>1 SMG per squad as standard
>but with the provisions for 2 or 3 SMGs per squad if needed
>and an additional 2 SMGs in each platoon in the HQ section
>and an SMG platoon in the company, where each "rifle" man had an SMG
>theoretically able to have every third man in a company armed with an SMG
>US SMGs only held in the weapons pool and distributed when needed
>germans only have the 1 SMG per squad
>british have 2 SMGs per squad, and a few at platoon level to hand out
why were the soviets so obsessed with SMGs?
the british were a distant second, and even then it was mostly because their bren guns were in a separate section, so the SMGs were used in the rifle section for a quick boost in automatic fire
They did a lot of urban combat and they emphasized volume of fire. So fast firing weapons with drum magazines like ppsh songs and dp-27 lmgs were useful.
germans were in the exact same battles, though
and they stuck with the same number of SMGs as they started with
>They preferred using artillery to cover their infantry until they got within 300 meters or so then would have the infantry close with tank support
this was standard for pretty much every one, none of whome who had the same hard-on for SMG
German SMGs were basically artisanal goods.
>germans were in the exact same battles, though and they stuck with the same number of SMGs as they started with
Yeah and they fricking lost
>germans were in the exact same battles, though
Yeah, and germans got their volume of fire from MGs. Its a simple doctrinal difference.
>Yeah, and germans got their volume of fire from MGs
but after urban fighting, they didnt want more assault-oriented machine guns
and they did revisit the concept until 1944 with the STG
Oh God they were drums can you imagine how much that had to suck to reload those thousands of times?
Soviets weren't short of warm bodies, they were conscripting schoolgirls to dig trenches
because their infantry doctrine probably amounted to throw whatever shit you can at the Germans, I don't really frickicnn know but it would make sense
smg's were better back in the day when body armor wasn't as prevalent so if you needed to toss as much shit at you can at the enemy and were closer than 100 meters or so then the SMG made a lot of sense compared to bolt actions.
US doctrine was much more focused on precision and getting accurate shots on target, also their rifle was semi automatic which gives you a lot more leeway vs a bolt action
I don't know anything about the British
source: my ass, this is complete guestimation on my end
Not bad.
>why were the soviets so obsessed with SMGs?
They preferred using artillery to cover their infantry until they got within 300 meters or so then would have the infantry close with tank support. This type of offensive tactic benefits from submachineguns.
because they lost half of their small-arms arsenal in 1941 and PPSh was cheaper and faster to produce than mosins.
US didn't need that many submachine guns because they had semi-auto rifles and a Bar in every squad.
The Sten and PPSh were cheap as frick, easy to produce and greatly increased the firepower of a squad.
The MP40 was basically a GUCCI® submachine gun combined with Hitler's personal autism of thinking the Kar98 is all a man needs.
It's because SMGs are dirt cheap to make because of the low chamber pressure and extremely simple action. They're cheaper than rifles, which are comparatively complex and expensive, and they require less training to use. The downside of all this is that they're inflexible weapons that are essentially useless against moving targets or at anything beyond grenade range, so they're useless outside of assaults and the people carrying them are totally fricked if they get pinned.
7.62x25mm was very good for a smg boolit
You've seen the rate of fire on that bastard? I'd also want as many of those as possible.
It was the BRRRRRT before the A-10
Way better than a rifle in urban combat
this
at least in bong doctrine, SMGs were the trench brooms of WW2
>british have 2 SMGs per squad, and a few at platoon level to hand out
what is this, 1944 TOE?
the 1940 TOE had only 3 per platoon, typically used by the assault section commander or whoever he nominated
7.62 tokarev mogs a 9mm or 45apc from a long barrel any day
Aren't they underpressured? They're velocity reliant, sure, but I don't think there's much redeeming about them.
A squad entirely equipped with SMGs will shit on the squad with rifles and a single SMG
Which game this is? If rifle kills with one bullet, then no.
My father said everyone in his team chose MG42 with extended belt and light bolt.
The firing sound was freaking loud, but not as loud and horrifying as 12 year old commie kids screaming for their mother about lag.
>ppsh-41
Didn't they develop that after getting hosed down with SMGs in the Winter War?
The Soviets had practically zero air support until the later stages of the war, had a ton of initial armor issues, and the DP27 couldn’t really keep up much with the MG34/42, and thats not even mentioning the shitton of urban combat they saw. The USSR needed as much lead slung downrange as they possibly could, and that was the quickest and easiest way to achieve it. And as mentioned I’m sure the disaster that was the WW made some generals and commanders feel they need to compensate with lots of smgs.
probably not. soviets had the PPD submachinegun since 1935 and the PPSh was more or less developed to be cheaper to manufacture than the PPD. The PPS-43 would come later and be even cheaper to produce
in ww2, the average grunt in most armies could choose between a bolt-action rifle and an smg.
smgs are at least viable up to 100-200 meters while bolt-action rifles sucked at every range.
It was up to their officers to make the decision
yeah and the officers would have the same logic
"should I give my troops the gun that's always crap or the gun that's only crap beyond 200 meters?"
I know but I just needed to tell you that you are wrong
>bolt-action rifles sucked at every range
The Soviet mainstays (Ppsh-41 and Pps-43) were made of stamped sheet metal, which meant far fewer man-hours of skilled machining work needed to be done. For a nation which was trying to massively scale up arms production while they were also relocating their factories beyond the Urals, it made a difference.