PPsh-41

[FrigidAdam]

Hello all

Ok guys, I have a little bit fo a rant here, and it is on the sensetive topic of the PPsh-41.


I recieved my PPsh-41 from Chuck at the SSRoom, and it is top quality and I really think that it will mow down lots af facicts. But what if the Facictics have more PPsh-41's than the RKKA? Well that is the trend in our neck of the woods.

I have Reenacted German for many years and it was always understood that it was acceptable for Germans to use PPsh-41s at ostfront events. Well, in reality was the PPsh-41 really used that much by the German Forces? Was it carried as a main weapon by German Forces in numbers as great as we all assume?? Or was it picked up by German forces, Shot until empty and than dropped??? What Hard evidence is there that the PPsh-41 was ever used on the Western Front by German forces??? Personally I am sick of seeing German forces carring a PPSh-41 as a Mian infintry weapon at both Eastern and Western front Events.

Now, Western front events should be a no-brainer, but they are often carried by Germans. Eastern Front may be a little bit Different, but was it all that common??? I dont think it was. I believe that it is a huge re-enactorism when it comes to the lack of info that that people have on the Eastern Front.

If you want to carry a Russian PPsh-41, Buy a uniform set and just portray Russian, and end this big exception to the rule.

Adam

[ewj]

I don't know about Western front events for the PPsh-41. I don't recall seeing any at the last Rosemont, unlike the Ostfront event two weeks before.

I know the odd Russian weapon made it's way to the Western front. I've a phot of some French Commandos with an M-38 Nagant. We decided that the British units would not be allowed to use them and I've specific stated in our Resistance charter document no Russian weapons even for the FTP (Communist groups)

[daveww2]

This is a battle I've fought for years...

Yes there is plenty of Evidence of Germans using captured weapons... In fact Russian weapons did end up on the western front (ETO) too, BUT...

I've got evidence of a certain few American Tank units having captured Tiger 1s... I have photo evidence of US units using German Tracks, Trucks, Kubels and Schwims, motorcycles and German weapons, I have evidence of Soviet units using German weapons and equipment too, But...

What would you as a reenactor rather see at a reenactments Germans using and carrying German stuff, Russians carrying and using Russian stuff or GIs using GI stuff.... or a "bad" Kelly Heros or Cross of Iron impression?

I'd rather see Germans in a German track or Tiger 1 not GIs and the same goes with weapons carry your country's weapons.

Use of captured weapons and equipment was an exception done by small groups not an army as a whole. Event organizers need to get a pair and start limiting the use of captured weapons.

Dave
-----------------------------------------------------

frigidadam said:

Hello all

Ok guys, I have a little bit fo a rant here, and it is on the sensetive topic of the PPsh-41.


I recieved my PPsh-41 from Chuck at the SSRoom, and it is top quality and I really think that it will mow down lots af facicts. But what if the Facictics have more PPsh-41's than the RKKA? Well that is the trend in our neck of the woods.

I have Reenacted German for many years and it was always understood that it was acceptable for Germans to use PPsh-41s at ostfront events. Well, in reality was the PPsh-41 really used that much by the German Forces? Was it carried as a main weapon by German Forces in numbers as great as we all assume?? Or was it picked up by German forces, Shot until empty and than dropped??? What Hard evidence is there that the PPsh-41 was ever used on the Western Front by German forces??? Personally I am sick of seeing German forces carring a PPSh-41 as a Mian infintry weapon at both Eastern and Western front Events.

Now, Western front events should be a no-brainer, but they are often carried by Germans. Eastern Front may be a little bit Different, but was it all that common??? I dont think it was. I believe that it is a huge re-enactorism when it comes to the lack of info that that people have on the Eastern Front.

If you want to carry a Russian PPsh-41, Buy a uniform set and just portray Russian, and end this big exception to the rule.

Adam

[Konstantin]

Dahveed,

Wasn't there a GI unit that was nick named the "Rag Tag Circus" cause of all the german stuff they used. I seem to remember reading they had a STG-III, some kubels and some kraut trucks. Possibly more.

Russians were prolific in using german tanks. Many are the photos of them driving around on STG's and PZ-III & IV's covered in russian writing. How about all the photos of Russians with MP-40's. I saw a photo not to long ago of a russian soldier and he had a blade bayonet on his rifle. I said hey, what's that and upon closer examination it was a K98k.

However, the line must be drawn somewhere and I agree completely. You wanna see german equipment go to the german camp, US the US camp, Russian the Russian camp.

-dave
416th

[35divmp]

admin said:

Wasn't there a GI unit that was nick named the "Rag Tag Circus" cause of all the german stuff they used. I seem to remember reading they had a STG-III, some kubels and some kraut trucks. Possibly more.

Dave:

That was the 83rd Infantry Division, the main place for that story comes from either "The Last Battle" or "the Last 100 Days," both of which are excellent books on the fall of the Third Reich.

Yes, it is correct to use the enemies' weapons. An interesting read on the use of captured weapons is in "Pegasus Bridge," the book of the coup de main on the bridge at Normandy by the Oxs and Bucks written by Stephen Ambrose. The Brits toss away their Stens and grab as many MP-40s as possible.

But the majority of the soldiers carried their countries weapons, mostly because they were trained on them and resupply. Yes, the Germans were probably the biggest users of captured weapons, but that ran more towards heavy weapons and vehicles. The majority of the time small arms tended to be used where they were found.

Jay

[ewj]

[quote author=35divmp board=raw thread=1150654247 post=1150750545Yes, it is correct to use the enemies' weapons. An interesting read on the use of captured weapons is in "Pegasus Bridge," the book of the coup de main on the bridge at Normandy by the Oxs and Bucks written by Stephen Ambrose. The Brits toss away their Stens and grab as many MP-40s as possible.

Jay[/quote]

Jay was it really written bt Ambrose?

The Sten was not the best submachine gun of WWII - but it was about the cheapest to manufacure. It's design faults were numerous and I don't blame them in the lease. When designed the idea was that you could use caputured German 9mm ammunition in the gun - rather like the M-3 'grease gun' the problem was even at 30' it was horribily inaccurate.

The use of caputured weapons is a thorny one - about the only group that can do it at a public display and get away with it are partisans.

[35divmp]

ewj said:

Jay was it really written bt Ambrose?

The Sten was not the best submachine gun of WWII - but it was about the cheapest to manufacure. It's design faults were numerous and I don't blame them in the lease. When designed the idea was that you could use caputured German 9mm ammunition in the gun - rather like the M-3 'grease gun' the problem was even at 30' it was horribily inaccurate.

The use of caputured weapons is a thorny one - about the only group that can do it at a public display and get away with it are partisans.

Elliot:

Well, Ambrose's name is on it........

The Sten sucks, but for what it was designed to be, it works. I've live fired a large number of WWII Class III weapons (and own one too) over the years and if a Sten is maintained properly, then it will do what it's supposed to do. But it can be a pain-in-the-Hawkeyes Suck! at the wrong time. In some ways it's just a big automatic zip gun, and the german copy is no better.
In some ways the Sten is almost like a Liberator pistol, just good enough to help you get something better. ;D

Following Partisans in use of captured weapons would be the Russians, Finns, and French Milice (they used a lot of Stens that were captured from partisans, go figure).

Jay

[ewj]

35divmp said:

[Following Partisans in use of captured weapons would be the Russians, Finns, and French Milice (they used a lot of Stens that were captured from partisans, go figure).

Jay

My favorite sten stories concerns some members of the 1st SAS captured by the Milice during "Operation Bullbasket" just after D-Day. The Milice decided to execute them with Stens - considering this to be a great joke. The SAS saw what was happening and since they were not restrained and decided to make a run for it. The range was under thirty feet and some got away....

[daveww2]

There is plenty of Evidence to indicate just about every army had units or sub-units that used captured equipment -- well except for the Japanese, maybe

I'm not saying it wasn't done, I'm just saying how far do we want to push/take this? We need to draw a line somewhere and put limits on it or it will overtake the hobby and we'll all start looking like bad or campie 1970s War Movies rather than Military Reenactors. Event Organizers are probably the ones who can have the most impact on this issue. By having a pair and enforcing limits or rules at their specific events.

DaaHVeeD

[15thguardsrifles]

This is a bit of an annoyance to me as well. Hell, we all know of the German pic with the carbine (I'm wanting to say it was taken during the Bulge )

I don't know if it's a "cool" thing, someone just wanting the extra fire, or what, but really no need for that many Russian weapons in German hands.

But thats just me.........

Austin
aka Anatoli

[ewj]

I think some peole like pushing the envelope.

In one Can Para one guy inisists on using an M1 Garand based on one photograph. Yes, it's more firepower than an Enfield but it's not typical of the unit.

It's the avarage look we should aim for.

[temil61747]

I agree that I would rather see everyone using their own countries weapons and equipment for a more "typical" and realistic impression. However, on the topic of the Ppsh41 specifically, apparently the germans did have enough captured stocks of them that they did either factory convert or produce a field conversion kit converting them to 9mm. That being said however, I believe the overwhelming majority of these were used by the Vlasov army, not your typicaal German infantryman.

[35divmp]

admin said:

You wanna see german equipment go to the german camp, US the US camp, Russian the Russian camp.

Well, the problem that arises with that is the overriding fact that the Soviets got a LOT of US and Brit equipment through Lend-Lease, to include everything from boots to uniforms to small-arms to airplanes, to tanks and even warships (a Brit battleship was handed over to the Soviets).

About the only thing the Russians didn't get in Lend-Lease were four-engined bombers and M1 Garands.

I've seen in photos the following stuff in soviet hands:

Shermans
Matilidas
Crusaders
Thompsons
Reisings
Aircobras
A-20 attack bombers
Springfields
P-17 rifles
Hurricanes
Lots and lots of trucks!!!!
Halftracks and Scout cars
Food, food, and more food!!!!!

The list is almost endless.

Jay

[crazydima]

Tovarischi,

No argument that many items were went to the RKKA via lend lease.

The key thing to remember about such things as lend lease is not what things were sent but what quantities of things were sent.

Then look at those numbers versus the rest of the equipment used by the RKKA. Lets say the US sent 1,000 of a particular type of tank via lend lease. First subtract losses during shipping(u-boats). Then lets compare that to the thousands of the other types of tanks produced and used by the RKKA. What is critical is the proportion of lend lease vs domestic equipment. Then add in specific dates, places where such items were or were not used. So if you are portraying the battle of Stalingrad and all you have for armor for the battle is a Sherman then it isn't really a good representation.

As with many things an accurate portrayal becomes relative to what battle is being portrayed and what units were there utilizing what uniforms and weapons. Time specific is the type of detail which gets many of us.

A few(1 or 2) PPSH's being used now and then by German forces at an event would be fine by me but I would not like to see numbers in excess of that. I would say the same about RKKA using German weapons unless documentation is there to support it.

Never a dull moment.

Sincerely,

Dima

[Konstantin]

35divmp said:

Thompsons

Yes, but one must play the numbers game. I am at work right now so I do not have the exact number of thompson lend leased to the USSR.

But lets run the numbers. Say 50,000 Thompsons were sent to the Red Army. Which IIRC is higher than what was sent. The number that sticks in my head is 12,000. But I need to see Zolagas book to find the exact number.

In an army of 5,000,000 that dilutes down to 1 Thompson per 100 men. Of course when was the last time you were to an event that had 100 russians?

The three most common items in red army accounts were trucks, food and boots.

Endeavour to show the folks russian stuff and let them go elsewhere to see other countries items.

-dave