- Thread starter
- #41
If I may:
At least in the current 2-thread discussion about small arms, nobody accused UK for ignoring or denigrating the StG44.
As above - nobody suggested that those two countries start an emergency program for the (copying? countering?) the StG44. The US Army adopted the M1 Garand due to their feeling that it will be able to use hills and mountains of the .30-06 ammo, it transpired that all new ammo type was needed for the M1 Garand, while MGs and bolt-action rifle still could use the old ammo.
Seems like the UK have had a very real reason for a new caliber of ammunition, otherwise they wouldn't authorised the .270 (later re-designetd as .280) round for the next-gen rifle.
I'm not sure where this came from.
But, at any rate, Soviets, Germans and British reached conclusions that full-power rifle cartridge is a wrong choice for hand-held automatic weapons, and started planing the next-gen of small arms around a new cartridge each. The British choice being probably the best, combining long-range usability of a full-power cartridge with controlability of a reduced-power cartridge.
Cheaper weapons might mean a difference between actually replacing obsolete weapons a decade after the last war vs. still having obsolete weapons decades after the war and hope that a new war does not happen. Granted, over-doing the cheapness will bite back.
Hey JAG88,
I am not sure but I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Also, I believe we were talking about the StG44, not the FG42.
My point is that the UK and US did not ignore or denigrate the StG44 in any way due to its being a German weapon. They did not say the StG44 was worthless. They simply had their own requirements (smarter or not), which the StG44 did not meet.
At least in the current 2-thread discussion about small arms, nobody accused UK for ignoring or denigrating the StG44.
If it helps to understand what I am saying, ask yourself the following questions:
1. Should the UK and US have discarded their rifles and SMGs at war's end, along with the several billion rounds of ammunition, and immediately started an emergency production program for the StG44? If so, why??
2. What reason did the UK and US have in 1945 to decide they should introduce another caliber of ammunition? Remember, one of the main reasons the US did not adopt the .276 or similar round was a requirement that their primary infantry rifle use the same ammunition as their light and medium MG. (It should be noted that a debate similar to this is going on today in the US armed forces.)
As above - nobody suggested that those two countries start an emergency program for the (copying? countering?) the StG44. The US Army adopted the M1 Garand due to their feeling that it will be able to use hills and mountains of the .30-06 ammo, it transpired that all new ammo type was needed for the M1 Garand, while MGs and bolt-action rifle still could use the old ammo.
Seems like the UK have had a very real reason for a new caliber of ammunition, otherwise they wouldn't authorised the .270 (later re-designetd as .280) round for the next-gen rifle.
3. Did you ever read any reports from WWII where Allied soldiers said things like "Oh my God in heaven, here come the sturmtruppen with their StG44s, run away!! Run away!! Ignore the troops with the K98 and all the other German infantry weapons, they cannot compare to the effectiveness of the StG44." or "No Fred, do not advance, your ______ (insert any infantry rifle or SMG in the blank area) is no match for their StG44. Go over there and advance into the K98s, MG38s, MG42s,... At least you will have a chance to live!" You can imagine this being said in the King's English, American English, French, Russian, or any other language you choose - if you can keep a straight face when saying it yourself, let me know. To be fair, I would challenge anyone to do the same concerning modern infantry assault rifles as well.
I'm not sure where this came from.
But, at any rate, Soviets, Germans and British reached conclusions that full-power rifle cartridge is a wrong choice for hand-held automatic weapons, and started planing the next-gen of small arms around a new cartridge each. The British choice being probably the best, combining long-range usability of a full-power cartridge with controlability of a reduced-power cartridge.
I may have been unclear as to the time frame of the selection of the M14, EM-2, FAL, etc. I meant that by the time the UK and US were ready to adopt a new weapon and associated ammunition (~1950, at the beginning of the NATO standardization process) they already had designs they considered better for their requirements. And yes, some of those designs used bits and pieces of other nations designs, including German designs such as the StG44, FG42, MG42, etc.
Your point of making the weapon cheap is valid to a certain extent. For certain it would apply to a war-time army that is in dire straights production-wise. (I started to say ...and/or already losing the war, but that by its self negates the value of the concept.) The problem with this concept is that an army spends most of its time in peace, not war. If you make the weapons cheap you have to replace them more often, with the replacement cost exceeding the difference in any savings due to a low unit cost. (It should be noted that a debate similar to this is going on today in the US armed forces.)
Cheaper weapons might mean a difference between actually replacing obsolete weapons a decade after the last war vs. still having obsolete weapons decades after the war and hope that a new war does not happen. Granted, over-doing the cheapness will bite back.