STG44 In Combat

Just wanted to know a few things about this great assault rifle. I know all about the production and concept of the STG44, but how did it perform? Was it accurate, or at least accurate next to contemporary weapons? Was it reliable and perform well under harsh combat conditions(ie jams,misfeeds, etc...)? I know large amounts never made their way to the front line, but how did it impact the battlefield on both Fronts?

 

I posted several sources in the other StG44 thread. http://www.ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/34138-sturmgewher-44-machine-pistolle-44-a.html

 

The link you provided sure would interest me, but its just the Table of Contents. Is there anyway to see the intended section?

 

Ok i see i would have to purchase back orders. is there any way you could share any of the info concerning its field performance? From any of your sources i would appreciate anything.

 

I can only throw in what I have gleaned from reading many books. It was reasonably accurate at combat ranges but not, of course, in the same league as the K98 or Lee-Enfield for accurate work at around 400 metres. Recoil was light and the weapon remained controllable on automatic fire.

In use, it was surprisingly heavy and rather awkward to carry and handle. Reliability suffered due to use of lacquered, steel-cased ammunition and production inaccuracies due to the industrial disruption caused by Allied bombing.

Finally, it was never issued in sufficient quantities to have a major battlefield impact ( although there are many Eastern Front myths and legends to dispute this ).

It remains one of WWII's most fascinating smallarms due to its influence on military weaponry.

 

Thanks. I've heard the Kurz round was never produced in sufficient quantities for users either, forcing them to scrounge for ammo. I've heard the STG44 was heavy since it was made of stamped metal, but it seems easy to handle, didn't know it was awkward.

 

Yes, it doesn't balance too well, the sights are mounted very high and the magazine makes firing from a prone position difficult. Virtually the only way to carry the weapon in comfort is to sling it across the chest which feels an unnatural way to tote a personal weapon.

 

Does the sights being mounted high effect its performance? Yeah the the mp40 was also hard to fire prone. I read that the idea of the magazine being the way it was was to use as a kind of bipod/pivot, but soldiers in the field said it was much too long.

 

Yes, the higher sights are from the bore axis the less accurate they get. I take it you aren't a shooter?

The magazines for the StG44s were always designed to act as a monopod. Long magazines are still a problem today but you can dig a trench for the mag to get closer to the ground. If you are seriously interested in the history of the StG44 family I suggest the magazine I posted and Sturmgewehr! from Collector Grade.Collector Grade Publications - Bookshelf #8 - Gun Books - Swedish Mausers, Swedish K98Ks, Great Remington 8, Enfield-SA80 Rifle, Autoloading Rifles

 

No I'm not really a shooter. This might clear up the sights issue(its above the gas piston and cylinder which are above the barrel). I think this was actually a good thing. What Is An Assault Rifle? -just scroll down a bit.

 

I'm not sure of what you want me to notice in your link. Having higher sights increases the difference between point of aim and point of impact. That's why bolt action rifles have scopes or sights literally on top of the barrel. If you visit any scope mfg's site they'll have diagrams explaining this.

Also, a higher sight means you are sticking your head up higher and are thus easier to hit.

 

This seems an appropriate point to recommend ( as has been done before on this Forum ) Robert Bruce's book 'German Automatic Weapons Of World War II' published 1997 as part of Windrow & Greene's sadly short-lived 'Live Firing Classic Military Weapons' series.

It's an excellent work featuring an array of weapons ( including MP44, MP40, MG42 etc ) being test-fired under modern conditions and is packed with detailed colour photos. It's out-of-print but well worth tracking down if you want some 'real gen' about these guns.

 

I agree it is well detailed mechanically but the historical info is rather brief (the StG44 chapter is only 17 pages). Sturmgewehr! is a better choice for what he's asking.

 

Hey thanks for the suggestions I definitely will be looking into them. What I meant with the link was that it said that the gas piston and cylinder makes the recoil kick straight back rather than rising the muzzle, like it would have been if they had been below the barrel. This probably helps with accuracy. So the sight is above both out of neccessity. But yeah that probably affects the overall accuracy negatively.

 

There may be some translation errors because those statements aren't entirely correct. The bolt carrier recoiling straight back does help the accuracy of follow-up shots. However, the heavy mass of bolt, carrier and piston moving together makes it hard to stay on target. There are few weapons that are gas piston operated and accurate. The AR-15/M-16 did away with the piston and it's easy to dump all 30rds into the 10 & X rings on full-auto. That's part of the reason the StG44 is heavy-- it helps steady the weapon during recoil.

 

The AK-47 I believe works in the same way; but the AK-47's bolt is FAR heavier and more off-center.

 

I guess then I am left dissapointed by its accuracy. I was under the impression that the STG44 was the most accurate weapon other than the Kar98k in German hands. I still believe it was the most effective weapon on the battlefield at the very end of the war in the ETO, but I can't say that with 100% confidence.

 

The Stg44 is its proper name, as you state, initially the weapon went into production under Hitler's nose as the MP-44. There are photos of Hitler examining the weapon about 1943 and it is said he did not like it at first - its stamped metal construction and minimal use of wood did not "fit" his idea of what a rifle was supposed to look like - and he refused to allow its production. The Waffenamt (Ordnance office) knew better, and they also knew the MP-44 was exactly what they needed for their soldiers desperately fighting outnumbered on the eastern front. So they put it into production anyway, merely changing its designation to MP-44 (maschinen pistole 44) in an attempt to fool Hitler into thinking it was simply another sub gun like the mp-40. For awhile it worked.

Then one day the whole facade was blown by German commanders on the eastern front clamoring for the new gun, to Hitler's response of "WHAT new gun?" After Hitler found out just how useful it was not only did he give it his blessing, he also christened it with the generic name for such weapon types that has stuck to this day, Sturm Gewehr (assault rifle or battle rifle).

The weapon was designed for mass production from sheet metal stampings - the only parts that required machining were the barrel and bolt. In one book i read, a British officer reported that the stamped steel body of a captured mp-44 was so flimsy "it would bend when leaned up against a table for a long period" - but i think this account is perhaps a bit fanciful or embelished a bit - maybe someone who has actually handled the weapon can add their thoughts on this?

 

That is most certainly an exagerration and possibly reflects the 'culture shock' of someone used to the traditional gunsmithing of a Lee Enfield or K98 suddenly picking up an MP44. However, if the weapon is dropped, or thrown in a pile with other weapons, the steelwork can dent ( my example has just such a small dent on the receiver cover where damage of this nature has occurred ).

 

Thanks to good old Martin I've add another book to my collection