MP44

[K_Tiger]

Sgt.goody:

Theyr are more important factors in battle then how many bulletts you throw around. Its TIME!!

Single-action Rifels: First you have to bring a new bullet after every shoot back into the chamber, second you have to reload all 5 shoots...thats a hugh time consumpting situation.

Take this example: You are defending a small foxhole. A group of ten Russians start to attack you beginning 50 meters away (over open ground, best way to made kills). With a normal rifel, you are possible able to kill 3 out of tens. With a garand (8 Bullet mag) maybe you can hit 3-5. With a MP or Assaultgun you are ABLE to kill all. Moving targets are really hard to hit with a rifel, with a semi to full auto-rifel you only need to correct your aiming without loosing your target for some seconds out of your view.

No one say`s, the germs had start the war more convincingly, but with a good replacement for the standard rifel, it hade be a real showstoper and maybe reduced the own cassualitys.

I dont know why i wrote this all...i think for the most, the differences between those weapons, should be clear.

[JonS]

You might be technically able to kill them all*, but you only need to kill one or two. The rest will go to ground. The attack will stall, and you will have time to whistle up some mortars or artillery.

Of course, if the enemy commander has done his job, you should be so throughly supressed by artillery, then mortars, then HMGs, then LMGs (as the assaulting troops get closer to your position), that you won't be able to kill anyone. Regardless of what weapon you have.

Regards

JonS

* and that, of course, assumes that they will politely stand around while one picks them off one after another. And if they are going to be that polite, I think it would be downright churlish of them not to wait around while one reloads. Oh, BTW, not all bolt action rifles have five round magazines.

[ May 08, 2003, 05:54 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[K_Tiger]

Andreas:

Its right, the Artillerie inflicted the most casualitys, or should i say WIA. I find its a bit unfair to compare the effectiveness from small arms with Arty. How many Soldiers really shoot each other? I havent any stats now at hand but there werent much frontline soldiers out of a division involved in the real firefights. Under the designation Arty falls all from small Mortars up to the big Guns. I cant bring facts for this opinnion, but pound per pound....!?

Yes, i shoot with the G3 this ugly green..%&%$§ allways if we saw those us soldiers with her colts...we got enviously. The UZI i hate too, i prefere a more stable MP5. I was the best out of 3 Companies with the MG3 and with Pistol...ok, my first shooting, i throw it away...

[Andreas]

Originally posted by K_Tiger:

How many Soldiers really shoot each other? I havent any stats now at hand but there werent much frontline soldiers out of a division involved in the real firefights.

Now we are beginning to get somewhere. Since not many soldiers shoot at each other, what would the effect be of giving them a better weapon (better only in some specific circumstances) to pursue this activity be on the outcome of the war as a whole?

[SgtMuhammed]

The average soldier in a foxhole attacked by ten enemy troops will hit exactly 0 of them while expending all the rounds currently in his rifle. 10 years in the infantry and twice that time in serious research has shown me how true this is. The fact that most troops are now armed with automatic weapons has done little to increase the casualty figures since the introduction of magazine fed weapons.

What makes the most difference at the tactical level (forgetting arty and such) is training. A well trained man with a bolt action rifle will be much more effective than a schmoe with a machine gun. Even with ARs aimed fire is done from the semi-auto setting which argues against the need for full auto on individual weapons.

Armies use automatic weapons because most soldiers in combat will not keep their heads and will not be able to hit a house. It is better to spray 5 or 6 rounds at a time than 1 if it is not aimed.

BTW: I loved the G3. Whenever we would train with the Bundeswehr I couldn't wait to go to the range with them. I love my silver Schutzenschnur (I think it looks so much better than the bronze or gold).

[Brigadier]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

The average soldier in a foxhole attacked by ten enemy troops will hit exactly 0 of them while expending all the rounds currently in his rifle. 10 years in the infantry and twice that time in serious research has shown me how true this is. The fact that most troops are now armed with automatic weapons has done little to increase the casualty figures since the introduction of magazine fed weapons.

What makes the most difference at the tactical level (forgetting arty and such) is training. A well trained man with a bolt action rifle will be much more effective than a schmoe with a machine gun. Even with ARs aimed fire is done from the semi-auto setting which argues against the need for full auto on individual weapons.

Armies use automatic weapons because most soldiers in combat will not keep their heads and will not be able to hit a house. It is better to spray 5 or 6 rounds at a time than 1 if it is not aimed.

Again concur. All this autofire rubbish , dear oh dear.Learned readers , has it not dawned on you that perhaps the reason why the German Army stuck with the 98K for sooooooooo long , was the fact that they had a firm grasp of the concept of "marksmanship".Marksmanship is VITAL to the infantryman,and the first class German Army of the early war was a fearsome thing to behold........

[K_Tiger]

I doesnt sayed, the Stgw44 was the Gaussrifel under all small arms in WWII but if you gave all rifel-users in stalingrad a Autorifel, the germs would maybe have not lost there. Saved a hole Army plus capture those T-34 factories...had realy extended the war...IMHO

But again, i have mixed emotions if someone compare those mostly green US-Boys in mid 44`, with battlehardened 42`german units (not all). Those tricks like selfwounding (spell?) didnt work for german soldiers, they know to have to come back to the front anyway .

My Grandpa didnt have a Stgw44 but one guy of his troop. He spoke in hi regards about this new "Automatic-rifel". He never know the name of it till today...but that doesnt matter.

Brigadier:

The topic wasnt: Why the german army hold so long on rifels? It was more like, would have changed the auto-rifel the outcome of the war?

[Sardaukar]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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.

There is actually more supressive effect with semi or full automatic fire than with slower firing weapons, due to volume of fire, IMHO. There are some quotes from Germans thinking sometimes that they were facing whole platoon, instead of actual single US squad, just because Garands were able to put more lead on air than bolt action rifles, at least momentarily.

I think advantage is mostly defensive, albeit the supression works also with attack. If I was German platoon leader on East Front, I'd sure be happy if everyone was carrying MP 44 with few MG 42s too while facing Soviet infantry assault with large odds against Germans. In that case, MP 44 would have been bit of "force multiplier", but only in small unit scale.

With artillery, tanks and air support thrown too against Germans, it was almost as hopeless in operational scale if they were indeed carrying pitchforks.

So, my opinion is that while MP 44 in large quantities would have had *some* effect in combat, in larger scale it didn't matter that much.

Cheers,

M.S.

[Jack Carr]

If the Germans had mass produced/issued the MP44 when it became available it would have prolonged the conflict. Even if only by a few weeks. If Combat Mission teaches you anything about tactics then it would be that overwhelming fire superiourity wins the battle. Grenadiers cycling bolt action K98's were rarely able to achieve fire superiourity against there semi-auto rifle toting enemy, specifically West front. What were the Soviets using in late 1943 to the end of the war? Moisin-Nagant bolt action rifles? How common was the issue of the Soviet semi-auto rifle?

I realize that other factors played into this including artillery, armor, air support, etc. But if the average grenadier was armed with an assault rifle instead of a bolt action, 5 shot, WWI throwback, this would have certainly helped.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Jack Carr:

If the Germans had mass produced/issued the MP44 when it became available it would have prolonged the conflict. Even if only by a few weeks. If Combat Mission teaches you anything about tactics then it would be that overwhelming fire superiourity wins the battle. Grenadiers cycling bolt action K98's were rarely able to achieve fire superiourity against there semi-auto rifle toting enemy, specifically West front. What were the Soviets using in late 1943 to the end of the war? Moisin-Nagant bolt action rifles? How common was the issue of the Soviet semi-auto rifle?

I realize that other factors played into this including artillery, armor, air support, etc. But if the average grenadier was armed with an assault rifle instead of a bolt action, 5 shot, WWI throwback, this would have certainly helped.

Jack, I recommend actually reading one or two of the posts in this thread. Sgt Goody's, whom I haven't responded to, are particularly good, in addition to those of a few others.

Incidentally, the Canadian Army was issued with bolt action rifles, 8 men out of a ten man section, had NO repeat NO medium or heavy machineguns in the infantry battalions, and had a section automatic with a 28 round box magazine.

Yet somehow we still managed to wipe the Germans off the map pretty much everywhere we went starting in July 1943. In fact, I can't recall many instances of Canadian brigades giving up ground once taken, or of mass surrenders during the period July 1943 - May 1945.

Why is that, exactly?

[ May 08, 2003, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Fishu]

Dorosh,

I think it's because US won the war by itself

[flamingknives]

What I glean from CM:BB is that the most common weapon for Soviet infantry in the latter stages of the war was the PPsH SMG. Tanks and artillery did most of the long range stuff, while infantry were only required to clear out close terrain, such as woods and towns, where average combat ranges were very close.

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Brigadier:

Again concur. All this autofire rubbish

I partially agree. Full auto fire is not all that useful for aimed fire, but there are situations where it is called for e.g. breaking contact, room clearing, limited vis., certain ambush situations. Additionally, I have found short bursts to be very useful in relatively short range situations (less than 100 meters or so). Admittedly this was in training (with MILES), but I found over time that snap shots (call it semi-aimed for discussion purposes) taken as a burst were more likely to hit the target than those taken on semi-auto.

I do agree that training, and not the particular weapon is the bigger factor.

[ May 08, 2003, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Marlow ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Fishu:

Dorosh,

I think it's because US won the war by itself

For once we agree!

[Snowbart]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

Dorosh,

I think it's because US won the war by itself

For once we agree! </font>

[Jack Carr]

Look at K_Tiger's response. The average German soldier fired a shot and then had to take his aim off of the intended target to cycle the bolt and then re-aim. With a weapon like the MP-44 this would no longer have been necessary. I understand what Sgt. Goody is saying in his post and there is some truth to it, however, I honestly feel that his point does not capture everything that needs to be considered.

As to your Canadian observation, I am not stating that predominately bolt action armed squads could not be effective, I am saying that a squad predominately armed with full/semi-auto rifles can and would be MORE effective. The Allied casualty rate would have increased to some degree if from late 43 on most German soldiers were equipped with such a weapon. Thank God Hitler was a fool and could not see the value in such a weapon being distributed to the Wermacht.

You can quote from any book you want about revolutionary vs evolutionary but when it comes down to it, just ask yourself, "Would German squads have been more effective when armed mostly with MP-44's vs the same German squad armed with bolt action rifles?" If the answer to this question is yes, then throw the revolutionary vs evolutionary concept out the window. A higher Allied casualty rate would have slowed the progress towards Berlin.

[Snowbart]

I think you equip some guys w/ MP-40's, some w/ StG44's, some 98k's, and keep the squad's LMG's. This gives you a lot of diversification, which is very good in most things in life, and you can adapt to different situations more easily as they arise.

Anyone ever seen those modified StG's for firing around corners in street fighting? The barrel is actually bent to the left(or right, i forget which). Supposed to only last a few hundred rounds before you burn the barrel up. One of those funky German mod's :cool:

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Jack Carr:

Look at K_Tiger's response. The average German soldier fired a shot and then had to take his aim off of the intended target to cycle the bolt and then re-aim.

How many of those guys were aiming at anything, regardless of what type weapon they had? Honestly.

The history of firearms and men in battle suggest that a fraction - perhaps even a minority - of soldiers equipped with firearms effectively aimed their weapons, or inflicted casualties with them. I know what a bolt action rifle is, TYVM, and there is no reason to believe that equipping a troop with an SLR would in any way improve his accuracy, or even better his opportunity to inflict casualties with it. Targets wouldn't appear any better to him. The rifle range isn't the battle field.

In other words, your MP 44 dude isn't laying on the ground, he is constantly moving, and yes, taking his head away from his weapon. And if he's crapping his pants in fright, maybe he's not even shooting at all. And if he's shooting, he probably isn't seeing much more than tracers and haze in front of him; with his heart pounding and the adrenaline going and his breathing rate up, he likely isn't hitting what he thinks he's aiming at either.

You overestimate the importance of the rifleman on the influence of infantry actions. His main purpose was simply to be there, and as pointed out several times now, firefights were decided by the moral more than the physical. The fact that a bolt action operator has to take his head away from the weapon is a gigantic "so what" in the scheme of things, and really, a little laughable. How often does a good rifleman fire from the same position? I was taught to fire, then change positions, then fire again from a different position. Hard to maintain a sight picture when you're scrambling from side to side. Everyone, even tracer, has mentioned the necessity of moving forward during the platoon battle.

Again, these comments show a knowledge of the rifle range, which is really irrelevant to understanding the battlefield.

[ May 08, 2003, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Snowbart]

The squad rifleman's main purpose is to protect the LMG, to allow it to use it's awesome power.

[Michael Dorosh]

Let's do a little exercise;

Your platoon is advancing somewhere in the southern steppes towards a village about 1000 metres distant. You're spread out in a vee of vees; your section of ten men has been reduced by casualties to eight; you are a squad leader with an MP 40, two frag grenades, and a flare pistol. Your section has an MG42, an assistant gunner with K98, three K98 riflemen, and two men armed with the new MP 44.

Before you is undulating ground, sparse vegetation, a slight gully 50 metres to your right stretches out at right angles to you, extending out to a rise in the ground of about 2 metres, atop which are a stand of trees; a wheatfield is growing behind the embankment, stretching off towards the village. Your practiced eye notes the solid underbrush growing on the rise and you scan for signs of enemy soldiers. Some of the bushes seem to have wilted a bit, but it is late in the

season....

Your section is the righthand "vee" as you advance forward. Suddenly, muzzle flashes appear from the embankment ahead of you; the sound of a DP LMG follows, and you can hear bullets cracking over your head. You can't see anything in the thick underbrush; slight wisps of smoke from enemy rifles in indeterminate number can be barely made

out.

The platoon leader, about 150 metres to your left, yells out to you - "3 Gruppe - enemy trench, 200, to your direct front - take it out!"

The other two sections have begun skirmishing against what appears to be enemy infantry 200 metres to your left, and stretching off away from you. The rest of your company is even further to the left. The rest of your platoon has focussed attention off in that direction, your section is on its own.

What happens next?

[Jack Carr]

And if he's crapping his pants in fright, maybe he's not even shooting at all. And if he's shooting, he probably isn't seeing much more than tracers and haze in front of him; with his heart pounding and the adrenaline going and his breathing rate up, he likely isn't hitting what he thinks he's aiming at either.

Mike,

All things being equal, everyone crapping there pants, breathing heavy, heart pounding and shooting at nothing, the infantryman armed with a weapon that can be accurate when required and also capable of putting more lead towards the enemy is going to have a greater chance of hitting something.

Why is it that every modern army in the world issues it's infantry with semi-auto/full-auto weapons? If the logic behind, "It doesn't make a difference what type of weapon the infantryman has he just has to be there", is sound then why doesn't every modern army in the world go back to five shot, bolt action rifles?

Your right, I have no practical military experience. I have never been in the military. I have never been in a firefight. If you have this type of experience then you have one up on me.

To add just one other point, in reference to Sgt. Goody's post, you don't consider bolt action to auto feed revolutionary?

[JonS]

Originally posted by Snowbart:

I think you equip some guys w/ MP-40's, some w/ StG44's, some 98k's, and keep the squad's LMG's. This gives you a lot of diversification, which is very good in most things in life, and you can adapt to different situations more easily as they arise.

LOL. It also gives you a Q nightmare.

[SgtMuhammed]

To add just one other point, in reference to Sgt. Goody's post, you don't consider bolt action to auto feed revolutionary?

Not really. The change from single shot weapons to magazine fed resulted in not only a massive increase in total fire but a massive increase in effective fire as well.

For an example of just how fast and deadly a well trained force with bolt action rifles can be I would point you to the BEF at the battle of Mons. They fired so fast and with such effect that the Germans were convinced that the British had brought up a large number of machine guns. Unfortunatly for the British this level of training and proficency was a product of their reliance on a small, professional army. When they had to switch to a quickly raised mass army the level of marksmanship went down and the number of machine guns went up.

The British army of WWI was a direct result of their experiences in the Boer War. Many countries studied this conflict, which saw the first wide scale use of magazine fed rifles (the Lee-Enfield I believe) and drew the conclusion that they needed to increase the overal firepower of their infantry. They did this by changing from the single shot rifles of the time to various magazine fed firearms as well as adding varying numbers of machine guns to the TO&E. The British, however, decided that to increase their infantry's effectivness they would attempted to increase the effectivness of each individual. The Brits succeeded but only while there army was small and long serving.

The bolt action rifle has a high enough rate of effective fire to make the change to semi-auto an evolutionary change rather than a revolutionary one. A soldier in normal combat conditions (ranged fire at between 100 to 300 meters) armed with a bolt action is not under as much of a handicap vs a semi auto as would be a man with a single shot against a man with a bolt action.

[Determinant]

Originally posted by JonS:

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

I think you equip some guys w/ MP-40's, some w/ StG44's, some 98k's, and keep the squad's LMG's. This gives you a lot of diversification, which is very good in most things in life, and you can adapt to different situations more easily as they arise.

LOL. It also gives you a Q nightmare. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Some British Lee Enfields in World War One were actually equipped with a magazine cut off! This required the loader to manually load the weapon one round at a time. It was felt it would lessen the wastage of ammunition if the firer were slowed down, and he could then concentrate on marksmanship.

This was before the "fire and maneuver" concepts; infantry tactics then were based on the company, not the section. I refer to the 1914-15 period. By 1917, that all fell by the wayside.

On the set of Legends of the Fall, we drilled in company tactics right out of the 1914 era manuals. You advanced in two ranks, got to within a few dozen yards of the enemy, closed to shoulder dressing, fired two rounds rapid from the hip, and charged home with the bayonet.

Wasn't a big success in actual practice....(!)