Why did the STG44 not catch on after WW2?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Exile

The Exile

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2015
Messages
292
Location
Minnesota
No one really adopted the thing after the war, not even either of the two German states, although I suppose the Soviets wanted everyone using AKs and the West Germans didn't even want an army for a few decades after what the Nazis did; but once Nato was a thing except for the Americans of course seems like everyone jumped on the FAL bandwagon.

Was there anything about the STG design wise that held it back, did those damn evil Belgians just want everyone to buy from FN, some kind of weird internal politics? What?
 
The MP44 was a pretty crudely built gun - it had to be for a German war machine that wasn't getting enough of anything by late in the war. The "kurz" round and pistol grip assault rifle layout were worth copying, but the gun itself really wasn't.

The AK is a hodgepodge of different stolen ideas, but it took the "kurz" round directly from the MP44. The FAL uses the same short-stroke piston and tilting bolt action as the MP44, and was original chambered in an intermediate type round, so it's not actually all that different than the German design. I think Saive was working on some related designs for years before the Strumgewehr though - which would make the shoulder-locking action more coincidence than direct ripoff.
 
Last edited:
I suppose that no NATO country adopted it because it was the wrong caliber and Russia pretty much dictated that the Warsaw Pact nations had to have AKs.
 
It used extensive metal stampings which to many professional military folks meant cheap and lousy quality.
As far as Germany goes, from what I remember, a lot of that stamping machinery was toted off to mother Russia after the war. Most other competing designs at the time used forged and milled receivers etc. Even the Russians had problems with stampings and had to temporarily go back to milled and forged receivers for the AK. It's truest offspring derived from German engineers that worked on the STG would be the Spanish CETME, especially the early prototype designs, where you can see the resemblance.
 
East Germany did equip at least parts of their forces with the StG, so saying it wasn't adopted isn't accurate. There are pictures out there somewhere showing East German troops (or police maybe) marching with them. Otherwise, the Russians had already developed both the M43 7.62x39 and the AK itself from the StG and the Western World hadn't yet fully embraced the intermediate cartridge. As mentioned above, the CETME (and G3 and MP5) have a lineage starting with the StG but until the MP5 the rifles used full sized cartridges (.308).
 
The great stumbling block was the cartridge. The US bulldozed NATO into adopting the 7.62X51. Even the British had to give up their .280 round, so the Germans could hardly expect to go it alone.
 
boom boom said:
It used extensive metal stampings which to many professional military folks meant cheap and lousy quality.
As far as Germany goes, from what I remember, a lot of that stamping machinery was toted off to mother Russia after the war. Most other competing designs at the time used forged and milled receivers etc. Even the Russians had problems with stampings and had to temporarily go back to milled and forged receivers for the AK. It's truest offspring derived from German engineers that worked on the STG would be the Spanish CETME, especially the early prototype designs, where you can see the resemblance.
Click to expand...

The Gerat 06 was not perfect, and this video by forgotten weapons is an excellent resource to understand the weapon better:

Slow Motion: Gerät 06 (German WWII Prototype)



Last Ditch Innovation: The Development of the Gerat 06 and Gerat 06H Rifles



This is from wiki:

Heckler & Koch G3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_&_Koch_G3

The Gerät 06 would later be adopted as the StG 44 (Sturmgewehr 44 or assault rifle). It was realized that with careful attention to the mechanical ratios, the gas system could be omitted.[4] The resultant weapon, the Gerät 06H (the "H" suffix is an abbreviation for halbverriegelt or "half-locked") was assigned the designation StG 45(M) (Sturmgewehr 45(M) or assault rifle) but was not produced in any significant numbers and the war ended before the first production rifles were completed.[5]

The German technicians involved in developing the StG 45(M) were taken to work in France at CEAM (Centre d'Etudes et d'Armement de Mulhouse). The StG 45(M) mechanism was modified by Ludwig Vorgrimler and Theodor Löffler at the Mulhouse facility between 1946 and 1949. Three versions were made, chambered in .30 Carbine, 7.92×33 mm Kurz as well as the experimental 7.65×35 mm French short cartridge developed by Cartoucherie de Valence in 1948. A 7.5×38 mm cartridge using a partial aluminium bullet was abandoned in 1947. Löffler's design, designated the Carabine Mitrailleuse Modèle 1950, was retained for trials among 12 different prototypes designed by CEAM, MAC, and MAS. Engaged in the Indochina War and being the second[clarification needed] NATO contributor, France canceled the adoption of these new weapons for financial reasons.

Basically Vorgrimler and his design team eventually designed a superior weapon: the G3 rifle. I own a PTR91, which is a civilian version of the weapon, and I think highly of the weapon.

pktSrUt.jpg


Firstly, it is cheap to manufacture. The Germans learned this lesson from WW2, where entire Armies and assets representing years worth of production were lost in Russia in months. American's are pretty ignorant of the vast losses of men and material that occurred on the Eastern Front, both Soviet and German. But the Germans remembered. And one thing that came out of that war, it was more important to make new weapons fast, than wasting labor and money attempting to repair or refurbish beat up weapons. And, given the lifetime of a Soldier was around 9 months, the most likely outcome for a Soldier and his weapon was that both would be rotting away in some shell hole before long. Given the millions that died on the Eastern front, it did not make a lot of sense to issue expensive weapons that lasted 90 years.

So, the G3 was cheap to build, only a few components required high grade steel and/or skilled machinists. The receiver is a stamping that is welded together. The locking ring is pressed in the receiver and the barrel is pinned in place. I believe the weapon is disposable, though it can be rebarreled. The gas mechanism, the "half locked" roller bolt and chamber flutes, are pure genius. Volgrimmer and his team were able to eliminate a gas system by turning the weapon into a delayed blowback weapon.

Previous high powered delayed blowbacks required oiled, pre greased, or waxed cartridges in order to function. As Chin says in his Vol IV

IYKqBZA.jpg

Chamber flutes broke the friction between case and chamber. Using fluted chambers and a carefully designed roller bolt locking system, eliminated oilers, eliminated the gas system. The weapon was much cheaper to make, and simpler to operate.

aqcYBkl.jpg

Vc1VdfW.jpg

tKbMyEA.jpg

6veupwu.jpg

Bzxm4B1.jpg

dYqJWST.jpg


The G3 design is very simple to take apart, clean. Spring tension makes the bolt head assembly a finger buster unless you have a spring compressor, but, it works. It turns out eh G3 or HK91 rifle is the only full power (308 Win) battle rifle that is still in production and standard issue today. All the contenders, particularly the FN/FAL and M14 were simply too expensive to make.

The American Army learned the wrong lessons from the end of WW1, even though artillery killed at least 60 to 80 percent of infantry, the Superior board focused attention on the individual Soldier, his rifle, and long range marksmanship. This is the origin of the great pre WW2 Camp Perry events. The Army believed in accurate long range shooting. It takes years to develop good long range shooting abilities, and even though it is pretty safe to say, that all (pick your own number) of the highly trained pre WW2 shooters were dead in some foxhole, with their rusting rifle, before one year went by, but again, at the end of WW2 when the Garand needed to be replaced, the US Army did not want a cartridge of lesser power than the 30-06. The WW1 era cartridges were all based on flat trajectories out to thousands of yards; just look at the rear sights of the weapons of the period.

US Rifle, Model 1903
NnlTBzE.jpg

Swiss K31
2p7btsr.jpg

The pre WW2 US Army shot 1000 yard events during the National Matches, they really thought they would be shooting down enemy artillerymen, machine gunners, mortar teams at that distance, or beyond. The STG44 was based on a mid range round which was a concept that the US Army did not accept after WW2. And, the US Army wanted a weapon that was only slightly different from the Garand. If you ever interact with Baby, what you find is that Baby likes his porridge, wants something tastier, but not too different, and if the porridge is radically different, Baby pukes it out.

The US Army only adopted the 5.56 in the earlier 60's because the Secretary of Defense forced it down Baby's throat. It was not a happy time, I believe we were better off with the 7.62 cartridge and the M14, but that was 1964 and a lot has happened since them. However, given the Infantry's pathological resistance to change, the 5.56 is going to stay in inventory for at least another 60 years. But, going back to post WW2, the Germans were going to be good boys and use whatever NATO wanted to use. And whatever the US Army wanted to use, that pretty much determined the NATO cartridge. And given that the Kurtz was not a 30-06 short, the STG44 would have been out of the picture anyway.
 
Last edited:
The U.S. killed it. Most free world countries followed our lead, and the dinosaurs on the ordnance board wanted a light cannon instead of a rifle. we got the M-14, and the other side was smart enough to go with the AK.
 
Actually the AK is the light cannon. It weighs within a couple of ounces or so of the M14, the magazines are heavier. The cartridge has less penetration than the 7.62X51mm NATO -- an important consideration in jungle fighting. I used an M14 (pre-M21 sniper version) during my second tour in Viet Nam and would not trade it for an AK 47.
 
They are heavy, but really next to a "full power battle rifle" not that heavy...or out of line. Also the thinking at the time...in the west... was you need a "real" rifle cartridge still. They still thought you are going to be shooting at the other side across 6 football fields....at least it was down from the 20 football fields in the first world war. This was also before really special weapons...everyone got the same rifle.

Just too ahead of its time,

One last thing, you are never going to sell me on the soviets did not steal the idea.....no way did that guy come up with the AK without playing with the german one first. It is not like this guy had been building guns his entire life...out of the blue and wammo the AK....not going to buy it....and like the other poster said they tried to do it the german way with stampings....but the soviets could not do something in peace time that the germans did with round the clock bombing and all the metal coming from downed american and british bombers. Nope.

And gunny have you got to shoot one? They are very nice to shoot....very controllable....not real fast, just right, My first time I could get 1-2-3 rounds out of it....reminded me of an AK very much.
 
fpgt72 said:
They are heavy, but really next to a "full power battle rifle" not that heavy...or out of line. Also the thinking at the time...in the west... was you need a "real" rifle cartridge still. They still thought you are going to be shooting at the other side across 6 football fields....at least it was down from the 20 football fields in the first world war. This was also before really special weapons...everyone got the same rifle.

Just too ahead of its time,

One last thing, you are never going to sell me on the soviets did not steal the idea.....no way did that guy come up with the AK without playing with the german one first. It is not like this guy had been building guns his entire life...out of the blue and wammo the AK....not going to buy it....and like the other poster said they tried to do it the german way with stampings....but the soviets could not do something in peace time that the germans did with round the clock bombing and all the metal coming from downed american and british bombers. Nope.

And gunny have you got to shoot one? They are very nice to shoot....very controllable....not real fast, just right, My first time I could get 1-2-3 rounds out of it....reminded me of an AK very much.
Click to expand...
Haven’t shot it yet. Been so busy over the last two years that I haven’t been able too take it out to the range. But I do have 60 rounds of 7.29x33 in my desk drawer.
BD5925B5-39A7-47C0-B8C6-F3F51043CEBB.jpeg
0F197825-3211-4070-BB71-E4ADB0B355FB.jpeg
 
No way the US was going to adopt a Nazi gun. The MG42 was a perfect example. Clearly superior to the 1919. They took the basic premise and turned it into the M60 which was nowhere near as good as the 42

The Yugo military had them in inventory also Czechoslovakia. In Iraq we found a fairly large inventory of them in storage. They have been used currently in Syria.
 
fpgt72 said:
They are heavy, but really next to a "full power battle rifle" not that heavy...or out of line. Also the thinking at the time...in the west... was you need a "real" rifle cartridge still.
.
Click to expand...
The AK 47 and the M14 are within a few ounces of each other. And the need for a real rifle is based on the need for penetration -- people will get behind things when you shoot at them (done it myself). An M14 will shoot through or chew through logs, dirt berms and so on.
 
I was going to say a shorter version of what Slamfire said.

•The Germans lost, the winners choose what they want to arm themselves with.
•The US wanted a shorter version of the 30-06 and since we were paying the bills we got what we wanted.

Look at what the British wanted, an EM-2 in a .280 cartridge. Since we were paying the bills they went with a 7.62x51 NATO that we wanted in an L1A1.

That EM-2/.280 got scrapped too.
 
JONWILL said:
No way the US was going to adopt a Nazi gun. The MG42 was a perfect example. Clearly superior to the 1919. They took the basic premise and turned it into the M60 which was nowhere near as good as the 42

The Yugo military had them in inventory also Czechoslovakia. In Iraq we found a fairly large inventory of them in storage. They have been used currently in Syria.
Click to expand...

The 42, the answer to the question of how fast is too fast.
 
fpgt72 said:
The 42, the answer to the question of how fast is too fast.
Click to expand...


I can tell you that no one wanted to come up against it. There were Army training films dedicated to showing how ineffective it was compared to US Machine Guns because of the psychological impact of the rate of fire.
It wasn’t a problem slowing the rate of fire down. The MG3 was a copy in 7.62x51 and it was slower
 
1. peace broke out
2. there were literally millions of surplus guns around. No need for new ones.
3. Russia was the only major power doing intensive small arms development based on lessons learned from WW2, and it took them years to get the stamping part right.
 
It's also worth mentioning, like others have said, that the US either didn't understand or didn't appreciate the kurz round concept. There is a part in CJ Chivers' The Gun (kind of a disjointed book but a good one, I'd recommend it if you're a gun guy) where he talks about the US stealing some AKs from East Germany shortly after their introduction and taking them back to Aberdeen for testing. The evaluators thought it was a submachine gun, and were baffled why the Soviets were making them standard issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The Exile
  • Locked
Why did the 7.62x51 cartridge come out of the WW2 era?
2 3 4 5
Replies
121
Views
4K
Robert
Robert
S
  • Locked
The AK and the AR/My conclusion taking history into account.
Replies
13
Views
758
Thin Black Line
T
P
  • Locked
My experience so far with my Century L1A1 FAL
Replies
17
Views
10K
Z-Michigan
Z
S
  • Locked
I thought I would share a family hierloom with everyone
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
7 Rivers
7
P
  • Locked
for all the HK haters
Replies
9
Views
843
TechBrute
T
Back
Top