So great to be back at the Royal Armouries firing historic weapons with Jonathan. If you enjoyed the video, do hit the like button and stay tuned for fourth episode of our series in which the team test weapons of the Second World War belonging to Great Britain... 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
I have a question...you mentioned that the DPM was used in WW2....is there any (historical proof) that the DPM was used in WW2 ? Pictures, documents any thing ?...this topic comes up on gun fourms all the time and so far no evidence of it.... thanks
If you want to learn prone rifle shooting and breathing and so on, I'd be happy to help, with a little .22 there or with something a bit bigger out at Strensall, where they have 600 m ranges. You'd have to persuade Jonathan to lend us something suitable and supply the ammunition, though. Doesn't have to be an AI AWM. 1903 Springfield or 1917 Enfield of L98 or L86 or L81 would do fine. No AK, though. We'd want a rifle, not an overgrown SMG.
1939 10 largest economies in the world by gdp 1.United States of America 2.British Empire 3.German 4.Soviet Union 5.French Republic 6. Empire of Japan 7.Italy 8. Republic of China 9.Dutch 10. Poland
19:28 Come on stop stupid American Hollywood films. What is your knowledge of history from films also? . That never happened.Like Everyone get ak . Everyone get mosin .
Always a pleasure to see Jonathan Ferguson, the keeper of firearms and artillery at the Royal Armouries Museum in the UK, which houses a collection of thousands of iconic weapons from throughout history.
1939 10 largest economies in the world by gdp 1.United States of America 2.British Empire 3.German 4.Soviet Union 5.French Republic 6. Empire of Japan 7.Italy 8. Republic of China 9.Dutch 10. Poland
2:14 during the Battle of Berlin, a reporter attached to the Red Army was going to document the fighting in the Reichstag. On his way there, a Sergeant told the reporter to come to him and hand over his weapon. Thinking he was being pulled from the fighting, he disappointingly handed the sergeant his handgun, only to be given a PPSh-41 and some magazines a few seconds later and was told “anyone going into the Reichstag will need this.”
I'm a big fan of Jonathan Fergson, keeper of firearms and artillery at the royal armouries museum in the UK, which houses a collection of thousands iconic weapons from throughout history!
1939 10 largest economies in the world by gdp 1.United States of America 2.British Empire 3.German 4.Soviet Union 5.French Republic 6. Empire of Japan 7.Italy 8. Republic of China 9.Dutch 10. Poland
@@jimtomav20 “…the reinforced cloth equivalent of pizza boxes….” “Here is your *dinner plate* for that dash-28, *praporschik,”* he said. “It’s hot and ready to go.”
There were more than 2 mln SVT-40 made. Soviets did not shut down its production up until 1945 when they decided to switch to SKS-45. SVT-40 wasn't a substitute for Mosin, but rather an addition. It was used mostly by more experienced and better trained troops such guards units, marines and paratroopers.
Originally it was meant to replace it. Mosin production in 1941 was shut down all the way until autumn, because just before the invasion the plan was to fully shift to the SVT. Had the war started later, it's quite possible that USSR wouldn't have restarted the Mosin production.
SKS production didn’t start until 1949. M44 rifle production was done from 44-48. The M44 was the standard service carbine for this brief period which many people don’t realise
The Germans absolutely loved the SVT-40 too. Carried captured rifles. Type classified it. Made a German manual. Kept spare parts & ammo in supply. I love mine.
@@EtienneMorin-ot1hr it’s a cool gun. It provided the foundation for the SKS. 20 inch barrel, integral bayonet, fixed magazine, clip loaded. It served many Soviet satellite nations until the early 60s before the Russians completed their post war rearmament and switched to the AK/SKS and gave over the blueprints so they could begin manufacturing. It really was the first soviet empire standard service rifle.
-- Couple of points worth mentioning: 1. Mosin-Nagant was zeroed from factory to be fired while bayonet attached to it, and it acted as a muzzle compensator. 2. If during production of Mosin rifle barrel was not strait enough, it did not go to waste, but one or two PPSh or PPS-42/43 was made out of it, and it was one of the reasons words first mass produced Assault Rifle(it called "Avtomat" per Soviet classification, and was a separate class of weapon), not to be confused with "PP"(Pisto-let Pulemiet) like PPD, PPSh and etc.) by Vladimir Fedorov aka AF-1916, did not go into even broader use, because it used a smaller caliber(diameter) round of 6.5mm, but there were a stock piles of 7.62mm ammo, rifle and MG, as well as factory machinery oriented for 7.62 round standard. And it is because of Vladimir Fedorov(boss of Degtiriev, Tokorev, Simonov, Shpagin and ect.) as soon as 7.92x33 Kurts based was captured during winter Stalingrad fight, it was not too long for Fedorov finally push Red Army to switch from standard 7.62x54 round to intermediate M43 7.62x39 round, so work on all SMG, MG and other automatic weapons seized in 1944 in favor of new M43 round size based weapons from which AK-47, SKS-49 and short lived RPD-46(that was soon replaced by RPK by M. Kalashikov) came out, as a new generation of Soviet post WWII weapons. 3. It is true, that manual classified as infantry version of LMG, to distinguish it from tank and aircraft variants, however towards the end of the war Vasilie Degteriev will design not only DPM(that you mentioned), but RPD for new M43 7.62x39 round. All three L-MGs, are belong to a class of weapons which is "Hand Held Machine Guns", since it was based on Lewis MG, and Lewis MG is also Hand Held MG, and even Light Hand Held MG is a thing - Лёгкий Ручной Пулемёт. Word "Пулемёт" literally means "Bullets Hurdler/Thrower", however if you go to museums, or take Soviet catalog of weapons, including those, that did not go into service or mass production, they all going to have a year attached to it, to explicitly pointing of the year final revision of the weapon materialized, as well as classification of the weapon, and main/lead designer/s, since for every example of the weapon that went into service there are many, many, many that did not made a "cut", but are still exist as an historical examples, and its also true for those weapons that made into service as well, so it is easier to know exactly what are we're talking about, hence DP-28. 4. Yes, you did mentioned that DP-28 had a tank variant DT, which had a "pistol grip" and collapsible shoulder stock, but Georgy Shpagin(yes, designer of PPSh-41) designed ball mount for tanks(like T-26, BT, T-34 and ect.) and armored vehicles(those called "Bronievic" literally means "armored vehicles" like BA-20 and ect.) where DT could be very easy removed, fix bipod to it, and used as Hand-Held MG to defend the vehicle from outside of it. P.S. I really enjoyed watching the whole "classic WWII by Country weapon" series. Thank you!
At the end of the presentation of the Mosin-Nagant rifle, it is said that people were sent into battle in Stalingrad without weapons ... but that military historians may disagree. I disagree. At that point in the war, and it is borne out by the letters sent home by German soldiers IN Stalingrad, while they were still able to get mail out of the city, the Russians were able to supply each and every soldier with a weapon and adequate ammunition to fight. Not only that, but those who did not get a Mosin-Nagant did, in large numbers, receive a PPsh-41 submachine gun. In fact, the Germans typically referred to them as "tommygunners" because they associated that kind of weapon with American gangsters. There's a particularly famous letter, referenced in the 1970s documentary series "The World at War" in the episode about Stalingrad, where a German soldier REALLY complains about the many enemies that he's encountering with these submachine-guns and how he thinks it's a grossly unfair situation. It's a lot of bellyaching from an invader, really. However, it is true that early in the war, particularly in 1941 when the mass surrenders of Soviet troops took place along the front line, and in the immediate aftermath of that, that such enormous quantities of Soviet materiel was lost, that it became impossible to issue every soldier with a rifle for a relatively short while. However, even a "relatively short while" is an enormous problem when you're facing over three million highly motivated, well equipped Germans bulldozing your country. But we need to be completely realistic here. The Sixth Army was an elite formation and when it began the attack on Stalingrad, it was incredibly well supplied, in tip-top condition morale-wise and it had EXCELLENT leadership both on the ground and in terms of staff officers (anyone who thinks von Paulus was inept has no idea what they are talking about ... the man was a skilled general, who managed to holdout maybe a month longer than most others would've been able to given the desperation of his final situation after being surrounded). An army of unarmed levies would not have been able to hold them off, ESPECIALLY when it came to those last 150 meters before the Volga river, and the slaughter at the Mamaiev Kurgan. There's just no way. The Soviets were armed, and they had adequate supplies of ammunition, as well as reasonably good medical facilities. What they didn't have was good leadership. Their losses were staggering particularly because they were initially led by men who genuinely did not believe in the possibility of victory. It was not until Marshall Chuikov allegedly blew the brains out on a colonel who was being PARTICULARLY defeatist, and then ordered his men to "grab them by the belt" and fight up close and personal that things began to change. The Germans had neither expected that, nor trained for it. Fighting hand to hand when outnumbered is very rarely a winning strategy. Chuikov's forces did not outnumber the Germans early on, but they did get constant reinforcements, albeit at a trickle. The Russian high command under Zhukov, explicitly sent Chuikov only BARELY enough men to hold on. This was an absolutely brutal strategy, but it meant that the Germans were tied down, engaged in combat and unable to consolidate OR retreat, while Zhukov gathered 1.3 million of the best equipped and best trained Soviet soldiers, primarily from the Siberian divisions, around Stalingrad for the counterattack. When he finally DID counterattack, he not only hit the Germans where they were absolutely the weakest, namely in the sector of the front held by their incredibly poorly equipped and miserably trained and led Romanian allies who were in NO way interested in being there in the first place, but the attack came out of the blue, and the Germans had no IDEA that the Russians had that many reinforcements lined up at that time. They knew there were reinforcements, but the sheer mass of humanity that suddenly engulfed them came utterly as a surprise, and with the Romanians disintegrating immediately upon being attacked, the Russians swept through the lines, flanked German units that were not prepared to fight at all, encircled the city and cut off the Sixth Army in short order. Again, it did NOT happen on the backs of men fighting without weapons. It happened on the backs of fully equipped men being fed into the meatgrinder at precisely the speed needed to ensure the city did not fall. For once, I have to say that an otherwise good historian is quite simply wrong. And "Enemy at the Gates" is a miserable disaster of a movie, for a long list of reasons besides. Apart from the name of a couple of characters, it's entirely fictitious.
Agreed. Glantz discusses this trope in his book, "When Titans Clashed." His take is that the story likely started from incidents where German formations broke through to Soviet rear areas and encountered logistics units who were not armed. The idea that the USSR would waste manpower in such an intentionally frivolous manner, something it was always borderline critically short of, is a bad take from the get go. That's not to say that the Soviets didn't have bad commanders, or plainly sociopathic ones who were totally fine with spending their men's lives in callous manners...but generally speaking a guy who sent men into battle without weapons would probably have found himself on a fast train to Kolyma.
The Soviets DID NOT send their soldiers into battle unarmed in 1942, they were starving but they had plenty of rifles. The movie Enemy at the Gates is very entertaining but not in anyway historically accurate. The Army in Stalingrad was holding on by its fingertips and heavily outnumbered, they weren't deliberately throwing away the soldiers and by 1942 Soviet officers were ordered to stop charging their men into machine gun and artillery fire.
most likely, the scene with the attack of the unarmed in the film about Vasily Zaitsev is taken from the facts when the German troops were rushing to Moscow in the autumn-winter of 1941, then in Moscow and the nearest cities the divisions of the people's militia were formed, of course in the haste of their formation and with weapons there were many miscalculations, with weapons then it was bad, because army warehouses were they are located in the territories of Ukraine occupied by the Germans (in fact, the Germans captured a lot of weapons there were stocks for armament of many dozens . if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers). And these divisions of the people's militia could really have one Mosin rifle for three soldiers, and after the death of a soldier with a rifle, it was picked up by the next unarmed soldier with him, these divisions almost completely died in the defense of Moscow, but they gave the most important thing - time, winning General Zhukov time to form the defense of the capital. But of course these soldiers did not run to attack, on the contrary, they sat on the defensive, in hastily dug trenches, and they died more from artillery and bombers.But after those events (autumn 1941). Personally, I cannot say that the soldiers did not have weapons.
@ yes I can agree with that. Around Moscow in 41 yes but they COULD NOT sustain that much loss, there IS a limit to Soviet man power, especially if most of your population is under German control.
@@Jonhistorymodel the attitude to life and death, even in the Soviet army, soldiers from different ethnic and territorial groups were different, someone immediately surrendered, someone fought to the end realizing that he would not win, well, much depended on the internal motivation of the soldier. for example, the Ukrainian Soviet Republic was conquered very quickly by the Germans in a couple of months, respectively, it was defended mainly by soldiers from local residents, the partisan movement there was not large, one main partisan Sidor Kovpak is known, Belarus, although it did not last long, but there were many partisan detachments, the Germans destroyed more than 30% of the population of this republic, Well, the actual halt of the German offensive and the turning point were in the territories of the Russian Republic, where the ethnically Russian population prevailed.
I believe it was mentioned that there were maybe one or two instances of soldiers not carrying firearms while the battle was ongoing, but they were not sent into the battle like that. They were on the march without weapons and such, and only given a weapon once the logistical situation was sorted, like after a skirmish where they could take guns from the battlefield and return them. Sometimes the soviets also used german weapons, but not nearly as many as vice versa
There's this very weird re-writing of history because of the Cold War, where the GERMAN ARMY DURING WWII gets talked about as if they were just honourable patriots doing their duty under commanders just doing their best in spite of bad political leadership, which is completely insane whitewashing. Meanwhile the Soviets - who did more than any other political formation to defeat the nazis, despite taking more casualties - still get talked about in very "spooky" terms. Like I'm sure the Red Army was brutal to be a part of during such a conflict, but the bravery of soviet forces is just described as "oh they had no choice, they were sent into battle at gunpoint" ok. So was every other military, it's just that there's persistent myths that commissars were mass-executing anyone who so much as flinched. This goes for supply issues too - for some reason it's a persistent myth that the soviets were sending men into battle with no equipment to die pointlessly. Not only is this untrue but the logistical issues that did exist were a constant of WWII for every army, save maybe the US who had a massive industrial base unreachable by any axis intervention. Hell, the germans pulled a huge number of their factory workers out to send to the East assuming they'd have a short campaign and then they'd have these guys back on the assembly lines. Most of their supply lines and transport were handled by horse and cart. But for some reason it's the soviets - who at first were fighting a desperate defensive war on the back foot against an invading power who explicitly wanted to kill as many ethnically "impure" people as possible - who are remembered as both brutal and incompetent
I remember seeing a interview with a old Soviet solider who fought at Stalingrad at the age of 15 he said he was just been given the PPSh-41 and was moving in a building when a unarmed German happen to open a door next to him a meter away he said he panic and fired and unloaded the whole drum of ammo into that German. By the time the PPSh-41 run out of ammo he said the German's body looked like mice meat.
22:22. Another reason to leave this charging handle strait is weather conditions in the USSR - it's easier to grab when wearing mittens (which you would do in late autumn, winter and early spring)
I think that PPSh 41 takes the cake for rate of fire and controllability for WWII weapon, smooth! You would not want to be on the wrong end of that one.
Fired a ppsh41 full auto at a rental range in Poland. First time handling a select fire weapon. At 25m a full auto continuous burst delivered a group tighter than most very slow deliverered handgun groups. Absolutely lethal, way more effective than the m1 thompson I have tried later in the us (jerked quickly high and to the right despite the weight from shoulder fire). Even the mp40 which was very easy to control didn’t deliver as tight as a full auto group
You are missing Tokarev's SVT-40, semi-automatic rifle, and Sudayev's submachine gun PPS-43, produced in Leningrad under blockade. Also there was Degtyarev's PPD-34/38 submachine gun.
@@SadomazoPeestrooneen Yes, indeed, though AVS-36 was replaced by SVT-40, so only previously produced leftovers were used in the beginning of the war. The similar situation was with SVT-40 too, it was too complicated to operate, though Germans and Finns were impressed with the design and Germans copied (was inspired by..) when they designed Gewehr 43.
That 7.62×54mmR cartridge--developed in the 19th century, used throughout the 20th, and still in use today in the 21st century. Amazing! With the Mosin's 29-inch barrel--that 150 gr pill screams out at 3,000 ft/sec.
Brilliant guys really enjoyed this one. We read and hear about these weapons from WW2, nice to see how they function. More of these please for the other nations.
"meat wave" NEVER happened. This was a matter of the Germans not understanding what they were seeing. The USSR military trained their troops in conducting "sneaky advances" or infiltration advances, basically just creeping forward unseen as far as possible, and then rapidly assaulting enemy positions and completely overwhelming them. The problem was when troops doing this were spotted early. Because all other options were generally worse, the default order if spotted(unless it was too far from enemy positions) was to charge. The Germans failed to understand the sneaky part of this because they only really saw the "suddenly there's enemies charging from everywhere" part, and it's kinda hard to be analytical about what preceeded this while in the middle of getting charged. Many German officers did deduce what was actually happening, but the propaganda of calling it a dumbed down meatwave was too great, so no real understanding of this was ever spread in the German military. Which in turn resulted in the strategy sometimes being far more successful than it even should have been. It's worth noting that infiltration doctrine was also widely used by Japan, being part of the reason for some of its successes, but also laid the ground for their development of it towards actual "mindless" charges. Also, the idea that Soviet troops, or even militia went into battle without weapons is essentially a myth. It happened to a rare few individuals, never on a unit-scale. And even for individuals it was exceptionally rare. Generally if there was a lack of weapons, soldiers without were added to crewserved weapons as either spotters and/or ammo carriers or they might be provided with a load of handgrenades or Molotov cocktails or similar and act as a squad or platoon's designated grenadier. They might also end up as the officer's assistant or "map holder".
""meat wave" NEVER happened. This was a matter of the Germans not understanding what they were seeing." The Soviets weren't only fighting the Germans, while I cannot say what happened or did not happen on that front, "meat wave" attacks certainly happened, for example in the 1939 invasion of Finland. Some of them were assaults on defensive lines, some of them were attempted breakouts from encirclements but as long as a "meat wave" is defined as a large group of men simply running through the open hoping to overwhelm the enemy, usually with the result of getting mowed down by machinegun fire, they did happen. Especially that early in the war as the Soviets couldn't figure out effective combined arms so even when tanks and infantry were meant to attack together, they got separated and the infantry was left without cover charging in the open.
@@jm-holm "certainly happened" No, they completely and utterly did not. Apparently, you do not understand what the term truly implies. Deliberately sacrificing troops in massed attacks with little or no attempts to hide the advance or to use cover. "but as long as a "meat wave" is defined as" No. "a large group of men simply running through the open hoping to overwhelm the enemy, usually with the result of getting mowed down by machinegun fire" The only WWII nation that gets even close to that, are the Japanese later in the war, and even those were NOT just blindly charging in trying to sacrifice troops in return for taking a position or destroying an enemy. "Especially that early in the war as the Soviets couldn't figure out effective combined arms so even when tanks and infantry were meant to attack together, they got separated and the infantry was left without cover charging in the open." Ah, so you've only read biased western sources... How very "thorough" of you... Just because something fits your personal bias, prejudices and blind hatred, doesn't meant it is automatically true. Why don't you try investigating what happened during Barbarossa, the Soviet units that fought seriously, despite the contradicting orders which messed things up together with the new forward defensive line being built but wasn't going to be completed until 1942, but the garrison troops for it had already been moved from the older so called "Stalin line". Together with their equipment. Except over 95% of the equipment were boxed up for storage or transport, leaving the troops on foot, waiting in barracks, while the halfdone trenches and fieldworks were mostly empty, with mostly nothing but personal firearms. Rapidly crushed and overrun. Except in the few places where local commanders had bypassed the not actually existing orders, moved their troops to the defensive line and broken out their heavy equipment on the basis of better have it in a poor position than not have it at all. The Germans got many nasty surprises even during those first 10 weeks of overall massive success. And anyone who's actually studied Soviet in WWII knows about this. And the western propaganda really hates letting this become known.
@@DIREWOLFx75 Are you Russian or something? Flipping out to that degree and pulling out "hatred" and "biased western sources" is hilarious at best. Sorry if you can't bear to accept they happened. By 1942 and later I would doubt it occurred as the red army had plenty of time to get its shit together, but in the early years it was an absolute mess, especially in the invasion of Finland. It's part of the reason the Soviets suffered such stunning losses on that front, overwhelming numbers were used to wear the defenders down and absorb reserves and in the best case overwhelm the defenses but usually the troops were just a resource sacrificed in massive numbers crossing open fields in deep snow. Not that they had much choice in the terrain they fought in and more tactical approaches were attempted with little success. It was a massacre until the red army paused the attempts to break through and spent a couple months re-training, after which they became much more effective and managed to cooperate between armor and infantry which had been abysmal up to that point. Battalions crossing fields in the open in front of machineguns, only to be followed by another battalion when the attack was decimated. As for accounts, spoke to the people who were there. Wherever you get your "info" from may be the biased propaganda. I wasn't talking about the German front and you have no clue about the Finnish one.
One thing about PPSh-41s with drum magasines: when they started mass-producing those in 1941, the tolerances were so loose that not all magasines fit all the SMGs, so the factories hand-picked two fitting drum magasines for each SMG, gave them matching serial numbers and forbade separating them. As the workers (primarily, women and children working on the factories) learned to operate machinery, the quality started growing, and when they understood that they can hold the proper tolerances, they replaced drums with sticks that were completely interchangeable. Also, 3 loaded 35-round sticks weighted as much as one loaded 71-round drum, so for the same carried weight you got 50% more shots.
@@CortesevasiveThere were no washing machines in WWII. Soviets used only shovels and meat waves, spending about 1 million soldiers to occupy even one dugout. Trust me, I learned from modern history books 👌
Нет. Действительно,было произведено 6 миллионов ППШ,но по нормативам не положено так сильно ими снаряжать войска в полевых операциях. Он был неплохим для ближнего боя,в окопах и в городской черте. Богами войны в поле были артиллерия и винтовочный огонь. Такой же миф был про немцев,но и они в основном были вооружены карабинами,а МП-40 были у 2-4 человек во взводе,у сержантов. По крайней мере,в начале войны.
@ меньше. Один мп был у командира, это 10-20 человек в основном. У нас на те же 10-20 человек было больше лёгкого автоматического оружия. Так же ни у кого тогда не было штурмовых частей, которые вооружались поголовно автоматами, в отличии от РККА/Советской армии(после 44)
As for why the SVT-40 went into obscurity during WWII it has absolutely nothing to do with reliability or wartime utility. This was because the SVT-40 required significantly more time for production, time that the Soviets did not have. For example: The Germans had loads of captured Grands but they didn't use the M1 Garand because they considered it an inferior weapon. On the other hand, the SVT-40 was used on a regular basis, especially in SS units. Let me add that the Germans were happy to use the M1 Carbine. But not the M1 Garand. Along with problematic reliability, the main problem was the sights, which were usable only if you were in a trench or on a shooting range. Anywhere you were on the move or under a lot of stress these sights were practically useless. By the way, SVT-40 does not have this problem and about 1.6 million were produced.
Well... since you affirmed that someone would point it out in the comments, I volunteer to be "that guy". Pre-war Thompsons had 100 round drums widely available since the mid 1920's, but they were never quite as popular as the 50 round drums. They also nearly disappeared from production in the USA thanks to the 1934 National Firearms Act, and its negative impact on civilian submachinegun purchases in the USA. The majority of later Thompsons, of course, being military models (M1 and M1A1) which could only use stick magazines.
They were also incredibly expensive. In the 20s even just the 50 round drums were sold for $21, which is equivalent to over $350 today. The 100 rounders would’ve been even more I’m sure, although I’m not sure the exact number
During the war, Soviet engineers equipped the bomb bay of a light bomber with 88 PPSh. The goal was for the pilot to fly over enemy positions and fire on them. Imagine the firepower of such equipment.
To answer the question asked around the 37 minute mark, of whether or not the PPSh-41's 71-round drum is the biggest, it's not. Technically at least. In common use, probably. There was a 100-round drum made for the Thompson submachine gun, but they weren't very common, probably because it's huge and would have been very awkward. A full one also added a considerable amount of weight to what was already a very heavy submachine gun.
PPD-34 had a 73 magazine drum. It originally was for stick magazines and the magazine well was not open from the sides so when they copied the Finnish drum magazine they had to add a neck that held two rounds. PPD-40 then had an open magazine well. Neither were made in large numbers.
Since he didnt specify war-time SMGs, I would like to throw down with the American 180 which mounts a pan that holds 177 rounds of .22lr. Modern magazines hold 275. Say what you want about .22lr but 1,200rpm that you can literally 1-hand is nothing to look down on.
It should be noted that the Tokarev pistol wasn't equpped by "most soviet soldiers" at all. It was mostly used by officers and soldiers who couldn't carry a full sized firearm (like tankers or AT-gunners). The comment you said made it sound like most soviet soldiers had a Tokarev tucked in their belt.
Мой школьный учитель математики служил срочную службу в Ляйпциге командиром танка ИС-3 в 1955-58 годах. На каждого члена экипажа, включая командира, был выдан ППШ. Для строевых занятий и стрелковой подготовки. В танке, в укладке, были закреплены три ППС. И у командира танка был ТТ. Перевод с русского языка - ваша проблема. Изучаете русское оружие - будьте готовы.
@@karlwalther Point was that it wasn't issued to regular soldiers. Mostly just to officers and vehicle crew. I'm not saying that ALL vehicle crew got TT's, I'm just saying that the non-officers that got TT's were vehicle crews or the like.
Earlier he said that most soldiers front line didn't carry side arms. If you couldn't carry a rifle, you had a sidearm pretty much. Pistols were inaccurate and unreliable, why would you want to carry one if you could have a sub or a rifle. (Im paraphrasing) Drivers, backline officers and such. I'm not sure why he contradicted himself.
Tank crews were pretty packed with full size weapons for infantry role. T-34 crews could take off two DT light machineguns from their tank plus they usually had submachine guns as well
Thank you as always, its always a genuine pleasure to see our beloved Jonathan Ferguson, who happens to be the keeper of firearms, as well as artillery, within the remarkable confines of the Royal Armouries Museum, a museum which is located inside of the United Kingdom; the museum, which houses a collection of several thousands of iconic weapons, is not only a contemporary museum, but indeed contains firearms and weapons from all throughout history. I've been particularly interested in such an episode for quite some time, so this is most appreciated! It is missing some of my favorites, such as the SVT-40, the SVD, the Makarov, the PTRS, the DSHK, the KORD, the KPV-T, the GSh-23-2, the Gsh-30-2, the GSh-6-23, the GSh-6-30, the NS-45, the AZP S-60, the 2A90, the D-10S / T, the A-19 and the D-25, the ML-20S, and maybe to top it off, maybe a cheeky little 3BM26 fired using a full charge 4Zh63 out of a 2A46, that'd be nice... Well, perhaps one day, thank you as always Jonathan Ferguson, keeper of firearms and artillery at the Royal Armouries Museum in the UK, which houses a collection of thousands of iconic weapons from throughout history, most appreciated. Edit: What are the odds we get a video of you firing an RS-28 Sarmat? That'd be something I'd skip tea break for.
great video. Just want to add that PPS-42 (and later on PPS-43) was designed by Sudayev in sieged Leningrad. And it was not as much about making something cheaper than PPSH but rather something that could be produced faster and with less materials required. Because of such critical situation the city was in - metal was extremely valuable so by saving it on at least firearms it could've transfered to other branches such as tanks or artillery, ammunition etc. And the other aspect is that you can provide troops with more guns. Not only regular army could be supplied with that but also partisans who were fighting and basically living behind enemy lines
PPS was conceived as an even cheaper SMG but it turned out to be simple enough for literally any metalworking shop and thus it was built in factories that did bicycles or, famously, cash registers before the war without displacing PPSh production in legit arsenals. Partisans were never purposefully supplied PPS as they didn't differ operationally.
"The Forbidden Frisbee" -Jonathan Fergson, keeper of firearms and artillery at the royal armories' museum in the UK, which houses a collection of thousands iconic weapons from throughout history!
Regarding the largest capacity drum for a submachine gun. There were 100-round drums for the Thompson, although the U.S. virtually abandoned even the 50-round drum in favor of 20 and 30-stick magazines later in WW2.
Why don't you see that's the reason why he said that the 71 was the largest. Saying the incorrect thing knowing that it's wrong just so someone chimes in. He is deliberately encouraging it.
Three iconic weapons are missing! 1. Nagant revolver 2. SVT-40 semi-automatic rifle 3. PPD-40 sub-machine gun I'd say also AVS-36, an automatic battle rifle (yes, full rifle long round, full auto fire, and as heavy as ordinary rifle), but they were so few...
Although the PPSh-41 was the most mass-produced SMG of the war, the Soviets still tried to supplement it's production not longer after its introduction with a cheaper all stamped-steel gun with numerous cost-saving measures akin to the Sten - the PPS-42/43 (Sudayev's machine-pistol), which would number 2 million by its end. Unlike the Shagin, the PPS-43 could only take 35-round box magazines and had a much lower rate of fire, weighted around 2 pounds lighter unloaded and had a collapsible folding stock. I think because the transition came at a delicate time, the factories already tooling up for the PPSh-41 carried on with it, and only a few works switched to producing the PPS-43, resulting in parallel production and issuance.
wrote: " Although the PPSh-41 was the most mass-produced SMG of the war, the Soviets still tried to supplement it's production not longer after its introduction with a cheaper all stamped-steel gun with numerous cost-saving measures akin to the Sten - the PPS-42/43 (Sudayev's machine-pistol), which would number 2 million by its end. " -- Well, no matter how good "creation" it can always be improved upon. PPS-42/43 was designed by Alexie Sudaev , and used in Leningrad(present St. Petersburg), when it was under the 900 days siege, it was by far more popular(because lighter, and even more controllable to fire, even more simple and reliable) then PPSh-41, and priority was given to specialty forces like recon units, tankers and logistics.
It's actually a bit more complicated than that. The USSR was wanting a cheaper gun than the 41, and several proposals were given, one of them being by Shpagin. However the final decision was that Sudayev's gun was best. This didn't sit well with some high ranking officers, and they basically relegated the PPS-42/43 to smaller shops and repurposed factories, while the PPSh continued to be made in properly set up arms factories.
@@GlamStacheessnostalgialounge wrote: "It's actually a bit more complicated than that. The USSR was wanting a cheaper gun than the 41, and several proposals were given, one of them being by Shpagin." -- I'm sure the name of the SMG you're looking for is PPD-38/40 by Degterev, that was expansive and complicated to manufacture, and PPSh-41 delivered in spades as a viable replacement, since it was a lot cheaper, and a lot easier to manufacture, and by far more reliable. In a nutshell PPSh is the SMG Soviets was looking for, it checked all the "boxes", PPS-42 came later on, like I said it was designed for Leningrad front, in a city that was under siege. Both SMGs PPS-42/43 and PPSh-41 were extremely cheap, reliable and simple to be fielded, with good ballistics, so like you mentioned since major factories was already set to manufacture PPSh-41, nobody wanted to interfere on switching production line.
@@GlamStacheessnostalgialounge wrote: "It's actually a bit more complicated than that. The USSR was wanting a cheaper gun than the 41, and several proposals were given, one of them being by Shpagin. " -- Soviets were not happy with PPD-36/40, hence PPSh-41, is pretty much as cheap and as simple to manufacture as it gets, so when Sudaiev came up with PPS-42/43 interest just was not there... many veterans of WWII who used both PPSh and PPS admitted Sudaiev's PPS was a lot better and lighter, and easier to handle while PPSh-41 felt more bulkier.
Jonathan Ferguson, the keeper of firearms and artillery at the Royal Armouries Museum in the UK, which houses a collection of thousands of iconic weapons from throughout history is always a nice addition
Absolute props to the audio engineer for this video. Those intro gunshots were as impactful on my phone speakers as they were in headphones. Great balancing mate
It's a very cool show I love the history and the weaponry. I do think it's cool when they let the host shoot though LOL I was really hoping they would let him shoot at least the PPSh-41!
We are so back people, our favourite weapon expert Jonathan Ferguson, keeper of firearms and artillery at the royal armouries museum in the UK, which houses a collection of thousands of iconic weapons throughout history!.
Photographers use a similar technique (the good ones , anyway) take a deep breath, exhale until you're comfortable, and then squeeeeeeeze the shutter release.
aaah another guest appearance of Jonathan Ferguson, the keeper of firearms and artillery at the Royal Armouries Museum in the UK, which houses a collection of thousands of iconic weapons from throughout history.
TT-33 has a safety built in it. It is a half-cock of a hammer. When hammer is in a middle position it locks the trigger and the slide preventing it from accidental full cocking while inserting in a holster. You have to cock hammer fully to disengage safety.
This is true, and I believe Ferguson has mentioned it previously. But there seemed to have been A LOT of accidental discharges because of a lack of training, which led to the Makarov which has a fairly idiot proof safety.
I own a mosin magant with the scope mount and recently got a Pu scope for it, it is perfect for hunting no crazy 4-12x variable optic. Just a simple T-post 3.5x Also no nagant pistol or SVT-38/40 is criminal
PPSh is hilarious to field strip, a bolt, a spring and a buffer, all connected as one piece. Literally takes a second. + TT33 does sort of have a safety, the hammer has a position before it reaches the firing pin that it can sit it, but it has to be manually released with a round chambered, so a rather un-safe 'safety' ha ha.
Yugoslav made TTs had a slight change; the held one bullet more than any other version. The problem that Yugoslav army found with the design was that the grip was too short and your pinky finger would "hang", so they made the grip longer and in the process added another round. So, if you try to load Yugo magazine into any other TT, it will work. It will stick out a bit, sure but it will work. If you try to put any other magazine in Yugo version however - not. Obviously, the magazine is too short for it and will not lock into place. PPSh-41 or "Russian bullet gobbler", as the Germans often called it...
The nagant revolver was widely issued during WWII. Mine has a 1943 date with Tula stamped on it. Tankers preferred it to automatic pistols for shooting out of the ports of a tank. I have a few rounds of deteriorated WWII ammo that has an 80 grain fmj bullet going at high speed.
7:18 the Red Army actually had problems with accidental discharges on the Tokarev. You’re giving this thing out to people who have never handled firearms before in their lives, accidents are bound to happen. It’s one of the reasons why the Makarov has both a safety and a decocker.
Never heard of such a thing especially when the tt33 had a very simple to use safety you simply half cock the hammer and locks the gun, you can pull the slide or the trigger
@ problem with the TT33 is there’s no way to safely put the handgun back into the holster after chambering a round. You could put it in halfcock. But, in order to do so, you have to pull the trigger to drop the hammer and if you’re thumb slips when there’s a round chambered, the gun is going off. Again, one of the reasons why the Makarov PM not only has a slide mounted safety, but also a decocker.
I would have missed out on this if I hadn't recognized Jonathan Ferguson (the Keeper of Firearms and Artillery at the Royal Armouries Museum in the UK, which houses a collection of thousands of iconic weapons from throuhgout history) in the thumbnail.
Love how Johnathan passive aggressively tells him off that the extra round does make a difference. Also, I think American 180's largest magazine holds just at the verge of 300 rounds, so nope, Ppsh's magazine isn't the biggest.
The reason for the DP pan mag was due to the rimmed case of the 7.62x54r round. With the rim the mag has to curve sharply thus in order to put more than about 20 rounds into a mag it needed a round pan mag.
41:33 the Finnish soldiers might have called it a record player as well, but the most well-known nickname for the DP was Emma after a song with the same name that was popular at the time, which was obviously also inspired by the gun looking like a record player.
9x19mm Luger, aka modern 9mm, is a good all-around pistol cartridge. The Americans were so fixated on .45 because they wanted it to stop a horse in one or two shots -- in 1911 in the US Army, anybody whose job was to shoot at other men would have a rifle, only cavalrymen were *issued* pistols (infantry officers could buy whatever sidearm they wanted).
As one American officer put it, when talking about pistols in the hands of regular GI's: «They couldn't hit a barn from the INSIDE». That's why US personell who weren't strictly infantry started getting issued the M1 Carbine instead of the 1911. With that, a soldier with a minimum of training could actually HIT an enemy!
Mosin PU had bended bolt. Also you absolutely can fast fire Mosin and rechambering it while aiming, you just need stronger hands and a little bit of practice. There tons of videos people doing it same speed as Lee Enfield
37:10 I'll be the one to pop in From what I know in chronological order, the Thompson had a 100 round drum The American-180 pan magazines ranged from 165 to 275 The Calico has 100 round helical magazines The MP5 has 100 round drums available now too
The picking rifles up in combat stuff is totally a myth. In Stalingrad if you made it to Soviet positions they would have stacks of rifles. Besides if you think about it, if one man had the rifle and the other man had the ammo neither of them is armed because a rifle without ammo is a club. Stalingrad was a trap. The Soviets had reserves on the other side of the river which they eventually used to encircle the Germans in the city. The Soviets fed troops across the river at a rate specifically to allow the Germans to slowly advance and gradually take the city and when they had almost taken it all and committed all their force to completely take it they sent their forces to surround them. There was one part of the battle of Stalingrad where the Germans were pushing hard and might have taken too much and the Soviets sent a few extra units, but rather than one soldier with a rifle and one with a 5 round clip of ammo, it was more like 9 soldiers with rifles and ammunition and a tenth soldier with ammo and no rifle. On the way over the river anyone shot provides their rifle to the guy without one. Once they get to the Stalingrad bank of the river they would be sent to a position like a building where there would be firing positions and weapons heaped at multiple firing points where the soldiers moved from position to position using the weapons located at the firing positions. Everyone new who arrived would bring another weapon. Those that were killed left their weapon for everyone else to use.
"Enemy at the gates" is a propaganda, one of the many which were swallowed by Russia only because of strong Western influence. French-American creators took Zaitsev's memos and wiped their arse with it. Take the scene where machineguns were firing at retreating soldiers. In reality those machingunners provided cover for advancing troops and moved with them as soon as preferable position were taken. Of cource there were cowards and criminals, but they had a chance to absolve their guilt (penal battalions), and executed only in exceptional cases. The order "Not one step backward" affected officers in first place, not simple soldiers. Soviets were low on manpower, War took whole generation of young boys of 1920-es, not because soviets throwed them like nothing, but because it was a pure hell on Earth. At 1945 Red Army had to rely on other sources of manpower such as liberated republics. If anyone who wanted to end that war as soon as possible it was russians.
"Enemy at the gates" is a propaganda movie, one of the many which were swallowed by Russia only because of strong Western influence (Russia made a lot of similar crap own it's own unfortunately). French-American creators took Zaitsev's memos and wiped their arse with it. Take the scene where machineguns were firing at retreating soldiers. In reality those machingunners provided cover for advancing troops and moved with them as soon as preferable position were taken. Of cource there were cowards and criminals, but they had a chance to absolve their guilt (penal battalions), and executed only in exceptional cases. The order "Not one step backward" affected officers in first place, not simple soldiers. Soviets were low on manpower, War took whole generation of young boys of 1920-es, not because soviets throwed them like nothing, but because it was a pure hell on Earth. At 1945 Red Army had to rely on other sources of manpower such as liberated republics. If anyone who wanted to end that war as soon as possible it was russians.
It's 2.21 A.M in my country RN i should go to bed but i can't miss Pan and Drum duo in action after i saw last announcement post. Darn YT notifications You make me sleepless!
So great to be back at the Royal Armouries firing historic weapons with Jonathan. If you enjoyed the video, do hit the like button and stay tuned for fourth episode of our series in which the team test weapons of the Second World War belonging to Great Britain... 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
I have a question...you mentioned that the DPM was used in WW2....is there any (historical proof) that the DPM was used in WW2 ? Pictures, documents any thing ?...this topic comes up on gun fourms all the time and so far no evidence of it.... thanks
If you want to learn prone rifle shooting and breathing and so on, I'd be happy to help, with a little .22 there or with something a bit bigger out at Strensall, where they have 600 m ranges. You'd have to persuade Jonathan to lend us something suitable and supply the ammunition, though. Doesn't have to be an AI AWM. 1903 Springfield or 1917 Enfield of L98 or L86 or L81 would do fine. No AK, though. We'd want a rifle, not an overgrown SMG.
Also about famous snipers from ww2 was simö hayhä Finland 505 confirmed kills with mosin nagant.
1939 10 largest economies in the world by gdp
1.United States of America
2.British Empire
3.German
4.Soviet Union
5.French Republic
6. Empire of Japan
7.Italy
8. Republic of China
9.Dutch
10. Poland
19:28 Come on stop stupid American Hollywood films. What is your knowledge of history from films also? .
That never happened.Like Everyone get ak . Everyone get mosin .
Always a pleasure to see Jonathan Ferguson, the keeper of firearms and artillery at the Royal Armouries Museum in the UK, which houses a collection of thousands of iconic weapons from throughout history.
Am inclined to believe this video's release schedule (Saturday, GMT 14:00) is also a reference to Firearms Expert Reacts 🥲
It's rather disappointing that HistoryHit couldn't fit his entire name at 0:33 tbh
OYE!!!
ELLO BOT!!!
1939 10 largest economies in the world by gdp
1.United States of America
2.British Empire
3.German
4.Soviet Union
5.French Republic
6. Empire of Japan
7.Italy
8. Republic of China
9.Dutch
10. Poland
If he ever printed business cards with that exact sentence....i wonder if they would reach collector status^^
2:14 during the Battle of Berlin, a reporter attached to the Red Army was going to document the fighting in the Reichstag. On his way there, a Sergeant told the reporter to come to him and hand over his weapon. Thinking he was being pulled from the fighting, he disappointingly handed the sergeant his handgun, only to be given a PPSh-41 and some magazines a few seconds later and was told “anyone going into the Reichstag will need this.”
Those Špagins are hefty brutes, too. I briefly held one many years ago.
@@dennisyoung4631Tbh I prefer the MP-40 and the PPS-43.
@@dennisyoung4631they are very fun firing subguns. That muzzle break on the end of it does wonders in controlling the recoil.
I would have kissed him on the lips for that
@@edm240b9 yes but was also a round with low recoil and the gun itself was quite heavy (for the carthridge)
I'm a big fan of Jonathan Fergson, keeper of firearms and artillery at the royal armouries museum in the UK, which houses a collection of thousands iconic weapons from throughout history!
By god his done it ..... I try to do this everytime from.memory and I think I always forget the last bit
1939 10 largest economies in the world by gdp
1.United States of America
2.British Empire
3.German
4.Soviet Union
5.French Republic
6. Empire of Japan
7.Italy
8. Republic of China
9.Dutch
10. Poland
In reference to DP27 pans: "How do you carry these?"
Forgotten Weapons: "As it happens....."
@@jimtomav20 “…the reinforced cloth equivalent of pizza boxes….”
“Here is your *dinner plate* for that dash-28, *praporschik,”* he said. “It’s hot and ready to go.”
drum mags FTW
@@trition1234 Que Forgotten weapons other video
"Why Drum Magazines are a Bad Idea"
@@IndustrisasiIndonesia go away bot
@@anormalpotato2887 you are bot.
There were more than 2 mln SVT-40 made. Soviets did not shut down its production up until 1945 when they decided to switch to SKS-45.
SVT-40 wasn't a substitute for Mosin, but rather an addition. It was used mostly by more experienced and better trained troops such guards units, marines and paratroopers.
Originally it was meant to replace it. Mosin production in 1941 was shut down all the way until autumn, because just before the invasion the plan was to fully shift to the SVT. Had the war started later, it's quite possible that USSR wouldn't have restarted the Mosin production.
SKS production didn’t start until 1949. M44 rifle production was done from 44-48. The M44 was the standard service carbine for this brief period which many people don’t realise
@@DefunctYompelvertthank you for paying respect to the holy spiky rod! I love the look of the m44 and I find sad that it’s always forgotten.
The Germans absolutely loved the SVT-40 too. Carried captured rifles. Type classified it. Made a German manual. Kept spare parts & ammo in supply. I love mine.
@@EtienneMorin-ot1hr it’s a cool gun. It provided the foundation for the SKS. 20 inch barrel, integral bayonet, fixed magazine, clip loaded. It served many Soviet satellite nations until the early 60s before the Russians completed their post war rearmament and switched to the AK/SKS and gave over the blueprints so they could begin manufacturing. It really was the first soviet empire standard service rifle.
-- Couple of points worth mentioning:
1. Mosin-Nagant was zeroed from factory to be fired while bayonet attached to it, and it acted as a muzzle compensator.
2. If during production of Mosin rifle barrel was not strait enough, it did not go to waste, but one or two PPSh or PPS-42/43 was made out of it, and it was one of the reasons words first mass produced Assault Rifle(it called "Avtomat" per Soviet classification, and was a separate class of weapon), not to be confused with "PP"(Pisto-let Pulemiet) like PPD, PPSh and etc.) by Vladimir Fedorov aka AF-1916, did not go into even broader use, because it used a smaller caliber(diameter) round of 6.5mm, but there were a stock piles of 7.62mm ammo, rifle and MG, as well as factory machinery oriented for 7.62 round standard. And it is because of Vladimir Fedorov(boss of Degtiriev, Tokorev, Simonov, Shpagin and ect.) as soon as 7.92x33 Kurts based was captured during winter Stalingrad fight, it was not too long for Fedorov finally push Red Army to switch from standard 7.62x54 round to intermediate M43 7.62x39 round, so work on all SMG, MG and other automatic weapons seized in 1944 in favor of new M43 round size based weapons from which AK-47, SKS-49 and short lived RPD-46(that was soon replaced by RPK by M. Kalashikov) came out, as a new generation of Soviet post WWII weapons.
3. It is true, that manual classified as infantry version of LMG, to distinguish it from tank and aircraft variants, however towards the end of the war Vasilie Degteriev will design not only DPM(that you mentioned), but RPD for new M43 7.62x39 round. All three L-MGs, are belong to a class of weapons which is "Hand Held Machine Guns", since it was based on Lewis MG, and Lewis MG is also Hand Held MG, and even Light Hand Held MG is a thing - Лёгкий Ручной Пулемёт. Word "Пулемёт" literally means "Bullets Hurdler/Thrower", however if you go to museums, or take Soviet catalog of weapons, including those, that did not go into service or mass production, they all going to have a year attached to it, to explicitly pointing of the year final revision of the weapon materialized, as well as classification of the weapon, and main/lead designer/s, since for every example of the weapon that went into service there are many, many, many that did not made a "cut", but are still exist as an historical examples, and its also true for those weapons that made into service as well, so it is easier to know exactly what are we're talking about, hence DP-28.
4. Yes, you did mentioned that DP-28 had a tank variant DT, which had a "pistol grip" and collapsible shoulder stock, but Georgy Shpagin(yes, designer of PPSh-41) designed ball mount for tanks(like T-26, BT, T-34 and ect.) and armored vehicles(those called "Bronievic" literally means "armored vehicles" like BA-20 and ect.) where DT could be very easy removed, fix bipod to it, and used as Hand-Held MG to defend the vehicle from outside of it.
P.S. I really enjoyed watching the whole "classic WWII by Country weapon" series. Thank you!
Z-слоник базу выдал, молодец
Always a pleasure to have you guys round and showcase these firearms :)
At the end of the presentation of the Mosin-Nagant rifle, it is said that people were sent into battle in Stalingrad without weapons ... but that military historians may disagree.
I disagree.
At that point in the war, and it is borne out by the letters sent home by German soldiers IN Stalingrad, while they were still able to get mail out of the city, the Russians were able to supply each and every soldier with a weapon and adequate ammunition to fight. Not only that, but those who did not get a Mosin-Nagant did, in large numbers, receive a PPsh-41 submachine gun. In fact, the Germans typically referred to them as "tommygunners" because they associated that kind of weapon with American gangsters. There's a particularly famous letter, referenced in the 1970s documentary series "The World at War" in the episode about Stalingrad, where a German soldier REALLY complains about the many enemies that he's encountering with these submachine-guns and how he thinks it's a grossly unfair situation. It's a lot of bellyaching from an invader, really.
However, it is true that early in the war, particularly in 1941 when the mass surrenders of Soviet troops took place along the front line, and in the immediate aftermath of that, that such enormous quantities of Soviet materiel was lost, that it became impossible to issue every soldier with a rifle for a relatively short while. However, even a "relatively short while" is an enormous problem when you're facing over three million highly motivated, well equipped Germans bulldozing your country.
But we need to be completely realistic here. The Sixth Army was an elite formation and when it began the attack on Stalingrad, it was incredibly well supplied, in tip-top condition morale-wise and it had EXCELLENT leadership both on the ground and in terms of staff officers (anyone who thinks von Paulus was inept has no idea what they are talking about ... the man was a skilled general, who managed to holdout maybe a month longer than most others would've been able to given the desperation of his final situation after being surrounded).
An army of unarmed levies would not have been able to hold them off, ESPECIALLY when it came to those last 150 meters before the Volga river, and the slaughter at the Mamaiev Kurgan. There's just no way. The Soviets were armed, and they had adequate supplies of ammunition, as well as reasonably good medical facilities. What they didn't have was good leadership. Their losses were staggering particularly because they were initially led by men who genuinely did not believe in the possibility of victory. It was not until Marshall Chuikov allegedly blew the brains out on a colonel who was being PARTICULARLY defeatist, and then ordered his men to "grab them by the belt" and fight up close and personal that things began to change. The Germans had neither expected that, nor trained for it. Fighting hand to hand when outnumbered is very rarely a winning strategy. Chuikov's forces did not outnumber the Germans early on, but they did get constant reinforcements, albeit at a trickle. The Russian high command under Zhukov, explicitly sent Chuikov only BARELY enough men to hold on. This was an absolutely brutal strategy, but it meant that the Germans were tied down, engaged in combat and unable to consolidate OR retreat, while Zhukov gathered 1.3 million of the best equipped and best trained Soviet soldiers, primarily from the Siberian divisions, around Stalingrad for the counterattack.
When he finally DID counterattack, he not only hit the Germans where they were absolutely the weakest, namely in the sector of the front held by their incredibly poorly equipped and miserably trained and led Romanian allies who were in NO way interested in being there in the first place, but the attack came out of the blue, and the Germans had no IDEA that the Russians had that many reinforcements lined up at that time. They knew there were reinforcements, but the sheer mass of humanity that suddenly engulfed them came utterly as a surprise, and with the Romanians disintegrating immediately upon being attacked, the Russians swept through the lines, flanked German units that were not prepared to fight at all, encircled the city and cut off the Sixth Army in short order.
Again, it did NOT happen on the backs of men fighting without weapons. It happened on the backs of fully equipped men being fed into the meatgrinder at precisely the speed needed to ensure the city did not fall.
For once, I have to say that an otherwise good historian is quite simply wrong.
And "Enemy at the Gates" is a miserable disaster of a movie, for a long list of reasons besides.
Apart from the name of a couple of characters, it's entirely fictitious.
Get a life!
i aint readin allat
Agreed.
Glantz discusses this trope in his book, "When Titans Clashed." His take is that the story likely started from incidents where German formations broke through to Soviet rear areas and encountered logistics units who were not armed.
The idea that the USSR would waste manpower in such an intentionally frivolous manner, something it was always borderline critically short of, is a bad take from the get go. That's not to say that the Soviets didn't have bad commanders, or plainly sociopathic ones who were totally fine with spending their men's lives in callous manners...but generally speaking a guy who sent men into battle without weapons would probably have found himself on a fast train to Kolyma.
I've only ever read those stories happening during the winter war in Finland.
Not a single person read this essay
The Soviets DID NOT send their soldiers into battle unarmed in 1942, they were starving but they had plenty of rifles. The movie Enemy at the Gates is very entertaining but not in anyway historically accurate. The Army in Stalingrad was holding on by its fingertips and heavily outnumbered, they weren't deliberately throwing away the soldiers and by 1942 Soviet officers were ordered to stop charging their men into machine gun and artillery fire.
most likely, the scene with the attack of the unarmed in the film about Vasily Zaitsev is taken from the facts when the German troops were rushing to Moscow in the autumn-winter of 1941, then in Moscow and the nearest cities the divisions of the people's militia were formed, of course in the haste of their formation and with weapons there were many miscalculations, with weapons then it was bad, because army warehouses were they are located in the territories of Ukraine occupied by the Germans (in fact, the Germans captured a lot of weapons there were stocks for armament of many dozens . if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers). And these divisions of the people's militia could really have one Mosin rifle for three soldiers, and after the death of a soldier with a rifle, it was picked up by the next unarmed soldier with him, these divisions almost completely died in the defense of Moscow, but they gave the most important thing - time, winning General Zhukov time to form the defense of the capital. But of course these soldiers did not run to attack, on the contrary, they sat on the defensive, in hastily dug trenches, and they died more from artillery and bombers.But after those events (autumn 1941). Personally, I cannot say that the soldiers did not have weapons.
@ yes I can agree with that. Around Moscow in 41 yes but they COULD NOT sustain that much loss, there IS a limit to Soviet man power, especially if most of your population is under German control.
@@Jonhistorymodel the attitude to life and death, even in the Soviet army, soldiers from different ethnic and territorial groups were different, someone immediately surrendered, someone fought to the end realizing that he would not win, well, much depended on the internal motivation of the soldier.
for example, the Ukrainian Soviet Republic was conquered very quickly by the Germans in a couple of months, respectively, it was defended mainly by soldiers from local residents, the partisan movement there was not large, one main partisan Sidor Kovpak is known, Belarus, although it did not last long, but there were many partisan detachments, the Germans destroyed more than 30% of the population of this republic,
Well, the actual halt of the German offensive and the turning point were in the territories of the Russian Republic, where the ethnically Russian population prevailed.
I believe it was mentioned that there were maybe one or two instances of soldiers not carrying firearms while the battle was ongoing, but they were not sent into the battle like that. They were on the march without weapons and such, and only given a weapon once the logistical situation was sorted, like after a skirmish where they could take guns from the battlefield and return them. Sometimes the soviets also used german weapons, but not nearly as many as vice versa
There's this very weird re-writing of history because of the Cold War, where the GERMAN ARMY DURING WWII gets talked about as if they were just honourable patriots doing their duty under commanders just doing their best in spite of bad political leadership, which is completely insane whitewashing. Meanwhile the Soviets - who did more than any other political formation to defeat the nazis, despite taking more casualties - still get talked about in very "spooky" terms.
Like I'm sure the Red Army was brutal to be a part of during such a conflict, but the bravery of soviet forces is just described as "oh they had no choice, they were sent into battle at gunpoint" ok. So was every other military, it's just that there's persistent myths that commissars were mass-executing anyone who so much as flinched.
This goes for supply issues too - for some reason it's a persistent myth that the soviets were sending men into battle with no equipment to die pointlessly. Not only is this untrue but the logistical issues that did exist were a constant of WWII for every army, save maybe the US who had a massive industrial base unreachable by any axis intervention. Hell, the germans pulled a huge number of their factory workers out to send to the East assuming they'd have a short campaign and then they'd have these guys back on the assembly lines. Most of their supply lines and transport were handled by horse and cart. But for some reason it's the soviets - who at first were fighting a desperate defensive war on the back foot against an invading power who explicitly wanted to kill as many ethnically "impure" people as possible - who are remembered as both brutal and incompetent
That DP was ROARIN'
I just watched an hour long video about guns. Im not a gun guy. That says something for the quality of the two guys presenting. Good job.
Thank you so much! That means a lot to the team
I remember seeing a interview with a old Soviet solider who fought at Stalingrad at the age of 15 he said he was just been given the PPSh-41 and was moving in a building when a unarmed German happen to open a door next to him a meter away he said he panic and fired and unloaded the whole drum of ammo into that German. By the time the PPSh-41 run out of ammo he said the German's body looked like mice meat.
22:22. Another reason to leave this charging handle strait is weather conditions in the USSR - it's easier to grab when wearing mittens (which you would do in late autumn, winter and early spring)
I think that PPSh 41 takes the cake for rate of fire and controllability for WWII weapon, smooth! You would not want to be on the wrong end of that one.
Fired a ppsh41 full auto at a rental range in Poland. First time handling a select fire weapon. At 25m a full auto continuous burst delivered a group tighter than most very slow deliverered handgun groups. Absolutely lethal, way more effective than the m1 thompson I have tried later in the us (jerked quickly high and to the right despite the weight from shoulder fire). Even the mp40 which was very easy to control didn’t deliver as tight as a full auto group
You are missing Tokarev's SVT-40, semi-automatic rifle, and Sudayev's submachine gun PPS-43, produced in Leningrad under blockade. Also there was Degtyarev's PPD-34/38 submachine gun.
PPS43 is the best WW2 SMG.
They also missing AVS-36 unfortunately.
@@SadomazoPeestrooneen Yes, indeed, though AVS-36 was replaced by SVT-40, so only previously produced leftovers were used in the beginning of the war. The similar situation was with SVT-40 too, it was too complicated to operate, though Germans and Finns were impressed with the design and Germans copied (was inspired by..) when they designed Gewehr 43.
That 7.62×54mmR cartridge--developed in the 19th century, used throughout the 20th, and still in use today in the 21st century. Amazing! With the Mosin's 29-inch barrel--that 150 gr pill screams out at 3,000 ft/sec.
I hope this series continues with more nations like Italy, Japan etc.
Brilliant guys really enjoyed this one. We read and hear about these weapons from WW2, nice to see how they function. More of these please for the other nations.
"meat wave"
NEVER happened. This was a matter of the Germans not understanding what they were seeing.
The USSR military trained their troops in conducting "sneaky advances" or infiltration advances, basically just creeping forward unseen as far as possible, and then rapidly assaulting enemy positions and completely overwhelming them.
The problem was when troops doing this were spotted early. Because all other options were generally worse, the default order if spotted(unless it was too far from enemy positions) was to charge.
The Germans failed to understand the sneaky part of this because they only really saw the "suddenly there's enemies charging from everywhere" part, and it's kinda hard to be analytical about what preceeded this while in the middle of getting charged.
Many German officers did deduce what was actually happening, but the propaganda of calling it a dumbed down meatwave was too great, so no real understanding of this was ever spread in the German military.
Which in turn resulted in the strategy sometimes being far more successful than it even should have been.
It's worth noting that infiltration doctrine was also widely used by Japan, being part of the reason for some of its successes, but also laid the ground for their development of it towards actual "mindless" charges.
Also, the idea that Soviet troops, or even militia went into battle without weapons is essentially a myth. It happened to a rare few individuals, never on a unit-scale. And even for individuals it was exceptionally rare. Generally if there was a lack of weapons, soldiers without were added to crewserved weapons as either spotters and/or ammo carriers or they might be provided with a load of handgrenades or Molotov cocktails or similar and act as a squad or platoon's designated grenadier. They might also end up as the officer's assistant or "map holder".
Or became designated medic.
To be more accurate, issued to carry wounded away.
@@PyromaN93 Yup, that too!
I knew there was one i was forgetting!
""meat wave"
NEVER happened. This was a matter of the Germans not understanding what they were seeing."
The Soviets weren't only fighting the Germans, while I cannot say what happened or did not happen on that front, "meat wave" attacks certainly happened, for example in the 1939 invasion of Finland. Some of them were assaults on defensive lines, some of them were attempted breakouts from encirclements but as long as a "meat wave" is defined as a large group of men simply running through the open hoping to overwhelm the enemy, usually with the result of getting mowed down by machinegun fire, they did happen.
Especially that early in the war as the Soviets couldn't figure out effective combined arms so even when tanks and infantry were meant to attack together, they got separated and the infantry was left without cover charging in the open.
@@jm-holm "certainly happened"
No, they completely and utterly did not.
Apparently, you do not understand what the term truly implies.
Deliberately sacrificing troops in massed attacks with little or no attempts to hide the advance or to use cover.
"but as long as a "meat wave" is defined as"
No.
"a large group of men simply running through the open hoping to overwhelm the enemy, usually with the result of getting mowed down by machinegun fire"
The only WWII nation that gets even close to that, are the Japanese later in the war, and even those were NOT just blindly charging in trying to sacrifice troops in return for taking a position or destroying an enemy.
"Especially that early in the war as the Soviets couldn't figure out effective combined arms so even when tanks and infantry were meant to attack together, they got separated and the infantry was left without cover charging in the open."
Ah, so you've only read biased western sources...
How very "thorough" of you...
Just because something fits your personal bias, prejudices and blind hatred, doesn't meant it is automatically true.
Why don't you try investigating what happened during Barbarossa, the Soviet units that fought seriously, despite the contradicting orders which messed things up together with the new forward defensive line being built but wasn't going to be completed until 1942, but the garrison troops for it had already been moved from the older so called "Stalin line".
Together with their equipment.
Except over 95% of the equipment were boxed up for storage or transport, leaving the troops on foot, waiting in barracks, while the halfdone trenches and fieldworks were mostly empty, with mostly nothing but personal firearms.
Rapidly crushed and overrun.
Except in the few places where local commanders had bypassed the not actually existing orders, moved their troops to the defensive line and broken out their heavy equipment on the basis of better have it in a poor position than not have it at all.
The Germans got many nasty surprises even during those first 10 weeks of overall massive success.
And anyone who's actually studied Soviet in WWII knows about this.
And the western propaganda really hates letting this become known.
@@DIREWOLFx75 Are you Russian or something? Flipping out to that degree and pulling out "hatred" and "biased western sources" is hilarious at best.
Sorry if you can't bear to accept they happened. By 1942 and later I would doubt it occurred as the red army had plenty of time to get its shit together, but in the early years it was an absolute mess, especially in the invasion of Finland.
It's part of the reason the Soviets suffered such stunning losses on that front, overwhelming numbers were used to wear the defenders down and absorb reserves and in the best case overwhelm the defenses but usually the troops were just a resource sacrificed in massive numbers crossing open fields in deep snow.
Not that they had much choice in the terrain they fought in and more tactical approaches were attempted with little success.
It was a massacre until the red army paused the attempts to break through and spent a couple months re-training, after which they became much more effective and managed to cooperate between armor and infantry which had been abysmal up to that point.
Battalions crossing fields in the open in front of machineguns, only to be followed by another battalion when the attack was decimated.
As for accounts, spoke to the people who were there. Wherever you get your "info" from may be the biased propaganda. I wasn't talking about the German front and you have no clue about the Finnish one.
PPSH charging handle caught his finger when he changed to burst on the stick mag. So little room for your support hand. Bet that hurt a bit.
One thing about PPSh-41s with drum magasines: when they started mass-producing those in 1941, the tolerances were so loose that not all magasines fit all the SMGs, so the factories hand-picked two fitting drum magasines for each SMG, gave them matching serial numbers and forbade separating them. As the workers (primarily, women and children working on the factories) learned to operate machinery, the quality started growing, and when they understood that they can hold the proper tolerances, they replaced drums with sticks that were completely interchangeable. Also, 3 loaded 35-round sticks weighted as much as one loaded 71-round drum, so for the same carried weight you got 50% more shots.
In 1942 55% of soviet army was armed by PPSH. It’s literally the best sub-machine gun of ww2
No they used shovels and washing maschines
@@CortesevasiveThere were no washing machines in WWII. Soviets used only shovels and meat waves, spending about 1 million soldiers to occupy even one dugout. Trust me, I learned from modern history books 👌
Нет. Действительно,было произведено 6 миллионов ППШ,но по нормативам не положено так сильно ими снаряжать войска в полевых операциях. Он был неплохим для ближнего боя,в окопах и в городской черте.
Богами войны в поле были артиллерия и винтовочный огонь.
Такой же миф был про немцев,но и они в основном были вооружены карабинами,а МП-40 были у 2-4 человек во взводе,у сержантов. По крайней мере,в начале войны.
@ меньше. Один мп был у командира, это 10-20 человек в основном. У нас на те же 10-20 человек было больше лёгкого автоматического оружия. Так же ни у кого тогда не было штурмовых частей, которые вооружались поголовно автоматами, в отличии от РККА/Советской армии(после 44)
These guns are art masterpieces! I wish I could own one!
I have a tt33 and a Mosin they are good guns
As for why the SVT-40 went into obscurity during WWII it has absolutely nothing to do with reliability or wartime utility. This was because the SVT-40 required significantly more time for production, time that the Soviets did not have.
For example: The Germans had loads of captured Grands but they didn't use the M1 Garand because they considered it an inferior weapon. On the other hand, the SVT-40 was used on a regular basis, especially in SS units.
Let me add that the Germans were happy to use the M1 Carbine. But not the M1 Garand.
Along with problematic reliability, the main problem was the sights, which were usable only if you were in a trench or on a shooting range. Anywhere you were on the move or under a lot of stress these sights were practically useless.
By the way, SVT-40 does not have this problem and about 1.6 million were produced.
Well... since you affirmed that someone would point it out in the comments, I volunteer to be "that guy". Pre-war Thompsons had 100 round drums widely available since the mid 1920's, but they were never quite as popular as the 50 round drums. They also nearly disappeared from production in the USA thanks to the 1934 National Firearms Act, and its negative impact on civilian submachinegun purchases in the USA. The majority of later Thompsons, of course, being military models (M1 and M1A1) which could only use stick magazines.
They were also incredibly expensive. In the 20s even just the 50 round drums were sold for $21, which is equivalent to over $350 today. The 100 rounders would’ve been even more I’m sure, although I’m not sure the exact number
The soviet weapons have so many quality at them that you can see modern armies still using it nowadays and get the job done.
The PPSH-41 is forever remembered on screen, when James Cohburn used it in the film Cross of Iron.
Good lord, the PPSH is like a mini MG-42 in your shoulder.
That's why they are submachine guns
During the war, Soviet engineers equipped the bomb bay of a light bomber with 88 PPSh. The goal was for the pilot to fly over enemy positions and fire on them. Imagine the firepower of such equipment.
Imagine 5 conscripts laying down hate while you have a Kar98K
@@georgigeorgiev6756 Tu-2 is solidly a medium bomber, slightly lighter than Vickers Wellington (but much faster).
@@georgigeorgiev6756Really dumb idea. But I guess it shows just how many were produced.
Tokarevs are lovely pistols. I have one from Yugoslavia
Ppsh, the red Tommy gun. Perfect for room clearing, whether defending Stalingrad or capturing Berlin.
The Commie Tommy
*Špagin, yes!*
As Russian equivalent for "Tommy", we have "Timofey gun"
@@myopickid4180 In Soviet Russia, avtomat Timofey have you.
@@myopickid4180 it would actually be "Foma gun", since "Timofey" is the russian analogue of "Timothy", not "Thomas".
To answer the question asked around the 37 minute mark, of whether or not the PPSh-41's 71-round drum is the biggest, it's not. Technically at least. In common use, probably. There was a 100-round drum made for the Thompson submachine gun, but they weren't very common, probably because it's huge and would have been very awkward. A full one also added a considerable amount of weight to what was already a very heavy submachine gun.
PPD-34 had a 73 magazine drum. It originally was for stick magazines and the magazine well was not open from the sides so when they copied the Finnish drum magazine they had to add a neck that held two rounds. PPD-40 then had an open magazine well. Neither were made in large numbers.
Since he didnt specify war-time SMGs, I would like to throw down with the American 180 which mounts a pan that holds 177 rounds of .22lr. Modern magazines hold 275. Say what you want about .22lr but 1,200rpm that you can literally 1-hand is nothing to look down on.
There was also Shptilaniy PP which had 97/100 rounds in drum.
It should be noted that the Tokarev pistol wasn't equpped by "most soviet soldiers" at all. It was mostly used by officers and soldiers who couldn't carry a full sized firearm (like tankers or AT-gunners).
The comment you said made it sound like most soviet soldiers had a Tokarev tucked in their belt.
You forgot machine gunners, their sidearm was either the Nagant or the TT-33 but yes, it wasn't incredibly common.
Мой школьный учитель математики служил срочную службу в Ляйпциге командиром танка ИС-3 в 1955-58 годах. На каждого члена экипажа, включая командира, был выдан ППШ. Для строевых занятий и стрелковой подготовки. В танке, в укладке, были закреплены три ППС. И у командира танка был ТТ. Перевод с русского языка - ваша проблема. Изучаете русское оружие - будьте готовы.
@@karlwalther Point was that it wasn't issued to regular soldiers. Mostly just to officers and vehicle crew.
I'm not saying that ALL vehicle crew got TT's, I'm just saying that the non-officers that got TT's were vehicle crews or the like.
Earlier he said that most soldiers front line didn't carry side arms. If you couldn't carry a rifle, you had a sidearm pretty much. Pistols were inaccurate and unreliable, why would you want to carry one if you could have a sub or a rifle. (Im paraphrasing) Drivers, backline officers and such. I'm not sure why he contradicted himself.
Tank crews were pretty packed with full size weapons for infantry role. T-34 crews could take off two DT light machineguns from their tank plus they usually had submachine guns as well
Thank you as always, its always a genuine pleasure to see our beloved Jonathan Ferguson, who happens to be the keeper of firearms, as well as artillery, within the remarkable confines of the Royal Armouries Museum, a museum which is located inside of the United Kingdom; the museum, which houses a collection of several thousands of iconic weapons, is not only a contemporary museum, but indeed contains firearms and weapons from all throughout history. I've been particularly interested in such an episode for quite some time, so this is most appreciated! It is missing some of my favorites, such as the SVT-40, the SVD, the Makarov, the PTRS, the DSHK, the KORD, the KPV-T, the GSh-23-2, the Gsh-30-2, the GSh-6-23, the GSh-6-30, the NS-45, the AZP S-60, the 2A90, the D-10S / T, the A-19 and the D-25, the ML-20S, and maybe to top it off, maybe a cheeky little 3BM26 fired using a full charge 4Zh63 out of a 2A46, that'd be nice...
Well, perhaps one day, thank you as always Jonathan Ferguson, keeper of firearms and artillery at the Royal Armouries Museum in the UK, which houses a collection of thousands of iconic weapons from throughout history, most appreciated.
Edit: What are the odds we get a video of you firing an RS-28 Sarmat? That'd be something I'd skip tea break for.
great video. Just want to add that PPS-42 (and later on PPS-43) was designed by Sudayev in sieged Leningrad. And it was not as much about making something cheaper than PPSH but rather something that could be produced faster and with less materials required. Because of such critical situation the city was in - metal was extremely valuable so by saving it on at least firearms it could've transfered to other branches such as tanks or artillery, ammunition etc. And the other aspect is that you can provide troops with more guns. Not only regular army could be supplied with that but also partisans who were fighting and basically living behind enemy lines
PPS was conceived as an even cheaper SMG but it turned out to be simple enough for literally any metalworking shop and thus it was built in factories that did bicycles or, famously, cash registers before the war without displacing PPSh production in legit arsenals. Partisans were never purposefully supplied PPS as they didn't differ operationally.
One of my major misses when I moved away from the area is visiting this place. LOVED IT allot of good memories
Never forget the mighty SHOVEL !!!
"The Forbidden Frisbee" -Jonathan Fergson, keeper of firearms and artillery at the royal armories' museum in the UK, which houses a collection of thousands iconic weapons from throughout history!
Tod's Workshop and now Jonathan Ferguson. History Hit is nailing it with the guests lately.
Regarding the largest capacity drum for a submachine gun. There were 100-round drums for the Thompson, although the U.S. virtually abandoned even the 50-round drum in favor of 20 and 30-stick magazines later in WW2.
While drums can fit alot of bullets they are combersome to carry.
@@Ollidol And in the case of the 100 round drum really heavy. The 100 round drum for the Thompson weighed more than the gun.
Why don't you see that's the reason why he said that the 71 was the largest. Saying the incorrect thing knowing that it's wrong just so someone chimes in. He is deliberately encouraging it.
@Ollidol Absolutely. Also, the heat and humidity of the South Pacific theater made them pretty unreliable.
Johnathan Ferguson with Soviet WWII guns, awesome. Other than the U.S. Army the Soviet is my favorite.
Great episode. That was some top notch full auto shooting by Jonathon Ferguson. Well done.
Three iconic weapons are missing!
1. Nagant revolver
2. SVT-40 semi-automatic rifle
3. PPD-40 sub-machine gun
I'd say also AVS-36, an automatic battle rifle (yes, full rifle long round, full auto fire, and as heavy as ordinary rifle), but they were so few...
It is a self-loading rifle, mistêr sêmiotomatickque.
Not so few. It's was built in bigger numbers than FG 42 for example.
But yeah something like 70k for rifle isn't too much.
Also PPS-43, PTRD-41 and PTRS-41
Although the PPSh-41 was the most mass-produced SMG of the war, the Soviets still tried to supplement it's production not longer after its introduction with a cheaper all stamped-steel gun with numerous cost-saving measures akin to the Sten - the PPS-42/43 (Sudayev's machine-pistol), which would number 2 million by its end. Unlike the Shagin, the PPS-43 could only take 35-round box magazines and had a much lower rate of fire, weighted around 2 pounds lighter unloaded and had a collapsible folding stock. I think because the transition came at a delicate time, the factories already tooling up for the PPSh-41 carried on with it, and only a few works switched to producing the PPS-43, resulting in parallel production and issuance.
wrote: "
Although the PPSh-41 was the most mass-produced SMG of the war, the Soviets still tried to supplement it's production not longer after its introduction with a cheaper all stamped-steel gun with numerous cost-saving measures akin to the Sten - the PPS-42/43 (Sudayev's machine-pistol), which would number 2 million by its end. "
-- Well, no matter how good "creation" it can always be improved upon. PPS-42/43 was designed by Alexie Sudaev , and used in Leningrad(present St. Petersburg), when it was under the 900 days siege, it was by far more popular(because lighter, and even more controllable to fire, even more simple and reliable) then PPSh-41, and priority was given to specialty forces like recon units, tankers and logistics.
It's actually a bit more complicated than that. The USSR was wanting a cheaper gun than the 41, and several proposals were given, one of them being by Shpagin.
However the final decision was that Sudayev's gun was best. This didn't sit well with some high ranking officers, and they basically relegated the PPS-42/43 to smaller shops and repurposed factories, while the PPSh continued to be made in properly set up arms factories.
@@GlamStacheessnostalgialounge wrote: "It's actually a bit more complicated than that. The USSR was wanting a cheaper gun than the 41, and several proposals were given, one of them being by Shpagin."
-- I'm sure the name of the SMG you're looking for is PPD-38/40 by Degterev, that was expansive and complicated to manufacture, and PPSh-41 delivered in spades as a viable replacement, since it was a lot cheaper, and a lot easier to manufacture, and by far more reliable. In a nutshell PPSh is the SMG Soviets was looking for, it checked all the "boxes", PPS-42 came later on, like I said it was designed for Leningrad front, in a city that was under siege. Both SMGs PPS-42/43 and PPSh-41 were extremely cheap, reliable and simple to be fielded, with good ballistics, so like you mentioned since major factories was already set to manufacture PPSh-41, nobody wanted to interfere on switching production line.
@@GlamStacheessnostalgialounge wrote: "It's actually a bit more complicated than that. The USSR was wanting a cheaper gun than the 41, and several proposals were given, one of them being by Shpagin. "
-- Soviets were not happy with PPD-36/40, hence PPSh-41, is pretty much as cheap and as simple to manufacture as it gets, so when Sudaiev came up with PPS-42/43 interest just was not there... many veterans of WWII who used both PPSh and PPS admitted Sudaiev's PPS was a lot better and lighter, and easier to handle while PPSh-41 felt more bulkier.
Jonathan Ferguson, the keeper of firearms and artillery at the Royal Armouries Museum in the UK, which houses a collection of thousands of iconic weapons from throughout history is always a nice addition
I remember always adoring the PPSH41 in video games as a young man, then watching Cross of Iron and becoming instantly obsessed with it
Its amazing that Jonathan hasn't gotten bored or lost interest in guns as many would when doing it for so long.
Absolute props to the audio engineer for this video. Those intro gunshots were as impactful on my phone speakers as they were in headphones. Great balancing mate
They forgot the PPSh 41’s cheaper younger brother, the PPS 43
Best WW2 SMG next to MP-40.
It's a very cool show I love the history and the weaponry. I do think it's cool when they let the host shoot though LOL I was really hoping they would let him shoot at least the PPSh-41!
The DP was used quite a bit by the VC in Vietnam.
All these were used in Vietnam quite a bit + PPS -43 and SVT-40.
The tokarev is in its entirety is strikingly like the M1911
We are so back people, our favourite weapon expert Jonathan Ferguson, keeper of firearms and artillery at the royal armouries museum in the UK, which houses a collection of thousands of iconic weapons throughout history!.
Photographers use a similar technique (the good ones , anyway) take a deep breath, exhale until you're comfortable, and then squeeeeeeeze the shutter release.
I've done both and I can definitely agree
Rifle technique transferred well to taking long-lens pictures of a sailing competition from the beach, using my bicycle saddle as a hand-rest.
aaah another guest appearance of Jonathan Ferguson, the keeper of firearms and artillery at the Royal Armouries Museum in the UK, which houses a collection of thousands of iconic weapons from throughout history.
Absolutely incredible
TT-33 has a safety built in it. It is a half-cock of a hammer. When hammer is in a middle position it locks the trigger and the slide preventing it from accidental full cocking while inserting in a holster. You have to cock hammer fully to disengage safety.
This is true, and I believe Ferguson has mentioned it previously. But there seemed to have been A LOT of accidental discharges because of a lack of training, which led to the Makarov which has a fairly idiot proof safety.
The 3 round bursts of the PPSH reminded me of Robocop at the range 😅
Exact same thought here
I own a mosin magant with the scope mount and recently got a Pu scope for it, it is perfect for hunting no crazy 4-12x variable optic.
Just a simple T-post 3.5x
Also no nagant pistol or SVT-38/40 is criminal
3:26 It's Official! _Jonathan Ferguson_ said Silencer.
Therefore that's the correct term.
The argument is finally over
Hats off to luke who only got to fire the rifle!!!! So close… but so far away.
PPSh is hilarious to field strip, a bolt, a spring and a buffer, all connected as one piece. Literally takes a second.
+ TT33 does sort of have a safety, the hammer has a position before it reaches the firing pin that it can sit it, but it has to be manually released with a round chambered, so a rather un-safe 'safety' ha ha.
Yugoslav made TTs had a slight change; the held one bullet more than any other version. The problem that Yugoslav army found with the design was that the grip was too short and your pinky finger would "hang", so they made the grip longer and in the process added another round. So, if you try to load Yugo magazine into any other TT, it will work. It will stick out a bit, sure but it will work. If you try to put any other magazine in Yugo version however - not. Obviously, the magazine is too short for it and will not lock into place.
PPSh-41 or "Russian bullet gobbler", as the Germans often called it...
Love these videos! Hope there will be more of this "series" :D
The nagant revolver was widely issued during WWII. Mine has a 1943 date with Tula stamped on it. Tankers preferred it to automatic pistols for shooting out of the ports of a tank. I have a few rounds of deteriorated WWII ammo that has an 80 grain fmj bullet going at high speed.
7:18 the Red Army actually had problems with accidental discharges on the Tokarev. You’re giving this thing out to people who have never handled firearms before in their lives, accidents are bound to happen. It’s one of the reasons why the Makarov has both a safety and a decocker.
Never heard of such a thing especially when the tt33 had a very simple to use safety you simply half cock the hammer and locks the gun, you can pull the slide or the trigger
@ problem with the TT33 is there’s no way to safely put the handgun back into the holster after chambering a round. You could put it in halfcock. But, in order to do so, you have to pull the trigger to drop the hammer and if you’re thumb slips when there’s a round chambered, the gun is going off. Again, one of the reasons why the Makarov PM not only has a slide mounted safety, but also a decocker.
I used to have a Tokorev TT-33 that I found in a pawn shop. Breaks down just like a Colt M1911 just a smaller caliber.
wow I'm jealous
There was a Chinese clone of the TT-33 in 9mm. Briefly owned one ~ 30+ years ago.
Jonathan Ferguson is gun Dame Judy Dench. A national treasure.
I would have missed out on this if I hadn't recognized Jonathan Ferguson (the Keeper of Firearms and Artillery at the Royal Armouries Museum in the UK, which houses a collection of thousands of iconic weapons from throuhgout history) in the thumbnail.
I am actually surprised on how accurate and controllable the ppsh was. That is a pretty tight grouping for 1000rpm full auto fire.
Love how Johnathan passive aggressively tells him off that the extra round does make a difference. Also, I think American 180's largest magazine holds just at the verge of 300 rounds, so nope, Ppsh's magazine isn't the biggest.
The reason for the DP pan mag was due to the rimmed case of the 7.62x54r round. With the rim the mag has to curve sharply thus in order to put more than about 20 rounds into a mag it needed a round pan mag.
Excellent video as always. Really interesting. Interesting pronunciation of belligerent too.
We've sent Luke back to school
@HistoryHit haha! He's good with guns though, that's what counts.
41:33 the Finnish soldiers might have called it a record player as well, but the most well-known nickname for the DP was Emma after a song with the same name that was popular at the time, which was obviously also inspired by the gun looking like a record player.
all the weapons firing really helped drown out my parents fighting!
Very fascinating video, thank you
that ppsh41 is beautiful. just not quite as aesthetically pleasing as the thompson. but that is the most beautiful gun even made so, you know...
Only thing better than seeing these is to (briefly) hold one many years ago. Wasn’t able to fire it, though…
9x19mm Luger, aka modern 9mm, is a good all-around pistol cartridge. The Americans were so fixated on .45 because they wanted it to stop a horse in one or two shots -- in 1911 in the US Army, anybody whose job was to shoot at other men would have a rifle, only cavalrymen were *issued* pistols (infantry officers could buy whatever sidearm they wanted).
As one American officer put it, when talking about pistols in the hands of regular GI's: «They couldn't hit a barn from the INSIDE». That's why US personell who weren't strictly infantry started getting issued the M1 Carbine instead of the 1911. With that, a soldier with a minimum of training could actually HIT an enemy!
Mosin PU had bended bolt.
Also you absolutely can fast fire Mosin and rechambering it while aiming, you just need stronger hands and a little bit of practice. There tons of videos people doing it same speed as Lee Enfield
37:10 I'll be the one to pop in
From what I know in chronological order, the Thompson had a 100 round drum
The American-180 pan magazines ranged from 165 to 275
The Calico has 100 round helical magazines
The MP5 has 100 round drums available now too
180 "swarm of bees" came to my mind too.
As a wise man once said: «DP saves lives»! Actually I think it was two wise men. Best of friends, they were!
Great video Conrads
Jonathan is the coolest man in Britain no doubt
Btw, Mosin rifle is not 91/30 model. Its Empire era rifle, due to top side of rifle is angular, not round.
I really enjoyed this video. Your sound effects person was a bit heavy handed with dramatic music and the gunshot sounds to transition between photos.
Human meatwave is so last century, Russia: hold my beer 😂.
Loved the Ruski anthem played at the end.
36:36 I mean 900 000 rounds per minute sure does sound fast 💀
15 000 rounds/sec
The PPSh-41 is insane
Jonathan certainly had his game face on when firung the pistol
The finns used mosin variants, maxims, tanks and DP-27 nicknamed Emma, they loved it.
Finns sure love our weapon confiscating
10:36 POV: “your opinion has been noted… now up against the wall.”
Nice opinion, comrade, unfortunately...
The picking rifles up in combat stuff is totally a myth. In Stalingrad if you made it to Soviet positions they would have stacks of rifles. Besides if you think about it, if one man had the rifle and the other man had the ammo neither of them is armed because a rifle without ammo is a club. Stalingrad was a trap. The Soviets had reserves on the other side of the river which they eventually used to encircle the Germans in the city. The Soviets fed troops across the river at a rate specifically to allow the Germans to slowly advance and gradually take the city and when they had almost taken it all and committed all their force to completely take it they sent their forces to surround them. There was one part of the battle of Stalingrad where the Germans were pushing hard and might have taken too much and the Soviets sent a few extra units, but rather than one soldier with a rifle and one with a 5 round clip of ammo, it was more like 9 soldiers with rifles and ammunition and a tenth soldier with ammo and no rifle. On the way over the river anyone shot provides their rifle to the guy without one. Once they get to the Stalingrad bank of the river they would be sent to a position like a building where there would be firing positions and weapons heaped at multiple firing points where the soldiers moved from position to position using the weapons located at the firing positions. Everyone new who arrived would bring another weapon. Those that were killed left their weapon for everyone else to use.
"Enemy at the gates" is a propaganda, one of the many which were swallowed by Russia only because of strong Western influence. French-American creators took Zaitsev's memos and wiped their arse with it. Take the scene where machineguns were firing at retreating soldiers. In reality those machingunners provided cover for advancing troops and moved with them as soon as preferable position were taken. Of cource there were cowards and criminals, but they had a chance to absolve their guilt (penal battalions), and executed only in exceptional cases. The order "Not one step backward" affected officers in first place, not simple soldiers. Soviets were low on manpower, War took whole generation of young boys of 1920-es, not because soviets throwed them like nothing, but because it was a pure hell on Earth. At 1945 Red Army had to rely on other sources of manpower such as liberated republics. If anyone who wanted to end that war as soon as possible it was russians.
Would loooove to see an episode on French Weapons once you cover the major countries that fought in WW2
"Enemy at the gates" is a propaganda movie, one of the many which were swallowed by Russia only because of strong Western influence (Russia made a lot of similar crap own it's own unfortunately). French-American creators took Zaitsev's memos and wiped their arse with it. Take the scene where machineguns were firing at retreating soldiers. In reality those machingunners provided cover for advancing troops and moved with them as soon as preferable position were taken. Of cource there were cowards and criminals, but they had a chance to absolve their guilt (penal battalions), and executed only in exceptional cases. The order "Not one step backward" affected officers in first place, not simple soldiers. Soviets were low on manpower, War took whole generation of young boys of 1920-es, not because soviets throwed them like nothing, but because it was a pure hell on Earth. At 1945 Red Army had to rely on other sources of manpower such as liberated republics. If anyone who wanted to end that war as soon as possible it was russians.
It's 2.21 A.M in my country RN i should go to bed but i can't miss Pan and Drum duo in action after i saw last announcement post. Darn YT notifications You make me sleepless!
I personally love DP.
The Soviets used alot of Nagant revolvers in WWII.
I never got to watch the whole USSR video, please re-upload it, thank you!