So what would've been the ideal German WWII standard caliber with hindsight and some modern knowledge applied? With the assumption that the switch is made BEFORE the war of course.
>inb4 NOTHING MATTERS HISTORY IS DETERMINISTIC
Don't care, didn't ask. Don't be gay and have fun.
>Option A: 8mm Mauser for MGs + something 5.56ish for the rest of the squad.
>Option B: A modern 6.5mm Mauser cartridge across the board?
>Option C: Idk, impress me.
>A advantages:
Best full power cartridge of the war available for machine guns with a large stock of reserves ready.
Best intermediate caliber of the cold war making automatic weapon design relatively easy due to its low recoil and allowing a single squad to take on 2-3 times as many bolt-action based squads without greater issue.
With less than half the weight, soldiers could carry over twice the amount of 5.56 ammo compared to 8mm Mauser ammo.
With hindsight applied 8mm could immediately switch over to the S.m.E. lg version, which was supposed to be a material saving measure by using less lead and other scarce metals, but lengthening the steel projectile to keep the weight the same actually made it more accurate due to a superior BC.
>A disadvantages:
MG ammo still needs to be carried and can't be used to restock the rest of the squad.
5.56 being a bit anemic at range might lead to greater adoption of soviet steel breastplates (though that should only be an issue at range).
More complicated logistics.
>B advantages:
Simplified logistics, everybody has one cartridge.
Modern 6.5mm designs should be just-as-good as WWII 8mm designs even at range in most situations.
MG ammo carriers can restock squad.
>B disadvantages:
Gotta set up new production first.
A lot of old stock of rifles and ammo becomes a lot less useful.
Automatic standard rifle design becomes much less easy, but if we assume hindsight I guess we can just throw some kind of G3 in there and base the MG off it as well in form of the improved HK21 for both scenarios.
it doesn't matter because infantry small arms don't matter.
Bump because it's one of the few /k/ threads active right now among a sea of /misc/ nonsense.
I disagree. If we assume G3s as the standard armament in some cartridge or another they'd probably take the entire British army as POWs in France, leading to swift peace talks.
>why
Mobility.
8mm Kurz
^this
>image
lol
Probably his worst piece of art, but very iconic.
This is probably the most pseudo-intellectual take on /k/.
Of course they matter, especially in a conflict low on artillery and mechanized forces like the eastern front.
>a conflict low on artillery and mechanized forces like the eastern front.
>eastern front
>low on artillery and mechanized forces
front
>>low on artillery and mechanized forces
Both is true, compare it to the western front. Plus, since the soviets literally had 4-6 times less transport vehicles in their artillery divisions they could literally only shoot what they could see for most of the war because they forgot the whole spotting thing.
Well, that and pre-planned artillery strikes which often did absolutely nothing because
>soviet planning
Anon, of the ~100 or so divisions that stepped off for Barbarossa, 90+ of them were infantry, with horse-drawn carts for carrying artillery and supplies. The myth of the fully mechanized, modern Wehrmacht was just that. A myth.
>Anon, of the ~100 or so divisions that stepped off for Barbarossa, 90+ of them were infantry, with horse-drawn carts for carrying artillery and supplies. The myth of the fully mechanized, modern Wehrmacht was just that. A myth.
Hey Black person moron, nobody said anything even closely resembling that.
What remains true is that German artillery formations still had 4-6 times more transport vehicles during barbarossa.
they'd still have lost but slower.
Ideally, it would have been 8x57 as the standard MG cartridge with 8x33 development being finalized before war begins and work on the Mkb42 starts earlier than it did and it was the highest priority for development the standard infantry rifle. In my ideal scenario, it'd be MG34s (assuming MG42 is in development)along with StG38s (final iteration of StG44 adopted in 1938). German industry also needs to put in place the "rationalization" program they implemented in 1942 before the war to increase output of weapons. Standardization on 8mm weapons allows for simplification on barrel blanks, 9mm production can be cut down to just a fraction of what it was historically (RIP MP38/MP40), and the material savings in 8x33 vs 8x57 as the standard allows Germany to delay the propellant shortage it experienced in 1945. Having an StG as the primary service rifle gives German infantry an undisputed advantage in firepower over any other nation by 1939, offsetting their inherent disadvantage in manpower especially against the Soviet Union.
>with 8x33 development being finalized before war begins
Why not a better design than that though? I mean basing it on the Mauser is not a bad idea, but I'm sure we can do better.
Because historically, the HWa wanted the intermediate cartridge in development to share the majority of tools and gauges in use with 8x57 which 8x33 allows for. Additionally, barrel blanks for the anticipated millions of StGs can be sourced from the same suppliers that historically supplied the millions of blanks for K98ks, MGs, etc with minimal changes to barrel inspection gauges and equipment. 8x33 is a fine cartridge for what it was intended to do (combat within 400m) and served admirably as it was.
>Because historically, the HWa wanted the intermediate cartridge in development to share the majority of tools and gauges in use with 8x57 which 8x33 allows for.
I'm aware of the historical reasoning due to late war shortages, but aside from those not being an issue before the war or in one that went terribly wrong, I was actually asking why you'd go with the original Kurz instead of one that has all of those advantages, but is a better design.
I.e. maybe include the changes made to the bullet mentioned here
>With hindsight applied 8mm could immediately switch over to the S.m.E. lg version, which was supposed to be a material saving measure by using less lead and other scarce metals, but lengthening the steel projectile to keep the weight the same actually made it more accurate due to a superior BC.
Or something similar that would end up as a better cartridge overall.
I mean the kurz was good, but it suffered from the same issues the soviets did with their fat intermediate cartridge.
>I'm aware of the historical reasoning due to late war shortages, but aside from those not being an issue before the war or in one that went terribly wrong, I was actually asking why you'd go with the original Kurz instead of one that has all of those advantages, but is a better design.
The compatibility issue was a pre war concern, it's why the existing prewar 7x45 Polte and 7x39.1 DWM cartridges were not considered for adoption when cartridge development was underway in 1939. 8x33 was finalized in 1940 historically and was always destined to use SmE bullets (which it did from beginning to end). The case length was made a function of the WaA calculations that only half the powder volume of 8x57 is necessary to produce their desired performance. Even a Polte 7.9x45 cartridge was tested and found undesirable as the extra case length was wasted given what the HWa was looking for out of the cartridge (longer cases neccesitate a longer action on your rifle as well). If war is set to break out in 1939 in this timeline, the disadvantages in the ballistics of the 8x33 are more than offset by the inherent advantage of fielding a good intermediate cartridge and rifle before anyone else.
>8x33 was finalized in 1940 historically and was always destined to use SmE bullets (which it did from beginning to end)
The SmE lg is a bit different and only became a thing in 42, anon.
>the disadvantages in the ballistics of the 8x33 are more than offset by the inherent advantage of fielding a good intermediate cartridge and rifle before anyone else.
Is it good though, anon? Is it?
Or is it just acceptable?
I'm not saying I'm about to travel to the past and need your input to save the Reich, but if I were, would you want that to be your contribution to a thousand years of human progress as we conquer the stars?
8x33?
>The SmE Ig is a bit different and only became a thing in 42, anon.
The same thing was applied to 8x33. It's just that the weight savings of already using a smaller bullet in 8x33 made its use not as impactful as it was with 8x57.
>Is it good though, anon? Is it?
>Or is it just acceptable?
>I'm not saying I'm about to travel to the past and need your input to save the Reich, but if I were, would you want that to be your contribution to a thousand years of human progress as we conquer the stars?
>8x33?
Considering that rearmament only really started in 1933 and war breaks out in 1939, that only leaves us 6 years with 1930s tech to save the Reich. Rushing and pushing 8x33 and the StG44 is feasible given the constraints. I'm not expecting to make a super cartridge that will last until the Reich invents laser weapons. Also, it's not the individual ballistics of the cartridge that are vital here, it's the effective implementation of the intermediate cartridge into warfare itself that's the key component. The foundation of the assault rifle in the military and its increase in a unit's firepower are far more important and are going to be what gives Germany a decisive advantage over everyone else when war breaks out. That would be my legacy for the 1000 year Reich.
>I'm not expecting to make a super cartridge that will last until the Reich invents laser weapons.
8MM KURZ ON MARS
What's the source of that book, anon?
And if you want to do something about the propellant shortages, check this out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_cm_PAW_600
>What's the source of that book, anon?
"Sturmgewehr! From Firepower to Striking Power" by Hans-Dieter Handrich. It's a fantastic book on the development, production, and fielding of the StG44. It includes the trials reports from the Mkb42 and MP43/I field trials and ammunition development as well.
>PAW600
Neat.
>Hans-Dieter Handrich
Never have I heard a name that filled me with greater trust in fire arms expertise.
>Neat.
The concept was basically made redundant by modern missiles, but we still use it for underslung grenade launchers and the like. Pretty cool stuff.
8x33 is shit.
No civilized country adoptrdsuch shit round in end. Only 3rd world shitholes like USSR did... and even they abandoned that is turd.
>8x33 is shit.
NTA
Best standard round of WWII.
No one adpoted 8x33 due to geopolitics with denazification, NATO standardization dictated by an American insistence on full power .30 cal and Soviet bloc 7.62x39 standardization (itself based on the German Geco M35 cartridge) being the prime reasons. Only 400,000 StGs being made with many lost during the war doesn't help for smaller nations looking to buy into a new rifle and caliber, especially one not in production with all the former assembly firms located in East Germany.
>No one adpoted 8x33 due to geopolitics with denazification
Shouldn't 5.56 just be the better cartridge? I'm sure even NS German planners saw the Kurz cartridge as more of an interim solution.
I dont think they were thinking that far ahead
8mm kurz gave upsides to combat loads, production times/resources etc and by the time it was being developed (1943 irc) I dont think they had the leisure to look that far ahead
You can't keep a mind from wandering, anon.
They were aware that the solution was not ideal.
>we can do better, but let's do it later
Isn't that big of a thunk
>Shouldn't 5.56 just be the better cartridge?
Yes, 5.56x45 is a superior cartridge and 50+ years of service prove that. But for 1930s-1940s Germany, which is a period of rapid rearmament and later hurried mass production, it does not make sense logistically to screw yourself out of existing gauges and production lines for 8mm barrels in favor of 5.56 barrels when looking at the scale of millions (14 million K98s were produced from 1934-1945, that's 14 million barrels for only K98ks). I'm sure that there would have been a similar development for a SCHV cartridge in a post war, victorious Nazi Germany but since we're stuck with making the switch in calibers between 1933-1939, 8x33 is going to be the better choice. It'd be interesting to see what a Nazi developed SCHV cartridge would considering prewar designs leaned towards 7mm.
Do we have any info on 8x33 wounding capability?
I assume they tested that.
Probably similar to an AK.
I don't know of any offhand but it'd be similar to 7.62x39 and 8x33 is only a little slower and a little fatter.
That's a thoughtful, and informed opinion. You are a gentleman, and a scholar.
>A modern 6.5mm Mauser cartridge across the board?
Creed has less than half the barrel life of 7.62, a training and logistics consideration. Grendel on the other hand has everything the STG-44 & AK ought've been out of the gates for 1-and-done purposes. Retain the 8mm for heavy mg purposes, marksmen, and pogues. Come up with a PKM/SAW equivalent in the new chambering to replace the MG-34 in the LMG & vehicle defense role.
If the STG couldn't be ginned up for full standardization then a radically cheaper sub machine gun needed to be implemented, stamped Grease Gun sort of deal.
All sensible. If we're talking time travel shenanigans just give them higher B.C. hints for the bullet design.
Cheap (and mobile) counter battery radars + SPGs would be desirable in this picture as well with the artillery disparity. Stripping Soviet artillery cover from their massed assaults while preserving your own would have changed the picture considerably.
>Creed has less than half the barrel life of 7.62, a training and logistics consideration
How many shots does the average soldiers realistically take?
quite a few, if he's the machine gunner. much as i hate to admit it, i think the russians really nailed the intermediate cartridge design with the 5.45, where the extremely high BC bullet retains effectiveness out to much longer ranges than the 5.56, and the hollow core means that its long assed bullet is still very light with high muzzle velocity.
Are hollow cored bullets more difficult to produce?
no. military bullets typically have a 3-piece construction: the jacket, the core (which is usually lead), and the penetrator (which is usually hardened steel). what the russian 5.45 did was basically just ditch the hardened penetrator and go with a steel core instead of lead, leaving the area in front of the core - where the penetrator would otherwise go - completely empty. the penetrator in NATO ammunition turns out to be nearly completely useless anyway, it improved penetration on steel helmets at 600m-800m but actually reduced penetration everywhere else. the solid steel core in the 5.45 penetrates perfectly fine at that range, and because of its much higher ballistic coefficient from the very long bullet, it retains quite a lot more velocity at range to improve penetration even more.
Thanks for the info, bullet-anon.
Did some nerd on YouTube ever make an in depth video about it?
FW has some videos on cartridges.
Has anybody tried something like that with 308?
>Grendel on the other hand has everything the STG-44 & AK ought've been out of the gates for 1-and-done purposes. Retain the 8mm for heavy mg purposes, marksmen, and pogues. Come up with a PKM/SAW equivalent in the new chambering to replace the MG-34 in the LMG & vehicle defense role.
Why would you change to Grendel for the standard infantry but not the MG?
>Cheap (and mobile) counter battery radars
I don't think that was a thing yet in WWII, was it?
But since the Wehrmacht had the dominance in the air for a long time they could've just gone with improved spotter planes + radios to stay in contact with the ground forces and direct them.
Can't be that hard to introduce transistors for improved radios.
>Creed has less than half the barrel life of 7.62, a training and logistics consideration. Grendel on the other hand has everything the STG-44 & AK ought've been out of the gates for 1-and-done purposes.
I actually meant Grendel and not Creedmoore in the OP, anon.
>I actually meant Grendel and not Creedmoore in the OP, anon.
It's weird how people tend to think of Creedmoore instead of Grendel nowadays if you mentioned 6.5
8x57 as mg/rifle round
7.63×25mm Mauser for SMGs.
Ditch bolt rifles from infantry (leave to rear guard troops). Stop production of bolt rifles.
Arm all combat infantry with SMGs.
Make FG-42 as DMR rifle for line infantry.
>7.63×25mm Mauser for SMGs.
Tell me more about this round, anon.
>Ditch bolt rifles from infantry (leave to rear guard troops). Stop production of bolt rifles.
Yeah, because every country got battle-ready self-loaders of decent quality (no) and german semiauto development wasn't a lengthy drama (it was).
Basically a 7,62 TT round, but weaker. Or a 7,65 Borchard, but hotter. Anyway, that's a standard round for C96 handgun that used to pack a serious punch back in 1900s. Originally designed for Borchard C93, updated for C96. Favourite pistol round of soviets and chinese.
>Yeah, because every country got battle-ready self-loaders of decent quality (no) and german sem
SMGs M8.
Rifle calibers self loaders for every infantry man were indeed to early.
>Basically a 7,62 TT round, but weaker. Or a 7,65 Borchard, but hotter.
That sounds a bit underwhelming.
In regards to what you responded to the other guy: the issue was mostly due to using 8mm Mauser and aiming too high.
>So what would've been the ideal German WWII standard caliber with hindsight and some modern knowledge applied
>Option C: Idk, impress me.
7x64. Better BC bullet, high velocity, lower recoil, enough to take down most human targets wearing no body armour. Takes a little adjustment for machine guns to fit it.
I think what would've helped more is introducing an autoloading infantry rifle in 8x57 as standard issue instead of relying on the Mauser. That and introducing the STG early to fill an SMG/carbine role. What would really tip the scales in their favor is mass issuing optics as they greatly improve hit probability across the board but I understand scope technology of that era made them reletively fragile compared to what we have now
Bump because this is currently the most interesting thread on /k/.
Mass produce the Hk21 and Hk11 in 8mm mauser then the Mp5 in 9mm. It would greatly simplify small arms production lines by having mass produced stamped metal firearms with a similar manual of arms. Additionally, the ability for any Hk11 battle rifle to be converted to an Hk21 in the field would be extremely valuable. Also they use the same style links that the Germans already used.
You sure you don't want HK33s, anon?
well then the german ammo industry would have to change, compared to using their surplus of 8mm mauser. But ig they could use the Hk13 and Hk23. Which are the 5.56 versions of the Hk11 and Hk21.
What's the smallest caliber you can use for a GPMG? 6.5 should work in a modern cartridge since it can basically do what full power cartridges back then could do just better, but can you go smaller without significant loss in capability?
Unifying the calibers would be nice.
7.92x41 CETME
No aluminium for that.
All WW2 Germans are fricking homosexuals that had child brothels in their country
By the time of WWII the israelites that tried to push that shit had been removed, anon.
it's amazing we're almost a century later and Germs still can't get over their loss
>/k/ topic on /k/
>dumb tourist shocked after only visiting /misc/ threads on here for a year
lmao
How fricking new are you?
He got triggered by the OP pic and stopped thinking afterwards. I hope he at least has guns and isn't just some british/polish sperg who actually thinks he's welcome here just because armatard and his ilk ensured everybody laughs at Russian failures here.
I told you guys we need to gatekeep harder. Feels like occupy wallstreet when the furries, gays and pedos were let in.
We truly do live in a society. In 2023.
.40 sw - 6.5 Grendel, .338 Lapua Magnum
Option C the germans realize what MAS was up to and switch to 7.5 french which is better than .308 and mass produce the Gewher 40(f) keeping the MP40 in 9mm for NCOs and hanguns in 9mm for officers and cie and with all other guns in 7.5.
Probably better to lose the war at that point.
30 carbine.
It uses less brass than any other self loading rifle cartridge which would be usefully for their scarcity problems, it is easy for women and children to use if they got drafted, they would be able to use intercepted US supply, they adopted it anyways even when they had the 8mm kurz because they recognized it's perfection and superiority.
>300 yard range out of an 18 inch barrel
idk about that one lil bro
>Falling for the 30 carbine being underpowered meme
>ammo clips
Actual clips?
Mags more likely, but not theoretically impossible to be the actual clips either
>.30 carbine
>superior to 8mm kurz
Not sure about that one though .30 carbine is an underrated round.
Pretty sure it lacks the effective range necessary.
>Option C: Idk, impress me.
6.9x69mm as full size cartridge. Nice.
6.9x42mm intermediate one
6.9x23mm for pistols and SMGs
6.9x134mm for AT rifles
6.9x223mm for special sniper rifles
69x420mm mortar round
69x666mm field gun
69x666mm for medium tanks firing NICE shells
123x999mm for heavy tanks
420x2323mm heavy howitzer
690x6969mm for the special 6900t landship tank project Mäuschen.
The nice stands for No, I Cannot Explain.