- Thread starter
-
- #41
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.)
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 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.)
Interesting info, from the training manuals of the UK and US:
Model 1903 Springfield aimed shots per minute ~12 (iron sights)
Enfield aimed shots per minute ~12 (iron sights)
M1 Garand aimed shots per minute ~12 (iron sights)
L85 aimed shots per minute 12-15 (iron sights)
M16 aimed shots per minute 12-15 (iron sights)
The additional 3 shots per minute for the modern rifles are attributed to the lighter recoil with commensurate shorter recovery time.
The M1 rifles gas port is pretty much at the of the barrel and most of the ammo for it doesn't vary in pressure that much even if the the peak pressure 1-2inches in front of the chamber does. Handloaders after WW II could mess things up by using the slower commercial and surplus powders that became available. These could result in higher port pressures and lead to bent operating rods but there was no real need to use these powders.
Hey tomopauk,
From JAG88's post#143 in the proximity fuse thread: "In general, I think it is normal and human to look down on the weapons of the defeated enemy, and that could cause some people to overlook otherwise interesting developments as in this case... which was the point of bringing up this example in the thread."
I have assumed that JAG88's comment is referring back to (or has similar intent to) Basil's earlier comment in his post#123 in the proximity fuse thread: "At the end of WW2 the Allies had a very satisfactorily working VT fuze in combat for over a year and the fact the the Germans were working on similar devices certainly was not sensational for the CIOS or BIOS teams. There were many other similar researches in technical fields which did not find much mention." and some comments of others that seem to imply that the Allies had ignored German technology (radar, weapons, industrial prowess, etc.) simply because it was not sensational, and/or that because they were the losers in WWII their technology was not worthy of consideration (i.e. denigrating).
As for my questions 1-3, it may seem that they are somewhat facetious (well, #3 is phrased in a humorous manner), but those 3 questions (or other ones similar in meaning) would have to result in answers that would give reason to over-ride the requirements that the UK and US had in mind at the time, or there is no reason to think that the StG44 was superior in any way that mattered, at least in any big picture sense (not sure if I phrased that clearly?). In effect, even if the entire German army had been equipped with the StG44 by early-1944 (or beginning of the war?), it was not going to turn the tide of the war, any major battle, or most likely any minor battle that mattered. And any superior firepower effect that the StG44 may have had was not enough to have any impact in the minds of the opposing forces in the field, or at least not any worthy of notable record (I could be wrong about the notable record part, but that is part of why I put question #3 in the post).
Interesting info, from the training manuals of the UK and US:
Model 1903 Springfield aimed shots per minute ~12 (iron sights)
Enfield aimed shots per minute ~12 (iron sights)
M1 Garand aimed shots per minute ~12 (iron sights)
L85 aimed shots per minute 12-15 (iron sights)
M16 aimed shots per minute 12-15 (iron sights)
Hello Tomo Pauk,
Do you suppose that the requirements for a rifle caliber for infantry weapons would also be determined by whether or not the new caliber would be the ONLY caliber to be used by infantry rifles, LMG, Squad Automatics, etc?
I am thinking that if a country is intending to replace the ammunition for ALL of those weapons, it will settle only for something that will perform at least adequately in the LMG while if it intends to retain a second caliber for the LMG, it can pick something much smaller.
The choices of the various countries seem to follow that pattern:
The Germans kept the 7.92 x 57, so the little 7.92 x 33 was just fine as a sort of high power SMG / Carbine.
The British wanted to replace .303 so they needed something bigger such as the .280 which wasn't that different.
The US wanted to replace 30-06, so they wanted something that was its ballistic equivalent.
The Soviets intended to keep the 762 x 54R for the long range role, so a 7.62 x 39 was a good supplement.
- Ivan.
The British wanted rid of the 303 because it was rimmed. Which is a pain especially for machine guns.
The British thrice directly copied the enemy rifle...7mm Mauser rifle and the G43 and FG-42.
The Federov was doing what Sturmgewehr was doing well before. Sturmgewehr was only new and revolutionary in the sense it was fielded.
FG-42 was fielded in very small numbers so is as irrelevant as the Federov in war winning.
The EM-2 was the British Sturmgewehr but was killed off by USA as it wanted battle rifles. American insistence on long range battle rifles for accuracy proved to be correct at least in current Afghan combat.
Hey tomopauk,
From JAG88's post#143 in the proximity fuse thread: "In general, I think it is normal and human to look down on the weapons of the defeated enemy, and that could cause some people to overlook otherwise interesting developments as in this case... which was the point of bringing up this example in the thread."
I have assumed that JAG88's comment is referring back to (or has similar intent to) Basil's earlier comment in his post#123 in the proximity fuse thread: "At the end of WW2 the Allies had a very satisfactorily working VT fuze in combat for over a year and the fact the the Germans were working on similar devices certainly was not sensational for the CIOS or BIOS teams. There were many other similar researches in technical fields which did not find much mention." and some comments of others that seem to imply that the Allies had ignored German technology (radar, weapons, industrial prowess, etc.) simply because it was not sensational, and/or that because they were the losers in WWII their technology was not worthy of consideration (i.e. denigrating).
Both the French and British wanted rid of rimmed cartridges. Why go to such effort if rimmed cartridges are so good?
Why do you think the 7mm Mauser was not copied?
Why not?Why should the USN be interested in German naval radar?
Why not?
The Allies were interested in other German technologies...
Why should the USN be interested in German naval radar?