WI: No MP44/STG44

From wiki “Throughout early 1942 Leroy Grumman, along with his chief designers Jake Swirbul and Bill Schwendler, worked closely with the U.S. Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) and experienced F4F pilots,[13] to develop the new fighter in such a way that it could counter the Zero's strengths and help gain air command in the Pacific Theater of Operations.[14] On 22 April 1942, Lieutenant Commander Butch O'Hare toured the Grumman Aircraft company and spoke with Grumman engineers, analyzing the performance of the F4F Wildcat against the Mitsubishi A6M Zero in aerial combat.[15][Note 3]BuAer's LT CDR A. M. Jackson [Note 4] directed Grumman's designers to mount the cockpit higher in the fuselage.[18] In addition, the forward fuselage sloped down slightly to the engine cowling, affording the Hellcat's pilot good visibility.[19]


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F6F_Hellcat

This was still with the XF6F-1, with the R-2600 engine
Grumman-XF6F-1-Hellcat-Bu.-No.-02981-left-front-quarter-large.jpg
Slope wasn't quite as good with the larger diameter R-2600 as the slightly smaller diameter R-2800 for production models
 
Don't forget Claire Chennault wrote a complete report on the Zero from his experience in China, which was ignored. I always figured that after Pearl it was finally taken seriously.

Though much more of that was with the even more maneuverable IJA Ki-43 Oscar
 
FV Tokarev presented 6.5-mm automatic carbines (for the Japanese cartridge 6.5 × 50 mmwith a diameter of the basis of a sleeve of 11,35 mm). Work on the creation of an intermediate cartridge was close to completion in 1939 [6] . To study the issue, a 5.45 mm caliber cartridge was developed and the task was given to design a self-loading rifle for this cartridge. However, in connection with military actions, the designers were switched to more relevant work [7] .
D.N. Bolotin. The history of Soviet small arms and ammunition. - SPb: Polygon, 1995, p. 81

So we're agreed that the USSR was working on intermediate cartridges pre war. I haven't been able to find the source online but I've heard Tokarev was fiddling from the mid thirties but considering the state of the Soviet Union at the time it unsurprisingly went nowhere. But the idea was there and when the Soviets find themselves in a situation where their submachine guns are outranged the idea is highly likely to find currency.
 

Deleted member 1487

So we're agreed that the USSR was working on intermediate cartridges pre war. I haven't been able to find the source online but I've heard Tokarev was fiddling from the mid thirties but considering the state of the Soviet Union at the time it unsurprisingly went nowhere. But the idea was there and when the Soviets find themselves in a situation where their submachine guns are outranged the idea is highly likely to find currency.
They experimented with some stuff and abandoned the work. They were NOT working on a 7.62x39 round until they encounter the Mkb42/MP43 in combat and only then in July 1943 actually moved to develop the cartridge and weapons for it. I think that with the POD it would be too late to avoid the Soviets encountering the very first combat prototype Mkb42 and copying the concept. As to the Soviets finding their SMGs outranged...that was all SMGs and that didn't prompt anyone to do anything about that. Soviet work on intermediate cartridges prior to copying the StG concept was basically tinkering and there weren't even rifles out there for such cartridges even when the work stopped.
 
They experimented with some stuff and abandoned the work. They were NOT working on a 7.62x39 round until they encounter the Mkb42/MP43 in combat and only then in July 1943 actually moved to develop the cartridge and weapons for it.

They abandoned a lot of things in late 1941 that they picked up again in 1943 when things were less dire. That doesn't demonstrate a lack of interest in the concept, it shows how bad everything was for the Soviets at that point.

As to the Soviets finding their SMGs outranged...that was all SMGs and that didn't prompt anyone to do anything about that.

7.62x25 Tokarev using PPSh-41 due to it's lower weight and energy than 9x19 Parabellum using MP40's topped out at 50 meters less range and they absolutely resolved to do something about it.

Soviet work on intermediate cartridges prior to copying the StG concept was basically tinkering and there weren't even rifles out there for such cartridges even when the work stopped.

Tinkering is a good description of the German work on intermediate cartridges in the era before the Mkb42. The Soviets were behind the Germans by a few years but like the Germans they had decided that automatic fire and shorter weapons were the future, in the short term that meant submachine guns, in the long run that line of thinking leads to intermediate cartridges and assault rifles.[/QUOTE]
 

Deleted member 1487

They abandoned a lot of things in late 1941 that they picked up again in 1943 when things were less dire. That doesn't demonstrate a lack of interest in the concept, it shows how bad everything was for the Soviets at that point.
They didn't though, they started entirely different projects. The 1939 stuff was 5.45 and 6.5, not 7.62 intermediate. As of 1941 they didn't even have rifles for the rounds.

7.62x25 Tokarev using PPSh-41 due to it's lower weight and energy than 9x19 Parabellum using MP40's topped out at 50 meters less range and they absolutely resolved to do something about it.
Muzzle velocity was over 80mps higher. Max range was about the same for both weapons.

Tinkering is a good description of the German work on intermediate cartridges in the era before the Mkb42. The Soviets were behind the Germans by a few years but like the Germans they had decided that automatic fire and shorter weapons were the future, in the short term that meant submachine guns, in the long run that line of thinking leads to intermediate cartridges and assault rifles.
They at least had a rifle that used their intermediate rounds (Vollmer M35). Then by 1939 they were working out the 7.92 Kurz and started the Mkb42 around then. The Soviets jumped into the 'short' cartridge idea like the Germans only after encountering the German development in combat and copying it per their July 1943 conference, not referencing ANY of the work they did pre-war. As to the 5mm or so experiments, the Germans did those too pre-WW1, no nation did anything with the idea but tinker until the MP43.
 
Russian semi automatic rifles began long ago around the Arisaka 6.5x50 round which is really a not quite battle rifle round and an over powered intermediate one. At the time it made sense. The internal volume for propellant was actually not so far off the later 7.92x39 and reliable and early propellants with a long barrel life were not as powerful as they became later on. What I am saying is that intermediate(ish) select fire rifles were on the Imperial shopping list before the Revolution but the model was a light battle rifle. What the MP44/STG44 would have brought is approaching the matter from a powerful SMG direction. One key difference in German and Soviet mass cheap new arms was that the Germans looked to thin high quality steel complex thin stampings. The wartime Soviet was was thick low quality steel pressings. i.e. bent to shape not stamped. There was the late 1930's minor fashion in Central Europe to try the powerful SMG route more directly with the more powerful pistol cartridges than the 9x19 and use the 9x25 which manifested itself in the Soviet Union as the Tokarev 7.63x25 and the USA went further with the .30 Carbine. There were a lot more options that the 7.92x58 or 39 duality. The MP44/STG44 were not suited to Soviet ways mechanically but might have concentrated the Soviet mind over where on the SMG to Battle Rifle spectrum they should be. The 7.92x54R puts out @3,500J. The 7.63x25 @600J. 7.92x33 1,800J as a guide to power. The 6.5x50 @2,600J. Pedants will quibble over the numbers but they are in these sorts of ranges. Behind it must be the doctrine. First you define the task. Then the ammunition which will perform that task and only then a weapon to fire it. In 1941 the Soviets went for the 'omigod what can we make now in huge numbers?'. The carefully reasoned option was too late to use. One might ask if the OTL AK47 was, conceptually abetter SMG or a lighter SA Rifle? The MP44/STG44 was a lighter SA Rifle in it's concept. The two converge and you get locked breeches and a long replaceable magazine.

Personally I think the MP44/STG44 and AK47 was convergent evolution starting from different ends and form followed function. A Mosin Nagant and a Long Lee Enfield look similar but were not inspired by each other, They were following the same evolutionary path but with very different mechanical systems.
 

Deleted member 1487

Russian semi automatic rifles began long ago around the Arisaka 6.5x50 round which is really a not quite battle rifle round and an over powered intermediate one. At the time it made sense. The internal volume for propellant was actually not so far off the later 7.92x39 and reliable and early propellants with a long barrel life were not as powerful as they became later on. What I am saying is that intermediate(ish) select fire rifles were on the Imperial shopping list before the Revolution but the model was a light battle rifle. What the MP44/STG44 would have brought is approaching the matter from a powerful SMG direction. One key difference in German and Soviet mass cheap new arms was that the Germans looked to thin high quality steel complex thin stampings. The wartime Soviet was was thick low quality steel pressings. i.e. bent to shape not stamped. There was the late 1930's minor fashion in Central Europe to try the powerful SMG route more directly with the more powerful pistol cartridges than the 9x19 and use the 9x25 which manifested itself in the Soviet Union as the Tokarev 7.63x25 and the USA went further with the .30 Carbine. There were a lot more options that the 7.92x58 or 39 duality. The MP44/STG44 were not suited to Soviet ways mechanically but might have concentrated the Soviet mind over where on the SMG to Battle Rifle spectrum they should be. The 7.92x54R puts out @3,500J. The 7.63x25 @600J. 7.92x33 1,800J as a guide to power. The 6.5x50 @2,600J. Pedants will quibble over the numbers but they are in these sorts of ranges. Behind it must be the doctrine. First you define the task. Then the ammunition which will perform that task and only then a weapon to fire it. In 1941 the Soviets went for the 'omigod what can we make now in huge numbers?'. The carefully reasoned option was too late to use. One might ask if the OTL AK47 was, conceptually abetter SMG or a lighter SA Rifle? The MP44/STG44 was a lighter SA Rifle in it's concept. The two converge and you get locked breeches and a long replaceable magazine.

Personally I think the MP44/STG44 and AK47 was convergent evolution starting from different ends and form followed function. A Mosin Nagant and a Long Lee Enfield look similar but were not inspired by each other, They were following the same evolutionary path but with very different mechanical systems.
If you look at the muzzle energy it is just a weak, perhaps THE weakest battle rifle round in the world. The 7.62x39 is at least 25% weaker. The case capacity of the Arisaka round is actually much higher; they have the same base diameter, but the Arisaka case is 15mm longer.

BTW both the STG and the AK47 started out as simply 'heavy' SMGs doctrinally and in design, as the STG was initially open bolt for automatic firing (IIRC the first AK was too), but had to go closed bolt to improve accuracy, same with the AK. For the StG then they also had to force single aimed shots due to ammo shortages, which effectively forced it into a 'light' rifle category rather than utilizing the automatic feature primarily. The AK too primarily was intended to be used on full auto for suppressive fire until they got to close range then switch to single shot to save ammo in close combat. The SKS was to be the actual rifle for aimed longer range fire, but it was discovered that it really couldn't do anything the AK couldn't, so they dump the concept and standardized the AK as a rifle/smg combo. Basically the Soviets and Germans conceptualized them basically the same, but practical reality then expanded what the design was actually capable of/excelled at.

BTW first Soviet report of the Mkb42:
http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2018/03/mkb-42h-first-appearance.html
And next intel report:
http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2018/02/sturmgewehr-intel.html
And a later one:
http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2018/05/more-mkb42-impressions.html
And Soviet trials that resulted in the 7.62x39:
http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2017/12/mkb42h-trials.html
The attached data shows that the automatic carbine fits in an intermediate space between a submachinegun and a light machinegun. For example, its muzzle energy surpasses the submachinegun by 65%, but is less than that of a machinegun by 41%. The mass is more than the submachinegun by 1.8 kg, but less than the light machinegun by 2.5 kg.

The appearance of an automatic carbine in the German army is, presumably, caused by the aim to equip infantry units with light and portable weapons that could replace the relatively heavy MG-34 and MG-42 machineguns. The weapon can also be treated as a universal weapon, aiming to replace both rifles and light machineguns.


Presently, comrade S.G. Simonov, under instruction from the Main Artillery Directorate, designed a new type of light machinegun using an existing round. However, the powerful round does not permit making a machinegun that weighs less than 7.5 kg. Based on this, the Design Bureau was given tactical-technical requirements for development of a less powerful cartridge, as well as an automatic carbine for that cartridge. Experimental automatic carbines are going through factory trials and will enter proving grounds trials in November of 1943.

As a point of interest the Mbk42 did not compare favorably to the M1 Carbine in accuracy, which is part of the reason why it later converted to a closed bolt design:
http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-precision-of-mkb-42h-at-ranges-of.html
 
They didn't though, they started entirely different projects. The 1939 stuff was 5.45 and 6.5, not 7.62 intermediate. As of 1941 they didn't even have rifles for the rounds.

They went through a series of different projects and only the 1943 project resulted in anything. But the Germans also went through a whole series of small arms projects most of which ended in nothing going into mass production and they didn't have the excuse of Barbarossa and the Great Purges.

Muzzle velocity was over 80mps higher. Max range was about the same for both weapons.

Muzzle energy isn't everything. Usable range was not the same.

They at least had a rifle that used their intermediate rounds (Vollmer M35). Then by 1939 they were working out the 7.92 Kurz and started the Mkb42 around then. The Soviets jumped into the 'short' cartridge idea like the Germans only after encountering the German development in combat and copying it per their July 1943 conference, not referencing ANY of the work they did pre-war. As to the 5mm or so experiments, the Germans did those too pre-WW1, no nation did anything with the idea but tinker until the MP43.

We all accept that the Mkb42 was the first to see use and I've never claimed the Soviets weren't sped up by it's appearance. But there's ample evidence that they were working in the area before 1942 and it likely would have resulted in something eventually, though probably later than OTL.
 

Deleted member 1487

They went through a series of different projects and only the 1943 project resulted in anything. But the Germans also went through a whole series of small arms projects most of which ended in nothing going into mass production and they didn't have the excuse of Barbarossa and the Great Purges.
What projects? Again there was tinkering, but AFAIK nothing even comparable to the Vollmer M35 or even M1 Carbine, just as independent design curiosities that were cancelled at the start of the war because they weren't yielding anything useful. Despite having the Federov Avtomat to work with and a later elaboration of the design by Federov's understudy (I forget his name ATM) the Soviet government wanted nothing to do with it. They even tried to make the SVT-40 into a fully automatic weapon rather than try and adopt or develop an intermediate caliber weapon.
As to German efforts, the Vollmer M35 was the only production ready design AFAIK pre-war that didn't go into production due to expense; the army wanted a stamped metal weapon that didn't require much if any milling or strategic materials (read rare metals) to make. Which started what would become the StG44 and later StG45.
The wartime small arms projects that didn't go into production during the war were AFAIK mostly desperation weapons that were to cut the cost of what they already had and were to be usable for less trained troops. One of which was a cheaper knockoff of the Sten...which already was a knockoff of the MP40.
If you really want to see a bunch of decent weapons that never went into production for no good reason you should check out the French pre-WW1 projects. They dumped some really interesting designs because they weren't 'magnum' enough.

Muzzle energy isn't everything. Usable range was not the same.
Functionally they were the same, even though the heavier 9mm round retained more energy out to longer ranges. The MP40's range may perhaps, if anything, was a function of the long recoil system and low rate of fire making it more controllable. If we're going to talk about a weapon with longer range, the M1 Carbine was accurate and longer range than the MP40 by a significant amount.

We all accept that the Mkb42 was the first to see use and I've never claimed the Soviets weren't sped up by it's appearance. But there's ample evidence that they were working in the area before 1942 and it likely would have resulted in something eventually, though probably later than OTL.
There was nothing comparable to the Mkb42 until after they encountered it. The Federov certainly wasn't and was dumped by the Soviets and other efforts by independent research teams in the 6.5mm and lower calibers were just tinkering, especially for the 5.45 which didn't even yet have a weapon chambered for it.
Again, even though we go round and round on this topic, tinkering isn't a design. Otherwise the French would have been the originator of the assault rifle with the Ribeyrolles or the US with the Burton Light Machine Rifle.
 
Its always fun to read the first page of a thread, then ask 'Where will this wander to?". Then open the last page and find assault rifles transmorgified into a photo of a single engine aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Its always fun to read the first page of a thread, then ask 'Where will this wander to?". Then open the last page and find assault rifles transmorgified into a photo of a single engine aircraft.

In fairness, the IJA Air Service's Ho-103 12.7mm machine gun was a copy of the American Browning, adapted to fire a shorter cartridge at a faster rate with lower muzzle velocity...
 
......... One of which was a cheaper knockoff of the Sten...which already was a knockoff of the MP40. ............
———————————————————————-
Trivia time:
Sten only copied the magazine from the MP38/40 “SCHMEIZER” smg. It’s single feed lips proved problematic with poor quality early Stens.

The rest of the Sten design was a vastly simplified version of the Lanchester smg, which was a rushed, simplified copy of the WW1 German Bergman. Bergman was the first smg, introduced primarily for trench raiding.
 
Last edited:
There absolutely would. In 1942 the Soviets started to massively increase the proportion of Sub-Machine guns in their TOE's as cheap automatic firepower to match the German MP40-MG34 combination and at pretty much exactly the same point they strated looking for a longer range intermediate cartridge design. As others have said they went through a wide variety of prototypes some of which were more or less influenced in layout and design by the StG44. But unless you butterfly away them encountering the MP40-MG42 combo they are going to adopt submachine guns, they are going to start looking for a longer range, more powerful submachine gun and they are going to be working towards automatic intermediate cartridge firing assault weapon aka an assault rifle.

Now if you kill off the StG44 and Kalashnikov you might see the stereotypical assault rifle be a bullpup or with a different layout from the AR-15/AK but it would be an assault rifle.
Perhaps something like the Federov of a quarter-century earlier?
 
when the AVG was in operation, there were very few Zeros operating in China

There were some covering a few raids by Navy air units. I've seen some historians claim no 'Zeros' were ever encountered by the AVG. Beyond that the AVG was very limited operationally before the US was in the war. Chenault was largely drawing from reports from pilots in other Chinese Air Force air groups.
 
Top