Russian vs German Infantry Weapons

Here you go Klive

50rnd drum
The belt drum 'Gurttromml 34' was a simple metal drum which kept a rolled up 50rnd belt with starter tab. Inside the drums, an arrow was painted to show the gunner which way the belt had to be rolled up. When attached to the MG, it had a sliding dust cover that had to be kept closed till used, in order to keep out any dust. The later models of the drum were replaced by a spring loaded dust cover instead of the sliding dust cover. The drums were less and less used towards the end of the war and almost discontinued. Part of this being that the MG42 had such a high rate of fire, and could empty a drum in less than two seconds. The drums were mostly used with the light machine gun role and not with the heavy role, which needed as high rate of fire.



75rnd drum
The twin saddle drum 'Patronentrommel 34' normally used in the AA role or on aircraft mounted guns, could hold 75rnds. Looking similar to the MG15 saddle drum, you could not use the MG15 drum on the MG34, but could use the MG34 saddle drum on the MG15. When used with the MG34, a special feed cover 'Deckel mit Trommelhalter' had to be used to hold the saddle drum in place. These saddle drums were replaced by the simpler more useful 50rnd drums before the war started. These 75rnd drums were still used with some MG units.




I cant find one on the net of the Mg42 with the drum fixed but I do have on e in my book which I can scan for you if you want

 

Hmmm....Zulus and the Boer War, Lord Kitchener and the Mahdi....Muhammad Ahmad might disagree. Certainly those using the weapons must be well trained.

*********************************************************

Now, as to Russian vs German Weapons. In Modern terms most SF and elite forces use and praise the HK MP-5, a German Weapon because it is a superior SMG and extremely well designed. However, more than less nations of the world and various forces in them, use the AK-47 and variants. Why, because you can drag it through the mud and because of loose tolerance design, it functions rather well under adverse conditions, also it is cheap to make or buy versus the expensive MP-5.

If we are compairing the PPSh-41 to the MP-38/40, The Russian weapon had roughly twice the ammo in magazine that the German weapon had, given you don't load to absolute capacity due to jamming.

The Russian weapon was easy to mass produce and the fact that German Soldiers used them on the field of Battle indicates some preference, although also perhaps the availability of ammunition.

The less time you have to change clips the more time you can keep your eyes on your opponent.

Reliabilty as mentioned before was perhaps another reason why the PPSh-41 may have been preferred over the MP-40.

I am familiar with the MP-40 and its characteristics but I have never fired a PPSh-41, only an SVT-40, which was a weapon I would feel confident with.

The k98 K was a much better rifle than the Moisin.

The G-43 was accurate and well made.

The StG-44 was a reliable and sought after weapon.

But this Infantry weapons is a huge and broad topic.....pistols, MGs, Motars, Panzerschrecks, Panzerfausts.....Ah yes reading Ian Hogg and Ballantine books when I was very young. Those were fun paperbacks, little did I know I would have the privilege of firing some of those weapons when I got older.

It is interesting to note that the G-3 which is a verson of the MG-42 is still in use today.

Jaeger could comment on the Norwegian reserves using K-98s and other German equipment in the recent past.

 

On the lines of 'weapons don't win battles' look at the Australian militia troops and there lack of training and weapons, and they held back the Japanese on Papua New Guniea.

I read once that an Australian private in the militia on Papua fought on the kododa from the start to finish, and as they were leaving the field for the final time the private turned to his sergeant montioned his rifle to him and said, "Now can you show me how to use this"

The point I am making here is that it could have been any rifle in anytime from anywhere and it would never have mattered.

 

I wasn't in the service in the '50ies. However the modified k-98 is responsible for killing deer every year.

The MP-40 and Mauser was used but quickly replaced with US equipment, to be changed back to German equipment again in the 60ies.

G-3 is an assult rifle that stopped production in the 70ies. I have one in my house that happen to be my service rifle.

The MG-3 is a continuation of the MG-42 that is used by several services today. It is a marvoulus gun, but less effective in attack. (the main drawback for any GPMG)

 

No, I read about it in an Infantry Tactics Book

 

I understand, But you guys said PPSH is meant for "street fighting". PPSH wasn't only for running it, it was good in all aspects, like defending. Thats when the effective range of the PPSH comes in. If you ever watched the movie, They fought for Motherland, you see when the Russians were defending with PPSH and you could of saw the better weapon, like it showed that PPSH was better in Effective Range. Germans had MP40 but they were too far but as for the PPSH they were shooting them all down. And you see the guy behind with the Anti Tank Rifle =) I think I'm starting to like the Anti Tank Rifle more and more =) Very Reliable

 

Before you said the Mosin Was better than Kar, Mosin had an effective range more than Kar by 50m . It was Cheaply made...but yet it shot farther...The only good thing about the Kar98 was that it was made very well with wood and the Bullets They used for it would penetrate more....But as for sights and etc. Mosin is better (proven fact)

 

Another thing is that MP44 wasn't a comfterble gun, especially on proning. Germans would usualy crouch or stand to shoot. It was a weak gun. If you bash something, it would of broke (proven fact). But if you take the DP. it was a realiable machine Gun...Can go in dirt mud sand...etc.(proven fact)

 

Wasn't the G-3 a model made from the G43?

 

Anyways back to topic..I think Russians made the difference because of their weapons.

 

Yes.... my bad..... should have been MG-3 not G-3 which I have fired with a scope.

Designers from Mauser extended from the StG assault rifle series. The G-3, FN, L1A1, and CETME are all cousins.

The point of modern weapons in comparison is that the early designs were in many cases modified from those in Germany in WWII.

 

Depends:

Quality: Germans

Quantity: Russians

 

Russians deserve more then then just quantity

And the German "quality", is only good on paper..... in reality, reliability comes in question.....

 

Quality or quantity... who are these guys that set forth such idiotic maxims???

So the German made and mass produced Mauser is of better quality than the Russian Mosin Nagant? Or the Lee Enfield? Why? Because it is German?

The fact is that they are quite similar. As is the rest of the products. Well almost.

For me a quality product is something that I can use for years and years, and hand over to my sons when the time comes.

So the equipment that is prone to breakdown has little quality to me. In short the Russian equipment is of good quality. The long service lenght of some of this kit goes a long way to prove my point.

 

The Russians generally took the view that the optimum military weapon was one which was made just well enough to do its job reliably, and to last as long as it needed to. To spend more time and effort than that was basically a waste of resources which could be better employed doing something else.

So the T-34 had a very rough finish, because a finer one would carried no practical advantage. Similarly, even into the 1950s their aircraft cannon lasted for only about 3,000 rounds, because in combat very few guns fired even 1,000 rounds before being destroyed.

 

Brilliant, isn't it?

 

Now who makes the most shiny weapons? Or he ones with the really kewl names?

This thread will continnue, then burn out, only to be lit again around June when we all are pretty damn tired of lawnmoving...

 

I'm tired of mowing the grass:

Nobody has defined "better". The MP40 was a higher quality gun, with closer tolerances, and better finish work. The PPSH was superior to it in colder weather, when the tight tolerances of the MP40 would cause it so seize while the sloppy fitting components of the PPSH would continue to function.

The MP40 was more durable, but less reliable in colder weather. In combat, considering the life expectancy of the average soldier and his gun, making a gun that can last for 10 years is irrelevant. Producing quantity at a cheap cost rather than quality regardless of cost is more important. This resulted in the demise of the Thompson SMG ($206) and the birth of the M3 Grease Gun (1/4 the cost). The Sten and PPSH were also made in great quantities at a cheap price, which is more important in wartime than making fewer guns that are beautiful to look at with a polished finish.

The MP40 does not have a single stack magazine. It is a double stack, single feed. Double feed magazines have proven to be more reliable because of the reduced spring force needed to lift the cartridges.

 

Looks like it took alittle longer then Jaeger thought .

 

It is really irrelevant in any case. What truly matters is how these weapons were issued to units and how those units were orgainzed and fought (in a doctrinal sense). As far as it goes one bolt action rifle is as good as another in combat.