in praise of Das Deutches Fagarbeiter....

[Staten]

Just an anecdote...

Walked buy a antiques store the other day, that amongst incredible amounts of junk had a small collection of pacified guns...

These included a Bren gun, two Sten Gun MKII and III, and something I had never seen before, a Volksmachinenpistol...

The Stens where, true to their reputation, remarkably ugly. The sight rails where not polished, the welds where as rough as anything made at a school metal workshop. The shoulder stocks where to short, and the sights abysmal, consisting of a simple circle and a solid metal triangle.

Now, the Volks. I could tell it was a VolksMp because the mechanism was the same as the Sten, but the similarities ended there. Every part was perfectly fitted, rounded and finished. The folding stock fell smoothly to the shoulder, and the sights seemed decent, even with posibilites for adjustment...

Trust the germans to pirate something and make it twice as good as the orignal... (see also; Panther to T34, Bazooka to Pzshrek...)[CENTER]

[Michele]

Originally Posted by Staten

Now, the Volks. I could tell it was a VolksMp because the mechanism was the same as the Sten, but the similarities ended there. Every part was perfectly fitted, rounded and finished. The folding stock fell smoothly to the shoulder, and the sights seemed decent, even with posibilites for adjustment...

First thing, foreign languages for that tad of flavor are good, but correct spelling would also be good.

Second, what you consider as worth of praise is actually worth of condemnation, in my own opinion, of course! The whole point of Sten-like guns was to churn them out by the hundreds of thousands, and any refinement only lenghtened the man-hours needed for each piece. The Sten was cheap and ugly and unrefined _on purpose_. The same goes for the US M-3 or the Soviet PPS-43, but neither came as cheap as the Sten.

Now, if the Volksmaschinenpistole you saw was identical to the Sten in the mechanism (i.e., it did not feature a magazine on the side, but on the lower part), then it's not the Mauser MP 3008 but the real all-out copy, the Gerät Potsdam... and Hans-Christian (p. W:IC63) tells us it cost $1,800 (!!!). Just 180 times more than the Sten. In other words, an abysmal failure from a production-effort point of view.

Of course, the point of making real copies might have been to let Werwolf men to look like Allied soldiers - but in that case, the actual captured Stens would have sufficed, and making a _better_ copy would have actually defeated that purpose, too, if a MP had a chance of seeing the gun from up close.

Several pre-war submachine gun models looked nice, like the Beretta 38A or the MP 28. But the point was not having nice SMGs, the point was having plenty of them. Apart from looks, even accuracy was a waste of time for a weapon that would be used in bursts at very close range - if the gun you saw had adjustable sights, that's another wastage. Reliability _should_ have been a must, and Stens lacked that, too... but production came first.

[stilletto_rebel]

Originally Posted by Staten

Walked by a antiques store the other day, that amongst incredible amounts of junk had a small collection of pacified guns...

These included a Bren gun, two Sten Gun MKII and III, and something I had never seen before, a Volksmachinenpistol...[CENTER]

How much were they asking for the VolksMP?

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Staten

Trust the germans to pirate something and make it twice as good as the orignal... (see also; Panther to T34, Bazooka to Pzshrek...)

Compared to the T34 the Pather was expansive, slow to manufacture, had poorly designed armour (little sloping), was over-weight and thus slow and comparatively unrealiable, and difficult to maintain. All that, and it didn't even have better armour or a better gun.

As for the Panzershreck - from what I've read I'm not sure it was a direct case of 'piracy'. Besides, while it was a nice weapon, the Panzerfaust was the real pice of genius - something so simple and cheap every grunt in the field could have some, and anyone could use it.

[flyingwombat]

Originally Posted by Rupert

Compared to the T34 the Pather was expansive, slow to manufacture, had poorly designed armour (little sloping), was over-weight and thus slow and comparatively unrealiable, and difficult to maintain. All that, and it didn't even have better armour or a better gun.

I think you're confusing the panther with the Tiger. Sure the Panther had its teething problems, but they were corrected. The panther V G is considered one of the best tanks of WWII.

Originally Posted by Rupert

As for the Panzershreck - from what I've read I'm not sure it was a direct case of 'piracy'. Besides, while it was a nice weapon, the Panzerfaust was the real pice of genius - something so simple and cheap every grunt in the field could have some, and anyone could use it.

The bazooka was not that great of a weapon. It was ineffectual against the armour of Tigers; a tread kill was almost impossible. The bazooka's upgraded but almost too late for WWII.

Sadly, in Korea, early bazookas were still in use! And T-34s were very hard to knock out. This was fixed but not fast enough for those men who had to suffer the oldfer model.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by Rupert

Compared to the T34 the Pather was expansive, slow to manufacture, had poorly designed armour (little sloping), was over-weight and thus slow and comparatively unrealiable, and difficult to maintain. All that, and it didn't even have better armour or a better gun.

The Panther had little slope?

The 75mm*70 wasn't a better gun?

I disagree on both counts.

GURPS WWII references:
p. W134. Compare the data for the 75mm Medium Tank Gun with those for the 75mm Very Long Tank Gun. The first one is outclassed, and the second one is also better than the 85mm Medium Tank Gun.
p. W:IC81. The Panther's Body Front gets PD6, while the Turret gets PD5 on Front and Sides.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by Rupert

the Panzerfaust was the real pice of genius - something so simple and cheap every grunt in the field could have some, and anyone could use it.

Sorry to disagree with you again, Rupert. But I think a grunt in the field would have _one_, not _some_. It's like carrying an additional rifle. You might do that with _one_ additional rifle, but you wouldn't do that with _some_ additional rifles. It's a this-once-or-never kind of weapon, especially if you also consider how it gives away the firer's position.

[flyingwombat]

Originally Posted by Michele

The Panther had little slope?

The 75mm*70 wasn't a better gun?

I disagree on both counts.
.

I think he got it confused with Tiger I, bad slope, too heavy etc.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by flyingwombat

I think you're confusing the panther with the Tiger. Sure the Panther had its teething problems, but they were corrected. The panther V G is considered one of the best tanks of WWII.

No, I'm not.

The Panther was higher than a T-34. It was also heavier and slower, used a petrol engine that burned more readily, and was more complicated (thus requiring more, and trickier maintenance).

Oh yeah, and about ten times as many t34s were built than Panthers, and quantity is a quality all of its own.

The Panther was a fine tank, but it cost too much (in several ways) for what you got - by other armies' standards it would've been a heavy tank, and thus could be compared to the IS-II, etc.

Sadly, in Korea, early bazookas were still in use! And T-34s were very hard to knock out. This was fixed but not fast enough for those men who had to suffer the oldfer model.

In Korea they were using the "Super Bazooka". It still wasn't really sufficient vs T-34s.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Michele

Sorry to disagree with you again, Rupert. But I think a grunt in the field would have _one_, not _some_. It's like carrying an additional rifle. You might do that with _one_ additional rifle, but you wouldn't do that with _some_ additional rifles. It's a this-once-or-never kind of weapon, especially if you also consider how it gives away the firer's position.

That should say "one", not "some" - 'tis what I meant to say. Better than a bazooka, though - they were generally crew-served, and you certainly didn't run round with one and your rifle and other kit.