German rate of fire ideology

[Dragunov]

so, why does the MG42 fire so fast? well the Germans designed it like that because their way of thinking was that you only have a small 'window' to pump as many bullets into the enemy. therefore, firing faster enables you to do that. (MG34- 900rpm, MG42- 1200rpm, MG45/42m- 1800rpm)

now here's the question:
then why did the MP40, 41 and StG fire at a turtle-pace 500rpm? all the Russian stuff fires at 900rpm or so and they didnt have any problems.

cheers,
Dragunov

[5RANGLIAN]

It's the difference between 'point and shoot' and 'spray and pray'.

Low volume of fire MG's, like the Bren, are very accurate, so the theory is that you fire off 3-4 rounds per man, maybe knocking over a second one with a loose round. High volume of fire weapons, like the MG42, are area weapons, which create a 'beaten zone'. If you bolt them to a bench they would still not put all the bullets through the same hole, unlike the Bren (I believe it's to do with the ballistics of the barrel and rifling pitch, etc.).

High volume of fire weapons are difficult to control, which is why they're usually mounted on bipods or tripods. They're also heavy, expensive and use a lot of ammunition, which is why you can't give them to everyone. SMG's are inaccurate over long ranges, so most soldiers got a rifle, which gives accuracy over long (defensive) ranges, and is handy to hang a bayonet onto. Training soldiers to shoot accurately reduces the amount of ammunition which must be produced and carried (logistics are critical), but takes time.

A weapon like the PPSh 41 gives a high rate of fire, so is useful for offensive operations but not much good in static defence. It doesn't take much training to use as intended. It's very inaccurate, judging by the sight system, but if you're hosing close quarter 'targets' then that's not important. 900rpm is nice in this situation, as it's very good for morale and devastating at close quarters BUT you've got to wait for the bad guys to get within 100m, which some troops can't manage.

If you want to be able to hit a target at 400m in defence, but still have fulll auto for trench or urban combat, or for counter attacks, then you need an assault rifle or SturmGewehr. Firing one of these on full auto is also pretty inaccurate, and 4-500rpm is enough, otherwise the thing just hoses everywhere and most of the rounds go into the sky or the earth.

Anyway, that's my guess

[Carl Schwamberger]

The designed rates of fire also are influenced bu the mechanical operating system the designer uses. Some are capable of higher speeds. There are a large variety of technical trade off of detail.

I have seen two explinations for why the Reichswehr & Wehrmacht choose the MG34 & MG42 with their very high rates of fire. Perhaps some expert here can refer us to a source for t he correct explination?

1. The most modern & reliable MG available for the Reichsweher to adopt in the 1920s was a aircraft MG design. High rates of fire are essential for aircraft MG, hence the RoF for the MG34.

2. Reichwehr officers making the decision favored high RoF, thinking a 'fast burst' of 6-8 rounds would cause more enemy casualties than a slow burst of 3-6 rounds. They also thought the problem of 'breaking aim' would be negated by the regular use of a bipod, tripod, or vehicular mount. So,the high volume burst could be made before the point of aim would be lost.

Perhaps it was neither of these. In anycase it would be usefull to know of the documents that can definatively answer this question.

[phylo_roadking]

also - on the matter of rate of fire of SMGs and machine pistols versus assault weapons...

its been years since I read up on this, but I think gas-recoil SMGS and machine pistols have a different rate of fire generally than mechanical recoil operated weapons.

Also, when it comes to blowback-operated weapons, dont forget assault weapons fire a fullsize rifle cartridge - or did in those days before the general acceptance of 5.56mm. More gas to play with = faster cocking therefore faster cycle speed?

And don't forget therefore that almost all LMGS and heavier of the period used full rifle ammunition also.

Though as I said i'd stand to be corrected on this thing about faster cycle speed due to the more powerful cartridge..

[Dragunov]

for an LMG, you need a degree of inaccuracy so you get a 'cone' of fire. that was one argument about the bren, it was 'too accurate'.

heavy and expensive don't seem to fit the MG42 description. 10kilos is heavy, but all LMGs of the time were there.

actually, i've heard that the PPSh was more accurate than the MP40 or whatever. and the StG was very controlable in full-auto, since it was so heavy.

the germans actually put more powder into the MG ammo. i know so because i've seen G43 sites warning others to not use such ammo, or have their recievers explode.

more gas does usually mean higher cycle, but depends on system design

aaaaand, y'all are soo wrong on the SMG issue! the Finns perfected (almost) the SMG with the konepistooli 31 or Suomi M31. the Finns used it like an LMG and could hit Russkies at 100 m at the hip! check it out:

http://guns.connect.fi/gow/suomi1.html

thanks you two, but, maybe we should ask Christoph...

[5RANGLIAN]

That link is interesting, but all the stuff about hitting people at 100m from the hip was done by experienced gunners, not poorly-motivated, part-trained conscripts. Think about trying to turn your local mouth-breather into a combat infantryman, then think what weapon you want to give him if you've only got 14 days to train him. Take all the recoil force on your thumb? Interesting concept.

Be careful with assumptions; we all 'know' now that the Bren was too accurate, but the British Army managed to fight all the way from Normandy to Bremen with it, so it can't have been all bad. Just a different tactical doctrine, now outmoded and discredited. A bit like the SMG...

11.5 kg IS heavy, maybe not relatively, but certainly in absolute terms. Carry a 25lb log in your arms for 8 hours cross country, along with all your other hiking gear, and you'll see what I mean. Not everyone is up to it.

[Liam]

Well the British used the Bren or developments of it well into the eighties - a much appreciated weapon. And the German army still use the MG42 - although its rate of fire vs the ability to supply it with enough ammo has always struck me as a bit of a problem. Ah, logistics - they always get in the way...

[Dragunov]

hey! conscripts? most Finns were experianced hunters! did you see that quote? most casualtie accounts were deflated because no-one believed that 3 troops (they liked to use it like an LMG) could annihiliate 100+ troops in 40 minutes.

never said the bren sucked, that machine lived post-war. must have been good if the Brits had to 'stea'l it from the Czechs.

[Reb]

Dragunov

Remember that machine pistols were not well thought of initially - they were simply a light weapon to give an officer, nco, radio man etc a bit more personal defense than could be afforded by a pistol.

the conditions of modern war soon showed that men got a confidence boost from an smg and they began to proliferate. Shooting a pistol cartridge denied them any real hitting power. Much easier to control if they don't shoot too fast and keeps conscripts from shooting up all their ammo in a "mad minute".

Not much range either. We used to say of our Uzis, "good only for clearing crowded telephone booths."

Just as machine pistols were coming into their own the assault rifle appeared on the scene and rendered them redundent for anybody except the odd bodyguard or security man. They are fun to shoot but why carry a peashooter when you can have a real weapon?

cheers
Reb

[phylo_roadking]

The SMG also proved a lot more useful in certain conditions, thinking of jungle warfare particularly and also bad light conditions and streetfighting, where you were "hosing" at a half- or unseen enemy. It gave an individual the ability to "spray" an area in the same sense a an HMG could cover a marked out killing zone. Therefore they were PARTICULARLY liked by tank crews, rear echelon troops etc. as well, whos range time in training would have been at a minimum, and didnt want the burden of a rifle - same principle as giving them to number 2s in machinegun teams.

Also, as the war progressed, it was frequently faster to produce SMGs rather than battle rifles - which not only used turned metal parts, but seasoned and finished wood; SMGs could be churned out from stamped and forged parts - as could assault weapons later.. In fact, a lack of seasoned timber affected Australian production of Lee-Enfields in mid-war, when they were starting to move over to the carbine'd "jungle" version, and warping of the forestock in very humid and damp jungle conditions was a major problem; a bit like orthodontal work, the slow relentless pressure of a warping forestock also warped barrels!

[Dragunov]

We used to say of our Uzis, "good only for clearing crowded telephone booths."

you're in America and you have Uzis? why not MP5s?

and phylo, don't forget the massive recoil, and the sight distortion because of that. they had to zero it in after a few mags worth.

and the conscripts and ammo wasting point, the pah-pah-shah fired at 900rpm, don't forget.

[Reb]

Dragunov

I live in America - I fought in Africa.

cheers
Reb

[phylo_roadking]

I think you'll find that the majority of rear echelon troops, RASC drivers, REME fitters, and the like - if they ever got into combat....and there were times and places when it wasn't unknown....would be "pointing and squirting" and not necessarily with their eyes open! lol A short-range SMG firing unaimed does have more of a chance of randomnly hitting a target than the same time spent attempting one aimed rifle shot.

[Max Boost]

[quote="5RANGLIAN"]That link is interesting, but all the stuff about hitting people at 100m from the hip was done by experienced gunners, not poorly-motivated, part-trained conscripts. Think about trying to turn your local mouth-breather into a combat infantryman, then think what weapon you want to give him if you've only got 14 days to train him. Take all the recoil force on your thumb? Interesting concept.

Hi guys,

the term of "taking all the recoil force on your thumb" is a bit missleading. If all the recoil was to hit ones thumb the thumb would be quite sore in a pretty short time The same term is used on the finnish manuals, but the point is that by keeping your thumb behind the recoil spring cap, you get a higher grip on the weapon, your hand is closer to the barrel line so you can control the recoil better, the weapon is "more pointable". The recoil actually is not same kind of recoil you feel, say like in a .308 rifle, Suomi-kp more like shakes and tends to lift the barrel a bit. My personal view is that compared the relatively weak ammo (9 mm Para) and the pretty high weight of the weapon balance each other, the felt recoil comes from the heavy bolt hitting the back of the receiver. I had a change to shoot two "brand new" Suomi-kp's (made in the 50's and storaged till FA sold all of them in 2001), and I found it surprisingly easy to point and find the target by shooting short bursts. The original ammo differs from regular 9mm Para ammo for it's faster burning powder, which gave a bit more velocity, and most important, more energy to cycle the heavy bolt. Naturally, a human being has a curious nature, and I had to test (stupidly) the ammo on my CZ 75, and on that piece, the recoil was a lot stronger than with normal ammo, and muzzle flash was spectacular..do not try that at home.
In Winter War Finns had some 4000 Suomi SMG's and they were used as a fire support for a rifle group of 8 men. In the Finnish forrest enviroment, the 100 m effective range was enough, Finland has a pretty different landscape than for excample Russian steppe. When the range was not the problem, few guys with SMG's held the firepower of a bolt action Mosin-Nagant 7,62-equipped platoon.
The weakness of the Suomi SMG was that it was "too well" made, and by that means it was expensive and slow in production. Also the clearances were measured for maximal accuracy, so a bit of sand,dirt or ice could jam the weapon. (Kind of M-16 of the 30's ) Russian Ppsh lacked these weaknesses, being made of sheet metal, and with BIG clearances. Not that accurate but sprayed like hell in every weather. PPsh had smaller caliber with lighter bullet thought.

Yours, Max

[Dragunov]

sweet! more Finn stories. wish i could live there, so i could get me some supressors, and go full auto! sigh...

never knew that the suomi jammed, supposedly another drawback was that the 50 round coffin mag from the Swedes was easy to break and required a tool to load.

but think about it...
quick-change barrel
900rpm, 71 rounds/drum
super accurate...

anyhoo, any info on the original question and cool facts on the MOWING MACHINE OF TIKKAKOSKI are welcome!