Yeah but that doesn't explain the intel report, if the weapon was truly believed to be better you'd bet they'd push that up the chain to get something in the works. The goal is still to win the war, you can develop and similar weapon and lie to the boots on the ground.
-Reading these allied and Soviet Evaluations of the StG 44 is surreal. They're almost completely from a technical without tactical context. It's like criticizing a pistol or sub machine gun compared to a rifle for not having enough range without considering the benefits of weight and rate of fire. -The M1 Garand Rifle probably had the most powerful rifle round of any combatant yet the US Army regarded the M1 Garand when using Iron Sights only accurate to 250 yards. That's well within the ability of the StG 44 and I doubt a German Squad with StG 44 engaging an American with M1 Rifles would be at a disadvantage at 200m-250m. The US of course made great use of the M1 Carbine which had slightly less range than the StG 44 showing that the US itself had a practical need.
@@cefb8923 I think the internal politics of the U.S. Army Ordinance, its Springfield arsenal was Byzantine. Robert McNamara regarded them as stodgy, excessively bureaucratic and incompetent he had them disbanded. You just need to look at the decision to create 7.62 NATO and strong arm Europe into accepting it despite the British Enfield 281 round clearly being superior. The British even created higher velocity variants to address US army concerns over range. In many ways US Army Ordinance was “worse than Hitler” as Hitler at least allowed the StG 44 to go ahead as a long range (300m) submachine gun replacement for the MP40 and accepted. It took a U.S. Airforce General Curtis’s LeMay to finally get the M16 accepted into service and even then the U.S. army ruined it by 1 reformulating the propellant without testing leading to 10000psi increased pressure that caused jamming. Let’s also remember the M14 was in general so poorly made it dispersed 10 inches at 150 yards which eliminated any advantage of the more powerful round. Basically US army ordinance and Springfield were stodgy, over opinionated and incompetent. I wouldn’t trust them to a fair evaluation
Comment. It turns out that German Army Ordinance testing of the StG 44 versus the standard K98 rifle for accuracy indicated to StG 44 was MORE accurate at 600m than the standard rifle round for ordinary soldiers
Allies, 1945:. The new German automatic carbine is inaccurate, too heavy, and not combat effective. Allies 1946: We need our own version of the new German automatic carbine ASAP.
@@Playing096 that was americas fault: .30 cal or bust and offered up the M14 which basically was just an updated garand and a BAR with the problems of the latter. The original FN FAL was supposed to use the .280 British which was an intermediate cartridge like the STG44's 7.8mm Kurz.
@@Playing096 not all is lost for the EM-2 because it went on to become the infamous SA-80 notably the L85A1 but the A2, and A3 is just as good as any other service rifle out there.
I remember hearing about this, most of them weren't impressed bc it was the middle ground between an mp40 and k98, funnily enough that's why it was a great idea.
If they didn't already have a 'middle ground' carbine that weighed about half as much (as noted in the video), they probably would have been more impressed.
In the 80’s I worked in a war museum in the Netherlands. We had quite often veterans from market garden visiting us.both sides. Being a gun nut I often talked about guns. On average the Germans liked the mp40, stg and, surprise, the handy dandy .30m1.
I also read that anecdotally during Ostwind/The Bulge, captured American weapons were sorted into piles and German soldiers were given their pick if they liked. The M1 carbine was the most popular.
@@dragonstormdipro1013 Yes, I know that the AK was a totally different & much improved design. My point was, when you hear that the German weapon wasn't given a good assessment, this is apparently not how they actually felt. Some Soviet soldiers were sent to the Gulag for praising German weapons.
They could have still learned from it quicker than they did though without openly admitting that these krauts had made some great guns. Instead, their troops in Korea were still armed with M1s and when they finally replaced that weapon they came up with the M14, which still wasn't great as an infanty weapon. Same with the MG42. They could have just copied the damn thing, chamber it in 7.62x51or even .30-06 and have in the hands of the troops a few years later. But instead they came up with the inferior M60.
the americans did that before: in the spanish-american war they faced a variant of the mauser rifle and were so impressed with it that they rushed to develop their own Mauser clone, the springfield
Heck, I remember seeing footage of Syrian rebels using them early on in the civil war. Apparently, they found a container with about 5000 of them back in 2012. Also, when the ammo ran out, they were selling them off for $50-70.
Well they had to downplay how good it was to keep morale up. The STG was held back though by relatively low production numbers and some soldiers had difficulty obtaining magazines and ammo. There was times though in the eastern front when large units of soldiers were only armed with STG-44s.
@@karlheinzvonkroemann2217 I think you need to check the production numbers again. Every source I've ever seen about STG-44 production says about 400,000 were produced. That is still insane considering how late into the war they was being mass produced and how low Germany was on resources at the time. 1 million is not even close to being believable.
I guess basically, the MP44 just wasnt what the allies wanted or needed based on their personal doctrines, experiences, and preferences, so it was unimpressive in their minds. They wanted the range and power of rifle cartridges and that's what they had, so a weaker round and a less handy platform to shoot it from didn't inspire any interest. Not to say that the MP44 was bad or good. I'm sure we can all agree based on how firearms have evolved that it was a step towards the right direction. They just needed to eventually appreciate the balance it offered.
And it's worth noting that the debate between 'battle rifles' and 'assault rifles' never truly ended, as illustrated by the US Army recently adopting the M5 Carbine.
In the role the mp44 was designed to do it did it's job well, the problem comes when you put a given weapon platform outside it's intended role that's when problems begins to arise. The Germans had concluded most of their engagements were happening in between 100-300 meters, not 800 meters which is what most rifles were designed for nor 50 meters which was the limit of the smg, in those medium engagement ranges that is where the Sturmgewehr shines & that's what it was designed for, hence the name "Storm Rifle" or as we call it nowadays "Assault rifle", a weapon platform that has the best traits of both rifles & smgs but for the most part none of their weaknesses capable of decent accuracy at range but able to lay down a much higher volume of fire but ergonomic enough to be easy to handle chambered in a intermediate cartridge, the stg44 was a fantastic weapon in it's given role but they never made enough of them it came too late in the war & small arms was only one aspect of the war there was a whole lot going on than just infantry battles. Back then most allied nations were still rigid in a much more older doctrinal ways of fighting as well as weapons, but yet as soon as WWII was over it didn't take long for all major nations to adopt the doctrines as well as weapons the Germans were utilizing/experimenting with in WWII from things like small arms such as the assault rifle which inspired the ak47, G3, & M16 as well as squad automatics like the MG42 which inspired the m60, medium tanks like the panther which may have inspired the Main Battle Tank concept, jets, ballistic missiles, as well as rockets. While I wouldn't go to the extreme to say the Germans were light years away from everyone but they most were certainly going/experimenting in the right direction in certain areas such as doctrines & technology.
In the context of the time period and how novel of an idea it was, I wouldn't expect many people back then to fully understand the concept assault rifle.
Underestimating the Sturmgewehr did not hinder the US in adopting their own (hastily developed) assault rifle M-16 after the M-14 proves far less adequate in replacing the M-1 Garand and M-1 Carbine, M-1 Thompson, M-3 Grease Gun, and the BAR in the offensive full autofire role.
Yeah, though the Americans only adopted the M16 due to the AK. Though, of course, the Russians developed and adopted the AK due to the influence of the Stg-44. Not a copy of the design (ironically, the AK is mechanically quite similar to the M1 Garand) but a definite influence in doctrine.
So the Allie’s basically just lied out of their ass just like they did the mg42 lol. Sure, by no means is the stg amazing but it’s certainly better than almost anything on the battlefield at that time. You can see this is German combat reports
@@jamesgoldring1052 also stamped metal is cheaper and much quicker. desperate times call for desperate measures. when the 43 was designed things were getting desperate. hope this helps.
The British army were very impressed but thought it was a little fragile, very quickly the British Army wanted its own selective fire rifle and along came the EM-2, for a while anyway.
Indeed. The Russians saying the MP44 underperformed the US M1 Carbine sounds like propaganda. The M1 is a great little carbine but it fires essentially a souped up pistol cartridge whereas the MG44 fires a scaled down rifle cartridge. The M1 is a decent 200 meter gun - 300 meters for good shooters under good conditions. But the MG44 is meant for 500 meters and even with scaled down performance will outdo an M1.
Only natural that allies would down play the effectiveness of the StG-44. After all, other than US infantry, the rest of the allied troops were stuck using bolt-actions.
Seems like a bullshit report tbh. The only significant downside it had when compared to rest was the weight. That matters a lot if you have to carry it. The range and accurracy? Only if you're comparing it to a rifle shooting at ranges on which it's rarely used.
The British considered it "fragile". The Argentines wanted to use it, but disliked the gas tube. The StG-45 is the ancestor of the G3. Cheaper to make, probably more reliable than the StG44. Prvi Partisan continues to make the 7.92x33 round to this day. Wonder who for?
@@robertblack1116 "there's still a fair amount of stg44s in eastern europe and the middle east being used today. pretty wild" I think it's the Art Deco design of the sheet metal. The AK outclasses the MP44/StG44 in every way except looks. If the Soviets had migrated to a 6.5 to 7mm round instead of the 5.45 it would have been a sweet companion.
@@vforvendetta275 The British were in a panic mode when they fielded the Sten. Especially that for crap magazine. Why the Anglosphere refused to just steal the AK47 in toto mystifies me. If we Americans had reverse engineered the AK with a 7mm round, we could have had something nobody would dismiss.
German troops were used to handling over heated/hot weapons. The MP40 was notorious for this problem as it also became incredibly hot, incredibly quickly. For this reason German troops were issued heavy wool or leather gloves. If you look at videos/pictures of German troops firing MP40s you'll see that they are always wearing gloves...
This is complete rubbish. The MP40 has no overheating problems. It has a small cartridge (9mm Para) and it fires from an open bolt (good ventilation). The major problem of the MP40 was the unpredictable loading jamming.
Official assessments of enemy ordnance will always disparage it, as it might lower morale if the troops are told that the enemy is better armed. What I hoped to hear was what Allied soldiers put in harm's way had to say about the Sturmgewehr.
gun was ahead of its time at 2350 ft per secound it would take some time for a barrel to wear out it is very controlable on fullauto fire good up to 300 yards jus think we where stuck using the old m1 clean into the late 50s
The guys I knew that fought in Europe during ww2 seemed to have talked about the mp40 being a handy machine gun but also thought the mp43 was junk easily broken and cheap …most just commented that the mp43 was kind of a novelty during the war
@@Diedwhilemakingwaffles You do realize they HAVE to be experts with their and enemy weapons if they want to survive in combat? Obviously these opinions arouse from experience gained in combat and if several guys had their captured STG-44 jam and several guys had their captured MP-40s work flawlessly, one can easily draw a conclusion.
@@dobridjordje they do not have to be experts. They need to know how to clean and disassemble a gun. They do not need to know how the enemy gun works. If they need to know anything about the enemy gun it is the sound na dbasic info like the rate of fire and maybe weight.
@@jic1 I have only seen a couple of photos where a soldier is clearly are on patrol with a StG44. but i don`t think it was that common since it was a lack of ammo for the StG44. It`s more common to see soldiers with MP40, Luger and P38
The allied reviewers were still stuck in the past of a rifle being capable of killing at extreme long range. For some reason they were not taking note that the European theater was getting in closer with fighting becoming more frantic with the need for faster easier to wield firepower. I could go on, but I hope you know what I'm trying to say.
And Axis weren't? They ALL started the war with full power, long range , rifles. The US DID go to the M1 carbine during the war. K98K for Germany the the G3. Mossin for USSR then SVT. SMLE for England. ALL were for long range.
Its pretty funny that US Army sources were claiming that a low pressure cartridge firing a pistol bullet had superior accuracy and ballistic performance to a bottle necked rifle cartridge firing an aerodynamically superior bullet at a higher muzzle velocity.
Conscript armys unlike the regular british army they found out that 300yards was about all they conscripts could hit With any degree of precision.prewar regular army were good up to 600yds as they had a lot of range time than any conscript.
Ahead of its time. Rushed into service, due to the desperate position the Nazis were in, so had some teething problems. However, this was the kernel of the future of battlefield infantry weapons.
A brief overview of western European and often US weapons procurement: 1860 "We don't need breechloaders"- 1870 'oh my god we need breechloaders!" 1871: "We don't need repeating rifles"- 1880 'Oh my god we need repeaters!" 1886: smokeless? wtf is that? its a fad" 1888- "we don't have smokeless??! oh no get on it!" 1919: 'Submachine guns? only Germans and gangsters use them" 1940- "We need millions of cheap SMGs-NOW!" 1945- Strumge-what? more Teutonic nonsense- cant hit anything at 2000+ yards with it" and so on....
My uncle liked his . I never seen him shoot it . I was probably 11-12 It was a cool gun . Seems he and my other uncles liked guns . They had some cool stuff they returned home with . But the coolest thing one had was a pet Skunk . I can remember he gave it ice cubes . It been 50 years since that time .
Everything the Germans designed was superb!! The MG42 is a perfect example. If they delayed the war by 2 years and perfected their weapons... they would have won the war!
The M1 weighed HALF as much as an STG and fired a round that was about as effective under 200 yards. The STG had additional range and a fun switch, but by 1945 the FA M2 was also coming off of production lines. If you matched a US platoons against a 1942 German platoon and a 1945 German platoon with STGs the American platoon’s biggest problem would still be the same: the MG42 was a superior support weapon. By adopting the STG the German army merely caught up to the semi auto capabilities of the GI. In practical terms the M1 Carbine may have still been the better weapon. Lighter, handier, more reliable, and issued with plentiful working magazines. It’s at least capable of holding its own. I’m surprised by the German testing of STG’s against 98k’s. STG’s were never considered accurate, a tilting bolt and sheet metal receiver limited that. Also the much shorter site radius should at least give some advantage to the bolt gun. Maybe the 98’s had a batch of factory sabotaged sites or barrels?
0:39 Textbook authoritarian tendency: Creating a thing with a mode that its users aren't "allowed" to use. Why give it a full-auto mode in the first place only to tell your troops that they can't use it?! 0:47 Not a savvy design choice. 0:59 Which is known to cause feeding issues. A way around that would have been to incorporate a simplified forearm into the mag well. Maybe something made of bakelite, possibly with grooves for better grip.
Or course the Americans and Soviets didn’t want to Alarm their troops that the Germans had just produced and combat tested the infantry firearm of the future. Stamped metal receiver, semi and automatic fire options, a 30 round magazine. The M1 Garand was out classed then just like it was further outclassed when the Soviets produced the AK47. The U.S. knew it and refused to modernize. Just like when the Americans tried to convince everyone that their Sherman Tank was better than any German tank until the burning wrecks of Sherman’s on the battlefield proved it wasn’t. Propaganda is a marvelous tool up til the moment when the truth upends it.
Except we know that the Sherman was just fine. It's the wrecks of Shermans proving that they are shit is a myth. Like duh if you mass produce a single model of tank to include varients of it, of course you're going to have tons of wrecks of it.
@@rainyvideos3684 That was the silliest explanation for many losses I have ever heard! And to be clear... you only won the war through an endless stream of troops and material. And exclusively through the USA alone! Or as the American Senator Thomas put it immediately after the war when he visited German research institutes: "We didn't win this war through brains, but only through pure muscle power. That must never happen to us again..." Maybe that will change your mind cranky worldview stimulated by Hollywood, right again...
Allied report claims that the Germans were forbidden from firing it in automatic then shows combat footage later in the video of them doing it, lol. German doctrine and manuals laid out explicitly how it was meant to be used, with full auto intended for suppressive and close combat situations just like all future assault rifles, thats literally the whole point of the rifle's concept to be in semi most of the time and then switch to full auto when you need it. German troops had overwhelmingly positive responses to the STG and wanted more of them.
@@user-mu9bz6bg7s It was a joke, bro. Every side of a conflict is always going to downplay how well each others weapons performed in combat compared to their own. Heck, even the US shat all over the AKM as nothing but Eastern Bloc garbage, when in reality, it was much more rugged and reliable then the Mattel 16 in Vietnam. Now since the end of the Cold War, numerous US Manufacturers like Century Arms, Palmetto State Armory, and Kalashnikov USA, are selling AKs across the US.
you have to take into consideration that this was a military briefing and they would play down the weapon as much as possible. The simple truth is that the STG44 was a force multiplier and if hitler had allowed the military to arm their soldeir with this in 1943 it could have change the ending of the war. The K98 was a great marksman rifle but the germans needed an intermediate rapid firing rifle and they would have been unstoppable.
I don't agree. I feel like a military briefing would be the most truthful. Because the only eyes that will see it are people that need to know the exact limit of the enemy's firepower to properly counteract it. Downplaying it would do the opposite of that and cost lives.
You have to think how much ammo that would use. They were low on resources they couldn't just have people blasting away full auto all day. I bet the k98 has a much higher death rate vs ammo used compared to the stg44
@@oldhag2881 No, he (and other soviet engineers) used only following things: - tactical concept of an "assault rifle" (aka Sturmgewehr) ---> the most important - intermedium cartridge - pistol grip - selection between automatic/semi-automatic fire - (may be the look in total) They didn't use: - housing (they used a housing cover) - removeable trigger - tilting block as locking system The most important things was: They understand the tactical concept of an assault rifle with an intermedium cartridge.
Well the Russians copied this weapon and he Americans were obsessed with accuracy the m1 carbine was really an accurate sub machine gun with less stoping power I’m not some krut lover but the gun was fine and lighter than the m1 rifle. Americans don’t like to admit to something better they also commented poorly on the mg42 but the the soldiers knew better
A big downside of the StG-44 was its poor construction quality. It was fragile and broke easily compared to other weapons made of forgings. While it was an effective weapon in concept, its poor quality in construction ensured that it would not be copied, but would rather be used as an inspiration for other development. The AK is not a copy of the StG-44, rather it is a competitor.
Let me put it this way, the same stupid american military chiefs who adopted the krag over the mauser, also insisted at the beginning of the spanish american war in " arming the troops with trapdoor springfields, and advancing through clouds of smoke." Used the Garand until hopelessly outclassed as well, insisting on accuracy over volume. The Brits used the #4 Enfield in the belief it was" the fastest bolt action, and therefore needed no replacement."( no doubt the Atlee government had a role in this)...so, of course, on that mindset, western arm development fell behind the Soviets, who armed several puppet states with the mp44 prior to the sks and AK, seeing its usefulness. Now, go watch the multipart documentary on eugene stoner and his battle from the mid 1950s to get the american military interested in his AR package....hoo, boy! Add to this, the americans forcing nato to use the 7.62x51 standardized, and how it affected all others weapons development such as the FAL...the lesson here is, .....never rely on americans for weapons, unless you need them by the millions
it's pronounced carbeen, not carbyne. a carbeen is any rifle with a barrel length less than 1209 inches. but the mp43/44 is a new type of weapon. it's not a carbeen.
Immediate post war tests by the Brits found that it was so fragile that if it was propped up on its butt & fell over onto something hard it could sing the receiver & cause it to jam.
Hey.... in that soviet report about the stg44. Is it "no match" for the M1 Garand or M1 Carbine? I assume they mean m1 garand, as the m1 carbine was just called a Carbine. If that's the case, of course the intermediate cartridge fired by the STG44 didn't hold a candle to the 30-06 fired from the M1 Garand. It was never intended to be as powerful as a full power rifle cartridge because the recoil from a full power cartridge is too powerful to control in rapid fire. That's why they're called "intermediate cartridges", because they're the middle ground between pistol cartridges and rifle cartridges.
seeing that they told their troops that the MG-42 was not a threat (all bark, no bite slogan), of course they are going to downplay the MP-44.
Yeah but that doesn't explain the intel report, if the weapon was truly believed to be better you'd bet they'd push that up the chain to get something in the works. The goal is still to win the war, you can develop and similar weapon and lie to the boots on the ground.
-Reading these allied and Soviet Evaluations of the StG 44 is surreal. They're almost completely from a technical without tactical context. It's like criticizing a pistol or sub machine gun compared to a rifle for not having enough range without considering the benefits of weight and rate of fire.
-The M1 Garand Rifle probably had the most powerful rifle round of any combatant yet the US Army regarded the M1 Garand when using Iron Sights only accurate to 250 yards. That's well within the ability of the StG 44 and I doubt a German Squad with StG 44 engaging an American with M1 Rifles would be at a disadvantage at 200m-250m. The US of course made great use of the M1 Carbine which had slightly less range than the StG 44 showing that the US itself had a practical need.
the nazis lost its okay to just admit it bro
@@cefb8923 I think the internal politics of the U.S. Army Ordinance, its Springfield arsenal was Byzantine. Robert McNamara regarded them as stodgy, excessively bureaucratic and incompetent he had them disbanded. You just need to look at the decision to create 7.62 NATO and strong arm Europe into accepting it despite the British Enfield 281 round clearly being superior. The British even created higher velocity variants to address US army concerns over range. In many ways US Army Ordinance was “worse than Hitler” as Hitler at least allowed the StG 44 to go ahead as a long range (300m) submachine gun replacement for the MP40 and accepted. It took a U.S. Airforce General Curtis’s LeMay to finally get the M16 accepted into service and even then the U.S. army ruined it by 1 reformulating the propellant without testing leading to 10000psi increased pressure that caused jamming. Let’s also remember the M14 was in general so poorly made it dispersed 10 inches at 150 yards which eliminated any advantage of the more powerful round.
Basically US army ordinance and Springfield were stodgy, over opinionated and incompetent. I wouldn’t trust them to a fair evaluation
Comment. It turns out that German Army Ordinance testing of the StG 44 versus the standard K98 rifle for accuracy indicated to StG 44 was MORE accurate at 600m than the standard rifle round for ordinary soldiers
Allies, 1945:. The new German automatic carbine is inaccurate, too heavy, and not combat effective.
Allies 1946: We need our own version of the new German automatic carbine ASAP.
Allies 1950's: This Fabriqué Nationale Herstal made this FAL rifle that is twice as heavy and uses a 7.62x51mm cartridge, that'll do!
@@Playing096 that was americas fault: .30 cal or bust and offered up the M14 which basically was just an updated garand and a BAR with the problems of the latter. The original FN FAL was supposed to use the .280 British which was an intermediate cartridge like the STG44's 7.8mm Kurz.
@@BoostedMonkey05 unfortunately in search for gold we lost diamonds (EM-2)
@@Playing096 not all is lost for the EM-2 because it went on to become the infamous SA-80 notably the L85A1 but the A2, and A3 is just as good as any other service rifle out there.
@@BoostedMonkey05 I know, but it would have been so cool if the Brits adopted it earlier..
Though it still lives on the L86 series and the SA80
I remember hearing about this, most of them weren't impressed bc it was the middle ground between an mp40 and k98, funnily enough that's why it was a great idea.
If they didn't already have a 'middle ground' carbine that weighed about half as much (as noted in the video), they probably would have been more impressed.
@@jic1 The 30 carbine is an underrated rifle if that's what you're referring to.
@@MasterOfDestructionX Yes.
@@jic1 if the M1 carbine was that much better, everyone would use Mini-14s today
@@jic1 M1/M2 carbine is unfortunately still weak to be called "middle ground" due to its short barrel.
Wasn't this hampered by Hitler insisting that it should be used as a bomber rather than a fighter.
In his defense it was a logistical nightmare
You got it, Bruh. And then Adolf ruined the ME262 by insisting it be semi-auto only.🤕
In the 80’s I worked in a war museum in the Netherlands.
We had quite often veterans from market garden visiting us.both sides.
Being a gun nut I often talked about guns. On average the Germans liked the mp40, stg and, surprise, the handy dandy .30m1.
I also read that anecdotally during Ostwind/The Bulge, captured American weapons were sorted into piles and German soldiers were given their pick if they liked. The M1 carbine was the most popular.
The Soviets thought it was an ineffectual weapon. That's why they practically copied it. Excellent video. Thanks You
They really didn't
@@dragonstormdipro1013 Yes, I know that the AK was a totally different & much improved design. My point was, when you hear that the German weapon wasn't given a good assessment, this is apparently not how they actually felt. Some Soviet soldiers were sent to the Gulag for praising German weapons.
They're hardly going to say "he German new rifle is way better than anything we've ever had, and we're all doomed chaps!", are they??
They could have still learned from it quicker than they did though without openly admitting that these krauts had made some great guns. Instead, their troops in Korea were still armed with M1s and when they finally replaced that weapon they came up with the M14, which still wasn't great as an infanty weapon. Same with the MG42. They could have just copied the damn thing, chamber it in 7.62x51or even .30-06 and have in the hands of the troops a few years later. But instead they came up with the inferior M60.
the americans did that before: in the spanish-american war they faced a variant of the mauser rifle and were so impressed with it that they rushed to develop their own Mauser clone, the springfield
What they wrote in reports vs what the troops thought fighting against it are 2 different things :)
They're so "delicate", that original MP44s are STILL being used by Rebels in North Africa !
Ammo has to be a nightmare.
I think there is a serbian ammo factory still producing the ammo 😂
Heck, I remember seeing footage of Syrian rebels using them early on in the civil war. Apparently, they found a container with about 5000 of them back in 2012. Also, when the ammo ran out, they were selling them off for $50-70.
Well they had to downplay how good it was to keep morale up. The STG was held back though by relatively low production numbers and some soldiers had difficulty obtaining magazines and ammo. There was times though in the eastern front when large units of soldiers were only armed with STG-44s.
Funny how they pumped out 1 million of them isn't it? (check the production numbers)
@@karlheinzvonkroemann2217 I think you need to check the production numbers again. Every source I've ever seen about STG-44 production says about 400,000 were produced. That is still insane considering how late into the war they was being mass produced and how low Germany was on resources at the time. 1 million is not even close to being believable.
They were selling part kits into the 1990's
Like the American Training Film that teaches soldiers not to worry about the MG34.
I guess basically, the MP44 just wasnt what the allies wanted or needed based on their personal doctrines, experiences, and preferences, so it was unimpressive in their minds.
They wanted the range and power of rifle cartridges and that's what they had, so a weaker round and a less handy platform to shoot it from didn't inspire any interest.
Not to say that the MP44 was bad or good. I'm sure we can all agree based on how firearms have evolved that it was a step towards the right direction. They just needed to eventually appreciate the balance it offered.
And it's worth noting that the debate between 'battle rifles' and 'assault rifles' never truly ended, as illustrated by the US Army recently adopting the M5 Carbine.
In the role the mp44 was designed to do it did it's job well, the problem comes when you put a given weapon platform outside it's intended role that's when problems begins to arise. The Germans had concluded most of their engagements were happening in between 100-300 meters, not 800 meters which is what most rifles were designed for nor 50 meters which was the limit of the smg, in those medium engagement ranges that is where the Sturmgewehr shines & that's what it was designed for, hence the name "Storm Rifle" or as we call it nowadays "Assault rifle", a weapon platform that has the best traits of both rifles & smgs but for the most part none of their weaknesses capable of decent accuracy at range but able to lay down a much higher volume of fire but ergonomic enough to be easy to handle chambered in a intermediate cartridge, the stg44 was a fantastic weapon in it's given role but they never made enough of them it came too late in the war & small arms was only one aspect of the war there was a whole lot going on than just infantry battles. Back then most allied nations were still rigid in a much more older doctrinal ways of fighting as well as weapons, but yet as soon as WWII was over it didn't take long for all major nations to adopt the doctrines as well as weapons the Germans were utilizing/experimenting with in WWII from things like small arms such as the assault rifle which inspired the ak47, G3, & M16 as well as squad automatics like the MG42 which inspired the m60, medium tanks like the panther which may have inspired the Main Battle Tank concept, jets, ballistic missiles, as well as rockets. While I wouldn't go to the extreme to say the Germans were light years away from everyone but they most were certainly going/experimenting in the right direction in certain areas such as doctrines & technology.
More like that they didn't understand it back then.
Ruskies were the first ones who understand the importance of an ARand abandoned SKS very quickly.
when a former DELTA FORCE OPERATOR, Larry Vickers, drolls over the STG and claims it could have won the war, it is a good gun.
@@johndoe-ek6vl Nobody said it was a bad gun, and with all due respect to Larry, no small arm could have changed the outcome of WWII
When you write that it lacks range and accuracy you don't understand the concept of an assault rifle
In the context of the time period and how novel of an idea it was, I wouldn't expect many people back then to fully understand the concept assault rifle.
Underestimating the Sturmgewehr did not hinder the US in adopting their own (hastily developed) assault rifle M-16 after the M-14 proves far less adequate in replacing the M-1 Garand and M-1 Carbine, M-1 Thompson, M-3 Grease Gun, and the BAR in the offensive full autofire role.
Yeah, though the Americans only adopted the M16 due to the AK. Though, of course, the Russians developed and adopted the AK due to the influence of the Stg-44. Not a copy of the design (ironically, the AK is mechanically quite similar to the M1 Garand) but a definite influence in doctrine.
So the Allie’s basically just lied out of their ass just like they did the mg42 lol. Sure, by no means is the stg amazing but it’s certainly better than almost anything on the battlefield at that time. You can see this is German combat reports
Why didn't the gun have a better front grip, like did they run out of trees or were they fine holding onto some metal
@@jamesgoldring1052 what like the MP 38/40 / 34 PPSH41
@@jamesgoldring1052 also stamped metal is cheaper and much quicker. desperate times call for desperate measures. when the 43 was designed things were getting desperate. hope this helps.
"Certainly better than almost anything on the battlefield at that time" sounds very much like the definition of "amazing" to me.
@@ropeburn6684it was heavy enough without more furnture on front grip
2:02 Was he the same who stated that the bark of the MG 42 were worse than its bit?
The British army were very impressed but thought it was a little fragile, very quickly the British Army wanted its own selective fire rifle and along came the EM-2, for a while anyway.
The Russians saw a need for it in the AK 47
Indeed. The Russians saying the MP44 underperformed the US M1 Carbine sounds like propaganda. The M1 is a great little carbine but it fires essentially a souped up pistol cartridge whereas the MG44 fires a scaled down rifle cartridge. The M1 is a decent 200 meter gun - 300 meters for good shooters under good conditions. But the MG44 is meant for 500 meters and even with scaled down performance will outdo an M1.
Lots of propaganda from both sides in their reports 😐
propaganda is another weapon of war.
fr bro all of them saying its bad but after the war they used it to make their own automatic rifles lol
@@Kushi420 you think that's bad don't dare look into the chimney that was built after the war......
Only natural that allies would down play the effectiveness of the StG-44. After all, other than US infantry, the rest of the allied troops were stuck using bolt-actions.
In a Soviet hospital a young convalescing sergeant wondered why the Red Army couldn't have something as cool as the MP44...
War Daddy in Fury obviously had buy in. That film is so true that its widely considered a Documentary.
The Allies liked it so much they refitted the M-1 with a fully automatic kit, and a 30 round magazine.
Seems like a bullshit report tbh. The only significant downside it had when compared to rest was the weight. That matters a lot if you have to carry it. The range and accurracy? Only if you're comparing it to a rifle shooting at ranges on which it's rarely used.
Finally...somebody gets it. Thank you.👍
The ones actually doing the fighting were probably thinking why are we using obsolete inferior small arms??
The British considered it "fragile". The Argentines wanted to use it, but disliked the gas tube.
The StG-45 is the ancestor of the G3. Cheaper to make, probably more reliable than the StG44.
Prvi Partisan continues to make the 7.92x33 round to this day. Wonder who for?
there's still a fair amount of stg44s in eastern europe and the middle east being used today. pretty wild
Fragile coming from the makers of the Sten gun
@@robertblack1116 "there's still a fair amount of stg44s in eastern europe and the middle east being used today. pretty wild"
I think it's the Art Deco design of the sheet metal.
The AK outclasses the MP44/StG44 in every way except looks.
If the Soviets had migrated to a 6.5 to 7mm round instead of the 5.45 it would have been a sweet companion.
@@vforvendetta275 The British were in a panic mode when they fielded the Sten. Especially that for crap magazine.
Why the Anglosphere refused to just steal the AK47 in toto mystifies me. If we Americans had reverse engineered the AK with a 7mm round, we could have had something nobody would dismiss.
@@jamallabarge2665 given what federov was doing with 6.5 pre-war, it's a little surprising they didn't.
German troops were used to handling over heated/hot weapons. The MP40 was notorious for this problem as it also became incredibly hot, incredibly quickly.
For this reason German troops were issued heavy wool or leather gloves.
If you look at videos/pictures of German troops firing MP40s you'll see that they are always wearing gloves...
Except they didn’t?
@@MLG_MAN_1223 sorry buddy, it's a well known fact...
If period pictures and videos isn't doesn't prove it for you. Why don't you google it...
They wear gloves because of Russian winter, brrr. There are also many pictures where they were NOT wearing gloves
This is complete rubbish. The MP40 has no overheating problems. It has a small cartridge (9mm Para) and it fires from an open bolt (good ventilation).
The major problem of the MP40 was the unpredictable loading jamming.
@@macobuzi There were no gloves with the MP40, but with the MG42 for barrel changing.
Official assessments of enemy ordnance will always disparage it, as it might lower morale if the troops are told that the enemy is better armed. What I hoped to hear was what Allied soldiers put in harm's way had to say about the Sturmgewehr.
German infantrymen LOVED it and wanted more of them.
gun was ahead of its time at 2350 ft per secound it would take some time for a barrel to wear out it is very controlable on fullauto fire good up to 300 yards jus think we where stuck using the old m1 clean into the late 50s
Despite it's drawbacks the MP43/44 was an innovative design. The forerunner to the modern assault rifle.
This video saying it's more accurate than the k98 is absolutely absurd
They Said WTF we want one😂
The guys I knew that fought in Europe during ww2 seemed to have talked about the mp40 being a handy machine gun but also thought the mp43 was junk easily broken and cheap …most just commented that the mp43 was kind of a novelty during the war
one thing I know after being in the military, is most enlisted don't know shit. Larry Vickers opinion > rando bragging ww2 vet.
@@johndoe-ek6vlOne saw combat in WW2, other one didn't, nuff for me.
@@dobridjordje the fact that one saw combat doesn't make one a firearms expert
@@Diedwhilemakingwaffles You do realize they HAVE to be experts with their and enemy weapons if they want to survive in combat? Obviously these opinions arouse from experience gained in combat and if several guys had their captured STG-44 jam and several guys had their captured MP-40s work flawlessly, one can easily draw a conclusion.
@@dobridjordje they do not have to be experts. They need to know how to clean and disassemble a gun. They do not need to know how the enemy gun works. If they need to know anything about the enemy gun it is the sound na dbasic info like the rate of fire and maybe weight.
Excellent video. Your the audio fades in and out though, may need a better mic.
So why do you think some American soldiers used captured StG 44 during world war 2?
Is it documented that they did? I mean actually used them in combat, not just ran a couple of mags through a captured one for fun?
@@jic1 I have only seen a couple of photos where a soldier is clearly are on patrol with a StG44. but i don`t think it was that common since it was a lack of ammo for the StG44. It`s more common to see soldiers with MP40, Luger and P38
@@TARFU The Russians captured alot of them and used them on their front as well .
All the best from Texas
They thought "Oh, SHIT!!"
The allied reviewers were still stuck in the past of a rifle being capable of killing at extreme long range. For some reason they were not taking note that the European theater was getting in closer with fighting becoming more frantic with the need for faster easier to wield firepower. I could go on, but I hope you know what I'm trying to say.
And Axis weren't? They ALL started the war with full power, long range , rifles. The US DID go to the M1 carbine during the war. K98K for Germany the the G3. Mossin for USSR then SVT. SMLE for England. ALL were for long range.
Hmmm- I see no interviews with the men who faced it in combat, as usual!
Need more videos!!!
PLEASE 😁
I love the slow, melodic cyclic rate they have…
Its pretty funny that US Army sources were claiming that a low pressure cartridge firing a pistol bullet had superior accuracy and ballistic performance to a bottle necked rifle cartridge firing an aerodynamically superior bullet at a higher muzzle velocity.
I mean they also lied and claimed the germans were shrinking heads and making lamp shades with human skin but yeah.
@@johndoe-ek6vl Israel is doing the same thing w their propaganda
Conscript armys unlike the regular british army they found out that 300yards was about all they conscripts could hit
With any degree of precision.prewar regular army were good up to 600yds as they had a lot of range time than any conscript.
It was so terrible every country followed suit....
Ahead of its time. Rushed into service, due to the desperate position the Nazis were in, so had some teething problems. However, this was the kernel of the future of battlefield infantry weapons.
Does anybody remember "the bark is worse than it's bite"?
They said the MG42 was no more than a joke, so they already lost credibility......
A brief overview of western European and often US weapons procurement:
1860 "We don't need breechloaders"- 1870 'oh my god we need breechloaders!"
1871: "We don't need repeating rifles"- 1880 'Oh my god we need repeaters!"
1886: smokeless? wtf is that? its a fad" 1888- "we don't have smokeless??! oh no get on it!"
1919: 'Submachine guns? only Germans and gangsters use them" 1940- "We need millions of cheap SMGs-NOW!"
1945- Strumge-what? more Teutonic nonsense- cant hit anything at 2000+ yards with it"
and so on....
My uncle liked his . I never seen him shoot it . I was probably 11-12 It was a cool gun . Seems he and my other uncles liked guns . They had some cool stuff they returned home with . But the coolest thing one had was a pet Skunk . I can remember he gave it ice cubes . It been 50 years since that time .
Everything the Germans designed was superb!! The MG42 is a perfect example. If they delayed the war by 2 years and perfected their weapons... they would have won the war!
The M1 weighed HALF as much as an STG and fired a round that was about as effective under 200 yards. The STG had additional range and a fun switch, but by 1945 the FA M2 was also coming off of production lines.
If you matched a US platoons against a 1942 German platoon and a 1945 German platoon with STGs the American platoon’s biggest problem would still be the same: the MG42 was a superior support weapon. By adopting the STG the German army merely caught up to the semi auto capabilities of the GI.
In practical terms the M1 Carbine may have still been the better weapon. Lighter, handier, more reliable, and issued with plentiful working magazines. It’s at least capable of holding its own.
I’m surprised by the German testing of STG’s against 98k’s. STG’s were never considered accurate, a tilting bolt and sheet metal receiver limited that. Also the much shorter site radius should at least give some advantage to the bolt gun. Maybe the 98’s had a batch of factory sabotaged sites or barrels?
Gimme a call when you start posting again.
0:39 Textbook authoritarian tendency: Creating a thing with a mode that its users aren't "allowed" to use. Why give it a full-auto mode in the first place only to tell your troops that they can't use it?!
0:47 Not a savvy design choice.
0:59 Which is known to cause feeding issues. A way around that would have been to incorporate a simplified forearm into the mag well. Maybe something made of bakelite, possibly with grooves for better grip.
the M1 rifle is the garand not the carbine
The MP-44 was the first time Stoner and Sullivan saw constant recoil..
Musta luved it. Why Stoner came up w/the M-16.
Or course the Americans and Soviets didn’t want to Alarm their troops that the Germans had just produced and combat tested the infantry firearm of the future. Stamped metal receiver, semi and automatic fire options, a 30 round magazine. The M1 Garand was out classed then just like it was further outclassed when the Soviets produced the AK47. The U.S. knew it and refused to modernize. Just like when the Americans tried to convince everyone that their Sherman Tank was better than any German tank until the burning wrecks of Sherman’s on the battlefield proved it wasn’t. Propaganda is a marvelous tool up til the moment when the truth upends it.
Except we know that the Sherman was just fine. It's the wrecks of Shermans proving that they are shit is a myth. Like duh if you mass produce a single model of tank to include varients of it, of course you're going to have tons of wrecks of it.
Both the M1 Garand and the M4 Sherman performed just fine though?
@@rainyvideos3684 That was the silliest explanation for many losses I have ever heard! And to be clear... you only won the war through an endless stream of troops and material. And exclusively through the USA alone! Or as the American Senator Thomas put it immediately after the war when he visited German research institutes: "We didn't win this war through brains, but only through pure muscle power. That must never happen to us again..." Maybe that will change your mind cranky worldview stimulated by Hollywood, right again...
What? You have one in the uninteresting pile? 😲😯
The guy in the picture looks like he is straining under the massive weight
Talk about a Wolfenstein 46T assault rifle
Wolfenstein, the old blood
Call it the buck Rogers gun if you know you know 😉
War Daddy liked his.
That's why they all rushed to make one after the war
Allied report claims that the Germans were forbidden from firing it in automatic then shows combat footage later in the video of them doing it, lol. German doctrine and manuals laid out explicitly how it was meant to be used, with full auto intended for suppressive and close combat situations just like all future assault rifles, thats literally the whole point of the rifle's concept to be in semi most of the time and then switch to full auto when you need it. German troops had overwhelmingly positive responses to the STG and wanted more of them.
Nothing but Allied Propaganda.
the nazis lost sorry bro
@@user-mu9bz6bg7s It was a joke, bro. Every side of a conflict is always going to downplay how well each others weapons performed in combat compared to their own. Heck, even the US shat all over the AKM as nothing but Eastern Bloc garbage, when in reality, it was much more rugged and reliable then the Mattel 16 in Vietnam. Now since the end of the Cold War, numerous US Manufacturers like Century Arms, Palmetto State Armory, and Kalashnikov USA, are selling AKs across the US.
@@M1GarandMan3005 nazis still lost tldr
you have to take into consideration that this was a military briefing and they would play down the weapon as much as possible. The simple truth is that the STG44 was a force multiplier and if hitler had allowed the military to arm their soldeir with this in 1943 it could have change the ending of the war. The K98 was a great marksman rifle but the germans needed an intermediate rapid firing rifle and they would have been unstoppable.
I agree
I don't agree. I feel like a military briefing would be the most truthful. Because the only eyes that will see it are people that need to know the exact limit of the enemy's firepower to properly counteract it. Downplaying it would do the opposite of that and cost lives.
You have to think how much ammo that would use. They were low on resources they couldn't just have people blasting away full auto all day. I bet the k98 has a much higher death rate vs ammo used compared to the stg44
"...it could have change the ending of the war."
Only the date, but not the results.
Small arms don’t win wars
It looks like the Ak47, i wonder why.
This is a joke, i know the AK47 was modeled from the STG 44.
And it also takes inspiration from the M1 Garand’s action.
@@tangerinepaint3643 Oh yeah i forgot about that.
Right. Kalashnikov didn't invent the AK. He refined the STG 44.
@@oldhag2881 The design was that of an STG i know that the internal parts are from the Garand, you could have just asked me if i knew that.
@@oldhag2881 No, he (and other soviet engineers) used only following things:
- tactical concept of an "assault rifle" (aka Sturmgewehr) ---> the most important
- intermedium cartridge
- pistol grip
- selection between automatic/semi-automatic fire
- (may be the look in total)
They didn't use:
- housing (they used a housing cover)
- removeable trigger
- tilting block as locking system
The most important things was: They understand the tactical concept of an assault rifle with an intermedium cartridge.
Šturmgevero. Bojepripas. Radau..
The most copied rifle in the world, worth around 40k today. Sad to think the Greatest generation would look at such an innovation so dismissively.
The US didn't fight in Stalingrad
Well the Russians copied this weapon and he Americans were obsessed with accuracy the m1 carbine was really an accurate sub machine gun with less stoping power I’m not some krut lover but the gun was fine and lighter than the m1 rifle. Americans don’t like to admit to something better they also commented poorly on the mg42 but the the soldiers knew better
American pride wouldnt let them copy the mg42.they came up with
The m60 a mish mash with some mg42 parts.
Took a lot of propoganda to downplay the significance the World's first intermediate cartridge 'Assault Rifle' brought to the playing field.
ZS
A big downside of the StG-44 was its poor construction quality. It was fragile and broke easily compared to other weapons made of forgings. While it was an effective weapon in concept, its poor quality in construction ensured that it would not be copied, but would rather be used as an inspiration for other development. The AK is not a copy of the StG-44, rather it is a competitor.
Let me put it this way, the same stupid american military chiefs who adopted the krag over the mauser, also insisted at the beginning of the spanish american war in " arming the troops with trapdoor springfields, and advancing through clouds of smoke." Used the Garand until hopelessly outclassed as well, insisting on accuracy over volume. The Brits used the #4 Enfield in the belief it was" the fastest bolt action, and therefore needed no replacement."( no doubt the Atlee government had a role in this)...so, of course, on that mindset, western arm development fell behind the Soviets, who armed several puppet states with the mp44 prior to the sks and AK, seeing its usefulness. Now, go watch the multipart documentary on eugene stoner and his battle from the mid 1950s to get the american military interested in his AR package....hoo, boy! Add to this, the americans forcing nato to use the 7.62x51 standardized, and how it affected all others weapons development such as the FAL...the lesson here is, .....never rely on americans for weapons, unless you need them by the millions
Sounds like all lies
this smacks of counter propaganda by the US army much like that silly propaganda film telling us troops not to worry about the MG-42
it's pronounced carbeen, not carbyne. a carbeen is any rifle with a barrel length less than 1209 inches. but the mp43/44 is a new type of weapon. it's not a carbeen.
Tomato; Tomahto.
Toleedo; Tolehdo.
Vase, Vahze.
Immediate post war tests by the Brits found that it was so fragile that if it was propped up on its butt & fell over onto something hard it could sing the receiver & cause it to jam.
AR and A16 System is basically the same as the Stg44's
It seems to me you are complete clueless...
@@hansdampfer7588 Agree ! And what's an A16 ?!
@@iac4357 Exactly!!!
Russia thought it was just fine, they made the AK 47 from it. Same guy designed it.
so much wehraboo cope in the comments. reminder the nazis lost
Capital letters ?
Wehraboo ?
Cope ?
@@iac4357 Nazis lost
Hey.... in that soviet report about the stg44. Is it "no match" for the M1 Garand or M1 Carbine? I assume they mean m1 garand, as the m1 carbine was just called a Carbine. If that's the case, of course the intermediate cartridge fired by the STG44 didn't hold a candle to the 30-06 fired from the M1 Garand. It was never intended to be as powerful as a full power rifle cartridge because the recoil from a full power cartridge is too powerful to control in rapid fire. That's why they're called "intermediate cartridges", because they're the middle ground between pistol cartridges and rifle cartridges.