"MP-44 in Combat" Topic

Of possible interest?

link

Amicalement
Armand

Good weapon but like the Me-262 and other German Wonder Weapons just another example of too little too late. Of interest only as "what might have been" nostalgia.

So much is made of the M1 Garand as a War Winner, I'm not sure ANY weapon you armed either side with would have mattered. Artillery was the big killer and logistics were the key to victory, not rifles.

You could have armed all the German Infsntry in Normandy with MP44 and the Americans with Springfields and aside from the morale impact Germany still surrenders in May 45.

I'm hard pressed to recall one battle where the soldiers' personal weapons decided the outcome!

Cheers!

Even with modern assault rifles the firepower of the squad is with its machine guns and supporting mortars. We were taught that the rifleman really was more important as an ammo bearer.

I was talking with NCO's 30 years ago who felt that the infantryman's rifle was about as relevant as the officer's sidearm. (Mind you at the time we weren't clearing middle eastern BUA's block by block.)

Lee494's largely right: Germany focused on tactical stuff but not war-winning stuff, for which we should all be grateful. But miniature wargamers have a distorted view, since we only do the tactical stuff. (Put on a game at Historicon in which the players build bridges and repair roads and railroads to get a battalion of Tigers to the front, and see how many takers you get. Better still, a game in which they raise factory output.)

Good weapon but like the Me-262 and other German Wonder Weapons just another example of too little too late. Of interest only as "what might have been" nostalgia.

I dunno, the first trials guns (designated MKb42, Machine Carbine of 1942) were deployed in Stalingrad and had significant advantages over the Soviet submachine guns.

Had the Germans been smarter about rifle (the 7.92x33 just doesn't have the oomph to launch rifle grenades, and it took far too long to recognize that) and squad setup, it could have had a much greater impact. Most of the squad carries StG44s, one or two have Kar98Ks to launch rifle grenades (and reach out to targets that the StGs can't reach), and one or two MGs.

I think the real problem is that the Germans never got their industry honestly tooled for wartime production.

An amusing comparison would be the StG44 and the M1 Carbine (OK, the M2 carbine, but the M1 was supposed to be select-fire originally). Both were recognizing that most infantry firefights were not at 800m, but the Carbine was intended as what we'd call a Personal Defense Weapon today (like the FN P90), while the StG44 was intended as the basic infantry rifle.

I dunno, the first trials guns (designated MKb42, Machine Carbine of 1942) were deployed in Stalingrad and had significant advantages over the Soviet submachine guns.

Number of problems there. Fist there were no MKb42s in Stalingrad. 35 MKb42(H) were dropped into the Cholm pocket where a number of problems were found with the design. The MP/STG44 was a new design using information from the MKb42(H) trial but otherwise wasn't part of the MKb design.

True, the MP43 was a bridge design, had features of both the MKb42(H) and (W), the (W) design was largely terrible.

There were still MKb42s in combat, which informed the MP43 design. The MP43 was basically the MKb42(H) design with the closed bolt and hammer-firing mechanism of the (W). Firing from an open bolt like the 42(H) did works fine in SMGs when you don't care much about accuracy, but doesn't work in a semiauto rifle that is supposed to be about as accurate as a Kar98K!

From that point, the design changes between 43 and the 44 were minimal, basically just simplifications to speed up production.

If you see references to a StG45, though, that's a very different beast. The StG45 is functionally a CETME/H&K G3, roller-delayed blowback. There might have been 20-30 of those completed before the Germans surrendered.

And in any case, the real problem was that the Germans didn't drop into a full wartime production scheme like the US did until the very end of the war. If they had done so at the start of the war, they might have been able to not get destroyed in the war. Maybe.

Lee,

You might be missing one point about personal weapons.

Having a good personal weapon gives a soldier confidence, having a cr*p personal weapon removes some of that confidence.

Knowing that you have a 30 round magazine capacity gives you a slight edge over an opponent with just a 5 round mag capacity, in some situations.

If called up to conduct house clearance, who is more likely to engage better, a soldier armed with a fully automatic weapon with a 30 round mag or one with a bolt action rifle and just 5 rounds?

I agree that in the great scheme of things WW2 it counts for little, but on the ground and down in the dirt it does count for something.

DB

If called up to conduct house clearance, who is more likely to engage better, a soldier armed with a fully automatic weapon with a 30 round mag or one with a bolt action rifle and just 5 rounds?

The one with a nice supply of hand grenades.

Don,

Or a bazooka!

DB

While it's true that in the greater scheme of things artillery and other heavy gear did most of the heavy lifting, having a large capacity weapon with automatic fire capability is pretty handy for your average infantryman.

Germans who got them found that they were able to take an enemy position in one go, whereas they would have had to pause several times to reload with the Mauser.

Would it have a made a big difference overall ? Not really. Individual firearms only make a difference if you face enemies who are more than one generation behind, so troops with Martini-Henry rifles are going to feel the pain, but once artillery etc joins the game …

Even with modern assault rifles the firepower of the squad is with its machine guns and supporting mortars. We were taught that the rifleman really was more important as an ammo bearer.

Ah … yes … and no …

The TO&E on a Rifle Squad while I was an Inf Officer in 4 Inf Bns[1 Air Assault then 3 Mech(M113)], '79-'90 …

SL – M16

1st Fire Team :

1 M60 MG
1 M203 GL
1 M249 SAW
2 M16s

2d Fire Tm :

1 M47 MAW
1 M203 GL
1 M249 SAW
2 M16s

If Mech you had an M2 .50 cal on the track. Which was rarely dismounted. E.g. only in a Deliberate Defense, etc. [Too damned heavy to carry that very far, for very long!]

Hand Grenades, M72s LAWs, Demo/explosive charges, etc., issued as needed/if available.

By about '84 the Company 81mm Mortars were removed from the TOE. And the only mortars were at Bn, the four 4.2s.

As any SL, PL, Co Cdr, etc., knows your radio is the most "powerful weapon" in your inventory. As you can all in massive amounts of supporting fires[if available ?!]. E.g. Mortars, FA, CAS, gunships and Naval fire support[again if available].

In the initial stage of a small arms engagement, the unit leader (squad or platoon) was to gain immediate firepower superiority. You achieved this by applying aimed fire into the entire frontage of the enemy position (you don't actually need to visually detect the target). You want to achieve at least a 3:1 ratio in firepower superiority.

By gaining firepower superiority the enemy will be spending more time avoiding incoming fire and less time observing, firing, moving and communicating. We'll call that suppression.

The more hits, near misses (within 3 feet of the enemy), and noise the more the psychological and suppressive effect on the enemy. In the initial stage of a firefight firepower
(# guns firing, rate of fire, ammo) and leadership (coordination) is most important. Once firepower superiority is achieved the "experts" say that you need only about 1/3 of the original firepower to keep the enemy suppressed/pinned down. At this stage, you are using sustained fire which in WWII was about 4-6 rounds/minute and easy enough for a bolt action rifle. The unit leader is to make sure the unit is using the correct rate of fire and not wasting ammo and to increase the rate of fire if the enemy increases theirs.

So I guess in some circumstances a weapon like an MG32, Bren Gun or multiple BAR's may be able to achieve that initial firepower superiority without a semi-rifle. Also, a squad of 8 riflemen firing M1 Garands may also be able to put out the same amount of firepower but 8 rifleman firing bolt action rifles could not.

In the initial stage to achieve firepower superiority, automatic/semiautomatic weapons are important. Another factor is that the more a unit is shooting back the better their morale will be even if they can't visually detect a target. Automatic weapons are a morale booster.

Wolfhag

Yep !

Once you're inside the buildings, you want grenades.

But outside the buildings, the StG44 is superior to an SMG due to better range.

Yes, like all Assault Rifles the cartridge is bigger than the pistol cartridge. That SMGs use. Range and penetration is superior for the Assault Rifle …

Both advantages were almost academic to the riflemen of the time. Readers might find the experiments comparing effectiveness of british weapons interesting. I think John D Salt put the document together and it's hosted on Martin Rapier's site. Last last link on the page. Page 23. link

This is from a German document, Hinweise für die Führung des Grenadier-Regiments einer Volks-Grenadier-Division issued in September 1944. On the subject of the use of the MP44/Stg44 in the Sturm Platoons it says;

1. Grenadier Company.
The fire and shock effect has been significantly increased. This was achieved by:
a. Incorporating two MP (Shock Platoons). These Platoons are, due to the high firepower and immediacy of their weapons, particularly suitable for ‘shock troop like' warfare in the attack and in the defence (against breakthroughs and counterattack).

Their use in the defence is on focussed points, especially in such terrain where longer ranged weapons (light and heavy machine guns, mortars and infantry guns) cannot be used to full effect. The MP44 has about the same accuracy as the rifle up to about 400m. The value of this fully automatic weapon lies in its high rate of fire and single shot accuracy (22 to 28 rounds per minute), as well as the possibility of firing in burst of 2 to 3 rounds. In general, single shot fire is delivered. Shock fire (fully automatic) is to be used only in close combat (breakthrough, counterattack, night fighting). Fire discipline must be enforced as the short cartridge cannot be replaced by the normal rifle and machine gun ammunition. For further information see leaflet 25 a/16.
The MP Platoons have been left two light machine guns as reserve equipment, which are to be used, among other things, to enhance defensive firepower and for defence against aircraft.
b. The Sharpshooters (in three pairs) are combined with Company Headquarters.
c. The rifle grenadiers of the Platoon are combined. By taking advantage of the increased range the Platoon commander can better supplement the fire of the MP44 and light machine guns in attack and defence.

The translation was my own stab at the subject so may offend German language readers.

Gary

There is no doubt that grenades are needed in clearing buildings/rooms. The Marines relearned this lesson at Hue when they had to send for old WWII Pineapple Grenades because they were running out.

However, one problem with grenades is that they announce your presence and with a 2-4 second delay they can be avoided inside a room by ducking into an adjacent room or taking cover behind a prepared barricade (grenade sumps in prepared positions too).

A few years ago when my son was on a room clearing mission he threw two frags into a room and as the first man in the stick, he entered immediately after the second one detonated. As they entered two bad guys popped up from behind some hardcover and let loose with automatic AK fire from across the room, they immediately went down. He didn't know until 45 minutes later after the fight was over that an AK round bounced off the edge of his chest SAPI plate, fragmented and punctured his chest cavity and collapsed one of his lobes. He was wondering why he felt short of breath. Adrenaline is a wonderful thing, it can even keep you at 100% with a sucking chest wound.

In a different room clearing operation, they chased a bad guy into a room with no windows or an exit, tossed in a couple of frags and when they entered the guy had disappeared. While searching for him one of their guys took multiple hits from a different room and again when they entered there was no one to be found. My son carefully and silently entered the adjacent room "Pie Slicing" it and saw the bad guy behind some furniture attempting to put a fresh mag in his AK. He was not quick enough. A few seconds later and things would have ended differently. My son said they were only a few feet away from each other and after being shot their eyes locked and the bad guy while dying was still trying to load the mag into his AK as he stood over him – smiling. He said that guy deserved some real respect as a warrior and was glad he'd no longer be a problem.

A grenade would have announced his intention to enter and most likely not have done any damage. If not effective they can give you a false sense of security.

After a thorough search of the building, they found this one guy had prepped the rooms to defend it by knocking small holes in the wall between rooms big enough to crawl through and covered the hole with a rug or curtain. That's how he "disappeared". Each room had furniture stacked adjacent to the entrance to give cover from frags. This guy knew what he was doing.

Regarding automatic fire. He said aimed double taps were much more effective and he never fired his M4 on automatic in combat. His longest range successful engagement was at 750 yards with his M4 and ACOG sight but agrees it was a lucky shot. His closest was unarmed HTH and with a .45cal in a hotel room.

He said room clearing was like playing "Whack-a-Mole" because if you have a tight stick of 4-5 guys covering different areas as you advanced any bad guy popping up will be double tapped by at least one guy in the stick before he can shoot. You just have to watch out for the "murder holes" and IED's. If you use the right tactics like Pie Slicing and the proper way to hold and cover an alley or hallway you should have the initiative and be fine.

I'm sure there are others that have had similar experiences.

Wolfhag

Wolf +1

Both advantages were almost academic to the riflemen of the time.

I'm not sure what you mean ? An SMG fires a pistol round. Which generally has a short [effective]range [50 ft. or less really !] and limited penetration.

A Rifle fires a full long rifle cartridge. Which has a much long Range and much better penetration. It could and did kill a horse, in both World Wars. Albeit generally horse cav was more prevalent in WWI.

And even an "assault rifle" e.g. the MP44, fires a round the size closer to a carbine cartridge e.g. the US M1 Carbine. But is still superior in range and penetration vs. a pistol.

Not to mention ROF of semiautomatic e.g. US M1 Garand, over a bolt action. Which most were still using in WWII.

Albeit a pistol at [very] close range has the advantage of a higher ROF than a bolt action.

The vast majority of riflemen had an effective battle range well under 100 yards so longer effective range was academic.

Penetration only really comes into play when you're firing through something. Which is relatively rare.

But see the comparative tests in the document i linked.

The sten did better than you might expect in range ( at 200 yards with regular sights and 300 with improvised ones ). It did better than you might expect at penetration as well.

Yes, a pistol-caliber carbine or closed-bolt SMG can reach out to 100 yards or more if you know how to shoot it. And aren't worried about someone shooting you in the process.

Whether SMG or full-size MG, an open-bolt weapon is not capable of accurate single shots because you have the bolt (about half the weight of the weapon sometimes!) slamming forward when you pull the trigger. The MkB42H fired from an open bolt, and wasn't accurate enough for the standards.

Why fire from an open bolt, then? Zero chance of rounds cooking off from being held in a hot chamber, and the barrel cools faster by being open at both ends. Both useful things for full-auto weapons. As a side note, it's easier to design, too.

For a military weapon, having something with better range/accuracy/power than a pistol-caliber but with the full-auto capability of an SMG is really useful.

Full-power rifle rounds are simply too powerful for controlled full auto. In fact, the 'wimpy' 6.5 Arisaka and 6.5 Carcano are the absolute upper end of controllable full auto.

Yes Andy, I see your points now and generally agree.

Most firefights occur at less than 250ms. Depending on terrain. And in WWII most riflemen didn't fire as much as they should have. For a number of reasons. As pointed in LTC Grossman's "On Killing".

Penetration comes more into importance in MOUT/URBAN terrain.

Quite amazed at the Sten's 9mm performance, as you and the link points out. A 9mm pistol round is not really renowned for that. E.g. the IDF in found they had problems with their UZI's range vs. the AK-47's in the open terrain of the Sinai. Seen in the early Arab-Israeli Wars. But the cartridge size is clearly very different, between the two weapons. A pistol round vs. an Assault Rifle round … No real surprise there.

As we know generally a weapon is only as good as the trooper using it …