The German military began looking for a new submachine gun design in secret in the mid 1930s. There is basically no surviving documentation, but the main contenders appear to have featured: Hugo Schmeisser’s MK-36,II and Erma’s EMP-36. Today we are taking a look at one of two known examples of the Erma design at the VHU in Prague. Designed by Heinrich Vollmer, this is a plain blowback open bolt system chambered for 9x19mm. It is massively more complicated than such a simple design has any right to be, though. Elements like the tiny set screw holding together the recoil spring assembly and the detachable bolt face are, frankly, nutty to include in a prospective military design.
However, Vollmer’s design had a number of external design features that were deemed very desirably by the German military. The pistol grip and very compact underfolding stock were both admirable, and the muzzle rest system was also of interest (ablating in a simplified form). Ultimately, the result of testing of the Erma and Schmeisser prototypes was a combination of their features into a hybrid design. The Erma provided the external form factor, and the Schmeisser contributed the internal mechanics for the MP38 and in turn MP40.
Many thanks to the VHU – the Czech Military History Institute – for giving me access to this fantastic prototype to film for you. The Army Museum Žižkov is a part of the Institute, and they have a 3-story museum full of cool exhibits open to the public in Prague.If you have a chance to visit, it’s definitely worth the time! You can find all of their details (including their aviation and armor museums) here:
https://www.vhu.cz/en/english-summary/
“(…)more complicated than such a simple design has any right to be, though. Elements like the tiny set screw holding together the recoil spring assembly and the detachable bolt face are, frankly, nutty to include in a prospective military design.”
According to https://en.topwar.ru/113972-pistolet-pulemet-erma-emp-36-za-polshaga-do-mp-38-40.html
In early 1936, the German Arms Directorate submitted a report to the Wehrmacht High Command on the status and development prospects of submachine guns. The report contained conclusions about the need for arming with such weapons the technical branches of the armed forces and partially infantry. Based on these recommendations, the task was to create individual automatic weapons for crews tanks and armored personnel carriers, which would use submachine guns for self-defense in case of emergency evacuation from equipment. The weapons had to be developed with amendments to the fact that it would be used in the cramped conditions of the fighting compartment of tanks and armored vehicles.
above might (at least partially) explain little effort given to making it simple, as they planned use it as specialists’ weapons rather than weapon for each infantryman.
At the point they were at, in terms of “tactical/operational intent and thought”, I don’t think they had really figured out what they wanted or could do with the sub-machinegun.
I remember reading some of the stuff that was circulating during that period of German small arms history, and I do not recall that anyone was even vaguely recognizant of what the benefits of having SMGs down at the infantry platoon/squad level would be. That only came in after actual tactical experience in Spain and elsewhere came into the system of it all.
So, what you initially would have seen in terms of “Why?” for the SMG development program would mostly have been in the process of development, which is why you see this sort of thing, and why it was only really refined after actual combat experience showed how useful the SMG could be in combat…
It’s kind of strange; if you were to look at it, not that many Germans were talking about the WWI experience with the MP18, in terms of “We need this for everyone…”
Or, at least, that’s what the documentation I saw showed. There may have been more, in the archives, but the historical bias generated by the war may have taken those records out. Not to mention, my source was totally MG34/42 centered. Obsessed, actually.
Still wish I had an ‘effing clue what happened to his cache of “stuff”. There were a bunch of things I never saw anywhere else.
Just off the top of my head;
1. The folding stock would be consistent with airborne troops, either paras or glider-delivered. Getting through the door of a “Tante Ju” or a DFS 230 troop glider with even a Gew 33/40 was a stunt worthy of a contortionist. Consider the folding stock on the U.S. M1A1 carbine; same principle.
2. Similarly, getting in or out of an SdKfz 251 half-track would be a lot easier with a folding-stock SMG. That back door is pretty small.
3. The “muzzle rest” is really sort of over-emphasized. The folding underlever on the MP38/40 was less often used to hook outside a panzer’s pistol port and more often used for extra leverage in removing the barrel in stripping.
4. What was never “fixed” on the MP38/40 was the double-column, single-position feed magazine. It gave the same trouble as anybody else’s (Sten, etc.). IIRC the Patchett was the first SMG to have a double-position feed magazine; of course its double-roller magazine follower helped, as well.
Now that I know where the internal setup came from, I have to ask; were the British so wrong in calling the MP38/40 a “Schmeisser”?
clear ether
eon
4. Not sure if it was first, but Thompson was DPF and earlier.
From what I remember, the consideration for the motorcycle troops, who were vitally important as couriers, figured largely in the whole “We need an SMG…” thing.
People forget that, a lot… Motorcycle couriers were vital cogs in the command machinery, and needed to be able to defend themselves effectively, breaking contact if they were ambushed.
I think that there was even a mount-thingy on the coaming of the sidecar setups they had, so that the courier had security, and that the thing we all look at and say “Oh, that’s for the pistol port on a tank…” was meant to integrate into it.
Unfortunately, all of this was very poorly documented in what remains of the German archives, and nobody bothered to capture it or talk to the guys who might have had the organizational tacit knowledge about it.
Which is highly annoying to my OCD mind.
The main weapon issued to Wehrmacht and SS motorcycle couriers before the MP38/40 was the Mauser 712 “Schnellfeuer”. And if all you wanted was something the biker could use to spray lead to get his ass out of an ambush, it was probably as good as anything else. At least it could be managed (more or less) with one hand, well enough to empty the magazine and execute a blow-through.
As for the modern alternative, SINCGARS is your friend.
cheers
eon
@eon, who said:
“As for the modern alternative, SINCGARS is your friend.”
SINCGARS ain’t nobody’s “friend”, especially when the radio in question has sh*t the fill on the side of a Korean hill at three in the morning and you’re trying to call in a MEDEVAC…
My platoon in Korea at that time had a guy we’d have gladly chaptered out of the Army for misconduct/misbehavior. He was that maladapted for military service… However, huge ‘effing comma, he was also our unit’s “SINCGARS whisperer”, and could get the radios working, no matter what. I don’t know what he did, how he did it, or where he’d learned how to do it, but… His skills kept him from serious repercussions for his behavior, because the powers-that-were in my unit didn’t want him losing his clearances to work the radio magic he worked.
He was the only person, to include trained comms specialists, that I ever saw actually work an over-the-air fill for a SINCGARS system. I remember very clearly the night our company XO came roaring up to our platoon worksite in a HMMWV, scream about his need for our SINCGARS magician, and go screaming off with him into the darkness… We’re all sitting there going “WTF? What just happened…?”
Following morning, we get him back and we’re informed that there’d been a huge vehicle accident outside the company headquarters in conjunction with every radio in the company headquarters losing its fill/time, rendering them unable to talk to anyone about getting the matter dealt with… Our commo geeks couldn’t get anything to work, so the XO, our former platoon leader decided to seek outside advice, and came and got our SINCGARS “guy”. He had them back up on the net and functioning within about 20 minutes of getting to the headquarters…
My issue with SINCGARS is that whoever designed it had in mind that the user would be a highly trained commo specialist sitting in a shelter somewhere, with a cup of coffee to hand and no need for urgency, not someone who’d been up for 72 hours on patrol, stuck on the side of a hill at three in the morning trying to get a radio working that they barely understood.
They should have simply given the contract to Sony for something on the level of “Army TalkMan”, and put one bloody button on the damn thing, instead of what they came up with. I’m still in awe at the level of sheer “disconnect with reality” that the entire program demonstrated from start to finish, with regards to what was needed, and the mechanics of how it should work.
Which is part and parcel with a lot of small arms design, come to think of it.
“(…)company XO came roaring(…)”
Now I am extremely confused, as I always presumed XO denote certain member of submarine crew.
“(…) put one bloody button on the damn thing(…)”
If you desired something like this consider using SCR-536
@Daweo,
XO or Executive Officer, is a near-universal term used across the US military for “secondary guy in charge after the commander”. In most units, it’ll be an actual designated position, filled by the second-highest ranking officer assigned, although at the company level in the Army, that can be “differently implemented” based on actual officer performance/potential. I have seen cases where there were three First Lieutenants running platoons, and one Second Lieutenant placed in the XO position “because, reasons…”.
Granted, “that guy” was a former enlisted Special Forces/Ranger qualified mid-career type, but… It can happen. It’s a positional thing, not particularly a rank thing.
The SCR-536 was the level of thing they should have been aspiring to, for issue out to the troops. However, that wasn’t what they procured, being overly optimistic about people’s ability to handle complexity under duress and exhaustion.
In the old dayes, when we had the add-on encryption modules, the fill was carried around in little devices that had one button, like a Claymore clacker. When SINCGARS came in, they thought it would be better to go to what amounted to a miniature laptop affair that required a level of expertise to operate which, frankly, most people actually in the Army down at the small unit level in combat arms actually lacked. Particularly back there during the mid-1990s, among the senior leadership that had come up when hanging a paper CEOI around your necks and referring to it for callsigns and the like was nearly at the boundaries of their complexity potential…
(CEOI=Communications/Electronics Operating Instructions, which were where all the callsigns, passwords, and encryption tables were kept, back in the dayes of yore…)
@Daweo,
If you are from a former Warsaw Pact nation, I think the usual Soviet term for XO was “Deputy Commander”, or something similar…
It may not make sense to anyone outside the US, but that’s what the XO is, the second guy in charge after the commander. Usually. He’s also the poor bastard in charge of logistics, maintenance, and anything else that might distract the commander from commanding… You have to have a successful run as an XO before you get promoted to commander at that level; some units may have a different name for the position, but there ya go… The US Army feels no need whatsoever for consistency.
I suppose it might make for good OPSEC; you’re an infiltrator looking for the XO in a unit where they refer to that position as “Deputy Commander”, and you’re going to give yourself away as an outsider. Of course, other people within the US Army are going to be confused as sh*t, too, sooooo… OPSEC value might not be that great.
I can’t remember what the rules were, if there ever were any. I think “Deputy Whatever” was what you used in non-combat units, and “Executive Officer” was what combat units used. There’s some esoteric BS in there about whether or not the position has command authority, if I’m remembering it correctly. In example, an Engineer Group would have the “Deputy” position, and an Engineer Brigade would have the “Executive Officer” position, as an example from admittedly potentially wrong memories of mine. Search terms that I can think of aren’t bringing up anything really pertinent or on-point.
“IIRC the Patchett was the first SMG to have a double-position feed magazine; of course its double-roller magazine follower helped, as well”
Erm, no, and on both points. First SCDF (staggered column double feed) magazine in submachine guns was the first ever series-manufactured submachine gun, the Villar-Perosa in 1915. Then it was Thompson in 1918, also a SCDF. And Patchett did not have one of these – the Sterling did, but not the Patchett, which fed from a Sten magazine (accidentally, that’s why all Sterlings in a cinch can feed from a SCSF – or staggered column single feed – Sten magazine). It was only the last iterations of the Patchett, actually pre-Sterlings, which used the roller follower – and then not all Sterling do, as the Canadian C1 features platform follower with no roller, as the Canucks did not bought the separate patent. Their magazines are shorter BTW, only take 30 rounds, instead of UK/AUS 34 rounds. The Aussies opted to snub Sterling in favor of their own F1, combining the features of Sterling and Owen (including a top mag) – but opted for British mag with rollers.
Observe that judging from magazine well after sticking magazine it will be slanted forward (as opposed to MP38 with magazine sticking perpendicular to barrel) akin to https://modernfirearms.net/en/submachine-guns/germany-submachine-guns/emp-35-erma-eng/ yet supposedly EMP36 is using own unique magazine. Why they bother to make unique magazine rather than using existing one?
I find all straight mags 9mms slanted, a bit puzzling. Why needed? Like iirc Owen smg
Straight magazines in 9mm SMGs came about going back to the German Mp.18, because pistol magazines in 9mm and other calibers were “straight” to fit inside the pistol grip.
This worked fairly well with Browning type cartridges, which were uniformly straight-walled and had essentially no taper in the cartridge case. DWM, in developing first the 7.65 x 21mm Parabellum and then the 9 x 19mm Parabellum cartridges, followed their design philosophy for rifle cartridge cases. 7.65 x 21mm is essentially a shortened and scaled-down 7.65 x 53mm Mauser case; 9 x 19mm is the same case expanded to take a 9mm bullet and shortened 2mm to maintain the same cartridge OAL to fit in the Parabellum pistol magazine.
What nobody thought of was that the Parabellum magazine sharply “canted” the cartridge cases to compensate for the pistol’s grip angle to the chamber and barrel. The Parabellum magazine is a PITA to load without that loading tool, but when it’s in the pistol’s butt the cartridges line up perfectly with the bore line. Given a load like the one it was designed for (124 grain FMJ RN @ 1,050 F/S MV), the P.08 feeds, fires and ejects about as reliably as an M1911A1 in .45 ACP loaded with G.I. 230-grain hardball.
Incidentally, the Japanese “Type Nambu” and “Type 14” pistols in 8 x 22mm Nambu have a similar magazine setup and are similarly feed-reliable. For pretty much exactly the same reason.
Strangely, the very first “9mm SMG”, the Italian OVP. which began as the Villar-Perosa “twin” flexible aircraft gun system, had curved magazines because the designers recognized the need for same with the tapered 9 x 19mm Glisenti round (a “down-loaded” 9 x 19mm Parabellum). But nobody else seems to have picked up on that until the prototype 9 x 19mm TSMGs in the U.S. a quarter-century later. The Russians, of course, were using curved magazines in 7.62 x 25mm in all their SMGs as early as 1941, and there were prototypes with curved magazines even before that. The Japanese Imperial Army used curved magazines in their few SMGS (Type 1 and Type 100) in 8 x 22mm, and never had feed problems. (Curiously, the JGSDF reverted to “straight” 9 x 19mm magazines in the SCK SMG in the 1960s.)
AFAIK, the first production SMG in 9 x 19mm with curved magazines as standard was the Madsen M1953. The earlier M1950 was essentially the same gun but with a straight magazine. Apparently nobody was satisfied with the straight magazine’s feeding, hence the change to a curved magazine.
Heckler and Koch only introduced a curved magazine for their MP5 in 1975. Earlier magazines for it were straight; if you are using an MP5 in 9 x 19mm, avoid those.
Today, the idea of a curved SMG magazine in 9 x 19mm seems obvious. But it wasn’t always so.
cheers
eon
>> The Russians, of course, were using curved magazines in 7.62 x 25mm in all their SMGs as early as 1941, and there were prototypes with curved magazines even before that<<
Actually, prototypes aside, the whole PPD 34 and 34/38 production used curved stick magazines (25 rds) SOLELY, only later the PPD 34/38 mod.40 came with its curious drum-cum-stick combination, but also running on sticks in a pinch. It was with the late PPD 40's modified, narrower bolt face, that interchangeability of drums became possible between PPD40 and PPSh41, and the original staggered-row double feed PPD stick ceased to fit the gun – but then the later PPD40 used both stick and drum for the PPSh41. The early PPD40 had a drum ALMOST like PPSh41, but due to its wider bolt face, the right feed lip had to be cut off, or otherwise it would hit the bolt on closing and result in a misfire. The difference is just 2,5 mm, but that was enough to make them go into all this trouble.
“(…)Russians, of course, were using curved magazines in 7.62 x 25mm in all their SMGs as early as 1941, and there were prototypes with curved magazines even before that.(…)”
Not only prototypes, but also production PPD, see 1st image from top https://modernfirearms.net/en/submachine-guns/russia-submachine-guns/ppd-40-eng/
As for another magazine, maybe to escape from the patent of regular schmeisser mag.
1) Beautiful finish on this weapon, both metal and wood
2) Very PO8 Luger shaped pistol grip, particularly with the checkered wood. Hence machine pistol not machine carbine? (Ironic wink)
I had to check where the Erma Werke was located; Thuringia.
in Terry Pratchet’s fantasy Disc World novels,
there are some mountains with entirely coincidental similarities to the Black forest, even down to place names like Bad-Schuschien.
there’s a particular variety of cuckoo that nests there, and builds a clock to lay its eggs in.
how did one of those cuckoo’s get to Thuringia?
seriously though, as LDC hasalready said
A beautifully finished gun.
Schwartzwald is near the border with France, and Thuringia is much more east, closer to Czech republic.
“Schwartzwald(…)”
Unless intentional show of disdain it should be Schwarzwald.
exactly
so how did the clock building cuckoo get to Thuringia?
The precision machining of the weapon is just amazing. The bolt and main spring housing parts put me in mind of the pneumatic height adjustable column of an office chair!