'WOOLWORTH GUNS' MADE IN RUSSIA

Snippet from the Archives: Experiences with German and Russian infantry weapons, Army Group North, 1942.

This gem of a report, which can be found full-length in the German Federal Archive¹ and is published here in extracts, summarises German troop opinion of their own and Russian arms and armament in the operational sector of Army Group North, on the Eastern Front of the Second World War. It was compiled by Oberstleutnant Freiherr von Uslar-Gleichen², then commanding officer of the liaison detachment of Waffenprüfamt 1 to Army Group North. One year after the German invasion of the Soviet Union, he headed a special mission of officers and officials of the Army Ordnance Office’s Group for Development and Testing which toured the Heeresgruppe’s sector from 10 June to 13 July 1942, visiting staff officers from all levels of command, as well as units in the field. The full-length report focuses on artillery arms and ammunition, but does branch out to include experiences with small arms. It was compiled using the statements of 33 combat formations subordinated to the Army Group.

I have furnished it with extracts from one of the infantry questionnaires used for the compilation of Uslar-Gleichen’s summary, which I was lucky to find in the records of 61. Infanterie-Division³. All together offer a brief but fascinating insight into how German troops, fighting in of the most demanding and rough sectors of the Eastern Front, rated their enemy’s and their own infantry weapons:

‘the superiority in armament which is at present on the Russian side (automatic rifles, telescopic sights) . In addition, it is always emphasised that the Russian digs himself into the ground in an incredibly short time and can then only be seized with high-angle fire. Infantry weapons will only be briefly discussed here; reference is made to the Infantry Questionnaire, in which the regiments have expressed their experiences and wishes for new developments.

The most urgent demands were repeatedly to equip the troops with an explosive projectile. The troops do not understand why they are deprived of this projectile, but are expected to be continually shot at with explosive rounds by the Russians. The Russian explosive bullet is not only morally very unpleasant - especially in the woods - but also causes such severe injuries that complete recovery is extremely rare even from apparently minor wounds.

Equally urgent is the demand for telescopic sights. The infantry generally complains of poor training, especially poor marksmanship training of replacements. The infantryman shoots little with the rifle, relying on the machine guns and heavy weapons. It is all the more important to equip the few good shots with a high-quality weapon, namely the telescopic sight rifle.A senior SS leader obtained 300 telescopic sight rifles through the Reichsführer-SS. In each battalion he equipped a sniper group with these weapons. An Unteroffizier continuously promotes the training of these snipers, who are deployed from alternating positions. There are hardly any casualties, but some of these men have shot down 30 or more enemies.

The cry for the telescopic sight rifle is much stronger than that for the automatic rifle. This may be due to the fact that the Russian automatic rifle often fails at low temperatures, and many an infantryman has discarded his captured automatic rifle in winter and resorted to the German infantry rifle. In contrast, good experiences have been made with the Russian rifle visor. 

The Russian front sight is not triangular, it consists of a pin, and the rear sight is worked as a sheet of metal with a U-shaped recess. There is no doubt that accurate aiming is considerably easier with the Russian sighting device than with the German one. Our sighting device may have stood the test of 150 years and many wars, but the Russian one is superior. The pin front sight automatically places itself in the U-shaped recess of the sight when aiming. There is no full or fine sight, no jamming and no canting. There is no doubt that a shooter can be trained more easily and quickly with the Russian sight than with the German one, especially since the training time in the replacement units is short and the shooting instructors are considerably inferior in quality to the peacetime instructors. In a comparative shooting match involving soldiers of all ranks, good results were achieved with the Russian rifle, although all the shooters had been trained with the German rifle and not with the Russian rifle. A replacement battalion should be given the task of training 100 recruits with both sights and then carry out a comparative shooting.

The shortcomings of the German machine-pistol and the superiority of the Russian in some respects (see individual reports of the infantry regiments) should also be pointed out here. It is generally complained that our MPi is more sensitive than the robust Russian one. It requires constant and careful maintenance in order to remain ready to fire. In addition, its low safety is emphasised again and again. The number of fatal accidents among officers alone is alarmingly high. What applies to the Russian MPi in contrast to the German one in terms of primitive construction also applies to other Russian weapons. The Russian anti-tank rifle, for example, is 'knocked together' by German standards. The expression 'Woolworth⁴ wares' is often used in this respect. But this Woolworth product is easy to manufacture, simple to operate, needs little maintenance, is insensitive to temperature, shoots just as well as the German one and usually has a longer life. The troops themselves say: "Every single one of our weapons is a piece of good German craftsmanship, but the Russian weapons are proper mass-products.” This comparison does not apply to all weapons, but at least it gives food for thought. Since the wear and tear on weapons at the front (e.g. MG) is considerable due to enemy fire, inadequate maintenance, lack of spare parts, and thus the weapon does not last too long either way, our designers could probably adopt some of the Russian principles. This is also a demand that the Führer and the late Reich Minister have repeatedly made. The MG42 represents a step forward on this path and is considered valuable by all.

The question of spare parts, which has just been mentioned in an interim report, must be referred to once again. There is an almost frightening shortage of spare parts everywhere in all infantry and artillery weapons. One office reported literally: "One is more likely to get a finished gun than some spare parts!” Numerous guns of all kinds, infantry guns, anti-tank guns and MGs, even bicycles have already broken down for this reason and continue to break down. Since hardly any spare parts are forthcoming - there are unmet spare parts demands of 6 months and more - the troops are cannibalising their weapons, i.e. they are turning four defective machine guns into two. At best, the rest are carried for a while and then lost piece by piece (…)

‘Knocked together’ by German standards…

Regarding the reliability and usability of own and enemy weapons, the company commanders gave a report, which we summarise here:

• The rifle grenade is generally found to be good. The fragmentation effect is good, but it would be desirable to improve it if possible. The impact fuze worked well even in very cold weather and snow.

• The carbine, although reliable and effective in the hands of a good shooter, can only be described as useful to a limited extent in the field. In many ways, this is also due to the lack of training of the replacement. The Russian carbine is easier to handle, its use easier to learn, the sight superior to ours in action, as even inexperienced shooters can achieve useful results with it.

• The MPi (models 38 and 40) have not proven themselves in action. The maintenance and care requirements are too high, the environmental influences in this part of the Eastern Front too harsh. Maintaining the weapons is almost impossible. The men often make use of looted weapons to remedy the shortage. Here, replacements are urgently needed. The loose construction of Russian weapons makes cleaning and maintenance easy. The Russian self-loading rifle, however, has not proven itself in very cold weather and has frozen in many cases.

• Our own MGs are excellent weapons. The MG42 in particular is prized and irreplaceable with its devastating (high rate of fire) and morale-boosting (corset bar) effect. Its simple handling and construction make it easy to maintain and repair, even in field conditions. This makes it clearly superior to the MG34. A distribution in larger numbers is desired.

(Hagen, Major i.G., Ia 76. ID, 2 July 1942)

1. BA-MA RH 19-III/780.

2. Alfred Harald Freiherr von Uslar-Gleichen (* 7. August 1905 in Hagenau, Elsaß-Lothringen; † 19. Juli 2000)

3. NARA T-315 R1017/10019

4. On 2 November 1926, the German subsidiary of the US F.W. Woolworth Company was founded in the Hotel Adlon Berlin. On 30 July 1927, Woolworth's first department stores' in Germany opened in Bremen. The concept of fixed prices (25 and 50 pfennigs in this country) and the open presentation of goods, familiar from the USA, thus also found its way into Germany. In March 1932, it became known that the Woolworth Group had supported the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) with several financial donations.