The German view of US small arms in WW2.

I was wrong then. I didn't know the licence was after the fact. It's suprising to me since they paid Krag Jorgensen.
Yep, Mauser would have had a slam dunk case in court. no doubt.

 

I was trying to find a date for the suit and couldn't. I think it was between 1903 and 1908 though. WWI brought an end to the royalty payments which were part of the settlement. I think 5 patents were involved including a couple on the spring clips. There may also have been one or more on the amunition.

 

The Mauser Gewehr 98 was built under license, not the Springfield M1903.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFsM7qBNhb4
The USA bought the manufacturing rights for the Mauser system, but then dropped the contract and used the system in the M1903.

 

I'd be interested to hear what the Germans thought of this one. My grandpa fired both the M3 and the Tommy a lot during his time in the Army and Police Units in the 1950s and he said that overall the Thompson was much better, but that you could fire the Grease Gun all day without ever having to worry about a malfunction.

And I think the Germans were right about the BAR. My grandpa was a BAR man himself and he loved the gun, but it weighed (in his words) "a g*d d**ned ton"

 

True, it was heavy but if you've ever fired an automatic weapon from the shoulder you soon learn they are very difficult to hold down. The BAR used the 30.06 cartridge (powerful). The BAR was seven pounds lighter than the Bren, so not it's not entirely the beast it's made out to be. The rate of fire is slow, true, but anything faster and you were again shooting at the sky.

The Wehrmacht relied on crew served machine guns, though the FG-42 used by paratroopers fit the same criteria as the BAR. The BAR was not a substitute for a crew served light machine gun, but rather a supplement since light belt-fed machine guns were in the TOE right down to the platoon level.

 

Talking about all these instances of using opposing forces weapons systems, be they personal weapons or crew served, I'm reminded of the fighting in North Africa. The nature of warfare there (tactician's heaven, quartermaster's hell) both sides used EVERYTHING found on the battlefield to include rations, clothing (khaki is khaki no matter who made it), weapons, vehicles, food, gas, etc. Haven't read anything about using recovered aircraft there yet, but I don't think that it would be beyond them to try if the opportunity presented itself. I think that cigarettes were the most prized of battlefield recovered treasures.

I'm also pleased with the positive reports of the M-1 Carbine. I have one with the paratrooper folding stock as a matter of fact. My Dad gave it to me after he picked it up for $20 at armory sale here in town back in the 70s. Thirty caliber ammo is running about $32.00 a box (of 50 rounds) these days. Picked up a box at Cabela's yesterday.

 

I believe it was Lucky Strikes that were the most prized American cigarettes... right? As a former smoker I still think they were the best I ever had.

 

I believe you are right about the popularity of Lucky Strikes, but I'm sure someone who is more up on such trivia will come along and straighten us out on it. I've never smoked a cigarette before, just cigars.

 

I can't speak highly enough of the M1 Carbine. In fact, my 1943 IBM was my first long gun and its still one of my favorites. From everything I've read, the Germans agreed that it was a good little rifle -- it was even good enough for the propaganda reels. This photo below is - of course - taken from the well-known 'Poteau sequence' in December 1944.

 

The FG-42 was designed as a full auto rifle. that should have replaced the Mauser K98k not a weapon given to a one or two squad menbers to beef up squad firepower. At 5.2Kg (4.3Kg for the initial version) vs the BAR's 8.3 it could be carried by most infantrymen but it was produced in too small mumbers to replace the K98k in the FJ units.

BTW in the desert captured planes were scrounged as well, a number of repaired SM79 were used as transports by RAF units and one squadron even used a Ju 87 for that role !.

 

I'm sure he was referring to the effectiveness and range of the cartridge, though he did become familiar with the M2 as a postwar officer in the Bundeswehr.

 

I think he's right, but it is still a terrible habit to develop. A lot of SMG's fire from a closed bolt....

 

Always clear your weapon when it is handed to you even if you witness someone claring before you, my dads told me stories about privates beng handed weapons with a Blank in the chaber to see if they would double check their weapons before doing a dry fire, lets just say that some pants needed to be changed........several times, never point the receiveing end of a weapon at you face, you never know when a mischevous NCO wants to have some fun with you

 

Robert Kershaw's "It never snows in September" includes a quotation from an SS man who used a STEN SMG by preference because it enabled him to adopt a prone firing position, compared to MP40.

 

The german soldiers liked the M1 Carbine very much, that's true. Because of its weak cartridge.
I've read from german soldiers that it wasn't even powerful enough to penetrate their thick winter clothes during the winter battles of 1944/45, this could be propaganda as well. But it was prefered by police forces for a reason: You don't want to kill the person, it is enough to put him out of action.
Otherwise it is a fabulous weapon no other army seemed to even think about, and every soldier knows how important the weight and size of the firearm is.

The US-Soldiers picked up the MP 40 whenever they can, so i guess it was regarded as superior to the Grease Gun or even the Thompson.

 

I wouldn't call it a weak cartridge.

It is weaker than a full powered .30 but much more powerful than a submachine gun or pistol round

From Wiki:

M1 Carbine:


Bullet weight/type

Velocity

Energy

110 gr (7 g) FMJ

606.5 m/s (1,990 ft/s)

1,311 J (967 ft·lbf)



9mm:


Bullet weight/type

Velocity

Energy

7.45 g (115 gr) FMJ

390 m/s (1,300 ft/s)

570 J (420 ft·lbf)

8.04 g (124 gr) FMJ

360 m/s (1,200 ft/s)

518 J (382 ft·lbf)

7.50 g (116 gr) JHP

377 m/s (1,240 ft/s)

533 J (393 ft·lbf)

7.45 g (115 gr) JHP +P

411 m/s (1,350 ft/s)

632 J (466 ft·lbf)

7.45 g (115 gr) JHP +P+

426 m/s (1,400 ft/s)

678 J (500 ft·lbf)

.45 ACP:


230 gr (15 g) US Army Ball FMJ

830 ft/s (250 m/s)

352 ft·lbf (477 J)


7.62 Tokarev:


Bullet weight/type

Velocity

Energy

5.5 g (85 gr) JHP[2]

376 m/s (1,230 ft/s)

390 J (290 ft·lbf)

5.8 g (90 gr) FMJ[2]

409 m/s (1,340 ft/s)

488 J (360 ft·lbf)

5.5 g (85 gr) FMJ[3]

502 m/s (1,650 ft/s)

693 J (511 ft·lbf)

5.5 g (85 gr) FMJ[4]

525 m/s (1,720 ft/s)

760 J (560 ft·lbf)

5.5 g (85 gr) JHP[4]

510 m/s (1,700 ft/s)

715 J (527 ft·lbf)

 

I haven't seen many reports validating this.

The 'overcoat' thing is from the Korean War, and is unfounded. A .30 Carbine round can certainly kill you. As Dave44 said, .30 Carbine is by no means a "wimpy" cartridge.

I've seen no pictures of US troops using MP40s in combat. The M3 was held in poor regard but I can't imagine large numbers of US troops dumping Thompsons or M3s for MP40s. Ammunition supply would be the big issue -- no US weapons were chambered in 9mm.

 

What about the Browning HP?

 

Come on George, get real. You know the German's had all the best weapons and equipment. What were you thinking? Don't try and cloud the discussion by using intelligent reasoning and facts. How else do you explain how Germany won? Oh wait a minute....

 

I don't think they were ever issued to US military. Plenty to the Canadians, Germans and British though. Belgians too, I think.