- Thread starter
-
- #21
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
All these semi-automatic rifles were relatively expensive to produce. Which is why nobody except the U.S. produced semi-automatic rifles for general issue. However since we are on the subject you missed a rifle which might have been mass produced if Germany had considered it to be cost effective.
ZH-29 Rifle.
Modern Firearms - ZH-29 rifle
Caliber: 7.92x57 mm Mauser, also 7x57 Mauser, .30-06 US, and others
Action: Gas operated, side-swinging bolt
Overall length: 1150 mm
Barrel length: 545 mm
Weight: 4.5 kg
Magazine capacity: 5, 10 or 25 rounds
I'd hazard a guess that total ZH-29 rifle production was well over 1,000. And most of the weapons were actually used in combat. Hence it was not experimental.7 x 57mm Mauser or 7.92 x 57mm Mauser?: ZB (Brno) ZH-29 semi-automatic rifle: This advanced rifle was designed by Emanuel Holek ca. 1927-1928, allegedly to meet a Chinese requirement for a semi-auto rifle. China acquired 150 of the rifles in 1929, and several hundred more were purchased through 1932, for a total of between 500 and 600 of these very well made rifles. This rifle was also exported in small quantities to Siam and Ethiopia, and was tested in 1932 by both Romania and Turkey. Several undisclosed South American countries tested the weapon as well.
Axis History Forum • View topic - Armaments of China and Siam to 1949 Part 3: Siam
I'd hazard a guess that total ZH-29 rifle production was well over 1,000. And most of the weapons were actually used in combat. Hence it was not experimental.
Germany halted production of the ZH-29 during 1939 because the weapon was expensive. But they could have gone the American route, throwing money at the problem and producing semi-automatic rifles by the millions. Instead they opted for the dirt cheap and even better StG44.
In hindsight though, a great rifle is a force multiplier that can be applied millions of times. If the Germans had created a magazine fed, semi-auto assault rifle or battle rifle who knows how that might have affected the defense of Normandy, the battle of the bulge, and Moscow/Stalingrad. Rate of fire can sometimes keep the battle moving forward and prevent offensives from bogging down.I agree. However you've got to consider that Germany had to build their military and supporting industrial complex practically from scratch beginning in 1934. Border defenses and army artillery had the highest priority so they could protect themselves from a threatened Franco-Russian invasion. Germany also needed aerial and coastal defenses.
Replacing the relatively effective Mauser 98 with an assault rifle fell into the "nice to have but not essential" category.
A great machinegun is a bigger infantry force multiplier. Germany nailed that requirement with the MG34 and MG42. Well trained and equipped forward observers to coordinate artillery and air support are also huge infantry force multipliers. Germany nailed that requirement also.
The German Rifle Testing Commission began work on procuring an assault rifle during 1938. The program had a relatively low priority. However they eventually hit a home run with the StG44 and StG45 weapons. Now if money grew on trees in Germany these weapons would almost certainly have entered service sooner.
I've always found that myth to be ridiculous. The only part that was a little bit plausible is that the clip shooting upward would give away your position visibly to someone looking in that direction, especially a sniper.Watched an episode last night on the Military Channel, ( which I had seen before.) Was reminded again that you cannot trust any information from the media. This episode was best rifle. The Garand ranked 4th, which was alright with me since length of service played heavily in the rankings. However, they said that a weakness of the Garand was that the noise the clip made when it was ejected told the enemy that the rifle was empty and therefore the enemy soldier would then attack the soldier with the empty rifle. What a crock! They had combat film showing soldiers firing Garands, in Europe and in the Pacific. All the film showed the soldiers behind some cover, a tree, a wall, a trench, etc. along with other soldiers firing the Garands. Now a 3006 round makes a lot of noise and a clip making it's ching noise would be impossible to hear in the din of battle. Now, if two soldiers were stalking one another, in the pitch dark and were within a few yards of one another and it was very quiet, that ching noise might be audible if no other weapons were firing. The episode said that the US soldiers learned to keep an empty clip in their pocket to throw on the ground and fool the enemy. BS! The ching noise occurs when the clip is ejected from the breech, not when the clip hits the ground. When I was in basic, our cadre were almost all Korean War vets and some also WW2 and not one said that the noise of the ejecting clip was a problem. On the range, with a lot of rifles firing at once, one could hear that ching from one's own rifle and maybe the one's on either side sometimes but for an enemy to hear it, he would have to be right next to you. If you see, read or hear it in the media, it is either inaccurate, exaggerated or a damn lie.
Watched an episode last night on the Military Channel, ( which I had seen before.) Was reminded again that you cannot trust any information from the media. This episode was best rifle. The Garand ranked 4th, which was alright with me since length of service played heavily in the rankings. However, they said that a weakness of the Garand was that the noise the clip made when it was ejected told the enemy that the rifle was empty and therefore the enemy soldier would then attack the soldier with the empty rifle. What a crock! They had combat film showing soldiers firing Garands, in Europe and in the Pacific. All the film showed the soldiers behind some cover, a tree, a wall, a trench, etc. along with other soldiers firing the Garands. Now a 3006 round makes a lot of noise and a clip making it's ching noise would be impossible to hear in the din of battle. Now, if two soldiers were stalking one another, in the pitch dark and were within a few yards of one another and it was very quiet, that ching noise might be audible if no other weapons were firing. The episode said that the US soldiers learned to keep an empty clip in their pocket to throw on the ground and fool the enemy. BS! The ching noise occurs when the clip is ejected from the breech, not when the clip hits the ground. When I was in basic, our cadre were almost all Korean War vets and some also WW2 and not one said that the noise of the ejecting clip was a problem. On the range, with a lot of rifles firing at once, one could hear that ching from one's own rifle and maybe the one's on either side sometimes but for an enemy to hear it, he would have to be right next to you. If you see, read or hear it in the media, it is either inaccurate, exaggerated or a damn lie.
Watched an episode last night on the Military Channel, ( which I had seen before.) Was reminded again that you cannot trust any information from the media. This episode was best rifle. The Garand ranked 4th, which was alright with me since length of service played heavily in the rankings. However, they said that a weakness of the Garand was that the noise the clip made when it was ejected told the enemy that the rifle was empty and therefore the enemy soldier would then attack the soldier with the empty rifle. What a crock! They had combat film showing soldiers firing Garands, in Europe and in the Pacific. All the film showed the soldiers behind some cover, a tree, a wall, a trench, etc. along with other soldiers firing the Garands. Now a 3006 round makes a lot of noise and a clip making it's ching noise would be impossible to hear in the din of battle. Now, if two soldiers were stalking one another, in the pitch dark and were within a few yards of one another and it was very quiet, that ching noise might be audible if no other weapons were firing. The episode said that the US soldiers learned to keep an empty clip in their pocket to throw on the ground and fool the enemy. BS! The ching noise occurs when the clip is ejected from the breech, not when the clip hits the ground. When I was in basic, our cadre were almost all Korean War vets and some also WW2 and not one said that the noise of the ejecting clip was a problem. On the range, with a lot of rifles firing at once, one could hear that ching from one's own rifle and maybe the one's on either side sometimes but for an enemy to hear it, he would have to be right next to you. If you see, read or hear it in the media, it is either inaccurate, exaggerated or a damn lie.