Soviets equip North Korean army with StG 44s

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
That is what I'm wondering, especially if US troops start using captured rifles for themselves and liking them.
Yep... I'm thinking there might have been more of a push to deploy a cartridge and rifle combination that could replicate the full auto performance of the Stg 44. Perhaps some of the non US members of NATO also push back a bit harder against the 7.62 x 51 ? (I'm thinking that the U.S. probably still adopts the 7.62x51.)

Edit to add, maybe the M2 carbine is issued on a larger scale by the U.S. and perhaps the M2 carbine and perhaps it's ammunition are "product improved" ?
 
Yep... I'm thinking there might have been more of a push to deploy a cartridge and rifle combination that could replicate the full auto performance of the Stg 44. Perhaps some of the non US members of NATO also push back a bit harder against the 7.62 x 51 ? (I'm thinking that the U.S. probably still adopts the 7.62x51.)

Edit to add, maybe the M2 carbine is issued on a larger scale by the U.S. and perhaps the M2 carbine and perhaps it's ammunition are "product improved" ?
U.S. troops did not like the M1/M2 carbines as a primary weapon, especially in the Korean winter. It did not have enough power to penetrate the quilted jackets used by the Chinese. It was okay as a weapon if shooting was not your primary job (artillery, mortars, truck drivers, etc) but even then the M1 Garand was preferred by many even with its heavier weight. Of course once it settled down to a stationary war heavier weapons like BARs, 30 & 50 cal MGs were the preferred choice for engaging the enemy.
 

Deleted member 1487

Yep... I'm thinking there might have been more of a push to deploy a cartridge and rifle combination that could replicate the full auto performance of the Stg 44. Perhaps some of the non US members of NATO also push back a bit harder against the 7.62 x 51 ? (I'm thinking that the U.S. probably still adopts the 7.62x51.)

Edit to add, maybe the M2 carbine is issued on a larger scale by the U.S. and perhaps the M2 carbine and perhaps it's ammunition are "product improved" ?
The modernization effort for the M1/2/3 Carbine as a result of Korea eventually resulted in the AR-15/M-16:
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/07/08/weekly-dtic-hitchman-gustafson-reports/

U.S. troops did not like the M1/M2 carbines as a primary weapon, especially in the Korean winter. It did not have enough power to penetrate the quilted jackets used by the Chinese. It was okay as a weapon if shooting was not your primary job (artillery, mortars, truck drivers, etc) but even then the M1 Garand was preferred by many even with its heavier weight. Of course once it settled down to a stationary war heavier weapons like BARs, 30 & 50 cal MGs were the preferred choice for engaging the enemy.
This has been tested with M1 Carbines since and found that a refurbished Carbine with regular ammo had no problem penetrating targets mocked up to mimic the clothing of the Chinese in winter at greater ranges than reported in Korea. I can even post some videos of some tests if you want.

Likely the problem was people panicking and missing in combat and the use of older ammo. A lot of WW2 stocks were defective after being kept in improper storage or not being refurbished properly, which was not limited to M1 Carbines. Likely the extreme cold coupled with the improper storage and degradation of the ammo and or carbines themselves resulted in weak performance of the ammo compared to spec and then it either couldn't penetrate the clothing or missed altogether. Per SLA Marshall's report there were some units that had no problems with the Carbine and like it quite a bit; likely they either got new issue weapon/ammo or whatever the best stored equipment/ammo was.

BARs were preferred because automatic fire gave everyone confidence, plus you don't need to aim precisely, which is what the reports said soldiers were not doing with their M1. They were laying down suppressive fire quickly rather than aiming in most cases; it was even stated that a lot of M1 sights broke or were defective, so soldiers often couldn't really aim. The BAR due to the cone of fire it produced allowed it to achieve hits at range without precise aiming. Point it in the general direction of the enemy and you're more likely to achieve hits with a burst of fire. It was basically the basis of Project SALVO, which was predicated on OR from Korea that showed soldiers aiming errors meant that even the most accurate weapon was effectively pointless and something that produced a burst of projectiles with low recoil got you the best chance to achieve a hit. Hence the SPIW with it's multiple flechette rounds and the duplex ammo as a backup.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The modernization effort for the M1/2/3 Carbine as a result of Korea eventually resulted in the AR-15/M-16:
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/07/08/weekly-dtic-hitchman-gustafson-reports/


This has been tested with M1 Carbines since and found that a refurbished Carbine with regular ammo had no problem penetrating targets mocked up to mimic the clothing of the Chinese in winter at greater ranges than reported in Korea. I can even post some videos of some tests if you want.

Likely the problem was people panicking and missing in combat and the use of older ammo. A lot of WW2 stocks were defective after being kept in improper storage or not being refurbished properly, which was not limited to M1 Carbines. Likely the extreme cold coupled with the improper storage and degradation of the ammo and or carbines themselves resulted in weak performance of the ammo compared to spec and then it either couldn't penetrate the clothing or missed altogether. Per SLA Marshall's report there were some units that had no problems with the Carbine and like it quite a bit; likely they either got new issue weapon/ammo or whatever the best stored equipment/ammo was.

BARs were preferred because automatic fire gave everyone confidence, plus you don't need to aim precisely, which is what the reports said soldiers were not doing with their M1. They were laying down suppressive fire quickly rather than aiming in most cases; it was even stated that a lot of M1 sights broke or were defective, so soldiers often couldn't really aim. The BAR due to the cone of fire it produced allowed it to achieve hits at range without precise aiming. Point it in the general direction of the enemy and you're more likely to achieve hits with a burst of fire. It was basically the basis of Project SALVO, which was predicated on OR from Korea that showed soldiers aiming errors meant that even the most accurate weapon was effectively pointless and something that produced a burst of projectiles with low recoil got you the best chance to achieve a hit. Hence the SPIW with it's multiple flechette rounds and the duplex ammo as a backup.
Nice post... I'm thinking that if for what ever reason the U.S. decided they wanted to issue the M2 carbine on a wider basis during the Korean conflict there would likely have been some room for improvement. (Ie. produce and issue new ammunition with somewhat better penetration, maybe inspect, rebuild and slightly modify the M2 and call it an M2A1 etc if only to boost the confidence levels of the soliders who were issued the weapons.)
 

Deleted member 1487

Nice post... I'm thinking that if for what ever reason the U.S. decided they wanted to issue the M2 carbine on a wider basis during the Korean conflict there would likely have been some room for improvement. (Ie. produce and issue new ammunition with somewhat better penetration, maybe inspect, rebuild and slightly modify the M2 and call it an M2A1 etc if only to boost the confidence levels of the soliders who were issued the weapons.)
That's the funny thing, it was still issued with NVG:
http://www.koreanwaronline.com/arms/m3irsnip.htm
and it was preferred for night patrols. So it seems like whatever the issue it was resolved after the winter of '50-'51 and over 700k were eventually issued in South Vietnam during that war.
 
I could see there being a lot of pressure from the Commonwealth forces fighting in Korea to get the No. 9 into production and issued to them regardless of what the US has to say about the NATO trials. Using Lee Enfields against an army equipped with assault rifles puts them at a significant disadvantage.
 
Sorry, I was also incorporating information from another article about the post-war manufacture of the rifles in the GDR.
And do you have a link to this article? I have never seen any specific references to them post-war production other than replicas for the civilian market. Just “the Nazis made 400,000. They were used by DDR, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and supplied to some client organisations”.
If there was production in the DDR I would expect there to be some awareness of the fact, given how iconic the rifle is.
 
The modernization effort for the M1/2/3 Carbine as a result of Korea eventually resulted in the AR-15/M-16:
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/07/08/weekly-dtic-hitchman-gustafson-reports/


This has been tested with M1 Carbines since and found that a refurbished Carbine with regular ammo had no problem penetrating targets mocked up to mimic the clothing of the Chinese in winter at greater ranges than reported in Korea. I can even post some videos of some tests if you want.

Likely the problem was people panicking and missing in combat and the use of older ammo. A lot of WW2 stocks were defective after being kept in improper storage or not being refurbished properly, which was not limited to M1 Carbines. Likely the extreme cold coupled with the improper storage and degradation of the ammo and or carbines themselves resulted in weak performance of the ammo compared to spec and then it either couldn't penetrate the clothing or missed altogether. Per SLA Marshall's report there were some units that had no problems with the Carbine and like it quite a bit; likely they either got new issue weapon/ammo or whatever the best stored equipment/ammo was.

My reports were from vets including some with extensive experience and CIBs earned over there. Era was 1952. Most ammo stocks were old. Didn't see new ammo until they were pulled back to the islands off the coast for prisoner guard duty . There they saw new production ammo for the first time. SLA Marshall has lost a lot of his standing as a researcher after reports of his team fudging numbers in WWII came to light. Many of his reports (such as the reports about very few troops actually firing their weapons (can't remember the exact numbers reported 15% sticks in my mind) were shown to have no basis in documented evidence. I don't know about any of these later studies. Whatever the reason they weren't trusted.

BARs were preferred because automatic fire gave everyone confidence, plus you don't need to aim precisely, which is what the reports said soldiers were not doing with their M1. They were laying down suppressive fire quickly rather than aiming in most cases; it was even stated that a lot of M1 sights broke or were defective, so soldiers often couldn't really aim. The BAR due to the cone of fire it produced allowed it to achieve hits at range without precise aiming. Point it in the general direction of the enemy and you're more likely to achieve hits with a burst of fire. It was basically the basis of Project SALVO, which was predicated on OR from Korea that showed soldiers aiming errors meant that even the most accurate weapon was effectively pointless and something that produced a burst of projectiles with low recoil got you the best chance to achieve a hit. Hence the SPIW with it's multiple flechette rounds and the duplex ammo as a backup.

The higher rate of fire combined with the bipod (or tripod in the instance of MGs) were the reason they were preferred when they didn't have to be carried around. MGs were used to 'chase' enemy soldiers who showed themselves until they disappeared into a bunker when they would call in arty or better yet if a Tank was available fire a direct fire round into the bunker.
 

Deleted member 1487

And do you have a link to this article? I have never seen any specific references to them post-war production other than replicas for the civilian market. Just “the Nazis made 400,000. They were used by DDR, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and supplied to some client organisations”.
If there was production in the DDR I would expect there to be some awareness of the fact, given how iconic the rifle is.
Trying to find it, might just be that Czech article about the developed version the East Germans made. I'll check my book about the rifle when I get home to confirm. I'd think that if it were in production the amounts were limited and swiftly replaced by the AK47, so that it would just be lost in the shuffle.
 
While this is an interesting idea, small arms alone don't decide the way the battlefield turns. Additionally, the Soviets are still working out the kinks on the AK, and might need all the StGs to examine (although the AK is not necessarily fully inspired by the StG).

It was likely cheaper and easier to equip the North Koreans with all the surplus Mosin-Nagant M91/30s rather than the brand-new SKS, AKs or automatic rifles that would need more training time. Plus, with North Korea's proximity to the Soviet border, you'd need a huge amount of spare parts to be delivered straight from East Germany and Czechoslovakia, then transported across the USSR in the event of NATO blockades - which would take a lot of time.

The Russians had any number of German engineers who had experience of stamping, the real issue was the Russians just couldn't make the dies, reliable stamping equipment or engineers required to take advantage of it on an industrial scale. They didn't start churning out type 3 AK's out until after the Korean war was well over. Besides the Koreans and Chinese were almost wholly reliant on manpacking everything, you can haul a lot more 7.62mm ammo for SMG's than 7.92 kurz. The STG44 was also not in the Russian logistics system or 7.62 Kurz for that matter, they would need to restart production of both the rifles and ammo which is a bit difficult considering the Soviets had looted all the factories and taken all the useful stuff back to Mother Russia to make other STUFF with a higher priority. Whilst there were a lot of STG's sitting around the stocks would have evaporated pretty quickly in combat.

Another thing to consider is that the Russians were making the Chinese pay cash for all the equipment they sent them. Adding more complexity to the simplistic Chinese/Korean logistics system was a step too far.
 

Deleted member 1487

My reports were from vets including some with extensive experience and CIBs earned over there. Era was 1952. Most ammo stocks were old. Didn't see new ammo until they were pulled back to the islands off the coast for prisoner guard duty . There they saw new production ammo for the first time. SLA Marshall has lost a lot of his standing as a researcher after reports of his team fudging numbers in WWII came to light. Many of his reports (such as the reports about very few troops actually firing their weapons (can't remember the exact numbers reported 15% sticks in my mind) were shown to have no basis in documented evidence. I don't know about any of these later studies. Whatever the reason they weren't trusted.
I don't doubt there were problems with the weapons and ammo left over from WW2 based on the problems I've heard with a variety of other weapons and the documented issues with the carbines that were issued.

SLA Marshall's ratios of fire definitely should be criticized as should some of his methods of collecting information as he had a tendency to 'punch up' information that he agreed with, like the utility of the BAR in combat, and talk down things he didn't agree with. That said it does appear his commentary on weapons in the Korean War was largely confirmed by other OR and after action reports.

The higher rate of fire combined with the bipod (or tripod in the instance of MGs) were the reason they were preferred when they didn't have to be carried around. MGs were used to 'chase' enemy soldiers who showed themselves until they disappeared into a bunker when they would call in arty or better yet if a Tank was available fire a direct fire round into the bunker.
From what I've found the bipod was often discarded and firing from the hip or shoulder, especially on the move, was the way the weapon tended to be used. When in a defensive position it's use as a mobile fire reserve made it highly valuable, which makes it seem like the bipod wasn't used all that often, as it was often moving about rather than being in a fixed fighting position. I'm sure that since it make a distinctive sound and was the most casualty producing small arm in the squad it became the focus of enemy counterfire, so the operator would want to be moving about as often as possible to avoid that.
 

Deleted member 1487

The Russians had any number of German engineers who had experience of stamping, the real issue was the Russians just couldn't make the dies, reliable stamping equipment or engineers required to take advantage of it on an industrial scale. They didn't start churning out type 3 AK's out until after the Korean war was well over. Besides the Koreans and Chinese were almost wholly reliant on manpacking everything, you can haul a lot more 7.62mm ammo for SMG's than 7.92 kurz. The STG44 was also not in the Russian logistics system or 7.62 Kurz for that matter, they would need to restart production of both the rifles and ammo which is a bit difficult considering the Soviets had looted all the factories and taken all the useful stuff back to Mother Russia to make other STUFF with a higher priority. Whilst there were a lot of STG's sitting around the stocks would have evaporated pretty quickly in combat.

Another thing to consider is that the Russians were making the Chinese pay cash for all the equipment they sent them. Adding more complexity to the simplistic Chinese/Korean logistics system was a step too far.
The Soviets were sending things to the North Koreans too, it wasn't just the Chinese. Not only that, but the Soviets ended up sending STGs to the Middle East and Africa (in fact they are even being used in the Syrian Civil War today) and ammo production was documented as continuing in East Germany and Czechoslovakia into the 1960s since they ended up using them long after the war until they either got AKs or in the case of the Czechs sufficient VZ58s.
 
Trying to find it, might just be that Czech article about the developed version the East Germans made. I'll check my book about the rifle when I get home to confirm. I'd think that if it were in production the amounts were limited and swiftly replaced by the AK47, so that it would just be lost in the shuffle.

Post war a lot of STG44's ended up as military aid to backwater areas of the cold war like africa and there are all the reports (and photos) the Syrian civil war of cases of STG44's just sitting around useless as no one had ammo for them.

Most of the STG's in East Germany ended up used by Police, border guards, factory militia, other internal security apparatus or in reserve.
 
I could see there being a lot of pressure from the Commonwealth forces fighting in Korea to get the No. 9 into production and issued to them regardless of what the US has to say about the NATO trials. Using Lee Enfields against an army equipped with assault rifles puts them at a significant disadvantage.

Just issue more Brens and Vickers guns. The Vickers was just about perfect for human wave attacks.

The whole no. 9 saga played out whilst Korea was on anyway, the US ordnance department just kept complaining about .280 not having enough range, "rainbow ballistics" and insufficient stopping power. The Brits just kept stretching the cartridge to mollify the US until they came up with the 2nd Optimum 7x49 mm which was only ever adopted by Venezuela for their FAL rifles for a short time.
 

Deleted member 1487

Post war a lot of STG44's ended up as military aid to backwater areas of the cold war like africa and there are all the reports (and photos) the Syrian civil war of cases of STG44's just sitting around useless as no one had ammo for them.
From what I could find they shipped ammo with them. It might have run out, but I think I've seen video of them being used in combat. Apparently 8mm Kurz can also be used in AKs or vice versa, which has been done in Pakistan. I'll have to look that up to find more details, but I'm at work and cannot be looking up gun stuff.
Edit:
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/01/09/7-92mm-kurz-lives-pakistan/

Most of the STG's in East Germany ended up used by Police, border guards, factory militia, other internal security apparatus or in reserve.
Technically speaking the GDR didn't have an army to start, so they were called the police/border guards and they used them until the AK was available. The Czechs used them too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The whole no. 9 saga played out whilst Korea was on anyway, the US ordnance department just kept complaining about .280 not having enough range, "rainbow ballistics" and insufficient stopping power. The Brits just kept stretching the cartridge to mollify the US until they came up with the 2nd Optimum 7x49 mm which was only ever adopted by Venezuela for their FAL rifles for a short time.
That's my point. If the forces in Korea are facing assault rifles there's going to be pressure to just get on and issue the No 9 as is, not faff about trying to satisfy the Americans. Standardisation in Nato is all very well but there's a war to be fought now.
 

Deleted member 1487

Just issue more Brens and Vickers guns. The Vickers was just about perfect for human wave attacks.
According to Michael Cain he used American .30 cal MGs when fighting in Korea, I just looked that up, not knowing he had fought there.
 

Deleted member 1487

That's my point. If the forces in Korea are facing assault rifles there's going to be pressure to just get on and issue the No 9 as is, not faff about trying to satisfy the Americans. Standardisation in Nato is all very well but there's a war to be fought now.
Where they using Garands or WW2 bolt actions in Korea?
 
U.S. troops did not like the M1/M2 carbines as a primary weapon, especially in the Korean winter. It did not have enough power to penetrate the quilted jackets used by the Chinese. It was okay as a weapon if shooting was not your primary job (artillery, mortars, truck drivers, etc) but even then the M1 Garand was preferred by many even with its heavier weight. Of course once it settled down to a stationary war heavier weapons like BARs, 30 & 50 cal MGs were the preferred choice for engaging the enemy.

I keep hearing this statement repeated over and over - but actual interviews with Veterans seems to indicate that this was not the case and that the gun was the most preferred personal weapon of the 4 issued.

It was intended to arm non combat facing members of the US Army as an early PDW but rapidly found its way into the infantry squad and platoon.

Light, accurate, more powerful than an SMG round - its only flaw was it really really shit magazines - the US Army got around that by making gazillions of magazines available at the pointy end of the logi chain.

So troops tended to just throw them away every week or instantly replace any faulty ones.

I think it's the best individual weapon of WW2 - an STG44 might be more shooty but it's also twice as heavy loaded as a M1 Carbine is loaded

Reputation over reality

 
Top