STG-44 vs. PPSh-41

As i aid earlier and as Jaeger said totally right, the StGw wouldn´t had changed anything except that the war ended not in May it would have ended a few weeks later.
There was no chance for the Germans to win the war since early 1943 and it was completely lost in June 1944. And if you add all things up than you can only come to one conclusion: They had only one chance to win the war at this time, develop Intercontinental missiles with nuclear warheads!!!
Which value has an rifle in the soldiers hand without enough ammo, a tank without fuel,a Army without enough air support, a Navy without enough warships, a war industry without resources and so on and so on.

 

Okay, I watched the video and came away with the idea that it's just one man's opinion (right, wrong or in the middle).
I have a copy of Sturmgewehr! From Firepower To Striking Power -Hans Dieter Handrich. I read through the select parts regarding the design, testing, field trials/reports and ultimate decision to field the weapon and found nothing to suggest that it was feasible that this weapon could have been produced to arm anywhere near the majority of the German Army's Infantry battalions by 1943. Even if the Germans made all of the right moves, it just wasn't possible. I highly recommend the book because the facts are there and will dispel the myths or outright supposition from the absence of fact. Larry Vickers states that the Stg could have given the Germans a victory at Stalingrad? Correct me if I'm wrong but that was an urban fight that favored the SMG, hand grenade, sniper and artillery. So how does the Stg magically enable the German Infantry and assault engineers to root out the Soviets who have equal small arms firepower? The other obvious point to the Stalingrad issue is that the Strategic Soviet counter-attack wasn't detected and fell on non-German troops, so how does the Stg effect that?

Something else to consider that is also fact; The German Infantry on the Eastern Front were actually outgunned by their Soviet counter-parts by 1943 and the Stg would have helped them achieve parity, not superiority. In 1943 the Soviets were churning out 170,000 PPS-43 submachine guns a month, plus the 5.7 million SVT-40's and 6 million+ PPSh-41's they produced in the war. So theoretically the German Infantry have parity in small arms firepower by 1943 with the Stg, but not in personnel, replacements, tanks, artillery, etc. etc. making the Stg not much more than the interesting footnote it already is.
We can talk about how the 7.92x33 has greater range than the PPSh/PPS, thats where tactics come in to play (like Stalingrad) and the Soviets make it a point to stay within THEIR effective range. That's not rocket surgery D).
Also to the idea of the great firepower of the Stg., the Germans intended to field the weapons and supply them with 1200 rds per month. That isnt alot and can be burned up in just a week of heavy combat (It amounts to the Soldier's basic combat load of 180 rds about 6 times a month). Food for thought.

 

I think it's fair to say that - along with so many re-enactors and internet Generals - Mr Vickers has fallen under the spell of the Sturmgewehr......

 

Or perhaps a bit earlier. The German logistics system was already very stressed adding an additional burden wasn't going to help and if it broke at key points .... There's potential for a number of other negative impacts as well.

 

Or this lwd! I have the reports of the Wehrwirtschaftsamt and they said that there weren´t enough ammo to supply an artillery unit with its daily ammo and that some of the infantery units had not more than maximum 30 rounds per soldier and day. So the extra effort in making the ammo in 8mm Kurz and the need to have more ammo per soldier for the StGw. would have ended in an earlier end of war. Why not?!

 

This thread has now gone full circle:
http://www.ww2f.com/small-arms-edged-weapons/42387-stg-44-vs-ppsh-41-a-2.html#post556797

 

Yes it seems so!

 

So I guess we can write this debate off and file it in the : "German's had really neat stuff; but, their logistics sucked so they lost the war anyway" File.

Hopefully a Mod will close this thing before another Troll/ Fan boy knocks the lid off and thrashes it about.

Good riddance to it I say.

 

Kill the cat!

 

Read the very first sentence in your post. There are times where you must fight where you stand-- even if there's little to no cover. My point still stands... the MP44 would have chewed up soldiers in a house armed with the PPSh 41. Before you say 'that sounds nice in theory', ever hear of the fighting for Sgt Pavlov's House during Stalingrad? The Russian defenders actually had the floors shot out from under them and they pancaked, crushing many soldiers inside.


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

At present, US military and LE are disposing of MP5s and other various pistol caliber subguns in favor of 10" bbl M4s or any other short barrel 5.56mm rifle.

I didn't asked if you ever fired one, genius. As the saying goes-- RTFM! German manuals tell you how the weapons are to be operated. Had you bothered with an MP44 manual, you'd know it states full-auto is for emergency use only. Otherwise, the weapon is to be used on semi or fired in bursts. They even tell you at what ranges each mode is to be best utilized. If you weren't so adverse to reading, I'd direct you to sources regarding the Germans forming MP44-armed Assault Battalions as well.

 

That's correct. They only fielded the number of rifles that kurz ammo production could keep feeding. Many new rifles sat on the racks till war's end.

 

Ok there is alot of talk here saying MP-44 is a whole lot more versitile and things like this. (this is hard because its a rifle vs an SMG)

The Stg-44 may be more versitile but in close quarters the 7.62x25 Tokarev has a lot more stopping power, also the cartridge the STG-44 fired was not very powerful and was new to the Nazi's. The STG-44 although being more versitile also better at long range, The PPSH-41 7.62x25 Tokarev was just an amazing round in close quarters. The PPSH-41 was very likeable due to it being "pretty darn simple" as a Russian soldier once quoted, I mean why would like 6,000,000 of a weapon the soldiers did not like be made? The PPSH-41 has a much higher fire rate aswell as a bigger magazine. http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/ammo/ammo_pics/1288325509.jpg this depends on the situation to figure out which weapon is "better."

HOPE THIS HELPS =]

 

Perhaps you might read my other posts in this thread before passing judgement. What sources would you direct me to?
I already have:
"The German Assault Rifle: 1935-1945" -Peter R. Senich
"Sturmgewehr!-From Firepower to Striking Power" -mentioned in earlier post
"The MKB42, MP43, MP44 and Sturmgewehr 44" -De Vries & Martens

The "manual" is covered in these sources as well (pretty comprehensive view of the weapon between these 3 books).

 

Since you own Sturmgewehr!, you must have read the translated reprints, n'est-ce pas? Your whole post lacked an educated or informed point of view. To say that 7.92mm k's better barrier penetration is moot against a fast-firing, controllable SMG is absurd. That very argument is being brought against the 5.56mm today.

IIRC you're currently serving, right? If so, you've been overseas on vacation with Uncle Sam at least once. How much cover did the HESCO give you? Did it stop any rounds? Did you arrange and fill them to stop at least 7.62x54R?

 

I sure hope you aren't directing this "post" to me...

 

That's your opinion, but thanks Chief. I wasn't terribly impressed with your's either.

It's almost as absurd as stating that's what I said, which it isn't. That's it for me, not really interested in a pissing match beyond self defense.