The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - February 9, 2010




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Weapons of the World Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: stg44 vs M1 Carbine
brav    12/21/2005 10:07:41 AM
wondering which one is better,stg44 is FIRST assault rifle in the world but it probably had some important drawbacks altough it was both accurate and could fire full auto.m1 carbine has a nice rate of fire too as far as i know.which one do you think is better and say why?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
flamingknives    RE:stg44 vs M1 Carbine   12/21/2005 10:20:57 AM
M1 Carbine is a single-shot only weapon. The M2 carbine, which is nearly the same, has full-auto but wasn't prevalent in WW2. The StG has a more powerful cartridge and, IIRC, a larger magazine. But then it was a frontline combat weapon and the M1 carbine wasn't. The Carbine was intended as a sidearm for officers and support weapon crews. Which begs the question, better for what? Frontline service and the StG is better - more range and harder hitting ammunition - but if your main job is lugging mortar bits about, then the fact that the M1 weighs half as much might start to be important.
 
Quote    Reply

brav    RE:stg44 vs M1 Carbine   12/21/2005 12:37:42 PM
as i know many units used m1 carbines even part of the rangers deploying on omaha beach used em.as i know it was used cos there wasnt that noise when mag gets empty so enemies wont know when your reloading and i think that you could put in another mag before emptying the first what wasnt the case with m1 garand
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:stg44 vs M1 Carbine   12/21/2005 4:13:19 PM
>>as i know many units used m1 carbines even part of the rangers deploying on omaha beach used em.as i know it was used cos there wasnt that noise when mag gets empty so enemies wont know when your reloading and i think that you could put in another mag before emptying the first what wasnt the case with m1 garand << I'm pretty sure the historical record does not show the Rangers setting aside their M1 Garands for M1 carbines, and that their use of each weapon pretty much resembled that of the US Army as a whole at the time. It was certainly not used because of the M1 Garand's ejection system for expended clips or lack of easy topping off of magazines (which can be done, details of various WW2 first person shooter computer games aside), but as a personal defense weapon for Rangers who did not need a full powered rifle, same as the Army. Certainly, rangers with M1 Garands are depicted in CMH's Special Operations in World War Two link as seen at the links below: link link link link
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:stg44 vs M1 Carbine   12/21/2005 5:03:29 PM
>>Frontline service and the StG is better - more range and harder hitting ammunition - but if your main job is lugging mortar bits about, then the fact that the M1 weighs half as much might start to be important. << Superior hitting power, yes, range . . . probably not. The StG-44 and M1 Carbine both have claimed effective ranges of about 300 meters. The StG-44 has a better projectile, ballistically speaking (spitzer bullet at higher velocity), but a shorter barrel and shorter sight radius than the carbine. Overall, just looking at the statistics for the weapons, I would say the StG-44 is superior. But its superiority was undermined by the Nazi genius for self-sabotage -- people are mostly familiar with Hitler's initial refusal to allow development of the weapon, but they also had significant problems with producing and effectively distributing 7.92x33mm ammunition. So much so that there are apparently a good number of situations where troops reverted back to Mauser rifles and 9mm SMGs after expending their initial issue of ammunition and discovering that no more was available. Put into that context, the M1 Carbine (of which there was never a shortage of weapons, magazines, or ammunition) was probably a superior choice. Certainly the Germans seemed to like using captured carbines when they could get them . . .
 
Quote    Reply

bunkerdestroyer    RE:stg44 vs M1 Carbine   12/21/2005 8:09:59 PM
If anyone talks about range, the sgt-44 was specifically designed after analysis of firefights to date, to operate at 300m and under, the ranges that 95% of all firefights occure. But I wouldnt want to stand at the other end at 500m and chance it......
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:stg44 vs M1 Carbine   12/21/2005 8:26:11 PM
It would probably be about like being on the receiving end of AK fire at 500 meters -- the two weapons have a similar barrel length and sight radius. The two rounds are pretty close in performance as well, though I suspect that the advantage would marginally go to the 7.62x39mm round. The StG-44 might be built to tighter tolerances . . . but might not as well, depending on how late in the war it was built. Speaking of being on the receiving end of StG-44 fire, a number of them have been captured in Iraq. Apparently hand me downs from the Soviets to the Syrians and on to the Iraqi insurgents.
 
Quote    Reply

eon    RE:stg44 in Iraq-Horsesoldier from eon   12/22/2005 9:46:12 AM
I've seen some photos of captured Stg44s taken over there, and I was wondering- are these weapons still in 7.92x33mm, or have they been modified to 7.62x39mm? (The bore spec is the same, only the chamber profile is different, as the 7.62 M43 round is a .323in bore, and not a "true" 7.62mm). I suspect the point of origin of the Stgs was probably either (the former) GDR or possibly captured Wehrmacht supplies from the Ostfront courtesy of one or more of the Russian republics. Do you have any (non-classified) data on the sourcing? Thanks, and cheers. eon
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:stg44 in Iraq-Horsesoldier from eon   12/22/2005 10:45:49 AM
I believe the weapons being captured in Iraq are still in 7.92 Kurz. I'm not sure a conversion to 7.62x39mm would be especially practical -- with the longer overall length of the 7.62 round I suspect you would have to make some significant modifications to the magazine well and lower receiver and such as well as whatever had to be done to the bolt, chamber, etc. As for the source of the weapons, the story I heard was that the weapons were Syrian in origin, having been provided to them by the Soviets years ago (and then locked up in a warehouse, I suppose, once the Syrians got sufficient AKs to make them redundant). Googling "Irag StG-44" however, I rapidly hit a thread on some website where a guy was talking about playing around on the range with an StG-44 found in one of Saddam's palaces (sadly, links from there to pictures were dead . . .), so East Germany directly to the Iraqi regime may be another source or the true source of the weapons being captured.
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    RE:stg44 vs M1 Carbine   12/22/2005 11:26:38 AM
The M1 was in .300 Winchester....not a very powerful round but it did give officers and support troops a longer reach than a sidearm would give them. As for Rangers at Omaha....the standard Ranger weapon was still the M1 rifle and the M1 or M3 .45 Cal Thompson submachine gun as well as the M1918 BAR. There was a collapsible stock M1 Carbine which was issued to US airborne units for Normandy, but these were used by RTOs, mortar men, etc.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:stg44 vs M1 Carbine   12/22/2005 11:51:17 AM
>>The M1 was in .300 Winchester....not a very powerful round but it did give officers and support troops a longer reach than a sidearm would give them.<< Or a submachinegun. The carbine was really a pretty good idea, an almost-assault rifle in final form, but executed hastily which perhaps can excuse its shortcomings. Had they used a spitzer bullet loaded to the same pressure levels used in 30-06 ammunition performance would have been pretty close to that of the StG-44 or modern assault rifles (or so the authors of Cartridges of the World suggest). Even with its limitations, the last time an M1/2 carbine was fired in anger by American forces was sometime in the 1960s. One of those cases when good enough was the enemy of perfect, I suppose.
 
Quote    Reply

WinsettZ    RE:stg44 vs M1 Carbine   12/24/2005 11:30:01 PM
Didn't they give the Montagnards M1 carbines? Most likely the Viet Cong used them against Colonial French as well.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:stg44 vs M1 Carbine   12/24/2005 11:32:43 PM
"There was a collapsible stock M1 Carbine which was issued to US airborne units for Normandy, but these were used by RTOs, mortar men, etc." Odd. I always thought the carbine was the primary weapon of the US paratroops. Too tired to wals across the room & look it up.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:stg44 vs M1 Carbine   12/25/2005 12:00:16 AM
>>Didn't they give the Montagnards M1 carbines? Most likely the Viet Cong used them against Colonial French as well. << M1 carbines were, apparently, quite popular with both ARVN and VC during the early days of the war, until AK and M16s started replacing then and such. In Bing West's "The Village" he mentions how most of the firefights between the CAP platoon and the local force VC were basically carbine duels (though the American members of the CAP eventually got M16s with experimental M203s or some similar sort of 40mm grenade launcher).
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:stg44 vs M1 Carbine   12/25/2005 12:16:32 AM
>>"There was a collapsible stock M1 Carbine which was issued to US airborne units for Normandy, but these were used by RTOs, mortar men, etc." Odd. I always thought the carbine was the primary weapon of the US paratroops. Too tired to wals across the room & look it up. << AlbanyRifles is correct -- US Airborne troops in WW2 used the M1 carbine in basically the same way the rest of the army did, as a PDW sort of weapon for crew served weapons teams, officers, and technician types. The M1 Garand was their primary infantry weapon. The only weapon whose use they were non-standard with was the BAR, which they were not authorized until very late in 1944 because it was very difficult to jump with. Of course, actual weapons carried could vary a good deal as individuals seem to have had a relatively easy acquiring whatever they wanted to carry compared to the modern military.
 
Quote    Reply

ssfeldjager    RE:stg44 vs M1 Carbine   12/26/2005 6:52:10 PM
>>Speaking of being on the receiving end of StG-44 fire, a number of them have been captured in Iraq. Apparently hand me downs from the Soviets to the Syrians and on to the Iraqi insurgents.<< Source of your information? Photos?
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2010StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy