MP44

[Spook]

Well, I kept punting on my own reply, just mired in other (GASP!) forums beyond the BF ones.

Anyway, coming back to the original question, which I will phrase as this: "Could enough MP-44's fielded by the Germans had a noticeable effect on the war's course?"

The "sanity check" commentaries provided by Michael, Andreas, and a few others are certainly the most on-target IMO. However, trying to build a corollary argument as that "the types of small arms didn't really matter" is one that should also be approached with reservation. Why so? Well, consider how many other weapons systems, at the tactical level, have been foisted at "could have improved the Germans chances." Examples:

A) "What if the Germans could've deployed the Me-262 as early as 1942?"

"What the the Germans could've gotten Type XXI submarines operating much sooner?"

C) "What if the Germans had more powerful tanks against the Soviets in 1941?"

Now, mind you, posting these examples do not argue their viability of application one way or the other (e.g., the Me-262 was NOT going to be ready by 1942). But they are three such cases which I have seen of "tactical weapons" argued by others to have a chance of affecting a change in the war's course.

Part of why they are speculated on, like for the MP-44, is just that: their POSSIBLE effect always remains speculative.

Now, let us consider instead the case of one such weapons system that DID have a noticeable effect on the course of one aspect of the war. I will call this "The Parable of the P-51."

The P-51 fighter is typically recognized, as a tactical weapons system, as fundamentally changing the course of the USAAF daylight bombing campaign. It was reasonably maneuverable, had reasonable firepower, and above all, the range to cover the bombers to most targets in Germany. A fairly "balanced" aircraft.

Because it seemed to have such an effect as it did, this helps fuel the speculation on how the Germans could've countered if the Me-262 was flying sooner. After all, if one such Allied weapon could be such an apparent "war-winner," why not certain other German weapons.

But there was far more to the story of the P-51's eventual impact than meets the eye. These being:

A) Parallel to the P-51 was the development of "subsystems" to enhance the abilities of Allied fighter pilots. The P-51 was among those first to "automate" certain functions like engine cooling settings. Added features were larger "paper" drop tanks, pilot "anti-G" suits, and K-14 gunsights. There was quite a bit more to it than just "the plane."

New allied fighter pilots were coming in with much longer training periods than their German counterparts, given the effects of earlier attrition and fuel shortages for the Luftwaffe.

C) The overall German fighter pilot experience level was RAPIDLY going down in 1944. The "old hands" to hold together the poorly trained replacements grew fewer & fewer.

and....

D) The USAAF fighters, including the P-51, TYPICALLY performed better than most German fighters at higher altitudes (vice-versa at lower regimes); at the altitudes where the US bombers usually flew in at. In effect, the USAAF could more readily define the "combat environment," at least in good weather.

In sum, a lot had chainlinked together to create the situation for the P-51 to have the effect as it did. There was much more at work than just "the plane."

And this is how a counter-argument for the Me-262 should have certain doubts attached to it. The Me-262 alone wasn't going to win the war or adjust its course just by itself; enough "experten" had to have it in hand, the plane had to be sustained logistically (the logistics infrastructure beginning to collapse in 1944), enough had to be manufactured & deployed, and pilot training & fuel had to also be sufficiently in hand.

So now let's get back to the MP-44. Assume, for the moment, that this weapon was produced in the hundreds of thousands (or even over a million) and made available for German troops in 1941 before Barbarossa. Could THAT have made a difference?

I wouldn't put odds on it, but let's not be dismissive just yet. I might allow that the odds MIGHT improve IF the following also applied:

1) IF German squad-level training with the MP-44 had adapted to get the most out of the added weapon in MOST tactical situations.

2) IF German logistics could keep up to supply the likely added ammo expenditures.

3) IF the MP-44's availability actually enhanced German infantry's tactical options in those situations where artillery and tank support was NOT available.

4) IF enough battle cases had occured where the MP-44's presence was what made the difference.

When we're talking about hundreds of thousands of MP-44's, we're possibly talking of a PERVASIVE enough application where enough tactical events with the MP-44 having some added "tactical effect" MIGHT add up to have a larger effect on the course of an operation or campaign.

Case in point: would regular availability of the MP-44 (mixed in with SMG's, K98 rifles, & MG's) had an added effect in the Stalingrad street fighting, at least in its earlier stages? As before, speculative, but I could anticipate that SOME marginal benefit would've been accrued.

However......

What ultimately determines how some given weapon COULD effect the war's course is how its contribution and availability affects the COMBAT ENVIRONMENT in enough such battle cases. The MP-44's greater availability could have changed some tactical situations here & there (like urban fighting), but what if the opposition adapts in a similarly pervasive way?

And can any one small arm ever trump combined arms and artillery in affecting the combat environment? In WWII and afterwards?

Therefore, it's pretty much as pointed out by Michael and others here; a given small arm can change some tactical situations, but it's a bit much to expect that it can change the combat environment to the same degree as other factors like combined arms, irregardless of the unit training and experience in that alterate small arm.

[flamingknives]

I think we need to come back to the concept of evolutionary Vs. revolutionary change.

The P-51D goes beyond evolutionary, as it is able to deploy where previous types could not. In a straight dogfight, where fuel is unimportant, the P-51D is roughly matched by the Spitfire and Fw190D9. Its long range meant that it was essentially deploying into a vacuum, and suddenly the bombers had single engined escorts, who were able to engage attacking fighters on even terms.

The MP44, on the other hand, is a bit better than an SMG at range, and lots better than a bolt-action close up, but as the enemy is well equipped with SMGs, this greater advantage is not as significant.

[Spook]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

The P-51D goes beyond evolutionary, as it is able to deploy where previous types could not. In a straight dogfight, where fuel is unimportant, the P-51D is roughly matched by the Spitfire and Fw190D9. Its long range meant that it was essentially deploying into a vacuum, and suddenly the bombers had single engined escorts, who were able to engage attacking fighters on even terms.

The MP44, on the other hand, is a bit better than an SMG at range, and lots better than a bolt-action close up, but as the enemy is well equipped with SMGs, this greater advantage is not as significant.

That would be another way to put it: the MP-44 could "fill a niche," but couldn't quite "deploy in a vacuum" so much as was the case for other weapons systems.

[Michael Dorosh]

Every new weapon type developed by Germany actual increased the rapidity of her demise, taking away scarce resources that could have been put to much better use elsewhere. The Me 262 powerplant had to be completely replaced every 100 hours, no?

Germany was destined to lose the war, cerainly from 1943 on, barring the development of the atomic bomb. All the krummlauf barrels and night vision Panther sights couldn't have saved her, mainly because she couldn't build enough quality stuff in quantity and man it with men who were mostly already dead in Russia. The Me 262 engine is the best example of that, but there are others.

How much of the German labour force (and military force) consisted of conscripts and slaves?

By 1944 they were making uniforms out of wood pulp fibres and burning whatever they could get for fuel in internal combustion engines.

Conversely, how many Mustang groups did the USAAF have in combat by June 1944? They had quality and quantity, a pretty good combination.

[ May 09, 2003, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Spook]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Conversely, how many Mustang groups did the USAAF have in combat by June 1944? They had quality and quantity, a pretty good combination.

An off-tangent reply, but several 8th AF units that would later convert to the P-51 were still flying the P-47 or P-38 in June. But yes, by that time, the available numbers of P-51's (including those flying with 15th AF from Italy) were still making their presence felt at such a level as that the Luftwaffe couldn't really counter.

[illo]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Every new weapon type developed by Germany actual increased the rapidity of her demise, taking away scarce resources that could have been put to much better use elsewhere. The Me 262 powerplant had to be completely replaced every 100 hours, no?

Those axial flow jets were actually designed to be overhauled between every 10 hours of flight. This was simply logistical decision as far as ive read.

Making engine life longer would have meant using costly and scarce materials which would have decreaced production dramatically. Instead they went for cheaper materials and recycling.

In 1945 there were loads of latest fighters just scattered around german airfields without fuel to fly more than handful of them.

[ May 09, 2003, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: illo ]

[tracer]

Well, as far as prolonging the war if the MP44 had been introduced earlier in the war, and used properly and as the primary infantry weapon, you can't deny that it would have. Anyone that can say that it wouldn't have must be smoking something. The bolt action rifle is inferior to a fully automatic weapon,or semi for that matter.(with a possible exception if used in the sniping role). And common sense should answer that question. All the what if it was put into play this way or that way, leads you back in a loop, what if??. Earlier in the war the troops were better trained, and they had the upperhand, and could have used the MP44 to the fullest. Then it's said that they would have replaced the LMG, what IF they left the LMG? The time that it was introduced, germany was already losing the war, and troop quality was declining.

Now back to the U.S. military statement that was made about the "troop quality" and all that crap. We have the finest and history should prove that, and the world knows it. You take away the politicians and let the soldier do the job, he or she will do it well, enough said about that. And when I type on this forum, I don't really care about "typos" and I don't see how that really matters anyhow, I'm not here to impress anyone, and I'm sure 99.9% of the people on this forum don't care to be impressed, even by some snot nosed armchair warrior who reads a few books, joins the military in whichever god forsaken country for a few years hitch, and goes through a few drills and thinks he's a know it all about military combat and tactics.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by tracer:

Well, as far as prolonging the war if the MP44 had been introduced earlier in the war, and used properly and as the primary infantry weapon, you can't deny that it would have.

Anyone that can say that it wouldn't have must be smoking something.

The bolt action rifle is inferior to a fully automatic weapon,or semi for that matter.(with a possible exception if used in the sniping role).

No ****.

All the what if it was put into play this way or that way, leads you back in a loop, what if??. Earlier in the war the troops were better trained, and they had the upperhand, and could have used the MP44 to the fullest. Then it's said that they would have replaced the LMG, what IF they left the LMG? The time that it was introduced, germany was already losing the war, and troop quality was declining.

Now back to the U.S. military statement that was made about the "troop quality" and all that crap. We have the finest and history should prove that, and the world knows it.

You take away the politicians and let the soldier do the job, he or she will do it well, enough said about that.

And when I type on this forum, I don't really care about "typos" and I don't see how that really matters anyhow, I'm not here to impress anyone,

Mission Accomplished

and I'm sure 99.9% of the people on this forum don't care to be impressed, even by some snot nosed armchair warrior who reads a few books, joins the military in whichever god forsaken country for a few years hitch, and goes through a few drills and thinks he's a know it all about military combat and tactics.

'thinks he's a know it all' - LOL

Is he or isn't he? Maybe only his hairdresser knows for sure?

Once again, thanks for all your informed input. You obviously found a home in Army!

Do tell us about all that combat action you saw, though, I think we'd be interested in knowing how things really work down at the platoon level.

[ May 09, 2003, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[tracer]

I would tell you a few stories, but you wouldn't be interested,they are not like the books you've been reading.

[Spook]

Coming back to an earlier note.....

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Every new weapon type developed by Germany actual increased the rapidity of her demise, taking away scarce resources that could have been put to much better use elsewhere. The Me 262 powerplant had to be completely replaced every 100 hours, no?

It does give pause for thought if German aircraft development efforts focused instead to deploy aircraft like the Fw190D and He219 (night-fighter) sooner, in greater numbers, and with greater operating range. That would've probably had greater effect than the Me262 and the Komet combined.

The Me109G-10 and 109K versions were quite remarkable in their top speed; about as much horsepower as could be packed into the nose was reached about then. But both the range and endurance of these later versions SUCKED. Hard then to position the plane for interception at an advantageous position.

[Spook]

Originally posted by tracer:

I'm not here to impress anyone, and I'm sure 99.9% of the people on this forum don't care to be impressed, even by some snot nosed armchair warrior who reads a few books, joins the military in whichever god forsaken country for a few years hitch, and goes through a few drills and thinks he's a know it all about military combat and tactics.

Don't get so worked up about the exchanges. Heck, I haven't done the basic nor the drill, and still consider myself to be a snot-nosed know-it-all anyway; or at least a know-it-some.

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by illo:

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

Every new weapon type developed by Germany actual increased the rapidity of her demise, taking away scarce resources that could have been put to much better use elsewhere. The Me 262 powerplant had to be completely replaced every 100 hours, no?

Those axial flow jets were actually designed to be overhauled between every 10 hours of flight. This was simply logistical decision as far as ive read.

Making engine life longer would have meant using costly and scarce materials which would have decreaced production dramatically. Instead they went for cheaper materials and recycling.

In 1945 there were loads of latest fighters just scattered around german airfields without fuel to fly more than handful of them. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by tracer:

I would tell you a few stories, but you wouldn't be interested,they are not like the books you've been reading.

I figured you were all talk. Thanks for confirming.

[Spook]

Originally posted by Gyrene:

Were the Me262's engines axial flow? I thought they were centrifugal flow like the Whipple engine.

The Junkers Jumo 004 was indeed axial-flow. Here's a pic of a cutaway version at the AF Museum.

[flamingknives]

Centrifugal flow? Huh? Wassat?

AFAIK, all jet engines Or gas turbines, shall we say) are axial flow. If they're not, then it's something else.

Pumps can be centrifugal flow, but they don't generate power.

To reiterate an earlier question, in case it was lost in the morass:

Were the LMGs for the Sturm Sqauds simply not issued, or were they retained at a higher level (like a platoon weapons squad).

Another issue for the MP44 might be the morale issue. If it is just a security blanket, perhaps an automatic weapon is a really nice one with satiny bits, thereby increasing section morale as compared to the rough, woolly K98.

[Spook]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Centrifugal flow? Huh? Wassat?

AFAIK, all jet engines Or gas turbines, shall we say) are axial flow. If they're not, then it's something else.

We're talking the turbomachinery in specific, the compressor and turbine stage. A turbine-powered THRUST engine will typically have its inlet and exhaust flows on the same axis. But for RADIAL-flow compressors & turbines in-between, the flow will be re-directed perpendicular. Example:

Pumps can be centrifugal flow, but they don't generate power.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you talking of thrust (a force term) or power (energy rate), which are not directly equivalent? And strictly speaking, yes, pumps don't generate power. They put work INTO a fluid instead of get work out of it.

Turbine engines with radial-flow compressors and turbines, however, can most certainly generate power or provide thrust. Auxiliary power units (APU's) are a prominent example of turbine engines, using radial-flow turbomachinery, that serve as power generators. For thrust, however, engines with axial-flow turbomachinery are typically more efficient.

I'm being really nitnoid over this, but APU's are among what I've worked in government research projects for 16 years.

[ May 10, 2003, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Spook ]

[flamingknives]

Aha! with you now.

Looks like a bleedin' stupid thing to power an aircraft with though.

Were any 'planes ever powered in this way? (i.e. propelled)

[Spook]

The pictured APU above (the Garrett GTCP 85) isn't a propulsion (thrust) engine. It provides pneumatic air supply and mechanical power to drive some accessories. One such application is in the C-130 Hercules transport, though the 85 is used in a few other aircraft too. It's a late-1950's era design.

Most airliners have one version or another of an APU onboard. It's what is used to help start up the main engines on the ground.

[coe]

wasn't one way to respond to an ambush to not only charge but pour high volumes of lead in the general area of the enemy? (was this an American doctrine in Vietnam?). I can imagine that

if the fire isn't well aimed, (either with

bolt action or semi or full auto), more lead

coming at you can't be that thrilling (perhaps you

are more likely to crack?)

C

[Brigadier]

Originally posted by Spook:

The pictured APU above (the Garrett GTCP 85) isn't a propulsion (thrust) engine. It provides pneumatic air supply and mechanical power to drive some accessories. One such application is in the C-130 Hercules transport, though the 85 is used in a few other aircraft too. It's a late-1950's era design.

Most airliners have one version or another of an APU onboard. It's what is used to help start up the main engines on the ground.

Spook if you can give me a typical application for a PULSEJET engine used during WW2 I will name my first born "Spook" (if you know the difference between an APU and a propulsion engine you are 2/3rd's the way there). AND NO USING GOOGLE!

I'm an AVIONIC's Engineer by trade but BGTE theory (WW2) gives me wood .

**edited for clarity**

[ May 11, 2003, 04:53 AM: Message edited by: Brigadier ]

[Jack Carr]

Michael Dorosh,

After being away for the weekend I just saw your last post and was shocked.

What are you doing making a demeaning comment like that?

I thought about taking this offline because it seems to me, after seeing your last post, that this has somehow gotten personal. We can play one up-manship all day long on the Battlefront forum. I have an opinion and so do you. I don't have any problems with people who have opinions other than my own. I didn't feel that my last post warranted such an abrasive, demeaning reply.

For all that it's worth, your probably right about this MP44 topic. After your last post I no longer care about the topic at all.

I stated before that I don't have any problems with people having differing opinions. I don't. In fact many people that know me think that I am one of the easiest guys to get along with. What I do have a problem with is people throwing disrespectful comments around while hiding behind the internet.

As for capacity for critical thought, it was your argument that went from intellectual discourse to having to degrade me as a person.

It seems to me that your critical thought capacity is the one that's on empty.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by Andreas:

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.

Andreas, if those yobo's were Aussies where their current leader is little Johnnie Howard then I contend that they would be highly combat effective since they'd all be aiming low trying to take the bugger out!

Regards

Jim R.

[Ant]

Originally posted by Brigadier:

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

The pictured APU above (the Garrett GTCP 85) isn't a propulsion (thrust) engine. It provides pneumatic air supply and mechanical power to drive some accessories. One such application is in the C-130 Hercules transport, though the 85 is used in a few other aircraft too. It's a late-1950's era design.

Most airliners have one version or another of an APU onboard. It's what is used to help start up the main engines on the ground.

Spook if you can give me a typical application for a PULSEJET engine used during WW2 I will name my first born "Spook" (if you know the difference between an APU and a propulsion engine you are 2/3rd's the way there). AND NO USING GOOGLE!

I'm an AVIONIC's Engineer by trade but BGTE theory (WW2) gives me wood .

**edited for clarity** </font>

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

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

Ahhhhh yessss.....the famous missing StG 42 tripods that aren't modelled in CMBB. BTS fix or do somefink!

Regards

Jim R.

[flamingknives]

If an assault rifle has a greater effect on the battlefield, has the proportion of casualties inflicted by small arms gone up in more recent conflicts?

Trouble is, for a good comparison you'd have to find a conventional war with ARs Vs bolt-actions, SMGs or a mixture of both.

I can't think of any.