I know very little about Soviet hand weapons in WWII

[Imgran]

You hear a lot about Western arms both large and small from that era, and Soviet tanks and aircraft are well documented, but I know almost nothing about the small arms -- pistols, rifles, MG's, that kind of thing. Thing is it's hard to get started when you don't know what things are called. So anyone know a good place to start?

what I'm looking for is a decent newbie-friendly source, online is preferable but I'm willing to go to a library and try interlibrary loan, with a rundown of the kinds of stuff they used, its characteristics, how well received it was by the troops, that kind of thing.

Since I know how history forums work and I'm likely to run into someone uber passionate about this stuff if I ask on enough of them, note I'm not looking to wrote a 120 page paper here, this is just personal curiosity and something to pass an idle hour or two, If it makes it any clearer, I want to get a toe in the water -- I don't need a bath.

Suggestions?

 

[eleinvisible]

There is http://www.forgottenweapons.com/?s=soviet. It may not be what you're looking but it's something. And http://sovietguns.blogspot.com/

 

[Sanny]

Molotovs?

 

[D Inqu]

what I'm looking for is a decent newbie-friendly source, online is preferable but I'm willing to go to a library and try interlibrary loan, with a rundown of the kinds of stuff they used, its characteristics, how well received it was by the troops, that kind of thing.

Suggestions?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Soviet_infantry_weapons_of_World_War_II

 

[DoomBunny]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Soviet_infantry_weapons_of_World_War_II

Pretty much this. If you don't want academic (and I'm not sure how much academic stuff you'd generally find on something so anorakish), then wikipedia is usually a good bet.

 

[Imgran]

Thanks guys. i appreciate the help

 

[Riotkiller]

Could just play Call of Duty: World at War, and then research the Russian guns in that.

 

[krieger11b]

The main battle rifle was the M91/30. I have both a pre-war 1929 model (modified to 91/30 specs) and a 1943 (rush model). They are ok rifles, the action is not nearly as smooth as a Mauser, the bolt straight instead of bent like a K98 so you have to move it around a bit more to cycle the bolt, which in the heat of battle will not help you stay in cover slightly. It uses rimmed ammo in a single stack rather than non rimmed like a Mauser, which makes it harder to reload as the rounds are less forgiving as the rims have to stack right on top of each other, another small thing that will make a small difference in a battle. It has decent accuracy but not really impressive for it's time. I would take a Mauser K98 over it anytime, but I would take the size of the Soviet Army over the Axis one

 

[Kovax]

The Mosin-Nagant bolt-action rifle (as mentioned above) was pretty much the mainstay, although there are a handful of other standard and sniper model rifles which saw use (SVT, etc.), plus a variety of SMGs (ranging from extremely crude and cheap to fairly well designed), both light and heavy MGs (including a distinctive wheeled 12.5mm monstrosity), several pistols, and other weapons.

 

[krieger11b]

The Mosin-Nagant bolt-action rifle (as mentioned above) was pretty much the mainstay, although there are a handful of other standard and sniper model rifles which saw use (SVT, etc.), plus a variety of SMGs (ranging from extremely crude and cheap to fairly well designed), both light and heavy MGs (including a distinctive wheeled 12.5mm monstrosity), several pistols, and other weapons.

The SVT wasn't a sniper rifle, in fact there was no purpose built sniper rifles in the WW2 Soviet Military, SVTs did come pre milled for sights, which either a sniper or designated squad marksmen could be given a scope.

Although to be fair there is no such thing as a "sniper rifle." It's only a sniper rifle when held by a sniper, which is by definition simply someone that shoots from concealment.

Soviet sniper tactics were different than Western ones. They kind of just spammed snipers. The rifles they were given were just the most inherently accurate ones produced that day at the factory and small scope installed.

Also the poor SVT rifle, it could have been so much more effective and reliable if Stalin wasn't so damned insistent it fired 7.62x54R standard rifle ammunition, which the designers wanted to use. High powered rifle rounds like that never make for a good assault rifle, either they are extremely heavy like the BAR and M1 Garand, or kick like a mule and blow themselves apart after while like the SVTs. Stalin wasn't alone though, every other nations leadership wanted their standard cartridge until the STG-44 was snuck into battle with it's revolutionary 7.92x33mm Kurz medium power round showed that in real life battle conditions an intermediate powered round is best, plus you can carry more ammunition.

 

[DoomBunny]

On the SVT, I've heard that a big factor in its unreliability was simply that the troops didn't take good enough care of the weapons.

 

[CruelDwarf]

On the SVT, I've heard that a big factor in its unreliability was simply that the troops didn't take good enough care of the weapons.

Pretty much this. Naval infantrymen for example loved the rifle.

 

[Gethsemani]

Soviet sniper tactics were different than Western ones. They kind of just spammed snipers. The rifles they were given were just the most inherently accurate ones produced that day at the factory and small scope installed.

Soviet sniper tactics were indeed different to some degree, but at its' core the snipers' job in the Red Army was to take out high value targets like officers, vehicle crews, specialists and other enemy soldiers that were hard to replace and who's loss could throw the enemy into disarray. The way it differed was that the Red Army considered snipers an ubiquitous tool in warfare and thus employed as many of them as possible and wherever it was possible, as opposed to the very limited deployment of snipers in western armies. In essence it was more a difference of proportions and less of use.