MP44

[tracer]

The U.S. standard infantry rifle was the M1 Garand from 44 on dude, the U.S. still used the Springfield 03 but not in large quantitys. As far as the germans using the K98K rifle, well it's time was passing and the wermacht knew this, that is why they introduced the MP44 without Hitler knowing it, because he was so doped up he did'nt know any better. And actually from about 42 on the Garand started to be issued in larger numbers.

[Fishu]

US Marines in the pacific used Springfields extensively till end of the world war.

In europe Garands were about dominant US rifle type.

[Snowbart]

I just bought a Garand not too long ago, and it simply rocks. I have a 98k as well, and as far as I can say only a fool would prefer the bolt action mauser over the M-1 in combat.

The M-1 is very hefty and therefore that 30.06 cartridge doesn't kick too bad.

[Snowbart]

True Warmaker, the MG-42 was much easier to produce, and over all a cheaper quality weapon over the MG-34 with it's extremely tight tolerances. But seems that these cheaper-made weapons were much more effective in combat than extremely well made, perfectly engineered weapons. Look at the Soviet machine guns like the PPS and AK-47. Can leave them in the mud for a month or let them rust up and still they will work. Reliability is the key, and the MG-42 beat the MG-34 in that category.

[manchildstein (ii)]

does anyone know the muzzle velocity and 'grainage' of an mp44 bullet? for instance, a browning 45/70 lever action can send something like a 300-grain bullet out at nearly 2000 fps... and the 30.06 from a garand would probably be about 100 grains at around 3000 fps or somesuch...

i would think the mp44 would be 'effective' out to about 150 or 200 meters... the ak-47 maybe 200-300... i say this because if one sees the cartridges side by side that's how they kind of 'look.'

in any event i would prefer the mp44 over either the bolt-action or the 9mm smg... the 9mm smg is probably effective out to about 100 meters tops...

but that's the strange thing about 'effective'... now i didn't run this test under battle conditions but with a rapid trigger pull on a itty bitty 9mm pistol with 15-round detachable magazine... i could hit a can at 75 yards...

it was just a matter of 'leading' the shots 'into' the target...

under battlefield conditions...that would assume perfect calm on the part of the firer ... and the proper 'backdrop' or ability to see where the bullets were first missing in order to get them to hit before the magazine would run out...

[Michael Dorosh]

Guys, you can look up weapons specs in books all you want, it isn't going to teach you how the weapons were actually used...

[Monty's Double]

I think it's fairly telling that all the posters with direct or anecdotal combat experience tend to the view that changing a single piece of equipment would have had sod all effect on the war's length or outcome. Haven't we had this same debate with tanks? "If only the Germans had built Panthers and nothing else from 194x....". All the evidence of WWII is that the decicive factors tactically aren't equipment but training and combined arms doctrine, and that as you move further from the tactical, quality of equipment becomes even less relevant, so long as it is basically fit for purpose.

The only conceivable positive effect of adopting the MP44 early would have been freeing up valuable machine tools, as it used more stamped parts. The increased drain on ammo would almost certainly have wiped out that advantage though. Now if only they'd put the Me262 into full...er, sorry.

[tracer]

How the weapons were used?? Well I own a M1 Garand, and carbine, a 98K, Mosin Nagant rifle, SVT40, Jap type 99,french MAS36, italian Carcano, G43, and Have owned,(but sold or traded) Springfield 1903, Jap type 77, these are just the WWII vintage rifles. I also own a Sten 9mm. I have fired all and including the MP40, PPsh, and the MP44, and Thompson 45. And after firing all of them my guess is they were aimed at the enemy and the trigger was pulled. Common sense would tell you that the sub guns were used for close range. The rifles for long range. After being on the firing range many many times, and firing these vintage weapons I pretty much have figured this out. As far as the MG42 and the Bren and Browning 50 cal, I have fired these also and all I can say is those men on any side be it axis or allies had BALLS rushing a position with any of these MGs in them, it is a awesome feel and sound firing these weapons. One thing I like about CMBO and CMBB, is that in the games, the troops have a high tendency of being routed or panic when rushing MGs. But there are some people who play the game that whine and say this must be a bug because the troops are paniced and rout to quickly, I don't agree.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by tracer:

How the weapons were used?? Well I own a M1 Garand, and carbine, a 98K, Mosin Nagant rifle, SVT40, Jap type 99,french MAS36, italian Carcano, G43, and Have owned,(but sold or traded) Springfield 1903, Jap type 77, these are just the WWII vintage rifles. I also own a Sten 9mm. I have fired all and including the MP40, PPsh, and the MP44, and Thompson 45. And after firing all of them my guess is they were aimed at the enemy and the trigger was pulled. Common sense would tell you that the sub guns were used for close range. The rifles for long range. After being on the firing range many many times, and firing these vintage weapons I pretty much have figured this out. As far as the MG42 and the Bren and Browning 50 cal, I have fired these also and all I can say is those men on any side be it axis or allies had BALLS rushing a position with any of these MGs in them, it is a awesome feel and sound firing these weapons. One thing I like about CMBO and CMBB, is that in the games, the troops have a high tendency of being routed or panic when rushing MGs. But there are some people who play the game that whine and say this must be a bug because the troops are paniced and rout to quickly, I don't agree.

I own or have owned two Mosin Nagants, three Lee Enfields, a Mauser K98 and an M-1; not being much of a "gun nut", I didn't get any particular thrill in firing them. I've also fired automatic weapons with the Army, and have live fired the MG 34 and the Sten Gun.

I don't see that that makes me qualified to discuss infantry tactics; in fact, having pulled the trigger on these vintage weapons is practically meaningless in contributing to any kind of knowledge of Second World War infantry combat. It's like saying that because you've played catch with an official NFL football once, you are suddenly qualified to discuss offensive line tactics.

I wasn't aware that rushing headlong into machinegun fire was in the tactical inventory of any of the combatants of WW II, excepting maybe the Japanese on Guadalcanal in some memorable instances.

Again, statistics regarding muzzle velocity, magazine capacity, or rate of fire are next to useless in understanding how a platoon battle worked. This is the true key to understanding what effect the various weapons had - their method of employment - not their raw firing statistics.

Infantry tactics were a combination of fire - and maneuver. The maneuver was aided by the use of fire to support - but was just as important as the firing.

I posted a snippet I found about the LMGs actually being taken away from the MP44 armed squad. I would love to see some actual battlefield reports about how well that worked for the Germans. It seems to me to speak of overoptimism regarding the effectiveness of the MP44, but again, we really don't know one way or another until someone can find some hard data, or at least some battlefield innuendo, on how they actually used the things.

[Snowbart]

The simple fact is that replacing an outdated bolt action rifle with the worlds first assault rifle would have greatly improved the units' effectiveness in combat simply by the sheer amount of lead it could put in the air.

PS- hitting a can at 75 yds w/ pistol is pretty damn good!

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Snowbart:

The simple fact is that replacing an outdated bolt action rifle with the worlds first assault rifle would have greatly improved the units' effectiveness in combat simply by the sheer amount of lead it could put in the air.

If you put a fully trained up professional US Marines squad with bolt-action rifles against a bunch of yobs with Kalashnikov's, whose main proficiency is in firing in the air to celebrate their leader, who is going to win?

The simple fact is that combat effectiveness is not dependent on the weapon alone. Michael has that exactly right.

[Michael Dorosh]

I should think the law of diminishing returns applies here. If you come under fire from an infantry squad, it matters not if they are armed with bolt action rifles or semi-autos; you are going to put your head into the dirt just as far in either case. The guys doing the shooting have a better chance of hitting something, but if you are dug in and well camouflaged, what difference does it make if they are shooting one aimed shot at you, or 11 unaimed ones? In practical terms, the effect of the weapons firing relies mainly on shock.

This is nothing new; check out Civil War statistics to see how many men were actually injured by enemy fire, even at the close ranges of combat then, and how many men were panicked into running away or giving up.

My point was, and is, that firefights in WW II were not won by rifle fire killing all the combatants on one side or another; victory at the platoon level was achieved by maneuvering in close under the cover of the section automatic. Rifle fire added to the effect of keeping enemy heads down, but I suspect it was rarely as effective at actually killing enemy defenders as artillery or machineguns.

The point was made earlier about having squads immobilized after losing x number of men. I think that was an excellent point; it was rare that an entire section of infantry would be killed or wounded in a single action. What then was the effect of all this rifle fire? It obviously had a moral rather than a physical effect - the question then become, how much more of a moral effect could an assault rifle possibly have at 200 metres than a bolt action?

Hollywood has contributed much to this whole "army of one" concept, but a real battle just didn't happen that way.

So we come back to the question - what difference does it make if your rifles fire 5 times a minute or 30, if

a) most riflemen aren't actively firing their weapons

the enemy can't be seen, or effective fire can't be brought to bear with your rifles

c) your riflemen aren't trained in marksmanship (a more common problem as the war went on, even for the Allies - there was a shortage of rifle ranges in the UK throughout the war, for example, and by 1944 remustered artillerymen etc. were thrown into the infantry with practically no training - I can't imagine the situation being any better for the Germans)

d) your riflemen are busy worming their way through a ditch to execute a right flanking, climaxing in a grenade assault on the enemy position and a final charge with the tommy gun or bayonet to mop up any dazed survivors. Here is the one place the MP 44 is undeniably more effective. But at this point, is the course of the entire war being changed?

If I see muzzle flashes, I put my head down without rationalizing "oh, they are "only" bolt action rifles". Is this not so?

[ May 07, 2003, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Snowbart]

Very true Michael. But i think all else being equal, he who can put out the most lead has a serious advantage.

[tracer]

Well I'm not a gun nut, I'm a collector, and unlike you, I do have military combat experience, but don't go around sounding my trumpet. And yes, firing these weapons does give you a idea of how they were used a "feel" for the weapon, and anyone trying to say they don't, is well nevermind. Also if firing a weapon can't give a feel to haow the weapon is used, well I suggest that some one tell the U.S. military then, cause we are the best in the world, and no arguement can change that. And as far as having being able to qualify in combat tactics, I think I have that qualification seeing how I've been there and done that.

[tracer]

Oh yeah one more thing, "rushing" at a MG isn't in the "tactics" as you say, but taking the postion is and believe it or not that generally means going toward that position, just in case you did'nt realize this.

[tracer]

Oh yeah one more thing, "rushing" at a MG isn't in the "tactics" as you say, but taking the postion is and believe it or not that generally means going toward that position, just in case you did'nt realize this.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by tracer:

Well I'm not a gun nut, I'm a collector, and unlike you, I do have military combat experience, but don't go around sounding my trumpet. And yes, firing these weapons does give you a idea of how they were used a "feel" for the weapon, and anyone trying to say they don't, is well nevermind. Also if firing a weapon can't give a feel to haow the weapon is used, well I suggest that some one tell the U.S. military then, cause we are the best in the world, and no arguement can change that. And as far as having being able to qualify in combat tactics, I think I have that qualification seeing how I've been there and done that.

None of which has anything to do with the conversation here, particularly the "we are the best in the world stuff." We are discussing the impact of small arms types on the German Army circa 1943-45.

Can you compare some of the contact drills you've learned to those used by the Germans, both before and after the adoption of the MP44? Might prove extremely useful, since you've "been there, done that."

More importantly, would your action on contact be any different based on the type of small arms that were being fired at you?

[ May 07, 2003, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Snowbart]

You're damn right we're the best in the world!

[Andreas]

When people are finished telling each other how great the US Army is, how about addressing some of Mike's questions?

Or just answering my simple question - would you rather be with a squad of Marines with Springfields, or a squad of Taliban militia with Kalashnikovs?

Here, have a 'Rara USA' from me thrown in as well.

[Spook]

Actually, Andreas, I will be fielding one of your earlier comments later tonight. (Should've done so yesterday instead.)

[Andreas]

Originally posted by tracer:

Oh yeah one more thing, "rushing" at a MG isn't in the "tactics" as you say, but taking the postion is and believe it or not that generally means going toward that position, just in case you did'nt realize this.

If the standard tactic is to rush the place, why do they give out VCs for doing so?

But never mind that. Not having a military background, I would have thought the best COA is to go around it, or to call up a tank to take it out, or any number of things, with "going toward that position" being pretty much the last option, or one being employed by extremely incompetent junior commanders. (Now, would that plan involve climbing out of the trench and moving at a slow pace towards the enemy, Sir?)

Spook, interested to hear your take on things.

[tracer]

Andreas,

I think you need to reread my response,sure you would call in a tank, if you have a tank that can fit down a narrow street, so I guess your right you don't have any military experience. And there were no tanks in Samolia, and don't call me "sir" I worked for a living. And if some of you foriegn guys can't stand the fact that the U.S. is the best, well can't help that. And you would be surprised how much we learned from the german tactics, and still use a form of some of those tactics to this very day. So to answer your questions about german small arms tactics, well they had them down to a art, and if they would have had someone else besides a lunatic like Hitler leading them they probably would have won the war and we'd all be saying germany's number one insted of the U.S. being number one, god bless america and the troops who have defended her in the past and are still defending her to this day!!

[Andreas]

Tracer, whatever you are smoking, give it up before it leaves permanent damage.

The part in brackets ending on 'Sir' is a quote by a UK satire TV programme. It appears to be true that the UK and the US are divided by a common language.

Never mind the tank, what about the 'going around it' bit? Or the question why you would get a VC if charging the MG nest is the standard response? Or any of Mike's questions? Or some punctuation to make your posts semi-comprehensible?

[billcarey]

Here's my (mostly uninformed...) take on the difference between the weapons:

1. I agree with Dorosh and Andreas that Germany having a SLR would not have had any particular effect at the operational or strategic scale (beyond a larger expenditure of ammo).

2. At the tactical level, I think that there are advantages to having rifles capable of faster fire than bolt action rifles. Here's my argument:

Let's say that there's some number of rounds delivered per unit time that will effectively suppress a position and that any fire beyond that is (effectively) wasted. I'd submit that this is true in high-cover areas, and less so in very open areas. At least in paintball I've found that a three round burst every three or four seconds will keep green people pinned, and a two round burst every two or three seconds will keep most people down in good cover. Obviously in a real combat situation, the numbers will be different.

A bolt-action rifle is clearly capable of delivering ranged accurate fire above that supression threshold, especially when multiple bolt action rifles are employed, as in section fire, they are quite capable of supressing a section sized target.

I think the advantages Pillar pointed out for the SLR are very good, but I would add one more. Because the SLR is capable of more fire per unit time, it can suppress more targets simultaneously than a bolt action rifle. That's the advantage I've noticed in paintball - I can point suppress two or three targets at intermediate range simultaneously.

So my questions would be:

1. Were infantrymen trained to use their faster firing rifles against *more* targets or just to shoot more at one target?

2. Have any armies done studies on what volume of fire is necessary to suppress someone in various types of cover?

I await enlightenment eagerly from those who know more than I.

- b

[tracer]

AHH explians it your english, and I'm not smoking a thing. And it's not a option to go around sometimes, when your given a order you do what your told. It depends on the situation, but as you probably haven't realized america doesn't usually go around things we go through them. And there is a method on advancing on a MG,or "nest" if you want to call it that. And it's not rushing headlong into it without some planning being made before hand, but I think you know that all ready.