STG-44 vs. PPSh-41

You said the MP-44 could shoot you through a wall.... What does that have to do with riding on a tank? Don't take it personal, you threw it out there not me.

"If the smaller pistol round & subgun combo are sooooo great, why is the assault rifle replacing it"

"replacing it"? I'm not sure where you're going with that considering how many decades ago the assault rifle replaced the standard rifle and that the submachine gun was always a niche weapon and still is. I don't need an MP-44 manual, I owned one and still have a PPSh-41. I know exactly how they work, feel and shoot, not much of a mystery and I stand by my sickly patient of a post. The MP44 is not that accurate in full auto and the PPSh is. The PPSh has alot of advantages over the MP-44 in an urban fight where range is not much of an issue. I'm pretty sure that the Soviets knew what they were doing when they employed entire assualt battalions for urban warfare armed almost exclusively with the PPSh.

 

What I liked about the PPSH-41 is its 71 round magazine. I know that the Thompson also had a drum magazine but I cant find any evidence that it was widley used, its mainly a box like other SMGs of this period, I think having a weapon with the capacity to fire 71 rounds without reloading is a great assett in any urban battle like the Germans found out at Stalingrad.

 

It would be if it was reliable. Most of the large magazines tended to have problems. It was and is difficult to have a spring keep constant pressure over that much range.

 

I wonder if thats why the Americans dropped the idea in favour of the box.

 

I don't know why the US dropped the drum mag for the Thompson, the ordnance guys must have really disliked it because the M1 Thompsons wouldn't even accept a drum (sticks only).

I have to say that the Soviet built drums I've never had a problem with in my PPSh. Sometimes the Polish post-war examples have feed issues due to alignment when locked in the magazine well, but not so with the Soviet examples. The spring is very powerful and I can't imagine it would lose tension over time unless it actually broke. Basically if the mag fits properly and feeds, then you shouldn't ever have an issue with it if you due minimal maintenance/cleaning to it. It does make the weapon alot heavier than when you're using a stick mag though.

 

Cleaning is the problem! Try to keep it always clean during a battle is impossible and think how to carry them with you. Its much easier to carry the box mags than to carry 5 or more drum mags.

 

Imagine if the Germans had completely replaced the K98k as the std. service arm with this beast in early 1944:
[video=youtube;NBCz9T1RmJA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBCz9T1RmJA&feature=feedlik[/video]

The increase in firepower this would've added to the regular German infantry squad would've been enormous, and I'm not sure the Allies would've come very far after they landed in Normandy then.

 

By 1944 the entire German army could have been armed with M16's and the result would have still remained the same just more lives lost in the process.

 

The end result might very well have been the same, but it would've taken longer and cost more lives to get there.

You could probably compare it to the introduction of the P-51 as a bomber escort, before that time Allied bombers were having to travel unescorted over large parts of Germany, something which led to terrible and unsustainable losses. With the long range of the P-51 however bombers could suddenly be escorted all the way into Germany and back, and this dramatically improved the bombers chances for survival, whilst at the same time causing a lot of trouble for the German interceptors. More specifically the P-51 was a game changer and had it been introduced but a year later then things would've looked very different. Compare that to the StG44 and it also had the potential of being a game changer, however fortunately for us it was introduced a year too late instead of a year early like the P-51, and as such it didn't get the chance to make a major difference.

The only reason they, the StG & P-51, can be compared however is because the StG could've infact been made ready for mass production already in 1943 if it hadn't been denied by a certain individual. In short we're not talking about a premature introduction of a design not yet fully developed here, but about a fully developed design which transition into mass production and large scale military service was significantly delayed on several occasions.

 

If it had been introduced in 1942 and fully fielded in 1943 it may have had an impact IF it could have operated with standard 8x57 that the K98, MG 42, MG 34 (7.92x57) and the G43 fired instead of the 7.92X33 Kurz. Even by 1942 it would have been a very late start for a completely new weapon with unique ammunition.

Germany couldn't replace all the MG 34's with the MG 42's So I find it hard to believe that Germany could have fielded the MP 43/44 StG44 in suffiicent numbers to affect much. Just another example of too little too late.

 

StG chambered in 8x57mm?? Then it is no longer an assault rifle, just a fully automatic rifle. No point in adopting it then as the G43 was already available.

Furthermore adopting the 7.92mm Kurz wouldn't have been a problem, quite simply because it was actually just a necked down 8x57mm cartridge; So it was endlessly easy for German industry to transition into mass production of the new cartridge, there being no need for new machinery or tools to start manufacturing it. So that would've never become an issue, just as it wasn't the way things actually transpired.

As for Germany not being able to replace all MG34's with MG42's, where does that come from? First of all the MG42 was never meant to fully replace the MG34 in all roles, the MG34 still had an important role to play. Secondly over twice as many MG42's were manufactured from 42 to 45 as compared to all MG34's made from 34 to 45 (~750,000 vs ~350,000).

 

No it would have been a 'select fire' not fully automatic; meaning it could fire full or semi auto. My point being that they could have gone further easier by implementing the G43 instead of a new rifle and round.

Had the StG/MP-43/44 gone into production it would have required a considerable reallocation of resources due to the increased rates of fire. 1/2 a million weapons firing 500rpm eats up a lot of resources in a hurry.

They may not have needed 'new' machinery; but, they would have needed additional machinery, materials and people all three were lacking. Germany would have still be required to produce 8x57mm for it's machine guns and K98's.

The MG 42 was meant to replace the MG 34 in Infantry service just as the Mg 34 was meant to replace the MG 13

 

When in the frontlines, my grandfather used the PPSh all the time. Now this was prior to the STG. I agree with previous posts that it is comparing apples to oranges. A better comparison would be the Thompson to the PPSh.

 

I disagree. The G43 was a much more expensive weapon to produce, and the impact it would've had on the battlefield insignificant in comparison to an assault rifle.

550 rpm actually, but nevermind. The rifle wasn't going to be fired on full auto all the time, and whilsts ammunition expenditure definitely would've been higher the ammunition was also cheaper to make; smaller cartridge, smaller projectile, smaller powder charge.

Why would they have needed additional machinery? The Germans were already producing more than enough 8x57 ammunition to go around as it was, so a round that required only half the work to make would've just made things easier.

Keep in mind that 7.92mm Kurz production wouldn't just be a supplement to 8x57 production, it would to a large part replace it, seeing as the demand for 8x57 would be dramatically decreased as more and more K98k's were replaced by the StG as the std. service arm.

It wasn't meant to replace the MG34 in all roles, the MG34 still had a number of roles to play with the regular infantry. For one it was the most frequently used with the tripod lafette system because of its' superior accuracy.

 

Disagree all you want; fact of the matter is that the G-43 made more logisical sense than the StG/MP 44.

Price doesn't matter when you are using slave labor. Besides it's more an issue of resources than it is of money

The casings have to come from somewhere. So if they are cutting down and re-necking existing cases or wether thay are manufacturiing new cases they are going to need additional equipment and additional labor to do this.

IF the StG/MP44 were going to replace the K98k's how do you propose they do that? There wasn't just one plant in Germany making 8x57mm. The 'Kurz' would have to be produced in paralel to the standard rounds untill there was a sufficient ammount produced for replacement.

Wich is precisely why I said:

The fact of the matter is that Germany did not produce the mechanism to implement a new standard rifle. The German logistics system had a hard enough time supplying the weapons and euipment that they already had. This is not the first time this subject has been discussed on the Forum and I am cetain it will not be the last.
The bottom line remains: The wonder weapon of the month was too little too late to affect the ultimate outcome of the War. Best case scenario is that the StG is implemented in '43 which prolongs the war and Germany gets the first bucket of sunshine instead of Hiroshima

 

Another good example of where a simple question evolved into a learning experience . For me anyhoo. Voted.

 

So now you're the expert on this or what? I disagree, and I have logical reasons for doing so, cause quite frankly I don't see the sense in your argument.

Come on, what did I just write? A reminder: Smaller cartridge, smaller bullet & smaller propellant charge. i.e. it requires less than half the resources to manufacture, be it in materials used or the price for them.

The casings are already there formerjughead, like already explained the 7.92mm Kurz was but a necked down 7.92x57, the bottom half of the cartridge was identical to that of the 57mm cartridge. So why would they need any extra labor or equipment? As already explained they'd be substituting large amounts of 8x57 production with that of 7.92mm Kurz production. We're talking about diverting resources elsewhere, not about using more of it.

It was a matter of making one plant at the time transition from producing 8x57mm to producing 7.92mm Kurz instead, and doing this at a rate comparable to the gradual replacement of the K98k with the StG. Exactly as they did it in late 44. It really was a painless affair, but one that was started a year too late, and as such never reached the intended scale.

I have a hard time believing that the Allies would've ever actually dropped an atomic bomb on Germany had they been unable to defeat them within 1945. They probably would've threatened to do so, dropping a couple on Japan to make their point, and Germany would've probably surrendered then.

 

Look, A Kar 98k fires somewhere in the neighborhood of 20-30 well aimed shots per minute. A G-43 probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 60-90. The StG I would assume something along the lines of 120+ with the ability to go full tilt to 5-600rpm.

Germany would have had to quadruple their production of rifle ammunition all the while adding two extra steps to the process of manufacturing.

IN actuality the reallocation of resources and labor could have just as easily expedited Germany's defeat.

 

The thing is we're not talking about a reallocation of manpower or resources here, we're talking about a different use of materials brought to the same place. In short, you're not touching the logistics of supplying manpower & materials for manufacturing on a specific location, all you're doing is using the same manpower & materials already at hand to manufacture a different product at the same location; add to this that the new product is faster & cheaper to make.

Also worth noting is the fact that the StG44 was a relatively cheap firearm to manufacture once you got the big wheel spinning:

1 MP40 SMG = 60 RM
1 StG44 assault rifle = 65 RM
1 K98k bolt action rifle = 70 RM
1 MG42 multi purpose MG = 250 RM
1 MG34 mulit purpose MG = 327 RM

Note: Prices can't be compared to that of similar weapons made in other countries because of large differences in exchange rates.

 

You don't get it. Their need to produce 7.92x33 ammunition would increase exponentially as more StG's went into service. The same manufacturing lines that made 7.92(8MM)x57 were still going to produce just as they always had, they just aren't going to be putting as many rounds on stripper clips.

Germany had been developing the 'Kurz' round since the 1930's so if it was such a 'wonderful' improvement why then in 1935 did they adopt the K98k as the standard infantry weapon?
Comparatively the US adopted the M1 Garand in 1936 which fired the standard 30-06 cartridge.

SO I will go back to original statement of: "Had Germany developed the StG and the 7.92x57mm round and adopted it as the standard infantry rifle in 1935, instead of the K98k, they may have stood a chance". But, they didn't; it proved to be too little too late and it's introduction so late in the war only exacerbated an already overtaxed munitions industry.

Converting or re-purposing any of the ammunition production, any more than they already had, would only hasten the inevitable.

You need to accept the fact that Germany's failure to develop and implement the StG earlier was only a small influence on what lead to their defeat. Accept it and move on.