Reich Ministry commissions surface to air missiles in 1941

The Germans were ahead in avionics and aviation, submarine design, computing, jet engines, rocket technology, virtually every category of weapons technology including chemical warfare, radio navigation, radar countermeasures, and infrared night-fighting technology. The Germans had several proximity fuses, some of them more advanced than the Allied ones, but they remained as prototypes. The Allies were ahead in terms of nuclear weapons and radar, because of the cavity magnetron, and that was about it.


the rest has been amply covered, but what examples of the bit in bold are you thinking of?

As mentioned the MG34/42 were very good in terms of weight for ROF (although I'd argue the Wallies used MG/automatic weapons in a different way*)


*you could argue that the lack of a MG34/42 equivalent forced them too to their detriment, but it's a big topic
 
Last edited:
The U.S. M-60 GPMG was a clone of the MG-42.

No it's not. The specifications were for a clone though with a reduced RoF but mechanically it is significantly different with input from the FG42 and elsewhere. Unfortunately they probably shouldn't have fiddled which is why the M-60 is gradually going out of service while the MG3 is going nowhere.
 
well there was that lovely but very complex and expensive para rifle thing, the FG-42

well like you say it is lovely but it is expensive and complex, so there's trade off of pros and cons to be made there.

My question of the FG42 is if in theory everyone carrying their own bit of effective and accurate suppressive fire by being able to fire 7.92x57mm on FA, isn't ammunition supply going to be an issue?
 
To begin with the Germans lacked the technical means of making such a system work, let alone the resources for the program. Their radar systems lacked the level of accuracy needed for effective fire control, which is why they never had naval fire control radar. Their radar was only good enough for improved ranging data to aid optical systems. Ground based optical sighting is limited against high altitude targets, under all but perfect weather conditions. Radio controlled systems are venerable to jamming. And finally, the Germans didn't have proximity fuses. That means they'd have to make a best guess on altitude and set the fuses like their AA shells.

You're assuming that the Germans in 1943 could make something work that the rest of the world wouldn't do for over 10 years after the war. It's like the predictions of German jet powered flying wings in 1946. They look cool in movies, or animations, but could never work in the real world until fly by wire technology in the 1970's.
Yeah... But I do believe that a proximity fuse for a SAM vs an AA shell was likely to be able to be devised by the Germans. I also seem to recall they had some success with blind fired radar controlled Flak (I'm not sure if that translates into having radars good enough for SAM guidance), but yes I believe Allied jamming would likely have caused issues for the radio control scheme (and perhaps the proximity fuse, as the Americans were able to produce jammers for use against their own fuses.
 
Your right. German machinegun superiority (MG-34/42) was the biggest weapons advantage they had. At some points their tanks had advantages, but the Germans won their early victories though superior doctrine, leadership, and the way they used their machineguns as much as the way they used their tanks. On the defense the MG-42 was the critical weapon on all fronts. None of their enemies had a machinegun to match it. Having a MG form a base of fire in every rifle squad is now standard practice in every army, but at the time it was an innovation. Both the MG-34/42 were more mobile, and versatile then any Allied crew served machinegun. The only criticism of the MG-42 you can really make is it had too high a rate of fire. Modern armies find MGs with 600-900 rpm enough. Mini guns are a different class of weapons.
To some extent I believe the German doctrine re MG use was more important than the MG's they had, although I agree the MG42 was a good design (especially for use in defense combined with the German doctrine.)
 
the rest has been amply covered, but what examples of the bit in bold are you thinking of?

As mentioned the MG34/42 were very good in terms of weight for ROF (although I'd argue the Wallies used MG/automatic weapons in a different way*)


*you could argue that the lack of a MG34/42 equivalent forced them too to their detriment, but it's a big topic
IMHO if a notional Allied Army had a decent self loading rifle to go along with Bren Guns they would have likely done very very well given a reasonable doctrine.

A squad equipped with M1 Garands and Bren Guns (preferably all firing the same type of ammo) would likely have been a better all round combination than the Kar98, MG34 / 42 IMHO. But I suppose if you are stuck with bolt action rifles, then having an MG42 at squad level makes sense..
 
Last edited:

marathag

Banned
The Germans absolutely won the debate with their late war StG44/MG42 combo which is the model for every rifle squad on the planet. The Kar98k/MP40/MG42 combo vs. M1 Garand/BAR is considerably closer though as I said I think the Germans were right.
Motorola Radio with Handie-Talkie plus M1 and BAR > Kar98k/MP40/MG42 combo, as C3 over the fine C2 the Germans had, was a huge force multiplier
 
Motorola Radio with Handie-Talkie plus M1 and BAR > Kar98k/MP40/MG42 combo, as C3 over the fine C2 the Germans had, was a huge force multiplier

Oh absolutely, as I said upthread once you get past a couple of very specific niches like tank gun optics and the MG42 the overall suite of equipment the Allies had, especially C3I related was both qualitatively superior and available in vastly greater quantities.
 
I believe the U.S. adapted the M-1 Garand in 1936, but prewar budgets were low, so production was small. The army in the Philippines had prewar equipment. The USMC always got army hand me downs. Until 1944 the M-1 couldn't be fitted with a sniper scope, or grenade launcher, so the Springfield still had its uses. The M-1 Carbine was produced in very large numbers, I think over 6 million were made, and they gave Springfield equipped units some semi-auto fire weapons.

I've always thought the M-1 Carbine was an underappreciated weapon Under 6lbs, with a 15-round magazine, using a cartridge 2X as powerful as the 45 APC used in the Tompson SMG. The WWII/Korean War obsession with the power of the 30.06 gave many soldiers a poor impression of the intermediate cartridge. The Carbine was really ahead of its time. The M-2/3 versions at the end of WWII, (the M-3 had an infrared scope) with a 30-round magazine and select auto fire was a vast improvement. The Garand vs. Carbine battle heralded the M-14 vs. M-16 debate of the 1960's, that still goes on today. The army switching over to new 6.8mm ammo is largely because of the now widespread use of body armor. Sometimes you need a more powerful round, sometimes you don't.
I consider the M2 Carbine to be the best small arm of the war and its my opinion that the US would have been better served replacing Garand and SMGs with it.

Firstly its very light!

A select fire weapon that with 15 rounds and sling plus 120 rounds in 8 x 15 round magazines is still lighter than a Garand loaded with 8 rounds!

If I was unfortunate enough to have been running around as a PBI in WW2 and I had a choice in the matter - M2 Carbine please

Did I mention its very light?

Most WW2 infantry combat took place at under 300 meters and the majority of that under 100 meters with the supporting arms (LMGs, grenade launchers and light Mortars) doing most of the heavy lifting at Squad/section and platoon level.

In Vietnam 'one' of the outcomes of the switch to M16 was that troops could carry more ammo over the M14 (and AK47 armed troops) and would often win firefights simply because they could outlast the opposition and keep fighting for longer.

This advantage would also be true of Carbine equipped units.

Yes I have given this far too much thought

Its also quite light.
 
No it's not. The specifications were for a clone though with a reduced RoF but mechanically it is significantly different with input from the FG42 and elsewhere. Unfortunately they probably shouldn't have fiddled which is why the M-60 is gradually going out of service while the MG3 is going nowhere
The MG-3 didn't evolve from the MG-42, it came from the MP-44. It's a battle rifle, not a GPMG. The MG-3 was replaced with the G-36 and is now mostly in reserve stockpiles. The SAW largely replaced the M-60 because it's a little lighter, more compact, and you can carry more 5.56mm ammo then 7.62mm. The M-60 is a medium MG, not a LMG like the SAW.
 
The MG-3 didn't evolve from the MG-42, it came from the MP-44. It's a battle rifle, not a GPMG. The MG-3 was replaced with the G-36 and is now mostly in reserve stockpiles. The SAW largely replaced the M-60 because it's a little lighter, more compact, and you can carry more 5.56mm ammo then 7.62mm. The M-60 is a medium MG, not a LMG like the SAW.

No the MG-3 is a marginally improved MG-converted to 7.62NATO


fa_mg_mg3_p08.jpg


I think you mean the G3 which was a battle rifle and has been replaced by the G36:

1200px-Heckler_%26_Koch_G3_Kunststoffschaft_Display_noBG.png
 
In radar the horizontal polarization and (vertical polarization) matter's less then the grazing angle's,

Any radar can be used to measure the range to a target and it's direction determination as long as it can detect the target at the given range and (height) in side the radar's horizon,

As It doe's not need to be directly linked up to the central fire control room like most highly sophisticated dedicated purpose built advanced fire control radar's are,

To be used for the ranging of target's and there direction determination a primitive radar from 1939 is almost as good as a highly sophisticated dedicated purpose built advanced fire control radar from 1945 for that purpose,

Primitive radar's in 1939 had a range accuracy that was accurate to within 100-260 meter's or 50-130 +/- meter's of the true range of the target with a direction determination of 1-4 degree's or 0.5-2 +/- degree's of it's true direction determination,

This was good enough to straddle a target vessel on the first salvo but you still needed target speed and target course as well as sea and weather condition's and any other atmospheric interference's to complete the firing track solution,

And if you'r crew down in the central fire control room can do all that at night then you'r vessel has radar assisted and or radar directed blindfire capacity,

Highly sophisticated dedicated purpose built advanced fire control radar's of 1945 had a range accuracy that was accurate to within 15-25 meter's or 7.5-12.5 +/- meter's of the true range of the target,

With a direction determination of 0.1-0.3 degree's or 0.05-0.15 +/- degree's of it's true direction determination,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cavity magnetron radar's befor 1952 required at least forty five minute's or more to warm up before functioning correctly where as grid modulation radar's such as seetakt (freya) ect only required thirty second's warm up before functioning correctly,

Cavity magnetron's required rare earth element's from (eurafrasia) with the battle's of the atlantic driving up the cost and in (1940-1943) a cavity magnetron radar set would cost most of the time more then a gato class fleet boat,

And with the complexity of the cavity magnetron in 1942 a m4 sherman medium tank could be built in less time than it took to build a cavity magnetron,

When production of the first generation of cavity magnetron's ended in the defense cut back's of (1946-1948) the cost of a new 1948 first generation cavity magnetron radar set was more then the projected cost of a tank platoon of six (m46 patton's).
 

Garrison

Donor
The cavity magnetron radar's befor 1952 required at least forty five minute's or more to warm up before functioning correctly where as grid modulation radar's such as seetakt (freya) ect only required thirty second's warm up before functioning correctly,

Cavity magnetron's required rare earth element's from (eurafrasia) with the battle's of the atlantic driving up the cost and in (1940-1943) a cavity magnetron radar set would cost most of the time more then a gato class fleet boat,

And with the complexity of the cavity magnetron in 1942 a m4 sherman medium tank could be built in less time than it took to build a cavity magnetron,

When production of the first generation of cavity magnetron's ended in the defense cut back's of (1946-1948) the cost of a new 1948 first generation cavity magnetron radar set was more then the projected cost of a tank platoon of six (m46 patton's).
Well first I think you are going to need to produce a source for those claims and second even if it were true the Allies were perfectly capable of producing both cavity magnetrons and Gato class submarines in large numbers as it turned out.
 

marathag

Banned
In radar the horizontal polarization and (vertical polarization) matter's less then the grazing angle's,

Any radar can be used to measure the range to a target and it's direction determination as long as it can detect the target at the given range and (height) in side the radar's horizon,

As It doe's not need to be directly linked up to the central fire control room like most highly sophisticated dedicated purpose built advanced fire control radar's are,

To be used for the ranging of target's and there direction determination a primitive radar from 1939 is almost as good as a highly sophisticated dedicated purpose built advanced fire control radar from 1945 for that purpose,

Primitive radar's in 1939 had a range accuracy that was accurate to within 100-260 meter's or 50-130 +/- meter's of the true range of the target with a direction determination of 1-4 degree's or 0.5-2 +/- degree's of it's true direction determination,

This was good enough to straddle a target vessel on the first salvo but you still needed target speed and target course as well as sea and weather condition's and any other atmospheric interference's to complete the firing track solution,

And if you'r crew down in the central fire control room can do all that at night then you'r vessel has radar assisted and or radar directed blindfire capacity,

Highly sophisticated dedicated purpose built advanced fire control radar's of 1945 had a range accuracy that was accurate to within 15-25 meter's or 7.5-12.5 +/- meter's of the true range of the target,

With a direction determination of 0.1-0.3 degree's or 0.05-0.15 +/- degree's of it's true direction determination,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cavity magnetron radar's befor 1952 required at least forty five minute's or more to warm up before functioning correctly where as grid modulation radar's such as seetakt (freya) ect only required thirty second's warm up before functioning correctly,

Cavity magnetron's required rare earth element's from (eurafrasia) with the battle's of the atlantic driving up the cost and in (1940-1943) a cavity magnetron radar set would cost most of the time more then a gato class fleet boat,

And with the complexity of the cavity magnetron in 1942 a m4 sherman medium tank could be built in less time than it took to build a cavity magnetron,

When production of the first generation of cavity magnetron's ended in the defense cut back's of (1946-1948) the cost of a new 1948 first generation cavity magnetron radar set was more then the projected cost of a tank platoon of six (m46 patton's).
Which is why the US had developed the prewar low power Klystron to very high power, 30MW transmitter in 1948.
Many US and UK Radar receivers used a Klystrons and cavity Magnetrons combination during the war.
Lighter, and easier and less costly to make
 
Which is why the US had developed the prewar low power Klystron to very high power, 30MW transmitter in 1948.
Many US and UK Radar receivers used a Klystrons and cavity Magnetrons combination during the war.
Lighter, and easier and less costly to make
I was going to say - regardless of expense (?) they did seem to make rather a lot of them
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cavity magnetron radar's befor 1952 required at least forty five minute's or more to warm up before functioning correctly where as grid modulation radar's such as seetakt (freya) ect only required thirty second's warm up before functioning correctly,

Cavity magnetron's required rare earth element's from (eurafrasia) with the battle's of the atlantic driving up the cost and in (1940-1943) a cavity magnetron radar set would cost most of the time more then a gato class fleet boat,
Would you please site the sources for this information you posted because it is not in agreement with my experience. I worked on radar equipment that used magnetrons from the 1960s to mid 2000s. Many of these were used in radars that were of late 1940s vacuum tube design. The warm-up time for these was only 5 minutes and full power application usually took only about another 3 minutes.

I believe that the cost you stated is much higher than the USAF ever charged my unit for a magnetron. IIRC the cost was about $12,000 (1970 dollars). And the magnetrons were rebuildable by depot contractors.
 
Top