It's often be wondered had German introduced this weapon back in 1943 the odds for a better outcome would have been slightly improved. However at the time it was argued that introducing a new ammunition type which was incompatible with any other weapon didn't make sense. My logic is that if a 100,000 a month were made throughout 1943, you would need Billions of rounds of munitions. So my question is to anyone with experience using assault rifles; how many rounds on average would you need to fire off before being proficient with the weapon?
1. If you aren't born with innate marksmanship skills you should just give up and die.
SO; how many round would you need to fire to know if your a marksman?
0.
I fired 754 rounds of 5.56 from an M4 in basic, and that was with no training on burst fire.
So say on average about 1,000 Rounds. Therefore to train 100,000 men you'd need a 100 Million rounds of ammo. Plus, its clip take 32 Rounds, and you're carry say 200 rounds spare. So it was a logical decision not to introduce this weapons, as munition production was beyond Germanys capability.
They must've been going through budget cuts when I went cus I only fired maybe a couple hundred rounds. And we didn't use any other weapons other than live frag grenades
Not OP. 754 rounds gives you a relatively high degree of proficiency, probably within the realm of diminishing returns for grunt standards. I wanna say you’d have good enough proficiency after one mag. Go through the manual of arms live once, fire a mag, get a feel for the control of the gun, and that’s probably good enough for the average soldier. They’ll only get better as they go through subsequent magazines. But I’m a neverserved, just going off intuition and personal experience shooting guns.
>I wanna say you’d have good enough proficiency after one mag. Go through the manual of arms live once, fire a mag, get a feel for the control of the gun, and that’s probably good enough for the average soldier.
Absolutely not. Changing mags, reloading etc. that's shit you practice hundreds of times so it's muscle memory and you can do it in any circumstance. And that doesn't even take into account the shooting itself. In war you're not at a shooting range going at your own pace.
it would take just a simple explanation if you already have marksmanship training. truthfully the idea of select fire weapons is only useful for CQC and specific suppression actions. otherwise it is just a rifle. early assault rifle doctrine suffered from infantries tendency to mag dump. so after receiving rifle training, it would take about 2 hours. but if you are starting from no knowledge it is the regular 6 months of training. however knowledge training usually only takes about 4 weeks. most of the rest is conditioning.
9,001
>http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html
>All things considered, the Sturmgewehr remains a bulky, unhandy weapon, comparatively heavy and without the balance and reliability of the U.S. M1 carbine. Its design appears to be dictated by production rather than by military considerations. Though far from a satisfactory weapon, it is apparent that Germany's unfavorable military situation makes necessary the mass production of this weapon, rather than of a machine carbine of a more satisfactory pattern.
I say on a small-arms level, the STG going more G3 (if marginally so) would because of testing and earlier field-results feedback would be a best case scenario.
>All things considered, the Sturmgewehr remains a bulky, unhandy weapon, comparatively heavy and without the balance and reliability of the U.S. M1 carbine
>proceeds to replace everything with M14s
why was ordnance like this
Army Ordnance and Navy BuOrd were both giant lolcows throughout the whole damn war.
Fricked up the 20mm Hispano. Fricked up the torpedos. Fricked up literally copying an MG42 in .30-06. And that's just the big laughs.
>bulky, unhandy weapon
and now we have the xm7 lmao
The Stg is over 10 pounds, so that's a pretty reasonable assessment when put against the m1 carbine.
as a special forces operator I can pick up a weapon without having any prior knowledge of it and be completely familiarized with its manual of arms and performance without having to fire more than 5 rounds. when you're in a firefight with tangos and you've run out of ammo for your primary you don't have a choice to slowly cozy up to a gun, I've had to fight insurgents with junk AKs with no attachments off of the ground and each time I've gotten out the winner. usually though if I have a choice I run an AN-94 with a suppressor and an ACOG cause it does massive damage and is quiet and accurate, my buddies call me Ninja now because I got 120 kills that way. Pic related is me on op, I got 20 frags that day
no wunderwaffe or wunderplan would have saved germany because it was fighting an impossible war the moment the US started assisting the allies.
The US Marines set a good standard for riflemen across the world
This is standard rifle training, but with additional advanced weapons training, long range shooting and destructive weaponry can be utilized as standard.
These force multipliers allow squad units to engage targets at long ranges, as well as take on armored vehicles, large groups of infantry, and fortified positions.
As the rifle training is tightly regulated, we can account for the total rounds used as a cost.
Here is additional data on the total number of rounds fired to complete rifle training.
"Proficient" is a broad term. Some will take less than 100 rounds to become enough, others will fire 1k rounds and only be half as effective.
On average, a man with 500 rounds and a varied training course, with 100 rounds a year for maintenance, will be on the top 10% of marksmanship. It would take 1k rounds and 300 rounds a year for top 1%, probably 5k, 500 a month for top 0.1%.
t. Amateur competitive shooter; less than 1k rounds fired in 5 years, routinely get top 10% positions
You must also consider that they have to introduce them to rifles themselves, including safety and maintenance.
Many people have been shooting, especially hunting, and doing marksmanship long before they perform qualifications. While others have never really handled a rifle in their life. The idea is to get everyone to the same baseline of around 500 yards with a rifle. This works with the 5.56 and the 6.8 cartridges, which are standard issue. These cartridges have less kinetic power and effective deadly range than the 7.62x51/308, which are used for long distance shooting, as well as the 50 BMG, which has immense kinetic power.
OP asked about "proficiency" alone, so obviously the factors you mentioned are not accounted.
Also yes, pistols and rifles and even shotguns are different platforms and should be treated as such, with some synergy between them. Pistols are the most difficult to train with, followed by rifles and shotguns. Id say knowing all three is a must, and you will be more naturally inclined towards one more than the other two. Then there are subdivisions on them, such as fullsize and subcompact pistols, precision and SBRs, semi and pump shotguns....