Military Review

Rifles and their replacement. Features of the rearmament of the infantry of the main participants in World War II

280

Defenders of Smolensk with Mosin rifles and PPSh-41 submachine guns, July 1, 1941


By the beginning of World War II, the basis of small arms for the infantry of all participating countries were magazine rifles relative to the old models. At the same time, a search for new designs was carried out. weapons and the tactics of its use, which made it possible to increase the combat effectiveness of the infantry. In the future, this led to a serious change in the systems of infantry weapons of the main countries - with a reduction in the role of rifles and an increase in the importance of other weapons.

Soviet experience


At the end of the thirties, the main weapon of the Red Army was the Mosin rifle arr. 1891/30 and a unified carbine mod. 1938 Such a weapon, despite the recent modernization, had a number of shortcomings, and it was proposed to replace it in the foreseeable future. To this end, throughout the decade, work was carried out on the creation of new samples.

In 1936, the automatic rifle S.G. Simonov AVS-36. She had obvious advantages over the old "Three-Line", but was overly complicated and expensive, and also not reliable enough. Such weapons remained in production for several years, and during this time no more than 60-65 thousand rifles were produced. Obviously, this was not enough for a full-fledged rearmament of the army.

Rifles and their replacement. Features of the rearmament of the infantry of the main participants in World War II
Baltic sailors with PPD (left and center) and PPSh (right)

In 1938, the more successful self-loading rifle of F.V. Tokareva SVT-38. It was distinguished by greater simplicity and reliability, thanks to which it was produced until 1945. The Red Army received more than 1,6 million SVT-38 and was actively used as a weapon for infantry, snipers, etc. However, the Tokarev rifle was more complicated and more expensive than the Mosin rifle, which again did not allow for a complete rearmament.

In parallel, there was a development of submachine guns. In 1941, the new PPSh-41 went into production, and later it was supplemented with the PPS-42/43 product. These samples combined high fire performance and ease of production, which led to the well-known consequences. During the war years, approx. 6 million PPSh and about 500 thousand PPS. The massive release of such weapons made it possible to gradually re-equip most of the Red Army soldiers, increasing the firepower of the infantry units.

However, even the massive PPSh and PPSh could not oust the pre-war "Trilinear". Moreover, during the war, it underwent modernization - in 1944 a new version of the carbine appeared. Rifle production mod. 1891/30 turned off only in 1945, and carbines were produced until the end of the decade.


British scouts in Italy, 1944. A soldier holding a Lee-Enfield rifle. Photo Imperial War Museum

The Soviet army finally abandoned the Mosin rifle with the advent of a new complex of weapons, which included a Simonov carbine and a Kalashnikov assault rifle. Then these samples were supplanted by the submachine guns of the war.

British rearmament


In 1895, Great Britain mastered the production of the new Lee-Enfield magazine rifle, and in the following decades, this weapon underwent several upgrades. After the outbreak of World War II, new modifications appeared - the simplified rifle Rifle, No.4 Mk I and the landing rifle Rifle, No.5 Mk I. Over the entire production period, until the fifties, more than 17 million Lee-Enfield rifles of all modifications were manufactured ...

Before the war, the British army showed no real interest in self-loading rifles, and work on submachine guns began only in 1940. The Lanchester, a copy of the German MP-28, was the first example of this kind. Approx. 100 thousand of such products. In 1941, STEN entered service with an extremely simple design. Thanks to this, before the end of the war, they managed to release approx. 4 million submachine guns.

The mass production of submachine guns of a number of modifications made it possible to re-equip a significant part of the combatant army's combat units. At the same time, Lee-Enfield rifles remained of great importance and continued to be massively used. The transition to the modern self-loading rifle L1A1 began only in 1957.


A soldier with a submachine gun STEN Mk II, February 1945 Photo Imperial War Museum

US development


Since the beginning of the XX century. The main weapon of the US Army was the Springfield M1903 rifle. Despite the emergence of newer and more advanced models, it remained in the series until 1949. By this time, more than 3 million rifles were produced, and during the Second World War, production was significantly increased.

Back in the late twenties, the American army became interested in self-loading and automatic systems. According to the results of the competition, the M1936 Garand self-loading rifle was adopted in 1. By the beginning of the war, this rifle was able to press the old M1903, although there was no talk of a complete replacement yet. Almost until the end of World War II, the M1 and M1903 were used in parallel, but the number of Garads grew steadily and during the war equaled the number of Springfield and then surpassed it.

In 1938, the US Army entered the J. Thompson submachine gun, which was later developed. Until the end of the war, they managed to produce more than 1,2 million of these products in several modifications. Then a simpler and cheaper M3 appeared, manufactured in more than 600 thousand pieces.


US soldiers repairing a fence, France, July 25, 1944. Both fighters are armed with M1 Carbines. The soldier in the foreground also carries a Springfield M1903 rifle. Photo by NARA

Since 1941, the M1 Carbine and its modifications have been produced, designed to replace rifles in some roles. This weapon turned out to be quite successful, simple and cheap. Until the end of the war, more than 6,2 million units were delivered to the army.

By the early forties, the Springfield M1903 rifle had lost its status as the main and most massive infantry weapon. In the future, several samples fought for this title at once, produced in a large series. It is curious that Springfield, unlike some of its replacements, is still in service with the United States - although it is used in extremely limited niches.

German approach


Since the end of the XIX century. the German army used the Gewehr 98 rifle and its various modifications. Another modernization was carried out in the mid-thirties, resulting in the Karabiner 98 Kurz (Kar 98k) carbine. By the beginning of World War II, they managed to produce a large number of such products and make them the most massive infantry weapon. The production of carbines continued until 1945; was made approx. 14,6 million units

In Germany, the original structure of the rifle squad was used. Its center was a machine gun, and other soldiers were supposed to protect the machine gunner and ensure his effective work. In this role, the shooters could use a magazine carbine and, as it was believed, did not need another weapon.


American soldier with M1 Garand rifle. US Army Photos

However, already in 1941, the Gewehr 41 self-loading rifle was adopted, which made it possible to increase the rate of fire and firepower. No more than 145 thousand of these rifles were produced, after which the more advanced Gewehr 43, made with the borrowing of Soviet ideas, went into the series. The number of such weapons exceeded 400 thousand pieces.

Several types of submachine guns were produced in a relatively large series. The most popular and famous was the MP-38/40, produced in an amount of at least 1,1 million units. However, such a weapon was not considered for a long time as a replacement for the Kar 98k. It was used as a means of self-defense for officers, crews of military vehicles, etc.

In 1942, the German army received a few MKb 42 (H) carbines, and in 1943, supplies of more advanced MP 43/44 began, later becoming StG 44. Such weapons, unlike submachine guns, were considered as a replacement for magazine carbines and self-loading rifles.


German sniper with Kar 98k, June 1942. Photo by the German Bundesarchive

A specific feature of the German infantry weapons system was the presence of many samples, often performing the same functions. This did not allow focusing efforts on specific projects - and did not allow new samples to reach the millionth series. As a result, none of the subsequent developments in terms of numbers caught up with the Kar 98k carbines.

After the war, numerous carbines were used by both Germany, and were also actively transferred to other countries. They continued to be used until the 50-60s. and was removed from service only in connection with the emergence of newer models, Soviet and NATO models.

Similarities and differences


All the main participants in World War II started the war with a large number of relatively old magazine rifles and carbines in their arsenals. As the war continued, the number and role of such weapons was reduced due to the emergence of new models - but it was never possible to completely decommission it. At the same time, several curious trends can be noted that distinguished the approaches of different countries.


"Sturmgever" in battle. Photo of the Bundesarchive of the Federal Republic of Germany

The most progressive in this respect are the USSR and the USA. Even at the turn of the 20-30s. these countries began to look for ways to further develop infantry weapons and succeeded in this. By the beginning of the war, both countries had automatic infantry weapons of several classes and types. Subsequently, the production of self-loading and automatic systems continued, having a positive effect on the firepower and overall success of the armies. The USA and the USSR ended the war with the main weapons in the form of submachine guns and self-loading rifles / carbines.

The German military for a long time relied on machine guns and assigned other weapons a secondary role. However, already in 1940-41. they changed their minds and started developing new designs. For a number of objective reasons, the real results of such programs were obtained only in 1943-44, and this no longer allowed them to use their full potential. At the same time, Kar 98k carbines still retained an important place in the army.

At the very least, the British position looks ambiguous. Until 1940, the British army relied only on rifles and light machine guns, almost not paying attention to self-loading and automatic models. We had to make up for lost time already during the war and in conditions of a shortage of resources. However, all the problems were successfully dealt with, as evidenced by the production success of the STEN product.

The Second World War quickly showed that magazine rifles with manual reloading can no longer be the main weapon of the modern infantryman. More advanced systems such as submachine guns are needed to ensure adequate combat capability. It is easy to see that the countries that were the first to understand this and take into account when developing their weapons, in the end became the winners.
Author:
280 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 3 May 2021 05: 12
    +1
    Rifles - submachine guns - machine guns - ???
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 3 May 2021 14: 12
      -4
      "Rifles - submachine guns - machine guns - ???" ///
      ----
      Rifles - Submachine Guns - Submachine Guns - Automatic Assault Rifles.
      1. Uncle lee
        Uncle lee 3 May 2021 14: 58
        +15
        Quote: voyaka uh
        automatic assault rifles.

        Your automatic rifles are our automatic rifles ... What next?
    2. The comment was deleted.
  2. svp67
    svp67 3 May 2021 05: 25
    -17%
    As always in other weapons:
    - USSR - proven, reliable, cheap, capable of being produced by MASSOVO, but not always effective
    - the United States, pre-war to a certain degree of perfection, relatively reliable, not cheap, massively produced by the American high-tech industry,
    - England, traditionally not that, not that ...
    - Germany - tradition plus the strongest innovations designed to compensate for a relatively small output, not cheap and not always reliable
    1. mat-vey
      mat-vey 3 May 2021 05: 33
      +26
      Quote: svp67
      but not always effective

      Are PPSh, PPS and SVT not effective?
      1. svp67
        svp67 3 May 2021 05: 35
        -13%
        Quote: mat-vey
        Are PPSh, PPS and SVT not effective?

        Yes. The former had a short firing range, the latter had a high price and low reliability for a Soviet infantryman, and she had problems with firing accuracy.
        1. mat-vey
          mat-vey 3 May 2021 05: 39
          +26
          Quote: svp67
          Yes. The first have a short firing range

          Even higher (PCA) than the average PC during the war.
          Quote: svp67
          the latter has a high price and low reliability for a Soviet infantryman

          Either the Germans took it into service ...
          PYSY - PPSh and PPS by the way the same ..
          1. svp67
            svp67 3 May 2021 06: 00
            -22%
            Quote: mat-vey
            Even higher (PCA) than the average PC during the war.

            Can you prove it? All PPs have a maximum sighting range of 400 meters, and so at the level of 200 meters.
            Yes, and the Finnish "Suomi" this figure was higher than that of the PPSh
            Quote: mat-vey
            Either the Germans took it into service ...
            PYSY - PPSh and PPS by the way the same ..

            And they all accepted, because of their "poverty", "stinginess" and "thrift ..."
            1. mat-vey
              mat-vey 3 May 2021 06: 06
              +17
              Quote: svp67
              All SMGs have a maximum sighting range of 400 meters

              And about the effective range, you need to "prove" the same?
              Quote: svp67
              And they all accepted, because of their "poverty" ...

              Well, because of poverty, StG, FAU and all sorts of Tigers did ... And they even began to copy SVT in their own manner ..
              1. svp67
                svp67 3 May 2021 06: 09
                -10%
                Quote: mat-vey
                And about the effective range, you need to "prove" the same?

                Can you? You are welcome
                Quote: mat-vey
                Well, because of poverty, StG, FAU and all sorts of Tigers did ... And they even began to copy SVT in their own manner ..

                But they did not shy away from taking on EVERYTHING that they came across in the captured arsenals of the defeated countries and armies. They and STEN copied, not out of a good life, but out of necessity.
                1. mat-vey
                  mat-vey 3 May 2021 06: 15
                  +13
                  Quote: svp67
                  But they also did not shy away from taking on EVERYTHING

                  Trophies were used by everyone - not all were officially adopted.
                  Real world-class professionals worked at GAU, and they would not have allowed adopting "not always effective" ..
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 3 May 2021 06: 22
                    -11%
                    Quote: mat-vey
                    Real world-class professionals worked at GAU, and they would not have allowed adopting "not always effective" ..

                    Yeah ... Yes, but at some point the level of Soviet industry drastically slowed down the capabilities of the designers, and they themselves were not up to par. This had a very bad effect on the provision of the Red Army with truly modern weapons. This was especially sad in the history of machine guns.
                    1. mat-vey
                      mat-vey 3 May 2021 06: 29
                      +12
                      Quote: svp67
                      Yeah ... Yes, but at some point the level of Soviet industry sharply slowed down the capabilities of designers

                      And they (the designers) began to develop new PPs ... and even new complexes for a completely new cartridge ... And even after the war, they produced PPSh ...
                      Quote: svp67
                      This was especially sad in the story with machine guns.

                      Have you decided to change the subject?
                      1. svp67
                        svp67 3 May 2021 06: 31
                        -4
                        Quote: mat-vey
                        And they (the designers) began to develop new PPs ... and even new complexes for a completely new cartridge ... And even after the war, they produced PPSh ...

                        What kind of cartridge is it? Yes, they did, but mostly outside the borders of the USSR.
                        Quote: mat-vey
                        Have you decided to change the subject?

                        No, he just pointed out the most "sore point" in equipping the Red Army with small arms.
                      2. mat-vey
                        mat-vey 3 May 2021 06: 37
                        +8
                        Quote: svp67
                        What kind of cartridge is it?

                        7,62X41 (39) model 1943 ...
                        Quote: svp67
                        No, he just pointed out the most "sore point" in equipping the Red Army with small arms.

                        Was it untested, ineffective, or unreliable, and how did this affect the replacement of rifles?
                      3. svp67
                        svp67 3 May 2021 06: 42
                        -1
                        Quote: mat-vey
                        7,62X41 (39) of the 1943 model.

                        But this is actually a post-war history.
                        Quote: mat-vey
                        Was it untested, ineffective, or unreliable?

                        Proven, reliable, but LOW effective. Our DP and Maxims were losing on the battlefield to the German MG, and the diesel fuel did not provide the required duration of fire.
                      4. mat-vey
                        mat-vey 3 May 2021 06: 48
                        +5
                        Quote: svp67
                        But this is actually a post-war history.

                        Is it 1943 after the war? Or are there still opportunities? Or are you talking about a competition for a new PC in 1942?
                        Quote: svp67
                        Our DP and Maxims were losing on the battlefield to the German MG, and the diesel fuel did not provide the required duration of fire.

                        And how did this affect the rifles and their replacement? GAU did not want to accept new untested machine guns? For example, Goryunov?
                        PYSY - DShK is still in the ranks, well, that's it - a flood ..
                      5. svp67
                        svp67 3 May 2021 07: 32
                        +6
                        Quote: mat-vey
                        Is it 1943 after the war?

                        Well, if you are a connoisseur of Soviet weapons, you should know when this cartridge appeared in marketable quantities, at least for testing, not to mention deliveries to the troops.
                        Quote: mat-vey
                        And how did this affect rifles and their replacement?

                        In the saddest way. The Germans, at the beginning of the war, built their tactics on the basis of the use of a machine gun, and in our country they were forced to equip the infantry with PP, so that at least at close distances it was possible to create the necessary density of fire ...
                        Quote: mat-vey
                        For example Goryunov?

                        Well, you have forgotten about the DS-39. And the SG-43 was not bad, but also not without flaws. Although this was typical of all types of weapons. And most importantly, he could not replace Maxim in production
                        Quote: mat-vey
                        PYSY - DShK is still in the ranks, well, that's it - a flood ..

                        This machine gun has gone a hard way from a "semi-finished" DK to a really good DShK ... For a long time Degtyarem could not design a reliable tape drive and cartridge feed system for him, thanks for thinking of connecting Shpagin. But again, the capabilities of the USSR industry did not allow to establish its mass production, you must agree 4018 pieces for the whole war, this is not very much, although there was a need for it
                      6. Kot_Kuzya
                        Kot_Kuzya 3 May 2021 08: 25
                        +14
                        ... For a long time, Degtyarem could not design for him a reliable system of tape transport and cartridge feeding, thanks for the thought of connecting Shpagin.

                        It was just that Degtyarev was not given a tape feed requirement in the assignment during the development of the recreation center. In 1929, when a competition was announced for the creation of the KKP, it was assumed that it would be anti-tank, and a 30-round magazine was enough to fight tanks. Then, in 1931, the 37-mm 1-K cannon was adopted, and in 1932 an even more powerful forty-five was adopted. And the anti-tank DC was simply not needed. It was not even considered as an anti-aircraft machine gun, since Tukhachevsky then raved about the idea of ​​a universal divisional gun capable of equally effectively fighting manpower, armored vehicles, and enemy aircraft. As a result, after several dozen of the DK produced, in 1935 the production of DK machine guns stopped altogether. According to the "genius" Tukhachevsky, quad Maximov and universal divisions were quite enough to protect the troops from enemy aircraft. He did not want to hear about anti-aircraft KKP and small-caliber artillery machine guns. And only after the displacement of Tukhachevsky from the post of Deputy People's Commissar of Defense, an order was received for the alteration of the recreation center for tape feeding.
                        ... But again, the capabilities of the USSR industry did not allow to establish its mass production, you must agree 4018 pieces for the whole war, this is not very much, although there was a need for it
                        4018 DShK were handed over and released for the fleet, and so during the Second World War they made about 9 thousand DShK, which of course is also very small.
                      7. svp67
                        svp67 3 May 2021 08: 38
                        0
                        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                        It was just that Degtyarev was not given a tape feed requirement in the assignment during the development of the recreation center.

                        Do not make me laugh. it was just that Degtyarev had this unit on all structures for a long time unsuccessful, which is why it was not possible to transfer it to the DP tape and was, in particular, taken out of production by DS
                        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                        4018 DShK were handed over and released for the fleet, and so during the Second World War they made about 9 thousand DShK, which of course is also very small.

                        Well yes
                        1941 II semester 1 400
                        1942 7 400
                        1943 14 400
                        1944 14 800
                        1945 I half a year 7 300
                        Total 45 300 pieces ... but this is really not enough
                      8. Kot_Kuzya
                        Kot_Kuzya 3 May 2021 09: 43
                        +9
                        ... Do not make me laugh. it was just that Degtyarev had this unit on all structures for a long time unsuccessful, which is why it was not possible to transfer it to the DP tape and was, in particular, taken out of production by DS

                        The production of spring steel for metal bands in the 20s was considered too expensive, they decided to be content with cloth steel for heavy machine guns, therefore, in the terms of reference for a light machine gun for the Red Army, belt feed was not considered, it was assumed that store food was enough for the handbrake. That is why both the DP and the DC had store-bought food. In general, before the advent of the MG-34, the Soviet DP was the best handbrake, all over the world handbrakes used only store food, and this was considered normal for the handbrake.
                      9. svp67
                        svp67 3 May 2021 10: 08
                        +6
                        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                        therefore, in the terms of reference for a light machine gun for the Red Army, belt feed was not considered,

                        You are wrong. Before the war, considerable attention was paid to the projects of transferring a regular DP / DT to tape feed by installing a tape receiver. Moreover, even here for quite a long time it seemed that it was almost, almost ... And cheerful reports were sent “upward”, as well as to neighboring departments - but somehow everything did not work out and the next sample was leaving for the next revision.
                        There were many different projects, the most advanced of them for 1941 was the GVG light machine gun - Goryunov-Voronkov-Goryunov, but due to the military's requirement that it be designed for double power, both from a standard DP disk and from a cloth tape "Maxim", its reliability turned out to be unsatisfactory.
                        Experienced machine gun Goryunov-Voronkov-Goryunov (GVG) on rollers with cloth tape

                        By the way, it was this machine gun that later turned into the SG-43
                      10. mat-vey
                        mat-vey 3 May 2021 10: 26
                        +1
                        That is why it did not work out that it did not work out - reliably, technologically, efficiently ...
                      11. Kot_Kuzya
                        Kot_Kuzya 3 May 2021 10: 35
                        +12
                        ... Before the war, considerable attention was paid to the projects of transferring the standard DP / DT to tape feed by installing a tape receiver

                        Well, this is before the war, when the red commanders were already well acquainted with MG-34. And the DP was adopted in 1927, the terms of reference for the new handbrake were issued even earlier.
                        Anyway, our paints' requirements were strange and mutually exclusive. Take, for example, the epic with easel machine guns, when paints wanted a machine gun weighing no more than 40 kg, but at the same time with the same stability and accuracy of the machine gun as in the 70-kg Maxim. Even a person who is not seven spans in the forehead should have understood that this is impossible, because the laws of physics cannot be changed, and the recoil when firing on a 40 kg machine gun will have a much stronger effect than a 70 kg machine gun.
                        And in general, in my opinion, the tactics of the battle at the Kraskomovs were fundamentally different from the tactics of the Germans, and close to the tactics of the Americans. If the Germans relied on a light machine gun in the infantry squad, capable of conducting intense fire almost at the easel level, and the soldiers in the squad were armed with magazine rifles and operated almost exclusively under the cover of machine gun fire, then in the Soviet and American armies they made a bet on the armament of each soldier in the infantry squad with a self-loading rifle, and the handbrake in the squad played rather a supporting role. The Americans' handbrake was frankly poor, against the background of the BAR, the Soviet DP looked like a weapon at all. And it is likely that it is precisely thanks to this view in the Red Army that the handbrakes were not given enough attention, and until the war they were not particularly engaged in handbrake, and the whole war the Red Army soldiers had to fight the DP, which were significantly inferior to the MG-34 and MG-42 in their combat efficiency.
                    2. mat-vey
                      mat-vey 3 May 2021 10: 17
                      +6
                      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                      In general, before the appearance of MG-34,

                      Well, it was essentially a new class of machine guns - a single one.
                    3. Nikolaevich I
                      Nikolaevich I 3 May 2021 17: 12
                      +6
                      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                      decided to be content with cloth for heavy machine guns, therefore, in the terms of reference for a light machine gun for the Red Army, tape power was not considered, it was assumed that store food was enough for the handbrake

                      With the DP-27 machine gun in the 30s, they mocked everyone! All the "peep of fashion" in machine gun loading of that time were tested on DP-27! 1.And a "carob" store on top; 2.And "bunker" loading ... "like the Japanese" ... 3.And tape feeding! The belt-fed DP for various reasons was not adopted before the war and during the war ... but in 1946 it was implemented in the form of RP-46! (DPM-46 / DP-46)

                      Moreover, the possibility of "returning" the cartridge receiver "under the disks" was envisaged!
                2. mat-vey
                  mat-vey 3 May 2021 10: 14
                  +2
                  So they went to the side winked .... the article is about a personal shooter ...
              2. mat-vey
                mat-vey 3 May 2021 10: 08
                +1
                Quote: svp67
                Well, if you are a connoisseur of Soviet weapons, you should know when this cartridge appeared in marketable quantities, at least for testing, not to mention deliveries to the troops.

                And you will excuse this to what? After all, it was about
                Quote: svp67
                the level of Soviet industry sharply slowed down the capabilities of the designers, and they themselves were not up to par.

                But the constructors were just at their best ..
              3. svp67
                svp67 3 May 2021 10: 16
                0
                Quote: mat-vey
                But the constructors were just at their best ..

                Unfortunately no. The designs they proposed were "raw" and the Red Army met the war with weapons, which, already in the initial period of the war, had to be abandoned, returning the "tsarist" models of weapons to production
              4. mat-vey
                mat-vey 3 May 2021 10: 25
                +5
                Quote: svp67
                Quote: mat-vey
                But the constructors were just at their best ..

                Unfortunately no. The designs they proposed were "raw" and the Red Army met the war with weapons, which, already in the initial period of the war, had to be abandoned, returning the "tsarist" models of weapons to production

                Reread your posts ...
              5. svp67
                svp67 3 May 2021 12: 41
                0
                Quote: mat-vey
                Reread your posts ...

                And what's wrong with them? Or do you want to say that weapons created before WWII were especially effective during WWII?
              6. mat-vey
                mat-vey 3 May 2021 12: 44
                +2
                Quote: svp67
                And what's wrong with them?

                And what was "wrong" in PPSh and SVT?
                Quote: svp67
                Or do you want to say that weapons created before WWII were especially effective during WWII?

                Well, it looks like you know better what I think ...
              7. svp67
                svp67 3 May 2021 12: 47
                0
                Quote: mat-vey
                And what was "wrong" in PPSh and SVT?

                PPSh - short aiming range, low combat rate of fire, due to extremely rapid heating of the barrel, large flaws in mass production, especially in the early years of the war.
                SVT - low reliability, accuracy problems.
                Quote: mat-vey
                Well, it looks like you know better what I think ...

                I have clarified your opinion
              8. mat-vey
                mat-vey 3 May 2021 12: 59
                +11
                Quote: svp67
                SVT - low reliability

                Yours, can you prove it? Or, again, fairy tales about the illiterate? With regular maintenance, the reliability is absolutely normal.
                Quote: svp67
                PPSh - short aiming range

                And what do you think the PP should have?
                Quote: svp67
                big flaws in mass production, especially in the early years of the war.

                For example?
                Quote: svp67
                I have clarified your opinion

                I immediately voiced my opinion - the Soviet shooter is one of the best in the Second World War and one of the best design schools ...
                But what you mean by "efficiency" is anyone's guess.
              9. svp67
                svp67 3 May 2021 16: 10
                -2
                Quote: mat-vey
                Yours - can you prove it?

                From the report on the combat use of 7, 62-mm SVT, reviews of the front-line soldiers:

                "SVT as a duplicate tool in combat use has not justified itself. Despite its high rate of fire, it is not strong enough and at the slightest pollution it refuses to work."

                "The experience of the war has shown that the SVT rifle in the conditions of offensive battles, especially when crossing water obstacles in sandy terrain, from insignificant pollution leads to failure, such as: not removing the sleeve from the chamber, pinching the sleeve, not covering the bolt, incomplete retreat of the bolt back and etc.
                And in most cases, by personal checking, he repeatedly established that the rifle was completely serviceable, the ejector hook and its spring were absolutely intact and serviceable, the return spring had a normal tension and he personally concluded that the rifle was failing solely due to contamination of the chamber, longitudinal grooves of the receiver, the receiver itself and the gas vents. "

                "The design itself and the tactical and technical data meet all the requirements in various conditions of modern combat. As a new type of weapon, it requires careful attention to itself. Regular lubrication and cleanliness; and is more applicable to defense."

                "The self-loading rifle of the Tokarev system in World War II showed little positive results. It is good in its rate of fire, but it is complex in its design and is very often contaminated. Only a few fighters could learn these whims, and hence very few people had to use it in battle. , the weight of the self-loading rifle is large.
                It is required to make the rifle simple in design, light in weight and trouble-free in operation. "

                "She often refused in battle, she is sensitive to pollution. She did not justify herself in battle."

                "The SVT rifle in modern combat has not justified itself due to the complexity of the design, and therefore the difficulty of operation, due to frequent failures in battle."

                "The SVT self-loading rifle did not justify itself in battles, due to the unreliability of automation, the complexity of handling, as well as the weight and size, which was a great reluctance for the soldiers to arm themselves with the SVT rifle."

                “The rifle requires extremely careful preparation for firing. Gas paths are often clogged, and therefore reliable semi-automatic firing is not ensured.
                Changing the regulator in combat conditions is not possible. It is required to create a more reliable and reliable model of a semi-automatic rifle. "
                I don't know if you watched this program, but there is a very interesting moment, watch it from 02 minutes
              10. mat-vey
                mat-vey 3 May 2021 16: 23
                +8
                And here is the end of the article:
                “Tokarev did not stop work on improving his rifle. By the 44th year, in the new versions of the SVT, most of the shortcomings had been eliminated. But by this time the reputation of the“ sveta ”was already too damaged, and work on a weapon for a new intermediate cartridge was considered more promising . "
                However, most of the "shortcomings" are just the human factor ... The same Germans did not cause such complaints about SVT.
                Only the question is the same - what kind of beast is "efficiency"?
              11. Ponchik78
                Ponchik78 3 May 2021 18: 01
                +10
                And not only among the Germans. The Marines also had no problems with SVT.
              12. mat-vey
                mat-vey 3 May 2021 18: 02
                +2
                Quote: Ponchik78
                And not only among the Germans. The Marines also had no problems with SVT.

                So about that and speech - the human factor ... with foolishness you can ... and AK to shatter laughing
            2. Terran ghost
              Terran ghost 4 May 2021 17: 12
              +1
              By the 44th year, in the new versions of SVT, most of the shortcomings were eliminated.

              What kind of modification of the SVT-38/40 appeared in 1944?
              Actually, in addition to the initial shortcomings of SVT, there were at least problems with sensitivity to the quality of gunpowder (in relation to the foreign-made gunpowders supplied under Lend-Lease specifically).
              And finally "the reputation of SVT was tarnished" by the attempt to introduce its variation with the possibility of bursting fire - the Tokarev AVT automatic rifle. Moreover, the actual chthonic problems with it were not even, in fact, the fault of the designer - the problem was in the TTZ, in which it was initially required to keep within a fairly low weight with a rather long barrel. As a result, the strength of the rifle parts for automatic fire was not very strong.
            3. mat-vey
              mat-vey 4 May 2021 17: 20
              +1
              Quote: Terran Ghost
              What kind of modification of the SVT-38/40 appeared in 1944?

              If you read carefully, then the one that they did not want to launch into production.
              Quote: Terran Ghost
              at least problems with sensitivity to the quality of gunpowder (in relation to the foreign-made gunpowder supplied under Lend-Lease specifically).

              There were problems with these gunpowders everywhere - with the same DP.
              Quote: Terran Ghost
              And finally "the reputation of SVT tarnished" by the attempt to introduce its variation with the possibility of burst fire

              At the front, craftsmen themselves altered it in the first years ..
              Do you still have any of the Polishenelle secrets? Or would you recommend re-reading the previous comments on a new one?
            4. Terran ghost
              Terran ghost 11 May 2021 11: 38
              0
              Quote: "If you read carefully, then the one that they did not want to launch into production .." - can you give any proof for the very existence of this self-loading rifle of the 1944 model? And no matter how I searched, I did not find anything in any source about her (and whether she existed at all).
            5. mat-vey
              mat-vey 14 May 2021 17: 23
              0
              Quote: Terran Ghost
              And no matter how I searched, I found nothing in any source about her (and whether she existed at all).

              And most likely you can't find anything - if only in the factory museum ..
    2. Jager
      Jager 8 May 2021 16: 41
      0
      Only it had to be cleaned more thoroughly and more often than the "paddle" of sample 91/30.
  3. Konnick
    Konnick 3 May 2021 15: 07
    +5
    low combat rate of fire, due to extremely rapid heating of the barrel

    Made laugh
    Watch the video
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3scecJHjInA
  4. svp67
    svp67 3 May 2021 16: 11
    0
    Quote: Konnick
    Made laugh

    This is your laugh from ignorance. And you try to hit the target at a distance with a very hot barrel, or just hold it.
  5. Konnick
    Konnick 3 May 2021 16: 25
    +4
    This is your laugh from ignorance. And you try to hit the target at a distance with a very hot barrel

    You don't have enough ammo for the PPSh to warm up the barrel to such an extent
  6. svp67
    svp67 3 May 2021 16: 33
    -2
    Quote: Konnick
    You don't have enough ammo for the PPSh to warm up the barrel to such an extent

    Do not make me laugh. Do you think that the shooter from the video just shoots in heat-resistant gloves ...
  7. paul3390
    paul3390 3 May 2021 15: 56
    +11
    SVT - low reliability, accuracy problems.

    But the question is - did you have to shoot from the SVT yourself? To me - yes, my friend has .. Certain nuances of use of course there are, in terms of reliability, never AKM, but if you put your hands on - quite yourself, and I did not notice any problems with accuracy either. Not Tikka, of course, but quite acceptable for a military rifle. The only thing is that you certainly won't give such a weapon to the peasant from the plow .. There, the gas regulator must be properly exposed, and a little shamanic with the shops, and cleaned correctly .. You swell a lot of lubricants - and really start to go crazy. And so - for that time a decent weapon. For hunting, the oar of course, but my friend took it purely for collecting reasons ..
  8. svp67
    svp67 3 May 2021 16: 13
    -2
    Quote: paul3390
    And I did not notice any problems with accuracy either.

    Look carefully from 02 minutes ... This is what her snipers did not like; she often had an unpredictable bullet drift, the so-called "separation"
  9. paul3390
    paul3390 3 May 2021 16: 39
    +6
    for which her snipers did not like her, she often had an unpredictable bullet drift, the so-called "separation

    I am personally inclined to attribute this mainly to the quality of the cartridges .. And then - whatever you say, but at least the SVT does not crack a sniper ..
  10. svp67
    svp67 3 May 2021 18: 19
    +1
    Quote: paul3390
    and even though SVT do not crack a sniper ..

    But it was in this form that she lingered the longest in the arsenal of our army. Back in the early 90s, I saw such rifles in warehouses as mobrezerv.
  11. paul3390
    paul3390 4 May 2021 22: 02
    +1
    Yes, we also have PPSh and Maxims in our warehouses ..
  12. English tarantas
    English tarantas 5 May 2021 06: 29
    0
    So when it started in Donbass, the warehouses were opened, there was a reportage, they took the SCS either 50s, or something like that.
  13. Igor Ushakov
    Igor Ushakov 7 May 2021 18: 02
    0
    So we, in the Ukrainian army, also got Maxim machine guns from the warehouses and even German trophy guns. The first ones were recommended to be installed permanently at checkpoints.
  14. Sergey M. Karasev
    Sergey M. Karasev 4 May 2021 05: 46
    +2
    This is what her snipers did not like; she often had an unpredictable bullet drift, the so-called "separation"

    In the Wehrmacht, the SVT was most popular with snipers.
  15. paul3390
    paul3390 4 May 2021 22: 01
    +1
    Taki - do not confuse a sniper and a Marksman .. They have slightly different tasks and weapons ..
  16. mat-vey
    mat-vey 5 May 2021 04: 17
    +1
    Quote: paul3390
    Taki - do not confuse a sniper and a Marksman .. They have slightly different tasks and weapons ..

    The meaning of concepts may change over time ... It should be considered in relation to a specific time ...
  17. Sergey M. Karasev
    Sergey M. Karasev 5 May 2021 05: 58
    +1
    With regard to the WWII period, the concept of "Marksman" did not exist. They began to be distinguished after the war.
  18. paul3390
    paul3390 6 May 2021 17: 43
    +2
    Concepts - no, but the Marxmen - yes. And just as the long arm of an infantry unit, the SVT was quite up to par. The distance is not very large, mainly within the range to enemy trenches, a minute barrel is not urgently required. But self-loading is just a plus. For example - during an enemy attack, quickly knock out officers, extinguish machine-gun points, and so on .. In general - an early analogue of the SVD. The work of a sniper, on the other hand, is more about selected objects, mostly single and at a much greater distance .. Here he is - just a minute bolt with a hanging barrel is needed ..
  19. mat-vey
    mat-vey 3 May 2021 16: 26
    +6
    Quote: paul3390
    The only thing - of course you won't give such a weapon to the peasant from the plow ..

    No sooner had they absorbed combat instructions into their blood, like the Germans - they had no problems with the "light" ...
  20. paul3390
    paul3390 3 May 2021 16: 49
    +13
    I’m still dad, the kingdom of heaven to him, he told me. He was a designer in the tank design bureau for armament, but once - from the Kazakh SSR, complaints about the new Kirovtsy were sent in bulk. Therefore, everyone was driven into the fields. Somehow they were driving along a country road, and towards another K-700 rumbled. They to him - stop. Let's torture. The man turned out to be a German from the Volga region. He says that as the tractor received 20 years, it works without capital. They told him - HOW ?? And that one - the booklet is attached to the tractor. It says there - once every six months, pour so much oil of such and such brand into this hole. I fill it. Change this belt once a year. I am changing. Once every three years - to sort out this node. I'm sorting it out. And so on .. Strictly according to the book.

    This is how the technique has been working for him for 20 years without any problems ... An instructive story ..
  21. mat-vey
    mat-vey 3 May 2021 16: 56
    +7
    Quote: paul3390
    but once - from the Kazakh SSR, complaints about new Kirovtsy were sent in bulk.

    There was (in Kazakhstan) a fruit-growing state farm in Ush-Toba - almost the Germans alone had no problems with equipment, but as the union collapsed, the Kazakhs began to clamp down on them and the Germans left in the spring for permanent residence in Germany (then it was still possible). The Kazakhs started the spring - all the equipment was working (it was still well-groomed by the Germans), and by the fall there was no need to harvest the harvest - and the state farm bent down. And the equipment was quite reliable and trouble-free before that, and there were complaints about its work.
  22. dauria
    dauria 3 May 2021 17: 37
    0
    This is how the technique has been working for him for 20 years without any problems ... An instructive story ..


    Yes. But there is a subtlety. A person must be able to do all the prescribed operations. Moreover, to have both the tool and the materials.
    It is no coincidence that the saying was born in the army "Do not touch the equipment, and it will not let you down." The simple thing is countering. Even counteracting the "turning away" of a person must be trained. And to disassemble, never doing it before, is guaranteed to lose fasteners or break something.
    Therefore, a German can and will do, but Vanya will still think - is it worth it? Do you know how sometimes work is done in aviation !!!!?. It is written - open, inspect, clean, lubricate. It is carried out as follows - the factory seal is opened, its own is put and an entry is made in the passport (form). "Didn't do it, write it down. Don't twist it, check it out" is a very clever saying.
    If no one tells you that you need to hit the "stuck" bolt with a hammer, you will be smoothing his head off with a key for a long time.
    Also a cautionary tale ... wink
  23. Terran ghost
    Terran ghost 4 May 2021 17: 18
    +1
    Tikka?
    There, and the gas regulator must be properly exposed, and with the shops a little shamanism, and cleaned correctly .. You swell a lot of lubricants - and really starts to wedge.

    Moreover, to expose the gas regulator, a special key was also needed.
  24. Incvizitor
    Incvizitor 5 May 2021 03: 06
    +3
    Low reliability in comparison with guarantor and gever?
  25. English tarantas
    English tarantas 5 May 2021 06: 13
    +4
    PPSh - short aiming range, low combat rate of fire, due to extremely rapid heating of the barrel, large flaws in mass production, especially in the early years of the war.

    You are frankly disingenuous, citizen. Short range relative to what? Rifles? Rapid heating of something? Find on the Internet a video of shooting PPSh to death, there is a quick failure and does not smell, I generally keep quiet about the rate of fire, even that broom.
    In the first years of the war, the quality of everything subsided, and was associated with the imminent start of the war and the evacuation and loss of personnel, but the PPSh was made almost with hands and pliers in partisan workshops
  26. English tarantas
    English tarantas 5 May 2021 06: 07
    +2
    The level of designers, like all other masters of their craft, is in comparison. With what weapons did the Germans, British, Japanese, Americans meet the war? But whose PP and AV did the Germans, oh, how willingly did they take as trophies, and then fought them off from the allies?
    And who and what took into service after the war? Ours almost immediately adopted a new gun-cartridge complex, and this was developed during the war, and during the war they switched to a new cartridge. No one else has had such successes.
  27. mat-vey
    mat-vey 3 May 2021 10: 10
    +3
    Quote: svp67
    and we were forced to equip the infantry with PP, so that at least at close distances it was possible to create the necessary density of fire ...

    But what about "Stalin's trench broom"?
  28. svp67
    svp67 3 May 2021 10: 17
    +2
    Quote: mat-vey
    But what about "Stalin's trench broom"?

    And "Hitler's bone carver"?
  29. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 3 May 2021 16: 22
    +1
    Quote: svp67
    And "Hitler's bone carver"?

    What relation does the MG-34-42 machine gun have to the PPSh submachine gun ?!
  30. svp67
    svp67 3 May 2021 16: 25
    -1
    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    What relation does the MG-34-42 machine gun have to the PPSh submachine gun ?!

    Only in the fact that then they had to meet very often in battle and in order to reach the DP of the German trenches and become the notorious "broom", the fighter had to go through the dense fire of the "bone cutter"
  31. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 3 May 2021 16: 39
    +2
    Quote: svp67
    Only in the fact that then they had to meet very often in battle and in order to reach the DP of the German trenches and become the notorious "broom", the fighter had to go through the dense fire of the "bone cutter"
    The best means of dealing with a machine gun is not a rifle or even another machine gun, but a tank. Even with PMA it was customary.

    In the first photo of the article, the barrel of the three-line is unusual, isn't it a grenade launcher mount?
  32. mat-vey
    mat-vey 3 May 2021 17: 04
    +1
    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    In the first photo of the article, the barrel of the three-line is unusual, isn't it a grenade launcher mount?

    Or maybe just a bayonet on the field?
  33. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 3 May 2021 17: 14
    0
    Quote: mat-vey
    Or maybe just a bayonet on the field?

    Even such a thought did not arise, can you imagine! That's what stereotype means ...
  34. mat-vey
    mat-vey 3 May 2021 17: 17
    +1
    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    Even such a thought did not arise, can you imagine! That's what stereotype means ...

    It's just that Mosinki has long been only in pictures, especially with bayonets ...
  35. mat-vey
    mat-vey 3 May 2021 16: 40
    +2
    Quote: svp67
    Only in the fact that then they had to meet very often in battle and in order to reach the DP of the German trenches and become the notorious "broom", the fighter had to go through the dense fire of the "bone cutter"

    It was not for nothing that I "told" you about mortars ... that a soldier would go through the dense fire of a "bone cutter" he was often fired at from a mortar ... and in response the Germans sent aviation or tore off art fire ... If the article is about replacing the rifle, then we will be about personal rifle ...
  36. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 3 May 2021 15: 30
    -2
    Quote: mat-vey
    But what about "Stalin's trench broom"?

    What does Stalin have to do with the Winchester trench coat? Jemnip, they called him 'trench broom'.
  37. mat-vey
    mat-vey 3 May 2021 16: 10
    +1
    Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    What does Stalin have to do with the Winchester trench coat? Jemnip, they called him 'trench broom'.

    And in the USSR there were many who at least heard about Winchester 1897?
  38. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 3 May 2021 18: 58
    -1
    Quote: mat-vey
    And in the USSR there were many who at least heard about Winchester 1897?

    And those who 'at least heard' about Stalin's 'trench broom' are even fewer.
  39. mat-vey
    mat-vey 3 May 2021 19: 00
    +1
    Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    And those who 'at least heard' about Stalin's 'trench broom' are even fewer.

    So it looks like only you are ...
  40. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 3 May 2021 19: 41
    -1
    Quote: mat-vey
    So it looks like only you are ...

    On the contrary. It is only 'you are' who have heard of her. Although, the Internet is very creative in terms of stupid labels. By the way, some clever people on the Internet also call Tommy Gun a 'trench broom'. How many brooms were there?
  41. mat-vey
    mat-vey 3 May 2021 19: 51
    0
    Well, you are just an example of Internet creativity - count it ...
    Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    How many brooms were there?
  42. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 3 May 2021 20: 24
    -1
    Quote: mat-vey
    Well, you're just an example of internet creativity - ...

    No, I don't pick up rubbish like 'Stalin's trench broom'
  43. mat-vey
    mat-vey 3 May 2021 20: 35
    -1
    Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    No, I don't pick up rubbish like 'Stalin's trench broom'

    Oh yes, you are more creative than the entire world of the Internet ... Why is there the Internet - the whole world in the present, the past and even in the future ...
  44. bk0010
    bk0010 3 May 2021 10: 16
    +1
    Quote: mat-vey
    DShK is still in service
    These are two very different DShKs, judging by the allowed time of continuous shooting, for example.
  45. mat-vey
    mat-vey 3 May 2021 10: 29
    0
    Quote: svp67
    Proven, reliable, but LOW effective. Our DP and Maxims were losing on the battlefield to the German MG, and the diesel fuel did not provide the required duration of fire.

    Have you read the article? Which side is it to her? Then tell me something about mortars ...
  46. svp67
    svp67 3 May 2021 12: 43
    +2
    Quote: mat-vey
    Have you read the article? Which side to her?

    This is also a small arms and it was it that played a major role on that battlefield and it influenced the development of the infantryman's personal weapons during this period. So, it was impossible not to mention him
  47. mat-vey
    mat-vey 3 May 2021 12: 46
    +1
    Quote: svp67
    Quote: mat-vey
    Have you read the article? Which side to her?

    This is also a small arms and it was it that played a major role on that battlefield and it influenced the development of the infantryman's personal weapons during this period. So, it was impossible not to mention him

    Rifles and their replacement. Features of the rearmament of the infantry of the main participants in World War II
    Today, 04: 47
  48. Incvizitor
    Incvizitor 5 May 2021 02: 48
    0
    The DShK was good, only stationary and that there are almost no early photos, then only 2 ISU ...
  49. mat-vey
    mat-vey 5 May 2021 04: 27
    0
    Quote: Incvizitor
    DShK was good, only stationary

    My father had an acquaintance - the commander of a mounted machine-gun platoon, since 1943. DShK on machine tools ... A mobile unit for "plugging holes".
  50. Avior
    Avior 3 May 2021 08: 20
    +6
    And what kind of PP was produced under the cartridge 7,62X41 (39) of the 1943 model, excuse me?
  51. mat-vey
    mat-vey 3 May 2021 10: 05
    +1
    Quote: Avior
    And what kind of PP was produced under the cartridge 7,62X41 (39) of the 1943 model, excuse me?

    And what about the PP chambered for 7,62X41 (39)? It was about
    Quote: svp67
    but at some point the level of Soviet industry sharply slowed down the capabilities of designers

    And about :
    Quote: mat-vey
    new complexes for a completely new cartridge

    There was nothing about PP chambered for 7,62X41 (39) ..
  52. Avior
    Avior 3 May 2021 10: 23
    +1
    It was like this
    ... Quote: mat-vey
    And they (the designers) began to develop new PPs ... and even new complexes for a completely new cartridge ... And even after the war, they produced PPSh ...

    What kind of cartridge is it? Yes, they did, but mostly outside the borders of the USSR.

    Sentence construction creates at least ambiguity
  53. mat-vey
    mat-vey 3 May 2021 10: 38
    +1
    Quote: Avior
    Sentence construction creates at least ambiguity

    Yes, just like that by itself it was implied that the PP is a pistol cartridge .... and if the cartridge is "intermediate", then it is already like a different type of weapon ...
  54. Avior
    Avior 3 May 2021 10: 47
    +2
    ... which probably shouldn't have been mixed with PP in the same sentence using the AND conjunction
    hi
  55. mat-vey
    mat-vey 3 May 2021 10: 55
    0
    Quote: Avior
    ... which probably shouldn't have been mixed with PP in the same sentence using the AND conjunction

    Well, this is who will read it .... but if something raises doubts or misunderstandings, nothing prevented you from asking a clarifying question?
  56. alexbyrcev
    alexbyrcev 9 May 2021 00: 32
    0
    At least one PP chambered for the Semin 7,62x39 arr. 1943 (aka the cartridge of the GeKo company arr. 1935). It was called the Sudaev PP of the 1944 model, it did not go into the series. Sudaev made an automatic machine with a gas outlet, but did not manage to finish it, he died.
  57. mat-vey
    mat-vey 9 May 2021 03: 28
    0
    Quote: alexbyrcev
    At least one PP chambered for the Semin 7,62x39 arr. 1943 (aka the cartridge of the GeKo company arr. 1935). It was called the Sudaev PP of the 1944 model, it did not go into the series. Sudaev made an automatic machine with a gas outlet, but did not manage to finish it, he died.

    Considering that Sudaev made his AK-44 chambered for 7,62X41, then what cartridges and PPs are you talking about?
  • bistrov.
    bistrov. 3 May 2021 07: 21
    -2
    Quote: svp67
    This was especially sad in the story with machine guns.

    And what was wrong in the Red Army with machine guns? In my opinion, much better than in the same Great Britain, which were forced to use the Vickers and the nasty Bren until the 60s, and the Wehrmacht was begging for machine guns, like for all other small arms, throughout Europe, all During the war, MG-08, the same "Maxim", were used, and three people, widely advertised by MG-34, as MG-42, were dragged around the battlefield by hand on a sled, which were widely advertised as MG-XNUMX, were not devoid of significant shortcomings, they were afraid of pollution and ate a lot of cartridges .. ...
    1. svp67
      svp67 3 May 2021 07: 36
      +2
      Quote: bistrov.
      And what was wrong in the Red Army with machine guns?

      There is such an excellent historian of weapons Ulanov, he has a whole series of articles "Machine-gun drama of the Red Army." Read, very interesting, there are documents and a lot of photos.
    2. DesToeR
      DesToeR 3 May 2021 20: 07
      +5
      Quote: svp67
      There is such an excellent historian of weapons Ulanov, he has a whole series of articles "Machine-gun drama of the Red Army".

      And where did you get the idea that Ulanov is a historian? Of Education? He is a programmer. This is just a gun-themed AMATEUR with his own personal JUDGMENT. No more.
      Quote: svp67
      Read, very interesting, there are documents and a lot of photos.

      There is no sacred knowledge in his works - only clichés about some kind of "machine-gun drama" invented by Ulanov himself in the Red Army.
      In fact, the DP was one of the finest light machine guns in WWII. By 1941, DP was debugged in production and was devoid of childhood illnesses. It was a fairly light and fairly reliable machine gun with a capacious (47 rounds) magazine. If you look at the history of the development of small arms in the USSR, then almost all RPs (except for the RPD-44) were magazine-fed with a capacity of 40 ... 47 rounds ... like the vast majority of light machine guns around the world.

      There was no drama - there was work that led to SG-43 and DPM. These were two excellent examples that were some of the best WWII machine guns in their class. The USSR approached a single machine gun in the 60s, when the designers were able to give the army a sample in DP weight, but with a belt feed. Nobody in the USSR needed a "handbrake" (ala MG34 / 42) weighing 12 kg (without cartridges).
    3. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 3 May 2021 21: 26
      -2
      Quote: DesToeR
      In fact, the DP was one of the best light machine guns in WWII.

      )))
      Yeah. I was told that the Italians and Finns had even worse machine guns than DP.
      Quote: DesToeR
      like the vast majority of light machine guns around the world.

      41 years old? Isn't Lewis. Bren, Browning M1918 - box magazine, Browning M1919, MG - tape.
      Quote: DesToeR
      which led to SG-43 and DPM. These were two excellent examples that were some of the best WWII machine guns in their class.

      With the proviso that these samples were shish yes no shisha.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Nobody in the USSR needed a "handbrake" (ala MG34 / 42) weighing 12 kg (without cartridges).

      Well, you don't need it, you don't need it.
    4. DesToeR
      DesToeR 3 May 2021 21: 51
      0
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      Yeah. I was told that the Italians and Finns had even worse machine guns than DP.

      I'll "tell you" more - the British also had worse, although the Czech "sawed" him. Like the Swiss, Austrians and other French. At that time, the Chinese were not yet on the "planet", and the Japanese did not use shops, but "punched cards" with cartridges ...
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      41 years old?

      Uh-huh. And even in 1980.

      Quote: Cherry Nine
      With the proviso that these samples were shish yes no shisha.

      So MG34 / 42 "produced" less than 1 million units. Moreover, not all MG 34s went to the infantry - each Panzerwaffe tank "ate" an average of 2 pieces. DP produced about 800 thousand pieces. - it was the only type of small arms to which the military had no claims in terms of production. And there was also Maxim and SG-43.

      Quote: Cherry Nine
      Well, you don't need it, you don't need it.

      He was not needed not only in the USSR. Great Britain produced the BESA easel under the 7,92x57 Mauser until the end of the war. So who would copy the "gloomy Teutonic genius", fortunately, there was a small factory for Nazi patrons.
      And in the USA they put a big and fat one on MG42 immediately and finally. For a long time, the Americans fiddled with a completely different "toy", though "originally" from the Luftwaffe.
    5. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 3 May 2021 23: 08
      0
      Quote: DesToeR
      And in the USA they put a big and fat one on MG42

      It is difficult to talk about the activities of the Americans in the part of the riflemen without a mate.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Who would copy the "gloomy Teutonic genius"

      There were options. By the way, breakthrough.
      Quote: DesToeR
      So MG34 / 42 "produced" less than 1 million units.

      You named SG-43 and DPM. Or jumped off already?
      Quote: DesToeR
      the only type of small arms to which the military had no claims in terms of production.

      It depends on which year to watch. In 41-42 there were machineless squads, a Soviet unique.
      Quote: DesToeR
      the British also had worse, although the Czech "sawed" him.

      You will tell, but besides you, Bren is an extremely successful machine gun.
    6. DesToeR
      DesToeR 3 May 2021 23: 31
      -1
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      There were options. By the way, breakthrough.

      The defining word was "were". And in fact, throughout the war, the Czechs (both machine guns) fired at them, and with different cartridges.
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      You named SG-43 and DPM. Or jumped off already?

      I mentioned not only SG-43 and DPM. Read the posts carefully.
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      It depends on which year to watch. In 41-42 there were machineless squads, a Soviet unique.

      Want to see a German infantry squad in 1945? I think we'll find MG08 there without bothering ... and some of the water pipes of the Third Reich.
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      You will tell, but besides you, Bren is an extremely successful machine gun.

      For the British, yes. And the clown with him that weighs more DP, the store partially blocks the machine gunner's view, and 30 rounds with a rim strive to clash with welts. Do not think that Degtyarev did not think about this.
    7. DesToeR
      DesToeR 3 May 2021 23: 51
      0
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      It is difficult to talk about the activities of the Americans in the part of the riflemen without a mate.

      What's wrong with her? Self-loading in 1936, brought to mind in 1941, was very good. The BAR handbrake was not much inferior to the same BREN, but it was much lighter and had a more reliable supply of cartridges from the store. Springfield is the good old Mauser of the late 19th century, i.e. "plus or minus like everyone else." Belt machine guns are still fighting. Even the M16 is a breakthrough. They did a little bit of work with the patron after the war, but in 1945 they had so much money that they could play with the calibers.
    8. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 4 May 2021 04: 07
      -1
      Quote: DesToeR
      And in fact, throughout the war, the Czechs (both machine guns) fired at them, and with different cartridges.

      About the unification of ammunition, this is not at all for the British, but on the account of the fact that Bren is not a real English machine gun, then the British have never had these problems with regard to the Juche.
      Quote: DesToeR
      I mentioned not only SG-43 and DPM.

      You singled out the SG-43 and DPM as the best machine guns of their class.
      Quote: DesToeR
      there was work that led to SG-43 and DPM. These were two excellent examples, which were some of the best WWII machine guns in their classes.

      Quote: DesToeR
      Want to see a German infantry squad in 1945?

      If you focus on the Reich in 45, then perhaps it's not bad, especially if you look at the Volkssturm, and not hiir.
      Quote: DesToeR
      And a jester with him that weighs more DP, the store partially blocks the machine gunner's view, and 30 rounds with a rim strive to clash with welts.

      And besides Wikipedia, were you interested in machine guns? The impression is that you are purely describing the picture. Especially about welted cartridges it was sincerely, relative to the Soviet ones.
      Quote: DesToeR
      What's wrong with her?

      With it, it is not that the Americans had the opportunity even in the interwar period to switch to manual automatic weapons on an intermediate cartridge, but not only did they not do this, but the Europeans were not given at least 20 years.
    9. DesToeR
      DesToeR 4 May 2021 09: 48
      0
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      You singled out the SG-43 and DPM as the best machine guns of their class.

      Like ONE of the best. Read the posts carefully.
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      If you focus on the Reich 45th year, then perhaps not bad

      Not bad, not bad.
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      And besides Wikipedia, were you interested in machine guns? The impression is that you are purely describing the picture.

      In fact, have something to say? I think no. But the British machine gunner, who went through with this happiness WWII was.

      Quote: Cherry Nine
      Especially about welted cartridges it was sincerely, relative to the Soviet ones.

      Dear, before you write, you will at least understand the history of the DP creation in pictures (there is a very interesting prototype there), figure it out with the design of the disk magazine (cartridges in one row). And, then, for sure, everything will become clear about the store with a staggered arrangement of thirty welted rounds on BREN. This is if you are too lazy to look for a British video of the 80s with the memory of veterans.
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      With it, it is not that the Americans had the opportunity even in the interwar period to switch to manual automatic weapons on an intermediate cartridge, but not only did they not do this, but the Europeans were not given at least 20 years.

      This is yes. And what are the complaints about the activity? In the USA, there was a big bell tower for old Europe. But today one can be proud that both NATO patrons come from an "exclusive" country.
    10. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 4 May 2021 14: 01
      0
      Quote: DesToeR
      And what are the complaints about the activity?

      Such as in Korea and Vietnam, instead of a single-cartridge compartment with an assault rifle and a machine gun-sprinkler, it turned out to be some kind of three-cartridge garbage with completely insufficient firepower.
      Quote: DesToeR
      And, then, for sure, everything will become clear about the store with a staggered arrangement of thirty welted rounds on BREN.

      The further the more fun. Already Bren's store is not the same, whether it is a disk DP, which was considered almost the main jamb of this design.
      Quote: DesToeR
      In fact, there is something to say?

      In fact, DP problems are well known. 0. Incorrect use due to a shortage of machine tools. 1. Overheating of the barrel and springs, 2. Shop.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Like ONE of the best.

      Amusing stern maneuvers.
      In fact, the mass machine guns of the Red Army were Maxim and DP. Not the richest set, even against the background of the British.
    11. DesToeR
      DesToeR 4 May 2021 14: 54
      0
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      The further the more fun. Already Bren's store is not the same, whether it's a disk DP.

      Yeah, it couldn't be more fun. So BREN also had a disk store ... Didn't know? To understand what is, for example, ZB vz. 26 in the eyes of the Red Army, let's say in a commercial year in 1927, you need to know about the existence of such a product as Madsen, developed in 1890, with a 33 cartridge magazine for a Russian welted cartridge. The same Madsen that was going to be released back in RI. The one that was produced before 1950.

      Quote: Cherry Nine
      Which was considered almost the main jamb of this design.

      There was no jamb with a working magazine. The equipped DP weighed the same with a 47-round magazine as BREN with a 30-round magazine. True, the details in the DP were 2,5 times less than in the "very good machine gun". Any store doesn't like bumps and BREN is no exception. The shock of the loaded store on the helmet was not invented by the Americans with their M-16. By the way, it was the cartridge with the rim that determined the placement of the store in BREN from above - so that the (earthly) attraction somehow helped, and did not interfere with the supply of cartridges. Nobody wanted such "happiness" in the Red Army.
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      In fact, the mass machine guns of the Red Army were Maxim and DP.

      As always, you see the numbers, but you don't understand well. If you want to throw out DP and Maxim from the statistics, then what should we do with the crap MG34? OK - we throw away MG34 and have 400 thousand units in the dry residue. MG42. And how many of these MG42s go to recruiting platoons and companies of heavy weapons, i.e. in the easel version? The answer is given by the staff of the German division, where the "machine gun" was about every fourth machine gun. In total, out of 400 thousand "correct" machine guns, only about 100 thousand pieces. were on the machine. Well, how do 80 thousand pieces look like. easel SG-43 against this background? This is the issue of the volume of issue.
      Learn to work with basic numbers.
    12. Terran ghost
      Terran ghost 4 May 2021 17: 29
      +3
      The shock of the loaded store on the helmet was not invented by the Americans with their M-16.

      Well, the early 20-round aluminum magazines were indeed rare. Rather, they themselves, and how they were ultimately used. The fact is that these stores were supposed to be ... disposable. Hence the cheap alloy both in the store itself and in its spring, plus the maximum cheapness of manufacture. But in the end, they began to use it as a reusable one.
      By the way, it was the cartridge with the rim that determined the placement of the store in BREN from above - so that the (earthly) attraction somehow helped, and did not interfere with the supply of cartridges.

      What? And in the ZB vz. 26 under the Mauser 7,92mm cartridge, which rim of the cartridge was interfering with what? ;) Everything is more banal - in the position "the machine gunner in the prone position fires from the machine gun from the bipod" to change the magazine attached from the top (or from the side) is more convenient than the one attached from below.
    13. DesToeR
      DesToeR 4 May 2021 22: 58
      0
      Quote: Terran Ghost
      What? And in the ZB vz. 26 under the Mauser 7,92mm cartridge, which rim of the cartridge was interfering with what?

      And where is it written that in ZB vz. 26 something was in the way there? It was written about the box magazine of the BREN machine gun for British welted cartridges.
      Quote: Terran Ghost
      Everything is more banal - in the position "the machine gunner in the prone position fires from the machine gun from the bipod" to change the magazine, which is attached from above (or from the side) is more convenient than the one attached from below.

      What is wrong with the overwhelming number of small arms today? Has it become more convenient to change stores from the bottom than from the side or from the top? Or, in a modern Mini-imi, the box no longer adjoins the body of the machine gun from below? No one has managed to create a sufficiently reliable BOX magazine for welded cartridges with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. Neither BREN, nor ABC-36, nor Madsen.
    14. Terran ghost
      Terran ghost 5 May 2021 10: 48
      0
      And where is it written that in ZB vz. 26 something was in the way there? It was written about the box magazine of the BREN machine gun for British welted cartridges.

      BREN is a "direct descendant" of ZB vz.26, based on the latter's construction. At the same time, at the very ZB vz. 26, which is made under the Mauser-free 7,92mm cartridge, the store suddenly also adjoins from above.
      Or in a modern Mini-imi, the box no longer adjoins the body of the machine gun from below?

      In "Minimi" / М249, the magazine (when the machine gun is powered from the magazine) is adjacent to the machine gun from the side. The tape is also fed (as with most machine guns) from the side.
  • Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 4 May 2021 21: 55
    +1
    Quote: DesToeR
    such, for example, ZB vz. 26 in the eyes of the Red Army, let's say in a commercial year in 1927

    I will not say about the 27th, but in the 30s the Red Army looked especially positively at the Czech products.
    Quote: DesToeR
    Nobody wanted such "happiness" in the Red Army.

    Don't, don't, I already said.
    Quote: DesToeR
    If you want to exclude DP and Maxim from statistics

    You understood me somehow the other way around. I'm going to throw out everything except DP and Maxim.
    Quote: DesToeR
    we throw away MG34 and have 400 thousand units in the dry residue. MG42

    Why is MG 34 crap all of a sudden? From what made it a simplified version of the MG 42?

    In the bottom line, we have one and a half times more machine guns produced than DP, with a slightly different number of infantry.
    Quote: DesToeR
    The answer is given by the staff of the German division, where the "machine gun" was about every fourth machine gun. In total, out of 400 thousand "correct" machine guns, only about 100 thousand pieces. were on the machine.

    This is in the infantry battalion (36 handbrake in 3 companies and 12 machine tools in pulrote), but not the essence. Have you decided to talk about the weakness of German pulrots or what?
    Quote: DesToeR
    Well, how do 80 thousand pieces look like. easel SG-43 against this background? This is the issue of the volume of issue.
    Learn to work with basic numbers.

    When and if you learn to work with numbers, you will learn a lot. In particular, the number 43 is the year of adoption. Yes, in the 44th year, the Red Army already had a normal heavy machine gun, this must be admitted. True, the cloth tape remained, but here the demand is not from the gunsmiths.
  • DesToeR
    DesToeR 4 May 2021 23: 44
    0
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Why is MG 34 crap all of a sudden? From what made it a simplified version of the MG 42?

    What is not? Well, no, no, no. True, the question remains, why then did Rheinmetall fuss so much? And almost immediately and until 1942.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    When and if you learn to work with numbers, you will learn a lot.

    What's wrong? The Wehrmacht infantry division had 425 bipod machine guns and 110 machine guns. The ammunition supply of the light machine guns was carried out by means of a 50 cartridge belt laid in a Gurttrommel 34 box - "cake". Yes, three more rounds than in the DP, although the curb weight there was over 14 kg, and when changing position, the machine gun had to be discharged. Well, or drag a hanging piece of tape behind you. By the way, tapes still had to be collected after shooting. And so yes, if the circumstances of the battle allowed and the second number was not killed / wounded / shell-shocked / crap from fear, then the MG gave 300 rounds per minute with ease (with a change in the barrel of course). True, a convenient and compact "cupcake" has already had to be changed to an aluminum box for 150 or 300 rounds in an articulated tape, weighing 10 kg. The box, unlike the "cupcake", could not be fastened to the "carcass".
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    In particular, that the number 43 is the year it was put into service.

    In particular, the SG-43 entered the army in October 1943.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Yes, in the 44th year, the Red Army already had a normal heavy machine gun, this must be admitted. True, the cloth tape remained, but here the demand is not from the gunsmiths.

    What I wrote about in my first post. The barrel of the SG-43 machine gun withstood 500 shots, which was twice the standard for the MG-42. The work was going on, not Ulanov's "machine-gun drama".
  • Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 5 May 2021 00: 12
    0
    Quote: DesToeR
    True, the question remains, why then did Rheinmetall fuss so much?

    Let's go to the economy. Yes, the Germans also sometimes entered the economy, and it is impossible to predict how they would catch this wave.
    Quote: DesToeR
    Yes, three more cartridges than in the DP, although the curb weight there was over 14 kg,

    3 kg more charged DP.
    Now for the fun part. Ammunition.
    The DP has 600 rounds of ammunition. Of these, it happened that 2 (two) shops. The rest is loose. Fight, do not deny yourself anything.
    Quote: DesToeR
    In particular, the SG-43 entered the army in October 1943.

    Yeah. That is, they fought for only 2,5 years without him.
    No, SG is a more or less normal machine tool, I will not argue.
    Quote: DesToeR
    The barrel of the SG-43 machine gun withstood 500 shots, which was twice the standard for the MG-42. The work was going on, not Ulanov's "machine-gun drama".

    More importantly, they finally added a handle to change the barrel. Well done what.
  • DesToeR
    DesToeR 5 May 2021 00: 23
    -1
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    3 kg more charged DP.

    Few?
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Now for the fun part. Ammunition.
    The DP has 600 rounds of ammunition. Of these, there were 2 (two) shops. The rest is loose.

    Do you know the size of the required ammunition for such a machine gun as PK / PKM / Pecheneg? Today. In the 21st century.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Fight, do not deny yourself anything.

    Well, they are fighting the same.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Yeah. That is, they fought for only 2,5 years without him.

    Maxim coped with the role of an easel machine gun well ... until 1943. And I say that even today it gives odds to "all sorts" of PKM and M249 in some specific situations (checkpoint, frozen front line).
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    More importantly, they finally added a handle to change the barrel. Well done what.

    there was an "endless search and improvement of the original successful design", as one American writer put it in a magazine of the 60s about small arms of the Red Army / Soviet Army.
  • Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 5 May 2021 01: 59
    +1
    Quote: DesToeR
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    3 kg more charged DP.

    Few?

    Che's got me overwhelmed. DP with a magazine weighs almost 12 kg.

    By the way, about 14 kg MG. I didn't realize it right away. In what strange world does a 50-round tape weigh the same as a DP magazine? An empty MG 42 weighs 11,6 kg.

    Quote: DesToeR
    Do you know the size of the required ammunition for such a machine gun as PK / PKM / Pecheneg? Today. In the 21st century.

    Still, in ribbons, and not in bulk, the glory of the Soviet regime.
    Quote: DesToeR
    Well, they are fighting the same.

    Actually, no, they do not fight. Ribbon or horns from the PKK.
    Quote: DesToeR
    Maxim coped with the role of a heavy machine gun well ... until 1943.

    In the Red Army, not everyone was sure of this. Maxim with a machine heavier than Mdvoika.
    Quote: DesToeR
    there was "an endless search and improvement of the original successful design"

    In the sense of a pen? Aha, revolutionary solution for 43rd year.
  • DesToeR
    DesToeR 5 May 2021 12: 33
    0
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Che's got me overwhelmed. DP with a magazine weighs almost 12 kg.

    So it is: 9,12kg + 2,85kg = 11,97kg.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    By the way, about 14 kg MG. I didn't realize it right away. In what strange world does a 50-round tape weigh the same as a DP magazine? An empty MG 42 weighs 11,6 kg.

    By the way, the Nazis fought in the infantry at least until 1942 on MG34, and there the empty weight was 12,1 kg. And yes, and you do not want to add that very handy Gurttrommel 50 to the "dead" weight of the 34-cartridge curb belt? The cupcake was made of steel, by the way.

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Still, in ribbons, and not in bulk, the glory of the Soviet regime.

    As it is. Not a complaint about a machine gun.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Actually, no, they do not fight. Ribbon or horns from the PKK.

    Well-fed "peaceful" years, we can't understand our grandfathers ... And yes, the standard set of PC / PKM / Pecheneg - those same 600 rounds.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    In the Red Army, not everyone was sure of this. Maxim with a machine heavier than Mdvoika.

    Undoubtedly!
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    In the sense of a pen? Aha, revolutionary solution for 43rd year.

    If you glance at the PDM briefly, then everything will become clear, and at once .. In the PDM, the ESP was moved so that it did not allow the machine gunner to comfortably wrap the butt neck. So Degtyarev had to introduce, as you put it, a "revolutionary solution". Well, about only the "handle" is rather weak - there were more changes, in particular, the weight of the machine gun was reduced.
  • alexbyrcev
    alexbyrcev 9 May 2021 01: 36
    +1
    The DP had four disks, one on the machine gun and three in a special bag next to the second number. MG-34 and two tapes of 10 kg = 32,1 kg. DP, 4 discs and 418 cartridges in bulk = 27,1 kg. But at MG, all the cartridges are loaded in belts, we will equip the DP in the disks: the body of the machine gun is 5,6 + 35 kg of cartridges in the disks = 41,6 kg.
  • Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 11 May 2021 07: 58
    0
    Quote: alexbyrcev
    The DP had four disks, one on the machine gun and three in a special bag next to the second number.

    In theory.
    Quote: alexbyrcev
    equip the DP in the disks: the body of the machine gun-5,6 + 35 kg of cartridges in the disks = 41,6 kg.

    First, where do you get them? Secondly, it turns out that a light machine gun is heavier than a single one, isn't it?
  • Terran ghost
    Terran ghost 4 May 2021 17: 22
    0
    the Americans had the opportunity even in the interwar period to switch to manual automatic weapons on an intermediate cartridge

    This is from a series of unscientific fiction, alas. The fact is that in the interwar period, a light machine gun was still very much assigned "duties" to fire to suppress the enemy / at area targets at distances up to 1000-1200 meters inclusive.
    Plus - already specific American army troubles, ranging from belief in fine traditions of American marksmanship and ending with the story that seemed to have taken place with the appearance on the Garand M1 rifle of a specific batch loading system instead of a detachable magazine. Simply because the then American army generals feared that soldiers would lose the detachable stores in the field.
  • Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 4 May 2021 22: 04
    +2
    Quote: Terran Ghost
    This is from a series of unscientific fiction, alas

    This is from the series "generals do not keep pace with progress."
    Quote: Terran Ghost
    The fact is that in the interwar period, a light machine gun was still very much charged with "duties" to fire to suppress the enemy / at areal targets

    On the machine. There was no machine tool in the department, no one assigned such duties to the M1918.
    Quote: Terran Ghost
    Plus - already specific American army troubles, starting from faith in fine traditions of American marksmanship

    Yeah. That's why I say
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    It is difficult to talk about the activities of the Americans in the part of the riflemen without a mate.


    Maxmanship is a separate topic at all.

    Experiments with .351WSL and the like went on constantly, including in the final period of WWI. But the military were not interested. And if the rest of the countries had a variety of excuses, mainly economic, then the Americans have nothing to justify.
    This is before the war. And after the war .280 British strangled with their own hands, just out of principle. There is no way to get out.
  • mat-vey
    mat-vey 4 May 2021 05: 43
    +1
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Quote: DesToeR
    Nobody in the USSR needed a "handbrake" (ala MG34 / 42) weighing 12 kg (without cartridges).

    Well, you don't need it, you don't need it.

    Well, Werner Gruner was in the USSR for a long time, but no one puzzled him with this question.
  • bistrov.
    bistrov. 3 May 2021 20: 59
    0
    Quote: svp67
    armament historian Ulanov

    And I read and looked, I do not agree with him in everything ...
  • Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 3 May 2021 15: 24
    +2
    Quote: bistrov.
    and ate a lot of bullets ...

    laughing Nafig rate of fire, we will save cartridges.
  • bistrov.
    bistrov. 3 May 2021 21: 29
    +2
    Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    Nafig rate of fire, we will save cartridges.

    But not the rate of fire of 1500 rounds per minute, at which a 100-cartridge tape takes off in 7 seconds and you need to change the barrel right away. The gunner will not really have time to give the sighting fire, and there is already nothing to shoot ..., three people are needed to service one machine gun ...
    And the MG-34, among other things, ... was picky about the quality of cartridges, often tore the cartridge case, was expensive ..., and not all machine guns in the Wehrmacht were MG-34/42. , there was a collection from all over Europe, and the Belgian Browning, and the Czech ZC, and the French SHOSHI ...
  • mat-vey
    mat-vey 3 May 2021 06: 21
    0
    Quote: svp67
    And about the effective range, you need to "prove" the same?

    Can you? You are welcome

    You? Not .
    1. svp67
      svp67 3 May 2021 06: 23
      +1
      Quote: mat-vey
      You? Not .

      Then why did you start this conversation, if you can't? Have you decided to show off your knowledge of the terms?
      1. mat-vey
        mat-vey 3 May 2021 06: 26
        +3
        Quote: svp67
        Then why did you start this conversation, if you can't?

        So this is just for you I can’t ... And so this is the secret of Polichenelle for several decades ...
  • hohol95
    hohol95 3 May 2021 18: 53
    +2
    But they did not shy away from taking on EVERYTHING that they came across in the captured arsenals of the defeated countries and armies. They and STEN copied, not out of a good life, but out of necessity.

    And here a natural question arises - why was the German industry unable to provide its armed forces with weapons of its own development and production?
    The same British armed the personnel of military airfields with PIKES ... Pikes from corners of steel!
    Was there something similar in the USSR?
    We don't take the militia into account. The militias are not involved in work with military aircraft!
    Each army had the weapons that its own industry could provide it or the country could buy on the side. As the British did with the BESA and BREN machine guns. And at the same time, they do not at all complex about this, as we do about DP-27.
  • bistrov.
    bistrov. 3 May 2021 07: 02
    +1
    Quote: svp67
    Yes, and the Finnish "Suomi" this figure was higher than that of the PPSh

    Enough breach, the Finnish PP used the 9x19 cartridge, which definitely has a steeper trajectory, so its effective firing range cannot be better than the PPSh, which used the 7,62 x25 cartridge for which the flatness of the bullet trajectory is higher. In addition, this "Suomi" weighed as much as 7 kg. I think it was not easy for the Finn to carry him ...
    1. Avior
      Avior 3 May 2021 08: 23
      +4
      For both cartridges, the trajectory dropped sharply after 200 meters, and there was no question of any effective firing in real conditions at long ranges.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 3 May 2021 16: 32
        +3
        Quote: Avior
        For both cartridges, the trajectory dropped sharply after 200 meters.

        At 9 * 19, the trajectory of up to 200 meters was already looking into the ground.
  • Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 3 May 2021 16: 19
    +2
    Quote: svp67
    Yes, and the Finnish "Suomi" this figure was higher than that of the PPSh

    How? 9 * 19 Para was noticeably inferior to 7,62 * 25 TT even with muzzle energy, not to mention the initial speed and energy loss.
  • Smirnov Sergey
    Smirnov Sergey 4 May 2021 13: 10
    +3
    It is not characteristics on paper that are fighting, but fighters with weapons. The weapon is being developed taking into account the planned combat use. Shooting in bursts with aiming is a somewhat strange idea, especially at ranges over 100..200 meters. Pistols - machine guns opened up during the assaults of cities and fortifications, there even 50 meters could not be found. The features of the weapon are also formed by the cartridge. With a mass production of 7.62 × 25, mass production of 9 × 19 would be foolish.
  • Jager
    Jager 8 May 2021 16: 38
    0
    Were the Germans "poor"?
  • Zug
    Zug 5 May 2021 22: 05
    0
    Yes they all accepted wink Everything that got into the trophy bag.
  • Alf
    Alf 3 May 2021 17: 59
    +2
    Quote: svp67
    Quote: mat-vey
    Are PPSh, PPS and SVT not effective?

    Quote: svp67
    The first have a short firing range

    As far as I understand, MP-40, Wall, Thompson have much higher range? Especially Thompson?
  • ecolog
    ecolog 3 May 2021 19: 42
    +1
    the small firing range of the PP is typical for all countries - you cannot jump over a pistol cartridge. This is a feature of the type of weapon. Some kind of MP-5 has the same 200 meters of aimed fire and no one complains - if you want to shoot further, take an assault rifle.
    SVT needs a trained soldier. The Marines liked them. Plus, quality is required, which was unrealistic to comply with in the conditions of the evacuation of the industry and the average qualifications of the workers in the hospital.
  • zenion
    zenion 4 May 2021 18: 25
    +3
    svp67. So the submachine gun is not intended for sniper purposes. For ranged combat - machine guns and sniper rifles. PPSh type for attack and defense.
  • Siberian54
    Siberian54 5 May 2021 13: 55
    +1
    \ svp67 \ Lord, how long can you repeat the fabrications of the catastrophic "light" given that the editorial office did not even have "conscripts" not to mention the officers .. "the latter" was in service with the border guards and the fleet and special services and "it was at the level of reliability and everything was in order with the shooting, that the sailors, that the border guards, that the specialists were well trained to shoot "
  • akinak-f
    akinak-f 6 May 2021 12: 54
    0
    Until recently, the most common weapons were Kalashnikov (USSR) and FN FAL (Belgium). while FN FAL is just a modification ..... (drums, roll ...) CBT! By the way, it is still being produced. So NATO is armed with "not always effective" weapons? Damn, but men don't know :))))))))
    Sincerely.
  • Plantagenet
    Plantagenet 8 May 2021 21: 46
    0
    God be with her with precision, the devil with the fact that SVT is afraid of dirt. But the adjustment of the gas regulator is pentagonal !!! the key is something. Several years ago, a lot of SVT appeared from warehouses that had been processed at the Molot plant in Vyatskiye Polyany. An acquaintance bought it from me. He safely lost the key somewhere. And problems began than to twist the pentahedron of the regulator. I had to cut a pentagonal hole in the plate and twist it.
  • unknown
    unknown 3 May 2021 07: 12
    +5
    The Lee-Enfield rifle had a very successful bolt design.
    Thanks to this, the rifle had a very high rate of fire.
    Therefore, there was no particular need for a self-loading rifle.
    1. Konnick
      Konnick 3 May 2021 15: 18
      0
      Therefore, there was no particular need for a self-loading rifle.

      In addition, it had a detachable magazine for 10 rounds.
      In 2015, the "Crazy Minute" competition was resumed in Norway again. True, it took another four years to surpass the old British instructors - in the current 2019 alone, one of the Norwegian shooters managed to achieve a result of 39 hits (out of 44 shots) on a target, setting a new record.

      44 shots per minute and 39 hits on a target the size of a head at 300 yards, which is about 275 meters. Even the SKS is not capable of this with its 10-cartridge clip, Enfield has two clips of 5 each faster loading into a 10-cartridge magazine. Pre-loaded shops are used in competitions.
      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kp0KGpBFG60
    2. DesToeR
      DesToeR 3 May 2021 20: 20
      0
      Quote: ignoto
      The Lee-Enfield rifle had a very successful bolt design.

      Yeah, with back locking.
      Quote: ignoto
      Thanks to this, the rifle had a very high rate of fire.

      But what about the separation of the rifle from the line of sight due to the need to do a "cook" - "lux" - "clan" after each shot? The practical rate of fire reached the SVT-40, for example?
  • mr.ZinGer
    mr.ZinGer 3 May 2021 09: 46
    +6
    Very controversial opinion on all points.
    Each weapon should be considered separately, and not generalized by country.
    The Mosin and SVT rifle is already a conflict of price, reliability, efficiency.
    "Some perfection" is not a term
    Lee Enfield, structurally, is probably the best rifle, and the only cheaper Wall is the plumbing pipes from which it was made.
    A set of common words about Germany.
  • Incvizitor
    Incvizitor 5 May 2021 02: 16
    +2
    Mosinka for me with good optics is still very effective.
    1. El Barto
      El Barto 8 May 2021 03: 13
      0
      And still very good at open sight. At least in the hunt
  • Konnick
    Konnick 3 May 2021 06: 09
    +11
    The article is like a school essay.
    1. AUL
      AUL 3 May 2021 06: 28
      +10
      Moreover, made on "fromеhang on. "
  • Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 3 May 2021 06: 41
    +4
    In 1941, STEN entered service with an extremely simple design. Thanks to this, before the end of the war, they managed to release approx. 4 million submachine guns. In fact, STEN was not alone ... in 1943, the UK developed the Sterling PP ... Although it is believed that it was officially adopted in 1953 ... but this submachine gun managed to make war in WW2; because. weapons from the manufactured experimental batch were transferred to the airborne units of the British troops in Europe!
    1. Catfish
      Catfish 3 May 2021 07: 08
      +5
      ... managed to fight in WW2;


      This is news to me, thank you, Volodya. smile

      To the heap also with a built-in "can" L34A1 (Sterling Patchett SMG 9 mm Mark 5 / Mk.

    2. Incvizitor
      Incvizitor 5 May 2021 13: 10
      +1
      Owen's PP was still only there were much fewer of them ...

      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 5 May 2021 13: 31
        0
        Quote: Incvizitor
        Owen's PP was still

        There was one ... but this is an Australian weapon! In my comment, I mentioned "pure" English weapons ...
  • Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 3 May 2021 07: 10
    +5
    Well, why is there to be measured by the number of shooters in the years of WW2? The Germans still cannot be surpassed! (let's not mean the USA of the 60s
    years of the 19th century ... wink ) Not only did they steal small arms "of all times and peoples" into their army; so managed in 1945 alone to develop and produce several samples of weapons for the Volkssturm at once!





    Eh. many photos cannot be included in one comment! wink
    1. mat-vey
      mat-vey 3 May 2021 10: 20
      +1
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      Eh. many photos cannot be included in one comment!

      So there was such a zoo ... although everything was ooooooo problematic with reliability ...
  • Kot_Kuzya
    Kot_Kuzya 3 May 2021 07: 15
    +9
    Some article is not very literate.
    ... The Soviet army finally abandoned the Mosin rifle with the advent of a new complex of weapons, which included a Simonov carbine and a Kalashnikov assault rifle.

    The Simonov carbine replaced the Mosin carbine of the 1944 model, the AK replaced the PPSh and PPS. Finally, the Soviet army abandoned the Mosin rifles only in the 60s after the SVD was adopted.
    ... More advanced systems such as submachine guns are needed to ensure adequate combat capability. It is easy to see that the countries that were the first to understand this and take into account when developing their weapons, in the end became the winners.
    Even with the First World War, individual small arms ceased to play a decisive role on the battlefield, machine guns and artillery killed tens of times more soldiers than rifles. And with the advent of military aircraft and tanks, the importance of individual small arms decreased even more. In World War II, it was almost without a difference what an ordinary infantryman was armed with: a magazine rifle, a self-loading rifle, PP or Sturmgever. The main role was played by the tactics and strategy of the opposing sides, the power of the economy and logistics of the belligerent countries, the banal quantity and quality of the same machine guns, artillery, tanks and combat aircraft at the front.
    1. mat-vey
      mat-vey 3 May 2021 10: 34
      +2
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      Even with the First World War, individual small arms ceased to play a decisive role on the battlefield, machine guns and artillery killed tens of times more soldiers than rifles. And with the advent of military aircraft and tanks, the importance of individual small arms decreased even more. In World War II, it was almost without a difference what an ordinary infantryman was armed with: a magazine rifle, a self-loading rifle, PP or Sturmgever. The main role was played by the tactics and strategy of the opposing sides, the power of the economy and logistics of the belligerent countries, the banal quantity and quality of the same machine guns, artillery, tanks and combat aircraft at the front.

      good
  • Catfish
    Catfish 3 May 2021 08: 37
    +3
    In 1942, the German army received a few MKb 42 (H) carbines,


    His competitor - MKb42 (W)
    1. CastroRuiz
      CastroRuiz 3 May 2021 12: 43
      0
      This is beauty.
  • Avior
    Avior 3 May 2021 09: 07
    +2
    ... More advanced systems such as submachine guns are needed to ensure adequate combat capability.

    A submachine gun in the army conditions of a rifle unit during the war is a niche weapon. The real effective firing range did not exceed 200 m, and this could not be corrected by any sight in real combat conditions.
    1. Konnick
      Konnick 3 May 2021 09: 29
      +2
      The real effective firing range did not exceed 200 m

      And more is not necessary. The PPSh was especially effective in trench and urban battles, as well as in wooded areas, machine guns were used at long-range combat distances, and from the 42nd in each rifle regiment, separate companies of machine gunners were created, which included a sniper platoon. There was no such saturation of the infantry with sniper weapons in the Wehrmacht.
      A submachine gun in the army conditions of a rifle unit during the war is a niche weapon

      Everything has its time. And the capture of Shushi by the Azerbaijani special forces, armed with pistols and grenades, makes one think about the effectiveness of weapons such as AK or M16 in close urban combat. Dense low-rise buildings with numerous fences would not allow to move quickly with meter-long assault rifles, and it is easier to climb the steep cliffs with a pistol. And as soon as possible, instantly change the direction of fire at minimum combat distances, nothing beats a pistol in skillful hands. There is no perfect small arms, there is the right choice of weapons for a specific task.
      1. Avior
        Avior 3 May 2021 10: 00
        +4
        ... PPSh was especially effective in trench and urban battles,

        Is the trench fight in the trenches?
        Where are friends and foes mingled?
        This is to put everyone?
        There were niches for the use of PP, but in general, typical battles of a rifle unit were usually fought in open areas, and not in a dense forest.
        The machine gun was used from a long distance, it sharply slowed down the speed of advancement on the battlefield for the enemy, and the magazine rifle made it possible to accurately shoot the enemy at long and medium distances. The fighter with the SMG simply did not participate in this phase of the battle. He entered the battle at a distance of less than 200 m, if the battle reached this distance, again primarily to slow down the enemy's movement - a rifle from a distance of 200 m and closer allowed in the hands of a trained soldier to ensure a high probability of defeat.
        In the offensive, on the contrary, the fighters with PP at a distance of less than 200 m suppressed the enemy in the trenches with dense fire and allowed their own to make the last dash and not fall under the enemy's grenades.
        That is, the armament must be balanced.
        If the fighters are poorly trained, it makes sense to bring them with a large number of PPs to the minimum combat distance, with large losses on both sides.
        If the fighters are well trained, it is better to keep the enemy at an average distance with a machine gun for as long as possible, and shoot individually, not allowing them to approach the battle distance closer than 200 m, their losses will be minimal, the enemy's losses are large.
        About Shusha, it's not serious, special battle conditions, special forces and special requirements, a battle in a mountain town is atypical for World War II, no one would arm rifle units for such a battle.
        If the Azerbaijani special forces, armed in this way, ended up on a typical battlefield in an open area against the Wehrmacht during the Second World War, then the Germans would have killed it very quickly, there would be no chance.
        1. mat-vey
          mat-vey 3 May 2021 10: 32
          +1
          That is why it is natural that they came to machine guns (assault rifles) ... Although Fedorov came to this conclusion back in WWI ..
          1. Avior
            Avior 3 May 2021 14: 14
            0
            Unfortunately, it was possible to realistically implement assault rifles only with an intermediate cartridge.
            1. mat-vey
              mat-vey 3 May 2021 16: 08
              0
              Quote: Avior
              Unfortunately, it was possible to realistically implement assault rifles only with an intermediate cartridge.

              And what is YOUR "intermediate cartridge"?
              1. Avior
                Avior 3 May 2021 16: 40
                +1
                Arisaka's cartridge is not intermediate. Like 0.30 Carbine
                1. mat-vey
                  mat-vey 3 May 2021 16: 43
                  0
                  Another razik - what is your "industrial cartridge"?
            2. El Barto
              El Barto 8 May 2021 03: 21
              -1
              They switched to machine guns / assault rifles solely for 2 reasons - a. mass distribution in armies of armored combat vehicles with heavy weapons in each compartment and b. low shooting training of a mass soldier. Otherwise, there are no advantages over rifles with manual reloading.
        2. Konnick
          Konnick 3 May 2021 12: 34
          -1
          typical battles of a rifle unit were usually fought in open terrain rather than in dense forest.
          The machine gun was used from a long distance, it sharply slowed down the speed of advancement on the battlefield for the enemy, and the magazine rifle made it possible to accurately shoot the enemy at long and medium distances.

          And nothing that the Germans, and even ours, set up trenches on the opposite slopes of heights, and the pillboxes did not have a frontal zone of fire, only a flank one. Because to have trenches and pillboxes in line of sight of the enemy means to doom yourself to destruction from well-adjusted artillery and mortar fire.
          They will see enough feature films and think of themselves as strategists ... just shoot ... ugh.
          1. Avior
            Avior 3 May 2021 13: 04
            0
            Well yes. No one fought on level ground, only on the slopes
            And the fact that for the hills the battles are being fought, you do not know? And you surrender them without a fight
            And there is no talk about Dota
            1. Konnick
              Konnick 3 May 2021 13: 16
              -1
              Usually the trenches were located 100-200 meters behind the ridge, only observers on the ridge. The machine-gun positions are even farther away in order to bombard the slope facing the enemy with mounted fire. The Duke of Wellington also began to use reverse slopes. And the fact that you watched "They fought for the Motherland" does not mean anything, if there are tanks from such a defense, nothing will remain after 10 minutes of direct fire.
              1. Avior
                Avior 3 May 2021 14: 17
                0
                And what did the observers do when attacking the enemy? Did you run away or die heroically right away?
                And what the enemy was doing, it is clear - he put machine guns on the ridge and, under their cover, made a dash for 100 m into your trenches.
                1. Konnick
                  Konnick 3 May 2021 14: 32
                  -1
                  http://militera.lib.ru/h/middeldorf/02.html
                  In preparation for repelling the expected major enemy offensive, defensive positions were almost always equipped on return slopes and camouflaged by creating false positions 200-300 m in front of the leading edge, which were prepared on a slope facing the enemy, or on the crest of a hill


                  This is an excerpt from the book "Russian Company: Tactics and Armaments" by E. Middeldorf, he served for many years in command positions and as an officer of the General Staff on the Eastern Front, and also worked as an assistant generalizing tactical experience in the General Staff of the German Ground Forces. In his book, he analyzes the features of the conduct of hostilities by the German and Russian armies in 1941-1945, the organization and armament of the main combat arms and the tactics of subunits and units.
                  1. Konnick
                    Konnick 3 May 2021 14: 38
                    -2
                    what did the observers do when attacking the enemy? Did you run away or die heroically right away?
                    And what the enemy was doing, it is clear - he put machine guns on the ridge and, under their cover, made a dash for 100 m into your trenches.

                    No need to twist, long-distance shooter.

                    I can continue-

                    The position on the reverse slope gives the defender the following advantages:

                    - significant areas of defense are hidden from enemy observation, and therefore the possibility of conducting artillery fire or direct fire from tanks and assault guns observed from ground observation posts on them is excluded until the attacker provides observation from the flanks or from dominant heights;

                    - the attacker too late discovers anti-tank weapons well camouflaged from air surveillance;

                    - having seized the ridge of a height, behind which the main line of defense is located, the attacker often finds himself in front of an undestructed position and defensive structures not discovered until that time;

                    - the attacker is forced to overcome the crest of heights and advance in full view of the enemy
                    .
                  2. Avior
                    Avior 3 May 2021 16: 52
                    0
                    Well, yes, any battle began with a search for a stingray, without this they did not fight
                    No need to change the topic of conversation, it was that the PP rifle does not replace
                    As for the location on the slope, that is, the combat regulations of 1942
                    9. Features of defense in the mountains

                    232. Organizing defense in the mountains, the battalion commander must:
                    - to take out the leading edge slightly below the topographic ridge of heights towards the enemy in order to have the best view and fire and as little dead space and non-bombardment approaches as possible; to place part of the forces on the reverse slopes;
              2. Aag
                Aag 4 May 2021 10: 14
                0
                "... The machine-gun positions are even farther away, so that they can bombard the slope facing the enemy with HINGED fire ...."
                belay
                1. Konnick
                  Konnick 4 May 2021 10: 56
                  0
                  For the gifted


                  The position of the machine gun was chosen so that the trajectory of the bullets was parallel to the slope facing the enemy. They have been shooting this way since the end of the 19th century.
                  1. Avior
                    Avior 4 May 2021 13: 14
                    +3
                    I gave you a quote from the Military Regulations just during the war years.
                    If this and this is not your feed, then I have no idea what else will help you.
                    The myth that the Germans were building the defense on the opposite slopes told about the Russians, the Russians about the Germans, this is a well-known myth.
                    But in reality, such situations can only be in special cases.
                    The combat regulations prohibit organizing defense strictly on the ridge and ascribe to do this on the slope facing the enemy, which I gave you the restraint.
                    Your pictures of blindfire are suitable for the end of the 19th century, when they were advancing in tightly closed rows, but in the middle of the 20th century, this is not about anything, so it was possible to fight only in special situations, or to waste a bullet, warming up the barrel and consuming cartridges
                    And your idea that the PP replaced the rifle is just ridiculous, sorry.
                    But I will not bother you, write on ...
                    hi
                  2. Aag
                    Aag 4 May 2021 18: 29
                    +1
                    Quote: Konnick
                    For the gifted


                    The position of the machine gun was chosen so that the trajectory of the bullets was parallel to the slope facing the enemy. They have been shooting this way since the end of the 19th century.

                    "... For the gifted ..."
                    Well, why so categorically, colleague?
                    Yes, somewhat not my profile - "Tactics of Combined Arms Combat", "Fire Training" at the VVUZ were only in the initial courses. The teachers were respected, and, overwhelmingly, literate. Attached machine gun fire was referred to as exotic (maybe because there are other means?). The armed forces of the entrusted units were the PKK, PKT, KPVT. NSVT caught a little ...
                    For the first time I hear about the equipment of positions on the opposite slope of heights, in the context under consideration. And I'm not alone, I interviewed three colleagues. Fortunately, the day was not very working.))
                    But, as they say, - "it's not a shame not to know, - it's a shame not to know, and not to ask."
                    By the way, thank you for some insolence, however, we forced to type in the search engine "mounted fire from a machine gun", "firing from a machine gun from PDO (closed firing positions)!
                    Very informative. I recommend for those interested.
                    And the "butting" of mathematicians on calculating the effectiveness of such a fire, and heated debate on the forums of fans of the shooter (like "Guns.ru"), and bickering of bloggers, journalists for historical accuracy ...
                    For the sake of fairness, I must note that such a technique, judging by some reports, is still used today! On the line of confrontation between the LPR, DPR-AFU.
                    But, you see, this is a very specific case (studied, long-term irreplaceable positions, etc.).
                    Let me have a few excerpts from what I read on this topic (maybe someone will be interested):
                    "...
                    For machine-gun firing from closed positions - the author of the craft has complete ignorance of the ballistics of a machine-gun cartridge and a lack of familiarity with at least the instructions on the machine gun, which read:
                    "Remember: from closed positions, heavy machine guns can shoot no closer than 1500 meters."
                    http://www.rkka.msk.ru/rbp/rbp12.shtml"
                    "... The point was not even that in most combat situations heavy machine guns were used for direct fire. Almost all machine-gun optical sights and quadrant goniometers at the end of 1941 and early 1942 were banally withdrawn from the troops and sent to military factories. The USSR, which had lost its optical industry, was looking for resources to equip artillery guns and mortars with sights. By the method of firing, the personnel of machine-gunners in the Red Army had already been lost, and in order to avoid creating problems for themselves, the specialists of the Combat Training Directorate of the Red Army called firing from machine guns with an indirect fire as "obsolete" and buried completely ... "
                    Do not consider it a flood.
                    1. Konnick
                      Konnick 4 May 2021 19: 19
                      0
                      I repeat.
                      From the book "The Russian Company: Tactics and Armaments" by E. Middeldorf, he served for many years in command positions and as an officer of the General Staff on the Eastern Front, and also worked as an assistant generalizing tactical experience in the General Staff of the German Ground Forces. In his book, he analyzes the features of the conduct of hostilities by the German and Russian armies in 1941-1945, the organization and armament of the main combat arms and the tactics of subunits and units.

                      In preparation for repelling the expected major enemy offensive, defensive positions were almost always equipped on return slopes and camouflaged by creating false positions 200-300 m in front of the leading edge, which were prepared on a slope facing the enemy, or on the crest of a hill


                      This German officer describes our defensive tactics.
                      And about firing a machine gun from closed positions, read "Vanka-company".
                      And about the pegs under the butt of the light machine gun "Take it alive".
                      By the way, I was not taught about positions on the reverse slope either, but Zhukov in his "Memories and Reflections" mentions this twice, the first about the failure at Rzhev, the second about the defense at the Seelow Heights.
                      What our grandfathers learned, we have safely profiled. 1500 meters is the aiming range, but at the same time the upper point of the trajectory when firing a light bullet will be 5 meters.
                      You understand that machine-gun nests located in line of sight are knocked out once or twice by artillery.
                      And I will continue from the book previously mentioned

                      The position on the reverse slope gives the defender the following advantages:

                      - significant areas of defense are hidden from enemy observation, and therefore the possibility of conducting artillery fire or direct fire from tanks and assault guns observed from ground observation posts on them is excluded until the attacker provides observation from the flanks or from dominant heights;

                      - the attacker too late discovers anti-tank weapons well camouflaged from air surveillance;

                      - having seized the ridge of a height, behind which the main line of defense is located, the attacker often finds himself in front of an undestructed position and defensive structures not discovered until that time;

                      - the attacker is forced to overcome the crest of heights and advance in full view of the enemy


                      And this was written by a German about our defense.
                      Our troops were the first to use this tactic in the defense of Murmansk, and the Germans did not advance a single step there.
                      1. Avior
                        Avior 4 May 2021 19: 53
                        +2
                        And you find that ours wrote that such tactics were massively used by our troops contrary to the combat regulations, the quote from which I gave you, and not the Germans, and that the army replaced rifles with PPs for such tactics. Why are you suddenly referring to a German?
                        For if you lost a battle in violation of the charter, a penalty unit may await you, or maybe even worse. They served in the army, do you know what a combat manual is? And what is the risk of failure if it is violated?
                        And it won't help you much if you refer to a German.
                        Moreover, ours wrote the same about the Germans, each side believed that such tactics were practiced by the enemy, and not by their own

                        This is the Red Star, 1944
                        In fact, such tactics were used as an exception, in special cases, which I wrote to you about. And no one under such tactics of the army did not re-equip on PP instead of rifles - neither we nor the Germans, as you are sure
                        hi
                      2. Aag
                        Aag 5 May 2021 06: 31
                        0
                        Comrade Avior has already answered this, and in addition I will give a comment from another forum where this topic was discussed:
                        "... Now I again went through the Shumilin topic on the Internet, and noticed that the main site of Shumilin's son was closed. There was a powerful forum where supporters of the work gathered and praised. Now it is written that somewhere since 2010 the forum is" read only ".
                        http://nik-shumilin.narod.ru/
                        Nobody knows what happened?
                        Along the way, I recommend to anyone interested, a huge critical analysis of another "main book about the war" - the works of N. Nikulin. Here are as many as four topics with sequels, a lot of interesting
                        http://istorya.pro/nikolay-nik...zhizni-2-t.html

                        My opinion:
                        Apparently, during perestroika, the golden time has come for the relatives of the front-line soldiers, who left scattered and unformed memories. Like Zhukov's relatives, they got the opportunity to "process" the source material in accordance with the political situation.

                        So the "new truth about the war" appeared.

                        If you read carefully, you can see that too often the "authors" pierce the small details of military operations and the situation. Which could not have happened if real front-line soldiers wrote. The calculation is simple - most people do not know much more about weapons and combat operations than these handler relatives. And everything works, especially for the offended ... "
                      3. Konnick
                        Konnick 5 May 2021 07: 11
                        +2
                        I am not a fan of Shumilin's reading matter, as well as Astafiev's. As for Zhukov's memoirs, I will say that I read a lifetime edition.
                        And modern treatments of front-line myths have now proliferated. Yes, even veterans are chanting nonsense, some veteran on TV tells how he put down the PPS and took a rifle with a bayonet in front of hand-to-hand combat, and veteran Mikhin tells how he dragged his gun across the corpse fields near Rzhev by hand, yeah the M30 howitzer ... Memories of the commander of the penal battalion "some Suknev, that's really a" masterpiece ". And the firing pin on the MG made from a ramrod, and a high-explosive shell that evaporates bodies, and many more interesting moments, especially pleased with a company of penalties from former Basmachi, and another company from Rostov bear-bearers .. By the way, this Suknev destroyed the German machine gunners sitting in the pillbox from DP-27, from his own trench.

                        And what about the reverse slopes? The German described the most advanced methods of war, but what they already knew according to our charter. I have already written about the use of such tactics in the defense of Murmansk, our most successful defense. On other fronts, apparently they found out in 44th, from the newspapers.
                        And if you fight according to modern regulations, an example is the Armenians, with their company strongpoints and artillery doors swept out to the stone, which can be viewed in satellite maps, and in the Wikimapia map also with decoding, then you will quickly be left without these companies in stationary positions.
                        As for accusing Avior of replacing a rifle with a PP, the ideal combination, in my opinion, should be the presence of 6-7 submachine guns in the squad, and 4-5 self-loading sniper rifles, but not assault rifles or machine guns according to ours and a machine gun. Leave the machine gun on the vehicle. And the main task of the infantry is not an assault, but the identification of enemy firing points and his equipment with further guidance of artillery or aviation, a "long arm" tactic.
        3. Helmet
          Helmet 4 May 2021 15: 53
          +1
          I'm only afraid that ours did not know about it. All our pillboxes that I saw are exclusively for frontal shooting, even without the ability to shoot at the flank, there are not even embrasures for this. and the trenches immediately leave these bunkers. no hints of some kind of backward slopes
      2. Alf
        Alf 3 May 2021 18: 16
        +1
        Quote: Avior
        That is, the armament must be balanced.

        Perhaps the Americans were the best armed. 300-400 Guaranty, 50-200 Thompsons, closer to 50 to zero-M1897.
        1. Avior
          Avior 3 May 2021 19: 58
          0
          Carbines up to 300 meters
          1. Alf
            Alf 3 May 2021 20: 38
            +2
            Quote: Avior
            Carbines up to 300 meters

            Do not mention this name, it’s not even an hour you will call it, then what will we do? laughing
            They kicked him out with such difficulty ...
            1. mat-vey
              mat-vey 3 May 2021 20: 53
              +2
              Quote: Alf
              They kicked him out with such difficulty ...

              It is believed that he sometimes tries to be reborn.
              1. Alf
                Alf 3 May 2021 20: 55
                +2
                Quote: mat-vey
                Quote: Alf
                They kicked him out with such difficulty ...

                It is believed that he sometimes tries to be reborn.

                Whoa-that? Name, name ...
                1. mat-vey
                  mat-vey 3 May 2021 20: 57
                  +3
                  Quote: Alf
                  Whoa-that? Name, name ...

                  Just recently, at the beginning of the year, something similar ran in, but quickly (one might say professionally) got banned .. the infantry cartridge was present ..
                  Unfortunately, I didn't remember the name - everything happened very quickly ..
                  1. Alf
                    Alf 3 May 2021 21: 00
                    +3
                    Quote: mat-vey
                    Quote: Alf
                    Whoa-that? Name, name ...

                    Just recently, at the beginning of the year, something similar ran in, but quickly (one might say professionally) got banned .. the infantry cartridge was present ..
                    Unfortunately, I didn't remember the name - everything happened very quickly ..

                    Huh, my heart relieved, I thought that It was here.
                    And as for professionalism, Yes, you are right, It gets it skillfully, one might say, we extinguish the whole forum, everyone, even the antagonists, act as a united front. Yes, this is not supposed to be, but critical moments require unpopular decisions. laughing
                    1. mat-vey
                      mat-vey 3 May 2021 21: 02
                      +2
                      Quote: Alf
                      What about professionalism-Yes

                      So he has iron marks - an infantry cartridge and an SPG with a rotating turret ...
                    2. Alf
                      Alf 3 May 2021 21: 05
                      +1
                      Quote: mat-vey
                      Quote: Alf
                      What about professionalism-Yes

                      So he has iron marks - an infantry cartridge and an SPG with a rotating turret ...

                      Yes, his "tower" "revolves". DP-heavy rifle on bipod, IS-2 and T-34 anti-tank self-propelled guns, etc.
                    3. mat-vey
                      mat-vey 3 May 2021 21: 08
                      +2
                      Before
                      Quote: Alf
                      IS-2 and T-34 anti-tank self-propelled guns

                      In my opinion, it did not come, but a heavy rifle and an infantry cartridge slipped through ... then the people pulled themselves up and became more active ...
                    4. Alf
                      Alf 3 May 2021 21: 24
                      0
                      Quote: mat-vey
                      then the people pulled themselves up and became more active ...

                      "But here the Tatars could not stand it, they piled up in a crowd
                      And in a moment mortal battle began to boil "...
                    5. mat-vey
                      mat-vey 3 May 2021 21: 27
                      +1
                      Quote: Alf
                      "But here the Tatars could not stand it, they piled up in a crowd
                      And in a moment mortal battle began to boil "...

                      Like this laughing
    2. Avior
      Avior 3 May 2021 22: 37
      0
      I confess, but Americans just have M1 - this is a name for all occasions :)
  • stoqn477
    stoqn477 3 May 2021 10: 18
    +1
    Quote: Konnick

    Everything has its time. And the capture of Shushi by the Azerbaijani special forces, armed with pistols and grenades, makes one think about the effectiveness of weapons such as AK or M16 in close urban combat. Dense low-rise buildings with numerous fences would not allow to move quickly with meter-long assault rifles, and it is easier to climb the steep cliffs with a pistol. And as soon as possible, instantly change the direction of fire at minimum combat distances, nothing beats a pistol in skillful hands. There is no perfect small arms, there is the right choice of weapons for a specific task.

    Both the AK and the M-16 have shorter versions. The US military has been using the M-4 for many years. And submachine guns are still produced in many countries. And for cleaning a building, a smooth-bore weapon is a good choice.
    1. cat Rusich
      cat Rusich 3 May 2021 12: 02
      0
      Quote: stoqn477

      Both the AK and the M-16 have shorter versions. The US military has been using the M-4 for years. ...
      AK-74 - 940 / 700mm (unfolded / folded) 1974
      M-4 - 840 / 760mm (extended butt / shifted butt) 1994
      The M-16 was shortened to a comparable size with the AK-74 - we got the M-4 ...
      AK-74 initially had its own dimensions, AKSU - an attempt to make an AK - PP with an intermediate cartridge.

      Quote: stoqn477
      Quote: Konnick

      Everything has its time. And the capture of Shushi by the Azerbaijani special forces, armed with pistols and grenades, makes one think.

      .
      They took Shushi thanks to the Turkish UAVs, which ensured air supremacy and the NKR troops left Shushi so as not to get surrounded.
  • DesToeR
    DesToeR 3 May 2021 20: 25
    +2
    Quote: Avior
    A submachine gun in the army conditions of a rifle unit during the war is a niche weapon.

    Then why to the question to the "fathers-generals" what small arms they would like to see in the infantry armament in 1944, they answered - PPSh in a 50/50 proportion?
    Quote: Avior
    The real effective firing range did not exceed 200 m, and this could not be corrected by any sight in real combat conditions.

    The real range of modern clashes fluctuates in the range of 100 ... 200m. And this is industrial cartridges with 900 "capes" on the barrel cut.
    1. mat-vey
      mat-vey 3 May 2021 21: 00
      +2
      Quote: DesToeR
      The real range of modern clashes fluctuates in the range of 100 ... 200m.

      If I still remember, according to the tactics textbook, the infantry is supposed to dismount just 200 meters from the enemy trenches.
    2. Avior
      Avior 3 May 2021 22: 40
      0
      Now the conditions are different, tens of millions of armies with each other are no longer at war
      And about 100 m of clashes I have doubts, can you give a link to the source?
    3. Baron pardus
      Baron pardus 7 May 2021 18: 45
      0
      How interesting, you tell our people. The American army was convinced of the opposite. Intermediate cartridges are weak. And on actions against obstacles, and on actions against the enemy in body armor. And on the effective range of fire. And if at first they thought of replacing 5.56x45 with 6.8 SPPS or 6.5 Grendel (in terms of power, they are quite comparable to 6.5 Arisaka, that is, "modern" developments just repeat Fedorov's ideas). After analyzing the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan, the American Army issued completely different requirements ... A cartridge of 6.8 caliber, but with ballistics even superior to that of 7.62x51NATO. That is, there is a RETURN to the concept of "battle rifle", that is, a SELF-LOADING rifle of a rifle caliber, and this is FAL, G3, M14, and others like them. What "200m battle distance" can we talk about? The experience of battles in the mountains and on the street showed that the power and range of the intermediate cartridge is INSUFFICIENT. And although the 6.8SPC was used by our special forces, the Army wanted an even more powerful cartridge. That is, it will be a Battle Rifle, because of new technologies, the barrels on these rifles will not be 24 inches, but 16-20 inches, But still it will be just a new version of the good old Battle Rifle.
  • megavolt823
    megavolt823 3 May 2021 12: 19
    +1
    In the USSR, first of all, there was an understanding of the theater of action. And based on this, decisions were made. Despite the general devastation after the revolutionary period. Bans and sanctions of the entire Western world. There was an understanding of the inevitability of urban battles. Rifles were more successful for protracted trench warfare. The long range of an effective shot was provided by a cartridge and a long barrel. But in the conditions of the city, the rifle was more in the way. We needed a tool that was inferior to a machine gun, but a little more than a pistol in size and weight. So the model of the 30th year was adopted. 76,2x25. Blunt-pointed bullet of stopping power. Less rifle, but more pistol. Intermediate cartridge. The PPSh had a number of shortcomings, especially the drum magazine and its spring. PPP and PPD appeared. But on the whole, the thought was correct. The cartridge was needed.
    1. stoqn477
      stoqn477 3 May 2021 12: 33
      +4
      Sorry, but the TT cartridge is based on the 96 Mauser C-1896 cartridge. You just changed the caliber a little. 7,63 mm to 7,62 mm. The stopping effect of this cartridge is small due to its penetrating ability.
      1. Konnick
        Konnick 3 May 2021 12: 47
        -1
        The stopping effect of this cartridge is small due to its penetrating ability.

        Due to the rate of fire of the PPSh, what a stopping effect, that's why the soldiers called the PPSh a meat grinder.
        And I'm sure that interest in submachine guns will revive.
      2. megavolt823
        megavolt823 3 May 2021 13: 04
        0
        The cartridge for the Mauser S-96 was taken as a basis. There are discrepancies in millimeters. And his penetrating ability is good only at short distances. A wound with such a bullet heals badly. And the inflammation of the soft tissues and crushing the bone. And does not shoot to fly. Like a pointed cartridge. If the life of the important is not touched by anything, then it heals faster.
    2. SKS_PRO
      SKS_PRO 4 May 2021 16: 47
      0
      "Intermediate cartridge. PPSh had a number of shortcomings, especially the drum magazine and its spring. PPS and PPD appeared" (c)
      Here are just 76,2x25 not intermediate, but as correctly noted below "the TT cartridge is based on the Mauser S-96 cartridge of 1896. You just changed the caliber a little. From 7,63 mm to 7,62 mm" (c)
      Yes, the PPD appeared BEFORE the PCA in general, the PPP after.
      1. megavolt823
        megavolt823 5 May 2021 09: 27
        0
        Intermediate cartridges were called between pistol and rifle cartridges. But not the point. And it is listed as 7,62x25. I checked ! If anything ! 7,63 × 25 mm Mauser, cartridge length, 34,8 mm. But 7,62 x25 TT cartridge length, 35 mm. So that one, but not quite. Degtyarev PP was serial, but not massive. Expensive and difficult to manufacture. Shpagin's PPSh was massive. PPS Sudaev was mass-produced, but PPSh was massive. It was made by 1 lam 600 thousand, if I am not mistaken. Don't wake up the spelling? Hope! hi
        1. alexbyrcev
          alexbyrcev 9 May 2021 02: 40
          0
          PCA made 5,5 million.
    3. Terran ghost
      Terran ghost 4 May 2021 17: 35
      0
      There was an understanding of the inevitability of urban battles

      So the model of the 30th year was adopted. 76,2x25. Blunt-pointed bullet of stopping power. Less rifle, but more pistol. Intermediate cartridge.

      What? Specifically, in the Soviet Union, before the start of the Great Patriotic War, the mass armament of the infantry was supposed ... with self-loading rifles for a completely familiar "full-size" rifle cartridge.
      1. megavolt823
        megavolt823 5 May 2021 09: 34
        0
        PPD, aka the Degtyarev submachine gun of 1934. Used in Finnish. The 1941 Shpagin system submachine gun (PPSh) is a Soviet submachine gun developed in 1940 by designer G.S. Shpagin chambered for 7,62 × 25 mm TT and adopted by the Red Army on December 21, 1940.
        1. Terran ghost
          Terran ghost 5 May 2021 10: 37
          +1
          PPD, aka the Degtyarev submachine gun of 1934

          Was purchased in an extremely limited series for the border troops. Actually, the army did not really see the point in such a weapon. And this situation remained until the Soviet-Finnish war of 1939-1940. But even after it ... according to the pre-war (1941) staffing tables of the Red Army, a typical rifle squad of 11 people should have had only 2 submachine guns, but as many as 8 (eight) self-loading SVT-38/40 rifles.
  • stoqn477
    stoqn477 3 May 2021 12: 57
    0
    Quote: Konnick
    The stopping effect of this cartridge is small due to its penetrating ability.

    Due to the rate of fire of the PPSh, what a stopping effect, that's why the soldiers called the PPSh a meat grinder.
    And I'm sure that interest in submachine guns will revive.

    It seems to me that the rate of fire is too high, but more beautiful than the PPS.
    The rest of the arms industry has not abandoned submachine guns. Starting from the legends of Uzi and MP-5 to modern ones. The armies abandoned them. They switched to automatic machines. Only in the special forces, I think they are.
  • Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 3 May 2021 13: 07
    +2
    Author - where is Japan?) About "Type 99" could write a couple of lines.
    I also don’t see Australia, there were also interesting developments in automation. Little has been written about the weapons of the Italians, they could have also given a couple of lines.
    IMHO material for 1 more article would be enough.
  • Karsifar
    Karsifar 3 May 2021 14: 55
    0
    ... produced until 1945, the Red Army received more than 1,6 million SVT-38s ... Didn't the SVT-38 cease to be produced in 1940? As far as I know, before 1945, the SVT-40 was produced, and not the SVT-38.
    1. Alf
      Alf 3 May 2021 18: 20
      0
      Quote: Karsifar
      ... produced until 1945, the Red Army received more than 1,6 million SVT-38s ... Didn't the SVT-38 cease to be produced in 1940? As far as I know, before 1945, the SVT-40 was produced, and not the SVT-38.

      Is there a big difference between them?
      1. Karsifar
        Karsifar 4 May 2021 22: 12
        0
        Quote: Alf
        Is there a big difference between them?

        The difference is not big, but nevertheless there are some improvements and in this connection a different index was assigned to the weapon. The weapon is not a car in which the facelift was carried out and left under the same name.
        1. Alf
          Alf 5 May 2021 18: 56
          0
          Quote: Karsifar
          Quote: Alf
          Is there a big difference between them?

          The difference is not big, but nevertheless there are some improvements and in this connection a different index was assigned to the weapon. The weapon is not a car in which the facelift was carried out and left under the same name.

          On the one hand, you are right. But on the other hand, when here, at VO, they say that the Panthers were produced from the 43rd to the 45th year, they usually do not specify which modifications, they are well aware of this here.
  • Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 3 May 2021 16: 42
    0
    By the way, they also tried to use the DS-39 in different "guises" ... for example, as a tank ... It was possible to "withdraw" this machine gun from the tank and use it with a bipod outside the tank ...

    If you insert the tape ... is it not a belt-fed LMG? wink
  • Dmitry Baryshev
    Dmitry Baryshev 3 May 2021 22: 13
    0
    Nobody traded rifles for submachine guns. These are completely different weapons. The rifle fires for a kilometer, and the submachine gun only 200 meters (albeit very quickly). Therefore, the rifle was the main weapon, and the submachine gun in all armies was used only for close combat, for example, urban.
  • Baron pardus
    Baron pardus 3 May 2021 23: 29
    0
    The author is missing a few things:
    a) The idiotic order of the GAU (EMNIP) that a self-loading rifle should weigh the same as a store rifle and cost a little more. It doesn't work that way. Obviously, the "experts" at GRAU were not told this. About the fact that the laws of physics cannot be changed and a light machine gun cannot give either the accuracy or density of the easel fire, they were also not told. About the fear of "sticking long tank guns" and other miracles of the GAU somersault has been written here more than once.
    b) As a result, the SVT-40 was lightened, that is, the mechanism worked at the limit of its capabilities, and the thin barrel overheated very quickly and the accuracy dropped. The rifle worked well in the hands of a tech-savvy infantryman, but there weren't many of those in the SA. I repeat, in 1940, a person who completed 6 classes was considered educated. In Germany, there were at least 10 classes, emnip. Therefore, the SVT-40 worked normally for the Germans and Finns and for the Soviet marines / airborne troops. By the way, more than once in the USA they put SVT40 against Garand, and SVT-40 always lost to the Garand.
    c) The Germans built their squad around a SINGLE machine gun. That is, the detachment of the Germans with one MG34 (the rest with rifles), gave about the same amount of firepower as the detachment of the Americans with the BAR and Garand. Moreover, MG42 further increased the firepower of the squad, moreover, the panzergrenadier formations had TWO machine guns in the squad.
    d) Garand was finished for a long time and tediously. It was a good time. Unlike GAU, the US Army did not require the M1 to cost the same as a sprinfield, and weighed the same. Therefore, we finished. EMNIP was brought to mind for about 6 years. And springfield continued to be used. Mat Rijuei writes that when he landed in 1944 he had exactly Springfield, he did not trust Garand.
    e) The M1 Carbine was never meant to be a front line infantry weapon. Therefore, the power of the cartridge is exactly in the middle between the pistol 45 and rifle 30-06. I mean, this is just an intermediate cartridge, but for personal protection weapons. The PDW concept was developed by the American army. Moreover, cunning sergeants converted the M1 into a fully automatic version, significantly increasing its firepower.
    f) Springfield, it was the same Mauser, by and large. For the patent / license of which the Americans paid the Germans a huge cookie.
    g) Having all 3 rifles at hand, I can say that worse than a mosinka it was necessary to try VERY hard to come up with. Even Arisaka and Mannlicher Carcano are more comfortable. An inconvenient bolt, an even more inconvenient fuse, the clip needs to be PULLED OUT (on normal rifles, it flies out when the bolt moves forward)
    h) The British did not really need self-loading. Read about SMLE. Due to the peculiarities of the bolt, and 10 charging magazine, a trained soldier made 20-30 aimed shots per minute. Therefore, the British did not bother with the development of self-loading, they had the best magazine rifle in the world. Until 1957, they weren't convinced that self-loading was better than their Lee Enfield. Trained to automatism, the British infantrymen simply created a barrage of rifle fire. It was only in the 1950s that the British realized that only an experienced shooter could use all the highlights of Lee Enfield, and switched to the FAL, which are still fighting in the hands of ... let's say ... well, a very low-tech continent.
    The Germans, having come under fire from a platoon of the British, as a rule believed that machine guns were working on them, and there was nothing but Enfields. English BREN was better than the American BAR, and much more accurate. Although in terms of fire density BREN is slightly inferior to DP27, BREN stores are much more resistant to damage than DP pancakes. Unlike the DP in BREN, the return spring was not a weak link. I can't say which was better than DP or BREN, but both covered the BAR like a bull to a sheep. BREN was distinguished by excellent reliability, proved to be excellent in the desert, and was also so accurate and heaped that it was often used as a "semi-sniper". The features of the device made the recoil low, which in turn increased the accuracy and stability. I repeat that the German MG34 and MG42 are not light machine guns, but UNITED. Brand new class. You cannot compare them with anything.
    i) STG44 was indeed a breakthrough, but did not find popularity among the troops. Why? And because ammunition and magazines were difficult to get on the battlefield. Most German soldiers preferred the MP40.
    j) About PP. I saw the table according to which the PPSh is inferior to the MP40 and Suomi and other PPs at a distance of 50m. Yes, the PPSh had a large effective firing range, but with such a rate of fire, it was difficult to control the jumping submachine gun. The trunks were really overheating. The 71 disc magazine was unreliable, unlike the 50-cartridge disc magazine on the Thompson, which was indestructible. Moreover, the disk magazines for the PCB had to be adjusted to each PC individually. There was no need to finish the disk stores from Tommigan. The PPSh was not a super submachine gun. Heavy, low accuracy even when firing single, even lower accuracy when firing in automatic mode. EMNIP among PP, the champion in accuracy was MP34. Although, in terms of penetration and flatness, the PPSh left all competitors behind.
    1. cat Rusich
      cat Rusich 4 May 2021 00: 22
      0
      Quote: Baron Pardus
      The author is missing a few things:
      the clip needs to be PULLED OUT (on normal rifles, it flies out when the shutter moves forward)
      .
      What is the problem...
      I inserted the clip, pushed the cartridges into the store ... pulled out an empty clip, pushed the bolt.
      Tea does not need to create a machine gun rate of fire on a rifle ...
      What BC did the 1941 Red Army soldier have? - 40 cartridges ... (according to the peacetime standard - two cartridge bags of 4 clips - 20 cartridges, + the ability to take a cartridge belt for 14 clips), and at the front, how many cartridges did you carry with you? (I don't know myself, can you tell me?)
      1. Baron pardus
        Baron pardus 4 May 2021 01: 27
        0
        This is the problem. In terms of the rate of fire, both Mauser, and Mannlicher, and Arisaka, and K31, and especially Lee Enfield, simply leave the mosinka to swallow the dust. The greater the density of fire the squad creates, the more enemy it will destroy. EMNIP British soldier went into battle with 10 clips + 2 magazines to Bran (just in case) + 10 rounds at Lee Enfield. 60 rounds. 50% more than a mosinka. And the rate of fire was twice as much. Read and see a comparison of a frankly wretched mosinka with a Mauser or Enfield. And the problem with the mosinka was not power (everything was in order here) but with ergonomics and rate of fire. And with precision, a thin barrel and a bayonet SIDE by no means add accuracy. And you remove the bayonet and truncate, you need to shoot the rifle again (the problem of any rifle with a needle bayonet and its side mount). Just search Mad Minute Drill. it will become clear to you what a magazine army rifle should be.
        By the way, at Mauser's, there is no need to pull out an empty clip. It is enough just to close the bolt and the clip will fly out by itself. And these are precious seconds in battle.
        1. Igor Ushakov
          Igor Ushakov 7 May 2021 19: 33
          0
          The wretchedness of the Mosinka is due to its adherence to the "resolute bayonet" tactics. A heavy barrel and a straight, massive butt - so that the weapon can deliver strong blows with a bayonet and butt without fear of damage, a tight trigger - so that there are no spontaneous shots during hand-to-hand combat.
    2. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 4 May 2021 11: 00
      +2
      ... Therefore, the British did not bother with the development of self-loading

      The British did not bother with the development of PP until 1940. And in general, the British relied on the fleet, and the army was financed on a leftover basis. Therefore, for example, they fought the entire Second World War with the Vebley revolver, although even the beggar USSR in 1930 adopted and began mass production of a self-loading pistol. For the Second World War, a revolver as the only short-barreled weapon already looked like a complete anachronism, especially for the then world hegemon and the richest power of that time. In 1940, the British infantry, armed with magazine rifles, revolvers, Vickers and BREN machine guns, looked ridiculous in their outdated helmet-soup bowls, as if the infantry had arrived in 1940 from 1918.
      1. mat-vey
        mat-vey 4 May 2021 11: 35
        +1
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        The British did not bother with the development of PP until 1940.

        It is not without reason that most of the Lend-Lease went to England ...
      2. Baron pardus
        Baron pardus 7 May 2021 19: 34
        0
        Ok, let's compare.
        a) Revolver Webley on the one hand - Nagant on the other. TTShek was NOT enough for everyone. Horseradish radish is not sweeter, except that Webley will be better. Yes, the Browning HP was also used in the British Army.
        b) Lee Enfield on the one hand - Mosin on the other. Enfield is the best army magazine rifle in many respects. Mosinka is the worst in many respects.
        c) Vickers on the one hand - maxim on the other. Again, horseradish radish is not sweeter, except that Vickers is 2 kg lighter. And so the same machine gun.
        d) Bren on the one hand, DP-27 on the other. Bren's magazines were NOT fragile, the return spring did not overheat, the recoil was lower, the accuracy and accuracy and controllability were higher. In DP-27, of course, the opposite is true. But the ammunition in one store was one and a half times more, by the way, changing the store on BREN is much faster.
        e) Helmets ... Well, it has been proven that British helmets with brims did a good job of protecting against shrapnel, especially from above, in case of air bursts of shells. And the rifle bullet was not held by either ours or the British.
        1. Igor Ushakov
          Igor Ushakov 7 May 2021 20: 15
          +1
          Well, it has been proven that British helmets with brims protected well from shrapnel, especially from above, with air bursts of shells. 
          We specify, protected from shrapnel shells exploding in the air. In WWII, the latter were already out of use, the situation with fragments falling from the sky could arise only if the enemy brought anti-aircraft guns to direct fire, but this is a rarity. But, in the end, "salad bowls" are, yes, an anachronism.
          And they didn't hold a rifle bullet
          but from a certain distance they kept pistol and submachine-gun bullets, small fragments and even, in some cases, ricocheted rifle bullets. The Soviet helmet is deeper, therefore, protects better.
        2. Kot_Kuzya
          Kot_Kuzya 7 May 2021 23: 23
          0
          Quote: Baron Pardus
          TTShek was NOT enough for everyone

          Nagans after the adoption of the TT were produced not because there was not enough TT, but because the generals believed that tankers needed a weapon with a thin barrel that could crawl into the loophole of a tank or armored car. It was not for nothing that before the war they adopted a Voevodin pistol with a barrel like the Parabellum, but the outbreak of war prevented the serial production of this pistol. During the war, the commanders of armored vehicles were armed with nagans, the rest were armed with TT.
          Quote: Baron Pardus
          Helmets ... Well, it has been proven that British helmets with brims protected well from shrapnel, especially from above, during air bursts of shells. And the rifle bullet was not held by either ours or the British.

          Yeah. But shrapnel was almost never used in World War II, only Britain used such outdated helmets. Even the beggar of the USSR in 1940 changed his helmet, replacing the 1936 sample with fields with a 1940 sample with minimal fields. I have no idea at all how British soldiers traveled in such helmets on trucks or armored personnel carriers.
        3. El Barto
          El Barto 8 May 2021 03: 00
          0
          Again, strange nonsense. Why compare Vickers 12,7 with Maxim 7,62? Why not DShK, which makes Vickers suck the last?
          Do you not know that in addition to Maxim, there were SG and SPD in the Soviet army, which since 1942 have been produced and put into the army much more than Maximov?
          1. Baron pardus
            Baron pardus 8 May 2021 08: 00
            0
            I am comparing Vickers MK1 Caliber 303 British. With Maxim caliber 7.62x54 ... Do you think .303 needs to be compared with DShK? In my opinion, no. It seems to me that you are a little confused
            Vickers MK1 https://modernfirearms.net/en/machineguns/great-britain-machineguns/vickers-mk-i-eng/
            Maxim. https://modernfirearms.net/en/machineguns/russia-machineguns/maksim-m191030-eng/
            Sorry, but it seems to me that you confused Vickers Mk1 with Vickers .5
      3. The comment was deleted.
        1. Kot_Kuzya
          Kot_Kuzya 11 May 2021 08: 41
          0
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          The British Army in the 41st year is the only fully mechanized army in the world.

          But this army was 20 times less than the army of the USSR. The British sent 250 thousand soldiers to France, almost everything they had, not without reason after fleeing from the continent, when lemongrass even threw rifles, the British militia was armed with pikes. Do you think that because of the good life, the British so hastily adopted the super-cheap STEN? For comparison, in June 1941 there were more than 5 million people in the Red Army. If the Red Army had a number of 250 thousand people, then the USSR would also be able to mechanize it completely.
          Quote: Cherry Nine

          Short-barreled in war, in principle, self-indulgence The reliability of the revolver against the firepower of the pistol is quite debatable. Suppression fire in war is fired not by a pistol, but by a machine gun.
          By the way, in the Red Army it never entered the head of giving the short-tail to the soldiers.

          Nevertheless, by 1939 all the developed armies of the world had already switched to pistols, and some, like the armies of the USA, Germany and Austria-Hungary, switched to pistols even before the First World War.
          Not only did the Red Army not give out pistols to soldiers, it was in all the armies of the world. An ordinary soldier was armed with a rifle with a bayonet, which was more effective than a short barrel.
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          The British infantry with its inconceivable number of Universal Carriers, with 72 howitzers per division, with 108 tractors for these howitzers (the third tractor for every 2 howitzers pulled two additional front ends with additional ammunition for each gun), with an artillery division of the RGK and a brigade heavy tanks for each division (5.5 inch guns fired as much as ML-20, Churchills - as many as IS / ISU) - these are fucking aliens by WWII standards, even the Americans could not dream of that.

          In the Soviet SD in the state in June 1941 there were 60 divisional guns: 12 152-mm howitzers, 32 122-mm howitzers and 16 76-mm guns, which in terms of the mass of the salvo exceeds the mass of the salvo of 72 25-pounders. Plus, the division had 18 76-mm regimental guns and 18 120-mm regimental mortars, which also had quite an effective fragmentation projectile.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 11 May 2021 09: 31
            0
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            In the Soviet SD by state for June 1941

            The state of April 41 is a work in the genre of alternative history. Yes, comrade. Zhukov also sometimes indulged himself with such things, it was not always appropriate.
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            Nevertheless, all the developed armies of the world by 1939 had long switched to pistols.

            Who likes what.
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            it was in all the armies of the world

            The Americans gave out the short-barrel to everyone.
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            armed with a rifle with a bayonet, which was much more effective than a short barrel.

            Nobody suggests giving out a short barrel INSTEAD of rifles.
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            But this army was 20 times less than the army of the USSR.

            This is bad?
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            If the Red Army had a number of 250 thousand people, then the USSR would also be able to mechanize it completely.

            There were some more important things to do.
    3. Terran ghost
      Terran ghost 4 May 2021 17: 47
      +1
      The British did not really need self-loading.

      Trained to automatism, British infantrymen simply created a barrage of rifle fire.

      LOL, in fact, the British had the same concept as the Germans - the squad was built around a machine gun. Only the British actually took this path even further - in comparison with the times of the First World War, by the beginning of the 1940s, the ammunition load of an ordinary infantryman's rifle was reduced from 100-120 rounds to 50 rounds. All so that the shooter could perform the function more efficiently. . carrier of cartridges for the machine gun.
      1. Baron pardus
        Baron pardus 4 May 2021 18: 33
        0
        What didn’t stop Enfield from making a mosinka in all respects, both in rate of fire, and in accuracy, and in ergonomics. By the way, about the fact that the infantry shooter, among other things, carried 2 stores for BREN, I wrote above, you need to read more carefully, comrade.
        1. Terran ghost
          Terran ghost 4 May 2021 18: 58
          +1
          What didn’t stop Enfield from making a mosinka in all respects, both in rate of fire, and in accuracy, and in ergonomics

          And who can argue. My objection was that with all its merits, the Enfield, of course, cannot have a rate of fire at the level of self-loading rifles. The reason for the lack of interest of the British at that time in the self-loading rifle was different - the formation of an infantry squad "around the machine gun."
          By the way, after the Second World War, Great Britain almost immediately began developing a new set of weapons, which consisted of a 7mm "intermediate class" cartridge (.280 British) and an EM-2 automatic rifle chambered for this cartridge. But then American generals intervened, who were not interested in the intermediate cartridge at all, and saw a "full-size" rifle cartridge as the standard cartridge of the NATO military bloc, which was not inferior in muzzle velocity and muzzle energy to the .30-06 cartridge in its then army version, but with a slightly shorter sleeve due to the use of a new, more powerful powder composition.
          1. mat-vey
            mat-vey 5 May 2021 06: 57
            0
            Quote: Terran Ghost
            that with all its merits, "Enfield" of course cannot have a rate of fire at the level of self-loading rifles.

            The British even tried to introduce Pribluda in the second half of the PMA, allowing it to be converted into a self-loading ... That still "samovar" ...
            1. Baron pardus
              Baron pardus 8 May 2021 08: 41
              0
              You are almost right. You know everything, but inaccurate. The Australians and New Zealanders tried to convert Lee Enfield into Self-loading. Because they had practically no machine guns. The British were doing it to ... save money.
              Charilton Automatic Rifle - Australian. And New Zealand.
              Howell automatic rifle - British, by the way, was considered reliable, but inconvenient. Made in 1915. Generally brilliant for that time.
              The Rieder automatic rifle - South African, also tried to do something cheaper. Moreover, the Reader's installation could be crammed into Enfield without any tools at all. And worked
              https://www.forgottenweapons.com/rieder-automatic-rifle/
              By the way, here is the New Zealand Charlton rifle. Uses stores from BREN. By the way, coolly thought up. The idea was to use them as self-loading (thin barrel) and open automatic fire only as a last resort (the barrel overheats very quickly), but the rifles were so reliable that they were given out to the Home Guard - a hastily trained militia.
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlton_Automatic_Rifle
              Yes, there were a lot of alterations. The colonies simply and corny lacked machine guns. By the way, in Canada, they tried to convert SMLE into a machine gun back in WWI, for the same reason - there were not enough machine guns.
        2. El Barto
          El Barto 8 May 2021 02: 47
          -2
          This is simply not true. The practical fighting qualities of the LE did not differ in any way from the MN. And if we talk about American-made mosinki, then they are superior to LE in the qualities you have listed
          1. Baron pardus
            Baron pardus 8 May 2021 08: 04
            0
            Did you hold Enfield in your hands? I have 2 of them at home. And there is a mosinka. So, even the Ishapur Enfield is as much better than a mosinka, as much as a mosinka is better than a Berdanka. So, even if the Martians would have made a mosinka, as it was, the UG will remain so. If the weapon was originally designed absolutely lame and creepy, whoever made it, engineering is shit. The bolt handle is far ahead, the fuse is in mittens, or you just take off the horseradish in the cold. The clip needs to be pulled out, it will not jump out when the shutter is closed.
            1. El Barto
              El Barto 8 May 2021 13: 49
              0
              I don't know why you need 2 LE. I use Mosinka and Tiger all the time. For hunting and long trips to the woods, I use only a mosinka due to its practicality, simplicity, convenience and excellent shooting qualities. And the SVD is lying in a safe for show-offs and post-fires at the shooting range.

              I fired from the LE, did not notice any particular difference with the MN, except that he does not kick like that, but this is a matter of habit.
              On MN I never use clips (why?) Or fuse (2 times why? For so many years, I have never lost the shutter)
              1. Baron pardus
                Baron pardus 8 May 2021 19: 35
                0
                Why do I need 2 SMLE? A shob bulo. I'm going to buy a couple more. Few people produce spare parts for them, and there are almost no trunks at all. Why are there two? One in caliber 7.62x51. This is the Hindu Ishapur Enfield 2A1. Pluses: cheap ammunition. Cartridges 7.62x51 are almost one and a half times cheaper than cartridges 303. The second Enfield No4, British, at 303.
                You can generally go hunting with a double-barreled gun. The rate of fire is not needed there. In the United States, many states even prohibit a hunting rifle / shotgun with more than 3 rounds in the store.
                I'm talking about the situation "As close as possible to combat", I go to the shooting range, and equip rifles from clips, as they were used.
                And if you enter an American shooting range with a rifle unlocked, you will be kicked out of it if you are a civilian. And if you served, then the rule for you that the rifle should ALWAYS be on the safety lock in the brain sergeants should have driven back in training. Therefore, the rifle MUST be on safety until you are ready to fire. The simplest safety rules.
                1. El Barto
                  El Barto 11 May 2021 13: 52
                  0
                  Naturally, I did not serve with a rifle. Modern weapons must first of all be unloaded and examined by an officer. Plus, the role of the fuse in automatic and semi-automatic weapons is more important than in a bolt rifle. There should not be a spontaneous shot with a Mosin bolt. To clean the rifle, you remove the bolt.

                  In combat conditions, it happened in different ways. It's one thing when you get your 60 rounds at the supply point, carefully loaded into clips by warehouse soldiers, it's another thing when you open zinc with loose cartridges in a trench. Nobody bothered with the clips in the second case. Therefore, the clips were simply thrown away after the first use. In the end, they got rid of the pouches, the cracker was more convenient and even more capacious.
    4. Alf
      Alf 4 May 2021 19: 10
      0
      Quote: Baron Pardus
      Therefore, the power of the cartridge is exactly in the middle between the pistol 45 and rifle 30-06.

      With a length of 33 mm, it is rather intermediate between the pistol and intermediate.
    5. Igor Ushakov
      Igor Ushakov 7 May 2021 19: 18
      +1
      The Germans, having come under fire from a platoon of the British, as a rule, believed that machine guns were working on them, and there was nothing but Enfield
      Where does the data come from? I came across information that with the same balance of forces, the Germans always defeated the Americans and the British. The latter are generally characterized not from the best side, the training of the British infantrymen was weak, rather corresponded to the militia.
       STG-44 did not find popularity among the troops, because ammunition and stores were difficult to get on the battlefield.
      No, naturally the emergence of another range of ammunition creates supply problems. But what does "on the battlefield" mean?
      Most German soldiers preferred the MP-40
      A soldier armed with an MP-40 could get cartridges on the battlefield only from the ammunition load of the same German submachine gunners or officers with the appropriate pistols. No trophy cartridges of the Soviet army suited him. As a result, if assault givers had entered the unit en masse, with cartridges and clips, would the soldiers love him?
      1. Baron pardus
        Baron pardus 7 May 2021 19: 36
        -1
        https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-one/the-western-front-in-world-war-one/lee-enfield-rifle/
        1. Igor Ushakov
          Igor Ushakov 7 May 2021 19: 44
          +1
          Oh, you did not specify that we are talking about the Great War, and not about its continuation after 2 decades.
          ... generally believed ...

          It refers only to an isolated incident, the Battle of Mons, and not to the massive German fear of British magazine rifles.
      2. Baron pardus
        Baron pardus 8 May 2021 08: 46
        +2
        By the way, about the British and the Americans. Wehrmacht joke translated into English
        “If you encounter a unit you can't identify, fire one round over their heads so it won't hit anyone.

        “If the response is a fusillade of rapid, precise rifle fire, they're British.

        “If the response is as ** tstorm of machine-gun fire, they're German.

        “If they throw down their arms and surrender, they're Italian.

        "And if nothing happens for five minutes and then your position is obliterated by support artillery or an airstrike, they're American."

        If you meet a unit, but are not sure who it is, shoot once over their heads so that you don't hit anyone

        If a flurry of accurate rifle fire hits you in response, it's the British.

        If a hurricane machine-gun fire opens in response, it is the Wehrmacht.

        If they drop their weapons and surrender, they are Italians.

        And if nothing happens for 5 minutes and then either an artillery strike or attack aircraft falls on your position, then these are Americans.
        1. Igor Ushakov
          Igor Ushakov 8 May 2021 10: 05
          0
          Thanks, interesting quote.
          Curiously, it turns out that the Germans allegedly always walk with machine guns and the Americans - with radios.
          1. Baron pardus
            Baron pardus 8 May 2021 19: 37
            0
            No, you do not quite understand, the idea is that the Germans and the British are eager to fight (the Germans, of course, have uniform machine guns, and the British have rapid-firing magazine rifles and BREN light machine guns), the Italians just give up, and the Americans for every shot hide and call air or art support. :-)
            1. Igor Ushakov
              Igor Ushakov 9 May 2021 23: 02
              0
              No, that the Italians surrender, and the Americans do not fight without heavy support, I understand. The last ones in Vietnam behaved like that. At night, one of the sentinels got nervous from the noises in the jungle, he shot into the darkness, everyone started firing behind him from rifles and machine guns, then artillery began to nail through the jungle. In the morning, not a trace of the Vietnamese was found in the ragged jungle.
              But, in any case, to call for support, you had to carry a powerful field radio with you, in the days of WWII a large, weighty box.
              the Germans, of course, have uniform machine guns, while the British have rapid-firing magazine rifles and BREN light machine guns
              why then the Germans do not shoot with rifles, and the British with machine guns? I do not argue that Lee-Enfield is the fastest of the magazine rifles, but still of the same class as the German one with the K-98.
    6. El Barto
      El Barto 8 May 2021 03: 46
      0
      What nonsense. Which Mosinka do you pull the clip from? Apparently you haven't even seen her.
      For special connoisseurs, I will explain - when loading a mosinka from a clip, the cartridges are squeezed into the store and are there without a clip. And you don't need to pull anything out of nowhere.

      The movement of the hand when reloading Mauser, LE and Mosinka are the same. The rate of fire did not depend on the rifle, but on the shooter. Only in Mannlicher, reloading is carried out with a direct movement, which did not make it any better than the rest.

      The only complaint about Mosinka is the low quality of manufacturing a mass rifle during the war. Hunting mosinki of other times, especially American-made ones, are simply beautiful, in many ways better than Mauser - lighter, thinner, more elegant and more pristine
      1. Baron pardus
        Baron pardus 8 May 2021 08: 22
        +1
        That's right, the cartridges are pressed into the magazine WITHOUT a clip, the clip remains outside, sticks out vertically, you can fuck up the shutter without pulling the clip out. Mosinka is better than a Mauser? Is the rate of fire the same? Say NO to white. Say NO to vodka too. And share the mushrooms, Lenin ordered to share ...
        Did you hold the Mauser in your hands? What about SMLE? I repeat, I have a pre-war FINNISH Mosinka, and at the same time Ishapursky Enfield 2M1, And British SMLE No. 4. And along with the Swiss K31. The friend has Mauser, Czech and German. So, of all these rifles, the mosinka is the LEAST applied, the least convenient, both in reloading and in removing from the fuse. The Finnish has at least a semi-pistol stock, while the Russian just has a straight butt. Convenient, shas. For those who have not seen anything better, it may be comfortable. Look for videos or tutorials for SMLE and Mad Minute. Here's a video from an Australian explaining why SMLE is so fast. By the way, he has a modern remake of SMLE, for AK stores.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-EdQuAxAII
        Second video. When you can do this on your Mosinka, let me know. Here the person has a real British SMLE # 4.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hibb5eX58hI
        If you don’t know anything about Enfield and Mauser, do yourself a favor, don’t rave about them. Unlike you, I have two of these three rifles at home. A friend has masuers, so we indulge quite often. Arisaku and Mannlicher also tried carcano. Mosinka is the worst of all these rifles in terms of ergonomics / rate of fire.
        1. Igor Ushakov
          Igor Ushakov 8 May 2021 13: 45
          0
          I have a pre-war FINNISH Mosinka, and at the same time Ishapursky Enfield 2M1, And British SMLE No. 4. And along with the Swiss K31. The friend has Mauser, Czech and German. 
          wow, this is your wealth!
          1. Baron pardus
            Baron pardus 8 May 2021 19: 42
            +1
            At one time in the United States, Enfield rifles, carcano, could be bought for 200-250 bucks. Mausers, especially German ones, are more expensive, although for me the Czech Mauser is better, although it does not have the Wehrmacht eagle cherished for many, but it has a chrome-plated barrel. I even have K31. Enfield is still better :-) In the USA, before the panic with covid (when the first thing the Americans swept off the shelves ... weapons, ammunition and ... toilet paper), and before the farce called elections (when weapons and ammunition continue to be swept away) old rifles were cheap. Mosinka in general could be bought for 100 bucks, if Soviet, Finnish, with a weighted barrel and a much more comfortable butt were more expensive. Many "reenactors" buy German weapons. It is so popular among some segments of the population that in the United States they have launched the production of STG44, they are swept away faster than they can do it.
            Arisaki and other exotics are in less demand, since ammunition is expensive.
            1. Igor Ushakov
              Igor Ushakov 9 May 2021 23: 07
              0
              But ...
              It is clear that in any case a license is needed, but specifically from me in Ukraine it is possible to get a working Soviet three-line only underground, officially only those who have been rendered inoperative are sold, and then you need to look.
              But huge stocks of Soviet Mosin rifles, Simonov carbines and TT pistols from the warehouses of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Security Service of Ukraine went to the black market.
              1. El Barto
                El Barto 11 May 2021 12: 53
                -1
                It’s strange. Are you sure? In Russia in all hunting shops there are simply heaps of any rifles and shotguns. Both domestic and foreign. Both manual and semi-automatic (for example, a lover of antiquity can easily buy SVT) And there are a lot of mosins of old and modern production. Something tells me that the Ukrainian market of hunting weapons should not be very different in this regard.
                1. Igor Ushakov
                  Igor Ushakov 11 May 2021 19: 34
                  0
                  I'm not sure at all. However, I was interested in about the mosinka, I received about the following answer. However, it was a long time ago, I was interested in 2014, I was afraid for my home and family, now, perhaps, the situation is not so bad.
        2. El Barto
          El Barto 8 May 2021 15: 10
          0
          I don't need to tell you about the Mauser. I had a Remington 700 ATP for a long time. It is an order of magnitude better than the army Mauser. But in practice it is not needed, a waste of money. And honestly, it never even crossed my mind to shoot it at speed.

          In the States, for example, the Mosinka is one of the cheapest and most affordable rifles. In terms of price / quality ratio, covers other massive army rifles like a bull a sheep. If you are a gun gourmet, then there are always expensive high-precision rifles for you.

          As for the rate of fire, I cannot imagine a situation when it will be necessary to engage in such pampering. Is that in meaningless challenges for YouTube or in the equally meaningless "practical shooting". And I'm not going to participate in cowboy duels.
          No one needs to shoot any rifle faster than in this video.
  • Sergey Aleksandrovich
    Sergey Aleksandrovich 4 May 2021 14: 15
    0
    Quote: svp67

    agree 4018 pieces for the whole war, this is not very much, although there was a need for it

    The need was at least 150 thousand units for each tank, self-propelled gun, and each armored car.
  • Boxer
    Boxer 6 May 2021 04: 16
    +1
    Quote: cat Rusich
    Quote: stoqn477

    Both the AK and the M-16 have shorter versions. The US military has been using the M-4 for years. ...
    AK-74 - 940 / 700mm (unfolded / folded) 1974
    M-4 - 840 / 760mm (extended butt / shifted butt) 1994
    The M-16 was shortened to a comparable size with the AK-74 - we got the M-4 ...
    AK-74 initially had its own dimensions, AKSU - an attempt to make an AK - PP with an intermediate cartridge.

    Quote: stoqn477
    Quote: Konnick

    Everything has its time. And the capture of Shushi by the Azerbaijani special forces, armed with pistols and grenades, makes one think.

    .
    They took Shushi thanks to the Turkish UAVs, which ensured air supremacy and the NKR troops left Shushi so as not to get surrounded.

    Shusha is called a city. During the assault on the city of Az.SpN, UAVs were no longer used for various reasons. The servicemen of the Armenian Armed Forces defending the city left (who could) ... only leaving about 1000 corpses in the city itself and on the outskirts. Videos with mountains of corpses of Armenian servicemen in Shusha are full on the internet.
    1. El Barto
      El Barto 8 May 2021 02: 38
      0
      Well, well, only these corpses were not 1000, but not more than 100. And the city itself was surrendered without a fight at all. The Armenians had some losses only during the attempts of weak and poorly organized counterattacks on the already surrendered city.
  • Netovv
    Netovv 6 May 2021 19: 45
    0
    copy-paste and even stupid
  • El Barto
    El Barto 8 May 2021 02: 30
    0
    The conclusions of the article are not just ambiguous, but simply ridiculous. As a small-arms weapon, the PP infantry loses to all the other models utterly, including the magazine bolts. More or less some kind of benefit was in certain situations (urban battles, etc.). That is why the PP instantly died as an army weapon after the war. And they turned out to be what the Soviet military was talking about back in the 1930s - the weapon of the police and bandits.

    It is ridiculous to read about the "controversial" approach of the Germans. Now in all armies, a squad / platoon is built around the BMP / BTR weapon + a universal machine gun. The rest of the fighters are armed with useless rattles like Ak74 or M4, the benefits of which are exactly zero.
    1. Igor Ushakov
      Igor Ushakov 8 May 2021 10: 29
      0
      As a small-arms weapon, the PP infantry loses to all the other models utterly, including magazine bolts.
      except for a scrum situation at short, up to 50 m, distances, especially in a confined space, for example, in a trench or a building. Therefore, before intermediate cartridges, the squad fighters were armed with magazines and PPs mixed, each for its own tactical role. PP is not only a rate of fire, but also a greater stopping effect of a pistol bullet, especially a 9 mm MP-40.
      That is why the PP instantly died as an army weapon after the war.
      After the war, everyone received uniform automatic carbines, they are also assault rifles, with a high rate of fire and an acceptable range of effective fire.
      1. El Barto
        El Barto 8 May 2021 14: 08
        0
        As a result, assault rifles in modern times have shown low efficiency. And now people are racking their brains what to do with it. They are experimenting - we are creating "sniper" companies (in fact, ordinary rifle companies), over the hill they are trying to develop a modern self-loading rifle
        1. Igor Ushakov
          Igor Ushakov 9 May 2021 22: 50
          0
          As a result, assault rifles in modern times showed low efficiency.
          by what? I didn’t shoot from machine guns, but I was sure that the transition to 5,45 from 7,62 was caused by the excessive power of the latter.
          trying to develop a modern self-loading rifle
          excuse me, I'm not a specialist gunsmith, but what is the fundamental difference between a self-loading rifle and a light machine gun with a magazine-loading, apart from the single-shot mode? The latter is not as difficult to implement as I understand it.
          1. El Barto
            El Barto 11 May 2021 12: 27
            0
            It's not only and not so much about the power of the cartridge. The main reason is the balance of the infantry subunits' small arms complex and the system of fire impact on the enemy. Combat operations of modern conflicts have shown the increased role of infantry unit fire weapons in conditions of insufficient support for reinforcement means (artillery, tanks, aviation). In these conditions, it is impossible to rely only on infantry AFVs (which carry heavy weapons and previously solved most of the tasks at long and medium-range combat distances), since they have also become very vulnerable. And with the loss of an armored personnel carrier / armored personnel carrier, an infantry unit becomes completely unstable. Accordingly, it is important to give the fighters a tool to influence the enemy at medium distances. Part of the solution to this problem is the saturation of units with more powerful and accurate individual small arms and rifles.

            The difference is that the machine gun is designed primarily for suppression fire, and the rifle for defeat. The machine gun does not require special accuracy, therefore the mechanisms and barrels of machine guns do not provide the same accuracy as rifle ones. And cartridges for machine guns are made easier and cheaper. Shooting machine-gun cartridges from a rifle is almost useless, you need rifle cartridges (so-called "sniper").
            There are attempts to improve the accuracy of machine guns and reduce weight. But there are many problems with this, primarily with money and ammunition. The machine gun itself turns out to be expensive and still heavy, plus the problems with creating a good cartridge, plus a second-hand machine gun is still big. It will not work to arm everyone with machine guns - a soldier is not a horse to carry all this on himself
            1. Igor Ushakov
              Igor Ushakov 11 May 2021 19: 26
              0
              Combat operations of modern conflicts have shown the increased role of infantry subunit fire weapons in conditions of insufficient support for reinforcement means (artillery, tanks, aviation). 
              With armored vehicles, it is clear that the effectiveness of hand-held cumulative missiles is growing. And what are the problems with aviation and artillery? The latter will only become more effective with the development and proliferation of communications and fire control and adjustment systems.
              The difference is that the machine gun is designed primarily for suppression fire, and the rifle for defeat. The machine gun does not require special accuracy, therefore the mechanisms and barrels of machine guns do not provide the same accuracy as rifle ones.
              So, if I understood correctly, this implies not only an increase in the power of ammunition - which is logical due to the proliferation of body armor - but also accuracy. The weapon, according to you, should fire automatic bursts at a distance of tribal fire with an acceptable accuracy for hitting.
              But why then do not return to the approximate scheme of the end of the First World War - the beginning of the Second. The machine gunner fires at suppression and a large, heavy, with a large machine gun, the rest of the riflemen, run across with light rifles, firing accurate single shots. Plus a detachment of stormtroopers with assault rifles or combat shotguns is at the ready to clear buildings or trenches.
              And cartridges for machine guns are made easier and cheaper. Shooting machine-gun cartridges from a rifle is almost useless, you need rifle cartridges (so-called "sniper").
              Naturally, the range, accuracy and penetrating power of fire is strongly determined by the type and quality of the ammunition. However, as far as I know, humanity fought 2 World Wars with one range of cartridges for both magazine rifles and light, single and heavy machine guns. I can be wrong with the latter, but in the event of such a massive conflict, it is at least rational.
              The key question is what kind of precision is needed? For sniper shooting using optics at a distance of more than a kilometer, or acceptable accuracy when firing in the line of sight - 200-300, maximum 400 meters?
              1. El Barto
                El Barto 12 May 2021 14: 42
                0
                ... And what are the problems with aviation and artillery? The latter will only become more effective with the development and proliferation of communications and fire control and adjustment systems.


                The fact that they may not be trite in the right place and in the right amount. Firstly, in modern armies there are not so many artillery systems and aircraft that they constantly work in the interests of a single company. Secondly, in conflicts of low and medium intensity, they try not to use massively artillery and aviation for political reasons. Therefore, most of the tasks fall on the shoulders of the infantry or even light infantry.

                So, if I understood correctly, this implies not only an increase in the power of ammunition - which is logical due to the proliferation of body armor - but also accuracy. The weapon, according to you, should fire automatic bursts at a distance of tribal fire with an acceptable accuracy for hitting.
                But why then do not return to the approximate scheme of the end of the First World War - the beginning of the Second. The machine gunner fires at suppression and a large, heavy, with a large machine gun, the rest of the riflemen, run across with light rifles, firing accurate single shots. Plus a detachment of stormtroopers with assault rifles or combat shotguns is at the ready to clear buildings or trenches.


                Not necessarily automatic fire. Semi-automatic is enough.
                The concept is roughly what is to find the right balance of infantry weapons and organizationally provide them. What you write about is one of the options and is quite working. Plus modern means of communication and control, reconnaissance, plus the development of wearable heavy weapons (grenade launchers, rockets).

                Naturally, the range, accuracy and penetrating power of fire is strongly determined by the type and quality of the ammunition. However, as far as I know, humanity fought 2 World Wars with one range of cartridges for both magazine rifles and light, single and heavy machine guns. I can be wrong with the latter, but in the event of such a massive conflict, it is at least rational.
                The key question is what kind of precision is needed? For sniper shooting using optics at a distance of more than a kilometer, or acceptable accuracy when firing in the line of sight - 200-300, maximum 400 meters?


                The nomenclature is the same, but the workmanship is different. It is very conditional - grade 2 goes to machine guns, grade 1 to rifles.

                Since we are talking about small arms combat, and not about sniping, then the distances are appropriate

                1. Igor Ushakov
                  Igor Ushakov 12 May 2021 22: 02
                  0
                  Therefore, most of the tasks fall on the shoulders of the infantry or even light infantry.
                  Curiously, science fiction writers and futurists predicted a similar turn of events.
                  The nomenclature is the same, but the workmanship is different. Very conditional - grade 2 goes to machine guns, grade 1 to rifles
                  Thank you for the information, I did not know such a nuance. Although, it seems to me, if the state is rich enough and industrially developed, then it can quite afford to supply the army with full or mainly cartridges, roughly speaking, "first class".

                  Since we are talking about small arms combat, and not about sniping, then the distances are appropriate
                  It is logical that it is difficult and expensive to educate each soldier as a sniper, and the sniper rate of fire is low.
                  Interestingly, I heard a theory that military leaders appreciated the breech-loading weapon during the Civil War in the USA. However, we did not follow the rate of fire indicated by the Spencer rifle (still with black powder), but along the path of accuracy and range, impressed by the well-aimed fire of the Boer riflemen on the dense lines of the British infantry. Therefore, in World Wars 2, the infantrymen were armed with weapons, the range of destruction of which significantly exceeded the real range of effective fire. The magazine rifles for a large-scale war were overestimated - the Boers learned shooting from childhood, and the British had not yet mastered the tactics of correct movement under fire.
                  As I understand it, the battle scheme is already for modern weapons, because the range of destruction of ATGMs is prescribed 2,5 km. However, again, it was built taking into account the use of equipment, tanks and infantry fighting vehicles.
  • alexbyrcev
    alexbyrcev 9 May 2021 01: 49
    0
    The DP had four disks, one on the machine gun and three in a special bag next to the second number. MG-34 and two tapes of 10 kg = 32,1 kg. DP, 4 discs and 418 cartridges in bulk = 29,9 kg. But at MG, all the cartridges are loaded in belts, we will equip the DP in the disks: the body of the machine gun is 8,4 + 35 kg of cartridges in the disks = 43,4 kg.
  • alexbyrcev
    alexbyrcev 9 May 2021 02: 01
    0
    Quote: alexbyrcev
    At least one PP chambered for the Semin 7,62x39 arr. 1943 (aka the cartridge of the GeKo company arr. 1935). It was called the Sudaev PP of the 1944 model, it did not go into the series. Sudayev, left the free shutter, made an automatic machine with a gas outlet, but did not manage to finish it, he died.
  • asavor78
    asavor78 11 May 2021 16: 40
    0
    Hope everyone has noticed that the fighter in the center of the first photo is armed with a Mauser Kar98k?
  • Baron pardus
    Baron pardus 12 May 2021 01: 33
    0
    By the way, that's what I was talking about. American Stormgower. Several calibers to choose from. It sweeps off the shelves faster than it is done. If you call the manufacturer, then a Wehrmacht or SS brand will be put on your Sturmgever. "Reconstructors" are in bulk here.
    https://www.hmgunworks.com/product/hmg-sturmgewehr-stg-n/
  • Alexey Gorshkov
    Alexey Gorshkov 3 July 2021 15: 27
    0
    I was very much embarrassed by the very first photo ... PPSh (!) July 1, 1941 at the defender of SMOLENSK ?! Some kind of mistake! On July 1, 1941, the Germans had not yet approached Smolensk (the Smolensk battle began only on July 10, 1941). And by July 1, 1941, the PPSh could not get to the front at all - it only began to enter the troops by the fall of that year!