved from bolt action rifles to semi-automatics during - or reasonably shortly after - WWII.

Regards

JonS

Good advice; I just don't see any evidence that Fishu has a solid grasp of what an infantry platoon actually does in action.

The Canadians went to Korea with bolt action rifles, and though many scrounged M-1 carbines, etc., it saw them through.

Militaries do a lot of things because it is a fad - such as camouflage clothing - not because they necessarily provide any overwhelming advantages. A lot of times, changes are made for morale purposes - not an insignificant reason for doing things, by any stretch of the imagination.

The "security blanket' aspect of the rifle can explain the adoption of the semi-auto rifle. Certainly, the American rifleman in Vietnam with a functioning M-16 on full auto felt much more secure in his ability to dominate his immediate area with his firepower, compared to the semi-auto M-14. But in brutally factual terms, did he actually kill any more Viet Cong with it? Or call in any less napalm or 105 strikes because of it?

I would suggest the issuance of assault rifles does indeed offer the soldier at the sharp end increased confidence in his own survival; as to increasing his lethality, I don't see him relying any less on machine guns for support, artillery fire to soften up the enemy, or grenades and automatic weapons fire for when the action truly gets to close quarters.

At the intermediate ranges; say 200 to 500 metres - does the additional firepower of the assault rifle really affect the section's job? I shouldn't imagine they would be absolved of the need to get in close; once there, no doubt the increased firepower is a nice to have. I am just wondering how often riflemen would be engaging other infantry at ranges of 0-100 yards with rifles of any description.

Can anyone affirm that this was a typical situation for combat infantry to be in?

It reminds me of the discussion that was made in FACE OF BATTLE, where the oft depicted cavalry charges of the Napoleonic era were discussed in very real terms, and found to be largely works of fiction. In the same brutally factual terms I am trying to examine infantry actions with here, it was seen that horses will refuse to run directly at human beings, especially human beings packed in square and bristling with bayonets. A cavalry attack on square usually resulted in the horses "lapping around the edges" - popular imagination notwithstanding.

So what is the reality of German infantry on the Russian Front in WW II? Were they particularly inclined to engage the enemy with their rifles? Maybe Guy Sajer has the answers?

Perhaps some after action reports by paratroop or SS units that did have SLRs or assault rifles issued in significant numbers would make mention of any practical benefits that these weapons provided? I have no such access to them.

As a gut reaction, though, I'd be disinclined to think that the already impressive volume of fire put out by the MG 42 (sometimes two per section by 1944, no?) would have changed the Allied ability to win battles. Bear in mind Allied doctrine was artillery based - see my thread on Allied tactics in Sicily, even the Germans realized that.

Also consider that a Ukrainian "volunteer" in Normandy with an MP 44 is no more of a threat than a Ukrainian volunteer in Normandy with a K98, if he is inclined to throw up his hands at the first opportunity in any event!

[ May 06, 2003, 01:01 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Fishu]

Michael dorosh,

Honestly, I still really don't understand what you're after for.

I've been all the time at loss what you're after.

and I wonder why you've highlighted western front so much in here, when most of the battles were fought in east, the area where MP44 made itself very useful.

[ May 06, 2003, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: Fishu ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Fishu:

the area where MP44 made itself very useful.

Can you give any kind of justification for this statement?

Your point was that wider issue of the MP 44 could have extended the length of the war.

I am of the opinion that riflemen in combat contributed little to actual casualty causation; artillery and machineguns were the primary cause of combat deaths and wounds.

You say that the MP 44 was "very useful."

Fine; define "very useful."

Were more Russian soldiers being killed by MP 44s than by K98s? Did units equipped with MP 44s hae better records? I am familiar with the technical specifications of the weapon, and the definition of what an assault rifle is.

Tell me what the actual observed practical benefits of the weapon were, and how widespread adoption of this weapon would have changed anything.

The main question here is - how often did German infantry actually engage in firefights with enemy infantry? And what effect did the fire of these German soldiers have on the outcome of battles?

Depending on the type of rifles the Germans were using, would the Russians have used any more or any less artillery on them?

How many battles were decided primarily by the fire of the riflemen? Can you think of a particular example in which the German infantry involved would have benefitted from self loading rifles vice bolt action rifles?

I am arguing that the type of small arms carried was largely irrelevant, for the reasons cited above. Can you prove that they were, in fact, relevant?

You've offered the opinion that not only were small arms types relevant, but in fact significantly relevant, and that the MP 44 might have extended the war. You've yet to say why with any kind of precision.

[ May 06, 2003, 01:24 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Some interesting info here

The final evolution was the German Sturm Squad, more usually equipped with the MP40, but intended to deploy the revolutionary Sturmgewehr assault rifle. Here, the Squad combined the advantages of the automatic weapon with the ability to engage accurately at up to 500 metres. Interestingly, the light machine (gun), the lynchpin of previous German tactical thinking, was removed from the Squad excepting the third in each Platoon. The belief was the leading Squads could cover their own advance sufficiently while the third detachment offered more conventional support.

The relatively small numbers of assault rifles actually deployed meant this tactic was of marginal consequence to the conduct of operations, but it had a profound effect on their development. Today, a typical Squad will field two Fire Teams, each based around a 'squad automatic weapon', while the remainder of the men are armed with assault rifles. The journey to this modern ideal began fifty years ago in the cauldron of World War Two infantry combat.

Interestingly, the article doesn't say that the consequence on operations would have been anything more than marginal had greater numbers been deployed, but it does seem to imply that.

It also doesn't comment on how successfully the assault riflemen were able to "cover their own advance" with the lMGs removed from two of the three squads.

In fact, the article is distressingly low on conclusions at all.

[ May 06, 2003, 01:44 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Snowbart]

The whole point is that the MP-44 wouldv'e been much appreciated by the men then using 98k's, and would have been much more effective in combat. But would this weapon have made a difference in the outcome of the war? Of course not.

Also, the men in the German squad's main job was to protect their squad MG. That is the whole foundation of German small unit organization. I do not agree that it doesn't matter if these guys have bolt actions or assault rifles. Certainly their job is to achieve fire supperiority , and you do this by laying down fire, which the MP-44 would do much better than the carbine. The MP-44 would simply help the squad to maintain that fire superiority and protect the MG much more effectively. I do agree that the MG's caused the vast majority of casualties inflicted by the sqaud.

[Franko]

I agree with just about everything Dorosh has said. I think its important (if somewhat hyperbolic) to point out that it really doesnt matter if your whole battalion is armed with MP44s if that same battlion is under observation by an American Officer with a radio and in communication with a battery (or four) of 105s. Remember Mortain: One officer at Mortain held off or disrupted, well, about three German mechanized divisions.

Of the zillions of pages I've read about WW2, I've come to a few truisms about weaponry: (1) submachine guns and grenades were preferred for close in fighting, especially if the SMG was jam-proof; (2) machineguns were preferred everywhere else; (3) when a machinegun was firing, everyone kept their head down until a bigger gun knocked out the machinegun. The MP44 doesnt really factor in there much.

F

[Fishu]

Michael Dorosh,

I believe that had Hitler authorized production of this whole new caliber weapon, it could been developed much earlier and produced in far larger quantities.

In russia there were alot soviet troops and soldiers were expected to shoot at them with rifles as well.

Not like there were MG42's put up in every corner and definately not like those soldiers with MP44 instead of MP40/Kar98 couldn't been more effective.

I'd say you're underestimating the effect of MP44 versus SMG/Rifle and giving too much job to do for MGs.

There hardly were units equipped with MP44's.. :>

It was more of a replacement for MP40 at the time.

and rifles are only one part of the fight, but sure, why the MP44 couldn't been more effective than a rifle, had it been wastly more numerous?

Earlier you also mentioned Korean war and carbine vs. rifle issue.

M1/M2 Carbine was less effective than MP44/StG44.

[ May 06, 2003, 02:04 AM: Message edited by: Fishu ]