Visitor
(11/2/01 5:58:50 am)
Reply Mp 44 variant 1 [ sturmgewher 44]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think if this gun came out of the factories and was in use in the last 2 years of the war, would have made a differents. Instead of it comming out at the end of the war and being used primarily by paratroops. What impact if any do you think it wouldve had?
U 331
New Member
Posts: 9
(11/3/01 12:26:04 am)
Reply
Re: Mp 44 variant 1 [ sturmgewher 44]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My thoughts on this are basically that if these weapons had been produced earlier, they alone would not have made any efect on the outcome.
What I believe would have made a difference, would be the earlier production of all the "modern" weapons developed in Germany, e.g.
Me 262
Ar 234
Panther II
Type XXI and XXIII U Boats
Walter U Boats
V 2
These and some I have missed (no doubt) would have changed the course of the war if produced earlier.........but perhaps this should be in the "what if" section
"Kiwi"
U 331/29
DD-598
"Strength lies not in defence but in attack" AH
Lars EP
Member
Posts: 33
(11/3/01 12:37:06 am)
Reply Re: Mp 44 variant 1 [ sturmgewher 44]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I think the whole German weapons production was confused, without clear goals, brillance mixed with incompetence. The British and the Russians where far more sensible: Find something that works, and make a LOT of it.
T-34's
KV-1's
Spitfires
Churchills
Sturmoviks
Wellingtons
And so on..
Lars
Scott Smith 01
Veteran Member
Posts: 756
(11/3/01 12:39:29 am)
Reply
Re: Mp 44 variant 1 [ sturmgewher 44]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with the above but the only thing that could have won the war for Germany once the USA had entered was development of the atomic bomb, and that by diplomatic leverage only as the Americans could have built more atomic ordnance. In this case victory for Germany means no defeat or Unconditional surrender.
LeftenantBehind
Member
Posts: 89
(11/3/01 12:42:44 am)
Reply Re: Mp 44 variant 1 [ sturmgewher 44]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO, one of the problems with the German technology was that it was generally so complex that maintenance and supply problems rendered the technology next to useless.
The MP-43/StG-44 was a fine weapon that allowed the soldier to lay down a lot of fire, but it wasn't that much of an improvement over the more conventionally armed German units, which already made heavy use of automatic weapons and high firepower rates. I don't think that this rifle alone would have won the war for Germany, even if every soldier had one from 1939 onwards.
The most critical issue facing Germany and the one that caused them the most trouble, was the lack of simple trucks. Not only did they lack numbers, but the trucks they did have were of dozens or even hundreds of different makes and models. Transporting and storing all the necessary spare parts to maintain the truck fleet was a supply nightmare in itself.
If Germany had had the fleet of GMC 2.5 ton trucks we shipped to Russia, the outcome of Barbarossa would have been much, much different, IMO. These trucks all had interchangeable parts (thanks to American mass production) and were thus simple and easy to maintain.
The most advanced weapon system in the world is useless if you can't get it to the front.
LB
Lars EP
Member
Posts: 34
(11/3/01 1:38:54 pm)
Reply Re: Mp 44 variant 1 [ sturmgewher 44]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very true...
It is a fact that major part of the german artillery was towed by horses throughout the war, wich not only hampered their progress, but also meant that kept the venerable 10,5 cm in use, in spite of the excellent K17 and K18 guns, which where to heavy to be moved without trucks or halftracks.
Lars
Ovidius
Veteran Member
Posts: 483
(11/3/01 5:07:45 pm)
Reply
Re: Mp 44 variant 1 [ sturmgewher 44]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<And I think the whole German weapons production was confused, without clear goals, brillance mixed with incompetence. The British and the Russians where far more sensible: Find something that works, and make a LOT of it.
T-34's
KV-1's
Spitfires
Churchills
Sturmoviks
Wellingtons
And so on..>>
I do agree about the T-34 and the Sturmovik(ancestor of the modern A-10 Warthog), but the Churchill tank... come on, to what could be effective a 57 mm gun against the front armour of a King Tiger?
Ovidius
Veteran Member
Posts: 484
(11/3/01 5:23:12 pm)
Reply
Re: Mp 44 variant 1 [ sturmgewher 44]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<IMO, one of the problems with the German technology was that it was generally so complex that maintenance and supply problems rendered the technology next to useless.>>
Absolutely false. As long as the matter does interest you, I've opened a few weeks ago a thread about the Volkswagen Project, which, like most threads on this Forum, has degenerated into another Holocaust dispute, making Mr. Wendel to close it. Take a look:
pub3.ezboard.com/fskalman...D=98.topic
<<The most critical issue facing Germany and the one that caused them the most trouble, was the lack of simple trucks. Not only did they lack numbers, but the trucks they did have were of dozens or even hundreds of different makes and models. Transporting and storing all the necessary spare parts to maintain the truck fleet was a supply nightmare in itself.>>
According to German custom, the military transports were almost invariably shipped on railroads, which were operated mainly by steam locomotives burning cheap coal, instead of Diesel trucks - which would not have started at -45 degrees in the Russian winter - or even worse, gasoline trucks, which burnt huge quantities of precious fuel. So even if the German Army would have had the GMC truck fleet, its operation would have been economically unfeasible.
~Best regards,
Ovidius
Edited by: Ovidius at: 11/3/01 5:25:12 pm
Thunderstruck
New Member
Posts: 4
(11/5/01 4:43:11 pm)
Reply Re: Mp 44 variant 1 [ sturmgewher 44]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come on, the Sturmgewehr 44 was a dramatic improvement in firepower over the standard long arm issued to the infantry.
The Mauser K98 was a bolt action rifle, first built in 1898 and still in service till at least the end of WWII. Some smaller countries continued to used them for years afterward.
Yeah, it's big, it's heavy, and it packs a wallop, but it is slow in rate of fire. Not to mention it's magazine load is very small. While I am not as familiar with the 44 as I am the K98 I would rather have the 44 in combat and I own a K98.
All that said, the K98 is a fine rifle and more than adequate IF your enemy is also firing a bolt action rifle, such as the Mosin Nagant 91/38. However, if you're going against someone with an M1 Garand or other semi/fully automatic rifle/carbine you had best be a damn good shot and get him on the first try.
Steve
Lars EP
Member
Posts: 35
(11/5/01 11:12:58 pm)
Reply To Ovidius
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Churchill was a heavy tank - sturdy, realible and, at least the later models, armed with a 75 mm gun. Its major drawback was that is was very slow.
More info here: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/1975
Lars
Edited by: Lars EP at: 11/5/01 11:13:50 pm
LeftenantBehind
Member
Posts: 97
(11/5/01 11:30:53 pm)
Reply Re: Mp 44 variant 1 [ sturmgewher 44]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<IMO, one of the problems with the German technology was that it was generally so complex that maintenance and supply problems rendered the technology next to useless.>>
>> Absolutely false.
Can you expand on that? My impression is that many of Germany's weapon systems were extremely complex and thus difficult to maintain. For example, in the description of the Tiger in "The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II", is "but it was also too complicated and threfore difficult to produce" and in the description of the Panther, is "in the type's early days more Panthers were lost to machanical failures than enemy action."
>> According to German custom, the military transports were almost invariably shipped on railroads <<
A couple of points:
1. Railroads don't go everywhere an army does. Once your supplies reach the railhead, you still have to get them to the troops. For that you need trucks.
2. The Afrika Korps was supplied almost entirely by truck convoys from Tripoli and Benghazi.
I agree, the VW was an amazingly simple and wonderful machine. The new "bugs" are a disgrace to that tradition.
LB
LeftenantBehind
Member
Posts: 98
(11/5/01 11:35:53 pm)
Reply Re: Mp 44 variant 1 [ sturmgewher 44]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thunderstruck,
>> Come on, the Sturmgewehr 44 was a dramatic improvement in firepower over the standard long arm issued to the infantry. The Mauser K98 was a bolt action rifle, first built in 1898 and still in service till at least the end of WWII. Some smaller countries continued to used them for years afterward. <<
German infantry units were equipped with MP-40s and Kar98ks in about equal numbers, so half of each unit was already "automatic". Further, German infantry units made extensive use of machine guns. IIRC, the typical unit was equipped with about twice as many MGs as similar units from other nations.
LB
HaEn
Visitor
(11/5/01 11:50:47 pm)
Reply PM40/K98
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Herr Leutenant, The number of MP40's and K98's were definitely not distributed "equal" among the german troops. The plain old footsoldier carried his K98 till the very end. Only those who were considered in need of it got an MP40. or Bergman. As a Kradmelder I carried one, but still saw many of my fellow melders carrying their K98 across their backs. Most Noncoms and Officers, when armed, were supplied with them. The last few years ANYTHING that could fire was utilized. For my regiment the prize posession was the U.S. .30karbine/short. Which had been dropped by the hundreds for the resistance, but intercepted by the Germans. problem was the Ammo, not enough of it. Also the Stengun, using the 9mm ammo was very much sought after, because even after you dropped it in the mud, all you had to do is get the stuff out and rattle away. The Sturmgewehr came in too late and to few to make a lot of difference. The one I fired once did not impress me over the MP40. Regards. HN
HaEn
Visitor
(11/5/01 11:51:55 pm)
Reply pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Must have had a senior moment again. make that heading MP40 rather than PM40. HN
LeftenantBehind
Veteran Member
Posts: 103
(11/8/01 12:56:52 am)
Reply Re: MP40/K98
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the 1st hand info, HN!
BTW, were you getting the semi-auto or full-auto version of the Carbine?
IIRC, it used the .30/30 Winchester cartridge, which is really small. Did the MP43/StG44 have better stopping power?
Also, did you ever get a chance to use the FG42? If so, anything you can relate about firing it?
Thanks,
LB
dobravoda
New Member
Posts: 8
(11/20/01 3:58:24 am)
Reply Re: MP40/K98
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "stopping power" of the 7.92mm kurz(short) is roughly the same as the 7.62*39 used by the standard eastern AK today.
And the development of the stg44 resulted in the G3 and various firearms from H&K, such as the MP5. They have a lot in common with the stg. The engineers responsible for the stg moved to spain after the war, and together with a spanish engineer they laid the foundation for a few decades of "assault rifle-standards".
Takao
Visitor
(11/20/01 5:00:12 am)
Reply Complicated weaponry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Can you expand on that? My impression is that many of Germany's weapon systems were extremely complex and thus difficult to maintain. For example, in the description of the Tiger in "The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II", is "but it was also too complicated and threfore difficult to produce" and in the description of the Panther, is "in the type's early days more Panthers were lost to machanical failures than enemy action."<<
I think you should have quoted the full sentence: "For it's time the Tiger was an outstanding design with a powerful gun and good armor, but it was also too complicated and therefore difficult to produce." They don't mention that the Tiger was never meant for wide-spread use, and was only in limited production. A 63 ton tank takes time to produce, the most complicated piece was the final drive and the suppliers of those kept pace with production.
Now for the Panther, again the whole sentence would have been best: "The Panther was rushed into production without proper trials, and numerous faults soon became apparent: indeed, in the type's early days more Panthers were lost to mechanical failures than enemy action, and consequently the crew's confidence in the vehicle rapidly dwindled." This glosses over the Panther's problems for the sake of space. During Kursk about half the tanks were lost to combat the othe half to mechanical difficulties, the most serious being motor problems. The Panther mechanical failures were not due to a complicated design, but a compromised design and faulty parts.
The Panther's original design called for the final drive of a Tiger, but the manufactures could not make the quantity needed for the Panther, so MAN designed a simpler final drive and without the alloyed metals of the Tiger's final drive. This was a poor solution, because the new design placed greater stress on the gears while the steel lacked the tensile strength of that of the Tiger's final drive, thus it broke more often. The engine failures were from mostly faulty fuel pumps and leaky gaskets(not very complicated objects in themselves), along with the lack of training for the new Panther drivers. IMHO if the time had been taken for proper trials these problems mostly would have been solved, but alas, it was not till the Ausf. A that most of the bugs would be worked out.