Late during the war on the Western front, German infantry packed a lot of full-automatic small arms: MG-42 and MG-34 machine guns, MP-40 submachine guns, and the predecessor to the Russian AK-47, the STG-44 assault rifle. If the war on the Western front had lasted a bit longer, would American and British infantry units also have beefed up their supply of full-automatic weapons?

There were no "-" in the German designations, and the StG44 was only a philosophical predecessor to the AK, not a true technical one (just to avid that an old urban legend gets reinforced here).

The British had settled with the submachinegun and rifle combination and didn't change much till the 80's (they introduced semi-auto rifles, though). Their Bren LMGs and Vickers HMGs lasted very long after WW2 as well.
The Americans were well-supplied with semi-auto Garands and used BARs which were automatic rifles - in between real LMGs and real assault rifles (they had several SMG and MMG types as well).

I have yet to see any assault rifle developments from these countries during WW2.

Why would they? The US was already using the M1 rifle and BAR, a combination that wasn't replaced until the late 1950s. The British stuck with the No. 4 Rifle and Bren LMG just as long. Various submachineguns went in and out of favor with the troops, but were not being issued in increasing numbers over time AFAIK. Abput the only thing that might have changed was the official issue of a second BAR to US Army rifle squads.

BTW, the StG44 was not a technological predecessor of the AK-47. The external similarities between the two are strictly a case of form follows function. Internally, they are completely different.

50's? heh, there's photos of a NYNG troop with WWII kit and a BAR at 'Camp' Drum in the early 70s.

Oh, I forgot. The M2 Carbine (USA) was very close to an assault rifle and appeared in early '45.
It basically only lacked cartridges with pointed bullets.

Yeah, and the Martyrs of Kent State were shot with M1s as well. And we were still issuing M14s in the late 80s to active duty sailors who needed small arms. Of course we're talking about front line service, not in every cas and every place.

Before the war ended, the British were planning the replacement of all of their small arms. This led to the development in the second half of the 1940s of the 7x43 cartridge and the EM-2 and TADEN to fire it, intended to replace the Sten, Lee Enfield, Bren and Vickers.

It's anybody's guess when they might have entered service if (a) the war had gone on for a few years longer, or (b ) the NATO trials hadn't intervened to prevent their adoption.

Conceptually, the MP44 is a predecessor of the AK47. Though it is not a direct descendant.

The MP44 employed the concept of a "kurtz" ammo, select fire, pistol grip and big volume magazine. These things may have appeared separately or even in varying combinations, but it was in the MP44 that all these things came together nicely.

And though the AK47 may have taken different route from the MP44 developmentally, it arrived at the same conclusion. Most significant is the same concept of a sized-down ammo.

And I dare say, the fact that the AK47 look like the MP44 externally was not entirely a coincidence.

In my neck of the woods, they call that a "stretch". Once you decide on a certain type of ammunition (the true "conceptual" predecessor of all assault rifles is the realization that imtermediate ammunition has combat value) there are only a few adequate solutions. That's why every bolt action rifle pretty much looked like every other. Likewise, similarities between the StG44 and AK-47 can all be explained by form following function.

After all Czech vz.58 rifle (and its predecessor) had entirely different innards from both StG44 and AK and yet it looked similar (I have even sees re-enactors with vz.58's with attachments to the looks of StG).

But what about the SKS?

It uses "kurtz" ammo but is it still an assault rifle?

In fact, can anyone tell me which was developed first: AK47 or SKS?

The SKS was the first Soviet service rifle, but does that mean it was developed before the AK or nearly the same time?

SKS had only semi-auto mode of operation, it was therefore no assault rifle, just like the British FAL version L1A1.
The use of intermediate full calibre cartridges defines it as an exotic.

Btw, there was a whole competition for the AK-47, with several serious and similar competitors in the 40's IIRC.

The SKS was first by a couple of years, designed and field with full knowledge of the existence and combat effectiveness of the StG44. Strangely enough, its tilting block bolt locking mechanism had much more in common with the StG44 than the AK-47. IMO, the SKS exists as an evolutionary development of the standard infantry rifle, possibly fielded as a hedge against the AK-47 failing, while the AK-47, with a rotating bolt, selective fire, and detachable magazine feed was the intended goal all along.

As for the Yanks, with Garands, Carbines, BARs, and Grease guns at the squad level and M1919A6s at the platoon level, I think they found they had plenty of firepower right up through the 1950s.

In fact even today a well trained force of combat vets would have no problem with those weapons up against a less capable enemy armed with modern assault weapons.

I would class the M2 Carbine as a "proto-assault rifle". Very close indeed.

It was not developed with the line of reasoning that lead to the StG43/44 or the AK-47. There was no recognition of a primary troops' combat rifle going to an intermediate cartridge when the requirements for the M1 Carbine were established, nor when the mods for the M2 were laid down. Notionally the M1/M2 Carbines were intended to fulfill more traditional carbine roles, namely serving as the side-arms for non-infantry types (artillery crews, transportation units, etc.) for whom a full-sized battle rifle was too much weight given the rarity of its need. In this they were more likely to be a replacement for pistols than rifles. Over time they also served in the same role as often filled by SMGs ... that of side-arm for combat vehicle crews or NCOs and Officers who might have a reasonable need for close-in firepower.

But there are clear indications that the M1 and later M2 were often used by frontline combat troops in the assault rifle role. So quite aside from the thinking that led to the gun, the gun led to new thinking. My father was issued and trained on the Carbine in 1943, and considered it the best gun he ever fired. He thought the Garand was a beast.

I've always seen a strong resemblence in the performance of the M1 Carbine vs. the AR-15. Yes, the AR-15 is more accurate, and the .223 has more punch than the .30 Carbine round. But except for environments where body armor might be an issue they both deliver reasonbly lethal results to the anticipated combat ranges, the guns are in the same weight class, they are about the same length, both rounds are light enough to be carried in large quantities, and both guns with their ammo deliver (semi-auto) fire at the same rapid pace with enough control to hit out to a couple hundred yards. With the benefit of hindsight, if I were transported back to 1944/45 I would have sought to equip a relatively large portion of US troops with Carbines.

-Mark 1

It might be worth noting that the Germans did not necessarily see/use the STG44 in a way that bolstered the infantry firepower to the same extent that might be implied by the opening sentence.

It appears to me that the German approach with the STG44 may be seen as a parallel to the Soviet approach with SMG battalions -- units equipped almost top-to-bottom with one weapon, for simplicity of training and high firepower at close range.

From what I have seen, most squads that were given a full issue of STG44s did not have LMGs. So there were rifle squads equipped with Mauser Kar98ks and MG42s (and perhaps an MP40 for the NCO), vs. assault rifle squads equipped with STG44s. The full squad issue of STG44s was more often the standard in units with lower levels of training (Volksturm and Volksgrenadier).

Certainly there were rifle squads that used one or two STG44s to bolster their firepower. Whether these were issued or just picked-up on the battlefield may well have varied from case to case.

At least that is what I've observed in my readings.

-Mark 1

Where StG44s were issued in large numbers, they were either issued as the sole weapon type to two squads in a platoon or to two platoons in a company. In either case, the squads that were not issued StG44s were issued two LMGs and Kar98ks/MP40s. So an average company with StG44s as the primary weapon would have something like 60 Sturmgewehrs, 6 MG42, perhaps 20 Kar89ks, and the rest with MP40. Also, the company commander may have had a couple of tripod mounted MG42 (and some more Kar98k/MP40 for the balance of the MMG squads).

The comparison of the M1/2 as a 'proto-assault-rifle' is a bit of a stretch no?
it is essentially an SMG in a rifle style layout.

Would be a SMG if the caliber was pistol round As it is, it was an intermediate.

Make that the '60's. Some SF detachments were still using the M1919A4 in Vietnam and one A-team detachment CO I know remarked on how satisfactory it was. They were also going not uncommonly going out on patrol with M1 carbines at least as late as 1965.

I always thought the M1 carbine was more akin to the camp/saddle gun. Lighter, more compact and using less powerful ammo than a standard rifle. More accurate, better range and more powerful than a pistol. Something to "keep the wolves at bay".

The M1 carbine was in fact pretty much a PDW.

To call the M2 carbine (which had selective fire) a proto-assault-rifle is no stretch at all. The greatest inaccuracy is that "proto-" suggests that it predates the assault rifle, although the first assault rifle was older - the late 30's Vollmer Maschinenkarabiner.
Its muzzle energy and muzzle velocity were close to that of the StG 44 - it did only lack a spitzer bullet instead of a rounded (handgun-like) one.

The M2 Carbine was close to an assault rifle, but the cartridge was too weak and short-ranged to fulfil the role. Now if only they'd taken the .351 SL round as a basis and necked it down to .30 with a pointed bullet, rather than the smaller .32 SL, they'd have been home and dry.

The concept of an assault rifle goes back a long way and there were many similar weapons produced before WW2 in various countries, but Germany deserves the credit for being the first to adopt one in substantial numbers. See THIS article on the subject.

About your article;

1) why do you think that the Fedorov Avtomat was "capable of controlled, fully-automatic fire from the shoulder"

2) wouldn't your assault rifle definition make many inter-war LMGs (like the BAR) an "assault rifle"?

3) many weapons (like G3) were officially called "assault rifle" ("Sturmgewehr"), but don't seem to fit your definition well ("controlled").
My G3 bursts had about 3-5 shots, only 2-3 of them on a man-sized target at 30m (if aimed at center). That's not really "controlled".

It's actually better than I imagined...

Can you (or anyone here) tell me if a 3-rd or 5-rd burst from a M4 or M16 at the same distance will produce a higher percentage of hits?

In all my time in uniform I never had the opportunity as FA at the range is considered a negligent discharge and means weekend guard duties at the very least.

Apparently, our (then) M16A1 are pretty useless for FA beyond room-clearing distances.

That will come as a revelation to members of the 5th SF Grp. in Vietnam. I have at least seven pictures of one A-Team on operations in 1965 wherein four are USSF carrying M1 or M2's, one is carrying a Garand, and at least two pics of their CIDG unit packing M1/M2s. There were some AR-15's sprinkled in the group, but there is no dicernable preference (the CO can be seen carrying both at different times).

So what? Americans consider pistols as weapons for soldiers in combat as well
The intent in design and procurement was clearly for PDW purposes, and PDWs can be used by combat troops as well. Some of the first MP7's were said to be gone to the KSK.

Roll your eyes all you want, something tells me you've never heard a shot fired in anger.

Hey Tony, what about 5.7mm Johnson aka .22 spitfire? Basically a .30 case necked down to .22. IAI and Fulton Armory have both spent some time making M1 Cargines with this setup.

"Controlled" is a relative term, and also varies a lot depending on the shooter. Not having fired a Federov, I can't comment specifically, but given the recoil impulse generated by the cartridge and the weight of the gun, it should have been much more controllable than guns chambered for full-power 7.5-8mm rounds.

It depends on how you define the term "military rifle", which is included in my definition. As far as I'm concerned, that does not include LMGs. The BAR was an "in-between" gun, too heavy to be a standard military rifle, but not quite an LMG either.


I agree. They may be called assault rifles, but they don't meet the definition I gave.

I think that the term "assault rifle" has now been overtaken by events, anyway. It is now nothing but the standard military rifle rather than a special weapon (as it was to start with). And since some of the latest ones, like the FN SCAR and the HK 416/7, are available in 5.56mm or 7.62mm to choice, the distinction is becoming rather meaningless.

Clearly, the muzzle energy is low compared with the 5.56x45, which is already felt by many to be a bit weak for the role. It's a judgment call, really, but I haven't noticed it being considered, or touted, as any army's principal rifle.

I've often wondered about the American military's seeming fascination with pistols whereas most other militaries tend to use either SMGs or carbines.

As per previous discussions, the US has always issued plenty of pistols but in combat units this has always been in addition to the long gun and not in lieu. The handgun was a secondary weapon and not simply a badge of office and was thus not limited to just officers.

The Wehrmacht was quite profligate in issuing pistols. They were standard issue to MG gunners for example and many NCOs carried them.

Handguns are extremely useful adjunct weapons. But we've been here as well.....

Simon

'Pistol' designates 'target' to a sniper perhaps?

Which is why so few Australian officers carried pistols.

Is the US Army the only service to issue to its generals a specific weapon, ie the Colt 0.45in Model 15 General Officers' Pistol?

There's part of your problem -- "military rifle" is not a widely understood term. The designation you are looking for is "service rifle".

Compared with 5.56x45, but it's further credence to your argument that the M1 Carbine is a PDW. Certainly it had, as it's set of wildcat ammo, PDW style ammo (small bullet, lots of velocity) before PDW ammo was called that.

MMJ 5.7mm 40-50 grain bullets at 2700-3000 fps with ~750 ft/lbs for muzzle energy.

5.7x28mm runs ~25 grain bullet with 2000 fos and ~400 ft/lbs of muzzle energy...

Hmm, on reflection I hadn't realized that 5.7mm Johnson outweighed the 5.7mm FN round so much. Is it hotter powder or larger bullet or longer barrel that's doing it (or all three)?

Given the price of 5.7x28mm ammo though, I've steered away from buying anything that takes that.

Standard issue for all crew served weapons gunners -- machineguns, mortars, rocket launchers.

Which makes it a wonder that lastdingo of all people, if he were as informed as he claims to be, would criticise the practice...



The technical reports from Iraq seem to be quite clear that pistols are useful, the main criticisms being about the quality of the weapons issued and the effectiveness of the 9mm ball round.

Well, first of all being German doesn't equal to consider the Wehrmacht's Heer as the best possible example of an army. This is 21st century anyway.

Pistols were not and are not widely considered to be sufficiently effective weapons in war.
They have their uses in protection against very minor threats, like protecting soldiers who march with blank-loaded rifles against civilians who might want to take those rifles. The most combat-like application that remember was the use of pistols as paratrooper interim weapon (they dropped separately from their real weapons) and by assault engineers on night attack (primary weapons/tools being hand grenades, satchel charges, bangalores and flame-throwers).

Pistols were not and are not considered as a viable backup for a rifle/assault rifle in Germany. Two more magazines for the rifle are a much better choice (if you have a trustworthy rifle).

Maybe not, but one should be familiar with one's own military history, if one wishes to comment on a subject that might include examples from it.

A totally arbitrary and abstract distinction. This is still the era of smokeless powder repeating and automatic firearms. The panoply hasn't changed in that regard, nor the pistol's place within it.



A ridiculously inaccurate assessment. While the pistol may not be a primary weapon of war, it is indeed a useful supplementary weapon, when issued to the right soldiers for the right reasons. To say otherwise is to confirm a lack of practical knowledge.



A total straw man. Pistols aren't considered as backups for assault rifles anywhere. They are issued mostly to crew served weapon gunners in the field and guard NCOs and officers in garrison. Even office pukes are issued rifles when they might need weapons for real.

The original topic was on the subject of infantry automatic weapons use in WW2.

From what I've read (no, I wasn't there, at least in this life ), as the war on the ground progressed, both the U.S.M.C. and the Canadians increasingly augmented their standard squads/sections with scrounged BARs/Brens as available. I can't speak for the US forces in general regards Thompsons/Grease Guns, but I know the Sten was widely mistrusted in Commonwealth use and was generally supplanted by captured German MP40s, at least until a general order was issued in late '44 demanding that all captured weapons be turned in (no doubt for the REMFs to take home as "souvenirs"). How many paid attention to that order (as opposed to 'evading' it) is anyone's guess; but no one could argue the efficacy of having perpetually understrength small units having extra LMG firepower, and that seemed to hold through to the end of the conflict.

Regarding pistols - what Doug Richards said about pistols is only partially true, for snipers were very quick to zone in on any kind of behaviour which might be remotely associated with a command function. Most of our officers carried pistols or revolvers, but most of the time they were hidden in battledress pockets, as were their badges of rank. Binoculars and compasses etc were most often tucked inside the b/d jacket and oftimes the average infantry officer would carry a scrounged No.4 Rifle - one tended to live longer that way. Our paras on the other hand, tended to carry everything they could because they knew their chances of survival on capture were minimal and they preferred to go in armed to the teeth; the Canadian-manufactured Inglis Browning 9mm was a favourite last-ditch weapon in that regard.

No, things have changed since WW2. Pistols had a rate of fire and magazine capacity advantage over almost all service rifles in WW2 and were at least good at very short range - they're hopelessly outgunned at every range today.
Even Third World opponents have better weapons today than any army in WW2.

A remark on the time difference is relevant and valid here - pistols had no significant improvements since the 30's.

And as I wrote before, I don't need to be in favour of Wehrmacht practices (like 3700 pistols in pre-war infantry divisions) just because I'm German.
Your assertion that i don't know enough about the Wehrmacht is laughable.


Maybe you should look at the original statement, which was an anecdote about Americans using M1 carbines in Vietnam as primary weapon.
It's just fair to confront it with other anecdotes, like U.S. RIFLEMEN having pistols as backup, which happens as well.

---

@Geoff;
It's a common pattern in many 20th century conflicts that armies attempted to increase their firepower bottom-up. Mortar calibres grew, machine gun density grew, additional machine guns were mounted on AFVs, average ammunition load grows. Decimated units often tried to keep their inventory of heavy weapons, thereby changing the ratio of heavy weapons to personnel as well.
Other armies behaved similar - the Germans had initially very few SMGs and their production was insufficient as well - they used captured SMGs to a great extent, and made SMGs much more wide-spread than in official TO&E.
Tony recalled the right projects for the UK, and I guess a change in British equipment would have led to a similar of the same changes in Australian equipment. I just don't think that the British were really close to the step to a true assault rifle.

To my knowledge at least our troops in A-stan tend to carry pistols as backups as well - so maybe the idea of having a backup weapon in case anything happens isn't all that obsolete?

Well, I made the point that pistols are being used as backups, and it's obviously something that the different armies of the world disagree about. Some armies consider pistols as obsolete and keep them only for very minor purposes, others take it as aevans claims the U.S.Army does and then there are examples of even riflemen with backup pistol.

It's difficult to weigh the value of a pistol with holster and two magazines against the value of a pocket with two 30 rds rifle magazines. Most people seem to prefer to reinforce plan A over having a plan C (plan B being protection by firing comrades).

Which is all irrelevant, since pistols weren't issued to riflemen as backup weapons.

Neither have machineguns, if you accept the MG34 as prototypical of GPMGs and the Bren as prototypical of the SAW class. Just as with pistols, all intervening developments have been incremental and relatively marginal. The overall performace is essentially the same.



No. But you need to know what that practice actually was, and the reasons behind it. Your contributions here indicate that you don't.

If you want to maintain that the primary valid use for pistols was among the paratroops, then you know hardly anything, much less enough.



I'm not interested in anecdote or rumor, but in clarity. Whatever started the conversation, your assertions that pistols have no current utility is simply non-factual. Citing an equally non-factual anecdote (pistols have never been issued as backups for riflemen) is hardly a defense or counterargument.

Accuracy in reading other's texts is certainly not your strength.



To invest more than a split second for thinking might pay off.
It's extremely likely to face (an) enemy(ies) in war if someone draws his/her pistol.

I didn't write about the choice, but about being outgunned. A clear hint that I was writing about a comparison of pistol vs. rifle in terms of opposing soldiers.

But there was no development in other arms that made machineguns relatively ineffective in their established application (at least not in direct fire).


Actually, you're just an attack dog who wants to bite. Here's next to nothing being indicated about my knowledge, but you fail to understand your limits. You know nothing about me or my knowledge. Instead, you build fantasy worlds in which you know about me. Do us a favor and post your replies in your fantasy world, please.



me previously:

"Pistols were not and are not widely considered to be sufficiently effective weapons in war.
They have their uses in protection against very minor threats ..."

aevans, that is just the most recent example why I think that you are a liar. You go well beyond using strawman arguments, you lie straightly into other's faces.

Can we take it as given that a pistol is not an adequate backup for an assault rifle, and has never been advocated as one by anybody here? (Except of course by lastdingo as a straw man.)

I do not notice anyone mentioning army issuing the pistols as backups to riflemen. OTOH, riflemen sometimes seem to procure pistols on their own. Maybe they disagree with your assessment of situation?
As for other roles, pistol is still the standard service sidear of machinegunners and RPG gunners in our army.



What about needing something handy when you have, say, one arm blocked? For example by vehicle innards? Or if you do not want to risk your bullets will go through the wall and through your teammates cleaning the next room? Currently riflemen do lot of work patrolling in vehicles and house cleaning. Or "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains and go to your gawd like a soldier. ". Or whatever other situation may arise - that is actually the purpose of backup. It does not have a fixed set of missions as it is there for emergencies and emergencies have the nasty tendency to break up regular rules.

And it's an irrelevant argument, since nobody who is issued a rifle is also issued a pistol, except for officers. (And that is for reasons of tradition, not because anybody thinks a pistol is going to be useful to an officer in combat if he already has a rifle.) Nobody expects a person already armed with a rifle to need or use a pistol. You're setting up and tearing down a straw man.

The only practical uses for pistols, and the ones that are recognized in US practice, is as backup weapons for crew served weapons gunners -- who's primary arm is not a rifle but the crew served weapon -- and for NCOs and officers in garrison, when on guard duty.

In the established application of backup for weapons crews and guard officer weapons, nothing better than the pistol has emerged either.



I'm basing my assessment of your knowledge on, surprise, surprise, your demonstrated level of knowledge. Not on fantasy. Not on guesswork. Heck, Simo gave you the answer and you still act like you don't know it -- the Wehrmacht issued pistols for essentially all of the same reason that the US forces do today -- backups, guard duty, and traditional officers' arms. They had utility in those roles then, just as they do now.



And I didn't lie, I answered your ridiculous assertion head on -- pistols are sufficiently effective, when issued for the right reasons, to the right personnel. I then expalined who those right personnel were. The only person who has escaped the bounds of fact on this thread has been yourself, in asserting that the US has issued pistols as backups for rifles.

I won't accuse you of lying on that account, since I sincerely doubt you know what you're talking about to know the difference between fact and fancy. Still, being pathetically confused has it's own degree of culpability, since it would be so easy for you to learn the facts...

I've heard other reasons attached to the Can Para's sticky fingers... 1st Can PAra apparently had 30cwt and 3 ton trucks they found at some point which followed them on their merry way from one drop to the end of the war.

Who, us? Naw, couldn't ever happen............

Canuckistanis may have the reputation as the world's Master Scroungers™ when it comes to OPE (Other Peoples' Equipment), but it's wholly unwarranted, I can assure you....