MP44

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Fishu:

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

Based on what?

[Fishu]

well that is my belief, might not be yours.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Fishu:

well that is my belief, might not be yours.

Belief based on what? Personal experience? Readings? Stories from veterans? Pictures in a comic book? Just curious where your beliefs come from. It's one thing to state an opinion, it's far more interesting for me to hear someone explain why they feel that way - best way to learn something, if you ask me.

[SgtMuhammed]

One big thing to remember is that real combat is nothing like CM. In a real squad if you take 2 or 3 casualties you are pretty much stopped. You very rarely see the lone rifleman bravely advancing for the honor of his fallen buddies. More likely he is trying to keep at least some of them from bleeding to death, or is so scared he is behind a rock soiling himself. Casualty figures experienced in CM are much to high.

That aside one must consider that most fire wasn't to kill any specific target nor was it aimed. Enemy positions were located or guessed at and then rounds were sent in that direction. Most often the effect was to keep the enemy pinned down till heavier weapons could be brought to bear. Which is why those weapons, especially arty, account for a higher proportion of overall casualties. It is simply a matter of evolution of battlefield tactics. During the Napoleonic era the musket, and later the rifle, reigned supreme. This was in large part because of the technical state of weaponry at the time. Arty wasn't the terror it would become so soldiers COULD stand and face it like a man, so to speak. As weapons became more effective tactics changed.

While there is only so much you can do with small arms there is much more room for improvement with larger weapons with bigger shells. Rates of fire of infantry weapons dictated the change in the weapons used. Rifles were only adopted when they could match the rate of fire of the musket. Breach loaders were adopted because they improved on that. Self loading, magazine fed weapons were adopted because they improved on that. It was rate of fire that propted the adoption of assault weapons rather than their effectivness against any specific target.

Militaries realized that as aimed fire was the exception on the battlefield it was more important to put a lot of lead in the air. While it might be more efficient to put a few shots on target most soldiers are incapable of doing this while being shot at. The decision in most armies was to increase the number of rounds being fired to increase the number of rounds that find their target. This is especially important when one considers that most armies were short term conscript forces built around a professional core.

It takes a while to train a rifleman to keep his cool when real bullets are flying. One has to make aimed fire an instinct rather than a luxury. The British took this approach before WWI by having a long serving, highly trained but small professional army. When casualties demanded more rapid training of replacements they increased the number of machine guns in the infantry units to make up for the loss in effectivness of the individual riflemen. (The American gun culture gave them a bit of this same advantage as a larger portion of American infantry had years of experience with firearms.)

It is the ineffectivness of individual riflemen that causes the increased reliance on heavier weapons. Machine guns firing from a stable base such as a tripod or even just a bipod, are capable of, relatively, more accurate and sustained fire. More rounds in the target area better chance of causing casualties. Increasing the overall firepower of the individuals in the squad, which the AR does, naturally also increases the likelyhood of causing casualties, regardless of the effectiness of the individual trigger pullers.

Of course this brings us to the question of whether or not this increase is enough to change the overall tactical situation. Not really.

At normal engagement ranges of between 100 to 300 meters only the first round of automatic fire from an AR is likely to be effective. Yes soldiers do fire full auto at ranges of several hundred meters in the belief that if they put a lot of lead down range then they have a better chance of hitting. While it is easy for us to sit in front of our computer and scoff at this belief, we are not being shot at. As even the first shot is not likely to be aimed the soldier is partially correct. So there is a slight increase but it is not anywhere near what one might think.

Beyond that one must consider that this increase in rate of fire isn't really going to give one side a revolutionary advantage but rathter an evolutionary one. A bolt action rifle isn't as fast as a semi- or full-auto but is is no muzzelloader either. You can still keep up a respectable volume of fire, especially when supported by other weapons. The AR would make an army invincible against one armed with single shot rifles but it loses its revolutionary character against more modern opposition.

[Gyrene]

How much or how little rifles were used really depends on where the fighting was taking place.

Machine guns and artillery ruled in places where they were at their best, obviously, but there were a great many situations, particularly in city fighting and in jungles were it all came down to a grunt's rifle and grenades and in other situations nothing other than a flame thrower and a satchel charge would do.

On the subject of MP44's, if all the German army were given them they would have a gigantic logistics nightmare keeping up with the enormous rise in ammo use.

Gyrene

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Gyrene:

On the subject of MP44's, if all the German army were given them they would have a gigantic logistics nightmare keeping up with the enormous rise in ammo use.

Sydney Jary in '18 Platoon' tells of the theory one of his section commanders had, that the Germans lost the war because of their profligate use of small-arms ammunition in their MG42. The German tendency to just pour out fire, especially at night even when there are no targets, is also commented on by Soviet officers in their memoirs. I think that the only effect from having an infantry weapon that goes on full auto would have been two-fold:

1) it would have increased the logistical problems in an already severely strained system, as Gyrene correctly points out.

2) it would have necessitated an adaptation of German infantry tactics away from the heavy reliance on the section MG, because the ammo load carried for the automatic individual weapon would have come straight out of the load carried by the same guy for the section MG.

Point 2) in particular is an issue, because it would mean that you rely more on the fighting ability of individuals in an army where the quality of the replacements went from not particularly good to worse to useless from 1942 onwards. If you want every individual to contribute to fighting, instead of just lug ammo, you need to train them better. You also need to train their leaders better, and while there is some evidence that German junior officer training did decline in quality throughout the war, I am not sure about NCO training, which would have been more important in the Wehrmacht, compared to the Allied armies.

All in all, the effects would probably have been negative, rather than positive.

[Bonxa]

After reading most the thread (very interesting) I was thinking along the lines of Pillar. And here at the bottom I find this excellent hypotesis. I must say I agree with both Dorosh and Pillar.

[Fishu]

Sgtgoody,

Thats pretty much US point of view about the battles.

Germans had some problems with the artillery as the war went on.

Then there is the russian front, where the life wasn't worth a dime, just because there were so many to care about some squads.

Finns had even less artillery at their disposal and MG's weren't so common.

However finns were still able to defend and even conduct succesful offensives with little or no artillery.

This pretty much indicates that smallarms had their own significant part in the fights.

Not just the artillery and MG's.

Of course most casualties overall in the war were caused by explosives and MG's in a form or another, but theres still plentiful amounts of leftover troops.

I believe that if StG44 would been produced from earlier and in somewhat larger amounts, it could've made attacking for infantry easier.

Logistics obviously weren't too big of a problem either - there were SMG's and StG44 at least by the end of war was to replace MP40.

In the eastern front logistic problems didn't exist even with PPSh 41, which germans used alot for its more than half higher rate of fire than MP40 and naturally captured ammo had to be used - but soviets had plentiful of those and they had plentiful amounts of delivers as well

Fair amount were also rechambered to accept the common 9mm SMG round.

If troops preferred PPSh 41 so much over the rifles and MP40's in eastern front, it's surely an indication of the need for high volume of fire invidual weapons.

However SMGs naturally lacks firepower at any greater range. (Albeit finns used Suomi M/31's for sniping, even some better daily food than just the daily rations.. aka certain birds )

For an invidual weapon, StG44 is quite good one, fits for common ranges that SMG cannot and goes well in close combat as well.

[Andreas]

I can imagine two situations where this weapon may have made a difference. One is in forests, the other is in citys, probably less there.

In forests, the Germans wiped the floor with the US Army in the Huertgenwald, regardless of what weaponry they had. In cities, combined arms would beat good small arms.

Whether the idea that you let your artillery do the killing or not is American is neither here nor there. The Germans could have counter-attacked all they wanted with their shiny Stug44s. A nice MIKE target would still have wiped them off the objective.

To think that equipping your troops with a better rifle would make an operational, let alone a strategic difference, indicates to me a failure to understand what really matters in modern warfare.

BTW - the successes of the Finns could also just indicate desperate cluelessness on the part of their Soviet opponents.

[Nippy]

One big thing to remember is that real combat is nothing like CM. In a real squad if you take 2 or 3 casualties you are pretty much stopped. You very rarely see the lone rifleman bravely advancing for the honor of his fallen buddies. More likely he is trying to keep at least some of them from bleeding to death, or is so scared he is behind a rock soiling himself. Casualty figures experienced in CM are much to high.

True, but I do notice that setting the Battle to "Probe" will make the Attacker Auto-Ceasefire much sooner than on Attack or Assault.

I suppose the best way to simulate this would to make a ten battle operation with only 15 turns per battle and have the engagement be on the company level with the Attacker launching probe after probe to wear down the defender while each side feels the pinch of watching their forces get greener and greener as the regs and vets get thrown into the meat grinder.

On the flip side, combat is never that orgonized. In real life there is no 3rd party observer that steps in and declaires that you've reached your 30% loss limit for the day and calls off the fight. On the east front, troops on both sides got many of a "Hold to the last man" or "Take objective at all costs" order.

Not to hijack the thread or anything, but the one thing that CM lacks and really needs is a "Withdraw from Combat" button for the attacker. Surrender almost always gives you a total defeat and the ceasefire button does you no good when the defender has every route of advance covered with MG42s and is cutting your troops apart as he will have no interest in calling things off. And moving forces off map in an operation means you lose them forever (I think, if I'm wrong, someone please correct me as I've only played a few OPS)

I know when to hold and when to fold, I just wish I had a command button for that...

[flamingknives]

An interesting point regarding automatic weapons, especially assault rifles:

The sustained rate of fire for an M16 is no higher than that of a Lee-Enfield, approx. 15 rounds a minute.

[coe]

hmmm interesting discussion I started inadvertently. I guess I'll weigh in. I guess at some ranges a rifle squad with semi-autos would be preferable to bolt action equipment (the question to ask is would you with a bolt action rifle want to go against people armed with assault rifles).

While the majority of casualties were caused by non-rifle stuff the question is, why did the soldiers want more of the MP44 was it purely psychological?

As for extending the war....hmmm, a casualty saved here and there....you never know...a few weeks, several months...(of course it may have encouraged unwise risk taking?). I remember a funny war movie with Telly Sevalas on some Greek Island taking it from the germans...they are chasing some German commander back to the German HQ where only one German is standing guard, the commander rushes in to the HQ telling the guard to defend...the guard fires one shot of his Kar 98 and then has to reload - he missed...meanwhile, with incredible accuracy a short burst from some form of Thompson or sub machine gun levels him (or was it a lone pistol shot at a distance - I can't remember...) Good ol' Telly Sevalas and players club international (does he still do those commercials?)

[Engel]

Originally posted by Andreas:

BTW - the successes of the Finns could also just indicate desperate cluelessness on the part of their Soviet opponents.

More like the insuitability of Soviet tactics for the terrain most common in the Karelian isthmus. Dense forests and swamps don't allow for much manouver space for mechanized warfare, and artillery and aircraft effectiveness is also reduced somewhat, making infantry assault the main weapon. The Soviet strength was in their combined arms package, and the Red Army was less suited for infantry-only warfare than the Finnish army. That's it for the Continuation War at least; in the Winter War, Soviet cluelessness and tactical plunders played a larger role.

As for the troops preferring Soviet weapons on the front, it had more to do with the reliabilty of Soviet weapons in field conditions. For example, the DT ("Emma" for the Finns) was said to shoot even better if you shoveled some dirt on it; it had so loose tolerances that you really, really had to abuse it to stop it from working (highly inaccurate too, but that's not a a big requirement for a MG).

[ May 06, 2003, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: Engel ]

[wadepm]

I read someplace that the guys carrying the M1 were just ready replacements for the guy carrying the BAR. I suppose it was the same in the German army?

[JP Jones]

OT but...

" Good ol' Telly Sevalas and players club international (does he still do those commercials?)"

He is dead.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by wadepm:

I read someplace that the guys carrying the M1 were just ready replacements for the guy carrying the BAR. I suppose it was the same in the German army?

I think Andreas' comment about having guys to lug ammo for the MG was apt. In action, for all the direct physical effects they had on the enemy, many riflemen would have been no more than ammo bearers in a sense.

Wow, excellent comments on this page. Good point about ammo consumption.

[flamingknives]

(the question to ask is would you with a bolt action rifle want to go against people armed with assault rifles).

At ranges of more than a few hundred metres, there wouldn't be much to distinguish ARs and bolt actions. Over 500 and the bolt actions will have the advantage of a larger round.

From certain aspects, assault rifles are just better SMGs.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by coe:

(the question to ask is would you with a bolt action rifle want to go against people armed with assault rifles).

That is not the question at all. The question was 'would equipping the Germans with Stug44s have helped them perform better operationally or strategically?' The answer is no, simple as that.

In the case of your question - if having a bolt action means I have say, double the ammo for the SAW, why not.

If my riflemen are absolutely crappily trained, it also won't make a difference whether they have pointy sticks, rocket launchers, Stug44s or a bad attitude. Or does anyone here think that the Iraquis would have performed worse if they had been equipped with Lee-Enfield rifles instead of Chinese Kalashnikovs?

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by coe:

(the question to ask is would you with a bolt action rifle want to go against people armed with assault rifles).

Actually yes. While I am taking my time an picking his guys off one at a time, he is busy spraying the ground and trees with unaimed fire. I will trust my life time experience with firearms and my ten years of training and experience to keep my head. The majority of soldiers do not have this option which is why most armies have adopted ARs in the first place. A man who can remain calm and fire aimed shots can outshoot someone spraying rounds on full auto any day.

[Hat Trick]

Originally posted by Nippy:

One big thing to remember is that real combat is nothing like CM. In a real squad if you take 2 or 3 casualties you are pretty much stopped. You very rarely see the lone rifleman bravely advancing for the honor of his fallen buddies. More likely he is trying to keep at least some of them from bleeding to death, or is so scared he is behind a rock soiling himself. Casualty figures experienced in CM are much to high.

True, but I do notice that setting the Battle to "Probe" will make the Attacker Auto-Ceasefire much sooner than on Attack or Assault.

I suppose the best way to simulate this would to make a ten battle operation with only 15 turns per battle and have the engagement be on the company level with the Attacker launching probe after probe to wear down the defender while each side feels the pinch of watching their forces get greener and greener as the regs and vets get thrown into the meat grinder.

On the flip side, combat is never that orgonized. In real life there is no 3rd party observer that steps in and declaires that you've reached your 30% loss limit for the day and calls off the fight. On the east front, troops on both sides got many of a "Hold to the last man" or "Take objective at all costs" order.

Not to hijack the thread or anything, but the one thing that CM lacks and really needs is a "Withdraw from Combat" button for the attacker. Surrender almost always gives you a total defeat and the ceasefire button does you no good when the defender has every route of advance covered with MG42s and is cutting your troops apart as he will have no interest in calling things off. And moving forces off map in an operation means you lose them forever (I think, if I'm wrong, someone please correct me as I've only played a few OPS)

I know when to hold and when to fold, I just wish I had a command button for that...

An alternate implementation would be for squads to slowly lose mobility as they take casualties, perhaps becoming completely immobile at, say, 70 percent casualties. The squad's ability to go on the offensive would diminish as the remaining unharmed solders cared for the wounded, hid, and so on, while their defensive capability would not suffer any additional penalty.

I still need to think more about how this would fit in with the shaken/broken/routed model currently in the game.

[Brigadier]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by coe:

(the question to ask is would you with a bolt action rifle want to go against people armed with assault rifles).

Actually yes. While I am taking my time an picking his guys off one at a time, he is busy spraying the ground and trees with unaimed fire. I will trust my life time experience with firearms and my ten years of training and experience to keep my head. The majority of soldiers do not have this option which is why most armies have adopted ARs in the first place. A man who can remain calm and fire aimed shots can outshoot someone spraying rounds on full auto any day. </font>

[coe]

If it is true though rifle fire was rather ineffectual after a certain point (except if you were well trained) then there shouldn't have been much difference if they were using Kar 98's or Martini-Henrys perhaps.

Of course there is the issue of training...and my assumption should have been stated....if equally trained, would you rather be in the assault rifle platoon or the bolt action (I again assume at extreme ranges the bolt action types would be heavily favored but as the distance goes down - there is something to be said for the whole rounding the corner and running into a bunch of the enemy and getting several shots off....but then again, it would be hard to experiment on this whole subject in safe manner.... paintball Kar 98 and paintball Stg 44 ha ha....(btw, what were the main advantages of the PPsh over the MP40 and vice versa?)

[Fishu]

Coe,

PPSh41 had almost double the ROF over MP40.

Comes handy when you're supposed to kill alot of enemies at close ranges.

If a drum was used, it also had double the ammo.

Could been better in the freezing cold as well, not sure.

Neither one really had bad unreliability problems.

From what I know, MP40 was more accurate.

[Snowbart]

My father has an MP-40, and man is it fun to shoot! There is absolutely no recoil whatsoever, as it is a fairly heavy SMG, firing the small 9mm round. You can fire a whole mag and keep it ALL on target!

The main difference is reliability. Most German weapons(or anything for that matter)are very presicely manufactured, which gives you little room for error. Get a bit or mud or crud in the reciever , and chances are it may lock up on you. The quality of the russian PPS was not as meticulously manufactured. It had room for error and could function with a handful of mud jammed in the receiver. Ruskies prob didnt even know how to clean them, but they didnt have to, cause they worked when you needed them!

So for the simple issue of reliability is the reason many landsers traded in their MP-40's for the PPS. A little less important is the fact it had a 75 round drum mag compared to 32 for the MP. Most important is that it didnt jam.

[Warmaker]

Regarding for the German weapons with their tight tolerances (Can't think of better term) it seems they saw the need for simpler manufacturing of their weapons. The MG42 is the first I can think of since it's less finicky than the MG34 and cheaper to produce. The MP44 was supposed to be quite simple to produce. Sorry that I don't have any docs to say so...