Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Parsifal, I can certainly understand where you are coming from and I too have never shot anyone with either my Browning Hi power in 9mm or my two 1911s in 45ACP. However, most of the "experts" seem to think that the 45ACP is the weapon of choice for a more sure man-stopper. As you know the 45ACP was the caliber the Thompson gun was chambered in and some of the Stens were chambered in 45 also as well as the grease gun. I qualified with the 1911 and having quite a lot of handgun shooting experience including with the 41 and 44 magnum, I never found the 45 to be hard to handle. On paper, the 45 is superior to the 9mm and I understand that many of the special forces types in the Middle East are back to 1911 types in 45ACP. Strictly intuitive but I suspect that the Browning Hi Power would not be as reliable in the field as the 1911 but 13 in the mag is a lot more than 7 although a lot of the 1911 derivatives now have more mag cap.
But they were badly let down by their procurement machinery, which meant, of the big three (US, Brit and germany) they were relatively, the worst equipped forces for the most part.
Remarks about 9mm parabellum being more accurate and having the same effectiveness in combat as 45 ACP are not borne out by experience both in warfare and in law enforcement.
Please show me how the 8x57 JS is superior to the 3006.
So Germany had better gun designers than that fellow from Utah, name of Browning? Hmmmm!
Parsifal that just isn't true.
If you look at the amount of the MG-34, MG-42, MP-40, G-43 StG.44's produced you'll realize that the German soldier was often the BEST equipped in the world. Now this coupled with the better training (Atleast up till late 44) is the reason behind the fact that everytime the numbers were equal the Germans always came out on top, something the Allied commanders stressed very much needed be taken into consideration before D-day, and they did. Patton mentions this as-well.
Soren
You have not included the 98K in this reply, and this is the focus of my previous posts. I just disagree with you the 98K was superior to the equivalent allied weaponary, namely the Lee Enfield and the Garand. I am gooing to assume that you are conceding this point. If you have, then most of my job is done. The 98K production amounted to about 11000000 rifles, whilst MK43 and G-43 each accounted for about 300000 each, give or take. That means that the 98K was going to be encountered 95% of the time. And I have not included the disheartening and vast array of foreign castoffs that the wehrmacht was forced to rely on for a significant proportion of its forces. I know for example, that significant numbers of the Hungarian Mannlicher, the Czech version of the mauser, and the Austrian Steyrs, and mausers. The Germans were also forced to rely on some stocks of French weaponary, Bertiers in particular, which are sadly down the scale.
By way of example, the MK43 equipped the 1st 12th SS Divs and the Fuhrer Escort brigade during the 1944 Ardenne offensive. The remainder of the formations were equipped with a few G-43s and mostly with 98Ks. For the record there were over 28 "other " formations involved in this offensive, in one way or another
I have no problem with the quality of the MGs and SMGs that you mention, but your assertion about quantity is very brave, and incorrect I think. I dont have figures for the SMGs, nor is it relevant to this thread, but I do know tha quantities of MG 34s and 42s. The Germans produced about 200000 34s, and about 750000 42s
By comparison, the british and CW built over 400000 brens and Vickers Berthiers (a very similar, not well known companion of the Bren). The British Army, includng the Dominions never came anywhere near being one third the size of the German army....Britain, for example never fielded more than about twelve divisions in NW Europe in 1944. It is just denying the facts to try and assert that the scale of issue per formation is going to be superior to in the wehrmacht. The coast defence formations in Holland, for example, in 1944, relied on some Schwarlozes and Maxims dating from long before WWI as their principal automatic weapon inventory.
Your assertion that the germans were the best trained in the world is true for anything up to 1943, but highly debateable after 1944. Your assertion that the Germans always came out on top when numbers were equal is also just not correct. I can think of many examples where this is just not true. And the fact that the germans were mostly outnumbered was also a factor in the battle. For a number of reasons the Allies were able to concentrate their forces at critical points of the front, and thereby achieve a superiority of numbers, Sometimes they didnt even need to do that, they just had the numbers. Doesnt matter, its all part of the equation, the attritional battle that Germany found herself locked into after 1942.
Also remember that the German doctrine revovled around the machine gun, the rifle squads only acting as supports - directly the opposite of the Allied doctrine.
That is just not the case Soren. The heart of the firepower for the British squad was the Bren, the mortar, and to a lesser extent the PIAT. They relied on the SMG for close in fighting. Your assertion here is just not correct.
What the germans did do, was to combine the functions of Light and heavy MG into one piece of hardwar. Their MG 42s did the two jobs. This was an advantage
Btw, you mention a Mk43 in your post, I'm not sure what you were refering to here cause the Germans fielded no such weapon.
Mk43 stands for Maschinen Karabinier 43. Later models of the MK43 were renamed Sturmgewehr 44 (in English....Assault Rifle Model 1944). The design barely changed however.
As to the G-43, well I've held one quite a few times and its just as easily wielded as any other rifle, and its not that forward heavy really.
I am not conceding this point, but even if you are right, do you think the g-43 was greatly superior, or even equal to, the garand. It carries two more rounds in the magazine, thats about it from what i can see. i know this...I would rather 6000000 garands over 300000 G43s any day
The StG.44 is a very nice rifle to hold, and I bet also to shoot, atleast it is according to all who've fired it.
And this has what to do with procurement?????
As for the part about logistics, well we agree there. The Germans put out way too many different weapons and ammunition types really, and this cause some serious logistical problems.
Mk43 stands for Maschinen Karabinier 43. Later models of the MK43 were renamed Sturmgewehr 44 (in English....Assault Rifle Model 1944). The design barely changed however.
The 98K production amounted to about 11000000 rifles, whilst MK43 and G-43 each accounted for about 300000 each, give or take. That means that the 98K was going to be encountered 95% of the time.
I am not conceding this point, but even if you are right, do you think the g-43 was greatly superior, or even equal to, the garand. It carries two more rounds in the magazine, thats about it from what i can see. i know this...I would rather 6000000 garands over 300000 G43s any day
They may have similar amounts of energy brought to the target, but this is not a good indicator of killing power. Killing power is a function of work, not kinetic energy, and in the physics associated with work, the mass factor is much more important