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

You do make some interesting points regarding there similarity. However this topic is not about the similarity of a modern and a ww2 weapon, instead it is about singly, the STG. The topic has been allowed to stray off this topic for references and what not but an AK 47 of a modern nature is too far off topic. So with that, as long as you can keep the discussion of the AK series weapons in the post war time line then go ahead, but keep it relevant to the STG.

NATO topics are not on topic, you have all already been warned about going to far off topic, any more and this thread will be closed. It has been allowed to continue with reluctance up to now but enough is enough, keep the discussion about the STG of ww2.

Proeliator, you have been asked to provide a source for your claims on the STG, now as these claims are outside of the normally accepted knowledge of ww2 and you have been asked to reference it, please do and let this be settled.

Now before you continue to go on about how hard it will be to get this information, you should not have started it in the first place if you were not prepared to cite references for your claims.

 

Oh don't ask me, it's just the typical explanation offered by advocates of the .30-06 cartridge. They claim that recoil with the M1 Garand was found to be too excessive, and thus the lower pressure M2 Ball was introduced. According to them the MV of the earlier WW1 150 gr M1906 round was higher at 870 m/s, which shouldn't be the case if the M2 Ball was loaded to full specs. But I welcome being proven wrong on this, as I've also heard that the Germans achieved higher MV's with similar weight bullets during WW2 because of their better powders, powder types later used in the 7.62 NATO to duplicate .30-06 performance.

The Germans were well ahead in chemistry during WW2 and developed some very potent powders, such as that used in the V-patronen I talked about.



One thing is for sure though, powder technology didn't move very far until the 1980's. So this newly developed ball powder that they describe in your paper is most likely just a new powder type developed from the German Np.Gew.R.P. powder types.

 

I have cited plenty of sources & references, such as Peter Senich & Hans Dieter Handrich. They are the ones who write about the glowing combat reports recieved from the front regarding the combat peformance of the StG. And what they write is NOT outside normally accepted knowledge of the StG, is IS the normally accepted knowledge surrounding the StG. If you wish to contest this then it is YOU who will need to explain yourself, not me.

I claim nothing, I cite.

 

The far majority of 7.92mm Kurz bullets made were using 'Flussstahl tombak pl' gliding metal jackets, tombak being a cobber & zinc alloy (95% cobber). So a gliding metal jacket of cobber & zinc, exactly the same as with US & British rounds, so no extra fouling.

Metal jackets using large amounts of tin & zinc weren't introduced until the very end of the war, where 7.92x57mm ammunition went with this as-well. (The Soviets had used this since 1943) It's very hard to find examples of this later type using the tin & zinc coated jackets, where'as ammunition with cobber jackets are far more common and easily found.

7.92mm Patr. 43 m.E. cobber jacket (left), tin jacket (right):

 

This is getting silly.

The discussion going on has got sod all to do with the StG winning the war for germany.

Ballisitics and what not is completely uninteresting.

As for the V-ammo, the technology is there but the ammo isn't. In the latter stages of the war MG gunners were hoarding "good" ammo to avoid stoppages. A veteran from Reg. "Norge" spoke about the pains of getting proper ammo for the MG-42.

In short:

New weaponry would not have changed the war for Germany.

Improved logistics and Improved doctrine could.

The end

 

Getting silly Jaeger? It's been silly from page one .
And you're spot on that it matters little the construction of the ammunition, or any details of special powders etc. It's pure obfuscation of the primary ammunition issue troubling StG use in WW2, which does indeed seem to have been one of supply.

Where did you cite Handrich?
One of the main reasons I checked in his excellent book was that I thought it very odd that a thread search revealed he hadn't been mentioned at all here (what with having done some of the most in depth research into the weapon's history) and so much of the 'blah' going on seemed familiar.

I'll say again then, since a polite question seems to have been ignored:

So are you sitting there cribbing from Handrich without admitting it, as I could if I wanted to, or are you using direct primary sources?

Again, just wondering?

~A

 

Von Poop,

Handrich & Senich both mention the glowing combat reports about the StG. My information about the combat reports and battlefield achievements come from these two authors who have the reports.

The handbook I got my 7.92mm Kurz data from isn't in Handrich's book, it's a primary source, its called Ringbuch der Infanterie Munition.

 

Oh btw, the StG44 apparently could mount the rifle grenade launcher, it was the MP43/1 that couldn't, so no issues there either T.A. Gardner:


Data from US TM-E30-451 Handbook of German Military Forces, dated March 1945:

Muzzle Velocity: 2,200 ft/s

Just 47 ft/s off compared to German figures.

 

As Handrich rattles on about for pages and pages .

Expensive book (I got very lucky on eBay), but I'd heartily recommend it to anyone with an interest in the MkB/MP/StG 42/42h/43/44 (or whatever they chose to call it that week).
One of the best technical histories I've ever read.

Sturmgewehr From Firepower to Striking Power: Amazon.co.uk: Hans-Dieter Handrich: Books

Though yet again with these posh books - no bloody Index!
I could cry...

~A

 

Mr. Tomcat,
First sir, I would like to thank you for considering my request.

I agree, and I will endevor to keep any references to the immediate postwar version.

That was my original intent, when I posted the following.

The last three figures comparing the 7.62x39-7.9mm Kurz and .30cal M1 carbine round were intended to show that the intermediate cartridge for the Stg44 really wasn't much more powerful than that of the M1 carbine that I think most here would agree was somewhat underpowered. It was adequate, even good for it's intended purpose but was lacking when used in the role intended for the service rifle.
One of the advantages that Proeliator mentioned for the Stg44 was the ability of the round to penetrate walls/wood etc. He provided YouTube videos to prove his point, the problem is that even if the weapons were period firearms the ammo wasn't. I included the reference to the .30-06, the primary WWII U.S. round and it's replacement the 7.62x51 NATO to illustrate that modern ammunition is not comparable to WWII ammo. The .30-06 had excellent range and penetration ability. The two primary factors in the performance of a bullet are weight of bullet (mass), and velocity (barrel length is also important but relates to the performance of the same round in different weapons). The comparison to the NATO round was to show that modern propellents could propel a bullet of similar mass at nearly identical velocities with significantly less propellant, therefore the same sized cartridge loaded with more modern propellent would have a significant increase in performance. Proeliator questioned my figures and I went back, did additional research and found that tests on the WWII era Kurz round supported the figures I originally quoted. I also discovered data that was identical to what he quoted, but it was for a post WWII East German version of the Kurz.

I wasn't intending to get the thread off topic, just to explain why modern demonstrations are not necessarily accurate when demonstrating the capability of WWII weapons using period ammunition. If I had a part in taking the thread off topic, I apologize, that was not my intent. I will also be more careful with future posts.

 

My opinion is that if it introduced in 1942 the StG would've provided the last push needed to tip the scales in important battles such as Stalingrad, Monte Cassino & Normandy, which possibly could've altered the course of the war. This opinion is supported by people such as Larry Vickers, Ian V. Hogg & Peter Senich.

Technical specifications:

Sturmgewehr 44 (Assault rifle)

Caliber: 7.92x33mm Kurz (16.65 g [8.19 gram bullet])
Length: 940 mm
Barrel Length: 419 mm
Empty weight with magazine & rim: 4.62 kg
Weight of full magazine: 0.92 kg
Fully loaded weight: 5.12 kg
Rate of Fire: 550-600 rpm
Muzzle velocity: 685-690 m/s
Effective range: 600m (single shot), 300m (automatic fire)

Accessories:
4x ZF4 scope, ZG1229 IR scope, rifle grenade launcher, Krummlauf.

7.92mm Pist. Patrone 43 m.E. specs & performance:

Bullet type: Full Metal Jacket Spitzer Boat Tail
Bullet length: 25.80 mm
Bullet diameter: 8.20 mm
Cartridge length: 33.00 mm
Primer: Zdh 88 or Zdh 30/40
Powder: Nz.R.P.(1.0 x 0.8 / 0.2)
Powder Charge: 1.57 g
Round length: 47.60 mm
Round weight: 16.65 g
Muzzle velocity: 685-690 m/sec.
Muzzle energy: 1949 Joules

Penetration:
25cm of birchwood at 50 meters, penetrates steel helmets at 600+ meters.


Sources:
1. StG44 Handbuch
2. Polte Factory data
3. Ringbuch der Infanterie Munition
4. US TM Manual E30 451
5. Peter Senich
6. Dieter Handrich

 

So you will trust in a figure derived from an author rather than the original WW2 German figures? Well what'ever suits you, but the real issue here is that you just don't like being proven wrong.

Also east German 7.92x33 Kurz might very well do 685 m/s, esp. since the exact same powder type & charge is used :lol: Yes Price, look at the ammunition packs, same powder and same amount. No surprise performance is the same :lol:

 

I remember reading something some time ago about the STG 44 stating that there is no known photo's of the STG actually in combat, can anyone either confirm this or prove it wrong?

 

Instead of just blurting out names of references which we can neither confirm nor deny, can you at all cite a reference we can confirm? ie. an internet site?

 

Not only are there photos of it in combat, there is also a good deal of footage.

 

And the exact reason you're not requesting the same from USMCPrice is?

I can provide internet sources which use the same primary documents as myself for sure if that's what you want:

7,92 x 33 Kurz

MP44.nl - German Uniforms and Equipment - Sturmgewehr 44

For example...


So now I've provided loads of data from both primary sources such as German technical manuals and also authors, and now finally internet sites pr. request. How someone can trust the word of a single author over that of original primary source data and several other more respected authors I will never know, but I don't think that's really the case either - I think people just don't like being proven wrong.

 

As you have now sited yours, it is fair that he can now site his.

USMCPrice, can you site your own internet related websites to solve this matter once and for all?

Does this include you?

 

Just where does it show in those links the piece being used in action?

 

When'ever I get proven wrong I will happily state that I stand corrected, I can assure you that.

Eventually we will all be proven wrong about something anyway, we can't know it all and neither can we remember it all. Admitting ones own mistakes only earns you respect in my eyes, nothing else.

 

Sorry but this just shows that you pay absolutely no attention to what is being written in this thread, and that makes me mad.

Read the posts, and take note of what they are in response to, that's the least you can do!

The post you just commented on any individual having read this thread could've told wasn't in response to Tomcat's question regarding the StG being photographed or filmed in combat (See the quotation box!), but a response to an inquiry to cite a internet source!

But now that you brought it up I might as-well direct you to the right place, eventhough finding photographs & footage of the StG44 in combat is easy.

A sample for you: YouTube - TRM Presents: German STG44 Footage

Photos: