StG44 vs AK-47
- Thread starter Soren
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
I seriously doubt these 11th hour wartime cost estimates are likely to produce an apples to apples comparison.
- Thread starter
- #45
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Can you point to an example where this happened historically? Everything I have read suggests factory wages tend to go up during wartime.
- Thread starter
- #48
Dave,
As the war went on the salary of the average German worker stayed the same, but taxes increased substantially at the same time and the German government issued strict price controls on wartime products so they could buy them a lot cheaper.
So in terms of material man hours used, I'll bet my best hat on that the StG44 was a lot more expensive to make than what a random price comparison from different countries would let you to believe.
As the war went on the salary of the average German worker stayed the same, but taxes increased substantially at the same time and the German government issued strict price controls on wartime products so they could buy them a lot cheaper.
So in terms of material man hours used, I'll bet my best hat on that the StG44 was a lot more expensive to make than what a random price comparison from different countries would let you to believe.
The progression of the Stg.44 to Stg 45 seems to mirror that of the MG34 to MG42. The second on both items tended to be more stamped and spot welded than the machined parts of the earlier version. In that case, I could see that costs would be held down in the second version as it is specifically redesigned for ease of manufacture.
Did the same thing happen with the MP38/MP40?
Did the same thing happen with the MP38/MP40?
davebender
1st Lieutenant
I guess that depends on how you define "minor". The StG44 action is gas operated. The StG45 action is operated by roller-delayed blowback.
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
He said MIRROR.
Was thinking the German arms seemed to be refined in later generations of the weapons. First the concept weapon is made. It tends to be over engineered and expensive to make (MG34, Stg44, Luger), the design is then studied for improvement possibilities (in some cases, evidently a complete departure from the operating system occurs) in both operation and manufacture. Then, a second generation comes out (MG42, Stg45, P38) which is generally an improvement on the whole concept.
It seems a different philosophy than other countries. US, for example, tends to stick with the same design but might refine the design. Rarely do they depart. Same with most of the other countries out there. Germany seemed willing to supplant a design if study came up with a better option. Right in the middle of a war too.
It seems a different philosophy than other countries. US, for example, tends to stick with the same design but might refine the design. Rarely do they depart. Same with most of the other countries out there. Germany seemed willing to supplant a design if study came up with a better option. Right in the middle of a war too.
Last edited:
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
I wouldn't link the P-38 with the Luger. I doubt Walther was even thinking about Lugers when they designed it.
To tell the truth, I'm not very familiar with either the P38 or the Luger. Only know that it succeeded the Luger and was generally thought to be a better pistol, but not a "cooler" one. Seemed to handle dirt better and was a double action. Thought it was designed to replace the Luger as the Luger had problems with dirt and was pretty complex.
I'm sure others on this board know more about it.
I'm sure others on this board know more about it.
parsifal
Colonel
Weight does make a difference, as Dan pointed out. However, the German assault rifles, whilst heavy, are not that heavy. The STG-44 weighed 5.1 kg unloaded, compared to the lee enfields 3.71 kg . The 98K weighs 3.9 kg, the FG 42 (not the MG 42) 4.5 kg, arisaka weigh4.31. The Garand weighs 4.37 kg
So while it is heavy, this was an acceptable price to pay for a fully operational assault rifle
- Thread starter
- #56
The weight of the StG44 is 5.22 kg fully loaded, which isn't heavy at all. Unless you're a real wimp ofcourse..
A modern assault rifle weighs in at about 3.5 to 4 kg. Although the British L85 actually weighs 5 kg, and I've walked around with this baby and it aint heavy at all.
A modern assault rifle weighs in at about 3.5 to 4 kg. Although the British L85 actually weighs 5 kg, and I've walked around with this baby and it aint heavy at all.
Last edited:
I'm thinking in terms of the infantry carrying them. And an 11lb/5.5kg weapon (approximate) is a very heavy personal weapon. Not thinking of being a wimp or not, just the capacity of a solider to carry this thing and ammo.
The guys I knew (and I was ex-Navy so I never had to carry anything heavy for more than a mile- tops) would always pick up a rifle and say something like "That's not too bad" or "That thing will way a ton after ten miles" simply because of the weight of the thing mattered that much when you carried it.
Back to it, 11lbs for a standard infantry rifle is heavy. 8lbs is not too bad, acceptable would be my guess. But like I said, I never had to carry them more than up a few decks (and it was an M14 which was probably in the 8-9lb range).
The guys I knew (and I was ex-Navy so I never had to carry anything heavy for more than a mile- tops) would always pick up a rifle and say something like "That's not too bad" or "That thing will way a ton after ten miles" simply because of the weight of the thing mattered that much when you carried it.
Back to it, 11lbs for a standard infantry rifle is heavy. 8lbs is not too bad, acceptable would be my guess. But like I said, I never had to carry them more than up a few decks (and it was an M14 which was probably in the 8-9lb range).
- Thread starter
- #58
Timshatz, didn't you guys lift weights or performed any cardio exercises?? When not on the shooting range we pretty much lifted weights and ran all the time. I've also often witnessed men walking 30 km (roughly 18 miles) with an LMG swung over the shoulder (Now that I will testify is a pain in the butt!)
Anyway an M14 weighs 5.2 kg empty, so abit heavier than the StG44 which weighed 4.22 kg empty, which is still light enough to be carried around for miles without any trouble at all - if you're a fit soldier that is
Didn't know you Navy guys were such wimps, haha, no just joking
Anyway an M14 weighs 5.2 kg empty, so abit heavier than the StG44 which weighed 4.22 kg empty, which is still light enough to be carried around for miles without any trouble at all - if you're a fit soldier that is
Didn't know you Navy guys were such wimps, haha, no just joking
Last edited:
No worries Soren, I don't think of myself as a REAL wimp, gotta join the Air Force for that (joke, just a small joke, can hear the AF guys gumbling now).
Thought the M14 was lighter than 5.2 kilos. Didn't seem that heavy. Then again, I was younger and all that.
Back to the thread (and keeping in mind your point on Infantry constantly training or just getting in field shape as a ongoing process), I was thinking of the amount of wear and tear that happens to a guy in the field for extended periods. Have yet to meet a guy who spent time in the field and didn't lose weight or muscle mass. Knew a Capt in Iraq who dropped 30lbs in the invasion. That sort of thing is going to wear down your ability to carry any load for an extended period. Then weight would matter.
On a side note, I knew a guy who was ex-UDT and said they used to give the LMG to the "Slab of Beef", otherwise known as the guy who was all brawn and no brains. That ain't you is it buddy?
Thought the M14 was lighter than 5.2 kilos. Didn't seem that heavy. Then again, I was younger and all that.
Back to the thread (and keeping in mind your point on Infantry constantly training or just getting in field shape as a ongoing process), I was thinking of the amount of wear and tear that happens to a guy in the field for extended periods. Have yet to meet a guy who spent time in the field and didn't lose weight or muscle mass. Knew a Capt in Iraq who dropped 30lbs in the invasion. That sort of thing is going to wear down your ability to carry any load for an extended period. Then weight would matter.
On a side note, I knew a guy who was ex-UDT and said they used to give the LMG to the "Slab of Beef", otherwise known as the guy who was all brawn and no brains. That ain't you is it buddy?
- Thread starter
- #60
You're absolutely right about the loss of weight, but it is mostly fat which is burned away, some muscle is lost as-well eventually but you're constantly using them so they adapt. Furthermore a 5 kg weapon is not heavy at all, not even after hauling it around for a loong time.
On a side note, I knew a guy who was ex-UDT and said they used to give the LMG to the "Slab of Beef", otherwise known as the guy who was all brawn and no brains. That ain't you is it buddy?
No no! Like I said carrying an LMG was a pain in the butt and thankfully I complained enough when'ever I had to lift any of the heavy stuff that they never even thought of assigning me that duty, haha Now on a more serious note I did carry an MG3 for about 5 km (ca. 2.8 miles) once, and that over some pretty rough terrain. The MG3 weighes about 11 kg (24.5 lbs), and that was pretty tough as far as I can remember. (Remember that I was carrying about 25 kg of gear on top of this)
