• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Could te STG44 have made an early war difference for the Nazis?

blackjack50

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,661
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Could te STG44 have made an early war difference for the Nazis? Had they been able to equip mat infantry with this modern concept weapon...how big of a difference do you believe it would have made? Enough to turn the war? Stalemate it? How large and what type of impact?
 
In real life, distribution of the STG-44 was not equal and heavily based on political influences. Ultimately, while the STG did increase the tactical capability of the Germans, this was something they were already superior in compared to most of their adversaries. So it wouldn't be enough to turn the tide of the war.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
In real life, distribution of the STG-44 was not equal and heavily based on political influences. Ultimately, while the STG did increase the tactical capability of the Germans, this was something they were already superior in compared to most of their adversaries. So it wouldn't be enough to turn the tide of the war.
Click to expand...

For discussion sake I was thinking we leave out politics and replace most Kar98s with these instead. I do believe it would have assisted them in winning their infantry combat much quicker. I also don't think it would have changed the outcome. They did not have the air power. But I do believe it would have really impeded allied infantry efforts. The m1 being outclassed easily by this, and bolt guns doubly so.

I could see this causing enough of a stall to allies to add years to the war. Or forcing the allies to develop a better version of the weapon. Who knows? Maybe we would have ak41s (that were used in 1943)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The one weapon that could have made a difference for Germany was the Type XXI U-boat. If they had built a few dozen of them properly and deployed them in time they could have won the Atlantic War.

But then again the USSR would have eventually beaten them anyway no matter what.
 
blackjack50 said:
Could te STG44 have made an early war difference for the Nazis? Had they been able to equip mat infantry with this modern concept weapon...how big of a difference do you believe it would have made? Enough to turn the war? Stalemate it? How large and what type of impact?
Click to expand...

The STG44 was good... But not a game changer.

By the time it was in full production the war well well on its way to being lost.
 
Artillery and not assault rifles was the queen of the battlefield inflicting between 80-90% of all serious battlefield casualties. Air power was the intermittent king, weather permitting. Earlier production of the MP-43 and MP-44 (StG-44) would not have changed the course of the war much. It might have resulted in marginally more casualties on both sides as Germans killed more Aliies and as Russians might have turned such captured arms against their manufacturers.

Small arms are not game changers in modern war. That's why Afghans armed with AK-47's, Lee Enfields and even some Persian era muskets and camel guns defeated the Soviet Union and later stalemated the US-backed Coalition in Afghanistan. It was the men holding the guns and their comrades' capacity to deliver overwhelming heavy weapons fire and indirect fire or air strikes which determined victory in WWII. That still applies today as far as I know.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
One would have to assume that all those German infantry soldiers were disciplined enough not to use full automatic all the time. The M-1 Garand, in my opinion, was a superior weapon based upon it's accuracy and stopping power. Certainly sub-machine guns and other full-auto weapons have an advantage in urban house clearing and suppression fire, but aimed accurate fire is more decisive in warfare when it comes to small arms.

In the U.S., field artillery has always been the king of battle, infantry the queen of battle.
 
Fledermaus said:
The STG44 was good... But not a game changer.

By the time it was in full production the war well well on its way to being lost.
Click to expand...

It was a game changer though. It changed the way we looked at the needs of the standard infantryman. Had it been issued earlier, across a broader scale...you are talking about giving a volume of fire to they did not have previously. In fact...the soviets caused many problems for the Nazis when equipped while squads of men with the ppsh-41.
 
Lerxst said:
One would have to assume that all those German infantry soldiers were disciplined enough not to use full automatic all the time. The M-1 Garand, in my opinion, was a superior weapon based upon it's accuracy and stopping power. Certainly sub-machine guns and other full-auto weapons have an advantage in urban house clearing and suppression fire, but aimed accurate fire is more decisive in warfare when it comes to small arms.

In the U.S., field artillery has always been the king of battle, infantry the queen of battle.
Click to expand...

Remember that some of the worst urban combat ever seen and the largest and deadliest siege in human history occurred on the eastern front. This would have made a big difference in house to house fighting. Certainly. I don't see it not doing much.
 
blackjack50 said:
It was a game changer though. It changed the way we looked at the needs of the standard infantryman. Had it been issued earlier, across a broader scale...you are talking about giving a volume of fire to they did not have previously. In fact...the soviets caused many problems for the Nazis when equipped while squads of men with the ppsh-41.
Click to expand...

When Germany invaded the SVT-40 semiautomatic was in widespread use.

The US had the M1 Garand.

The STG44 was an evolutionary step rather than a leap.

And the STG44 is worthless against the real killer of Germans... The Artillery and the tank units. The T34 was much more of a game changer. (And the KV1, and the IS2, and the IS152)
 
blackjack50 said:
It was a game changer though. It changed the way we looked at the needs of the standard infantryman. Had it been issued earlier, across a broader scale...you are talking about giving a volume of fire to they did not have previously. In fact...the soviets caused many problems for the Nazis when equipped while squads of men with the ppsh-41.
Click to expand...

The problem is that small arms still inflict only a small percentage of the overall casualties in war.

Even today, with all our training, optics, and trigger discipline, by most estimates casualties caused by small arms account to only 20%. The vast majority of soldiers killed in combat are killed by artillery, crew mounted weapons, or airstrikes, things they have little to no defense against.
 
blackjack50 said:
Remember that some of the worst urban combat ever seen and the largest and deadliest siege in human history occurred on the eastern front. This would have made a big difference in house to house fighting. Certainly. I don't see it not doing much.
Click to expand...

But what trapped the 6th Army at Stalingrad wasn't Soviet riflemen, it was Soviet tank divisions and artillery. And frankly, given the conditions at Stalingrad, German soldiers armed with STG-44s wouldn't have had much of an advantage over Soviet troops armed with PPSH-41s, the already pre-existing German tactical superiority non-withstanding.
 
Fledermaus said:
The STG44 was good... But not a game changer.

By the time it was in full production the war well well on its way to being lost.
Click to expand...

The MI Garand was more reliable and had far better range which was important in the longer distances the European theater engagement environments consisted of
 
Lerxst said:
One would have to assume that all those German infantry soldiers were disciplined enough not to use full automatic all the time. The M-1 Garand, in my opinion, was a superior weapon based upon it's accuracy and stopping power. Certainly sub-machine guns and other full-auto weapons have an advantage in urban house clearing and suppression fire, but aimed accurate fire is more decisive in warfare when it comes to small arms.

In the U.S., field artillery has always been the king of battle, infantry the queen of battle.
Click to expand...

America had the best artillery in the war because they were fully motorized. The German artillery was mostly horse drawn so you might say the lack of transport vehicles for the Germans was also a major impediment- perhaps a fully motorized logistics system for them might have been a game changer too.
 
PoS said:
America had the best artillery in the war because they were fully motorized. The German artillery was mostly horse drawn so you might say the lack of transport vehicles for the Germans was also a major impediment- perhaps a fully motorized logistics system for them might have been a game changer too.
Click to expand...

and once we had complete air superiority, that really put the screws to German artillery
 
TurtleDude said:
The MI Garand was more reliable and had far better range which was important in the longer distances the European theater engagement environments consisted of
Click to expand...

As I understand it, the Germans worked as squad units with individuals using Mauser 98k in support of a MG 42 so since their tactics were different, there wouldn't have been a rifle to rifle comparison.

What WOULD have likely changed the outcome of WW2 was earlier deployment of the ME 262 jet fighter which was ready to go in 1941 and made mincemeat out of B-17 squadrons too late in the war to make a difference
Thanks,
B'smith (aka "Grau" at P.F.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom