MP44

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by 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

Thank you for this thoughtful post; much to consider here; unfortunately I'm at work now. Excellent points and questions raised.

[Michael Dorosh]

So tracer, still waiting on your comments re: how the MP 44 would have changed anything. We are all familiar with the specs now, regarding ROF, muzzle velocity etc. So in any specific way, how would it have changed anything? With the removal of the LMG from the section, wouldn't your firepower be the same in terms of amount of lead flying?

What difference, then, would it make - and why would it have extended the length of the war?

Oh, and I hate to judge someone based on their grammar and spelling, and I hate to say nasty things about the US Army because I have a lot of respect for them - but while they may be "best" in certain areas such as firepower, espirit, etc., they aren't universally best in all aspects. The grade of volunteers has declined in recent years; friends of mine from here - treaty Indians with dual citizenship - have gone to join the US forces, mostly because the educational standards are low(er), and because Canadians find they can do much better than average at the classroom stuff while still breezing through the physical stuff. The US Army also, or so I'm told, has some interesting organizational quirks, such as having drivers not trained in basic engine components - ie they drive but can't fix. Their record of friendly fire incidents speaks for itself, also.

That's neither here nor there, and is certainly off topic, suffice to say I'm glad the US Army is one of our allies and I admire the work they did in Iraq, even in Somalia - despite the type of recruits they seem to attract!

[ May 07, 2003, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Eric Alkema]

Just a couple of comments from my civilian CM player perspective:

Mr. Dorosh suggested something along the lines of "the assault rifle wouldn't have mattered because it was the MG that did all the work" (at least that is what I thought he said). It got me to thinking about cause and effect. Perhaps the MG did all the work because the bolt action rifle had such a low ROF. If something with a higher ROF were available it might have been able to do a lot more work. Like you said, it would be interesting to hear about units with assault rifles and no MGs.

Comments have also been made to the effect that full auto is no help because after the first round it is all un-aimed fire. CM suggests to me that suppression leads to more victory more than casualties does. In that case an assault rifle would seem like a definite advantage. Actually the three-shot burst sounds like a good compromise, keeps the newbies from emptying magazines into unoccupied bushes.

[coe]

I disagree (respectfully) a bit about that the stats of the weapon are not important. From the performance of the weapon you might be able to deduce generalaties about what might have been likely tactics...e.g. the inaccuracy and slow loading of the musket probably did influence the idea of massed lines and having a machinegun in a squad which is capable of putting out lots of lead might make tactics central upon it (not to mention throwing out the concept of massed lines). Is it the dominant factor...I assume by WWII weapon stats were not - not nearly as from going from a musket to a martini henry (incorporate lag time to change tactics).

Another thing to consider is that many soldiers surrendered...perhaps they might be more likely to do so if they are greated by a hail of lead rather than a crackle of gunfire (assuming that even with a rifle, the fire isn't that accurate)?

Having an MP44 instead of Kar98s might influence tactics...less reluctancy of closer range combat etc. I of course am no expert....

[Snowbart]

Originally posted by 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.

That is why in my earlier post I said "all things being equal, he who puts out the most lead will have a serious advantage"

Your example of Marine's vs. Taliban just does't support your argument, as you're comparing great troops with armed idiots. "All things being equal".....well they just aren't in your example. I have been contributing my opinion's towards what Michael has said for quite a while in this thread, and I am not sorry if my being proud of my country upsets you.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Eric Alkema:

Just a couple of comments from my civilian CM player perspective:

Mr. Dorosh suggested something along the lines of "the assault rifle wouldn't have mattered because it was the MG that did all the work" (at least that is what I thought he said). It got me to thinking about cause and effect. Perhaps the MG did all the work because the bolt action rifle had such a low ROF. If something with a higher ROF were available it might have been able to do a lot more work. Like you said, it would be interesting to hear about units with assault rifles and no MGs.

Comments have also been made to the effect that full auto is no help because after the first round it is all un-aimed fire. CM suggests to me that suppression leads to more victory more than casualties does. In that case an assault rifle would seem like a definite advantage. Actually the three-shot burst sounds like a good compromise, keeps the newbies from emptying magazines into unoccupied bushes.

I'm getting nothing done because of you guys.

I didn't mean to say the MG did "all the work", but in essence, that is, I think, what usually happened, in terms of actual effect. In terms of perceived effect, I don't see that a guy firing a couple rounds from a semi-auto is necessarily any more or any less scary than someone firing a bolt action rifle at you - or more importantly, an entire squad or platoon firing one weapon vice the other. You're going to react defensively in pretty much the same manner.

If we are to believe that the actual effect of riflefire was minimal, and the perceived effects didn't change, then you're left with the conclusion that the only time the difference in weapons would matter would be those instances in which the rifle could be brought to bear with actual effect - usually the last minutes of the assault, when you're within grenade range or have managed to get on the enemy's flank and have him in an exposed or enfiladed position. In those cirucmstances, the assault rifle beats all, LMG included. But...how often did it come to that on the WW II battlefield? What was the fight or flight distance for the average Russian troop? If he's running away or giving up before you get to his flank, what difference does it make if you have a bolt action or an assault rifle?

Conversely, if he is drenching you in Kaytushas and mortars and T-34s in deliberate attacks, it ain't gonna matter much to you either what your squad is armed with.

Am I saying it would never have made a difference? No, just that the idea that the MP44 in large numbers would have made a huge difference is silly.

The Americans were armed with semi-auto rifles; did the Germans suffer any more or any less in typical actions against them? Again, specific AARs might tell the tale, not ballistic stats.

The oft told tale of the platoons in Tunisia meeting up - and the Garands shooting the hell out of the Germans - is well taken. It also involved two platoon sized patrols meeting during a sudden lifting of fog....

[billcarey]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

In terms of perceived effect, I don't see that a guy firing a couple rounds from a semi-auto is necessarily any more or any less scary than someone firing a bolt action rifle at you - or more importantly, an entire squad or platoon firing one weapon vice the other. You're going to react defensively in pretty much the same manner.

I think you're right that for a guy on the recieving end a semi-auto and a bolt action cause the same reaction: seeking cover.

What I'd add to the discussion is the issue of uneven engagements. A platoon armed with bolt-action rifles would be hard pressed to deliver that supressing fire on a company size formation. A platoon armed with semi-auto or burst fire rifles would still be hard pressed to keep a company head down, but they'd be less hard pressed than the group armed with bolt-actions.

I'd suggest that in defensive engagements a force armed with bolt action rifles would be able to suppress fewer than a force armed with semi-autos assuming that the men shooting are of equal quality. If you have problems with training and marksmanship, it might be better to concentrate your firepower in one or two high r.o.f weapons and give them to the best shooters.

I'd like to know more about this, can you reccomend any good books that talk about this sort of thing?

- b.

[Warmaker]

A bit biased, but: I would rather be in a group of Marines armed with Springfields than be in a group of Taliban with AK's.

[Snowbart]

Michael, I totally agree with you.

Even large scale disribution and equiping of units with the MP-44 would have made no difference. This thread is too small to go into all those reasons why it wouldn't have made a differnce, but basically, Germany bit off a little bit more than it could chew.

But on a small scale, small unit fights, I believe it would have been quite effective. I am not saying the Stg44 would replace anything completely, but would compliment the squad's current arsenal. I suppose that would mean equiping 2 or 3 of the riflemen that were using 98k's. The Stg44 would just add to the firepower that the squad could produce, which Germany needed more than ever in the later years of the war. The riflemen would still be there, making up a hefty portion of the squad.

I still think Germany needed a semi-auto rifle to replace the 98k. A rifle like an M-1. I think reequiping all riflemen with a weapon like that, by the second half of the war, would have been very wise. Ammo consumption/production/distribtion is a huge factor to consider, but I believe it's possible if you simply keep it the standard 7.92mm round. Germany was able to supply ammo for the MG's, firing up to 1200 RPM. I think Germany could have adjusted production of ammuntion to coincide with an expected rise in consumption if necessary. If ammo was too short, remember it is just a semi auto rifle. You can save your ammo and only pull the trigger once. But for that time you needed the extra firepower, it was there.

[illo]

Originally posted by Warmaker:

A bit biased, but: I would rather be in a group of Marines armed with Springfields than be in a group of Taliban with AK's.

I'd rather be with group of finns with sticks and stones.

[Michael Dorosh]

Good comments all round; sorry if it seemed I was ignoring you Snowbart; posting on the fly at work leaves my concentration somewhat iffy....you and billcarey are correct; obviously the semi-auto would have some advantages in most situations, and very clear advantages in some very specific ones. Given the choice, I'd rather be armed with the semi-auto rather than the bolt action, too, if for no other reason than my own feeling of security, but also for the reasons you describe.

I guess I was trying to raise the question - how often did it come to that - ie how often did an infantry platoon find itself in a straight out firefight, and how did they win that firefight?

Naturally, your comments on the increased firepower are correct. Just seems to leave some questions - especially if the source I referenced was true, about the LMGs being taken away from MP44 squads, wouldn't their entire tactical outlook have changed? And at that point in the war, wasn't it hard to do that with the level of inexperience in new formations? I thought the new weapons often went to the Volksgrenadiers and newly forming units as often as to the W-SS, and elite Heer and LW units (GD, HG, Panz Lehr, etc).

As for references - that is the problem, isn't it. Few private soldiers seem to have bothered writing their memoirs, and those that did often didn't relate the nuts and bolts of how a platoon fought; it all happened so quickly and haphazardly, there was no way to document stuff like that, even if they felt the need to. Which is why we have to try and piece this stuff together now, after the fact, from the safety of our armchairs.

There is a book for sale at battlefront called German Squad Tactics, IIRC, that is a starting point.

[Fishu]

Michael Dorosh,

Remember.. its a question whether MP44 would been introduced earlier, had Hitler given full support for it.

So we wouldn't be talking anymore about the late war, but how things would look if it would have reached combat earlier and would been in far larger quantities at the same time than it was in reality.

[Snowbart]

I agree that i might not have been a good idea to strip squads of their LMG's to arm them with the StG44's. I was envisioning stripping away some of the 98k's and giving these guys the assault rifles. You might reduce the squad's maximum firepower if you strip away the LMG's, even if you arm these guys with Stg's. Now, in street fighting this may be a good thing. But otherwise, I want that MG-42 with me.

[Warmaker]

Eek! Strip away the MG42 from a squad? A wild guess that I think would be a good compromise would for a 10-man squad would be like:

Squad Ldr-MP44

3 additional men-MP44

5-98K's

1-MG42

Ideally I'd go for 9-MP44 armed men with a supporting MG42.

P.S.-I'm sure the Western Allies and the Russians would have been in favor of stripping those MG42s

[ May 08, 2003, 12:16 AM: Message edited by: Warmaker ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Mmm, yes, but by 1944, the squad had gone down to 9 men.

Basic training, incidentally, had dropped from 16 weeks to 7 or 8.

[K_Tiger]

Huh.. large quantitys of Stg44 (or lets then say Stgw42) before Stalingrad with full support (seen as "Wonderweapon") wouldn have no impact on the hole war?? Come one grogs....esp. Andreas and Michael...i read better articels from yours.

I would rate the impact as high for 6-12 Month until the allieds made here own copies.

Whats with fighting in Towns/Forrests/Urban...ect where the most heavy fighting took place? The normal "Landser" cant change from "today is town figthing" Rifel to a subMachine gun. A group of rifelmans armed with Karabiners are nearly useless in towns.

Im not alone who read alot about heavy close combat with shofels/spades and knifes/bajonettes ect. Do you belive, they would use those things if they were armed with automatic weapons?

With automatic weapons, you can command two soldiers of your unit to try and catch your ennemy from the side or from behind and theyr are able to dispatch 10 or more with ease rifelmans. Try this with rifels...with autos, you are a lot more flexible both in attack and defense situations. Not to mention the moral boost, on both sides..

This for sure, will also influences the strategical and operational outcome of a battle.

And for gyrene...i prefere to be alive, with a Stg44 w/o ammo as to be death with a bag full of bullets and a rifle in my cold hands

[Wisbech_lad]

I've read two memoirs about UK platoon/ section tactics.

The Jary book previously mentioned, and MacDonald Fraser "Quartered Safe Out Here"

Jary goes into combat with a Colt 45 he had bought from an American on the black market, and an umbrella. The umbrella is a more useful weapon (he can use it for detecting mines, keeping dry, directing Bren fire) He favours light infantry tactics (infiltration, aggressive patrolling, night fighting) but he would, he's a LI officer.

M-F is in love with his Lee Enfield, to the point that when he is promoted to 2 i/c of the section, he refuses to switch to a tommy gun.

M-F takes part in two set piece attacks in Burma. In one, they clear a wood of dug in Japanese with tanks and aircraft softening up the position. Grenade and bayonet are used once in the wood, with Bren team giving cover fire.

The other is an advance in open ground into a town behind an walking arty barrage. At one point he is directed to fire at a rock, behind which a sniper is thought to be hiding.

He favours very strong tea. His memoirs are a paean to his fellow soldiers, and he isn't too concerned about tactics.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by K_Tiger:

Im not alone who read alot about heavy close combat with shofels/spades and knifes/bajonettes ect. Do you belive, they would use those things if they were armed with automatic weapons?

Yes. The main weapon close-up is the grenade anyway because you can employ it without exposing yourself.

Originally posted by K_Tiger:

With automatic weapons, you can command two soldiers of your unit to try and catch your ennemy from the side or from behind and theyr are able to dispatch 10 or more with ease rifelmans. Try this with rifels...with autos, you are a lot more flexible both in attack and defense situations. Not to mention the moral boost, on both sides..

That is harking back to two things I have been saying throughout:

1) The two guys need to be trained up to a level where you can rely on them to do that. Complaints about the decline in the level of replacements start in late 1941 for the Germans. Mike also pointed out teh reduction in training.

2) You are looking at different section tactics than the Germans would employ if you split things that way. So you need to fundamentally alter your training approach.

The Germans were doing very well with rifles and MGs until late 1942 (in some instances until later, e.g. the Huertgenwald or the close-in fighting in Normandy), and very badly thereafter. That indicates to me that it was not a problem of bolt-action vs. automatic rifles.

I have no issue with the argument that ceterus paribus the squad with a high level of automatic weapons is better off. That is a no-brainer. I do not believe for a second that ceterus paribus conditions are relevant to the argument made though about Stug44s prolonging the war, and I therefore do not think that any change in outcome would have occurred.

I second the bit on MacDonald Fraser. Did he not 'lose' his Tommygun?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by K_Tiger:

Come one grogs....esp. Andreas and Michael...i read better articels from yours.

Outstanding! Can you provide us a link?

[SgtMuhammed]

Once more from the top. Changes in infantry small arms only affect the operational or strategic level if they are revolutionary not evolutionary.

The switch from smoothbore muskets to rifles was a revolutionary change as it changed the entire dynamic of the battlefield. Troops were under a longer period of effective fire which made the effective use of old tactics impossible.

The switch from muzzle to breach loading was revolutionary as once again it changed the dynamic of the battlefield. Troops could now reload from low cover and keep up a rate of fire that was an order of magnitude higher.

The introduction of the belt fed machine gun made it possible to keep up a constant curtain of lead over an area. It became possible for a handful of men, with minimal preparation, to hold up the advance of ten times their number or greater.

All these weapons changed strategy as well as tactics because they made the old way of doing things obsolete. The same is not true of the introduction of the MP44. What it represents is an evolutionary change.

Yes it has a high rate of fire but, unlike the squad's machine gun, this cannot be maintained for long periods of time. This is why the machine gun is still the weapon of choice for area supression.

Further the higher rate of fire doesn't generally increase the chance that the individual soldier will kill more of the enemy. Bursts of automatic fire are still fired at single targets. If a soldier with an automatic weapon sees three men he doesn't fire a three round burst and expect to put a bullet in each one. He fires a three round burst at each one hoping to increase his chance of hitting each individual target not the group as a whole.

Automatic weapons try to put the maximum amount of lead in an area in hopes that a specific target will be hit. They do not put a hail of rounds on a target hoping that each round will hit. The only way the MP44 could have changed the strategic picture would have been if you could reverse this. As it doesn't its effects on the overall picture would be minimal.

[K_Tiger]

Yes. The main weapon close-up is the grenade anyway because you can employ it without exposing yourself

Thats right and also not....fragmentation grenades are intended for stunning and wounding your opponents, the real dirt job remains to the small arms fraction. Like you, i was in the "Bundeswehr" (german Army) and was also instructed how to use grenades. I learned, that you need thems in combat, but they arent the savest methode to figth. No question, grenades are a good way to substitude you in close quarter fighting but they arent the deciding weapon. Thus, you cant throw them around like bonbons` you have to watch out for your own units. Another negative factor is, you have to come close to your target but you have to be sure not to hurt yourself.

I agree, you are mainly save when you throw it into a window or from the side into a Bunker, in the open, you cant be all the time sure not to catch a bullet. More likely from a Stgw44 than from a poor Riffel..

What do you say to your Leader, if you spend all your 2-3 Grenades?? Im sorry Captain...cant attack, i do not have anymore those "main-close-up-weapons" can i advance later?

The Germans were doing very well with rifles and MGs until late 1942 (in some instances until later, e.g. the Huertgenwald or the close-in fighting in Normandy), and very badly thereafter. That indicates to me that it was not a problem of bolt-action vs. automatic rifles.

I have no issue with the argument that ceterus paribus the squad with a high level of automatic weapons is better off. That is a no-brainer. I do not believe for a second that ceterus paribus conditions are relevant to the argument made though about Stug44s prolonging the war, and I therefore do not think that any change in outcome would have occurred.

Did i say, Riffels are bad? They can indeed be real effective in her best environment. In war, you have rarely the choice to choose how to fight. With Assaultriffels you are more flexibel, at least.

I hope we have the same opinnion that at "Ceteris paribus" a Assault Riffel is superior to all singel-bolt riffels.

To bring the Hurtgen-Forrest as an example is, in your words a "no-brainer". It was the question if the germs introduces in 42 the AR, would it change annything?. I say yes! If someone came up with "would better Tanks, Arty Bombers do anything for the outcome early in the east, i would say no...Infantrie is still the effectivest unit on the Battlefield, and if you give them more powerfull weapons, they will give you better results.

Facta loquuntur

[K_Tiger]

Mr. Dorosh

Outstanding! Can you provide us a link?

Hehe.. what do you need, how mutch better a Assaultriffel compared to a single-action is?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by K_Tiger:

Infantrie is still the effectivest unit on the Battlefield, and if you give them more powerfull weapons, they will give you better results.

I very seriously suggest reading 'The recollections of Rifleman Bowlby', and then coming back telling us whether in your opinion him having an assault rifle instead of a Lee-Enfield would have made bugger all difference in the situations he describes. Or Ganter's 'Roll me over'.

After reading those, I would also like to see whether you still think infantry was the most effective weapon on the battlefield. Somehow casualty statistics fail to bear that one out, but if you have any data to support that argument, I would be keen to see it. The real killer in WW2 was artillery. Dupuy (IIRC) said that his job as an infantry comander was just to bring the FOO to the next ridge-line.

Since you were trained on the G3, I assume, please let me know your evaluation of its usefulness in a close-combat situation. Personally, I take the Uzi anytime. Failing that, if you lock me in a room, I take my chances with the spade, and let the other guy have the G3.

Regarding grenades - the key is not to bring just 2-3.

[Wisbech_lad]

Yes, Mr Macdonald Fraser did unfortunately misplace his Tommy gun. He also didn't like the PIAT (who did?) and his platoon left the 2" mortar in stores. But the mighty kettle was always with them.

The British Army in WW2 seemed to have a fairly relaxed attitude to scrounging, uniforms, weapons etc, with officers especially wearing pretty much what they pleased, as long as it was vaguely green. Or khaki in the desert.

MG's in ambush positions were what held Jary up, not rifles, MPs or MP44's. At one point 6 well placed MG42s stop his battalion cold, until arty can be called in.

There is a nice story when he is charging forward to capture a railway crossing. A German soldier empties an SMG at him at very short range (across a road ISTR), misses Jary, shrugs his shoulders and surrenders.

[Andreas]

Wisbech - them are some great books. I wish we had something similar from the German perspective in English. I can think of Metelmann 'Through Hell for Hitler' and Bidermann 'In deadly combat', but not much else.

BTW - Bidermann says the Stug44 was often claimed by the officers. Make of that what you will, but I think it is interesting considering all the great war-prolonging things people here are suggesting could have been done with it (you know, send the guys of to flank the opponent etc.).