STG-44 vs. PPSh-41

The Germans were actively trying to develop a weapon that ultimately became the Stg series since 1923. The concept was first put forth and championed by COL Thorbeck and General von Tayson as a means to solve issues identified in WWI associated with Infatry firepower. Make no mistake though, the rifle was never meant to be the primary weapon of the German Infantry in a doctrinal sense. The riflemen pretty much existed to carry ammunition for and to protect the machine guns. That being said, any new Infantry rifle was not going to be any kind of a game changer on the battlefield without a major shift in doctrinal thought and tactical employment. German Infantry tactics were centered on the machine gun, that wasn't going to change and is also the main reason for the sluggish search to find an auto-loader prior to the war. Notice that the MG34 and MG42 set the standard for light MG excellence? The Germans could have produced something along the lines of the Stg series years earlier, but to them there wasn't much reason for it considering everything was MG-centric. If you carry more magazines for your Stg, then that means you carry less ammunition for the MG which makes zero sense through the doctrinal thought process of the German Infantry squad/platoon.

Another major reason for the Stg not being any kind of a game changer and to me the most obvious is that something like 80% of all front line casualties are caused by artillery. Factoring in MG's and grenades the rifle's piece of the pie is actually very small. Now replacing the K98 with the Stg across the board seems like a huge increase in firepower, but in the big picture its close to irrelevant. Rifles already are responsible for causing casualties, so what kind of increase in that percentage can you honestly expect? Just because the Stg has greater firepower it doesn't subsequently increase a Soldier's ability to carry ammunition for it, increase the ability to supply it at the front, etc.
Would the divisions facing Operation Cobra have fared any better if they had truckloads of Stg's and ammunition? My guess is that if the Germans had huge quantities of Stg's in Normandy it wouldn't have changed much of anything. The time and place for the Stg to have a dramatic effect on warfare was 1914-1918. In my opinion in the context of WWII no rifle was going to be a game changer, the technology of other weapons had moved far ahead (artillery, aircraft, tanks, etc.).

 

The reason I siad that is because had the war in Europe gone on past July 1945 (3 Months) Germany would have become the glowing example of the Atomic Age.

 

The chance to equip their troops with the Stgw was near zero. The bad situation on basic resources had cancelled this. The ammo was the next point, they developed steelcases and tried it with other materials but no matter what it was to less of it. A good report is the "Wehrwirtschaftsbericht" and out of it "Die Lage an Kriegswichtigen Rohstoffen, Frühjahr bis Herbst 1944". In that report is to find that it was impossible to switch over to the Sturmgewehr in 1944 and later. And as i said at an other place: Not the rounds per second will win a battle, the hit´s per round are important for that.

 

Naturally hitting your target is the most important, and the StG was also perfectly capable of this, and at much greater distances than any SMG.

I'm not sure why so many people are denying the huge impact the assault rifle has had on the manner in which wars are fought and at what pace. We're talking about giving the common infantryman the ability to reach out and touch individual targets out to 300 meters with great accuracy whilst at the same time also being able to lay down massive amounts of suppressive fire during CQB; that combined ability is something neither the bolt action rifle, semi auto rifle or SMG can provide.

There's a reason every self respecting army in the world today issue assault rifles as their std. service rifles. The increase in firepower it adds over not just a bolt action or semi automatic rifle, but also a SMG, is significant.

And regarding the StG, and how it could've had a major impact, I can't really explain it better than I've already done. Smallarms do have an impact on the battlefield, a large one, as demonstrated countless time through history, so there's absolutely no point in denying it.

Larry Vickers, a retired US Army veteran who spent 20 years in Special Operations, sums up what difference the StG could've made pretty well I think:
[video=youtube;2jrlCPq5stE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jrlCPq5stE[/video]

As Larry Vickers puts it:

"But what if, the Sturmgewehr had been widely distributed to the German army in 1943? It would've negated the advantages of the M1 Garand, had a major impact on the Russian front, and would've provided a dramatically different level of response to the Normandy invasion"

"The earlier adoption of the Sturmgewehr would've most certainly rsulted in far greater allied casualties, and could've tipped the scales in close battles such as Monte Cassino, Bastogne and Stalingrad."

 

There's something else that has an even larger impact on the battlefield and that's LOGISTICS. Germany did not have the logistical mechanism sufficient to implement the StG in large enough numbers to make a difference.

 

If they had started in 1943 there is no reason to believe they couldn't have, esp. when you look at the nr. of StG44's & G43's manufactured alongside the K98k from mid 44 till the end of the war. There's no doubt that had StG production replaced that of the K98k & G43 in early 1943, then 2 million or more rifles could've been manufactured by mid 1944.

 

The German Army consisted or 18,000,000 soldiers throughout the course of the war and they suffered nearly 6,000,000 casualties so even if there were 12,000,000 still fighting in 1943 and you were able to give 2,000,000 of them StG's you would need to provide somewhere near 60,000,000 rds of 7.92x33 per month, and you would still need to provide 7.92x57 for the other 10,000,000; that's not even including training and supplying the Volksturm.

I just think 1943 is too late to implement the weapon in large enough numbers. 1941 or 42 maybe it could have had an impact; but, 1943 the Allies were hammering all of the German production and transportation. If you look at things realistically actual ground combat was only a small portion of the war and an even smaller portion of that was ground forces engaging one another with rifles.

If you take the battle of Stalingrad, for instance, the Germans didn't lose because the Russians had better rifles; they lost because they could no longer supply their troops. Russia just kept throwing people at them. Even once the Allies landed in Normandy they didn't lose because we had better rifles, they lost because they were being bombed night and day 7 days and could no longer support their troops.

It's just not always about the rifles that decide wars.

 

The German military lost 3.25 million men during WWII, 6 million is adding civilian losses. And there's certainly no point in listing the nr. of men who served with the German military throughout WW2, as that doesn't depict the average number of men fighting at the frontlines in certain time period.

For example, at no point during the war was German military manpower more than 3 to 3.5 million on the eastern front, and remember that this includes the Heer, LW & KM. Manpower in the west & south combined was approx. 2 to 2.5 million, and again this includes the Heer, LW & KM.

So producing 2+ million StG rifles by mid 1944 would be enough to arm roughly 40 to 50% of the German infantry at the frontlines.

No'one is suggesting that it is always the rifles that decide wars, esp. since normally there isn't a very big difference between the smallarms fielded by opposing sides. But in the case if the StG it was a huge leap forward compared to the other std. rifles then in service that it actually could've made a major difference, providing the units equipped with it unrivalled firepower, often allowing them to fight themself out of otherwise inescapable situations.

 

There is an Articel in the German "Waffen Revue" to that topic. I translated it with google to save time, for this reason "sorry for some errors". It may give fodder to someone.

Some excerpts from the article:

14.4.1942
Meeting Speer - Hitler
The leader takes the position that is not the machine carbines, but still the single shot rifle for the future is, as long as the force may be equipped with enough MG 42nd

15.4.1942
Meeting Speer - Hitler
The leader believes that the MK, to replace several weapons, the disadvantage of many universal weapons has to be suitable for any purpose that is correct.

The guide notes the following deficiencies and disadvantages:
a) insufficient firing range, the current conditions and eastern front, he can not be generalized
b) different types of ammunition against imported handguns (disadvantage manufacturing and supply terms)
c) the long magazine cover makes possible for the shooter

Introduction rejected
The guide is available, but on the view that one state has a technical advantage arms, who provides the first individual shooters with a useful automatic rifle

6.2.1943
Meeting Speer - Hitler
.. The leaders decided that the MP is not 43 is to be introduced since the launch of a new type of ammunition can not be accepted. Moreover, the weight of the MP 43 is too high

6.3.1943
His (the leader) holding to the 98k is understandable when one knows that the larger cartridge more possibilities for special designs (tracer, projectiles with blinding, explosive projectiles, etc.) provided.

12.6.1943
Evaluation of gene. Lindemannvom AOK 18
1. MP 43 in use well proven vol replaced the MP 38/40 and an essential part of the rifle and MG le
2. MP 43b has not yet proved better as closed. Contamination risk is low.
Some drawbacks: high sight, muzzle flash too bright (1945 trials of mouth dampers)

25.9.1943
The pos. Setting of the HWA to this new type of weapon is apparently the OKW not without effect. Finally, like the savings of material in the short cartridge is a very important role to play.
(Propellant: g 2.8 to 1.5, Cartridge weight: 25.45 to 16.0 g)

27.9.1943
Through the experience reports will also change the view of Hitler.
Report of the Org.Abt. III of the OKH
- Handy and easy in training
- Good melee weapon
- Up to 400 good accuracy in the single shot and continuous fire. Even as a scope rifle useful.
- Force has full confidence in the weapon
- 74% are for replacement of the MP by MP 43 of 38/40
- Considered a substitute for LEMG in only a few reports


30.9.1943
The leader agrees that the MP 40 through MP is 43ersetzt

7.1.1944
The ultimate goal is not only considered the essential part of the K98 by the MP 43 will be replaced, but the LEMG

24.4.1944
The Chief of the Tank Corps in a secret directive:
For the future, we later (renamed 06.04.1944) the full equipment of the force with an MP 44th
Savings of at least one, preferably two per group in the LEMG PzGren.

10.5.1944
SS-Command Main Office shall transfer:
- Burst max. 3 rounds
- Evidence of ammunition tactics: 1 magazine for free disposal of the shooter, 2 and 3 Magazine on the orders of the only groups or platoon commander, 4th Magazine may only be opened upon arrival of the new ammunition

5.12.1944
Using the StuG 44 (other name change) as a shutter gun for Panther and Tiger B, in carriage-round fire and flight control and target board as a weapon.

9.12.1944
Finally, with effect from 12.09.1944 the StuG 44 in the Army Technical Official Gazette dated 02/01/1945, where known
This was the tug of war ended with the troops at this such a popular weapon


Conclusion:
Hitler's decision against the MP 43 (MP 44, StuG 44) is probably almost entirely in the dislike of a new ammunition type founded and the goodwill towards the K98. He was well aware of the benefits, but saw the disadvantages as too heavy.
The problems with high ammunition consumption played a minor role, especially as it is felt prepared by the action of the Guidance on the fire discipline.
The training was easier because the shooters, the repetition and the right grasping the bulb neck does not need to practice. This time saved can then be used to practice fire discipline.

 

Thanks for that work, Gebirgsjager ! Waffen Revue is highly regarded but it's a little frustrating for us English-only-speakers......

 

Thank you Martin! Yes they are good and very informative. I own somewhat of 50 or so of their Magazines. If you ever have a question.....!

 

I would say it depends on the situation: In close combat or suburban areas I would choose the SMG which is easier to aim with fully automatic fire. The STG44 gets bit harder to aim with and less ammo in the mag.
But for normal battlefield and longer ranges and in overall I would had choosed the STG 44 easily. Good enough to use today in my opinion.

 

I'll just chuck in a thought here which I don't recall seeing before : possibly due to the low-grade steels available to the Germans at the time, the steel used for the MP-44 is surprisingly flimsy. If roughly handled, the bodywork/receiver area of the weapon can be dented quite easily, and if this happens it cannot be stripped-down easily for repair. The PPSh-41, in contrast, is built like a tank.......

 

Not a bad thought Martin! To make it better understandable, the available amount of steel was very low. I read an Report of the Wehrwirtschaftsamt, Abteilung Rohstoffe (Department for resources) from June 1944 for the delivering of steel from France to Germany, it sunk down to 40% of the quote and copper was down at 5.000tons from expected 25.000t. Not a rosy future to see for them.

 

Well then I'll put it differently. What good would the Atomic bomb had been if there was no way to get it to Japan? All these little 'wet dream' game changers that Germany came up with during the war didn't do anything except deplete resources.

I guess we won't consider the Half Million German POWs in Russia by 1944 (German prisoners of war in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and the other Half Million or so that the US and GB had scattered around (Prisoner of war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

You might want to take a look at this:

I am not just pulling this stuff out of my a**

2 million StG's was not going to do much if they hit the ground in 1943. 1941 if they had 2 million troopers armed with StG's and kept making them different story.

Too little, too late.

 

Both the PPSh and STG are made from stamped sheet metal with machined inserts. Allied manuals from the era say that the STG is easily dented and put out of commission, but I'm skeptical. For one thing, there were STG-44s still being used in the Ogaden conflict in the '70s:

http://claus.espeholt.dk/billeder/mp44/negermp44.jpg

And with Yugoslav paratroopers at around the same time:

http://odkrywca.pl/forum_pics/picsforum12/yugomp44a.jpg

If they're really that flimsy, how did they survive banging around for three decades?

Second, the STG-44 is a rear-locking design like the FAL, not a front-locking design like an AK. This means that the trunnion has to be absolutely enormous and stretches from the breech all the way to about where the pistol grip is. The area where the bolt is riding should thus be reinforced by this huge machined chunk of steel and thus not easy to distort.

The tube the gas piston rides in and the stock I could see being weak points. The bolt carrier raceways, not so much.

 

I don't think they were flimsy; but, I would ascert that they were prone to failure in the areas that Martin put forth. There were StG's present in the Falklands debacle in the 80's as well; but those, I believe, were more recent manufacture as Argentina produced several WW2 vintage firearms including Garands and T4 (Garand with a Magazine?). Spain even played around with StG's and the 'kurz' ammunition for a while (50's) until they finally caved and went to the 7.62 NATO.

I think several of the H&K , FN FAL, Rifles can trace their lineage back to the StG. I don't think the design of the rifle was nearly as large a problem as the ammunition.

The actual issue is more about the circumstance of the failure. Even the Garand and M14 were vulnerable to op rod damage which would cause the weapon to malfunction and necessitiate disassembly and straightening. That's why when you look at 'soldiers' low crawling, in field manuals, they are cradleing their Garands.

I think Martin is illustarting that the repair of the rifle would be more time consuming and extensive, should the reciever become damaged, on the StG than the contemporaries.
If you look at the StG there are a lot of straight flat lines with very little curvature and added strength and very close tolerances. There is no doubt that it's a sexy rifle; but, like most sexy things it takes maintenance to keep it happy.

 

Never thought to read such an comment, but now i bow my back to you for that, Brad! I hope you´ll get the Pulitzer Price for that!!! Thanks mate.

 

Not terribly well, is the answer. When I bought my 'cos' example in the mid-1990s, I chose it from a pile of them, nearly all of which had some denting or distortion where they'd been stacked on top of each other. The pressed steel housing above the trigger guard and magazine is decidedly flimsy by 1940s small-arms standards (and is most definitely less robust than that of the PPSh-41, an example of which I also have). Even the rifle I selected has a small dent directly above the safety-catch which prevents smooth operation of the fire-selector switch.

Anyhow, as I said, I was just throwing in a thought.....

 

Do you understand what it is you're reading? 13 million men served in the Heer between 39 & 45, that's the number of people who served inside the Heer in those 6 years, it is NOT the number of men who served at any one given time, that number never exceeded 5.5 - 6 million in the LW, KM & Heer combined! In the Heer alone we're probably talking 4 million at any one given time.

So if 2 out of 4 million troops serving in the Heer at the frontline in mid 1944 were armed with StG's then it wouldn't have made a difference in your opinion ?! That's an absurd thing to claim.

Remember that no'one is suggesting that the StG would save the Germans from eventual defeat, but it's highly likely that it would've allowed the Germans to push the Allies back into the sea at Normandy before they got very far, as-well as having had a huge impact on the eastern front.

And clearly I'm not alone with that opinion..