Why did they feel to need to copy the gas system of the SVT-40?

Why did they feel to need to copy the gas system of the SVT-40?
They had stuff like the FG-42 but a simple semi-automatic rifle was beyond their capabilities?
That doesn't make sense.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why come up with a completely unique design when you can just copy someone else's and greatly improve upon it?
    The swedes did the same thing, and the AG-42 wound up being the best battle rifle of the era (in terms of both function and aesthetics).

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >being the best battle rifle of the era
      Ahem

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Vidya isn't real life anon.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It literally looks like a space gun. Which is impressive on its own as most Star wars rifles were attempts of making existing guns look "spacey"
        With this one you don't even have to try

        Germans were wildin'

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >That moment when you realize the Fg42 is a box magazine fed Lewis gun, with a French bayonet, Czech gas regulator and American sporting sights.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >A predecessor to the Lewis gun incorporating the principles upon which it was based was designed by Ferdinand Mannlicher.

          Full circle then...

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What's sad is that instead of capitalizing on his works pre WW1, they (ZEE JOIMANZ) became enamored of the Lewis to such an extent that it spawned the 08/15, and later the basic lockwork of the Fg42.
            But yes. The more you study the designs, the more you realize that for the most part, everyone is/was cribbing from everyone else's notes.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >everyone is/was cribbing from everyone else's notes.
              This is why you get so many guns from late 1800s and early 1900s that make you say 'wtf were they thinking'
              People hadn't figured things out yet, one guy would invent something, someone else would develop it and someone else would incorporate it into a firearm. Things that seem obvious now were groundbreaking at the time.
              The Thompson was designed around a Blish lock, which was based on physics that didn't actually exist and could be removed without affecting the weapons performance, but the designers thought it was real.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The Blish principle was wrong, but the actual machined parts included in the guns did do something, but only in the form of making the Thompson an angular delayed blowback, because you had to cam the H block out of its locking shoulder.
                Fundamentally it is similar to the CMMG PDW that people really like these days.

                The problem was using that angular delayed blowback in a rifle cartridge gun just didn't work.
                If you look at a Thompson rifle bolt, the locking lugs are cut to cam themselves out of the locking shoulder, they're angled to help rotate themselves out of lock.
                And that was just insane in hindsight.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >and greatly improve upon it?
      The G43 was an unreliable shit box though

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's not the Garand. Hint: turn an M1 on it's side and compare to an AK

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If you're saying that, then the Garand is just a copy of the RSC1914.
        Kalashnikov was inspired by the Garand, but really what he took was the often overlooked very well-designed both cam path of the Garand.
        Otherwise long-stroke rotating bolts were old news.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Except the G43 is worse than the SVT, and that's doubly bad considering the SVT wasn't exactly great to begin with

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not him but why would the G43 be worse?

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why did they feel to need to copy the gas system of the SVT-40?
    Because they had plenty of first hand experience with the rifle by mid 1943 and it was an improvement in reliability compared to the Gewehr 41 and its bang system.
    >They had stuff like the FG-42 but a simple semi-automatic rifle was beyond their capabilities?
    >That doesn't make sense
    The FG-42 was the result of a special project initiated by Herman Goering and the Luftwaffe's needs for a paratrooper rifle that was funded by the RLM after the disaster at Crete. The reason the Gewehr 43 took so long to get to an acceptable standard can simply be attributed to the fact that development started in 1938 with the HWaA requirements for a semi auto rifle. Keep in mind that the M1 Garand was adopted in 1936 as a gas trap and the SVT-38 was in current trials by this time. Getting a semi automatic rifle was low on the list of priorities for the Wehrmacht that needed to expand from a 100,000 man army to a multi million army, re-equipping those millions with new rifles, building their air force from scratch, creating armored divisions, and modernizing the Kriegsmarine from the old pre dreadnoughts the Reichsmarine was using. The requirements for the rifle basically dictated a gas trap mechanism with the stipulation for no external moving components (eliminating recoil operation), no hole drilled for a gas port, must be operated like a K98 in the event of semi auto failure, and chambered for 8x57 sS Patrone. These requirements would be made known to Mauser-Oberndorf and Walther with Mauser following the requirements to the T and Walther outright ignoring the no external moving components and K98k manual of arms. The first Gewehr 41s were available for troop trials in the summer of 1941 and only 5000 G41(W)s and 1247 G41(M)s were sent to the HWaA by the end of the year. The G41(W) was selected as the winner and officially adopted on Dec 2, 1942 though serial production was ordered in early 1942.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It'd have been hilarious if those autistic designs actually resulted in an HK G3 in 1938.
      Roller delayed blowback happens to fit all of those requirements, lol. They just missed the solution to all their problems by a few years.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >must be operated like a K98 in the event of semi auto failure
        Doubt that

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It'd be a straight pull.

          But if that really is a problem, you can make the bolt carrier capable of rotating 90 degrees around the bolt and roller head itself.
          Maybe even include some camming action to help manual operation.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    germany's first semiauto trial had a "no tried and tested systems, insane kraut bullshit only" requirement, and germany's second semiauto trial came too late for them to do anything else.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why didn't they make an all stamped one like this ar-16? They had the technology (stg-44).

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The short answer is they did, it's called the Gerät 03 and featured a roller locked bolt in a stamped receiver which was made in cooperation with Mauser-Oberndorf. As for why it didn't go farther, it is most likely a manufacturing issue as 3 facilities were already making the forged receivers and plants making stampings were heavily involved in increasing MP44 production by mid 1944.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Stamping is actually really hard.
      The AK is well known for being changed from a stamped to a milled receiver early on because of the crazy high rejection rate of stamped guns.
      But the STG44 was also plagued with large numbers of rejections, but the Germans just powered through in spite of them.
      And even into the 60s and 70s, stamped guns like the HK33/CETME Ls, often had really bad production quality when you didn't have extremely careful supervision of the machines.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    German arms companies were autistic and didn't share notes. One company would make something great and the other would try to make something similar completely independently.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Happened in the US too, tbf.
      If there was any intercommunication between arms committees, the M1 Carbine would have never existed because it was designed to replace the Thompson as a cheaper option despite the Grease Gun project happening in the background the entire time.
      Starting production for a new caliber, a new milled receiver carbine, and all the support material for it, when 5 months later you'd be cranking out one of the most cleverly simple SMGs of the era by the truckload, was really silly in hindsight.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Do they fit the same role though? The carbine was still good out last 100m and meant for people who might see a fight but main duties weren't directly engaging the enemy, plus para troopers. The grease gun was an SMG to replace the Thompson, close range automatic fire for final assaults. I always understood the M1 carbine being the replacement for the 1911 for troops who needed more bit didn't want a Garand as their main weapon, and the Grease to replace the Thompson since it was moron heavy and expensive.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          There is no reason to give a truck driver a carbine and not an SMG.
          The M3 is basically good out to 100m anyhow.
          The Thompson was so expensive that making an entirely new carbine to fill the role between a Garand and a 1911 made sense, but the M3 design program was already in order by the time the M1 Carbine was in production.
          I don't think any other military of the war would have done something like that. They'd have just waited a few months for the M3s to come out. And almost certainly so too would the US if everyone was talking to each other more.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Its wasn't just truck drivers though, it was Radio men, machine gunners artillery/mortars, officers and NCO's, plus anyone who wanted one and could get one. An M1 carbine is probably more compact and easily stones than a grease gun as well.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >it was designed to replace the Thompson as a cheaper option
        it was designed to be a lighter rifle than the M1 for support troops. the thompson had nothing to do with it, aside from also being too heavy. it was not developed to replace the thompson, and it served alongside the thompson without much overlap. they made enough of them that they could have replaced the thompson with them, but they didn't, because it was not designed to replace the thompson.
        >Starting production for a new caliber, a new milled receiver carbine, and all the support material for it, when 5 months later you'd be cranking out one of the most cleverly simple SMGs of the era by the truckload, was really silly in hindsight.
        yeah that was so silly of them. so why did they produce 6 million of the carbine and only a few hundred thousand M3s, are they just supposed to be moronic or something?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >middleweight firearm between a pistol and a rifle
          That is what the SMG was in the era.
          In many cases they explicitly replaced pistols for officers, trench raiders, drivers, and the like.
          The carbine was intended for behind the lines troops, but so too would a cheap stamped SMG work. Especially one with a slow RoF like the M3.
          They already built the production lines and WW2 America has an infinite everything glitch activated so it didn't matter. Troops also really liked them, they're better guns to shoot than an M3.
          But anyone with a sense of budget conscience would have called the M1 an insane choice, instead of expediting the M3 project or just waiting.

          Grease Guns are small enough for a driver, and cheap enough to give everyone.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're misunderstanding the doctrinal uses for carbines and SMGS at that time. In that day SMGs were intended to be used for close range suppressive fire. They weren't viewed as a PDW like they are today.

            The role you're assigning to the grease gun is the role which was assigned to the M1 Carbine. The M1 Carbine was a light rifle effective at ranges of between 100-200m. It was intended for troops who either only needed a pistol or needed a smaller rifle to not interfere with other duties. SMGs weren't used in this fashion because many of them were still large and bulky.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why did they feel to need to copy the gas system of the SVT-40?
    Wasn't the SVT-40's gas system what was responsible for the very soft-shooting nature of the rifle, considering the caliber? I've only ever put like 5 rounds through one at an event, and it's pretty surprising how light it's recoiling for a full-power .30 semi-auto.

    The only other rifle I've shot that gave me a similar pleasant surprise was an old, but in solid-shape BM-59. The ammo was some sort of NATO stock, but I don't remember which country. Really, really made me a fan of that Italian fricker.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >FG-42
    expensive as frick and for a dedicated role.
    >G43
    Better to copy something that works when you are pressed for time. The STG44 existing also made the G43 a much lower priority.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why did they feel to need to copy the gas system of the SVT-40?
    Because it's good. Everyone copies it nowadays.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    german and especially nazi procurement projects were moronic

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *