STG-44 vs. PPSh-41

I've seen it suggested that units equipped in the Battle of the Bulge and other late-war actions suffered lower losses, inflicted more casualties, and retreated in better order than those with older weapons based on numerical post-battle analysis.

I also have a memoirs by an SS soldier who mentioned getting shiny new STG-44s... and no ammo for them. On the bright side, at 10+ lbs and all-steel construction it would make a fairly effective club. What's that old saw? Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics? Something like that.

For the STG to have made any difference it would have had to have been introduced in a rational, methodical, well-supported manner. These were not things Nazi Germany was good at. Like how FW-190s and ME-109s didn't use the same ammo in their MG151s. Like maintaining PZKPFW Vs in the field. Having lots of different weapons in the national armory is good fun when they make a first-person-shooter video game about the conflict some decades later, but it's rubbish for actual combat.

The FG-42, MKB-42 and G41 projects were all attempts to increase the firepower of the individual infantry squad members independent of the squad MG. There was never any attempt to combine or rationalize these projects, and in the case of the MKB-42 and G41 projects, there were actually *two* completely different, non-interchangeable versions of each. The FG-42 is a particularly egregious example.

The FG-42 was developed outside the authority of the Waffenamt, since they believed that the specifications for the weapon were bonkers and only the Krieghoff firm had seriously tried to design a weapon to those specifications. The program only continued because of the personal insistence of Goering. Goering also was a shareholder in Krieghoff. Hmmmmm...

Though there was no official nomenclature to reflect it, the wooden stocked and earlier metal stocked FG-42s are completely different weapons. Parts will not interchange, not even magazines. The Luftwaffe rejected any proposal that they drop their special paratroopers' weapon project with the G41/43 or the 8x33mm weapons, and as result they got an expensive maintenance headache when they weren't performing mass paratrooper assaults anyway.

If they had wanted schmancy individual weapons, they should have started work on them in the '30s. Actually, there were a number of prototypes for 7mm automatic rifles, but the high command sensibly decided that the squad MG was a higher research priority and that individual weapons would only play a smaller, supporting role and that resources should thus not be wasted developing new ones. Pick one thing and go with it. It's better to have an imperfect design that you can actually use than a diverse mish-mash of half-completed superweapon prototypes.

 

I'm pretty sure that those same Soviets knew what they were doing when they ditched SMGs entirely for AKM assault rifles after the war.

 

Do you have time frames on these quotes? Are they all from the same period or are they from different times or averages over different times? Are some being made at traditional plants with higher paid workers than others? Indeed what's the source of this data?

 

Yes indeed, and for that there were no resources following the "Wehrwirtschaftsbericht" at the "Tagebuch des OKW der Wehrmacht 1944 Teil2". At this time they haven´t enough ammo to supply all of their artillery, tanks and men with an daily ration of ammo.

 

Then there's the matter of now you have to distribute an additional type of ammo. This is not a simple problem especially at lower levels.

 

Thats an good point lwd. I wonder how they´ve managed to deliver their own ammo plus the ammo for all of the captured weapons they used!

 

Well, by happy coincidence 9x19mm Luger an 7.62x25mm Tokarev have the same case head dimensions, so it would be a fairly straightforward matter of re-barreling captured Soviet SMGs to get them to use German ammo and adding some sort of magazine adaptor. I believe this was actually done in a few cases. British SMGs already use 9x19!

Other than that, I can only assume they got metric buttloads of captured ammo during the initial advances.

IMO an SVT-40 re-barreled to fire 8x57 would have been a better rifle than the K43 as well.

I recall some alternate history story (by SM Stirling maybe?) that had the Germans advance into Leningrad, whereupon the SS called dibs on all the manufacturing facilities there so they could have a steady supply of their own equipment and not play second fiddle to the Wehrmacht anymore when it came time to distribute equipment.

Switching over to 8mm kurz would have been good for logistics, but only in the very long run. 8x33 required something like half the raw materials to make compared to an 8x57mm case. Of course, they would have been burning it way faster with those assault rifles.

 

As I understand it, the German 7.63mm Mauser pistol round could be used in the PPSh-41 and other captured Russian weapons - although the reverse - using the 7.62x25mm in German weapons - apparently was not feasible. Perhaps one of our small arms experts can comment.

 

Make your own decision

7,62 x 25 mm TT

9 x 19 mm

7.63x25mm Mauser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Oh I think I get it alright..... I've trying to point out from the start how 7.92mm Kurz production would increase gradually along with the gradual increase in StG's entering service; and that at the same time 7.92x57 production would be gradually replaced, not supplemented. The end goal being 7.92x57 ammunition only being produced in numbers suitable to sustain the operation of the multi purpose machine guns and sniper rifles then in service, whilst the 7.92mm Kurz becomes the new std. round.

The round itself, the 7.92mm Kurz, was designed in 1938, ending up in an assault rifle design 4 years later by 1942. Same as the Russian 7.62x39 being designed in 1943, and ending up in an assault rifle design 5 years later in 1947.

As for why they adopted the K98k? I can't believe you would even ask such a question; It's not like they had a choice between adopting a weapon like the Sturmgewehr instead of the K98k in 1935, to claim otherwise is quite absurd. First of all the Mauser 98 had been the std. service arm for decades, and it was a personal favorite to the old school commanders who at the beginning of the war still believed that the average grunt was to be able to pop enemies out to 2000 meters with his std. service rifle. Problem was however that at this time they weren't aware of the average range at which most infantry engagements would take place in future conflicts - something later research would reveal as being at an average of 300 meters or less - or that much of the fighting would take place inside urban areas. As such in 1935 they most certainly didn't know about the huge advantages of a true assault rifle and its' usefulness on the battlefield, having to learn this through combat experience during WW2, ending up being the first nation to realize it.

Problem is that your theory just doesn't hold any water since the 7.92mm Kurz was made using not just the same equipment as that used for the manufacture of 7.92x57 ammunition, but at the same time also using the exact same materials at just half the cost for each round.

Add to this that the StG44 was easier and cheaper to make than the K98k, and the Germans obviously could've only benefitted a lot from introducing the StG earlier in 1943 as was possible and replacing the K98k with it as the std. service arm.

 

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the standard service round at the time had a casing length of 57MM and the 'kurz' had a casing length of 33MM; were they going to just miracle away those 24MM ? They had a choice: either cut and re-neck casings for the standard rounds or produce new casings to match the shorter 'Kurz' ammunition. So it's pretty appearent that using the same equipment would have been more time consuming either way you look at it.





The 'kurz' also fired a lighter 125g bullet than the standard 181-190g bullet of the K98k. So, along with either remanufacturing or producing new casings they also had to make smaller bullets.

8x57mm IS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.92x33_Kurz

It's not nearly as cut and dry as you pretend. I am not even going to get into the difficulties of reshaping steel in comparison to brass or the recalibration of equipment to accomodate changing from one round to the other between production runs.

While we're at it the cost per round of Kurz ammunition is only cheaper if the casing is produced at 33mm, because if they are remanufacturing the kurz cases from the standard 57mm not only do they have the material expense of starting with a larger case; but, the included expense of cutting and necking the cases to 33mm.

 

I'm reasonably sure they made that x33 stuff new, if only because the idea of mass production by cutting down and re-necking existing cases is too asinine to seriously consider.

AIUI, case manufacture is done by drawing metal through a series of dies. Since the x57 and x33 share the same case head dimensions and outer diameter, some of the dies could probably be re-used. This might save a little bit of time in tooling up for mass production and probably saved time in R&D, but I doubt there would be any other long-term benefits.

Re: 7.63x25 Mauser Export and 7.62x25 tokarev, yes, they have the same dimensions, but the Tokarev cartridge is loaded to substantially higher pressures and is not safe to put into 7.63 weapons. You could do it the other way, but the lower powered round might not cycle the action. In any case, I doubt the Germans were sitting on loads of 7.63mm, they'd switched to 9mm some time before.

Identical case dimensions with different powder loads were pretty common in early autoloading pistol rounds. The Italian 9mm glisenti is identical to 9x19 parabellum, but just loaded to lower pressures due to the weak glisenti pistol action.

 

Why are you stating a given?

It has already been stated that the 7.92mm Kurz was just a cut down 7.92x57mm round, the rim and first half of the cartridge being near identical. The only difference was the length of the cartridge, size of the bullet & propellant charge, something I've mentioned countless times by now. The beauty of this was that the same machines used to manufacture the 7.92x57 round could be used to manufacture the 7.92mm Kurz, the machinery requiring only one simple recalibration for length, which at the same time would cut down on time & costs to make a single round.

To quote myself from earlier: smaller cartridge, smaller projectile, smaller powder charge = less expensive and faster to make.

How on earth did you come to that conclusion? You really believe that making a shorter cartridge using the same equipment would take more time? The whole point of the 7.92mm Kurz design was that it would be made by the same machinery used to make 7.92x57mm ammunition, making the transition an instant & painless affair. In short, transitioning to 7.92mm Kurz production over 7.92x57mm production could've only increased the nr. of rounds manufactured each month, not the other way round.

And once again the bullets could be made using same machinery as-well, being the exact same caliber and using the exact same type material as the already manufactured 7.92mm bullets, only difference again being the amount of material needed to complete each round = the 7.92mm Kurz was a cheaper & faster ammunition to produce.

What is it that I pretend ? I've only stated it the way it was actually done. The plants which it were decided should start manufacturing 7.92 Kurz instead of the IS round, would only need to make a single and very simple recalibration to their cartridge making machinery in order for them to spit out 33mm casings instead of the 57mm ones; and this quite simply because all dimensions except length were identical between the two rounds. So one simple length calibration and you're rolling Kurz catridges off the production line. It couldn't have been easier..

Why would they produce it from already made 7.92x57mm ? Ofcourse they'd leave the stockpiles of already made 7.92x57mm alone to be used up by the army, and make new 7.92mm Kurz ammunition.

 

So what we have is a 'cheaper & faster-to-make' gun firing 'cheaper & faster-to-make' ammunition.

Thus had the Germans decided in early 43, when the StG was ready for full scale production, to replace the K98k with the StG as the std. service rifle (granted the führer would allow it), then it would certainly have had quite an impact on the war.

We're talking about increasing the individual soldiers firepower to something over 10 times greater than previously, whilst the weapon and ammunition he uses to gain this increase at the same time is cheaper & faster to make.

So you're increasing the combat effectiveness of your troops on the battlefield whilst at the same time making it less expensive to equip them.

 

Exactly and if Germany would have done that in 1935 or even 1940 it would have been effective. It would have given them years to stockpile the 'kurz' ammunition and fully integrate the StG into service. But, in 1943 when German production is running at full capacity changing or diverting any stage of the process is going to cause a ripple effect.

Commercial ammunition manufacturing is not the same as reloading on your bench in the workshop.

When the 7.92x57MM casing is referred to as the 'parent case' for the 7.92x33MM Kurz that is saying exisiting 57MM casings were utilized to produce 33MM casings.
125g bullets can not be made in the same molds as 181g neither can the same equipment be used to apply the brass or copper jackets.
The dies for seating the bullets in the casing may have been able to be utilized but, they would have needed extensive recalibration. The only thing that would not have needed to be adjusted is the base die.

In order to produce the 7.92x33MM Germany would have had to divert resources that were already at 100% production and this would be done at the peril of production for the more widely used 7.92x57MM ammunition.
It just was not feasible for Germany to divert resources in 1943 on scale that would have made the StG a game changer.

End of subject.

 

Not quite.

Changing to 7.92mm Kurz in 1943 wouldn't have caused any ripple effect other than that of more rounds being manufactured because it was a faster & cheaper type of ammunition to manufacture. Furthermore, just as it was in 1944, the recalibration of the various manufacturing machines for the production of 7.92 Kurz instead of 7.92 IS would've been completed very quickly, and from then on 7.92 Kurz would be rolling off the production line. Just as it was done in 1944, where this whole process was accomplised extremely quickly despite the much more deperate situation Germany was in by then. The only difference is that had the StG been accepted for mass production in 43, then the change would've been done on a larger scale (more factories converting), whilst 7.92 IS production would be stepped down instead of increased as it was in 43.

The goal would've been to have the StG arm 50% of the German battlefield infantry in service by mid 1944, some 1½ years later. So that means making approx. 2 million rifles in 1½ years, which should've been possible considering that from April 44 to the end of the war some 1 million StG44's & G43's were produced, and this was done in supplment to the still ongoing K98k production. Had it been decided in early 43 that the StG would replace the K98k, then K98k production would've been gradually ceased along with the start of StG production. Furthermore the G43 would've no doubt been abandoned in favour of the StG as-well. So that's the resources spent of producing two more expensive and more slowly made weapons made available for the mass production of the StG. Add to this the much better production capabilities in 1943 (By mid 44 German industry had taken a pounding) and it should've definitely been possible to manufacture 2 million StG's by mid 1944.

And with 50% of the infantry at the front being armed with StG's it would've definitely made a major impact. Would it have saved the war for the Germans? No, I don't believe so, the odds were simply too great. But it would've definitely prolonged the war a significant amount.

 

So not only would Germany add an additional round to their production they would have to increase production of the 7.92x57MM ? and the end result is that they only prolong the inevitable? Great logic, best case scenario they take an Atomic Bomb for Japan.....brilliant.

 

What? 7.92x57mm production increased ? Where did you get that from? I specifically wrote that it would be stepped down, and NOT increased as it actually was in 1943 before the StG had ever recieved clearance for mass production by the führer. If it had been decided in early 1943 that the StG was to replace the K98k as the std. service arm then the production of 7.92 IS would've naturally been decreased gradually along with an obvious increase in 7.92 Kurz production.

What's happening is that as more and more K98k's are replaced by the StG, the demand for 7.92 IS decreases and so less and less 7.92 IS is being produced, and it would keep decreasing until only the amount demanded by the various machine guns & other special purpose weapons chambered for it is being produced. Meanwhile 7.92 Kurz production is gradually stepped up at an equal rate as, once again, more and more StG's are replacing the K98k's in service.

I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer than that...

 

Not sure why you are stating this. Did I write that the StG could win the Germans the war? No. All I wrote was that introducing the StG earlier would've significantly prolonged the war. The end result would most likely still be the same - you can't really trumph an atomic bomb unless you have one yourself.

 

Less expensive? After produciton reaches a certain point sure. Question is what's that point.
Faster? Just what steps do you think given the equimpment of the time would be faster?

Or not. You've yet to prove the faster part of the ammo. As for the rifle. The Germans already had rifles it's a lot faster to make a few replacement K98 say than make enough of a new rifle to reequip the Heer. Not to say cheaper.

That's one opinioin. Not well supported at this point however.

Highly debateable. Not sure where your 10 times factor came from. It's not even clear that there would have been a significant increase in combat effectiveness.