SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Focke Wulf 190 Strafing American Troop and Convoys

3024 views
33 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Ipswich, Massachsetts
Focke Wulf 190 Strafing American Troop and Convoys
Posted by Johnny Reb on Saturday, February 17, 2018 9:19 PM

Hi everybody. As I get older, I realize how important my dads WW2 stories have become in recent years. He was in the Battle of the Bulge in the American 3rd army, Infantry, and had moved all the way into Austria the last few months of the war. I have one of his Bronze Stars with me right now, along with it's citation "For action against the enemy on or around April 18, 1945". 

I remember way back when, as a very young boy in the 60's, him telling me about the sheer terror of driving in convoy and then, without warning, those big, powerful and fast Focke Wulf 190's would scream down on them and opening up on them with four 20 mm cannons wreaking absolute havoc. The convoys would be torn to pieces and there were American soldier body parts everywhere. My father said in sheer anger, he would fire at these planes with his M1 Garand. These planes were strongly built and were designed to take lots of fire. If my own father hadn't told me about it, then I certainly would never have known, since most news tells about allied victories as if there were no other alternative. My dad was a decorated American soldier and yet, he was always a bit in awe about the German fighting machine and just how powerful, capable, and deadly it really was. In fact, his words were to the effect that the only reason America did as well as it did was because it had much more 'stuff' then Germany, but Germany had the best weapons, including many of it's soldiers.

Straight from a real American fighting man that was really there and really was in combat and really did shoot, and kill, Germans; "It was the Russians on the Eastern front that really bore the full brunt of Germany's fighting force. Anything in the west was a "mop up" (fierce as the fighting was) to basically stop Russia from overtaking all of western europe, which was what would have happened, had not the allied forces stopped the Russians at the river Elbe, near Berlin. American and Russian troops would trade weapons for Mickey Mouse watches.... and then take "pot shots" at each other across the river. Both armies knew they could annhialate the other.

I love history; the real stuff straight from real eyewitness accounts and as a result, my next build will be the much feared FW190 possibly in a strafing diorama against the American " Red Ball Express"

 

I'll keep you guys posted throughout and any feedback would be greatly appreciated!

  • Member since
    February 2014
  • From: Michigan
Posted by silentbob33 on Sunday, February 18, 2018 8:43 AM
Thanks for sharing that story. My great uncle also fought in the Battle of the Bulge in the 3rd Army and was eventually wounded bad enough that he spent the rest of the war playing trombone in Eisenhower's band. He never really talked much about combat, and as far as I know I'm the only one he ever talked to about it after I came back from Iraq. All I could do was sit and listen as the stories came out that he had been keeping inside for more than 60 years. I agree with you that hearing the history from the people that lived it is much better than reading it from a book. The build that you have planned sounds like it will be really cool. I hope you do a WIP and post some pictures for us.

On my bench: Academy 1/35 UH-60L Black Hawk

  • Member since
    April 2016
  • From: Parsons Kansas
Posted by Hodakamax on Sunday, February 18, 2018 9:19 AM

Important history heard from people who were there. My uncle fought in North Africa against Rommel as a tank commander. He lost three tanks, one to a straffing Me-109. He was always quiet and didn't say much about it. Occassionally he would open up to me and tell stories about his five year stay. I was just a kid but I remember it all as it was yesterday. I still have his medals.

Max

  • Member since
    April 2015
Posted by Mopar Madness on Sunday, February 18, 2018 9:27 AM

Excellent story from a true perspective! Thank you for sharing. Looking forward to seeing the 190. Beer

Chad

God, Family, Models...

At the plate: 1/48 Airfix Bf109 & 1/35 Tamiya Famo

On deck: Who knows!

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • From: Central Florida
Posted by plasticjunkie on Sunday, February 18, 2018 12:41 PM

Back in the early 1980s I spoke to an older gentleman who had been an Officer in the US Army in WWII. He was in an artillery unit that had been wiped out by the Germans and he was one of the few survivors that were able to regroup and hitch a ride on a Sherman tank unit. They eventually ran into several German Tigers that just about decimated the Sherman unit. He said all you could do was to try to shoot the treads and running gear and run like hell to get away from those deadly 88s. He said the German tanks like the Tiger and Panther could beat anything we had but we just happened to have more.

As I have read, the way to kill a Tiger was to smother it with several Shermans. Sheer overwhelming numbers contributed IMO to defeat German technology.

 GIFMaker.org_jy_Ayj_O

 

 

Too many models to build, not enough time in a lifetime!!

  • Member since
    September 2012
Posted by GMorrison on Sunday, February 18, 2018 12:54 PM

I think the concept of superior German technology is way way overblown. Just an example- an FW 190 strafing with cannon fire, however terrifying, holds no weight against a Hawker Typhoon with 3 inch rockets ripping up the Falaise Pocket.

 Modeling is an excuse to buy books.

 

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Sunday, February 18, 2018 4:20 PM

GMorrison

I think the concept of superior German technology is way way overblown. Just an example- an FW 190 strafing with cannon fire, however terrifying, holds no weight against a Hawker Typhoon with 3 inch rockets ripping up the Falaise Pocket.

 

Very true... and the Typhoon is packing four 20mm cannon of its own. In some areas, the Germans did have superior technology, in others, we did. And yes, numbers of easily produced, and easily maintained, tanks like the Sherman and T-34 did overwhelm the more complicated and less reliable Panzers. But as has been written about, but is often ignored, the defender always has an advantage anyways. A basic rule is that an attacker should have a 3 to 1 advantage in numbers in order to assure a successful attack. An inferior M4 can and did defeat a superior Tiger or Panther when in a good defensive position. Add in factors such as crew training, experience, and supplies. The US 4th Armored Division with 75mm M4s severely trounced several Panzer brigades equipped with far superior Panthers in the fall of ‘44. 

I honestly think that at times there is a fanboy mentality on the part of modelers towards German WWII equipment. Yes it was good. And it could be fearsome. But so were many items of Allied hardware as well. And it was not always due to overwhelming numbers. 

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Ipswich, Massachsetts
Posted by Johnny Reb on Monday, February 19, 2018 2:56 PM

True that there is a 'fanboy' mentality in regards to German WW2 equipment. I suppose the same mentality could be said for American (or any other countries') equipment as well.

Myself, I love it all, but I have much respect for the German weapons of that period; probably because in large part, so much of their arsenal was so incredibly advanced over the rest of the world, including America.

If Germany would have had the industrial might that America had, along with a more competent political system, then the outcome of that war would have been very different. And I think for this reason, there lies a certain intrigue for the weapons that it produced. At least, it does for me.

 Among other things, Germany's jet and rocket technology was so far advanced and superior to America's that, upon Germany's surrender, many of it's top scientists were 'acquired' by the U.S. and brought back to the States to employ those scientists for their services in regards to the advancement of America's own military technology. This endeavor was known as "Operation Paperclip". Google it. Perhaps the most well known scientist of this group of former Nazi members employed by the U.S. was Dr. Werner Von Braun; he was the key figure in the develpoment of the much feared V2 German rocket ( the allies had absolutely nothing that could come even close) and he was one of the major influences in the NASA program that sent America to the moon. 

 

  • Member since
    September 2012
Posted by GMorrison on Monday, February 19, 2018 3:01 PM

 Modeling is an excuse to buy books.

 

  • Member since
    September 2012
Posted by GMorrison on Monday, February 19, 2018 3:03 PM

Thanks, I'm familiar with the program. And there's Kurt Tank in Argentina developing jet fighters for Peron.

 Modeling is an excuse to buy books.

 

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, England
Posted by Bish on Monday, February 19, 2018 3:58 PM

GMorrison

I think the concept of superior German technology is way way overblown. Just an example- an FW 190 strafing with cannon fire, however terrifying, holds no weight against a Hawker Typhoon with 3 inch rockets ripping up the Falaise Pocket.

 

Problem is those rockets have to hit the target, and they were not very good at it. The Typhon had a hit rate of around 4% and despite claiming over 200 vehicles destroyed during Goodward, post battle studies showed that only around a dozen were destroyed by rockets.

I am a Norfolk man and i glory in being so

 

On the bench: Airfix 1/72nd Harrier GR.3/Fujimi 1/72nd Ju 87D-3

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, England
Posted by Bish on Monday, February 19, 2018 4:11 PM

Johnny Reb

True that there is a 'fanboy' mentality in regards to German WW2 equipment. I suppose the same mentality could be said for American (or any other countries') equipment as well.

Myself, I love it all, but I have much respect for the German weapons of that period; probably because in large part, so much of their arsenal was so incredibly advanced over the rest of the world, including America.

If Germany would have had the industrial might that America had, along with a more competent political system, then the outcome of that war would have been very different. And I think for this reason, there lies a certain intrigue for the weapons that it produced. At least, it does for me.

 Among other things, Germany's jet and rocket technology was so far advanced and superior to America's that, upon Germany's surrender, many of it's top scientists were 'acquired' by the U.S. and brought back to the States to employ those scientists for their services in regards to the advancement of America's own military technology. This endeavor was known as "Operation Paperclip". Google it. Perhaps the most well known scientist of this group of former Nazi members employed by the U.S. was Dr. Werner Von Braun; he was the key figure in the develpoment of the much feared V2 German rocket ( the allies had absolutely nothing that could come even close) and he was one of the major influences in the NASA program that sent America to the moon. 

 

 

Thats very true, but then at the other end of the scale are those who wil go out of their way to not give the Germans credit for anything. And they will also often over look the use we made of German science and technology.

My own view is that the truth is, as usual, some where in the middle. Some German equipment was certainly ahead of its opponents, but much of it was on par with what the allies had.

I am a Norfolk man and i glory in being so

 

On the bench: Airfix 1/72nd Harrier GR.3/Fujimi 1/72nd Ju 87D-3

  • Member since
    November 2009
  • From: SW Virginia
Posted by Gamera on Monday, February 19, 2018 4:29 PM

Well frankly I think anything screaming toward you and your buddies unleashing a hail of hot lead toward your head is bound to leave a rather large impression on you for the rest of your life.

And we get most of our viewpoints from American, British, and Commonwealth vets. I have to be curious what the impression of Allied hardware was from the Axis side.

"I dream in fire but work in clay." -Arthur Machen

 

  • Member since
    September 2012
Posted by GMorrison on Monday, February 19, 2018 4:51 PM

There's a phenom I became familiar with. A good friend of mine had a dad who did the whole "Hellcats in the Pacific" tour. Couldn't stand anything Japanese, called the products all kinds of names. He drove a Mercedes.

My F-in-Law was overseas in the ETO for four years. Wouldn't let me park my BMW in his driveway. Had a wall of his study covered with Sony equipment.

Personal choices.

 Modeling is an excuse to buy books.

 

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Ipswich, Massachsetts
Posted by Johnny Reb on Monday, February 19, 2018 5:55 PM

Regarding my planned build, this will be the first time that I have attempted to build anything like this. At this point, the one step that has me 'stumped' is how to represent large rounds impacting the steel on the deuce and a half trucks as it makes contact with a high velocity. How do I make the plastic models look damaged and hit?

Any feedback is greatly appreciated!

Also; my thanks to both this forum and to all of you for all that you do. I have learned so much already from so many of you and it is truly an honor for me to share our common interests!

  • Member since
    September 2012
Posted by GMorrison on Monday, February 19, 2018 6:08 PM

Nothing is better than a photo.

My general rule of thumb is fewer, bigger holes.

 Modeling is an excuse to buy books.

 

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Monday, February 19, 2018 6:28 PM

Johnny Reb

True that there is a 'fanboy' mentality in regards to German WW2 equipment. I suppose the same mentality could be said for American (or any other countries') equipment as well.

I would not argue that there is much of a fanboy following for WWII US equipment on most modeling websites. At least not that I’ve come across. Certainly not US armor, nor really for many other subject areas as well.

 

Johnny Reb

 

Myself, I love it all, but I have much respect for the German weapons of that period; probably because in large part, so much of their arsenal was so incredibly advanced over the rest of the world, including America.

 

Honestly I would argue that not much of their Arsenal was incredibly advanced over the rest of the world. Their artillery was at best on par with any of the Allied forces from 1941 onwards. On an individual level, their soldiers weapons certainly were not way advanced over anybody else’s. Their armor was more advanced over Wetern tanks in 1944 due to the Darwinian cauldron of the Eastern Front. The KV and T-34 were superior to anything the Germans had in 1941. Only superior training and doctrine allowed them to have the success that they did. Not to mention the damage done to the Red Army’s officer corps during Stalin’s purges of the late 1930s. The Western Allies experienced no such need for armor development until Normandy. And in a similar fashion, they were fielding advanced design one year later in the form of the Centurion, Pershing, Comet, Chaffee, etc. at the time of VE Day. 

 

Johnny Reb

 

If Germany would have had the industrial might that America had, along with a more competent political system, then the outcome of that war would have been very different. And I think for this reason, there lies a certain intrigue for the weapons that it produced. At least, it does for me.

  

Well that was never possible. Germany would have had to have had an industrial base far larger than it ever could possess geographically to even begin to make that come true. Even with the addition of the industrial capacities of occupied countries, they could not match US production outputs. Then if the output of the British Commonwealth is added... and the German political system was the whole cause for the war. 

 

Johnny Reb

 Among other things, Germany's jet and rocket technology was so far advanced and superior to America's that, upon Germany's surrender, many of it's top scientists were 'acquired' by the U.S. and brought back to the States to employ those scientists for their services in regards to the advancement of America's own military technology. This endeavor was known as "Operation Paperclip". Google it. Perhaps the most well known scientist of this group of former Nazi members employed by the U.S. was Dr. Werner Von Braun; he was the key figure in the develpoment of the much feared V2 German rocket ( the allies had absolutely nothing that could come even close) and he was one of the major influences in the NASA program that sent America to the moon.  

Yes and no. The rocket technology, ballistic missile wise, was without peer in the world. But the V-2 was really a waste of resources.  At least when delivering a one ton conventional warhead. It could only hit a city size target. The Allies really needed nothing that could fill the same role. While it certainly was a superb base to build off of for space flight, it was not a weapon of much true use. With a chemical or nuclear warhead it would have had far more effect. But German nuclear research was well behind that of the Western Allies, and had chemical warfare been initiated by the ***... well, an ugly war would have been even uglier. And again, the Germans lagged in radar fusing equal to the US VT radar proximity fuse that would have made an air burst chemical warhead more effective. 

 

And I am quite familiar with the efforts to acquire as much R&D and scientists from the Germans as possible. One to help your own side, and two, to prevent the Soviets from getting their hands on it. A similar effort was made in Japan. 

US jet technology in WWII was all based off British work. And the RAF had the Gloster Meteor in Squadron service at the same time that the Germans were fielding the Me-262. At most there was a three month lead by the 262 into service. And had Lockheed & Kelly Johnson been approached first, instead of Bell aircraft, the P-80 could very much have been operational in time to see actual combat in the ETO, instead of arriving as the was was in its final weeks. 

I think that both sides were quite innovative in most of their research and development. But Germany threw developing technologies into battle sooner, mostly due to needing something to try to hold or delay the Allies. Had the roles been reversed, more than likely it would have been the other way around. The US was developing TV guided and radar homing air dropped/launched weapons during the war. Yet neither type of weapons system guidance would not see actual combat until two decades later in Vietnam. Just like the Surface to Air guided missile, which Germany was beginning to develop. 

 

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    November 2009
  • From: SW Virginia
Posted by Gamera on Monday, February 19, 2018 8:00 PM

Johnny: Well, for machine gun bullets you can use a hot pin to melt holes in the subject model. A 20mm cannon round is going to be a lot more involved. You might search around the internet. I'm sure someone has done something like this. And I assume you're going with 1/72nd or so? In 1/48th it would be pretty big not to mention in 1/32nd and 1/35th you're talking a monster diorama.

 

And frankly my two cents the more I read the more I'm convinced that Germany was pretty much dragging along behind everyone else in technology. German tanks for example like the Panther and Tiger were bigger but tech-wise they were behind the Allies. For example the cast turret of the Sherman was beyond the Germans ability to produce. The US, UK, and USSR could have built a Tiger if we'd wanted to but the Sherman and T-34 were beyond the German industry. The Germans instead of building a better tank just built a bigger one. And then shoved an engine designed for a 30 ton tank into the 43 ton Panther, the 56 ton Tiger, and the 71 ton King Tiger because they couldn't build a better engine. And so they broke down... a lot. I find it funny that if the German tanks were so far beyond everyone else why did they end up in a technology dead-end? The post-war German Leopard has more in common with US and UK tanks than the German Second World War stuff.

And the Germans ended up going the missile route to a great extent due to not being able to build a decent four-engine bomber. The 262 was ahead of it's time, but not by much. As SP pointed out the P/F-80 and De Havilland Vampire were equal to it. And the next generation Allied jet fighters like the F-86, MiG-15, and Hawker Hunter totally outclassed it.

"I dream in fire but work in clay." -Arthur Machen

 

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • From: Central Florida
Posted by plasticjunkie on Monday, February 19, 2018 10:02 PM

Gamera

 

As SP pointed out the P/F-80 and De Havilland Vampire were equal to it. And the next generation Allied jet fighters like the F-86, MiG-15, and Hawker Hunter totally outclassed it.

 

Interesting exchange. Actually the 262 was very ahead of it's time, to the point of North American Aviation re evaluating their XP-86 straight wing design in favor of the 262s swept back wings which created the F-86.

True that about the heavy weighted German tanks, specially the Hunting Tiger. A pure brute and deadly gun to match but very heavy and unable to use some of the bridges at the time. And don't forget the Maus at 188 tons sporting a 128mm gun. 

 GIFMaker.org_jy_Ayj_O

 

 

Too many models to build, not enough time in a lifetime!!

  • Member since
    September 2012
Posted by GMorrison on Monday, February 19, 2018 10:30 PM

The 262 was not honestly operational.

10 hour engine.

It didn’t invent its wing form. That wing form found it and it wasn’t the obvious favorite for quite a while until jet engines became powerful.

 

 Modeling is an excuse to buy books.

 

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Monday, February 19, 2018 11:04 PM

The 262 getting its’ swept wing, its’ most advanced feature, was purely an accident of happenstance, not advanced research or design. The original design had straight wings, like every body else’s early jets. But then it was found to be unbalance as designed. The sweepback of the wings addressed the balance in a redesign, and the aerodynamic improvements were found out after the fact. And again, while the 262 erprobungskommando was developing in the late summer and fall of ‘44, the RAF had already passed that stage with the Meteor. The improved Meteor, the F.3 was operational in squadron strength by the end of 1944. Again, because there was no overriding pressing need for the type, there was no need to rush things.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    November 2009
  • From: SW Virginia
Posted by Gamera on Tuesday, February 20, 2018 7:40 AM

Thanks SP, I didn't know that. I was happy to grant the Germans the credit for the swept wing. My main issue with the 262 was as GM brought up the reliability problems. 

And I had always heard the F-86 got it's swept wing from German wind tunnel research brought to the US. But if the two planes had seen action against each other I'd think the US engineers would have figured out the idea of copying the same wing design. 

"I dream in fire but work in clay." -Arthur Machen

 

  • Member since
    September 2012
Posted by GMorrison on Tuesday, February 20, 2018 9:20 AM

The first operational American aircraft with swept wings was the B-47. And the sound barrier was broken by an aircraft with straight wings.

I was thinking some more about this, and the topic tends to get tedious. I don't know that much about personal gear for soldiers, but the German Army in WW2 always seemed to me to pretty WW1 era gear. Certainly true of other armies, but the US evolved pretty rapidly.

 Modeling is an excuse to buy books.

 

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Tuesday, February 20, 2018 4:01 PM

GMorrison

 

I was thinking some more about this, and the topic tends to get tedious. I don't know that much about personal gear for soldiers, but the German Army in WW2 always seemed to me to pretty WW1 era gear. Certainly true of other armies, but the US evolved pretty rapidly.

 

It was indeed. Their rifle, Mauser 98K, was a shortened version of the model 1898 Mauser. A bolt action 19th Century weapon. Only the US and Soviet Union had an auto loading rifle in service when the war started. Germany was way behind the curve there. Yes, they did have the excellent MG-34 and MG-42, but they never developed or fielded a machine gun like the M2 HB .50. The Soviets had their comparable 12.7mm Dshk. 

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, England
Posted by Bish on Wednesday, February 21, 2018 2:19 AM

stikpusher

 

 
GMorrison

 

I was thinking some more about this, and the topic tends to get tedious. I don't know that much about personal gear for soldiers, but the German Army in WW2 always seemed to me to pretty WW1 era gear. Certainly true of other armies, but the US evolved pretty rapidly.

 

 

 

It was indeed. Their rifle, Mauser 98K, was a shortened version of the model 1898 Mauser. A bolt action 19th Century weapon. Only the US and Soviet Union had an auto loading rifle in service when the war started. Germany was way behind the curve there. Yes, they did have the excellent MG-34 and MG-42, but they never developed or fielded a machine gun like the M2 HB .50. The Soviets had their comparable 12.7mm Dshk. 

 

Your correct in that the Germans were behind in regards to a semi auto rifle, but then as you suggest, so was everyone else. They did of course develop the G43 and later the StG 44. But the fact that they never deloped a HMG for ground forces would suggest to me that they felt they did not need one. They had weapons of those size fitted to aircraft so it would not have been beyond their skills to adapt one for ground use. So i would say this does not mean they were behind in this but simply thinking differently.

I am a Norfolk man and i glory in being so

 

On the bench: Airfix 1/72nd Harrier GR.3/Fujimi 1/72nd Ju 87D-3

  • Member since
    December 2017
Posted by Returner43 on Wednesday, February 21, 2018 7:44 AM

I can't wait to see some pics of your build progress once you get started. Sounds like a great idea. 

Glad to hear that some WW2 vets are sharing stories that give a different perspective rather than the usual. I remember reading a history book from the late 50s that had a VERY distorted view of WW2. As I grew older, read and researched more, it made me realize how important it is to get several perpectives and sources if you want a chance to get close to the truth. 

I've talked to some WW2 vets over the years and very few will talk about their actual combat experience. They might tell you that they were involved in certain battles but they will rarely give you any details, and who can blame them? 

One of the good stories, not about combat, was from a B-24 pilot in North Africa about a monkey one of their crewmen got as a pet. When they were redepoyed to Italy they decided to take the monkey with them. When they got up in the air the monkey started freaking out really bad and bit a few of them and was rasing hell since he wasn't caged. One of them finally got fed up, grabbed the monkey and took him to the bomb bay...and out he went. 

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • From: Central Florida
Posted by plasticjunkie on Wednesday, February 21, 2018 8:00 AM

Bish
 
Your correct in that the Germans were behind in regards to a semi auto rifle, but then as you suggest, so was everyone else. They did of course develop the G43 and later the StG 44.
 

 

True that Bish and don't forget the G41. As a matter of fact, even tough the Garand had been develoved pre war there were not enough of them in the early war years to go around and GI's were supplied with the 1903 Springfiled bolt rifle. I remember speaking with a sergeant I worked for back in the 80's about his service in the Pacific with the Marines. He said he was the only man in the squad with an M1 Carbine and the rest had 1903s. Very few Garands around and only the very senior guys had one till eventually they became plentiful and were highly regarded good as gold as he put it. He also mentioned how crappy the Johnson rifle was being more effective used as a club against the Japs than firing it at them LOL!  

Most of the low serial # 1903 receceivers were identified and should have been removed from service by 1942 due to single heat treatment causing brittle metal and actually some blew up when firing causing injuries. I would guess to say that even these may have been put back into service due to the war shortages?

The STG44 was the first assault rifle to be produced and used by any army and is still found in limited use in Africa and the Middle East by terrorist groups. I saw a picture of several STG44s captured not long ago from terrorists either in Africa or somewhere in the ME. I believe even the VC used some of them in Viet Nam.

Didn't the STG44 give Mikhail Kalashnikov the inspiration for his baby the AK47?

 GIFMaker.org_jy_Ayj_O

 

 

Too many models to build, not enough time in a lifetime!!

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, England
Posted by Bish on Wednesday, February 21, 2018 8:28 AM

plasticjunkie

 

 
Bish
 
Your correct in that the Germans were behind in regards to a semi auto rifle, but then as you suggest, so was everyone else. They did of course develop the G43 and later the StG 44.
 

 

 

 

True that Bish and don't forget the G41. As a matter of fact, even tough the Garand had been develoved pre war there were not enough of them in the early war years to go around and GI's were supplied with the 1903 Springfiled bolt rifle. I remember speaking with a sergeant I worked for back in the 80's about his service in the Pacific with the Marines. He said he was the only man in the squad with an M1 Carbine and the rest had 1903s. Very few Garands around and only the very senior guys had one till eventually they became plentiful and were highly regarded good as gold as he put it. He also mentioned how crappy the Johnson rifle was being more effective used as a club against the Japs than firing it at them LOL!  

Most of the low serial # 1903 receceivers were identified and should have been removed from service by 1942 due to single heat treatment causing brittle metal and actually some blew up when firing causing injuries. I would guess to say that even these may have been put back into service due to the war shortages?

The STG44 was the first assault rifle to be produced and used by any army and is still found in limited use in Africa and the Middle East by terrorist groups. I saw a picture of several STG44s captured not long ago from terrorists either in Africa or somewhere in the ME. I believe even the VC used some of them in Viet Nam.

Didn't the STG44 give Mikhail Kalashnikov the inspiration for his baby the AK47?

 

Yes, forgot about the G41, which i believe entered service before the M1.

As far as the AK47, the Russians seem to deny the StG had any influance on it, but then they would. I think its open to debate, but i would say almost certainly.

I am a Norfolk man and i glory in being so

 

On the bench: Airfix 1/72nd Harrier GR.3/Fujimi 1/72nd Ju 87D-3

  • Member since
    November 2009
  • From: SW Virginia
Posted by Gamera on Wednesday, February 21, 2018 12:04 PM

PJ: Hmmm, I thought the AK-47 was based off it too. 

Returner: Great story! I wonder if some Italian farmer found the dead monkey in an impact crater in his field and ended up scratching his head thinking 'WTH!?!'  

"I dream in fire but work in clay." -Arthur Machen

 

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Wednesday, February 21, 2018 12:56 PM

plasticjunkie

 

 As a matter of fact, even tough the Garand had been develoved pre war there were not enough of them in the early war years to go around and GI's were supplied with the 1903 Springfiled bolt rifle. I remember speaking with a sergeant I worked for back in the 80's about his service in the Pacific with the Marines. He said he was the only man in the squad with an M1 Carbine and the rest had 1903s. Very few Garands around and only the very senior guys had one till eventually they became plentiful and were highly regarded good as gold as he put it. He also mentioned how crappy the Johnson rifle was being more effective used as a club against the Japs than firing it at them LOL!  

 

In 1942, the US military was expanding faster than production rates could keep up. Some units had the Garand as standard, some did not. The Marines, always the recipients of hand me down stuff, landed on Guadalcanal primarily with 03A3 Springfields, and Reisling SMGs. Their Raider and Para battalions that landed simultaneously on Tulagi and Gavutu across the sound had the Johnson rifle. Other Marine units would ”horse trade” their Johnson Rifles and LMGs to the First Special Service Force, who loved those items.

Most of the Army combat units that landed two month later in North Africa, and those who would land as reinforcements on Guadalcanal to relieve the 1st Marine Division we’re equipped with Garlands. At least for the Rifle companies. Obviously service and supply units had a far lower need for the rifle. The M1 Carbine was actually developed for those folks, amongst others.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.