PentexRX8 | 16 Dec 2014 9:07 p.m. PST |
Is it just stereotype that NCOs always had an SMG? For the Gebirgsjaeger, was there any sort of regulation or de facto sign of rank that required them to carry one? I am familiar with the reasons such as ease of portability and lighter weight. But is it plausible for a squad leader specifically to retain a rifle up in the mountains? |
Simo Hayha | 16 Dec 2014 10:01 p.m. PST |
The table of organization issues them SMGs The reason for giving NCOs smgs is that they should be doing more commanding than shooting. In practice they seem to have chosen what weapon they wanted. Especially experienced units. This is general information. I know nothing on gebirgsjaeger formations. |
Weasel | 16 Dec 2014 10:07 p.m. PST |
There's pictures of ones with rifles but SMG is the norm. |
ciaphas | 16 Dec 2014 11:02 p.m. PST |
My guess would be that the logic was they should be ordering comanding oberving as stated above, however I wouls assume that it would be upto the individual, similar to Dick Winters (Band of Brothers) retaining the garand. So I would go with what you feel is right, most would have the SMG but some could/would have the rifle. jon |
christot | 17 Dec 2014 4:06 a.m. PST |
Not so sure about them choosing other weapons to the extent that CW and US leaders did. They certainly did it, but in the allied armies it was actually semi-official practice for officers and NCOs to remove rank badges and carry rifles, as taught at the various battle schools/pamphlets, this was less common in The German forces who seem to be more obsessed by symbols of rank than allied troops were. Plenty of anecdotal evidence of Germans being amazed when surrendering to some scruffy individual who turns out to be an officer rather than the private they thought it was. Rarely hear of the reverse. |
Martin Rapier | 17 Dec 2014 4:19 a.m. PST |
As above, the gruppenfuhrers are supposed to be directing the actions of their men, not shooting at stuff unless absolutely necessary (like hordes of Russians 50m away). So they get SMGs. I did come across one photo of an officer who had covered up his shoulderboards and was marching carrying a rifle – but he still had his MP40 pouches on and had actually given his MP and map case to the unfortunate landser marching behind him! I would imagine there would be exceptions to any rule, but I certainly can't recall seeing any photos of GJ NCOs carrying rifles. Truppenfuhrers might, but they are only senior privates anyway (despite the 'corporals' stripes). |
Jemima Fawr | 17 Dec 2014 6:48 a.m. PST |
Gebirgsjaeger went to an even larger issue of SMGs (more SMGs than rifles) late in the war, in common with Volksgrenadiers (many of the SMGs presumably becoming StGs, again in common with Volksgrenadiers). |
Mserafin | 17 Dec 2014 9:25 a.m. PST |
For what it's worth, George MacDonald Fraser tells about being promoted to corporal and being given an SMG as befitting his new rank. He chucked it in a river and took up a rifle instead. So apparently there was some leeway in what NCOs carried, although whether it was officially sanctioned or not is another question. |
olicana | 17 Dec 2014 9:46 a.m. PST |
I fired one of those things at a range in Vegas some years ago (it was 'my stag' the day before I got married and I wanted to lose some angst by firing lots of guns, we can't do that kind of thing here in the UK and have to resort to strippergrams – guns are much more fun). It was the smoothest thing I've ever fired. Technically, isn't it a machine pistol? Its ROF is quite low, but it's absolutely controllable because of it – unlike the true SMGs I fired which sprayed around all over the place. Personally, I'd be happy to lose the rifle. |
Griefbringer | 17 Dec 2014 10:09 a.m. PST |
As above, the gruppenfuhrers are supposed to be directing the actions of their men, not shooting at stuff unless absolutely necessary (like hordes of Russians 50m away). So they get SMGs. Even then it is worth remembering that by doctrine, the core of firepower in German army on squad level was the MG34/42, with the riflemen playing a supporting role in firefights. |
Murvihill | 17 Dec 2014 10:41 a.m. PST |
I'd think the NCO's got the SMG because they were the most experienced and could use them to best effect. |
number4 | 17 Dec 2014 2:19 p.m. PST |
The feldwebels's smg was issued for personal defense (as was the American officer's M1 carbine)…in 1940 German platoon sgts were armed with a pistol only! |
Jo Jo the Idiot Circus Boy | 18 Dec 2014 3:33 p.m. PST |
>>>It was the smoothest thing I've ever fired. Technically, isn't it a machine pistol? Its ROF is quite low, but it's absolutely controllable because of it – unlike the true SMGs I fired which sprayed around all over the place. I've had a bunch of trigger time with the MP-40, and I concur. It's an absolute pleasure to shoot. The fairly heavy weight (for an SMG) and the low rate of fire means that it has very little felt recoil and is quite controllable. It's been my experience that an experienced shooter can put the entire contents of a magazine into a man sized target at about 20-25 yards in one long burst. Contrast that with, say, a PPSH-41, which I struggle to hit anything with on full auto. I would certainly prefer one over a Kar98k…at least up to about 100 yards or so. Martin |
Weasel | 20 Dec 2014 9:43 a.m. PST |
So the MP40 is what happens when someone looks at the design of sub machine guns and goes "yeah, this is interesting but what if you could hit the target?" :) |