MP44

[MeatEtr]

Sorry, a bit off topic. Anybody here play DOD(Day of Defeat), a mod for Half Life? The game has just gone retail, great WWII action. It's not your typical twitch FPS game. Much more realistic than most. Anyway, the reason im posting about it is because the MP44 is my favorite weapon to use for the germans. Good for long range and for CQB.

[Jack Carr]

For an example of just how fast and ly 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.

I think that you may be a little pumped up on this example of a British infantry unit having some success with bolt action rifles. Are you basing your opinion on the topic on an individual firefight as opposed to the general concept of being able to throw more lead at the enemy with semi-auto/full-auto weapons?

I'm gonna fall back on my last post here and ask the obvious question, "why does every modern day army in the world issue assault rifles to their infantry?"

Wouldn't the German Army of WWII have benefited from this as well?

There have already been posts to this thread stating that there were many other factors including armor superiourity, artillery superiourity, air superiourity, etc. These other factors obviously weighed heavily against the German infantry but to say that putting an assault rifle in the hands of the majority of the German infantryman on the battlefield would not have helped the Germans is, I'll use one from Michael Dorosh, laughable.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Let's do a little exercise;

Hurrah!

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

[briefing snipped]

What happens next?

If it goes anything like the sort of training weekends I remember, I would expect something like this:

1. Officer Cadet under training leading the section goes through the actions in his aide-memoire, trying to conduct an appreciation as per his classroom instruction, while periodically bleating "Where are the enemy?".

2. When it has become obvious that he is going to get nothing done for another fifteen minutes, the lance-corporal who is section 2-i-c mutters something like "Gun group, brass up those trees, we are going right flanking, rifle group follow me" and leads the section through the sort of section attack they have done hundreds of times before.

3. The Directing Staff sum up with the traditional words of assessment, "That was bloody awful, you're all dead", then give the section leader a rocket for delayed-action cluelessness and the platoon commander a severe wigging for letting a section take on an MG post unaided.

4. Smartarse radio operator claims it would not have been so bad if someone had responded to the fire mission request, HELARM, air request, nuc strike request etc. he was sending.

5. DS say there is just time to do it all again before lunch, properly this time please gentlemen.

Maybe they did it different in the Wehrmacht.

All the best,

John.

[Andreas]

John, was that with or without the MWPAR™ (Magic War Prolonging Assault Rifle)?

[JonS]

Originally posted by K_Tiger:

Andreas:

I think you might be as confused about who is posting what as you are about the effectiveness of ARs

Its right, the Artillerie inflicted the most casualitys, ... I find its a bit unfair to compare the effectiveness from small arms with Arty. How many Soldiers really shoot each other?

Don't you see? That's the whole point. If artillery is causing most of the casualties, and not many soldiers are shooting at each other anyway, how could changing the weapon that the infantry carry cause much of a difference?

BTW, what does 'fairness' have to do with anything :confused:

Regards

JonS

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Jack Carr:

I'm gonna fall back on my last post here and ask the obvious question, "why does every modern day army in the world issue assault rifles to their infantry?".

Security Blanket.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Andreas:

John, was that with or without the MWPAR™ (Magic War Prolonging Assault Rifle)?

LOFL!!!

John D. Salt not surprisingly gets the prize for correct answer.

Although at the risk of taking this seriously at this point, the Wehrmacht would have killed for a radio at the platoon level...

[ May 08, 2003, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

... the Wehrmacht would have killed for a radio at the platoon level...

Hah! What weren't they prepared to kill for?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

... the Wehrmacht would have killed for a radio at the platoon level...

Hah! What weren't they prepared to kill for? </font>

[SgtMuhammed]

I think that you may be a little pumped up on this example of a British infantry unit having some success with bolt action rifles. Are you basing your opinion on the topic on an individual firefight as opposed to the general concept of being able to throw more lead at the enemy with semi-auto/full-auto weapons?

No actually I am basing my position on 10 years as an infantry squad and team leader as well as about 17 years of serious research.

I'm gonna fall back on my last post here and ask the obvious question, "why does every modern day army in the world issue assault rifles to their infantry?"

Because most are unwilling or unable to teach their soldiers how to shoot.

During infantry training (in the U.S. Army at least) the only time you fire on burst or full auto is during field exercises and even then Drill Sergeants will tell you to go back to semi and take aimed shots. If the reason for adopting the assault rifle is the superiority of fully automatic fire then wouldn't one think that it would be the primary methode of firing taught to those who are going to use it? Wouldn't you think there would be at least a little instruction on how to control your weapon while firing on full auto? This is not done because it is pointless.

Burst fire does have its uses but every army knows it is better to actually hit a man with one round than to tear up the air around him with 5. They also know that 9 out of 10 soldiers will not fire that 1 round so they might as well fire the 5 and hope for the best.

Don't let your experience with CM fool you into thinking that soldiers are automated killing machines. Most of them are scared kids who can barely remember their name in a firefight much less the fundemanentals of shooting.

[Michael Dorosh]

sgtgoody - Canadian range exercises are pretty much the same. The Level III shoot, which the Infantry need to qualify, does involve run downs, 100 metres at a time, with a little bit of automatic fire involved; basically it is just necessary to hit a man sized target, from I believe 100 or 200 metres maximum; the rest (majority) of the shoot is done in various positions 1 shot at a time, either timed exposures or 5 round groupings untimed, from ranges of 500 metres on down. With a 3x optical sight, though, it's kinda like cheating. I've never done the Level III shoot, I will add, as it's not expected of my trade.

The Level II shoot, which "other arms" need to do, does not involve a run down, nor automatic weapons fire.

[Lumbergh]

Stepping in here at a late point...

Let's summarize...Logically, we all agree that the stug44 is superior to the K-98. If it were not, then why does every infantry rifle now look like the stug44 rather than the K-98? Assuming that the current direction of infantry weaponry is correct, then the stug44 represents an improvement in armorment.

Given that it is an improvement, there remains 2 questions. 1, what are the downsides, and do they outweigh the benefits, and 2, would the aforementioned benefits prove to be significant.

For 1, the downsides I see mentioned seem to boil down to two. First, carrying more ammo for the semi-auto rifle would reduce the available carrying capacity for the LMG by a significant amount. However, it appears the rate of fire of a bolt-action, as quoted in this thread, is closer to that of an assault rifle than would immediately be apparent. Second, the additional ammo consumption could stretch the German logistical system even further. Obviously, it would add an additional strain, but a significant one? I would venture that many, many other war materials were much more logistically challenging than rifle bullets.

With regards towards 2, would the new weapon prolong the war? The only positive argument for this is that the assault rifle adds additional suppresive power and flexibility to the standard squad. This is significant, but, as is pointed out above, depends on the fighting situation. Given the (many times cited) situation at the front, with massive allied reliance on artillery and (in the East) direct-fire HE, how much extra would the stug44 really add to the squad? Something, but not much.

In short, it seems rather pedantic to argue that a better weapon would somehow have no effect on the battlefield at all. On the other hand, it also appears that any extension of the war from the change in weaponry would be very minor.

We could give the Germans M-16s with grenade launchers and it would still not do much good against a tank army's worth of T-34s.

[SgtMuhammed]

Even U.S. assault courses are not run with full auto. At the premier CQB (close quarters battle) course in the army, the ones that the Special Ops guys go through, they are taught to use rapidly fired well aimed single shots.

[manchildstein (ii)]

a couple of things about the ammo:

the cartridge for the mp44 would have cost less per shot to have produced. i don't have any specifics though

since the cartridge for the mp44 was smaller than the one for the k98, more mp44 cartridges could have been carried in the same amount of space, or at the same amount of weight.

this wouldn't entirely erase the difference between bolt-action and semi-auto or automatic ammo consumption considerations but it would make the comparison closer than one might at first think....

as for the mp44 being a 'long range' gun in an fps... i'm not sure that's realistic... i still think its effective range would have been 150-200 meters max... the bolt action should have the mp44 beat in single shot accuracy at 300 meters+ and the penetrating power of the '7.94' must certainly have been greater as well..

[Fishu]

Lumbergh,

The tanks aren't all over.

There is still german tanks and ATG's.

However, infantry holds the ground, not the tanks.

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Let's do a little exercise;

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!"

I wouldn't have heard him if he was 150 meters out and people are shooting and I have my face in the dirt.

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.

So I'm the right flank?

What happens next?

If the ambush is 200m or more away it means that whoever is in the trench screwed up and sprung it too early. I get the MG42 talking against the treeline and have every other man return fire to keep them from thinking too much about hugging the dirt.

Being that I'm am the right flank of my company and my platoon & company are drifting off away to my left, I tell my platoon leader to kiss my ass as he should know better than ordering a head-on assault on a dug in enemy machine gun across open ground- That is no job for an unsupported 8 man squad.

Depending on the severity of the incoming fire and the rate of movement of my company away from me I would probably order a break contact in bounds (Assault rifles & rifles covering for MG & then vice versa - MG goes first in case it gets dropped along the way) towards the rest of the company to a better position to continue covering my platoon's & company's flank. Whatever I would do I would not head up the gully - If whoever set the ambush had half a brain I'd have some mines or at least a waiting MG lined up on it.

If the platoon leader wants to regroup and take out the trench in front off me, then fine, I'll do it when he shows up to give me cover, otherwise I'll continue to hold my flank guard and drift with the platoon.

Gyrene

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Gyrene:

Being that I'm am the right flank of my company and my platoon & company are drifting off away to my left, I tell my platoon leader to kiss my ass as he should know better than ordering a head-on assault on a dug in enemy machine gun across open ground- That is no job for an unsupported 8 man squad.

Right there we see some of the similarities and differences between US an UK tactical thinking.

Certainly British Army teaching since way-back-when has been than attacking a single MG is a platoon job.

However, it would not be quite correct in the British Army, to say "Kiss my arse" to your platoon commander in the situation described above.

The correct response would be "Kiss my arse, SIR."

All the best,

John.

[ May 09, 2003, 05:57 AM: Message edited by: John D Salt ]

[K_Tiger]

Dear Mr. Dorosh..

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?

Maybe the Germs wont counterattack, due to the maighty überrifel-canadians? "Maybe they turned green when they are angry!? Wasnt the first canadian settlers, French?...sorry, couldn ressist .

I must say, the thread started real nice, but now im get slowly bored. In any case, i learned something new.

Give a soldier (unimportantly which nationality) a AR insteed a SAR and he can`t hit a barn. Not to speak from the mentioned "shaking legg" syndrom. Reload time doesnt matter in combat. A groupe of rifel armed soldiers can make you belive, a hole Companie face you (but what happend if you give them AR? ) Its easier to move forward wit a SAR as with a AR. ect. did i miss somefink? Its your fault that i hade tonight a nightmare about how you can turn soldiers into zombie-germans after they recived her first AR. Oh... i have to stop playing CM for a while.

Now i know who made those post-war WWII Movies, or better who saw them all...

JohnS:

Don't you see? That's the whole point. If artillery is causing most of the casualties, and not many soldiers are shooting at each other anyway, how could changing the weapon that the infantry carry cause much of a difference?

Belive me...there are allways enough grunts left to throw, shoot, sting, smell....dumb looking to each other in order to endanger itself mutually.

[flamingknives]

These Sturm squads with the LMGs removed, were the MGs just not issued or were they re-allocated to a higher level formation?

[ ]In any case, I think a heavy barrelled version of the MP44 mounted on a tripod would have won the war for the germans[/ ]

[K_Tiger]

We could give the Germans M-16s with grenade launchers and it would still not do much good against a tank army's worth of T-34s

Hmmm...here is a example how my bad english collide with your worst logical explanation.

Does this mean: If i cant hit a B52 with a M-16 it isnt worth to carry around or maybe not even to build?

Whats going on here?? Now i need some Rexford stuff...for my soul-welfare. :cool:

[K_Tiger]

Flaming...

In any case, I think a heavy barrelled version of the MP44 mounted on a tripod would have won the war for the germans

You are so darn close... but my new theory is, the germs hade only build thems, say 2-3 millions and send this crap to russia and the other allies.Voila....one month later, the first ukrainian zombie-guards armee was born...

[flamingknives]

Does this mean: If i cant hit a B52 with a M-16 it isnt worth to carry around or maybe not even to build?

Almost. Your M16 isn't going to prolong the war any more than a pointy stick, if you're getting the fertiliser bombed out of you by strategic bombers, artillery and tanks.

[Jack Carr]

sgtgoody - Canadian range exercises are pretty much the same. The Level III shoot, which the Infantry need to qualify, does involve run downs, 100 metres at a time, with a little bit of automatic fire involved; basically it is just necessary to hit a man sized target, from I believe 100 or 200 metres maximum; the rest (majority) of the shoot is done in various positions 1 shot at a time, either timed exposures or 5 round groupings untimed, from ranges of 500 metres on down. With a 3x optical sight, though, it's kinda like cheating. I've never done the Level III shoot, I will add, as it's not expected of my trade.

The Level II shoot, which "other arms" need to do, does not involve a run down, nor automatic weapons fire.

Sounds to me like you fellas are back at the rifle range. Weren't you telling me two or three posts ago that the battlefield isn't the rifle range? Guys...YOU'RE CONTRADICTING YOURSELVES!

I'm leaving for the weekend. It's been great.

God Bless.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Jack Carr:

Sounds to me like you fellas are back at the rifle range. Weren't you telling me two or three posts ago that the battlefield isn't the rifle range? Guys...YOU'RE CONTRADICTING YOURSELVES!

I'm leaving for the weekend. It's been great.

God Bless. [/QB]

You really don't have any capacity for critical thought, do you?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Gyrene:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Let's do a little exercise;

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!"

I wouldn't have heard him if he was 150 meters out and people are shooting and I have my face in the dirt.

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.

So I'm the right flank?

What happens next?

If the ambush is 200m or more away it means that whoever is in the trench screwed up and sprung it too early. I get the MG42 talking against the treeline and have every other man return fire to keep them from thinking too much about hugging the dirt.

Being that I'm am the right flank of my company and my platoon & company are drifting off away to my left, I tell my platoon leader to kiss my ass as he should know better than ordering a head-on assault on a dug in enemy machine gun across open ground- That is no job for an unsupported 8 man squad.

Depending on the severity of the incoming fire and the rate of movement of my company away from me I would probably order a break contact in bounds (Assault rifles & rifles covering for MG & then vice versa - MG goes first in case it gets dropped along the way) towards the rest of the company to a better position to continue covering my platoon's & company's flank. Whatever I would do I would not head up the gully - If whoever set the ambush had half a brain I'd have some mines or at least a waiting MG lined up on it.

If the platoon leader wants to regroup and take out the trench in front off me, then fine, I'll do it when he shows up to give me cover, otherwise I'll continue to hold my flank guard and drift with the platoon.

Gyrene </font>