8mm Kurz: Best shoulder rifle cartridge of WWII

[Sam Cade]

Kurz.
Kurz.
Kurz.
Kurz
The word is KURZ

http://dictionary.reverso.net/german-english/kurz

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

rcmodel: just because it was carried by our boys, doesn't mean it wasn't already obsolete. Sure everyone has a soft spot for the 30.06, but it doesnt change the fact that it was already an obsolete caliber by the start of WW2.

As I recall, .276 Pederson was what the M1 Garand was orignally chambered for. General MacArthur wanted to keep the .30-06 because it was a square caliber and he liked it. I think that .276 Perderson was considered a better round too. I don't remember the specifics about that though.

 

[HoosierQ]

Under the circumstances of the OPs post, based on his parameters, one could argue that the 7.92 Kurz was certainly, maybe the best round to come out of WWII. To my knowledge, with maybe the exception of the .30 Carbine, very few rounds actually came out of WWII. Lot's or rounds went in to WWII (30-06, 8mm, 9mm, .45, 7.62x54R) and came out the other end but the Kurz was, I believe, developed during the war, for the war based on the experiences of those fighting that war...and it was indeed a pretty good round even though for whatever reason, it didn't stick around long. Seems like the Russians learned from it but we did not...not until 1960 or whatever when Stoner and Remington came up with the 5.56 which is really rather different than the Kurz.

I think the OP has made a perfectly reasonable statement about a really good round. "The best" is always going to be subjective anyway so as long as it's reasonable...and in the case of the 7.92 Kurz, it is. I think I am on pretty solid ground saying the Chaux Chaux was the "worst" gun fielded on a 20th century battlefield. Lots would agree, and since "worst gun" has no objective criteria, I cannot be proven wrong.

I say, three cheers for the 7.92 Kurz and too bad we can't get ARs chambered in it!

 

[Billy Shears]

Funny thing is, the 7.92mm kurz was a compromise, and not just in that it was compromise between a full power rifle round and a pistol round; it was a compromise in terms of its caliber. It was produced to answer the perceived need for an intermediate round that would still be lethal at the <300m ranges the Germans had found most combat now took place in, thus allowing a lighter weapon, and allowing the soldier to carry more ammo. I remember reading somewhere that the Germans actually wanted to reduce the caliber, as well as case length, so as to get a more ballistically efficient projectile, than the shortened, stubby 8mm round was. However it was decided that, for production expediency, the 8mm caliber would be retained, so as to allow some of the machinery already in use to make cases and barrels and so forth to be utilized.

 

[Ian]

Yep, one of the problems with 8mm Kurz is that the large case diameter makes magazines awkwardly long. Shooting prone with a 30-rounder is not a very low-profile affair.

Also, it's worth noting that the StG magazine well needs to be just slightly curved. Magazines will fit in a straight and square magwell, but their weight and length makes them bounce back and forth under recoil, and they will develop a crease at the bottom of the magwell if it's not a little curved.

 

[wojownik]

8mm Kurz: Best shoulder rifle cartridge of WWII

Guess the depends on how one defines "best". Perhaps as potentially a most forward looking development (as a precurser to modern intermediate range cartridges).

But, to be a contrarian to many posts here, if "best" means fighting and winning in the end, one has to consider the 7.62x54R and the 7.62x25.

 

[Owen Sparks]

"Best" is a subjective term and WWII was fought in all sorts of places. If you were involved in house to house fighting or jungle combat sure, it might have been the best. If you were engaging an enemy on the open plains of North Africa it would have been totally inadequate as the 8MM Kurz bullet drops like a rock out past 300 yards. A unit armed with conventional full powered rifles would have a tremendous advantage on the open plains. This is why the Marines put retired M-14 rifles back in service in Afghanistan.

 

[atblis]

The .30 carbine was a good attempt, but still too light. The 8x33 Kurz hit an excellent balance point. it fires a 124gr bullet at 2250fps, which is just shy of AK ballistics. This is totally adequate out to 200 yards, without much recoil.

7.62x39 was used in WWII, so technically it is a contender.

 

[Mauser lover]

7.92x33, best cartridge to come out of WWII...... Hmm, best cartridge to come out of WWII ALIVE, or best cartridge that was designed and produced first during WWII. If your statement was intended to be the latter, I would say, "yes, absolutely". If it was intended for the former version, I would have to say, "no". I like the 6.5x55.

WWII was won by Russian blood, but what would have happened if the USA didn't lend-lease equipment to them? Would the Russians have been able to beat the Germans at Stalingrad? The decision to invade Russia MIGHT just have been a possibly, almost, sort of good idea.

Is everyone forgetting the Japanese part of WWII!? Russian blood didn't really do anything there!

.30-'06 was obsolete by the time WWII broke out..... grrrr
.30-'06 was NOT obsolete during WWII. Look at every battle rifle, Mauser(s), G43/K43, Mosin, Tokarev, Garand, Springfield, Enfield(s) even the MAS 36 if you want to. All of them have pretty much the same "over powered" qualities. Lots of power, recoil, range, etc... G43 and Tokarev (spelling?) didn't come until REALLY late in the war. We had, not necessarily in the very beginning, but pretty much for the whole war, the M1 Garand. Semi-auto, very accurate, best sights (my opinion) of the semi-autos. A cartridge is only as obsolete as the rifle that you can find to harness its strengths and diminish the effects of its weakness. The M1 does that quite well, by weakening the felt recoil, providing quick follow up shots, and being an accurate rifle, reasonably reliable (etc). How do you judge obsolescence? Shouldn't it be judged by how advanced the thing you have (cartridge, rifle, tank, etc) is compared to what the competition is? Nobody had assault rifles at the beginning of WWII. Everyone was still in the bolt gun/SMG era, except the USA, who had a semi-auto/SMG equipped force (yeah, yeah, I know, not quite at the VERY beginning, but pretty close). The .30-'06 was NOT obsolete at the beginning of WWII, but it could be effectively argued that it was obsolete at the end of the war.

 

[RevGeo]

Exactly what attributes (or lack thereof) constitute obsolesence in a military cartridge?

 

[Mauser lover]

I think that the original post was referring to excess recoil as what made the .30-'06 obsolete in his eyes... It is heavy and bulky as well, can't carry as much of it as you can a shorter, lighter cartridge; 7.92x33, .223 Rem/5.56x45, 7.62x39,5.45x39, etcetera.

 

[Cosmoline]

It was absolutely superior for WWII era combat than the battle rifle rounds. The big ones weigh a ton and give you more long range power than you need in most circumstances, while limiting your firepower. I dearly love those old beasts, but I also know how much they weigh!

I think the real question is whether it was superior to the SKS-45's 7.62x39--which DID see service at the very tail end of the war in Berlin IIRC. They're close in ballistics so I'm not sure which has better terminal performance. But the smaller cartridge of the x39 gives it advantages in the magazine. And time has proven it one of the all-time greatest in history. My experience with the Kurz and its platform are much more limited, but it struck me as a bit clunky when I got to shoot one. Like a proto-AK. 90% there, but not quite there.

 

[Billy Shears]

But, to be a contrarian to many posts here, if "best" means fighting and winning in the end, one has to consider the 7.62x54R and the 7.62x25.

I don't think that's a reasonable definition of best in this case. After all, as someone already pointed out, the M4 Sherman was on the winning side, that doesn't mean it was the absolute best. Quite the contrary, if you were a crewman in one and you came up against a German Panther or Tiger tank, then God help you. And if the Sherman still had its individual advantages, such as greater range, reliability, produceability, etc., that was still cold comfort to the poor bastard in a Sherman who saw a Tiger swinging its turret round to take a shot at him, and knowing his remaining lifespan could almost certainly be measured in seconds.

I think the most reasonable definition is which cartridge gave the individual solder the overall best balance of characteristics. And if you were a rifleman in Europe in 1944, what would you rather have had, a rifle with an 8 round capacity, and the ability to carry 200 rounds of ammo on you, or one with a 30 round capacity that let you carry twice as many cartridges, and gave you the option of full auto fire for house to house or other close range fighting, especially if that 30-rounder gave you the same ability to engage the enemy at any range you actually likely to need it?

 

[wojownik]

7.62x39 was used in WWII, so technically it is a contender.

A lot a caveats around that ... the 7.62x39 round was developed during WWII, but was married to the RPD machine gun, which itself was introduced in 1945 in very low numbers, and only mass produced in 1953...

 

[atblis]

SKS

 

[wojownik]

SKS

Just like the RPD, a tiny amount were tried out in 1945, at the tail end of the war. The SKS was SKS was officially adopted in 1949, produced by Tula from 1949-55 and then at Izhevsk from 1953-54.

But, to be a contrarian to many posts here, if "best" means fighting and winning in the end, one has to consider the 7.62x54R and the 7.62x25.

I don't think that's a reasonable definition of best in this case.

I don't necessarily disagree. But the comment was contrarian viz commentary that "the .30-06 won the war".

I agree that "best" is contextual.

 

[Art Eatman]

Back not quite fifty years ago, I worked with a guy who'd been a USMC medic in the Pacific. Guadalcanal, Iwo, other fun places.

He commented one time that on Guadal when guys saw a Jap squad out at a good distance, that squad wouldn't even break stride if they heard carbines open up. But if a Garand started coughing, they'd scatter like quail.

No such thing as "best". There is no "One size fits all."

 

[GRIZ22]

You can argue the 8mm Kurz was the best battle round of WWII. It didn't do the Germans much good.

The Germans undoubtedly had the best technology of WWII in most areas. However it didn't do them much good as they lost the war.

No war was won or lost because one country had a better this or better that. Probably the main factor the Allies won WWII was the capabilities and adaptability of American industry. Companies went from building cars to combat aircraft and tanks. Companies that built typewriters and jukeboxes made rifles and carbines. They had the ability to supply us and all our Allies.

Most casualities in ground combat are inflicted by artillery. The battle rifle just doesn't play that big of a part in winning a war. The Germans would have lost the war if they had the MP44 and 8x33 from 1939.

 

[Billy Shears]

No war was won or lost because one country had a better this or better that. Probably the main factor the Allies won WWII was the capabilities and adaptability of American industry. Companies went from building cars to combat aircraft and tanks. Companies that built typewriters and jukeboxes made rifles and carbines. They had the ability to supply us and all our Allies.

Oddly enough, the Germans really shot themselves in the foot in two ways in this area. First, they didn't put their economy on a war footing until rather late in 1942, which was loooong after they should have. The second problem they had was their tendency to overengineer everything. Allied engineers and military officers evaluating captured German equipment -- especially their tanks -- often found needless attention to finish and refinement, all of which slowed production down. They just couldn't resist their desire to make a tank perfect, as opposed to just good enough to last the six months or a year it would probably be in action.

 

[Cosmoline]

First, they didn't put their economy on a war footing until rather late in 1942,

That's an excellent point, and one a lot of folks miss. People imagine this all-powerful German Army with Tiger tanks in 1940, but in reality they started with a pretty limited force with small arms and tanks no better than the French or English. They had to play a panicked game of catch-up to fight the war they started! Both in terms of technology and to obtain the needed oil and raw materials. While their battlefield tactics were often brilliant and decisive, the overall strategic plan was mired in racist nonsense and erratic thinking from the top.

And as you note, both small arms and tanks suffered from over-engineering. Great for rocket science, not so good for tank treads or bolt tolerances.