Deleted member 1487
How would that be different from here? Give away something you don't need and didn't have to pay for.As throwaway "we might as well give them away because we already have them" weapons, not as the main effort.
How would that be different from here? Give away something you don't need and didn't have to pay for.As throwaway "we might as well give them away because we already have them" weapons, not as the main effort.
Two tours, '66 to '67, then 9 months on Okinawa, I think, then back just in time for Tet for the 2nd tourWhat years was he there?
My information came from vets who used them in Korea. Two that were not 'line infantrymen' liked them. The couple line infantrymen didn't trust them. Of course it could have been the old ammunition also. They had comments about being issued ammo that had sat in the Phillipines since the end of WWII.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
I wonder if the EM-2 or FAL in .280 British then would get more traction.There could be an interesting psychological effect. The initial success of the NK offensive could generate a perception that the use of assault rifles had given them a decisive advantage and given more strength to those within NATO arguing in favor of assault rifles and a true intermediate caliber.
Hell of a time to come back.Two tours, '66 to '67, then 9 months on Okinawa, I think, then back just in time for Tet for the 2nd tour
That was exactly what I was thinking about. The Stg was not associated with any significant battlefield success, and that may have masked the potencial of the concept in the WestI wonder if the EM-2 or FAL in .280 British then would get more traction..
The STG/8mm Kurz was the inspiration for the .270/.280 British/Em-2 and FAL (which was initially prototyped in 8mm Kurz) plus all the CETME stuff and the CEAM work in France. What 'masked' it was US insistence that their concept for a modernized .30-06 had to be accepted, which killed all the very interesting work just about all the major European arms manufacturers were developing and forced them to try and fit the 7.62 NATO into whatever they were working on.That was exactly what I was thinking about. The Stg was not associated with any significant battlefield success, and that may have masked the potencial of the concept in the West
That's basically impossible since the US forces were there within the first week of the invasion, flown in on July 1st (the invasion started on June 25th) and entered combat 22 miles south of Seoul. Now with a longer range standard small arm the North Koreans could well inflict enough extra damage on the South Korean forces that the invasion is able to prevent the Pusan perimeter from forming.I think the really interesting question is not how StG 44s would allow the NK army to perform against the UN intervention force, it's how it changes the NK versus SK battles.
If NK can finish off SK before the US are able to land, things become much more difficult for the US (and indeed, the US may feel that they can't try for a landing).
That's basically impossible since the US forces were there within the first week of the invasion, flown in on July 1st (the invasion started on June 25th) and entered combat 22 miles south of Seoul. Now with a longer range standard small arm the North Koreans could well inflict enough extra damage on the South Korean forces that the invasion is able to prevent the Pusan perimeter from forming.
I wonder if the EM-2 or FAL in .280 British then would get more traction.
My information came from vets who used them in Korea. Two that were not 'line infantrymen' liked them. The couple line infantrymen didn't trust them. Of course it could have been the old ammunition also. They had comments about being issued ammo that had sat in the Phillipines since the end of WWII.
Yeah...that probably wasn't a good idea considering what happened to Task Force Smith.Ahh, I did not know the US flew troops in also.
fasquardon
Too bad the AR-10 was years away...the FAL in .280 was available in 1950 though.FAL in .270 would be superb
AR 10 in .270 would be better![]()
Recoil of the .280 British cartridge was calculated to be a little under half of the .303. Long range performance actually surpassed that of the .303, and shooters reported that it was much more comfortable to fire with the reduced recoil and reduced blast. It seemed that the British designers had accomplished their goals, and proceeded to introduce the cartridge to their NATO allies.
Historically the Soviets equipped their Warsaw Pact allies with it, namely East Germany and Czechoslovakia, while Yugoslavia equipped their special forces with it. Both nations made ammo for it in to the 1960s. East German even sold the Egyptians millions of rounds of ammo and thousands of STGs plus a bunch of other WW2 equipment including MG 34s and 42. Later the North Vietnamese even got StG44s and ammo. It has appeared all over the Middle East and Africa too since and for some reason in parts of Pakistan they even use 8mm Kurz ammo in AK47s (it apparently works, but is not recommended).
And it isn't as if the Soviets didn't make use of the StG themselves during WW2:
https://www.reddit.com/r/wwiipics/comments/6qmxy4/two_soviet_soldiers_one_armed_with_a_captured_stg/
Ship it to them in bulk. The Soviets shipped the North Koreans and Chinese a bunch of stuff during the Korean War IOTL. Ammo was in production in East Germany and Czechoslovakia. Plus there was a pretty massive surplus captured in 1945 by the Soviets, as something like half the rifles and ammo on hand were never even issued due to the war situation, but they kept building right until the factory was captured by the Americans and then turned over to the Soviets with full stocks and equipment and including all the personnel like Schmeisser.
It certainly wouldn't be to everyone, but given the relatively small size of the NK army it would be possible to issue them to most of the infantry, who admitted are a specialist of sorts.
There wasn't a big desire to develop new weapons in the immediate postwar years. There was a lot of rebuilding to spend money on, there was no real threat, and everyone was tired. So other than documenting enemy weapons and doing some testing the big effort was converting to civilian production. After all there were plenty of surplus weapons available dirt cheap to equip the standing forces required.Now if the FAL had just kept the 7.92 Kurz as in the initial prototype they could have had it in production and service before Korea. Would have been interesting if the Brits were fighting with those sorts of FALs regardless of what the US was using and what impact it would have on US thoughts regarding a common NATO round/rifle...
Considering the combatants in the North Korean army were smaller than the number of StG44s the Soviets had on hand and a large part of those wouldn't be infantry or even riflemen, there wouldn't be nearly the ammo expenditure you'd imagine as with say 100k rifles in operation. Stocks+new production would easily cover use for the North Koreans in 1950; beyond that with the loss of equipment that happened in 1950 it would likely be out of use by 1951 when the Chinese show up, but for the critical period if the Soviets ship in all the stocks pre-war, then the NKs should be fine, with new production covering use thereafter given few would probably still be left in service by 1951.It’s one thing to issue these weapons to troops in peacetime, you already have them, so why not. But in a major war your ammo supply is going to get blown up by the trainload. Captured 7.92 Kurtz stock and what production there existed for it just cannot compare to 7.62X25. Ammo security is more important than tactical advantage of the weapon. Once ammo cannot keep up with expenditure the army in the field would have to scale back operations until new weapons that fires different ammo can be delivered.
For StG-44 to be viable as standard weapons in the Korean War production would have to ramp up considerably with ample time before the Korean War. There was no reason the Soviets would believe their war winning weapons were so deficient that this was necessary.
Most people in the US Army did not see the merits of the assault rifle concept.The STG/8mm Kurz was the inspiration for the .270/.280 British/Em-2 and FAL (which was initially prototyped in 8mm Kurz) plus all the CETME stuff and the CEAM work in France. What 'masked' it was US insistence that their concept for a modernized .30-06 had to be accepted, which killed all the very interesting work just about all the major European arms manufacturers were developing and forced them to try and fit the 7.62 NATO into whatever they were working on.
That's basically impossible since the US forces were there within the first week of the invasion, flown in on July 1st (the invasion started on June 25th) and entered combat 22 miles south of Seoul. Now with a longer range standard small arm the North Koreans could well inflict enough extra damage on the South Korean forces that the invasion is able to prevent the Pusan perimeter from forming.
Funny how everyone else took the exactly opposite lesson from the war.Most people in the US Army did not see the merits of the assault rifle concept.
US troops had faced German troops (partially) armed with assault rifles and had won.
The fact that the concept was valid was masked for them by the fact that they had won.
I mean this is the same army that believed the BAR was best in class up until 1957...Funny how everyone else took the exactly opposite lesson from the war.
Not necessarily wrong, but likely the only one left in it's class by then.I mean this is the same army that believed the BAR was best in class up until 1957...
Provided you accept "automatic rifle" as an actual classification rather than just American snowflake terminology (see: Destroyer escort).Not necessarily wrong, but likely the only one left in it's class by then.
America is always in a class of it's ownProvided you accept "automatic rifle" as an actual classification rather than just American snowflake terminology (see: Destroyer escort).