Germans adopt small caliber high velocity small arms pre-war

[stg 44]

Apparently pre-WW1 the Germans were experimenting with SCHV bullets as a potential rifle bullet, so what if that experience then continued into the interwar era and in a bid to save on bullet expenses (one 5.56 NATO round is a heavy and costs as much as a 7.62 NATO round) and taking advantage of experience gained about actual combat distances during WW1 the Germans adopt a self loading carbine based around a 5.6mm bullet? Historically they had developments with self loading carbines in the interwar period, plus used 5.6mm training ammo, so really just needed to couple the ideas together. This would replace the SMG as a weapon class (they really only got into mass production in the late 1930s right before the war) and a great deal of bolt action rifles. What impact does that have on the war then if this class of weapon is common and quite a bit cheaper than the standard K98k, both in actual rifle cost and in ammo cost? Being a much lighter round the weapon doesn't need to be nearly as heavy or as long barreled, which would save on expense despite the added complexity of the gas piston system.

I'd expect it to have a significant impact on the Eastern Front in 1941 and beyond, as lighter ammo per round (1/3rd of the weight of a rifle round) means more ammo could be shipped, while the effectiveness of a small round coupled with the self loading feature would give a pretty serious advantage in fire fights, something very important in the East given the huge front and resulting relatively low firepower densities that required infantry to rely on their own weapons more than in the west. Historically too the StG44 made a huge impression on the Soviets, who raced to create their own intermediate round and rifles/assault rifles/LMGs based on it starting in 1943 (i.e. when the MP43 was still in testing), which meant that it clearly had a noticeable effect on combat on that front, so having something even more effective and lighter earlier on is going to have a pretty serious impact tactically, with knock on effects as a result.

Thoughts?

[maltesefalcon]

The main reason the US went to the 5.56 or .222/.223 caliber was not cost reduction. Reduced weight and size of rounds allowed troops to carry more ammo into combat. This was important as semi and full auto carbines became more common. There was also better control under full auto bursts.

But there were mixed feelings. The lighter rounds lacked the punch of .308 or 30-06. They had difficulty penetrating vehicles and were often deflected in dense foliage.

So the US did not completely abandon the round but the regular rifle calbers are back in service as well.

I imagine the Wehrmacht would have the same results. iMHO such a small change would not have made a notable difference to success or failure in any case.

[stg 44]

The main reason the US went to the 5.56 or .222/.223 caliber was not cost reduction. Reduced weight and size of rounds allowed troops to carry more ammo into combat. This was important as semi and full auto carbines became more common. There was also better control under full auto bursts.

Sure, but they certainly did reduce cost compared to one full caliber battle rifle round and the Germans cited that as a major benefit of adopting an intermediate caliber when they adopted the 7.92 Kurz. Otherwise the same motivations were there for the 5.56 and Kurz rounds.

But there were mixed feelings. The lighter rounds lacked the punch of .308 or 30-06. They had difficulty penetrating vehicles and were often deflected in dense foliage.

Sure, but general rifle rounds wouldn't pierce armor. In the end everyone recognized the benefit of SCHV (or earlier intermediate) rounds over battle rifle rounds and adopted them; given the effort the Germans put into intermediate rounds pre-WW2 they too recognized the benefits over the full sized 7.92x57.

So the US did not completely abandon the round but the regular rifle calbers are back in service as well.

Nor am I proposing the Germans here fully abandon the 7.92x57. The MGs will still use it, as will marksmen/snipers and rifle grenadiers.

I imagine the Wehrmacht would have the same results. iMHO such a small change would not have made a notable difference to success or failure in any case.

It isn't exactly a small change at all and enough tactical changes do add up to operational ones and eventually strategic ones.

[Helmut0815]

But there were mixed feelings. The lighter rounds lacked the punch of .308 or 30-06. They had difficulty penetrating vehicles and were often deflected in dense foliage.

Sure, but general rifle rounds wouldn't pierce armor. In the end everyone recognized the benefit of SCHV (or earlier intermediate) rounds over battle rifle rounds and adopted them; given the effort the Germans put into intermediate rounds pre-WW2 they too recognized the benefits over the full sized 7.92x57.

I think we are not talking about armour piercing capabilities but penetrating standard sheet metall of cars and trucks. Bundeswehr in Afghanistan was not able to penetrate the walls of mud huts were Taliban was hiding with their G36, so the companies were re-equipped with some G3 battle rifles and their powerful 7,62x51 cartridges.

See also http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/10 ... -cartridge

“While the infantryman is ideally suited for combat in Afghanistan, his current weapons, doctrine, and marksmanship training do not provide a precise, lethal fire capability to 500 meters and are therefore inappropriate,” Ehrhart contended. “There are several ways to extend the lethality of the infantry… A better option to increase incapacitation is to adopt a larger caliber cartridge, which will function using components of the M16/M4.”

regards


Helmut

[stg 44]

I think we are not talking about armour piercing capabilities but penetrating standard sheet metall of cars and trucks.

Bundeswehr in Afghanistan was not able to penetrate the walls of mud huts were Taliban was hiding with their G36, so the companies were re-equipped with some G3 battle rifles and their powerful 7,62x51 cartridges.

Yeah, penetrating thick mud walls is quite different than sheet metal.

See also http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/10 ... -cartridge

“While the infantryman is ideally suited for combat in Afghanistan, his current weapons, doctrine, and marksmanship training do not provide a precise, lethal fire capability to 500 meters and are therefore inappropriate,” Ehrhart contended. “There are several ways to extend the lethality of the infantry… A better option to increase incapacitation is to adopt a larger caliber cartridge, which will function using components of the M16/M4.”

Well sure, shooting up mountains at 500m or beyond is going to be quite difficult for a round designed to only be effect out to a limit of 500m on level ground. The entire point of the SCHV round was to primarily fight up to 300m and if necessary still be able to penetrate a WW2 helmet at 500m. A 7.62x51 round is meant to retain enough energy kill a man at 800-1000m. The designs are for very different ranges; the former was designed because 90% of combat happens at 300m or less, 50% at 200m or less:

[maltesefalcon]

Germany's squad infantry tactics were built around a roughly 10 man team supporting an MG34 or MG42. They built around 1 million of those during the war. In addition they built around 500,000 MP44. Plus they had a myriad of 9mm submachine guns.

They did not suffer from lack of suppressive fire or short range weapons. In fact, most casualties were not caused by rifle fire at all.

So in isolated cases I can see a small increment of improvement by carrying lighter rounds, but not a game changer. More so when you take into account that infantry humps a lot more than ammo weight on the march. If 10% was ammo then a 50% reduction in the cartridge weight would only give a net 5% overall burden reduction. With a 100 round load we are only talking a couple pounds or so going to the lighter version.

As for the weapon itself, it would weigh slightly less than MP44. But that weapon was close to tbe weight of a 98k anyway. And any difference would be more than countered by the weight of the empty magazines required to operate it. You need to go to the aluminum/plastic construction of the M-16 to get down to a serious weight reduction.

And that is the only upside I see. Larger rounds have better punch at both short and long range.

[stg 44]

Germany's squad infantry tactics were built around a roughly 10 man team supporting an MG34 or MG42. They built around 1 million of those during the war. In addition they built around 500,000 MP44. Plus they had a myriad of 9mm submachine guns.

You've got that backwards, the MG supported the infantry in their mission...when it could keep up. Most SMGs were built after the war started, in fact most after 1941 as a result of the experience of massed Soviet SMGs.
As to the MG42 only about 423,000 were built during the war. I can't find numbers on MG34s built, but apparently the numbers was substantially less than that of the MG42, which mean it is very safe to say that several hundred thousand less than 1 million MG34/42s were built from 1935-45 (when the MG34 started production to when the MG42 ended).
Meanwhile something like 12-14 million K98ks were built.

They did not suffer from lack of suppressive fire or short range weapons. In fact, most casualties were not caused by rifle fire at all.

Because they were using very overpowered bolt action rifles or very short ranged open bolt SMGs.

So in isolated cases I can see a small increment of improvement by carrying lighter rounds, but not a game changer. More so when you take into account that infantry humps a lot more than ammo weight on the march. If 10% was ammo then a 50% reduction in the cartridge weight would only give a net 5% overall burden reduction. With a 100 round load we are only talking a couple pounds or so going to the lighter version.

So why did everyone in the world switch to SCHV infantry weapons after the M16 was developed? If it wasn't such a game changing weapon why did the Soviets drop the AK-47 and their intermediate round to adopt their own 5.45mm SCHV round and huge expense? Same thing with the intermediate caliber round during and after WW2.
In part it was the rise in accuracy due to a lower powered round requiring less training to master, being able to carry more ammo which allowed the domination of firefights (if you have more bullets you run out last and can suppressive fire better), while also being able to combine the role of the SMG, rifle, and automatic rifle all in one (which simplifies logistics considerably).

As for the weapon itself, it would weigh slightly less than MP44. But that weapon was close to tbe weight of a 98k anyway. And any difference would be more than countered by the weight of the empty magazines required to operate it. You need to go to the aluminum/plastic construction of the M-16 to get down to a serious weight reduction.

The MP44 was actually substantially heavier than the K98 despite being slightly cheaper. Differences due to magazine weight weren't as big an issue as you'd think as they carried a limited amount and kept the rest in stripper clips for reloading. Meanwhile empty mags don't weight that much.
I'd say you really don't need to get into M16 territory for substantial weight reduction as the VZ-58 demonstrated (Czech answer to the AK-47 which was substantially less despite having a milled receiver...which was heavier than a stamped AK one).

And that is the only upside I see. Larger rounds have better punch at both short and long range.

But have more recoil and are hard to manage for both semi- and automatic fire, which means less hits and more wastage. Hence everyone in the world transitioning to SCHV rounds for their primary infantry weapons. Even US LMGs are in 5.56

[maltesefalcon]

I will concede the production numbers you cited as being more accurate to the time frame. I only did a quick Wiki search and it's often unreliable.

On some of the other points I think we could debate all day and not come to a conclusion, so we may have to agree to disagree like the gentlemen we are.

I think I would like to question this one however:

maltesefalcon wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 7:13 pm
They did not suffer from lack of suppressive fire or short range weapons. In fact, most casualties were not caused by rifle fire at all.

STG 44 wrote: Because they were using very overpowered bolt action rifles or very short ranged open bolt SMGs.

Please offer some examples of contemporary pitched battles where air support, artillery, mines, grenades were used and the predominant casualties were due to the SCHV weapons you cited.Note: I am not talking small scale irregular/guerrilla actions, where at least one side had only small arms.

[T. A. Gardner]

It makes no difference. The Germans lose. :roll:

[stg 44]

On some of the other points I think we could debate all day and not come to a conclusion, so we may have to agree to disagree like the gentlemen we are.

Agreed.

They did not suffer from lack of suppressive fire or short range weapons. In fact, most casualties were not caused by rifle fire at all.[/i]

STG 44 wrote: Because they were using very overpowered bolt action rifles or very short ranged open bolt SMGs.

Please offer some examples of contemporary pitched battles where air support, artillery, mines, grenades were used and the predominant casualties were due to the SCHV weapons you cited.Note: I am not talking small scale irregular/guerrilla actions, where at least one side had only small arms.

How far out do you want to draw the lens of focus in terms of 'battle'? Tactically speaking infantry small arms, namely the infantry hand weapon, is the primary arm that faces the enemy where the rubber meets the road. It is the most numerous weapon and the basic one they have to fight. Even if you agree with the idea that the primary job of the infantry company is 'to escort the forward operating observer of the artillery from hill to hill, it is largely the infantry hand weapon that is the one that does the heavy lifting and consumes the bulk of the billions of rounds of small arms ammo used in WW2. Even if 'just' used as a suppressive weapon to fix the enemy for either artillery or mortars or even just rifle grenades and MGs to destroy or rout it is decisively important as part of combined arms.

Also I never claimed the infantry hand weapons was the primary cause of casualties, just an important one...one that became much more effective in casualty infliction by adopting weapons that were easier to use and much more capable than bolt action full powered rifles. British studies from WW2 found that infantry were more likely to actually hit an enemy soldier with a short ranged SMG than with a bolt action rifle, which helped lead to the post-war .280 EM-2 rifle being developed (and later US efforts to develop the 5.56mm round). On the Soviet side they found the same with their SMG units and ultimately realized they needed something similar, just longer ranged to be well rounded enough.

I am not talking small scale irregular/guerrilla actions, where at least one side had only small arms.

That's the thing, depending on how far down you actually focus on tactical engagements, most firefights are with infantry hand weapons, not supported by the heavy guns. Mortars may weight in in some cases, but generally it is only at the main point of decision where artillery is going to weigh in. Mines generally do not cause many casualties either, they're more about area denial and funneling attackers.
In the Korean war there were several small arms studies that noted how much of the war was fought, especially early on, with primarily small arms due to the situation, which was an ideal situation to assess their effectiveness:
http://lmharchive.ca/wp-content/uploads ... a-1952.pdf
https://archive.org/details/commentary_ ... ea_1950_51

[maltesefalcon]

I am clipping some of the above for brevity.

quote=maltesefalcon post_id=2149464 time=1533308292 user_id=6250]
They did not suffer from lack of suppressive fire or short range weapons. In fact, most casualties were not caused by rifle fire at all.[/i]

STG 44 wrote: Because they were using very overpowered bolt action rifles or very short ranged open bolt SMGs.



STG 44 wrote: Also I never claimed the infantry hand weapons was the primary cause of casualties...

And I diid not say you did. Please re-read the above. Your argument against my previous statement implied that the type of small arms the Wehrmacht had on hand was the reason that most of the casualties they inflicted were not caused by rifle fire.

I simply asked for an example of a WW2 scale battle with infantry using SCHV that would prove your point. The Korean example was interesting but not relevant as neither side used SCHV for the simple reason they had not been developed yet.

Changing small arms was either a game changer or it wasn't. I'm asking for some proof that going to SCHV weapons would have changed the number of Allied casualties due to Wehrmacht small arms. Obviously no one can do that-the only way is to compare statistics from similar situations in the post-Vietnam era.

Don't get me wrong. Assault rifles in general are excellant choices for infantry only patrols and police actions, especially if non-combatant casualties are a consideration. But for a What If in WW2 Europe, we should be talking about division sized engagements where artillery and air power caused massive casualties.