Was the STG-44 the best infantryman's rifle of the war?

Almost all nations used a full cartridge rifle well into the 70's and, in some cases 90's like the FN and M-14. The switch to the smaller caliber rifles like the M 16 occured mostly for cost reasons rather than out of sheer effectiveness.
In Iraq the Marines were rather vocal about wanting to go back to an M-14-like weapon due to its superior penetration of masonry buildings and structures. The Soviets switched early mainly due to their need for a "spray and pray" weapon that could be cheaply produced and easily used by conscript troops.

SMGs are still prefered by units in very close combat due to their smaller size making for ease of handling in terms of getting on a target. For things like room clearing in a building they are superior to a longer and more unweidly firearm like a full size M-16. They are also still prefered by vehicle crews who may have to use them in tight spaces or have to get out of the vehicle in a hurry without snagging up on things.

 

The only thing that the StG44 has in common with modern assault rifles are a bayonet lug, detachable magazine and the bullets come out of the barrel pointy end first; that's where the similarities cease.

 

How long can you stay on topic mate?

Did you even bother to read my post?

Or the last on page two?

Putting a 2010 scenario into the mix to support your claim that the germans would have won the war if they had the Stg 44 earlier in the war...

 

You couldn't be more wrong.

Fully automatic select fire smallarm using intermediate power rifle round = assault rifle.

Btw, ever wondered where the M-16's dust cover derives from?

Yes, the StG44 & FG42 were the two most influential weapons to the M16 design.

 

I was wondering the same thing about you.

Moving on;

"Over 3 million battlefield reports from WW1 and WW2 were analyzed and over the next few years they released a series of reports on their findings.

The conclusion was that most combat takes place at short range. In a highly mobile war, combat teams ran into each other largely by surprise; and the team with the higher firepower tended to win. They also found that the chance of being hit in combat was essentially random; accurate "aiming" made little difference because the targets no longer sat still.

The number one predictor of casualties was the total number of bullets fired. Other studies of behavior in battle revealed that many U.S. infantrymen (as many as 2/3) never actually fired their rifles in combat. By contrast, soldiers armed with rapid fire weapons were much more likely to have fired their weapons in battle."

 

I just spit rum and coke out of my nose.....

A. The M3A1 Grease gun had a dust cover
B. The M16 was designed by Eugene Stoner an Aircraft Engineer.
C. The M16 was also first adopted by the US Air Force by Curtiss LeMay
D. The only thing that influenced the design of the M16 was that it was lighter than the M-14.

I won't even get into the differences between a tilting bolt v. rotating bolt and what weapons they are indicative of.

Do we even need to cover that there is no stamped receiver on the M-16?

P.S. Cite your source for this:

 

I seem to recognize some of SLAM in that quote. (it is custom to note where the quotes come from)

The rapid fire weapons you refer to would be LMG's and the reason they fired was that it was a team who did it, and did not suffer form isolation on the battlefield.

AND getting more ammo in the air means upping the number of LMG's to the TOE. Which the main protaganists did during the war.

The predictions were wrong however, since the wars since WW2 have been attritional slow moving affairs in accordance with the Air Land doctrine.

Now how was this related to the germans winning the war by fielding the Stg44 earlier again?

 

Source. In most cases outside close terrain like dense forests or urban settings combat took place at about 200 to 300 yards. As an aside here, US infantry units did have 14 submachineguns per company for general issue from the HQ platoon. These might be issued on an as needed basis or, nco's and officers might select them as their weapon in lieu of an M1 rifle.
Additionally, US infantry units in urban combat often temporarily traded their M1's for supporting tank crew submachineguns to give the unit more close in firepower. So, it is really difficult to say that a US infantry unit in Europe would always be outmatched in automatic weapons in any case.

No, it is the availability of something with high explosives in it. These are the major casualty producers on battlefields. Whether it is grenades, artillery, mortars, or some other system like a recoilless rifle these are the real killers in combat. As for the US infantryman never fired statement I'm sure you are referencing the now thoroughly discredited Men Against Fire by SLA Marshall (see Chapter 5 pgs 50 to 54) for the original.
So, that is just wrong. The vast majority of soldiers do fire their weapons but regardless of what they are using in many cases most of their fire is not finding a target. Volume helps a bit but HE works far better.

 

Let me make my position endlessly clear here:

In my opinion the StG44 could've made a major impact on the war had it been introduced earlier in say 42 or 43 as the std. issue rifle, replacing the Kar98k in this role. And had the StG been introduced in 1942 then it could've potentially helped the Germans win the war in the east, eventhough this 'end result' might also have demanded some different strategic decisions in order to be accomplished.

Also conversion to the StG as the std. issue rifle wouldn't have been a seriously difficult task for the Germans to accomplish, esp. not when you consider what projects they historically managed to complete. Albert Speer was up to the job as he proved when he successfully relocated much of Germany's industry away from Allied bomber raids in 44.

Simplifying matters the 7.92x33mm Kurz was manufactured using the same machines used for manufacturing the 7.92x57mm round, making any gradual conversion easy. Production of 7.92x57mm decreasing as the number of weapons using it decreases along with the demand, while 7.92mm Kurz production increases steadily as the demand increases.

In short Hitler's decision on not adopting the StG earlier was a mistake any way you look at it, just as his decision on diverting huge amounts of resources toward the development of wonder weapons such as the V-2 and MAUS was a huge mistake as-well.

 

Honestly, if you think you know better then take it up with the Operations Research Office, cause they uncovered the findings I posted during their project ALCLAD.

But hey, I guess you know better than them, they after-all just analyzed 3+ million combat reports!

Can't believe you are even putting this into question

 

Look again, and at the design this time

And this time enjoy your rom & coke.

You've obviously never seen the insides of a StG44 & FG42, these two weapons very much influenced the design of the M16, including the bolt design, oh yes.

 

please explain to me how those two bolts are even closely similar in design, aside from being gas operated.

The G3-FNFAL-HK91 is more similar:

 

formerjughead,

The M-16 uses a rotating bolt design, just like the FG42 from which much of the M16 bolt design is inspired. The M16 utilized an inline stock design, again inpired by the FG42. Selective fire thumb switch, inspired by the StG44. Spring loaded dust cover, inspired by StG44. Various internal workings inspired by StG44, also clearly noticable during disassembly.

 

There are no parts....none that are on the M16 that can be attributed to the StG44 or the FG42.

The Germans did not invent the spring loaded dust cover.

Don't ya think if the guy that wrote this article found out that the FG42 inspired something on the M-16 he would mention it?

I guess beings that the StG44 and the FG42 are both black that inspired Stoner to choose the same color for the M16?
So with that line of thinking the Germans also inspired: Jet Aircraft, Space Travel and Ice Cubes.
The StG was a good weapon and it could have been a great weapon, it would not have won the war though as Germany did not have the infastructure to support that weapon.

 

Is it?

Source please. From what I've read Goddard, Braun, and a Russian whose name I forget were exchanging considerable correspondence prior to the war.

Care to list some specifics?

 

We know what your position is. We just don't think it's right.

Could ... Well I suppose. Highly unlikely however and just about as likely to be negative as positive.

But it's not up to Speer. Conversion in and of itself woudn't be all that difficult given enough time but the Germans don't have enough time.

It's not just the machines though it's the jigs, settings, tools, etc. The US for instance put a lot of thought into how to work in even minor changes in some equipment. The Germans could do the same but it either takes time or costs production or both.

But the demand for the Kurtz is going to go up faster than the demand for the longer cartridge is going to go down and now you have to make sure that the right number with safety margins gets delivered to all levels and units equipped with both weapons. There is an inherent inefficiency here.

No it may actually have been one of his good ideas.

 

The stories about the 30 cal carbine rd not penatrating heavy clothing are just bogus stories. In a demonstration shot at 100 yrds after going through a padded coat, the carbine bullet also penatrated seven, (7), 1 gallon bottles of water.
And I believe I read somewhere that the carbine rd will penatrate 7" of wood at 200 yrds.

Here's a part of a paragraph from the book "US Infantry Weapons in Combat" by Mark G Goodwin I copied from another site.
Story is told by Jack Walentine who served in Korea from July 1950 to Feb 1951. He returned home after his fourth wound. Check page 90
Jack words follow;

" I never saw a M1 carbine in Korea; we all had M2 carbines. I used to take an M2 carbine if I had to go out on a night patrol. I could carry 300 rounds of carbine ammunition and at night the ranges were short,15 to 40 feet tops. You hear stories about the Chinese being shot with carbines in their winter clothing and they just brushed it off. I have shot Chinese in all their winter gear with a M2 carbine, and those rounds had gone completely through them, in the front and out the back. I know because I had to search them for maps and documents after I shot them. At 100 to 150 yards that sucker was bad news. I thought it was a lot more powerful than that Russian submachine gun. A wool coat, a parka and a shirt did not stop the Russian slugs either." End quote.

That Russian SMG he mentions would have been the ppsh-41/43 in the 7.62X25 pistol rd with a 10.5" bbl with about 750 ft lbs engery and 1500-1700 fps. The Russians armed whole regiments with these sub guns in WWII.

The M1 carbine rd is more powerfull then the smg with 970 ft lbs energy at 2000 fps. this does put the little 5-1/2 lb carbine, which was not designed as an offensive weapon, in a little better perspective and it was in full issue in 1942.
I have both, an working MP44 and a number of M1 carbines and had a M2 carbine.

However in regard to the MP44, the MP44 fits the role of an intermedient range weapon and caliber better then the M1 carbine and in addition it is select fire with a 32 rd mag compared to the 15 rd WWII carbine mag.

The rd is a bit heavier at 125 grs as opposed to 110 grs for the 30 carbine and it has more energy and velocity. In fact it has the same exact balistics as the 7.62X39 Russian Rd of the SKS and AK fame.

The Mp44 is an excellent weapon that is easy to control on full auto fire and it is very accurate in semi for aimed fire. A bit heavy but an excellent and reliable all around weapon.

Any way, sorry for the rambling but I had nothing better to do, Ray

Ray

 

lwd, you go ahead an try proving a negative. Kinda impossible isn't it?

Sure, the analog computer system used for guidance for example. Goddard had zip to do with anything of the likes, he probably didn't even know how a puch hole computer worked.

 

I have said this quite a few times along here, so I hesitate to repeat myself; I am a dilletante when it comes to the issue I raised with the OP. I don't mind being a novice, it just means I get to learn more as the posts come rolling in.

The thing I wanted to ask was this:
Someone, no pointed fingers here, asserted that the STG-44 didn't influence assault weapon design, correct? If I am wrong, don't jump on me, just let me know nicely, thanks. Wasn't the STG sort of the immediate parent of the AK-47? And doesn't the Galil use the same basic receiver group, loading mechanism, and sight system as the AK-47? And this doesn't even really get into the direct Russian and other communist state copies and relatives of the AK. I mean, how many variants and descendants of the AK-47 are there? The AKM, the whole LMG line (RPK, right?), the Dragunov to name just three. Aren't there a LOT more out there?

Look, I know all assault weapons are pretty much similar. Usually a box magazine holding a minimum of around 20 rounds (up to what? 75? 100 for some weapons), a feed mechanism with a gas operated self-loading system and a selective fire switch (single shot, three shot burst, full auto) which then sends rounds downrange. I know this is simplified, but my point is that there aren't a lot of variations on a theme here. Yes, there have been some (the G-11 springs to mind, along with LOL the Gyrojet rifle hahahaha yes, I HAD to get that one in here! LOLOLOL) but that is pretty much how the majority work, right?

 

T.A. Gardner Wrote:

Proeliator responded:

Written in the label of the M-1955 flak jacket I was issued in the Marine Corps the tag says "70% of all combat casualties are the result of fragmentation type weapons" a similar comment was included in the care and use booklet that came with my PASGT body armor "75% of all combat casualties are caused by fragments...."
According to the Medical Statistics Agency, Office of the Surgeon General, U.S. Army, 69.9% of combat casualties in WWII were a result of fragmentation weapons. WIA's 23% small arms, 77% fragmentation, KIA's 36% small arms, 63% fragmentation. So T.A. Gardner is correct HE is the casualty producer.

As for the Stg44 being a war changer it's doubtfull. The M-1 was semi-auto and enjoyed greater range. The area that the Stg44 would have enjoyed it's greatest advantage over the M-1 is in close quarters during building clearing. A Thompson or a "Grease Gun" would have been just as effective and because they were using the .45 ACP round they'd be more lethal. The .30cal M-1 carbine would have performed quite adequately in this type of combat, though not as well as the Stg44. Always remember "The enemy gets a vote", U.S. forces would have quickly adapted their tactics to minimize the Stg44's advantages while taking advantage of it's weaknesses. Example: The modern U.S. Army because of the Urban nature of combat encountered in Iraq re-equipped it's forces with the M-4 carbine because of it's supposed advantages in close quarters and because their studies showed that most combat took place at less than 300yards. The M-4 had reliability issues because of it's short barrel length but the advantage of compactness led to it's adoption as the Army's standard battle rifle. Now in Afghanistan the Taliban just engages at ranges greater than 1,000 feet where the M-4 becomes ineffective.(Fortunately, the Marine Corps kept the full length M-16A4 except for personnel where a carbine is appropriate, officers, communicators, crew served weapons personnel, Corpsmen, etc., and because of the widespread adoption of combat optics their rifle is still capable but pushing it's limits. They had limited fielding of a collapsable stock fitted to theA2/A4 but mostly adapted to the close quarters house clearing in Iraq with the tactic of "Short stocking" their rifles.)