Rebuttal for TFB’s Sturmgewehr Article

There are a myriad of opinions within the industry on an even larger selection of topics. Too that point, often TFB writers disagree on topics. Ian from Forgotten Weapons (one of our contributors) has taken to disagree with Nathaniel F. on his post “7 Reasons I Don’t Like the MP-44 Sturmgewehr”.

It is worth pointing out that Nathaniel was in fact planning on writing an article on the positive points of the MP-44 when Ian emailed us saying he was interested in doing the same. Nathaniel told Ian to go ahead with his video.

Ian and his friend go through Nathaniel’s 7 points in detail, Armed with their knowledge of historical firearms across various countries. If anything, the lively debate ensures the Sturmgewehr will never be a Forgotten Weapon. 

Myself? I know that this may seem like a “cop-out” I think both are right across various points. I personally took issue with Nathaniel’s point on ammunition weight which while factually true, failed to take into account the ability to put fire downrange in larger quantities without reloading (which Ian discusses)

On the other hand, Nathaniel was quite right on the technical side in that there certainly were firearms that previously existed that met many of the requirements. In this regard, the MP-44 was nothing special.

What do you think? Are either completely off-base or do both make good points?

Nathan S

One of TFB’s resident Jarheads, Nathan now works within the firearms industry. A consecutive Marine rifle and pistol expert, he enjoys local 3-gun, NFA, gunsmithing, MSR’s, & high-speed gear. Nathan has traveled to over 30 countries working with US DoD & foreign MoDs.

The above post is my opinion and does not reflect the views of any company or organization.


  • Bronezhilet

    Going to post Nathaniel’s rebuttal of the rebuttal as well?

    • Matrix3692

      Next stop, TFB: Civil War.

      • SP mclaughlin

        I’d imagine it’s like that one scene in Anchorman 2, except with more guns.

        • Sianmink

          There were horses, and a man on fire, and I killed a guy with a trident!

          • iksnilol

            I like how the horses were mentioned before the man on fire and the trident murder 😛

      • iksnilol

        Kinda photoshopped that one now. 😛 enjoy.

  • Wolfe

    The StG-44 has a special place for, 1. being among the very first squad weapons adapted for mass distribution and 2. for allowing a single soldier to keep whole platoons at bay as his equally equipped buddies manoeuvred round the enemies’ flanks ; yes that –Bratatatat- 600RPM is a tactical gem!

    • Don Ward

      Yeah. A single Stg44 equipped Nazi never held an entire platoon at bay.

  • Stephen Beat

    “There was a reason NATO didn’t adopt an intermediate cartridge, because they didn’t figure out what the Germans figured out…” Er, excuse me? The British did! And the British pushed for a an intermediate cartridge based on a study they did during the war. So why wasn’t it adopted by NATO and why did NATO end up with the 7.62mmx51mm as the standard round after WW2? Because the US of A decided that would be the case and killed off the idea of the British intermediate cartridge.

    • Aurélien Morel

      If you really followed the discussion, he corrected himself just afterwards by saying NATO was bullied into adopting the .308 by the US.
      They also talk about the fact that the FAL was developped around an intermediate cartridge and that the Brits had an intermediate round of their own.

      • Stephen Beat

        I know – I was just typing an apology – here it is “Apologies to everyone for my bit of a rant there. I think what irked me was the fact that Ian from Forgotten Weapons is usually so reliably well informed. But the point was corrected later on.” I just flew off the handle too quick! It happens! 😉

        • Aurélien Morel

          Yeah almost did it myself tbh, but I decided to wait and see first 😉

      • nova3930

        I’ve always thought it interesting that the US military considered 308 to be an intermediate cartridge at the time because it was shorter than 30-06. The brass was stuck in the mindset of 30 or nothing, repeating earlier stubbornness where 30 was just too small and 45 or nothing…

      • Anonymoose

        Likewise, the G3 was based on the 7.92×33 STG45, which was developed after the war into a .30 Carbine rifle by the French, and then scaled up into the CETME/G3.

    • There’s a bigger discussion to be had regarding this, so I’ll point you to a comment I made on another TFB article a while back:

      “Hi, both the .280 British and .276 Pedersen underwent a variety of changes during their life with regards to performance, but in particular the .280 British is difficult to pin down because unlike the .276 it had a more tumultuous history and less certainty as to what, exactly, would be adopted by NATO.

      It was decided fairly early on what the .276 Pedersen would look like: It was loaded into the PD-42 (small Boxer primer), FB-9892/FB-10865 (almost identical cases with large Boxer primer), or A-11 (large Berdan primer) cases, with either the PC-50 (125grs) or T1-E19 bullet (126grs), both of which were identical in shape*. Standard loads produced just under 2,700 ft/s at the instrument, equating to about 2,740 ft/s at the muzzle. In general, when people talk about the .276 Pedersen, it is this configuration they are referring to. Interestingly, this is not the configuration that would have been adopted, but that is a separate topic. This performance represents the overwhelming quantity of .276 ammunition in existence.

      In contrast, there is no single version of .280 British that generally is being referred to. I will be doing a more thorough article on this, but basically the .280 British was loaded to performance levels ranging from approximately equal to 7.92mm Kurz to almost 7.62 NATO levels. What can be said is that in terms of case volume, the .280 British is just slightly lower than the .276 Pedersen, and was never loaded with bullets as aerodynamic as those used in the .276. To further confuse matters, the round the British abortively adopted, the 7mm Mk.1Z (augmented .280/30), was more powerful than the majority of .280 ammunition produced, giving a muzzle velocity of 2,595 ft/s with a lead-cored 140gr bullet – which, it should be noted, was reported in tests as being uncontrollable in fully automatic, negating the primary virtue of the .280 round. In terms of muzzle energy, that performance is very comparable to the .276 Pedersen, but the projectile was not as well-streamlined, and as a result it had about the same ballistic coefficient as the PC-50 and T1-E19 bullets of the .276, despite being 15 grains heavier. Combined with the lower velocity of the .280 British, the .276 thus outperforms the Mk.1Z.

      To further confuse the issue, at least two wildcatters of the era, Phil Sharpe and Lewis Potter, made their own versions of the .280/30 British and the performance their handloads developed are sometimes published as if they were the official figures.

      So at its low end, the .280 British was not so far off from the 6.8mm SPC, in fact, but at its high end it was much, much closer to .276 Pedersen or 7.62 NATO in performance. Unfortunately, conflation of these two ends of the spectrum, especially by 6.8mm SPC fans has led to some confusion regarding exactly what the 6.8mm is capable of and what its performance looks like.”

      • Bal256

        I have a hard time believing people who claimed that the Brits had all the answers and came up with the ultimate weapon and ammunition post world war 2, especially when their small arms did not go through much advancement during the war, and when they later designed an abortion of a rifle.

        Muh 280
        Muh EM2 bullpup

        The AR 15 was the most reliable weapon ever made during trials and the 223 round could blow up limbs. The only problem is that it was actually adopted and people can evaluate it for what it really is rather than the British super weapon from a country who has lagged in firearms design for nearly the entirety of the 20th century.

        • Kivaari

          We know that now after 125 years of research.

      • Rick5555

        You write using quite a few run on sentence. I would ease up on using comma’s. And use a period every so often to end a sentence. If a student wrote like that in their English class, while attending undergraduate school. The professor most definitely would’ve failed the student.

        • Where did I join clauses without an appropriate conjunction or punctuation?

          Run-on sentences are not just long sentences; those are perfectly fine. A run-on sentence is where several clauses are jammed together without the right textual glue to hold them together and create the necessary clarity.

          • Martin Buck

            Try translating a Latin document with multiple subclauses, each modifying or adding to the main expressed idea. The use of commas separating clauses, is either to enrich to thought expressed, to distract the reader from the main idea, or to conceal the aims of the writer. This most closely represents spoken language, a swarm of hastily stated ideas flying through the air, any one of which might resonate with the listener, and most of which will soar blindly over their heads. It basically speaks to the bandwidth of mental processing. Those people used to the cut and thrust of ideas will grasp most of what is said, those hermits unaccustomed to argument will quail at the flurry of thoughts flying at them. Women generally cope better, as the language areas of their brains are better developed, but even you can learn to cope. Mischievous writers like Oscar Wilde could relate multiple messages, many contradictary, and be able to conceal the most outrageous insults hidden within polite conversation. The grandmother in Downton Abbey is another unmatched proponent of the barbed epithet. But if you are going to criticise the use of language of others, it would behoove one to ensure the rectitude of one’s own grammar. Nazi fail.

        • Kivaari

          Maybe it works in a technical article.

      • Kivaari

        OK, I’ll say it again. The 6.5mm Italian Carcano round with an aerodynamic bullet would have been adequate in 1895.

    • Kivaari

      Don’t forget the US Army had a chance for the .276 Pederson. It’s quite close to the post-war British .270-.280. We had what we needed and just didn’t know it.

  • cwp

    The Sturmgewehr is the Derek Jeter of firearms: yes, it has significant flaws, but it remains highly useful for what it *does* do right. It’s just that both are associated with very loud fanbases that tend to drown out more rational evaluations of their quality.

    • John Doe

      ^This, bravo sir.

    • Don Ward

      Derek Jeter at least could be counted on winning the game when the chips were down. Not so the Stg44 which is more of the Alex Rodriguez of firearms. All hype but nothing there when something is needed in the clutch.

  • Andrew Hobby

    “Next up: Is the 1894 LeCorbusier dirigible really the Be All, End All when it comes to fine aerosporting for Gentlemen?”

    • ClintTorres

      Slow clap. Seriously, if I could own one I might care.

    • Edeco


  • datimes

    These two agree on way more than they disagree.

  • Harrison Jones

    I’d love to see an actual debate that use google hangouts or something similar when a topic like this comes up.

  • Micki

    TBH, I think the biggest problem with Nathaniel’s article was that his facts were good, but the conclusions he drew from them were bizarre, at best. For each of his points, (which he often undermined with caveats and exceptions,) I just thought: “What has that got to do with the gun itself? Why is that a reason to dislike the weapon?”

    I think a better article could have been written entitled: “7 common misconceptions about the StG.44”, or something like that.

    • ostiariusalpha

      He explained later that the title itself was a bit of hyperbole that wasn’t really his idea. I think the title he wanted was “7 Reasons I Am Not Impressed With The Sturmgewehr.”

      • Right, and the establishing paragraph of the article tells you that me being “not impressed” with it is something multiple other people (including Alex) have told me. I don’t disagree that I’m less impressed than most, but as I said in the article it’s not like that means there’s nothing I like or appreciate about the gun.

  • Wolfe

    The StG-44 has a special place for, 1.

    being among the very first mid
    caliber automatic squad weapons adapted for mass distribution and 2. for allowing a single soldier to keep whole platoons at bay as his equally equipped buddies manoeuvred round the enemies’ flanks ; yes that –Bratatatat- 600RPM is a tactical gem!

    • Whole platoons… Including many other dudes with automatic weapons, are you sure?

      • Ian McCollum

        The StG allowed each man to act as both rifleman and machine gunner as necessary. One of the initial trials reports on the StG (it’s in Handrich’s book) discusses how much superior the StG is for bounding overwatch going forward and backward. With the typical Mauser/MG34 squad, the unit’s firepower is effectively minimal while the MG crew is moving, and they make a big target during that time as well. If the MG gets hit, you’re screwed. With a squad of StGs, no individual soldier is indispensable, so you can maintain combat effectiveness better when taking casualties.

        • Don Ward

          Except that it was basically an NCO weapon when it finally reached the battlefield. And the Soviets were capturing these weapons almost as soon as they reached the battlefield in all of its phases of development.

        • Ian, no one is disputing the validity of the assault rifle concept here. Look at the actual small arms production figures, and look at how units were organized, and then consider how many MP.44s lay in warehouses or depots or on racks until the end of the war either because they didn’t make it to the front, or they weren’t supplied with ammunition or magazines, etc, and then compare that to the Allied small arms mix, with something like 15.5 million personal automatic weapons made during the war. To suggest that even one more year of MP.44 production would have significantly tipped these scales I think is missing the bigger picture.

          Infantry do not fight each man versus another (or against the clock, as in a 2-gun match), they fight as a unit. So one must consider how much portable automatic firepower was at the disposal of the Allies, and whether any realistic degree of MP.44 production could have countered it, not whether the MP.44 was the most convenient portable automatic weapon on the battlefield. Considering the staggering production of submachine guns on the part of the Allies, and the extremely short average ranges encountered in Europe (post-war studies indicate that approximately 100 yards was the average engagement distance), the MP.44, even with another year of production (adding perhaps another 180,000 guns) couldn’t compensate for this disparity. Further, because, as Karl points out, the war went poorly for Germany after 1942, the loss rates for German weapons were extremely high from 1943 on, during the MP.44’s production. Even if an MP.44 got to the front with ammunition and magazines (not a sure thing), it was likely to be captured quickly as the Allies moved swiftly through France and Germany.

          The MP.44 did affect German tactics to a degree, but this was more because it replaced obsolescent German equipment than anything else. The assault rifle concept is more of a response to a changing infantry combat paradigm than it is something that itself dramatically changed infantry combat. This isn’t to say that it wasn’t a significant development, or to equivocate the selfloading rifle with the assault rifle, but to point out that the writing had been on the wall for years; the Americans, Russians, Germans, French, hell even the Italians all recognized this before the war, even as they tried to make the new reality fit their old concerns about logistics and other things.

      • Don Ward

        Yep. Whole platoons of GIs and Tommies dropped their automatic rifles, Browning and Vickers machine guns, mortars, Stens and Tommy guns, Enfields and Garands when they saw a single blonde-haired Aryan Superman stride onto the battlefield, spraying 7.92 Kurz rounds from the Stg44 at his hip while laughing maniacally.

        • Kivaari

          What side was he on?

          • Martin Buck

            Well, his surname began with “von”…

      • Wolfgar

        I remember watching a history channel or something where the WW2 vets told the newbies, when coming under German fire to shoot their M-1 Garands as fast as they could towards the general vicinity the Germans were firing from. They stated they could always get more ammo but not another you. Applying the classical marksmanship they were trained with would get you killed in this combat situation. The STG-44 would have been excellent in this application.

        • Yes, that’s true, but the MP.44 was hardly the only weapon on the battlefield capable of doing this.

          • Wolfgar

            I never said it was the only weapon capable of counter fire. I stated it would have been excellent in that application.

      • Wolfe

        Let’s look at some well known fights in which a weapon, which the 44 greatly inspired, featured: 1954, Dien Bien Phu, the FFL guys had loads of M1 and M2–semi auto, and auto carbines, plus the MAT-49 Submachine gun. Contrary to what many people might think, the Viets had loads AKs during this battle n they put it to good use; forcing WHOLE PLATOONS of hard-as-nails Legionnaires hankered down during many bloody assaults in which the Ak owned the field!

        First forward, 1994, the GIA hijacking of Air France Flight 8969 and the ensuing firefight during the passengers’ rescue by the French GIGN… didn’t four poorly trained but determined terrorists using a weapon that rotates about the StG’s tactical philosophy, the “bantam” Aks, in confined space–where the GiGN’s MP5 must reign supreme, put up stiff resistance against 30 superbly trained gendarmerie commandos; (…other dudes with automatic weapons–this is why I believe the StG-44 performed as well in the hands of desperate German troops facing Stalin’s hordes and other allied troops, and, indeed it did!!)

        • So… You’re ascribing the success of some units not armed with MP.44s to the MP.44? That’s a new one to me!

          Also, exactly how did the Vietnamese get their hands on AKs in 1954 when Russian production had barely started by that point? You have perhaps watched We Were Soldiers one too many times.

          • Wolfe

            Historical fact! Not from the cinema, read Giap’s books… the Soviets wanted to give you guys and your allies a bloody, bloody nose!!

          • Tied

            oh ya

            nothing says histoical fact like arming your major Ally in Asia (china) sworn enemy with a high tech assault rifle while the firearm hasnt been mass issued widly and is still a state secret

            Yep, lets hand them to some rice farmers, i guarentee none of them will be captured, and hey atleast we gave our ww2 allies a bloody knose!

            totally worth pissing off china and dropping our secret edge in the small arms race

          • Wolfe

            In the minds of the Soviets, China and Vietnam, were two different entities with different strategic value to them… one was an impoverished giant with potential, n thus a rival; albeit one in their sphere of influence, and so a frenemy whose military weight they needed in case of a fist-up with the West, and the other was in that time and place their, the soviets’-point of a covert dirk.

          • Tank Archives

            That’s not how citations work. Please be so kind as to indicate a specific book, perhaps even a specific page.

          • Wolfe

            I know, I happened to read that in a school library volume over 20+ years ago… but it’s out there, some of Giap’s squads had AKs!

          • Tank Archives

            If you can’t even remember what book it was in, what makes you think you remember anything else correctly? This is the exact reason citations were invented in the first place.

          • Wolfe

            Facts, assumptions, and what not, thing is the 44 started an avalanche, slow at first, but it’s THINKING gained momentum.

          • …Did you just say that you don’t care what the facts are? Hokay, buddy.

          • Wolfe

            Facts, are important.. the StG started something, didn’t it? Look at weapons like the M27 and the like, or even at guerrilla troops turning 9-yr olds into killing machines.

          • Yes, let’s just forget the numerous assault rifles developed prior to the MP.44!

          • Wolfgar

            You mean the ones that were never fielded in any quantity and had zero impact in any battles.

          • Yes, those ones, which were themselves influential.

            Was the MP.44 the most influential of them? Sure, I don’t dispute that, but I do dispute the degree to which almost everyone else – including Ian and Karl – believe it to be influential. For example, almost none of the Western assault rifles developed after 1963 take a direct influence from the MP.44. The vast majority utilized SCHV ammunition, the development of which so far as I can tell was entirely independent of the 7.92mm Kurz and didn’t derive any substantial inspiration from it. This means that almost every SCHV assault rifle design out there stems from an entirely different lineage of small caliber ammunition, and that the vast majority of those owe little to the Sturmgewehr.

          • DetroitMan

            False argument.

            1) The MP 44 defined the basic layout for military rifles developed after WWII. The FN49 and M14 were the only ones with traditional stocks, and the FN49 was quickly replaced with the FN FAL. None have been developed with a traditional layout after the M14.

            2) The whole notion of the intermediate cartridge was propelled to the forefront of military theory by the 7.92mm Kurz. The MP 44 / Kurz combination proved the assault rifle concept was combat effective. Every assault rifle and intermediate cartridge that preceded it was rendered irrelevant because none of them made it into a major conflict.

            3) SCHV ammunition was a refinement of the intermediate cartridge concept, not a revolution or separate development. It came from the American desire to combine traditional marksmanship with the advantages of an intermediate cartridge.

            4) The West was not interested in intermediate cartridges after WWII. (The .280 British was not an intermediate cartridge, at least not the form that was adopted.) We didn’t get interested in the concept until we encountered the AK-47. People can argue all day about how much other weapons influenced the AK-47, but there is no denying the similarities between it and the MP 44, or the 7.92mm Kurz and the 7.62×39. There is also no denying that most MP 44’s that saw service were sent to the Eastern Front, that the Soviets fought against them, and that the Soviets captured significant numbers of them. If the MP 44 influenced the Soviets and the Soviets influenced us, then there is a direct link between the MP 44 and Western assault rifle development.

          • Wolfgar

            Your assessment is absolutely correct. But Nathaniel only accepts his own logic. I guess in his world other historians are bias if they don’t follow his logic.If Nathaniel doesn’t accept other historians logic it is a ground breaking truth.

          • 1.) This is actually true, though saying the MP.44 invented the layout is taking it a step too far. However, I think it also ignores the large amount of experience various nations had gained with submachine guns… Most of which used the exact same layout!

            2.) This isn’t really supported by a broad history of Western thinking after WWII. The Belgians play around with it for a year or two before abandoning it, the Americans reject it, and the French essentially equivocated the MP.44 and the M2 Carbine. The only folks that took it really seriously and really fought for an intermediate caliber were the British.

            3.) That’s slapping a narrative veneer over the truth. SCHV development had nothing to do with the KurzPatrone, and actually stems from civilian varmint caliber development and pre-war US studies on bullet dynamics.

            4.) Yes, that link exists, but it’s very, very weak. It would be like saying that the Mondragon directly influenced the Japanese Type 5 rifle. See how it sounds absurd when you apply the same standards everyone accepts for the MP.44 to other rifles?

          • Wolfgar

            And which modern assault rifle was influenced by the numerous assault rifles cartridges developed prior to the MP43, not MP44. Many nations first newly developed assault rifles were first made with the 8mm kurz. Of course the FN FAL’s first proto type developed with the 8mm kurz had no influence from the STG-44 using your logic. I’m sure after 18 years the nations thought they could improve upon the German round. Let’s not forget the political back lash if they had accepted a Nazi cartridge.

          • Kivaari

            Nothing I have ever read or seen shows the Vietnamese with anything newer than French M49 rifles and SMGs. As I wrote elsewhere during the last Russian revolution there were Soviet Units with SKSs. Entire companies, not just random pickups like the Balkans. China would have let AKs or SKSs through their territory en-route to VN. Especially so close to the Korean War.

          • Tritro29

            Err which they did only from 1955 onwards, including cases of unashamed swaps, they kept Soviet built weapons and stashed the crates with their own Type 56. This was critical in USSR calling a timeout and using direct ferrying to Viet Nam by boat.

          • Kivaari

            That’s what I saw. China did make some nice firearms for the PAVN. In particular the nicest finished TT33 I ever saw was a “M20”. A friend had one brought back by a USMC Colonel. We couldn’t figure out what it was, until by coincidence the NRA published a small report on it the same month my friend found it.
            I have seen Chinese rifles and pistols that were built to a very high quality. I’ve seen junk as well. China will build guns to the level the customer is willing to pay for.

          • Tritro29

            That’s not true. By 54 the AK rifle was being pushed left and right to people we wanted cool with ze Revolushun. Funland had them, Egypt was interested, zem Vietnamese were too. The AK is a complicated story of international relations.

          • Dave C

            Finland got its first Kalashnikovs from Poland.
            The first Kalashnikov captured in battle was by Dutch troops in Irian Jaya/Western New Guinea from Indonesian forces in 1962.

            The Battle of Dien Bien Phu was fought with much of the U.S. artillery abandoned on the retreat from the Yalu River in the Korean War, which was handed over by the Chi-com PLA to their Viet Minh allies along with the largesse of Nationalist China. The Viet Minh had tons of PPSh41s, PPS43s, DPs, Thompsons, ZB26/30s, 8mm Inglis Bren guns, and even Stens. French automatic rifles and small arms, Japanese WWII weapons, and MP40s from French and possibly Soviet forces. Kalashnikovs did not appear in substantial quantity in Vietnam until 1966 and 1967. The SKS was far more preponderant prior to that.

          • Tritro29

            If your source is The Gun, that’s simply impossible. Poland had not yet started it’s own license production, let alone, “exporting” Type 2/3 AK’s. Overall Poland will only produce 45 000 thousand Type 3 karabineks from 1958 to 1960, then Produce a cleaner milled receiver mod 60 krabinek, then the mod 60/72. With all due respect to CJ Chivers, that means that the only units in Poland to have the AK would be Soviet Occupation troops and Polish MBP, good luck “smuggling” it from there. I don’t even know why Chivers thought that would be a cool story to tell about the Rk 54, because it only makes his book look fishy as a whole.

        • Don Ward

          Bwahahahahahaha. No. Just no.

          Look at the historical pictures and you’ll see the Viet Minh equipped with the standard hodgepodge of World War 2 military surplus.

          • Wolfe

            Read some more.

          • Don Ward

            Yeah. A hazy recollection from a book you read sometime is not a citation. If the Viet Minh used AKs in any great number at Dien Bien Phu, there’d by North Vietnamese propaganda photos available for the searching of this fact. Furthermore, the French would have captured examples of the rifle, given the horrendous casualties sustained by the Viet Minh.

            In actuality, the AK was a well guarded weapon and NATO didn’t get its paws on one until the Hungary Uprising of 1956.

          • Wolfe

            I knew someone was gonna bring up the proverbial Hungary uprising. I read what I read.

          • Kivaari

            I’d sure like to see that in print. Nothing I ever read suggested any Vietnamese troops having such advanced gear. We sent tons of our WW1 gear to them during WW2. Back when Ho was our buddy. Even the French used tons of American gear up to their defeat.

          • Tritro29

            Which is somewhat funny since there’s this rifle NATO got from Funland, called Rk-54/54TP. Guess what does 54 stands for? Nope it isn’t the caliber. NATO had a good look on the milled variant as early as it was available to Funland (which is somewhere around 1953), this was clear to my people as soon as they provided the first 60 rifle batch for trial and evaluation.

          • Kivaari

            Not likely. Everything I have from the Vietnam era has old stuff. Lots of French and Japanese gear. Even P1914 or M1917 Enfields. The newest stuff was freshly captured French 49s. Lots of M36s.

        • Kivaari

          Most of the Soviet Army did not have AKs or SKSs in the early 50s. China didn’t adopt the AK until 56. In the last Russian revolution circa 1989 there were still Soviet troops packing SKSs.

  • Wolfgar

    Thank you Ian and friend for giving an excellent report on the other side of the STG-44 debate. Both sides of the STG-44 debate have merit but be careful, the Nathanial fan boy goblins will throw out the Nazi accusation card for having any opposing opinion LOL. Excellent video.

    • Contrary to popular belief, I have not yet completed work on my mind-control wunderwaffe, so their actions are entirely their own… 😉

      • Wolfgar

        Your work in mine control may not be complete but the effects are far reaching. Thus why I where a tin foil hat when reading your articles.

  • nova3930

    I think they’re both partially right. Technically it wasn’t really anything groundbreaking aside from merging and integrating a collection of other features and designs into one. On the other hand, operationally speaking, it’s historically significant in proving that the concept could be militarily useful on a wider scale.

  • MPWS

    Large part od this discussion is about innovation. But what is innovation, in this specific case? In my mind it is INTEGRATION of all the previous – it is the format, the lay-out if you will it is presented at – in form of Stg44.

    In that sense, dare I say, this layout has not been reached yet with any current Western design (save for SIG550 and FNC; HK36 failed on uber-exuberant use of plastics). For this reason and for properties such as ruggedness, utility and resistance against elements the direct successor of Stg-44, being AK is and will remain ahead to end of our times.

  • Vitor Roma

    One thing that I’ve noted and read but few people comment about the stg is how smooth and controllable it is, even without a muzzle brake.

    • Ian McCollum

      Nicer to shoot than an AK.

      • Don Ward

        Yeah, because the thing weighs 10 freaking pounds! And that’s UNLOADED! That’s not counting the weight of the additional ammo which – as Nathaniel pointed out – is more than a similarly equipped GI with an M1 Garand. An AK weighs 7 pounds. Hell, an M1 Garand weighs 9.5 pounds, and it is considered an overweight pig.

        • My Sturm is lighter than my select fire yugo AK was (and the AK sucked to shoot, badly).

          • It looks like as the war went on poorer and poorer steel was used in thicker and thicker gage, so the gun actually gets heavier as production goes on. 🙂

          • Yeah, no arguments here that the MP.44 is nicer to shoot than Alex’s Yugo, and there are a few reasons for that. One, the KzPtr is a lighter, lower pressure round which gives a steadier recoil impulse. Another is that some AKs have very jarring elastic collisions as their bolt carriers bottom on on the receiver – this is dependent on gas port diameter. You can make a fairly nice shooting 7.62×39 AK, and for example straight-stocked select-fire vz. 58s shoot pretty controllably, though for the aforementioned reasons of weight and impulse the MP.44 will always have an advantage there.

          • Tritro29

            Vz. 58 what?

          • Tritro29

            So what exactly qualifies that PAP M70 as the “average AK” while it clearly is the most Obese of Mishka’s copies out there. With the actual sheet being 50% thicker,it’s what I just said, Obese. The AKM fully loaded is around 8 lb’s. The STG fully loaded is around 11 lbs. Do you see where I’m going with this? Why is it so hard to compare things properly. Why not comparing the S-44 with the STG when we’re at it.

        • Wolfgar

          It also had constant recoil designed in it.

          • Um… No it didn’t.

          • Wolfgar

            Like the MP-40 the recoil is unique to it’s own. To be fare I probably shouldn’t have used the term constant recoil but it is a close cousin. On full auto the STG-44 is second to no other assault rifle. Yes this is my opinion.

          • Wolfgar

            I would have to re-state the best full auto assault rifle I have shot. The 8mm kurz round recoils more than a 5.56. so this is not applicable.I also noticed Larry Vickers agrees with me. 🙂

          • It’s not constant recoil, though.

            Also, you’ve apparently not shot very many assault rifles, or they’ve all been pretty bad.

          • Wolfgar

            I would gather I have been shooting full auto’s longer than you have been alive. Try again.

          • Irrelevant, since your statement is silly. If that’s the way you feel, fine, but back in the real world, there are plenty of full auto assault rifles I’ve shot that were much better than an MP.44, particularly in the areas of not shooting fire out of the ejection port, and not double-feeding.

          • Wolfgar

            Please elaborate on these Superior assault rifles since you are the only one living in the real world and my experience with many full auto assault rifles is silly.

          • Well, let’s start with the pre-A2 M16: It’s way lighter, just as controllable, and works better. Or the vz. 58: It’s lighter, just as controllable with a straight stock, and works better. Or the AK-74: It’s lighter, has world-class controllability, and works better.

          • Wolfgar

            I have shot tens of thousands of rounds through just about every variation of the M-16. I have shot approximately 6 to 7 thousand rounds through the 5.56 Galil ARM. The STG-44 full auto recoil impulse is still superior in my opinion. I have never shot a full auto vz 58 or AK-74.
            I have enjoyed our little discussion tonight Nathaniel and would like to say you are a very good firearm historian. You do bring up many eye opening perspectives and your article on the M-1 Garand was the best I have read to date. Maybe someday we can meet in person and I’ll buy you a beer. I bet with a few beers under our shirts we could really bring out the acid tongues. Till later have a good night.

          • Cheers!

    • Controllable? Yes. Smooth? No, not really.

  • iksnilol

    • Wow, I’ve gone from hating America to being Captain America.

      • iksnilol

        All in a days work.

        Hmmm, maybe I should have switched places of the logos? Nah, while being factually correct it would be weird in regards to not making the remnants of the original Captain America stick out.

      • Ian McCollum

        Ha! Iron Man is way cooler than Captain America. 🙂

        • Don Ward

          Hey. At least Captain America doesn’t let his inventions morph into World threatening villains every time he walks onto the screen.

  • Posted this comment on the video:

    Well, there’s a lot of stuff you address here that I never said. Since I want to represent myself properly, here’s a list of stuff I didn’t argue that you talk about in the video:

    1. I never disputed that the MP.44 was the first assault rifle made in large quantities. I said it wasn’t the first, which is important. In other words, the concept had already been around.

    2. There’s a long section where you talk about the controllability of the MP.44 and assault rifles by extension, which is never something I disputed.

    3. You characterize my argument as “full auto is not useful”, which runs directly contrary to the actual text I wrote. The actual argument I made is that full auto is situational, and the fantasy that some people have of MP.44-armed German troops blazing away and overwhelming the Allies is just that (especially since the Allies had effective fully automatic weapons, too). I very specifically target the idea that “had the MP.44 come sooner, the Allies would have been in trouble.”

    4. My point about many of the rifles not being used either because they weren’t shipped to the front or because they lacked ammunition or magazines was not to say that the rifle wasn’t present on the battlefield in large numbers. The point was that although 500K were made, the Germans had a very difficult time supplying their troops with the weapons, ammunition, and magazines, they had made. This was, as Karl mentioned, a problem for Germany across the board.

    5. I never said the MP.44 was a waste of resources (besides the ones that did not see action, obviously). My point was that it makes sense that Germany would be the early adopter of radical concepts, because of the scatterbrained nature of their development and procurement system.

    6. I never said that the MP.44 had a political doctrine.

    7. Finally, at no point did I say that I thought the M1 or any other weapon for that matter was “better” than the MP.44, nor that I’d rather have something else if for some reason I was called to fight. In fact, I don’t believe that, and I do recognize that the MP.44 is one of the best individual small arms of World War II (though it’s not all alone at the top, things like the SKS and M2 Carbine come to mind). To put your mind at ease, Karl, yes, I’d rather go into battle with an MP.44 than an M1 rifle.

    Just to clear that up!

    • Trey

      Depends on the battle. Desert or tundra (flat) the M1 has a very good range advantage, but for house to house and close to medium quarters yes the MP44 is a more adaptable design.

  • Taofledermaus

    First we need to agree what to call it, STG-44 or MP-44.

  • Don Ward

    The entire reason the Stg44 has its mystique is from a lot of very bad fan-faction/Alternate History daydreams of Germany somehow magicking up millions of these weapons (and billions of rounds of ammo for them) by 1942 and “winning the war”. As if this single bit of kit would offset Germany’s incompetent political and military leadership and the preponderance of military and technological superiority of the Soviets and Western Allies.

    It is rather telling that you don’t see similar fapping over other pieces of technologically advanced weaponry or bad fan-fiction of – say – Mexico reconquering North America because of its hordes of Mondragon equipped Federales. No, it is only German equipment, and particularly Nazi German equipment that gets this treatment. One has to wonder why this is the case.

    As with most German kit captured in World War 2, particularly its overrated Wunderwaffe, the Allies and Soviets had as good or better domestic weapons in the pipeline whether it be jets, night vision, tanks, submarines or – in the case of the Stg44 – individual rifles.

    • I agree. Whether Ian or Karl have had similar encounters or not, it seems like they took the article much more personally than I intended. The article more targeted the kind of people you describe (whom I’ve encountered countless times) with a totally fantastical idea of the rifle and its impact and potential impact on the war.

      • Wolfgar

        I wouldn’t agree. If it was not for German “Nazi” scientist we would not have landed a man on the moon in the time frame JFK had set as a targeted time frame. I know this rubs many people wrong but it is a truth. It does not make me a Nazi or sympathizer as many on this forum love to distract the discussion from. The Germans were ahead in many fields of science and military innovations at that time period yet they got royally and completely defeated. There is a legitimate debate on how important many of the German innovations were during and after the war but I also sense personal bias on both sides of the argument not just one.

        • Don Ward

          We would have gotten to the moon just fine. The Germans did have a slight lead on rocketry. And that’s about it. When it came to aeronautics, atomic energy, metallurgy, medicinal advances and electronics, they were a hopeless mess. Which is no surprise given how the Nazi regime chased out many of Germany’s best and brightest. In fact, you can probably make the argument that the Third Reich was a less advanced nation than that of Kaiser Wilhelm’s Germany just 30 years before in terms of its economic and industrial prowess.

          As for Wunderwaffe, the Nazis were facing giants of industry and science who perfected radar, sonar, super computers, the Atom Bomb, penicillin and countless tricks for improving logistics and mass production.

          And that isn’t even counting how incompetent Germany’s generals were. But that is another story.

          • Wolfgar

            We would not have gotten to the moon in the time frame JFK set without German scientist. Yes the Nazi regime set the nation back in science because of the pathological hatreds and dismissal of some of the best scientist they had who happened to be Jewish which fortunately the US was happy to take in. The Nazi’s were a disaster for the nation of Germany no argument from me. I agree with many of your opinions but on that note we will have to agree to disagree on many of your other opinions.

          • Yeah, Wernher von Braun was really handy to have for launch vehicle design (though his notions on how to conduct a lunar mission were crude), and there were other German scientists like Wendt and Debus, that’s for sure, but the bulk of the hard work was done by good old American scientists.

            Who’s to say what would have happened if we hadn’t had their help, but despite their significant contributions I think their effort has been exaggerated by some.

          • Don Ward

            Indeed. There’s always the flapping of butterfly wings when it comes to historical figures being there or not being there. But as you mentioned, there were plenty of professional American engineers and scientists who did the majority of the lifting… or slide-ruling.

        • What, exactly, does Wernher von Braun have to do with the Sturmgewehr?

          What reason do I have to be biased against the MP.44? And before you say “because you think it’s a Nazi gun!”, ask yourself “what reason does he have to be biased against the M14?” which is a rifle I’ve been much, much harder on in my previous writings.

          • Wolfgar

            You stated your article was directed at what Don Ward described as bad fan-factionl Day Dreams opinion. He stated and you agreed that the Allies had as good or better domestic weapons in the pipe line as the Germans. I just stated the German rocket science as proof they didn’t. I don’t care to get into the other hardware topics so I just mentioned this one. With out the direction and pioneering rocket science of the German scientist “Von Braun and friends” there would have been no 60’s moon landing. You tend to down play this which shows your opinion or bias down playing article on the STG-44. .Any other questions?

          • Yeah, that’s about as weak an argument as they come.

            Have you considered that maybe it wasn’t all a bunch of German scientists put into a pen until they came up with something that would take us to the Moon?

            I mean, for one thing, von Braun himself was not in favor of a Moon mission, but rather creating a space station. Second of all, von Braun was not really a spacecraft designer, but a launch vehicle designer – and it’s not like he worked alone. His contributions to the actual rockets that were developed were very significant and valuable yes, but not only were there alternate plans using rockets he had nothing to do with designing, but so far as I know he (or indeed, any other Paperclip scientist I can think of) had anything do with the development of the actual spacecraft (CSM and LM) that took us to the Moon.

            I may be damned for this, but I’ve spent a decent amount of time on the Internet, and this is a classic German/Nazi fanboy tactic. Say something extreme like “without von Braun the US would have never gotten to the Moon” or “a soldier armed with an StG-44 could have held off an entire platoon of guys armed with Garands!”, and when the other person adopts a more reasonable and moderate position, paint them as trying to discredit the accomplishments of German engineers and scientists and dismiss their opinion as obviously biased.

            That may work with some people, but this is not my first dog and pony show. Your argument falls flat, try again.

          • Wolfgar

            This isn’t my first pony ride either Nathaniel. I met Von Braun a little before his death when he spoke at the U of M in Missoula Mt.. The Apollo rocket was his creation in his and many others opinion whether you agree or not Nathaniel. I never said we would have never gotten to the moon without Von Braun, I said we would not have gotten there in the time frame JFK set without Von Braun. When people call the German ME-262 lame and behind the allies jet development I see a very bias and weak argument yet name calling never enters my discussion. At the begging of WW2 the Germans tactics,small arms and leadership were vastly superior to the nations they defeated. They didn’t conquer Poland, France,Holland, Belgium,Denmark, and Norway, because they sucked. In many cases they defeated much larger and better equipped armies. In the first 2 months of the war the Germans captured more Russian soldiers than the German intelligence knew existed. The tactics were revolutionary compared to the WW1 tactics still being employed.. Like all small arms and history buffs we have our opinions on what we have read and heard from people who were actually there. There are many facts appearing about WW2 that will probably change not only mine but others opinions. I have known many WW2 vets in my life and my uncle was killed at Anzio. Being called a fan boy of a evil murdering regime is very insulting. I could take it personally being called a Nazi fan boy but I just consider the source.

          • Except the Me. 262 is an extremely crude jet that in Allied hands wouldn’t have made it past operational evaluation. If you see bias there, maybe it’s time to re-evaluate what you think about German equipment.

            You never did answer my original question though… If I’m so biased against the Germans, what’s my deal with the M14 or the M1 Garand? Are you going to tell me I’m biased against Québécois, or Springfieldians, too?

            It is seriously inconceivable to you that I just have a different perspective that may actually need to be addressed, instead of you just crying “bias!”?

          • Wolfgar

            The reason I read your articles is the fact that you do have a different perspective that may need to be addressed and I didn’t just cry bias so quit acting like I did. I said there was bias on both sides of the argument. Thus the video we are commenting on. It is you and friends who get bent out of shape and start throwing insults and start name calling to anyone who has an opposing view when WW2 German weapons and technology is debated. I have stated many times your arguments are credible. Like Karl stated in the video the truth usually lies in the middle. If this isn’t satisfactory to you or anyone else, tough titty.

          • “You tend to down play this which shows your opinion or bias down playing article on the STG-44. .Any other questions?”

            Again, you have failed to demonstrate any bias on my part.

            Bias is not someone disagreeing with you. It’s someone believing something because of irrelevant associations they are making.

          • Wolfgar

            I have given not only my opinion-bias but your opinion-bias is also showing. The video we are commenting on countered very well your opinion-bias. Because I and others don’t except your rebuttal as the end of the STG-44 debate you then desperately and pathetically counter with name calling. What are your sources other than your own opinion. I could conclude under your logic the Henry rifle was the first assault rifle or perhaps even earlier rifles. Who gave you the right to set the standard for a true assault rifle. Your lack of acceptance that not all historians agree shows your bias.

          • The video hardly addressed any arguments I actually made.

            I don’t see how the Henry was an assault rifle by any definition, semantics about the term aside.

          • Wolfgar

            Sturmgewehr 44 Operational History:

            on the Eastern Front, the StG44 was used to counter Soviet troops
            equipped with the PPS and PPSh-41 submachine guns. While the StG44 had a
            shorter range than the Karabiner 98k rifle, it was more effective at
            close quarters and could out-range both Soviet weapons. Though the
            default setting on the StG44 was semi-automatic, it was surprisingly
            accurate in full-automatic as it possessed a relatively slow rate of
            fire. In use on both fronts by war’s end, the StG44 also proved
            effective at providing covering fire in place of light machine guns.

            world’s first true assault rifle, the StG44 arrived too late to
            significantly effect the outcome of the war, but it gave birth to an
            entire class of infantry weapons that include famous names such as the AK-47
            and the M16. After World War II, the StG44 was retained for use by the
            East German Nationale Volksarmee (People’s Army) until it was replaced
            by the AK-47. The East German Volkspolizei utilized the weapon through
            1962. In addition, the Soviet Union exported captured StG44s to its
            client states including Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, as well as
            supplied the rifle to friendly guerilla and insurgent groups. In the
            latter case, the StG44 has equipped elements of the Palestine Liberation Organization and Hezbollah. American forces have also confiscated StG44s from militia units in Iraq.

            Nathaniel there are many historians who disagree with your opinion. Are they Nazi fan boys too? I relish your opinion!

          • Wolfgar


            With their speed of more than 200 MPH faster our losses were unacceptable

            Page 1 of 2

            This article is certainly not meant to glorify the German Air
            Force, but to show you many photos of aircraft you may not have seen
            before. Along with the photos will be specifications and comments. The
            German aircraft did have many innovative designs that have stirred the
            minds of history buffs and aviation enthusiasts. Before I begin I would
            like to point out it was fortunate for us that the USAF cleared the
            skies of their aircraft. If given enough time to produce large amounts
            of these aircraft the outcome would have been too close for comfort. I
            believe any military strategist will agree that Germany was more of a
            danger to the entire world than we would like to admit. We are indeed
            fortunate that Adolf Hitler continuously made the mistakes he made.

            I guess not all historians agree with your bias!

          • I have no idea what your source is for either of these, because you didn’t bother to include any citation.

          • Wolfgar

            Since you never bothered to give your source I never bothered to give mine. I stated before Nathaniel opinions are like a certain a body part , we all have one. You know as well as I do historians don’t all agree. Your double standard for sources and opinion on bias are laughable. If you wish to continue this we can.

          • Trey

            Had the opportunity to speak Von Baun’s US Army issue photog. He had a funny story that no one was to take a photo of Werner pointing up at the top of a rocket. .. for obvious reasons!

          • Kivaari

            Germany rolled over other nations because most didn’t think Germans were dumb enough to go to war. Twenty years after the disaster of WW1, what sane nation would want to go through it again? Thankfully Germany bit off more than it could chew. It’s goals were wrong for Germany and the world. Perhaps the greatest failure of France was the static line defense and failing to have adequate communications options. The first thing to go wrong in action is the ability to communicate. Same with police actions. I learned years ago that stuffing my tactical vest with radios and spare batteries was more important than magazines full of ammo.

        • Kivaari

          When asked, Von Braun said he got his ideas from an American, Goddard.

          • Wolfgar

            That is true!

      • Maxcoseti

        “The article more targeted the kind of people you describe”
        I hate to be *that* guy, but if that was the case, then why didn’t you address the points that kind of people make?
        Seems to me that you made some pretty unconvincing arguments, got called out for them, and now you are trying to say something of the level of “well guys, I was just addressing the type of people who believe the Stg44 granted supernatural powers to its user” As opposed to either stand by what you’ve said or admtting you were wrong, just my thoughts.

        • What gave you the impression that I don’t stand by what I said?

      • Brian M

        Nate, I disagree with you on a lot of things, but I agree with you on two in this post: there is too much ‘if only this one thing had been there’ and ‘rifles win wars’.

        Things which most reliably win wars:

        1. Having a larger population.
        2. Having more money.
        3. Having more industry.

        There aren’t many military things which by themselves win wars. The only one I can think of right now is airpower, but even that has been shown to be only partially effective unless there are solid ground gains to take the territory, too.

    • TJbrena

      The popular alt-hist subgenre based on Nazis winning are a product of a few things.

      – Better stuff. The seeming technical superiority of much of their equipment, even stuff that was. That, and the most commonly seen theme with Nazi engineering prowess’ lack of impact being “not enough made/deployed” and/or “not reliable enough”. The idea being that if those two issues had been solved, they would’ve made the vaunted German Blitzkrieg nigh-unstoppable.

      – Wunderwaffen. Their scatterbrained R&D approach served them well in this manner. That system of space mirrors in Die Another Day that focused the sun’s light into a weapon? Nazis thought of it and thought that they could make it happen in 5-10 years. They had so many outlandish sci-fi and occult projects that Kraut Space Magic ended up retroactively being a well-known part of the Third Reich.

      It’s ignored that most of it was heavily flawed or flat-out stupid, because their vaunted engineering prowess ended up boosting the credibility of the “what if X wunderwaffe worked and was deployed?” scenarios.

      Not to mention a million other things that either made it into some degree of use in the war, or influenced and benefited the victors after the war. Stuff like proto-IRBMs (V2), assault rifles being issued in significant numbers (StG), the stealthy Ho. 229 jet, and other such things.

      – Nazis are evil. The most alluring part of these alt-hist scenarios is the terrifying implications of the Allies being defeated and conquered by the most deplorable regime in world history (even if they didn’t technically kill as many of their own citizens as Stalin and Mao, they did have the whole genocide and planned genocide of anyone non-Aryan thing). The Nazi tech just adds “plausibility” to these scenarios and makes it even tougher for potential resistance forces.

      While Nazi tech was overrated, much of it and its creators worked up such a reputation after WW2 that the more reasonable and outlandish projects alike benefited in fiction. Add in supernatural stuff like Indy dealt with, and the possibilities are too rich and too fun for writers to pass up.

    • Tritro29

      If incompetence is overrunning Continetal Europe with the skill of Dom Juan on them ladies, then sure Ze Germans were Incompetent. This is a factually wrong idea about Germans having “incompetent military” and “political” Elites.

      It stems from the Cold War antics that would range Soviet Victory on a couple of fairly “good flukes” like General Winter, Soviet Strategic depth, Raw manpower, Asian Misanthropy, German Incompetence, Hitler having only one ball and no brain, Lend Lease (oh fu** that one). Simply put, Americans have created this mythology along with the Honor of the Wehrmacht and the shame of the SS and other ideologically steered crap in the Western World.

      In many cases their conclusions on mass behaviour and political patrolling, were taken almost unchanged and applied directly to two sets of completely different societies, one “Free” and the other “Not Free”. Being born and bred in a “Not Free” Society I could feel the “Nazi Incompetence” first hand.

      Their breakouts were also directly taken from Transfuge German scientists or outright captured personel. This doesn’t mean they were Uber Menschen, only that the Intellectual Capital was there and was spoilt for war as a mean to pull of the greatest robbery in the History of the Human kind (AKA National Socialist Autarchy). Ironically, that plan would be needed right now for most European Countries given than the Public debt that fueled Hitler’s path towards war is currently deeper for every first tier European economy.

      While you guys don’t seem to get where it came from, I do and it’s painful that it still fuels paradoxal findings about Nazi Germany.

      If they were military and politically inept what does that make of the Western Powers? If they were doomed to fail why did it took an alliance with the other Anti-Christ to win?

      Most German kit that was captured in WW2 answers to a set of imperatives the Germans had. The most interesting part is the lack of textiles and good shoes for the landsers. Yet they had far better precision engineering compared to most armies they faced. Including Hugo Boss engineering for their Uniforms ;-).

      Germany is a case of a “good guy” gone amok. It’s now the mainstay of European Economy and it was destined to be so by the end of 1920’s from projections before the WW1. When looking at it closely, you’d find that’s the way a decent nation might end when treated unfairly by other great powers. If you look at how the whole Nazi Agenda started, you’d notice that the guilt about Hitler growing isn’t on Germany alone. A defeated Nation in a war they did not started* and which served to spoil them from their own little white man empire, is nothing to sneeze at in terms of revenge. In a sense you can have that feeling with mya Rodina after the Cold War. And you guys done the same kind of stupid mistake once more. Now you complain you’ve got to deal with Putin. I hope there won’t be any of the similar fallout with Ded Botox, because indeed there’s some crazy good innovative ideas on how to eradicate mankind coming from my side.

      *It’s more complicated, but still factually correct.

      • Wolfgar


      • Brian M

        Very good. Sehr gut. Can I save this to my computer, please?

    • Trey

      Yup.. the StG44 just looks like a wonder weapon. ! while the M2 carbine looks so “dated” .. wow that sounds like one of the.. house hunters shows.. maybe we need “gun hunters” 😉

  • snmp

    US M1/M2 Carbine and PPSH41 have the same performance and the same tacticals effective combat range.

    • Don Ward

      Truth! While weighing almost half as much as the Stg44 to boot in the case of the M1/M2 carbine (six pounds, unloaded vs 10 pounds unloaded).

      The Ppsh41 is around 8 pounds btw.

  • Shmoe

    While I agree with a lot of it, I think they misconstrues some of Nathaniel’s points. Nathaniel’s articles are some of my favourite on TFB, and Forgotten Weapons is an absolute gem, so the only answer would seem to be: an EPIC RAP BATTLE OF HISTORIC FIREARMS!

    • I’m terrible with verse, though…

      • Shmoe

        Yeah, and Ian wears that silly hat, I figure it’ll all even out…somehow.

  • Stan Darsh

    Wow! Did finch actually say “I mean, for one thing, von Braun himself was not in favor of a Moon mission.”

  • Tritro29

    Aww shuck, what have I done ;-). I mean people, it was a good thread with a lot of knowedge, tact, sportivity, and Nate F. said exactly what he meant by it. It was a respectable opinion, with some POV that weren’t shared by everyone (starting by me). That’s it.

  • guest

    Since we are on topic of TFB staff opinion, here are a few other gems:

    – Garand rifle is the granddady of everything and everyone for that matter. The moment TFB staff are born, the first sound they make is a “plinnnng” with an empty 8-shot clip ejected from their mouths.
    – AK is not an assault rifle. It just looks and acts like one.
    – If a rifle does not have a myriad of accessories, or not covered in keymod/weaver rails, it’s useless.
    – If a rifle does not look tacticool it is probably not lethal and not worth mentioning.
    – Rifles with removed stocks and chopped barrels are “pistols”, and by the way buy a “brace” for your “pistol” too!
    – John Moses Browning was the father of Jesus.
    – Don’t buy Glocks. Buy guns that looks like Glocks, shoot like Glocks and are inetrnally almost identical copies of Glocks. BTW here is an article about an “exciting” and “new” AR and a “new” polymer framed pistol with a striker.

    Did I miss something? 🙂

  • Wolfgar

    That’s Long Shank’s from brave heart, and The Scare Crow from Disney. No way is he German.

  • Well, no wonder he didn’t cite his source. It’s a Web 1.0 webpage with no citations of its own.

  • TJbrena

    Ironic isn’t it? Despite their Blitzkrieg strategy, they stuck with horses a lot. Didn’t slow them down too much though.

    I remember hearing a criticism of Bernard Montgomery that was a stark contrast to that. Specifically that despite having a mechanized army, he moved his at the speed of a horse-drawn one.

  • Dolphy

    What can I say? Nat has enough brains to realize he’s clever, but not enough to realize he can be wrong.