You are not logged in.

German Small Arms Developments

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

  • 1
  • 2

BruceDuncan

Ex chaos ordo

Posts: 12,916

  • Send private message

1

Wednesday, November 28th 2012, 3:23am

German Small Arms Developments

In September 1942 the Army Armements Office selected the G1 Rifle and MG1 Light Automatic designs to fulfill the Heer's requirements for new infantry weapons.

Edit: This decision is being reconsidered.

G1 Rifle

Weight: 4.2 kg
Length: 1,025 mm
Barrel length: 450 mm
Cartridge: 7x40mm
Action: Roller-delayed blowback
Rate of fire: Semi-automatic, fully automatic, 600 rounds/min (cyclic)
Muzzle velocity: 700 m/s
Feed System: 20-round detachable box magazine
Sights: Rear: rotary diopter; front: hooded post

Edit: Photo removed to avoid offense


MG1 Light Automatic Weapon

Weight: 9.1 kg
Length: 1,140 mm
Barrel length: 560 mm
Cartridge: 7x40mm
Action: Roller-delayed blowback
Rate of fire: 800+ rounds/min (cyclic)
Muzzle velocity: 700 m/s
Feed System: 50 round detachable drum magazine or belt fed
Sights: Rear: rotary diopter; front: hooded post
Notes: G1 with quick-change barrel and belt-feed adapter. The MG1 has 48% parts interchangeability with the G1 rifle

Edit: Photo removed to avoid offense

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "BruceDuncan" (Nov 28th 2012, 6:46pm)

Desertfox

Ambitious Packrat

Posts: 4,058

  • Send private message

2

Wednesday, November 28th 2012, 3:37am

Isn't it just a tad... early to introduce the G1?

BruceDuncan

Ex chaos ordo

Posts: 12,916

  • Send private message

3

Wednesday, November 28th 2012, 3:51am

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
Isn't it just a tad... early to introduce the G1?


I believe that you are thinking of the H&K G3 rifle.

The weapon in quetion is derived from the Spanish CETME, which has its orgins in Mauser designs of 1945; I think that puts it within our conventional +Year range for weapons. No worse, I think, than other foreign developments.

Desertfox

Ambitious Packrat

Posts: 4,058

  • Send private message

4

Wednesday, November 28th 2012, 3:54am

I'm thinking of this one: G1-FN FAL
It was introduced in 1956, thats 13 years early.

BruceDuncan

Ex chaos ordo

Posts: 12,916

  • Send private message

5

Wednesday, November 28th 2012, 4:00am

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
I'm thinking of this one: G1-FN FAL
It was introduced in 1956, thats 13 years early.


That may be; but the weapon in question is a CETME. :)

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

  • Send private message

6

Wednesday, November 28th 2012, 4:01am

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
Isn't it just a tad... early to introduce the G1?

I'd definitely say it's not. Since Hrolf went with the 7x40mm round, the historical StG-44 would need to be reworked for the larger round. And what do you get when you enlarge an StG-44 for a larger rifle round? You get a CETME - which is precisely what the photo shows.

The G1 rifle as proposed - and I should note that I was the one who wrote the specs - is in many ways less of an advance than an StG-44.

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

  • Send private message

7

Wednesday, November 28th 2012, 7:08am

*looks at wiki*

Quoted

CETME is an acronym for Centro de Estudios Técnicos de Materiales Especiales

Quoted

Founded 1949

... guess I will have to reread stuff when I get back home... :rolleyes:

BruceDuncan

Ex chaos ordo

Posts: 12,916

  • Send private message

8

Wednesday, November 28th 2012, 7:29am

As I metioned above, the CETME rifle was derived from a German design, the Sturmgewehr 45. CETME itself was founded in 1949; the actual design dates to 1945.

Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

Posts: 3,605

  • Send private message

9

Wednesday, November 28th 2012, 7:55am

I'll just lodge a protest anyhow.
The STG-44 was a war-driven development that hadn't entered service in Sept 1942.

Timelines can and should be adjusted for war delays. Quite some time ago, I mapped out the Belgian road to the FN-FAL deducting the time lost to the war delays.

Here, the predecessor weapon hasn't even been introduced in the time line and there is no war experience to drive the R&D. Germany is part of the largest alliance in Europe, lavishing funds on new weapons makes little sense when the old ones look to be perfectly competitive.

Of course I've noted several times in the past that weaponry has gotten ridiculously advanced.

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

  • Send private message

10

Wednesday, November 28th 2012, 8:23am

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
I'll just lodge a protest anyhow.
The STG-44 was a war-driven development that hadn't entered service in Sept 1942.
...
Of course I've noted several times in the past that weaponry has gotten ridiculously advanced.

There's nothing particularly advanced about this rifle that merits protest, Kirk. It's a lot more appropriate to the current Wesworld climate than the StG-44, in fact - and that's why I suggested that Bruce use it as his next infantry rifle.

Th current breed of German weapons are most definitely not competitive, given how Hrolf's bad decisions as far back as 1933, informed by hindsight, so badly hamstrung the German small-arms scene. Go back to the German news for the last few years you'll see how the Heer has actually discarded a lot of the weapons designed in the 1930s. I advised Bruce to skip the StG-44 entirely (particularly as it was already in service in India :rolleyes: ) and introduce something less radical than OTL. This is what has resulted.

Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

Posts: 3,605

  • Send private message

11

Wednesday, November 28th 2012, 8:30am

Brock,

Realize that my standpoint is that land and sea weaponry is supposed to be those weapons in service in OTL.

I am well aware that many folks, including you, are ignoring that.

I may have missed some formal discussion and vote changing how things are "supposed" to be, but I don't think so.

So, this is NOT a 1942 weapon, not even close. The selective fire - semi auto or 600 cyclic, is way to early.
Show me a 1942-43 weapon that's like it.

So I'm lodging my protest, and fully expect to be ignored.

But don't come ragging on the Dutch to update their military encyclopedia to some moving target followed by some.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Kaiser Kirk" (Nov 28th 2012, 8:33am)

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

  • Send private message

12

Wednesday, November 28th 2012, 12:15pm

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
As I metioned above, the CETME rifle was derived from a German design, the Sturmgewehr 45. CETME itself was founded in 1949; the actual design dates to 1945.

... should you not be basing it on the StG 45 then instead of the CETME? ?(

BruceDuncan

Ex chaos ordo

Posts: 12,916

  • Send private message

13

Wednesday, November 28th 2012, 12:19pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
As I metioned above, the CETME rifle was derived from a German design, the Sturmgewehr 45. CETME itself was founded in 1949; the actual design dates to 1945.

... should you not be basing it on the StG 45 then instead of the CETME? ?(


The mechanism of the weapon is, and that is what is important in my view. If I had not included a picture, would that change things?

Perhaps it would have.

Consider these two weapons, found here


Quoted

IRF-39 (1940-1950+)
7mm x 40, gas operated rotating bolt, select fire
43.27" length
22.41" barrel length
9.5 lbs weight
30 round detachable box magazine

Notes: The bolt operation system is a direct copy of the examined American Garand rifles donated by the Filipino government for testing. This model added a pistol grip and a detachable magazine to the original design but nothing else changed much. The Imperial Ordnance Board came under severe criticism from politicans for not putting forth a radical new design like the IRS-40 as the all-Army service rifle. But complaints from the front-line troops were few about the rifle, and many preferred the solidity of the wooden stock to the apparent flimisness of the stamped steel found on folding stock of the IRS-40, even with the fact that weight is slight more than the 40 Rifle.

IRF-40 (1941-1950+)
7mm x 40, gas operated rotating bolt, select fire
40.12" length, 32.60" with stock folded
16.82" barrel length
8.5 lbs weight
30 round detachable box magazine or 50 round detachable drum

Notes: Parallel development to the 39 rifle; the Ordnance Board decided to start a limited production of this rifle for their Motorized and Cavalry forces. The BNS later on decided to also order this weapon and were the ones that asked for a 50 round drum to increase the firepower of their foot soldiers. Using stamped steel and a folding stock, their futuristic look wasn't well received at the beginning but their performance, reliability and small size were highly appreciated by the troops using them.


The first sounds suspiciously like a Beretta BM59, though the characteristics seem more those of an AK-47. The second looks rather like a StuG44.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "BruceDuncan" (Nov 28th 2012, 12:23pm)

Daidalos

Professional

Posts: 674

  • Send private message

14

Wednesday, November 28th 2012, 12:53pm

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan

If I had not included a picture, would that change things?



Definitively yes.
To be honest, I think the pictures (especially the second one) you posted are a major problem for the perception of your designs even if they are the most unimportant thing at all.
The pictures are just the first thing you look at and what you see when you look at them are weapons from the 50ies and 60ies.

Every opinion will be influenced by that impression no matter what the specs are.....It's all psychology.

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "Daidalos" (Nov 28th 2012, 12:59pm)

BruceDuncan

Ex chaos ordo

Posts: 12,916

  • Send private message

15

Wednesday, November 28th 2012, 1:32pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
Brock,

Realize that my standpoint is that land and sea weaponry is supposed to be those weapons in service in OTL.

I am well aware that many folks, including you, are ignoring that.



With due respect, your argument would have greater force if the Dutch Navy had not fielded proximity fuses for its medium antiaircraft guns in 1940.

From the great Proximity Fuse Debate

OTL, such items did not enter service until well into 1942. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

  • Send private message

16

Wednesday, November 28th 2012, 1:36pm

I don't see the issue, as Brock says similar weapons are already out there from nations you'd think would have less experience than the Germans with firearms development.

Hood

Ugly Aircraft, Inc

Posts: 8,155

  • Send private message

17

Wednesday, November 28th 2012, 4:02pm

My take on this.
Having read the relevent wikipages of the StG44, 45 etc. I can't see too much problem. Since Germany already has the MG42 as the Maschinengewehr MG3 in WW and the guts of the StG45 is basically that of the MG42 I can't see any obvious technical obstacle.

The doctrine issue is harder to answer, but then Bruce could write a whole series of excercise reports showing the Heere has revised its doctrine and requirments (for better or worse) due to field excercises and theoretical stuff.

I also agree with Daidalos and Roo that the pictures do have a psychological impact. I've argued the same a few times before, notably when RA posted a proto-LSD that looked too much like a US WW2 LSD when the specs didn't bear that interpretation.

My concern is with the LG-1. Is is meant to replace the MG-3 is smaller formations for organic fire-support or a way to increase firepower generally? It just slightly too modern a concept esp when you've new auto rifles.

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

  • Send private message

18

Wednesday, November 28th 2012, 4:37pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
So, this is NOT a 1942 weapon, not even close. The selective fire - semi auto or 600 cyclic, is way to early.
Show me a 1942-43 weapon that's like it.

Okay, I will.
  • Browning BAR - Heavier, but with the same rate of fire.
  • M1 Carbine - Lighter round, but in the M2 version basically an assault rifle that's even better than the StG-44.
  • MKb.42(H) - the predecessor to the StG-44, as originally designed in 1939.
  • M14 - the full-auto follow-on to the M1 Garand, there's no substantial changes to the action between the two versions.
  • FG 42 - Full power rifle round, but still fast ROF.
  • M1941 Johnson - Machine gun similar to the FG42.
  • Charlton Automatic Rifle - Converted from an Enfield, of all things.

Should I continue?

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

  • Send private message

19

Wednesday, November 28th 2012, 4:52pm

Looking around a bit, it looks like the picture is of a CETME C, which is a 1964 weapon and that probably enhances the 'too modern' feeling of the picture.
http://www.cetme.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=34&sid=

.... I'll probably just shut my mouth now before I get punched in the face...

Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

Posts: 3,605

  • Send private message

20

Wednesday, November 28th 2012, 5:53pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
So, this is NOT a 1942 weapon, not even close. The selective fire - semi auto or 600 cyclic, is way to early.
Show me a 1942-43 weapon that's like it.

Okay, I will.
  • Browning BAR - Heavier, but with the same rate of fire.
  • M1 Carbine - Lighter round, but in the M2 version basically an assault rifle that's even better than the StG-44.
  • MKb.42(H) - the predecessor to the StG-44, as originally designed in 1939.
  • M14 - the full-auto follow-on to the M1 Garand, there's no substantial changes to the action between the two versions.
  • FG 42 - Full power rifle round, but still fast ROF.
  • M1941 Johnson - Machine gun similar to the FG42.
  • Charlton Automatic Rifle - Converted from an Enfield, of all things.

Should I continue?


BAR – Much heavier, used in Squad role as essentially an LMG, not standard issue service rifle

M1 – Semi auto, M2 – developed 1944 in response to SG44.

Mkb.42- limited production run of 10,000, war time developement. Best of the examples.

M14 – 1959. Design developed from M1 POST WWII

FG 42 – 3000 built in 1943. this might be a precendent. However when Red Admiral attempted to introduce a rifle based on extremely limited issuance of 800, he ran into difficulties. Claiming a limited issue rifle developed and deployed to an elite group operating in small numbers is grounds for issueing to a massive army is…weak.

M1941 Johnson - LMG, like BAR, not general issue. It’s like advocating everyone should have a SAW instead of an M16 not standard issue service rifle
Charlton Automatic R ifle – 1500 in service in New Zealand to serve in the place of bren and Lewis LMGs. not standard issue service rifle


So, rather weak as a general service issue.
1942 armies standard issue was bolt action or semi-auto. A selective fire rifle for mass issue is a bit advanced for the time. Waiting a couple years should be done.

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "Kaiser Kirk" (Nov 28th 2012, 5:55pm)

  • 1
  • 2