Russian vs German Infantry Weapons

As it is written so shall it be done LOL.

 

I don't know why you guys are saying that range is inportant in a SMG-it's not. SMGs are ideal in street fighting, in which combats usually occur in less than 20 yards away, so range is unimportant.
IMO, the PPSH wins this contest. It has a high rate of fire, and when I bash down that door accross the street I'm not going to worry about if it goes through the next wall or not, I'm going to worry about getting as much lead through that opening as possible.

 

I agree with you Joe, sloniksp, and Za Rodinu but the German tanks were only worse because they were made for flat ground and good weather. The couldn't stand up to the harsh russian weather, but they would be better in the steppes for sure.

 

The MP40 had quite a few issues including a single-stack magazine with compressible lips, overheating problems, and a magazine that looked far too much like a handle. The PPSH was notable for discharging when dropped onto its butt, but was very reliable. In terms of combat ability, the PPSH was superior.

German guns were better than their Soviet counterparts (at least, at the beginning of the war). However, Soviet quantity had a quality of its own.

Later-generation German tanks were pretty bad for offensives. Unreliable, hard to produce, and inefficient characterize these vehicles. Soviet vehicles, though weaker in terms of combat capability, were very cheap to produce and could stay in action for quite a while (or be replaced easily when they broke down).

 

Having fired the Mp40, PPSh 41 and PPS43 under reasonably rigerous conditions my vote goes for the PPSh 41. I fired a weapon that spent 40 years in a bog, was dug out, cleaned up and had no problems emptying several mag's under pretty serious weather conditions (-15 degrees C without wind chill). When I fired an MP40 in the UK in spring it jammed several times, easy to clear but still a pain in the backside, the PPS43 was similar (in fact, I think I may be the only person in history to break one by cocking it too hard).

That said, SMG's don't win wars, men, blood and bigger weapons do.

 

The germans didn't win technically with tanks at the start of Barbarossa, the PzIII was no match for the T-34's, the Russians were just not prepared for the Germans at the start, but once they got organized the t-34 did well although inferior against the panther and the tiger, but hta tis when the bigger boys come in.

 

Interesting points...

almost as interesting as if WW2 was fought by swords!

Its experience, training, good judgment and good leadership that I think would win your engagements. I think the weapons are pretty much the same in their flaws and goods. I'd rather run out with a MP-40 than with nothing at all

 

The differences between weapons within each category of small arms were not significant enough to matter. The MP 44 introduced a new category which did, on average, give an advantage to those units which had it, but I suspect that the effect was rather marginal.

 

Ever hear the story of Chuck Yeager talking to an air force general who insisted that it was the aircraft that made the difference, not the pilot. Yeager took this as a challenge and so the pair had a mock dog-fight with Yeager in an F86 and the general in a P-51, Yeager won. They then swapped aircraft and Yeager won again. I think the same logic applies to small arms, it's the men behind the weapons that make the difference not the weapons themselves.

 

This thread is incredibly untidy. It reads infantry weapons, and the focal point started out with small arms, and now we are comparing level of training of the men. Za Rodinu pointed at the 12cm mortar which is what I was thinking on when I saw the thread.

Hawkerace has a point, but for the sake of the thread let us carry on.

The Red Army had an enormous lead on the Germans in terms of weaponry. The weapons were easy to operate and sturdy. The Red Army had infantry support weapons that the Germans were nowhere near. The AT guns, mortars and artillery were larger than the Germans. If it had not been for the Luftwaffe the early days of Barbarossa would have been a bit too interesting for the Germans.

Please bear in mind that it was essentialy the same wepons in use during the Russian counteroffensive that fought in the start. The germans used the war to upgrade their weaponry to match their enemies. This beacuse of the early armament period. The US started arming during the war, and they enjoyed an advantage of not clinging on to outdated equipment because it was there.

 

Actually, the Germans might hold a lead when it comes to machine-guns. But that's about the only category where they have an advantage in.

 

Might? The German Mg 42 and 34 were both the first all purpose machine guns capable of being used effectively in a defensive role with the tripod's and stands and in offensive roles a drum aattachment. The Mg42was a feared weapon in the hands of trained Soliders. The later German tanks seem to be forgotten, as well as the German Luftwaffe's ability's over the Soviet Air Force.

 

Yeah, for quite obvious reasons. You could swap the infantry weapons of most nations around it wouldn't make much difference, it's experience, training, tactics, doctrine and so on that make the difference, not which of the vaguely comparable bolt action rifles people have.

 

very true points Stefan. I agree the main killers are artillery no small arms.

 

Agreed as well; I was reading about a platoon from 2nd Battalion, King's Own Scottish Borderers, and the platoon commander who served with the platoon from Oct. 1944 to May 1945 said that over 80% of the casualties thay suffered, including wounds, was caused by mortar or artillery fire (some of it friendly).

 

Hufflepuff

Would that be 'With the Jocks' by David White??

 

I think there is way too many variables involved to really make a clear choice, if forced to choose I would take a German Mauser and a Russian SMG. Both of them would be best depending on the circumstances.

 

Tomcat - enlighten me regarding the MG 34/42 "drum attachment". I was under the impression both weapons were belt-fed only. I know the post-war MAG 58 featured a belt-tray clipped onto the side of the gun; likewise the Minimi. Not aware this feature was available in WWII belt-fed guns.

Klive