MP40 vs. PPsh41
EBrown2841
soldier who served on that front and in which he stated that many Germans
prefered the Russian SMG over the German MP. In the film " Stalingrad " which
I saw several weeks ago, I noted a number of German soldiers ( actors ) armed
with the Russian SMG. Other than the drum type magazine which carried twice
the rounds of the MP40, what was the advantage offered by the PPsh41? Was
there a feeding problem? Thanks.
Emory Brown
EBrow...@aol.com
Dragoon695
conditions. It did have a tendency to jam, it's kind of like yhe M-16, a good
weapon, but maintnenace intensive. The PPsh-41 was a very reliable weapon
under all environments and weather conditions. A very rugged and durable
weapon.
Jim
Osmo Ronkanen
Dragoon695 <drago...@aol.com> wrote:
>MP-40 was a high quality weapon, but totally reliable in adverse weather
>conditions.
What? (I assume that the 'reliable' was a typo) How can you call MP-40 a
high quality weapon? It was made largely of steel plates.
One reason for Germans using the PPsh-41 was that they had so few SMGs
themselves. Also the PPSh-41 has twice the rate of fire of MP-40.
Osmo
M. L. Shettle
>themselves. Also the PPSh-41 has twice the rate of fire of MP-40.
According to my references, the PPsh-41 fired at 700 rpm and the MP-40
500 rpm -- not twice the rate. The Germans mainly preferred the
PPsh-41 because of the 71- round drum magazine. The MP-40 only had a
25 round box magazine. Plus the Germans could use 7.63 Mauser pistol
ammo in it when Russian ammo ran out. The German also modified some
PPsh-41s to fire the German 9mm round.
Most Army's liked their opponents weapons -- kind of like the grass is
always greener. The German were also very fond of the US M-1 carbine
-- very light, but not much of a man-stopper. The US liked the MP-40
and the MG-42. There was even a project to produce the MG-42 to fire
the .30 cal round.
Dragoon695
Jim
And yes the M-1 is the best ever battle rifel
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
EBrown2841 wrote:
> Other than the drum type magazine which carried twice
> the rounds of the MP40, what was the advantage offered by the PPsh41? Was
> there a feeding problem? Thanks.
Through MP-40 had larger caliber, 9 mm vs 7.62 mm, PPSh-41 had much higher
muzzle velocity and therefor muzzle energy. I believe muzzle velocity was
something like 280 m/s vs 400 m/s. Don't quote me on this, I writing from
the top of my head. The trajectory of the bullets were much more flatter
and it give PPSh-41 slightly better accuracy.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
al...@ix.netcom.com
> According to my references, the PPsh-41 fired at 700 rpm and the MP-40
> 500 rpm -- not twice the rate.
Well, your sources are wrong. PPSh fires at 900 rpm, always had. As a
matter of fact, it is the fastest firing among Soviet Smg. Previous PPD
fired at 800 rpm. And later PPS - at 700 rpm. Methinks, something was
done on PPS to deliberately reduce rate of fire, though.
> The Germans mainly preferred the
> PPsh-41 because of the 71- round drum magazine. The MP-40 only had a
> 25 round box magazine.
The advantage is dubious. Drum magazine is bulkier, heavier and more
time consuming to load. it is precisely why Soviets themselves switched
to 35 round box magazines as early as 1942.
A.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
> One reason for Germans using the PPsh-41 was that they had so few
> SMGs
> themselves. Also the PPSh-41 has twice the rate of fire of MP-40.
From Small Arms Artillery etc.
' The MP40 was produced in very large numbers (some sources quote
well over 1 million)'
' The very practical Russians employed large numbers of captured MP38s
and MP40s as front line weapons'
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
inter...@aol.com
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> From Small Arms Artillery etc.
> ' The MP40 was produced in very large numbers (some sources quote
> well over 1 million)'
> ' The very practical Russians employed large numbers of captured MP38s
> and MP40s as front line weapons'
Ah, yes, produced in large numbers but not given to all those who
wanted one. There lies the difference. The PPSH was free to anyone
who wanted to pick it up. However, it was against orders to trade the
k98 for the ppsh, so the bearers had to have both in their possession
which kind of is a lot of weight to carry since the PPSH with drum mag
wasn't light.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Martin Rapier
> M. L. Shettle wrote:
{snip}
> > The Germans mainly preferred the
> > PPsh-41 because of the 71- round drum magazine. The MP-40 only had a
> > 25 round box magazine.
{snip}
Maybe it is a case of the grass always being greener.
One of the saddest accounts I read was in Kershaws 'It Never Snows in
September' from an SS PanzerGrenadier, who was absolutely delighted to dump
his MP40 in favour of....a Sten! He said having the magazine side mounted
was a huge advantage, he liked the wooden stock on it (Sten Mk III?) and
kept it until the end of the war. He also said that as both sides at Arnhem
were using each others captured weapons, they gave up trying to identify
enemy positions by firing signatures very quickly.
Cheers
Martin.
Osmo Ronkanen
M. L. Shettle <top...@atl.mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>According to my references, the PPsh-41 fired at 700 rpm and the MP-40
>500 rpm -- not twice the rate.
My references said 450 and 900. [Palokangas: Military Small Arms in
Finland 1918-88]
>The German also modified some
>PPsh-41s to fire the German 9mm round.
Here such a modification was also planned but it was forsaken for the
idea to copy PPS-43 instead.
> There was even a project to produce the MG-42 to fire
>the .30 cal round.
Here there was a project to convert it to 7.62x54R. (Note that R stands
for rimmed). That would have required Germans to supply some of the
parts and they could not do it in 1944.
There also many of the weapons captured by Soviets were taken into
active use. The DP LMG was superior to out Lahti-Saloranta and at the
end it outnumbered LS 2-1. They were kept in reserve arsenal still in
late 80's. The semi-automatic rifles were also wanted. The rifles and
machine guns were very similar to ones we used normally and could
easily be incorporated to our system or used as spare parts.
(In fact we never manufactured receivers, magazines or bolts to
rifles, all were recycled from originally Russian or Soviet rifles.)
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
Yevgeniy Chizhikov <y.chi...@sims.csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>Through MP-40 had larger caliber, 9 mm vs 7.62 mm, PPSh-41 had much higher
>muzzle velocity and therefor muzzle energy. I believe muzzle velocity was
>something like 280 m/s vs 400 m/s.
The muzzle velocity of 9mm SMG rounds is in range 360-400 m/s. For
7.62x25 that is higher, about 450-500 m/s. The German pistol round was
of the lowest end as I have heard, probably because of the P-08 pistols
that cannot take powerful rounds. I have head figures 6.4g (98.8 gr) and
360 m/s (1180 fps). That would be 415J (306 ft-lb). [Compare this to
Suomi SMG which was 405 m/s (1330 fps) 7.5 g (116 gr) and 615J (454
ft-lb)] The PPSh-41 used lighter round, it was 86gr (5.57g) with 1500
fps (457 m/s) with muzzle energy of 582J (429 ft-lb). There was also a
lighter and faster API round.
One important point is that in penetration of things like clothes the
speed is what matters (on bullets of similar shape and density). Larger
bullet only means larger wound but if there is no speed to penetrate
there will be no wound in the first place.
Osmo
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
al...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> The advantage is dubious. Drum magazine is bulkier, heavier and more
> time consuming to load. it is precisely why Soviets themselves switched
> to 35 round box magazines as early as 1942.
Through switching had been done, solders still love drums. I read that many
solders preferred drums over boxes. Some say in memoirs that drum was
excellent in situation when hell broke loose as solders used good old "spray
and pray" techniques to get out of tough jams. Drums were excellent source
of firepower when cover was needed. In particular troops which went to
attack on the armor of T-34's also try to use drums as they usually wasted a
lot of ammunition on spraying possible places where German solders with
Panzerfaust could hide. Those were so called "metla" or sweep unit.
I still think that high RPM and high muzzle was the main reason why PPSh
were loved. Drum sometimes was also plus. However, I read that many Soviet
solders loved MP40's. Even some comando's used MP40's because they were
handy. I guess use of MP40 or PPSh was mainly personal prefernce.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
Osmo Ronkanen
<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
> From Small Arms Artillery etc.
> ' The MP40 was produced in very large numbers (some sources quote
>well over 1 million)'
Heer LW KM sum
1939 5,360 5,360
1940 96,396 18,500 1,400 116,296
1941 139,641 96,400 3,750 239,791
1942 152,681 64,300 12,500 229,481
1943 220,572 9,473 9,766 239,811
1944 74,564 6,244 2,081 82,889
1945 189 189
689,403 194,917 29,497 913,817
Fritz Hahn: Waffen und Geheimwaffen das Deutsches Heern 1933-45 Band 1
That excludes weapons for Waffen-SS but as I understand they
typically used Bergmann MP-35. In addition in 1944-45 231,000 Beretta
SMGs were made.
Now lets compare these to 1.5 million Thompsons and 0.7 million M3's.
5 million PPSh-41's and 0.7 million PPS-43's or almost 4 million Stens.
Allies produced 10 times the number of SMGs as Germans did.
Osmo
inter...@aol.com
"Martin Rapier" <m.ra...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
> his MP40 in favour of....a Sten! He said having the magazine side mounted
> was a huge advantage, he liked the wooden stock on it (Sten Mk III?) and
> kept it until the end of the war.
The Sten was highly thought of by many Germans. After the war the
German police was eqipped with them, by choice, until the HK system
came along. Even though I do not fancy myself a gun connoiseur, I've
never understood the derision that some heap on the Sten. Ok, it was
cheap to produce, so what? Who cares? Was it usable is what mattered,
and it was a 9mm so the cartridge had no advantage over the mp40. The
MP40/38 was not popular with the Germans that used them for several
reasons. Of course if the choice is k98 or mp40, many would probably
prefer the mp, which is exactly what the Germans called a submachine
gun, any submachine gun, not a Schmeisser. The Americans called it a
schmeisser. The Germans think, 'schmeissen, was?'.
Osmo Ronkanen
>improved the MP-40s firepower -- an example of which is on display at
>the Aberdeen Proving Grounds Museum.
That actually was a new weapon that used two magazines. When one ran out
the other was easily slipped in.
Osmo
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> There was even a project to produce the MG-42 to fire
> the .30 cal round.
I have come across an account of the firing trials of the prototype.
After 1,483 rounds had been fired with 50 malfunctions the test was
suspended. It seems mistakes had been made when converting from metric
measurements. The body of the gun was 1/4 inch too short, the bolt did
not recoil enough to clear the ejection opening and the cocking handle
was too short.
M. L. Shettle
>Well, your sources are wrong. PPSh fires at 900 rpm, always had. As a
>matter of fact, it is the fastest firing among Soviet Smg. Previous PPD
>fired at 800 rpm. And later PPS - at 700 rpm. Methinks, something was
>done on PPS to deliberately reduce rate of fire, though.
You're right, I misread the source.
>The advantage is dubious. Drum magazine is bulkier, heavier and more
>time consuming to load. it is precisely why Soviets themselves switched
>to 35 round box magazines as early as 1942.
The advantage was not dubious to the Germans. Every photo I have
seens with the Germans and the PPsh41 was with the drum magazine.
They felt the Russians had an advantage in firepowere during an
engagement. The Germans even developed a double box magazine to
improved the MP-40s firepower -- an example of which is on display at
the Aberdeen Proving Grounds Museum. The double box magazine was not
sucessful. The biggest disadvantage to a large box magazine is its
difficulty in firing from the prone position.
Super News User
inter...@aol.com wrote:
....
>came along. Even though I do not fancy myself a gun connoiseur, I've
>never understood the derision that some heap on the Sten. Ok, it was
>cheap to produce, so what? Who cares? Was it usable is what mattered...
>From what I have read, the only real drawback to the Sten was the Sten
magazines. Rushed mass production of magazines for the Sten meant
quality control lagged. With good magazines the Sten was, I gather,
about as reliable as any other SMG. The side-mounted magazine was a
plus when firing from the prone position and would have reduced the
drag of gravity on the cartridges to aid feeding (though not so much
as with the Owen top-feeding SMG).
--
John Briggs (j...@bbz.net Phoenix, Arizona, USA) Enemy of the Best
Matti Raustia
: >From what I have read, the only real drawback to the Sten was the Sten
: magazines. Rushed mass production of magazines for the Sten meant
: quality control lagged. With good magazines the Sten was, I gather,
: about as reliable as any other SMG. The side-mounted magazine was a
I have one question about the Sten. I've heard that special version of
Sten was made for French Resistance with fixed magazine. This seems quite
unbelievable. What would one achieve with such concept? Is this true or
just another military legend?
matti
--
"China is a big country, inhabited by many chinese." - Charles de Gaulle
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Ronkanen) wrote:
> Allies produced 10 times the number of SMGs as Germans did.
Small Arms list 18 different models of sub machine guns using 9mm
Parabellum, 4 using 7.62 (captured Russian) one 7.65 and 2 11.43. The
MP40 is not the whole story though I have no figures for most of the
others.
inter...@aol.com
"Martin Rapier" <m.ra...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
> his MP40 in favour of....a Sten! He said having the magazine side
mounted
> was a huge advantage, he liked the wooden stock on it (Sten Mk III?)
and
> kept it until the end of the war.
The Sten was highly thought of by many Germans. After the war the
German police was eqipped with them, by choice, until the HK system
came along. Even though I do not fancy myself a gun connoiseur, I've
never understood the derision that some heap on the Sten. Ok, it was
Mark A. Serafin
:
: I still think that high RPM and high muzzle was the main reason why PPSh
: were loved. Drum sometimes was also plus. However, I read that many Soviet
: solders loved MP40's. Even some comando's used MP40's because they were
: handy. I guess use of MP40 or PPSh was mainly personal prefernce.
I have read that Soviet 'commandos' (scouts?) used MP40s because
of the sound they made. If you are behind German lines and have to fight,
it is better to have a weapon that sounds German than one that sounds
Russian.
--
Mark Serafin | "Imagine you were an idiot. Now imagine you
I speak only for myself | were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
| - Mark Twain
Steve Ewing
inter...@aol.com wrote in message <7pfrsu$1gq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Even though I do not fancy myself a gun connoiseur, I've
>never understood the derision that some heap on the Sten. Ok, it was
>cheap to produce, so what? Who cares?
Some variations of the Sten (my books on this are on loan right now and I
haven't read this in some time, so bear with me) were more cheaply made than
others. Some of those cranked out right about the time Britain thought it
was going to have to arm a Home Guard were particularly poorly made, and
deserving of much scorn: There were stories of them breaking apart after
drops of about a meter. Those made nearer the end of the war were much
better, and well-regarded in many quarters, albeit seldom admired.
The Americans called it a
>schmeisser. The Germans think, 'schmeissen, was?'.
"Schmeisser" wasn't a verb. It was a name. Hugo Schmeisser was indelibly
connected with the MP-38/40 in the American mind, for quite tenuous reasons.
Steve Ewing
M. L. Shettle
>That actually was a new weapon that used two magazines. When one ran out
>the other was easily slipped in.
>Osmo
Many American motion pictures of the war, showed Thompson submachine
guns with a second box magazine upside down and taped to the magazine
in the gun. In this way, it could quickly be inserted when the first
magazine was empty. This was strickly Hollywood. The exposed upside
down magazine was easily fouled with dirt and as far a I know was not
used this way in combat.
Mel Shettle
Mark A. Serafin
: came along. Even though I do not fancy myself a gun connoiseur, I've
: never understood the derision that some heap on the Sten. Ok, it was
: cheap to produce, so what? Who cares? Was it usable is what mattered,
The proble was in the feed system for the ammo. Instead of a
staggered ammo system that forced cartridges from alternating sides of the
magazine into the chamber, the Sten just had a double row, so which round
would feed was a matter of chance. If both tried to feed at the same time,
the weapon jammed.
Fireworkr
>drag of gravity on the cartridges to aid feeding (though not so much
>as with the Owen top-feeding SMG).
>
>
huh? Gravity is of no concern as you have the magazine spring applying
pressure to the follower in a magazine to ensure the next cartridge is aligned
for feeding.
The biggest drawback to the sten magazine is the fact that it's a a single
column feed and the spring is quite stout. It requires a loader to get all 32
rounds in. Otherwise you will have some sore/bloody thumbs.
Osmo Ronkanen
<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
> Small Arms list 18 different models of sub machine guns using 9mm
>Parabellum, 4 using 7.62 (captured Russian) one 7.65 and 2 11.43. The
>MP40 is not the whole story though I have no figures for most of the
>others.
That is the core of the things: You do not have figures. Are you
claiming Germans manufactured .45ACP SMGs? Or is that also captured
weapons. The MP-40 was the most common German SMG, others were
manufactured only in small scale.
Osmo
Echo
the PPsh 41 (papascia in russian ) and they called it kalashnikov. Mr. " ak
47" planed also PPsh 41 ?
--
Echo
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> , the Sten just had a double row, so which round
> would feed was a matter of chance. If both tried to feed at the
> same time, the weapon jammed.
The MP40 used the same system it was just better designed.
Jet the Cat
>
> inter...@aol.com wrote:
> >From what I have read, the only real drawback to the Sten was the Sten
> magazines. Rushed mass production of magazines for the Sten meant
> quality control lagged.
Four things to watch for on a Sten gun:
1. Make sure that the lips at the top are not dinged or deformed in any
way.
2. Test the spring's tension by cramming the magazine full of rounds and
then use your thumb to push each round out to the front in turn. Marked
differences in the pressure needed indicate that spring is dodgy. If
the first few rounds are very stiff and hard to shift, then a jam is
very likely unless you underload the magazine by (say) four rounds - or
until the cartridges slide out readily. (Underloading a Sten magzine is
always highly recommended.) Give the mag a good clean out with a
solvent fluid like petrol or kerosene - never oil it. (Note too that
the Sten is designed to take a full-house 9mm para round - using
over-the-counter commercial ammo designed to be litigation-safe in (say)
an average pre-war bad condition automatic pistol will not have enough
oomph to be reliable in a Sten which ideally must be fed really stoked
rounds to rattle.)
3. Be very very careful not to drop a Sten with a loaded magazine and
with the breechblock forward on the chamber. There is a serious risk of
the block rebounding on the mainspring and picking up a cartridge
leading to a slam-fire - very nasty. This is especially likely if the
weapon falls so that it strikes the ground with the butt. Also be very
careful when handling a Sten in the cocked position with the cocking
handle turned up into the safety notch - it's quite easy for a bump to
jar the handle out of this position and the weapon is then very much
"live".
4. Be careful to test fire a new or unfamiliar Sten. The main thing to
watch for is a failure for the sear to reengage after taking your finger
off the trigger. In this condition the weapon will go "full auto" -
often taking the novice user by total surprise. Scrupluous cleaning of
the trigger assembly is mandatory, but a rogue gun with a worn or badly
formed sear should not be used. Be aware that a Sten on full auto rises
quite fast and if one is not expecting it, a rogue gun can be a postive
danger to by-standers.
2 Euros....
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Ronkanen) wrote:
> Are you claiming Germans manufactured .45ACP SMGs?
Captured from Britain and France during the invasion.
Osmo Ronkanen
Jet the Cat <HEN...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>3. Be very very careful not to drop a Sten with a loaded magazine and
>with the breechblock forward on the chamber.
Sten does not have a safety that locks the bolt in the forward position?
I always wondered how so many designers could forget so important safety
feature. For example MP-38 lacked it. That was added in MP-40.
>Be aware that a Sten on full auto rises
>quite fast and if one is not expecting it, a rogue gun can be a postive
>danger to by-standers.
Especially if he panics and throws the weapon away.
Btw that is called uncontrollable automatic fire. Fully automatic fire is
what SMGs are designed for.
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
The issue was how many SMGs were produced in each country.
Osmo
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
> The issue was how many SMGs were produced in each country.
I thought we were arguing about the number issued to troops. No study
of German equipment can ignore captured weapons. Occupation units in
France for example were equipped with French equipment. German
produced weapons tended to be issued only to front line troops. Also a
better comparison would be the number of SMG supplied to the number of
troops.
By the way Small Arms, Artillery and Special weapons of the Third
Reich gives a figure of 228,600 MP40 produced in 1944. Two of the
other German designs both copies of the Sten MkII do have figures.
Between 20 and 40 thousand.
Per Andersson
I think this is further proof that 'Hassel' is a fraud.
IIRC Kalashnikov didn't design a weapon prior to the AK.
Per Andersson
"Money is no object. It is a force of nature to which all things must bow."
Fireworkr
>> , the Sten just had a double row, so >which round would feed was a matter of
>chance. If both tried to feed at the
>> same time, the weapon jammed.
round would feed. No rounds jam side by side. You have to overload the magazine
or have damaged the lips to get them to fail consistently. It's always a good
idea to load the sten mag to 28-30 rds.
Important here is angle of the feed lips. This affects how the round presents
itself for feeding. The nose of the round must be kept at a low angle to feed
into the chamber. When the mag lips wear and/or get damaged, the round is
allowed to raise or protrude further into the feedway and it stovepipes.
> The MP40 used the same system it was >just better designed.
same basic design just maybe more refined.
Examples of double column mags are the thompson SMG and the H&K MP-5. Here the
rounds are side by side, the feed alternating side to side. These mags load
easier and IMO this design isn't any more prone to jamming than the single
column.
Osmo Ronkanen
Fireworkr <fire...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> wrong, Sten and MP 40 mags are SINGLE column, there was no question which
>round would feed. No rounds jam side by side. You have to overload the magazine
>or have damaged the lips to get them to fail consistently.
I've heard th at the finishing of Sten magazines was so poor that it caused
problems. Those were often cleared by a file.
On Suomi SMG the front end of the bolt was made so narrow that the
round could not turn sideways even if it was presented in a slightly wrong
direction.
>Examples of double column mags are the thompson SMG and the H&K MP-5. Here the
>rounds are side by side, the feed alternating side to side.
Those can affect accuracy. Though on SMGs that is probably not so
significant, on rifles they can lead to the weapon shooting two
different groups.
Osmo
inter...@aol.com
Yes and no. Same system but not better designed. Every shortfalling
of the Sten you mentioned the MP40 had, maybe all guns of similar
design had. The MP40 mag was also loaded short of a full load. The
difference of the gun was ergonomics. The Sten was easily fired from
the prone position, unarguably the most common firefight position, bar
none. All accurate firing was done with the stock extended. That was
not possible with the MP40 from the prone position (the stock extended
but the mag was straight down). The Sten was gripped by the magazine
retainer, the MP40 jammed when held by the magazine and burned the
fingers when held by the magazine retainer. The correct way to hold it
was by the finger hold between the trigger guard and magazine on the
underside, but that was not good to control muzzle climb. The Sten was
usable in combat, the MP40/38 was garbage.
Osmo Ronkanen
<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <37dcbad4...@news.curie.dialix.com.au>,
>ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
>
>> The issue was how many SMGs were produced in each country.
> I thought we were arguing about the number issued to troops. No study
>of German equipment can ignore captured weapons. Occupation units in
>France for example were equipped with French equipment. German
>produced weapons tended to be issued only to front line troops. Also a
>better comparison would be the number of SMG supplied to the number of
>troops.
Captured SMGs were meaningless. SMGs were manufactured in very
very small scale before WWII. I do not think France for example
manufactured any. The only practical source was Soviets. Fritz Hahn:
Waffen und Geheimwaffen das Deutsches Heern 1933-45 gives a figure
23,064 SMGs captured before September 30th 1944. This of course ignores
weapons captured for temporary use and then thrown away. Even if there
was severe under-estimation in that the figure is meaningless when
compared to the million manufactured by Germans or 5 millions
manufactured by Soviets.
> By the way Small Arms, Artillery and Special weapons of the Third
>Reich gives a figure of 228,600 MP40 produced in 1944.
And the above reference gives MP-40 82,889 and Beretta 145,603. They
make 228,492. Too close to be a coincidence.
>Two of the
>other German designs both copies of the Sten MkII do have figures.
>Between 20 and 40 thousand.
>
For there I have not found figures. In anyway they are pretty small for
the total picture.
Osmo
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
> I do not think France for example manufactured any. T
The MAS 38 was manufactured until 1944.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> I do not think France for example
> manufactured any
The MAS 38 was produced in France before the war production continued
until 1944. German designation 7.65 Maschinenpistole 722(f).
Oleg Volk
>>SMGs themselves. Also the PPSh-41 has twice the rate of fire of MP-40.
> According to my references, the PPsh-41 fired at 700 rpm and the MP-40
>500 rpm -- not twice the rate.
PPSh 850-950, MP40 - 350 to 500, all depending on ammo used.
> The Germans mainly preferred the
> PPsh-41 because of the 71- round drum magazine. The MP-40 only had a
> 25 round box magazine. Plus the Germans could use 7.63 Mauser pistol
MP40 mag holds 32 rounds, PPSh drum, 71...but curved stick magazines
were more common outside of movies...those held 35 rounds.
I boubt that 7.63 Mause was a good solution, as the gun was likely to "run
away" - keep firing when trigger was released...lower recoil wouln't move
the bolt back far enough to get re-captured by the trigger bar. Also,
sights were regulated for a more potent loading.
Oleg Volk
stick hanging down. Also, telescoping bolt of the MP40 gave rise to
problems in cold weather.
> > > > The Germans mainly preferred the
> > > > PPsh-41 because of the 71- round drum magazine. The MP-40 only had
> > > > 25 round box magazine.
Oleg Volk
>>SMGs themselves. Also the PPSh-41 has twice the rate of fire of MP-40.
> According to my references, the PPsh-41 fired at 700 rpm and the MP-40
>500 rpm -- not twice the rate.
PPSh 850-950, MP40 - 350 to 500, all depending on ammo used.
> The Germans mainly preferred the
> PPsh-41 because of the 71- round drum magazine. The MP-40 only had a
> 25 round box magazine. Plus the Germans could use 7.63 Mauser pistol
MP40 mag holds 32 rounds, PPSh drum, 71...but curved stick magazines
were more common outside of movies...those held 35 rounds.
I boubt that 7.63 Mause was a good solution, as the gun was likely to "run
away" - keep firing when trigger was released...lower recoil wouln't move
the bolt back far enough to get re-captured by the trigger bar. Also,
sights were regulated for a more potent loading.
> ammo in it when Russian ammo ran out.
The German also modified some > PPsh-41s to fire the German 9mm round.
Osmo Ronkanen
Cornered Rat <ol...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>MP 40 about 400m/s PPSh about 550m/s. Bullets were 9 grams for 9mm and
>6 grams for 7.62, give or take.
I'll take. The German 9mm round had 6.4g bullet and the muzzle velocity
was about 380 m/s. The PPSh had muzzle velocity of about 460 m/s and
the bullet was about 5.5 grams.
As I understand Germans used pistol rounds with SMGs. Here a specific
SMG round was used. The result was that as there was not always pistol
rounds the SMG round was used in them and that resulted in breakages
especially in P-08.
>PPSh was easier to hit with, but the
>bullets lost energy fast at longer range and did less damage.
In SMG round the most critical element is lack of penetration. At longer
ranges one can see bullets bounce from winter clothes. Such penetration
is dependent mainly on speed. Faster bullet means better penetration.
> It replaced rifle for
>ill-trained troops, whereas MP40 was means to fill the same niche as the
>M1 carbine for the US army and was less flexible. Still a great gun,
>though.
I do not understand that talk of illtrained troops. Using an SMG requires
good training. Also as it is used at close range, often against
numerously superior enemy it requires courage and confidence for the
weapon.
MP-40 was originally designed for armored troops etc., but it was
later included as part of infantry squad. In 1944 the designates
strength called two SMGs per squad though the practice was often much
less. In 1st September 1939 Germans had total of some 7000 MP-38's. In
addition they had maybe some 20000 other SMGs. Soviets had actually
stopped the production of SMGs because they thought the weapon was
unsuitable for war.
Osmo
Lurker Above
> Both Sten and PPSh had much lower profile than the MP40 with its long
> stick hanging down. Also, telescoping bolt of the MP40 gave rise to
> problems in cold weather.
>
> > > > > PPsh-41 because of the 71- round drum magazine. The MP-40 only had
I dunno...I'd go with the higher rate of fire (500rpm for MP-40, 900rpm for
PPSh 41), higher muzzle velocity (365 m/s for MP-40, 489 m/s for PPSh 41),
and sights for longer range (100m/200m for MP-40, 500m for PPSh 41). The
submachine gun as an infantry weapon was already going out the door by WW2;
they needed a more accurate, harder hitting weapon rather than a
short-range, low penetration one. Thus the Germans developed the MP43/44
Sturmgewehr as a replacement for the bolt-action Kar-98K and the MP40. But
as far as the PPSh 41 over the MP40: the PPSh 41 was so good, entire
battalions of Russians would use them. It had the range and rate of fire
that the MP-40 lacked, and as you stated, the PPSh 41 was reliable in cold
weather.
Oleg Volk
>>SMGs themselves. Also the PPSh-41 has twice the rate of fire of MP-40.
> According to my references, the PPsh-41 fired at 700 rpm and the MP-40
>500 rpm -- not twice the rate.
PPSh 850-950, MP40 - 350 to 500, all depending on ammo used.
> The Germans mainly preferred the
Cornered Rat
PPSh has an effective compensator, so neigher climbs much). PPSh hhas
an edge in reliability. However, I suspect the Germans used PPShs
because MP40s were few and far between...also, 7.62x25 has decent
range and was available.
Cornered Rat
bullets lost energy fast at longer range and did less damage. PPSh, with
better magazines, bottlenecked cartidge and overall better design (IMO)
was a better SMG...and tough enough for combat. It replaced rifle for
Osmo Ronkanen
Lurker Above <st...@home.zzz> wrote:
> sights for longer range (100m/200m for MP-40, 500m for PPSh 41).
That was relatively short time. In 1942 the sights of PPSh-41 were set
to 100/200 meters. One really does not need longer, attempting to hit
something at 500 meters is desperate even though the bullets might kill
someone who is naked. 300 meters still could somehow be obtainable but
not practical if one has any other weapon.
I might point that the latest version of Finnish assault rifle has
sights only for 150 and 300 meters. One does not really need any
excessive sights at longer rates.
>The
>submachine gun as an infantry weapon was already going out the door by WW2;
>they needed a more accurate, harder hitting weapon rather than a
>short-range, low penetration one.
Pardon. SMGs were basically only used in WWII. Sure they had problems
but in general they were very effective compared to bolt-action rifles.
Before WWII there was maybe 100,000 SMGs in the world. During WWII
some 13 million were made. It was just in WWII when SMG showed its
power.
> Thus the Germans developed the MP43/44
>Sturmgewehr as a replacement for the bolt-action Kar-98K and the MP40.
The project for that weapon had started well before MP-40.
Osmo
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
Osmo Ronkanen wrote:
> Pardon. SMGs were basically only used in WWII. Sure they had problems
> but in general they were very effective compared to bolt-action rifles.
> Before WWII there was maybe 100,000 SMGs in the world. During WWII
> some 13 million were made. It was just in WWII when SMG showed its
> power.
Actually, Soviets before the war CORRECTLY assume that SMG's are
ineffective for future warfare. This is why they put more emphasize on
semi-automatic rifles and even started to work on the semi-automatic and
automatic rifles with ammo which was less powerful than rifle's, but more
powerful the pistol. In other words they were moving to AK-47 type weapon
with 7.62*39 size ammo. Note that in Soviet Union production of SMG's
start to seriously decline in 1944, after the war, Soviet Army and many
others rather quickly moved away from SMG's to semi-automatic rifles. I
think SMG's were used in W.W.II only because of serious need for automatic
personal weapon, and because automatic weapons powered by more powerful
round where not available yet.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
Osmo Ronkanen
Yevgeniy Chizhikov <y.chi...@sims.csuohio.edu> wrote:
>Actually, Soviets before the war CORRECTLY assume that SMG's are
>ineffective for future warfare.
Well define "future". Only kevlar vests have made SMGs truly
ineffective. The fact is that In 1939 Soviets had 5000 SMGs and during
the war they made over 5 million of them. They clearly realized that
their original views were incorrect.
>This is why they put more emphasize on
>semi-automatic rifles and even started to work on the semi-automatic and
>automatic rifles with ammo which was less powerful than rifle's, but more
>powerful the pistol. In other words they were moving to AK-47 type weapon
>with 7.62*39 size ammo.
The only Soviet/Russian involvement with intermediate cartridges was
AF-16. It was manufactured in small scale in 1920's but then the
development went for 7.62x54R weapons. There were four weapons made for
that: AVS-36, SVT-38, SVT-40 and AVT-40. The first one was cancelled
very soon. The AVT was not really workable with automatic fire and none
of them were really that good.
As for 7.62x39 round, it was invented by Heinrich Vollmer for his
MKb-35 (it actually was 7.75x49). Soviets clearly got the idea for
true intermediate cartridge from Germans.
> Note that in Soviet Union production of SMG's
>start to seriously decline in 1944, after the war, Soviet Army and many
>others rather quickly moved away from SMG's to semi-automatic rifles.
That is pretty much going backwards. That seriously limits close range
fire power. True assault rifles are another matter. Probably the
logistic simplicity was the reason why the SMGs were removed from
infantry squads.
As for the SMG production, of course it declined. There is no sense to
make weapons more than one needs.
Osmo
al...@ix.netcom.com
Osmo Ronkanen wrote:
> Well define "future". Only kevlar vests have made SMGs truly
> ineffective. The fact is that In 1939 Soviets had 5000 SMGs and during
> the war they made over 5 million of them. They clearly realized that
> their original views were incorrect.
> The only Soviet/Russian involvement with intermediate cartridges was
> AF-16. It was manufactured in small scale in 1920's but then the
> development went for 7.62x54R weapons. There were four weapons made for
> that: AVS-36, SVT-38, SVT-40 and AVT-40. The first one was cancelled
> very soon. The AVT was not really workable with automatic fire and none
> of them were really that good.
> As for 7.62x39 round, it was invented by Heinrich Vollmer for his
> MKb-35 (it actually was 7.75x49). Soviets clearly got the idea for
> true intermediate cartridge from Germans.
Bzzzz, wrong. Russia played with intermediate cartridge long before
Germany. Though, I wouldn't argue that it was Russian original idea
either. Russian designer Fedorov had a design of an automatic rifle as
early as 1913. In 1916 said rifle was somewhat redesigned and put into
limited production. It was supposed to make use of a totally new and
original intermediate 6.5 mm cartridge, designed by Fedorov too.
However, the constraints of war time did not allow for a production of
new cartridge and rifle was redesigned for Japanese 6.5x50 cartridge
that was readily avalilable in huge quantities. Which was still
intermediate enough, comparing to main Russian 7.62x54R. At least some
3000+ were maid and issued to the Russian troops beginning 1916, 4
rifles per platoon.
What proof do you have that Soviets simply copied Vollmer's round
instead of scaling down the good ole 7.62x54R they enjoyed for so many
decades? Besides, the venerable 7.62x54R is still used in Russian army.
A SVD, loaded with it, will still render any kevlar vest useless at
500-600m.
A.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
Osmo Ronkanen wrote:
> Well define "future". Only kevlar vests have made SMGs truly
> ineffective. The fact is that In 1939 Soviets had 5000 SMGs and during
> the war they made over 5 million of them. They clearly realized that
> their original views were incorrect.
No, there were a need for automatic weapons, not for SMG's. But because
automatic weapons with more powerful rounds were not available at that moment,
SMGs were used. You also failing to see that by 1944, Soviets began to shut
down SMG production and in fact start to produce more rifles. SMG's were only
good in street combat, in the field positions they were ineffective.
> The only Soviet/Russian involvement with intermediate cartridges was
> AF-16. It was manufactured in small scale in 1920's but then the
> development went for 7.62x54R weapons. There were four weapons made for
> that: AVS-36, SVT-38, SVT-40 and AVT-40. The first one was cancelled
> very soon. The AVT was not really workable with automatic fire and none
> of them were really that good.
It is not correct. In late 1930's Soviets were working at 6.5mm rounds and
weapons for them. But those works were not finished. Technically, Soviets
CORRECTLY assume that the future is behind automatic weapons intimidate round.
This future come fairly fast. Germany began to field this kind of weapons in
1944, Soviets followed with AK-47. The whole point that SMGs were nothing more
than a short stop in weapon development. Rifles had been used for over 50
years by W.W.II, as nothing better was available. Semi-automatic rifles had
been in front line service for about 30 years between 1930's and 1960's. The
assault rifles had been in service already for about 50 years, and the next
generation of weapons is again would be assault rifles. In comparison, the SMG
only lasted in service for about 10 years, if not less. Even by the end of the
war, semi-automatic rifles were preferred over SMG's.
> That is pretty much going backwards. That seriously limits close range
> fire power.
It is not. Most of the combat happens in the field conditions, not cities. As
a result you have a choice. Either you have limited close range firepower with
rifle, or virtually non-existed long range firepower with SMG. In the combat
range of 300-500 meters, which was rather short distance between trenches in
WWII, SMG is virtually useless. Realistic range of the SMG is 50 meters.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
Osmo Ronkanen
<al...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Ad for AF13/16. All what you said is true and I knew it. I just did not
want to waste bandwidth with off topic data. In anyway I would not
consider the Japanese round intermediate.
>What proof do you have that Soviets simply copied Vollmer's round
>instead of scaling down the good ole 7.62x54R they enjoyed for so many
>decades?
The cartridges simply are almost indistinguishable (note I had a typo, it
is naturally 7.75x39 and not 7.75x49). One can see a photograph of the
cartridge in "Die Deutschen Militargewehre und Machinenpistole
1871-1945" by Hand Dieter Götz. When something made by Soviets looks
indistinguishable from something previously made in west that is not a
coincidence. Of course the actual caliber: 7.62 is for production
technical reasons. Just as Germans did by choosing 7.92mm round for the
MP-43, it is good if one can use existing production technology.
> Besides, the venerable 7.62x54R is still used in Russian army.
Same here. In fact we use two different kinds: the heavy Finnish round
introduced before the war and a lighter Russian one. That is what I
call a logistic nightmare. Same thing was during the war as the SVTs did
not happily eat the Finnish round. 9mm pistols often broke when they
were used with 9mm SMG rounds etc.
Osmo
al...@ix.netcom.com
> The cartridges simply are almost indistinguishable (note I had a typo, it
> is naturally 7.75x39 and not 7.75x49). One can see a photograph of the
> cartridge in "Die Deutschen Militargewehre und Machinenpistole
> 1871-1945" by Hand Dieter Götz. When something made by Soviets looks
> indistinguishable from something previously made in west that is not a
> coincidence.
In other words, you have no proof beside incidental dimensional
similarities? In that case why Vollmer? There was a number of rounds at
that time that would be almost indistinguishable from 7.62x39. Namely
French 7.65x35? Or Spanish CETME (7.92x40)?
Sorry, I don't buy it.
A.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
> The cartridges simply are almost indistinguishable (note I had a typo, it
> is naturally 7.75x39 and not 7.75x49).
That not a prove. All cartridges are so look a like that it is not good idea
to claim one to be a copy of another. I think it at least would be nice if
claim would had been backed up by measurements. Perhaps Soviets simply got
idea from Germans, which is still questionable as Soviets worked themselved
on intermidiate 6.5mm rounds right before the war, but actualy they scale
down 7.62*54R to 7.62*39 mm.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
Lurker Above
news:7s733d$p...@dgs.dgsys.com...
>
> Osmo Ronkanen wrote:
> No, there were a need for automatic weapons, not for SMG's. But because
I agree; by looking at German gun development during the war, one can see
that SMG development pretty much stopped at the MP-38/MP-40 (I'm sure there
were other designs in the works, just not mass-produced), whereas the
Fallschirmgewehr 42 was made during the war, and an improved, lighter
version (the MP-44 Sturmgewehr) was made to replace the bolt-action Kar-98K
and the MP-40 both. It wasn't until well after the war that we see the HK
MP-5 series of submachineguns make a revival with police forces after the
success of the Israeli UZI (which the German Army of today still uses).
> 1944, Soviets followed with AK-47. The whole point that SMGs were nothing more> than a short stop in weapon development. Rifles had been used for over 50
> years by W.W.II, as nothing better was available. Semi-automatic rifles had
> been in front line service for about 30 years between 1930's and 1960's. The
> assault rifles had been in service already for about 50 years, and the next
> generation of weapons is again would be assault rifles. In comparison, the SMG> only lasted in service for about 10 years, if not less. Even by the end of the> war, semi-automatic rifles were preferred over SMG's.
Again, almost every armed force in the world still use the SMG in specialist
roles, and in the German and Israeli ground forces they are quite common
among NCOs. But in other NATO and the former WP armies, submachineguns were
replaced by "carbines" using assault rifle ammo (note the new M-4 5.56mm
carbine entering use in the US Army, and the AKS-74 which has been used
since the AK-74s first came out).
> It is not. Most of the combat happens in the field conditions, not cities. As> a result you have a choice. Either you have limited close range firepower with> rifle, or virtually non-existed long range firepower with SMG. In the combat
> range of 300-500 meters, which was rather short distance between trenches in
> WWII, SMG is virtually useless. Realistic range of the SMG is 50 meters.
And they still use pump-action shotguns for urban combat : )
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Yevgeniy Chizhikov) wrote:
> In comparison, the SMG
> only lasted in service for about 10 years, if not less. Even by the
> end of the
> war, semi-automatic rifles were preferred over SMG's.
Actually sub machine guns originated in WW1. As far as I know the
first one issued was the German MP 18/1. 10,000 of the 50,000 ordered
were delivered by the end of the war.
jann...@hotmail.com
Yevgeniy Chizhikov <y.chi...@sims.csuohio.edu> wrote:
> No, there were a need for automatic weapons, not for SMG's. But
because automatic weapons with more powerful rounds were not available
at that moment, SMGs were used.
Of course there was no need for SMG4s in the sense that assault rifles
would4ve filled the need for high rate of close-range fire. But for all
practical purposes, assault rifles were only ideas, not even drawings
on designers4 boards, hence the very real need for SMG4s which could be
produced.
> You also failing to see that by 1944, Soviets began to shut down SMG
production and in fact start to produce more rifles. SMG's were only
good in street combat, in the field positions they were ineffective.
I can imagine that the necessary amounts of SMG4s had been produced, so
the capacity could be put to replacing old rifles with semi-automatic
ones. Assault rifles were still not in a production stage.
But was there really a need to replace any SMG4s in the field with semi-
automatic rifles? I thought there would4ve been a balance of SMG4s,
Dektaryevs and rifles.
> It is not correct. In late 1930's Soviets were working at 6.5mm
rounds and weapons for them. But those works were not finished.
Technically, Soviets CORRECTLY assume that the future is behind
automatic weapons intimidate round.
This was a very common assumption. Even Finns had ideas for a very
assault rifle like weapon - but ideas are not production plans.
> This future come fairly fast. Germany began to field this kind of
weapons in 1944, Soviets followed with AK-47.
The future came too slow for the war. Incidentally. how quickly was the
AK-47 fielded? In photographs one sees Soviet soldiers with old SMG4s,
but I agree they were often tank infantry in cities.
> Even by the end of the war, semi-automatic rifles were preferred over
SMG's.
By infantry? They would swap their SMG4s for a semi-automatic rifle? I
can imagine them wanting both in their squad/platoon, though.
> It is not. Most of the combat happens in the field conditions, not
cities. As a result you have a choice. Either you have limited close
range firepower with rifle, or virtually non-existed long range
firepower with SMG. In the combat range of 300-500 meters, which was
rather short distance between trenches in WWII, SMG is virtually
useless. Realistic range of the SMG is 50 meters.
In any conditions, SMG4s didn4t make up the entire weaponry of a small
unit. Even a squad would have both "long-range" and close firepower.
Besides, don4t statistics suggest that most rifle/SMG fire casualties
were inflicted on short distances? The need for longer ranges between
trenches etc was well covered by relatively few rifles.
And the realistic range for SMG could be up to 100 m, in terms of
accuracy and hitting power. Tactical reasons would make a shorted
distance preferable, or the nature of terrain impossible.
Janne Glad
Osmo Ronkanen
Yevgeniy Chizhikov <y.chi...@sims.csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>That not a prove. All cartridges are so look a like that it is not good idea
>to claim one to be a copy of another.
I have seen several cartridges and none that look so much like each
other, at least in a case where the similar look is a coincidence. It is
other stated that Soviets copied the 7.92x33 round. I always doubted
this as the rounds look entirely different. Then when I saw the 7.75x39
round it all clicked to place.
> but actualy they scale
>down 7.62*54R to 7.62*39 mm.
>
Come on. The first is rimmed and the second is not. Even in other
aspects the cartridges look very different. It
This will be my last message to this thread. I doubt I can convince you
but well it is enough that I know the truth. I gave you a reference
which to look if you want.
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
>
>In other words, you have no proof beside incidental dimensional
>similarities?
If you see them side by side that is convincing enough.
>In that case why Vollmer?
I made a mistake. Vollmer did not design the cartridge. He designed a
gun using it. The cartridge was designed by a company called Geco.
(Gustav-Genschow & CO AG)
>There was a number of rounds at
>that time that would be almost indistinguishable from 7.62x39. Namely
>French 7.65x35? Or Spanish CETME (7.92x40)?
I do not know of the French one but that CETME is probably from same
design. Many German arms developers went to Spain after WWII. Isn't
that the one with the huge bullet.
Just look at the book I mentioned. The photograph of the two cartridges
is on page 199.
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
>The future came too slow for the war. Incidentally. how quickly was the
>AK-47 fielded? In photographs one sees Soviet soldiers with old SMG4s,
>but I agree they were often tank infantry in cities.
Considering that AK-47 was much result of post WW development, like as
I have heard Hugo Schmeisser helping with the development, I cannot
think how they could have gotten it during the war. They did field tests
with the SKS carbine at the very end of the war, but even that did not
get massive production until 1949 or so. Until then they used m/44
carbines and PPSh-41's. The SVTs were pretty much out even during the
war.
>> Even by the end of the war, semi-automatic rifles were preferred over
>SMG's.
>By infantry? They would swap their SMG4s for a semi-automatic rifle? I
>can imagine them wanting both in their squad/platoon, though.
In Military Small Arms in Finland 1918-88 Palokangas says about AVT-40
(selective fire SVT-40) that the poor experience of the weapon lead to
reduction of production and in January 1945 the production was stopped
and infantry got rid of the weapons as soon as they got enough SMGs. He
gibes a reference to Bolotin D.N. Sovetskoe strelkovoe oruzie, Moscow
1986. pp. 70-71. Fort obvious reasons I am not going to verify that.
The peak of production of semiautomatic rifles was in 1941. On that
year over a million were produced. On the next year only 264,000 SVTs
were made but 1.5 million PPSh's were also made.
...
>In any conditions, SMG4s didn4t make up the entire weaponry of a small
>unit. Even a squad would have both "long-range" and close firepower.
Here ordinary squads had three SMGs at the end of the warm in addition
to five rifles and one LMG. In troops that operated behind enemy lines
SMGs were at a ratio 3:1 to rifles. I saw photographs of such a unit
that had 14 men. Nine had Suomi SMGs, one AVS-36, one SVT-40 and rest
had bolt-action rifles.
>Besides, don4t statistics suggest that most rifle/SMG fire casualties
>were inflicted on short distances? The need for longer ranges between
>trenches etc was well covered by relatively few rifles.
True. The problem with SMGs is the gap between 150-300 meters on which
rifle fire would be practical but SMG fire is not. Beyond 300 meters it
is only snipers, machine guns and artillery that make sense. Any
experiences of for example Boer war are meaningless as in WWII troops
used cover much better.
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
Lurker Above <st...@home.zzz> wrote:
>
>I agree; by looking at German gun development during the war, one can see
>that SMG development pretty much stopped at the MP-38/MP-40 (I'm sure there
>were other designs in the works, just not mass-produced),
There was MP-41 by Schmeisser. It was a combination of MP-28/II and
MP-40, but Vollmer went to court for patent infringement and won. There
also was some SMG that used the stock of Kar-98K and without magazine
looked very much like Kar-98K. That would have been good point to those
who are interested on how soldiers look in parades :-)
> whereas the
>Fallschirmgewehr 42 was made during the war, and an improved, lighter
>version (the MP-44 Sturmgewehr) was made to replace the bolt-action Kar-98K
>and the MP-40 both.
MP-44 was not any version of FG-42. The contract for developing what
came MP-44 was given to Haenel as early as in 1938. I do not think if it
was lighter than FG-42. It was much heavier than Kar-98K though.
Osmo
Lee Russell
was an interesting,but dead-end design using full power catridges in a
rifle-size weapon with full auto capability. It was not especially
controllable in full-auto fire.
Lurker Above
news:37f11a66...@news.curie.dialix.com.au...
Yes, as I replied to Osmo, that was my mistake. The FG42 used the 7.92
Mauser round, and fired automatic from an open bolt due to the propensity
for a round to "cook off" if chambered during full auto. It is, however,
credited as being the first assault rifle in "An Illustrated Guide to Rifles
and Automatic Weapons" by Major Frederick Myatt M.C. (a small and limited
source, but enlightening nevertheless).
Osmo Ronkanen
Lurker Above <st...@home.zzz> wrote:
>
>Are you referring to the Gewehr 41(W) by Walther, a semi-automatic rifle
>using the 7.92mm Mauser round, or did this weapon use the 9mm?
I was talking about an SMG not a rifle. It just was made so that it
uses rifle stock. Another such rifle-life SMG was the Swiss MKMS which
IMO looks somewhat like SKS. It even had a magazine that folded forward
inside the stock. 280 of such were bought by our army. The rifle look
appearance was probably to sell the weapon to conservative generals.
>Since both the Kar-98K and the MP-40 were around 4kg,
>the MP-44 was somewhat heavier than both; all of them are much heavier than
>the M-16, which comes in below 3kg in weight (close to the Sterling SMG).
There is also magazines to think. The loaded magazine for MP-44 was
probably 800 grams. If one had 6 of them it was 4.8 kg. With a rifle
one probably had only 90 rounds weighting some 2.5 kg. The Suomi SMG was
in its own class. It was 4.9 kg and a loaded magazine was 1.9 kg. There
was 5 loaded magazines per weapon (though photographs I have seen
typically show men carrying three magazines). That is 7.6 kg for
magazines and 12.5 kg total.
>A note on the AK-47 in my source: it entered Russian service in 1951, and
>was influenced greatly by the MP-44 (and German designers and engineers
>captured during the war). But it says the first mass-produced assault rifle
>was the FG-42, using the Mauser round;
Well it is questionable whether it was an assault rifle. Also mass
production is somewhat strange when only some 7000 were made. Also IIRC
those were actually made in 1945, i.e. when MP-44 was already in massive
production (total of 426,000 were made). As I understand the FG-42's
that Luftwaffe got were typically used in LMG role.
Note that both versions of MKb-42 were manufactured more than the FG-42.
Frankly I do not see why so much fuss is made of the FG-42.
In 1936-39 Soviets made some 36,000 AVS-36 automatic rifles. If FG-42 is
an assault rifle then why not also AVS. I personally reserve the term
to MP-44/StG-44 and to the weapons that followed.
Osmo
al...@ix.netcom.com
>
> In article <7s9thj$6...@dgs.dgsys.com>, <al...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >In other words, you have no proof beside incidental dimensional
> >similarities?
The only problem with your hypothesis is the fact that 7.62x39 was never
intended as an intermediate round for assault rifles. That's right. It
was originally designed for use in new generation of Soviet SMG. Of
course, they quickly found that it was a tad too powerful for simple
blow back SMG, Russians were so fond of. And they were not about to
sacrifice any performance by making SMG with the locking bolt design.
Fortunately, the concept of an assault rifle was really catching on just
around that time. And the new round turned out to be almost, but not
quite, good for it.
A.
Lurker Above
news:37f01a5c...@news.curie.dialix.com.au...
> There was MP-41 by Schmeisser. It was a combination of MP-28/II and
> MP-40, but Vollmer went to court for patent infringement and won. There
> also was some SMG that used the stock of Kar-98K and without magazine
> looked very much like Kar-98K. That would have been good point to those
> who are interested on how soldiers look in parades :-)
Are you referring to the Gewehr 41(W) by Walther, a semi-automatic rifle
using the 7.92mm Mauser round, or did this weapon use the 9mm?
> MP-44 was not any version of FG-42. The contract for developing what
> came MP-44 was given to Haenel as early as in 1938. I do not think if it
> was lighter than FG-42. It was much heavier than Kar-98K though.
You're right, I did not intend to say the MP-44 was an improved FG-42 (they
don't even look alike, or use the same ammo). After re-consulting my source,
you're right again on their weights: the FG-42 was only 4.5kg, and the MP-44
weighed in at 5.1kg. Since both the Kar-98K and the MP-40 were around 4kg,
the MP-44 was somewhat heavier than both; all of them are much heavier than
the M-16, which comes in below 3kg in weight (close to the Sterling SMG).
A note on the AK-47 in my source: it entered Russian service in 1951, and
was influenced greatly by the MP-44 (and German designers and engineers
captured during the war). But it says the first mass-produced assault rifle
was the FG-42, using the Mauser round; the second was the more definitive
MP-44 using the 7.62 Kurz round, and was the first weapon to be called an
assault rifle ("Sturm Gewehr", which is credited to Hitler himself in 1944).
The MP-44 influenced many nations' arms producers after the war: the Soviet
Kalashnikov AK-47 being the first mass-produced, the British Enfield EM-2
which was not adopted but later developed into the M85 IW, and the Colt
AR-10 which also was not mass-produced but led to the AR-15/M-16.
Osmo Ronkanen
>
>The only problem with your hypothesis is the fact that 7.62x39 was never
>intended as an intermediate round for assault rifles.
Is that a fact, or a Soviet fact? I just cannot think anyone would even
attempt to make a blowback weapon for such a cartridge. It is way too
powerful and the shape is not good for a blowback weapon. Sorry, but I
find the fact that they copied the German round more convincing. Of
course they do not want to admit that.
Osmo
al...@ix.netcom.com
> Come on. The first is rimmed and the second is not. Even in other
> aspects the cartridges look very different. It
Gimme a break, would you? 7.62x39 was made rimless ot obviously make
feeding from long box magazine trouble free. What does that prove?
A.
Mark A. Serafin
: production (total of 426,000 were made). As I understand the FG-42's
: that Luftwaffe got were typically used in LMG role.
Not the impression I was given by and ex-fallschirmjager sergeant.
He indicated that FG42 was used as a semi-auto rifle, as it was not steady
enough on full-auto to be used that way (except in emergencies). Given
that german paratrooper squads were equipped with two Mg34/42 each at the
time of the FG42s introduction, it wasn't necessary to use it as an LMG.
--
Mark Serafin | "Imagine you were an idiot. Now imagine you
I speak only for myself | were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
| - Mark Twain
Super News User
>In article <37f547bc...@news.curie.dialix.com.au>,
>Lurker Above <st...@home.zzz> wrote:
>>
>>Are you referring to the Gewehr 41(W) by Walther, a semi-automatic rifle
>>using the 7.92mm Mauser round, or did this weapon use the 9mm?
>
>I was talking about an SMG not a rifle. It just was made so that it
>uses rifle stock. Another such rifle-life SMG was the Swiss MKMS which
>IMO looks somewhat like SKS. It even had a magazine that folded forward
>inside the stock. 280 of such were bought by our army. The rifle look
>appearance was probably to sell the weapon to conservative generals.
The earler Swiss MKMO (and police model MKMP) SMG was produced in 9mm
Mauser Export (9x25mm, basically .30 Mauser necked up to a straight
wall cartridge) as well as 7.65mm and 9mm Luger and utilized a
delayed-blowback mechanism. I gather the 9mm Mauser was hot enough to
benefit from a longer barrel but the 500mm rifle-length barrel seems a
bit excessive--as does the 4.7 kg loaded weight. The Hungarians also
had a rifle-style SMG that used a different delayed-blowback mechanism
which also fired 9mm Mauser.
What really might have been better would have been the US .30 Carbine
round necked down to .25 or even .22 caliber. It would have worked
well out to 300 yards and been very light but the small caliber/high
velocity concept seems to have been too radical for the times. I think
there were prototypes of Reising SMGs in .30 Carbine so a .25 or .22
Carbine round coul, I think, have been used in a fairly simple weapon
saving on manufacturing costs in comparison to the locked-breech M1
Carbine.
--
John Briggs (j...@bbz.net Phoenix, Arizona, USA) Enemy of the Best
Osmo Ronkanen
<al...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Gimme a break, would you? 7.62x39 was made rimless ot obviously make
>feeding from long box magazine trouble free. What does that prove?
Only that it is not reduced size 7.62x54R. Also the lack of the rim is
not the only difference. On the other hand the Geco 7.75x39 round is
almost identical to the 7.62x39. Soviets were known to copy things both
in military and civilian markets. Their first Nuclear bomber was a
direct copy of B-39, later their Lada cars were copies of Fiat. Even
their Space Shuttle was a copy of the US one. The magazine of PPSh-41
was a copy of the Suomi magazine developed by Koskinen. I find it hard
that you cannot believe that they could have copied a cartridge when
there is overwhelming evidence.
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
That is relatively light. The loaded weigh of Suomi SMG was 6.8 kg. (In
the version with muzzle brake, the original was 200 grams lighter)
>What really might have been better would have been the US .30 Carbine
>round necked down to .25 or even .22 caliber.
You are forgetting the logistics. The whole point of SMG was that it
used existing ammo. If one starts making new kinds of ammo things are
entirely different. Also I doubt many military big guys during WWII
would have accepted a .22 caliber round.
Osmo
al...@ix.netcom.com
> Is that a fact, or a Soviet fact? I just cannot think anyone would even
> attempt to make a blowback weapon for such a cartridge. It is way too
> powerful and the shape is not good for a blowback weapon. Sorry, but I
> find the fact that they copied the German round more convincing. Of
> course they do not want to admit that.
"Strelkovoye orujie" by A. B. Juk. Page 608.
ISBN 5-203-01445-0
Book was printed in 1992 but I suppose you can still call it a "Soviet
fact" if you want it so much. Whatever that means.
A.
al...@ix.netcom.com
> Soviets were known to copy things both
> in military and civilian markets.
Indeed, they are. They are also known to introduce many innovative
concepts which West was all too eager to follow.
Still, where is the proof that 7.62x39 was a copy of German one?
> Their first Nuclear bomber was a
> direct copy of B-39
And their first H-bomb was an original and better design. They made it
small enough to be carried by bomber. While US first working H-bomb was
the size of a railroad car. Again, where is the proof about 7.62x39?
> later their Lada cars were copies of Fiat.
Production of Lada was _licensed_ by Fiat. Of course it was a near copy.
Get a grip.
> Even
> their Space Shuttle was a copy of the US one.
Another western myth. Just because they look alike, it doesn't mean
Soviet one was a copy of American. It's is the case of functionality
dictating the shape of an object. Besides, Soviet shuttle was based on a
totally different concept. Only 3 seats, each equipped with ejection
system. Partially because of that, they made it capable of fully
automatic landing. Didn't wanna waste limited number of seats to have a
dedicated pilot, that does little else. When was the last time American
shuttle landed on its own?
> The magazine of PPSh-41
> was a copy of the Suomi magazine developed by Koskinen.
I don't think Soviets tried ever to conceal that fact. On the contrary.
They never shied away from adapting a good thing if they saw one. But it
was not the case with 7.62x39
> I find it hard
> that you cannot believe that they could have copied a cartridge when
> there is overwhelming evidence.
Because there is no proof to that effect that I can find on my own. And
you failed to produce any too.
A.
Osmo Ronkanen
>Still, where is the proof that 7.62x39 was a copy of German one?
As I already said, it is in the book "Die Deutschen Militärgewehre und
Machinenpistole 1871-1945" by H.D. Götz. Go and look it.
>And their first H-bomb was an original and better design.
Did it look almost identical to the US design? Also one can improve
while one copies.
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
<al...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>"Strelkovoye orujie" by A. B. Juk. Page 608.
>ISBN 5-203-01445-0
>
>Book was printed in 1992 but I suppose you can still call it a "Soviet
>fact" if you want it so much. Whatever that means.
>
Well did you miss all the references to Engels? I found especially
hilarious the comment about war against White Finns. (The Winter War).
The original books on which it was collected were done in the 80's
In anyway the book said that the cartridge was first tried in an
automatic weapon in a blowback SMG but that was not successful. It did
not say it was developed for a blowback weapon. In fact that seems to
hint that they had a ready made cartridge and the started to find a
weapon for it.
That books seems to have a clear Russian/Soviet bias. I almost dropped
on the floor when I saw him say something like that Mosin-Nagant (the
rifle used by Russians from mid 1890's to late forties, as well as by
us up to seventies) had ingenious safety. In fact the safety was so hard
to operate that many stops simply did not use it. Instead they kept
the chamber empty. Despite that the book worth checking for anyone
interested in small arms. The drawings are exceptional. )The author is
actually a drafter who among others has designed uniforms for Soviet
Army. Is Juk the proper transliteration in English? Here he is called
Zhuk.
Osmo
mvil...@my-deja.com
> The only problem with your hypothesis is the fact that 7.62x39 was
> never
> intended as an intermediate round for assault rifles.
Wasn't the MP44/Stg44 using the short cased rifle round above?
Kalishnikov found that idea a good one and used it as ammo for the
AK-47?
> That's right. It
> was originally designed for use in new generation of Soviet SMG.
Are you saying that they originally made a short cased rifle round for a
submachinegun? How daring...
> Of
> course, they quickly found that it was a tad too powerful for simple
> blow back SMG, Russians were so fond of. And they were not about to
> sacrifice any performance by making SMG with the locking bolt design.
> Fortunately, the concept of an assault rifle was really catching on
> just
> around that time. And the new round turned out to be almost, but not
> quite, good for it.
There was a posting about this a while back, about the similarities of
AK-47 vs. MP44 and how similar they were...
You seem to be saying that the Russians thought of a short cased rifle
cartidge to use in a new SMG, but it didn't work so they used it in an
assault rifle instead...this is a new one, I haven't heard this one
before...it's funny how guns get designed, each side with their own
story...
I'm not gonna talk about it, but I guess you're one of the ones who says
that the AK-47 was a completely orignal idea...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Osmo Ronkanen
>Wasn't the MP44/Stg44 using the short cased rifle round above?
>Kalishnikov found that idea a good one and used it as ammo for the
>AK-47?
Could you please read the tread before posting. The round used in AK
is not based on the round used in MP44. Instead it is based in another
intermediate round that Geco developed in mid thirties. The 7.92x33
round is much shorter and fatter than the one used in AK or the Ceco
7.75x39 round. The Ceco round and the AK round look virtually identical.
Osmo
sabaton...@gmail.com
news
parts were not all that reliable and the drum magazine had problems. It
was uncomfortable to carry and use. It took a long time to refill the
magazine and they were unreliable. Later versions were made with heavier
metal than the early ones, but springs were always a problem. Being
cheap and easy to produce compensated for some of its weaknesses.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On 2014-03-06 2:24 PM, sabaton...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I believe the ppsh41 is a better gun than the mp40 because of fire
> > rate mass production, cheap ammo , cheap reliable parts and its able
> > to hold a drum mag.
> >
> Mass production is a strange criterion by which to rate a weapon. The
you don't have enough of it/them. Or if it's hideously expensive to produce,
etc.
Mike
Chris Morton
sabaton...@gmail.com says...
>I believe the ppsh41 is a better gun than the mp40 because of fire rate mass
>production, cheap ammo , cheap reliable parts and its able to hold a drum mag.
uncontrollable by the average user, wasting ammunition.
An alternate school of thought says that a SLOWER rate of fire is superior.
I've fired the M3A1 "Greasegun" and it is indeed VERY easy to control, even
chambered for the .45acp cartridge.
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with
210lb. rapists.
Chris Morton
>Mass production is a strange criterion by which to rate a weapon.
They were drowned in T-34s and Shermans.
Of course it's hardly strange even when dealing with smallarms.
How many Swiss Furrer SMGs do you think the Germans could have turned out versus
even MP-40s, never mind Stens or PPSh41s or PPS43s?
news
> In article <hY4Tu.3968$xK4...@fx29.iad>, news says...
>
>> Mass production is a strange criterion by which to rate a weapon.
>
> German tankers would disagree.
>
> They were drowned in T-34s and Shermans.
>
system. Some of the tanks were so much better than the Shermans and
T-34s that the best tactic was to outflank them and overwhelm them.
> Of course it's hardly strange even when dealing with smallarms.
>
> How many Swiss Furrer SMGs do you think the Germans could have turned out versus
> even MP-40s, never mind Stens or PPSh41s or PPS43s?
not a better weapon.
Dave Smith
Chris Morton
<ne...@fx16.iad.highwinds-media.com> wrote:
>That would make for a more economical and more readily available weapon,
>not a better weapon.
Michael Emrys
into the hands of the troops.
Michael
Alan Meyer
> I believe the ppsh41 is a better gun than the mp40 because of fire rate mass production, cheap ammo , cheap reliable parts and its able to hold a drum mag.
"Submachine gun oddity", asking why so many nations fielded guns with
stick magazines when drum magazines held so many more bullets. There
were dozens of responses, including many interesting ones. See:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/4V3LgZGp5YU
In addition to magazine and caliber differences, there is also a
difference in muzzle velocity between the German and Russian weapons.
The PPsh-41 is said (by the Wikipedia authors) to have 488 m/s vs. 400
m/s for the MP-40.
Is that significant? I would think that depends on the environment. In
street fighting it might make no difference. In fighting in open
fields, it might confer a usefully longer range and flatter trajectory.
Given that the man carrying a submachine gun is not carrying a rifle,
having a longer range weapon might well be significant.
However there are other factors in range besides muzzle velocity. I
think that the ballistic coefficient of the bullet and the bullet weight
are also significant.
The Wikipedia articles state 100 meters as the range of the MP-40 and
150-250 meters as the range of the PPSh-41. I don't trust those because
I don't know what range means in this context. It could, for example be
a measure of how good the sights are, or how likely the shooter is to
hit something rather than how far the bullet will travel with enough
punch to knock out an enemy. It could be highly subjective.
Alan
David Wilma
even a heavier bullet is always preferable, but how often do these
differences make a difference? 100 yards vs. 150 yards is 50 yards,
but a soldier still has to hit the target 50 yards further our. With
a machine-pistol/submachine gun weapon is this realistic?
I would say the important factors would be numbers deployed,
reliability, and training.
GFH
influential -- jungle is shorter range than
the open vistas of western Russia. Weight is
an important factor. A lighter cartridge means
more can be carried. Recoil is less with lower
power firearms. There are reasons why not
every soldier carries a BAR.
GFH