Question about earlier introduction of the StG-44

[mdk31]

The Sturmgewehr 44 is, as far as I'm aware, widely considered the first modern assault rifle, being as it was a precursor to many modern arms. It was initially developed as the MP43 in 1943, but not introduced to the German forces on a wide scale until 1945. It was, apparently, an outstanding weapon for the time, allowing far greater firepower at greater ranges with greater accuracy than submachine guns, rivalling standard service rifles for range, and being able to put more ammunition downrange than standard bolt-action or semi-automatic rifles.

My question is, what effect would it have had on the course of the war if Germany had invested more heavily in providing the StG44 to its military, even to the point of completely replacing the Kar98k in frontline units? Additionally, was that ever really a realistic possibility?

 

[Garrett_]

About your question: I don't think it would have major effect even if germans were able to largely replace older desings (full replacement would be obviously impossible, even in peace time such changes take time, during full scale war there's not even a question about it).

Considering german situation in  late 43, 44 and 45 better infantry weapons were probably one of the least pressing problems of the time. After the disasters of Stalingrad and Kursk third reich simply did not have enough manpower to employ it's infantry divisions in anything more than trying to seal gaps in crumbling frontlines.

One of the biggest advantages of the modern assault rifle design is it's flexibiity, which allows for using it in various battlefield situations. The problem here is that germans were mostly pressed into one particular type - defence agains overwhelming enemy numbers, a situation in which sturmgewher flexibility could not be fully employed, thus it's potential impact would be probably lower than expected.

Okay that's my opinion on the subject matter, looking forward to discuss it more.

 

[LordOfShadows]

plus, never forget logistics. If the troops started using more ammo, could they keep them supplied? They were having trouble anyway due to Hitler's decisions re the use of trains.

 

[xenoargh]

I don't think it would have mattered a bit; if anything, it would have led the Allies to invest their far-greater resources into developing similar weapons sooner than they did, and with their much better logistical situation, they would have had all of the advantages of being able to spend bullets to spare lives.

The thing about the StG-44 is that, like the follow-up weapons based on its principles, like the AK-47, while it was certainly more flexible than either battle rifles or submachine guns, it did not have modern burst capabilities and suffers from considerable muzzle climb, making it a weapon that, under combat conditions, wastes a lot of ammunition tearing up the countryside. 

The MG-42's prodigious and largely un-adjustable rate of fire was a typical example of how this could be a curse in a lot of situations; when ammunition wasn't readily available, an MG-42 was almost totally useless, because just a few seconds of firing would be enough to reveal the position of the weapon and alert Allied troops that it existed, yet not be nearly enough to suppress enemy troops attempting to take a position. 

As wonderfully-modern as some of the German weapons were, a lot of them suffered from a major defect in that they were ill-suited to the true position of the German forces from a logistical standpoint and often gave soldiers a false sense of invulnerability, as in the Battle of the Bulge, where the German high command knew that their attack was doomed but the troops, not knowing that their ammo and fuel would be exhausted swiftly and not be replaced, used their weapons with abandon and then were decimated when they ran out of steam.

I honestly think the Germans would have gotten more real benefit from figuring out how to lighten their battle rifles and improving their semi-automatic actions, both which would have improved their utility on the march (a big deal, since the Germans did quite a lot of marching) and as weapons suitable for use in defensive warfare.

 

[Skot the Sanguine]

It was, apparently, an outstanding weapon for the time, allowing far greater firepower at greater ranges with greater accuracy than submachine guns, rivalling standard service rifles for range, and being able to put more ammunition downrange than standard bolt-action or semi-automatic rifles.

The bold part is incorrect.  The StG 44 was firing special ammo consisting of a standard 7.92mm (8mm Mauser) bullet in a shortened casing.  This ammo did NOT have the range of a standard service rifle.  Furthermore, it was not more accurate than an MP 40, which for a sub machinegun was supposedly pretty good in the way of accuracy.  The advantage it did have was stopping power compared to the 9mm "Luger" round that the MP 40 had.  Essentially it was a portable and personal weapon made with the same philosophy as the Germans brought to their MG's...put as much lead downrange as you can in as short a time as you can, you will be more likely to hit someone than if you put a few aimed shots down range with a rifle. 

Anyway, the point is that you overestimate the StG 44's capability.  It was excellent indeed, but not the things you state.  It would not have changed the war, that is certain.  However, it would probably have meant that more Allied lives would be lost achieving victory.

 

[mikkel the great]

It was, apparently, an outstanding weapon for the time, allowing far greater firepower at greater ranges with greater accuracy than submachine guns, rivalling standard service rifles for range, and being able to put more ammunition downrange than standard bolt-action or semi-automatic rifles.

Anyway, the point is that you overestimate the StG 44's capability.  It was excellent indeed, but not the things you state.  It would not have changed the war, that is certain.  However, it would probably have meant that more Allied lives would be lost achieving victory.

Didnt the Sgt 44 have roughly the same range as the K98K? I think it had higher stopping power too... And the fact that its so effective in close to medium range makes it a perfect city fighting weapon, which was more or less what the WW2 was duuring the end. It wouldnt have made much of a diffrence, but Im sure many more soldiers would have fallen.

Say, what if the germans managed to get this assault rifle across all their fronts, combined with their Tiger I/II's. I saw some interesting show on the german production of tanks. They used the very best components, which meant that the tanks were made to be able to hold for up to 2 months without any serious replacements. And the vital components could last up to 2 years! The problem was, the tanks were destroyed (later in the war that is) only a few weeks after they came out of the factory! I think they said they'd reckon, with the cheaper parts, and a slightly altered design that would be cheaper but would be as durable in the long term, that they would have been able to spit out no less than 500 'King Tigers' before the end of the war.

Now... If you combine these two, I think they would have been able to deal some damn serious damage to the allies, perhaps even halt the assault for a year or two.

 

[RalliX]

Essentially, the Sturmgewehr 44 was a better all-round weapon for the average infantryman. The StG had less range than the Mauser 98k, but the Karabiner had so much effective range that it surpassed needs in anything but long-distance combat(+200 meters).

If you want to suppress an enemy, all you need are overlapping fields of fire by a bunch of bolt actions. If you want to actually attack that enemy as an infantryman, you need versatile automatic weapons. The StG-44 was that versatile automatic weapon. More effective range(I.E. Power/accuracy) than a Maschinenpistole, but little enough power to use with automatic and semi-automatic fire accurately, unlike the Karabiner.

The MP40 was NOT anywhere near as accurate, and definitely not as powerful. MP40s were simple, light, and effective close-range(under 100m) weapons, but it had nowhere near the range of an assault rifle. It fired pistol cartridges.
Form follows function. If I'm in a close-range/urban combat environment, I won't need to worry about having enough range/power, and should use a smaller chambered weapon which can fire more bullets in that short range, more efficiently.

And vice versa: If I'm fighting in and across a broad empty plain, I'll need something more suited to firing accurately and powerfully over a great range. Am I going to use an MP40 to shoot at enemies that are like ants in the distance? No, I'm going to use my high-powered marksman's rifle, preferably with some sighting aid if I'm not Simo Häyhä.

The point is that the StG was usable and effective in a large variety of environments, which is essentially what you want to have in a standard-issue rifle.

 

[Úlfheðinn]

Say, what if the germans managed to get this assault rifle across all their fronts, combined with their Tiger I/II's. I saw some interesting show on the german production of tanks. They used the very best components, which meant that the tanks were made to be able to hold for up to 2 months without any serious replacements. And the vital components could last up to 2 years! The problem was, the tanks were destroyed (later in the war that is) only a few weeks after they came out of the factory! I think they said they'd reckon, with the cheaper parts, and a slightly altered design that would be cheaper but would be as durable in the long term, that they would have been able to spit out no less than 500 'King Tigers' before the end of the war.

The Tiger series of tanks were notorious for being incredibly unreliable and difficult to repair or maintain. 



The StG was interesting certainly, but in general the most damning mistakes the Germans made were not ones that "miracle" technologies would resolve.

 

[Jhessail]

The StG was interesting certainly, but in general the most damning mistakes the Germans made were not ones that "miracle" technologies would resolve.

Exactly. None of the Wunder-Waffen were present in large enough quantities and early enough time frame to make a difference. Kursk decimated the armored units of the Heer and Waffen-SS and while the Red Army lost more tanks, it could fairly easily replace them. That was the battle that settled the conclusion of the war, if there ever can be a single battle in a such a vast conflict that could do it. It wouldn't matter if Tigers came out earlier or Tiger II/Königstiger were produced a few hundred more or if Me-262 had been a pure fighter/interceptor - the numbers arrayed against the Third Reich were just too vast. Nazi-Germany against UK alone? Possible victory under certain conditions. Nazi-Germany against USSR alone? Again, possible victory under certain conditions. But Nazi-Germany against UK, USSR and USA? No chance.

Unless you start WW2 with Germans having all the wonder weapons in use in 1939/1940 already and in sufficient numbers. But you might as go full Turtledove and imagine that some Lizard Aliens arrive in the middle of WW2, leading to a lot of people having wild sex with each other.

 

[inox_ionizer]

Could the Nazi-Germans have won the war if lizard aliens arrived in the middle of WW2, leading to a lot of people having wild sex with each other?

I think the answer is yes. All sides would potentially be producing much more babies, but the Americans, and by extension of lend-lease their allies, would have a good supply of condoms, so they would get less future soldiers. The Nazi-Germans and their allies, not having access to such luxuries, would eventually outnumber their adversaries and march victoriously through the streets of Moskva, London, Washington D.C and Oslo.

 

[Skot the Sanguine]

Didnt the Sgt 44 have roughly the same range as the K98K? I think it had higher stopping power too...

No on both counts.  The bullet of the StG 44 was the same as the 7.92mm round used in Kar 98k's and also the MG's, but its cartridge was smaller.  Smaller cartridge means less powder, and less powder means less stopping power and range.

Another thing to keep in mind was that the German approach to infantry combat was not like the American or British method.  Whereas the British and Americans put emphasis on the rifleman and had the MG's support the rifleman, the Germans did the opposite.  German riflemen were to support the squad MG and protect its flanks or move up and eliminate a target that the MG could not hit but might pose a threat.  Thus, the StG was not really revolutionizing that tactics that made the German squad so effective anyway.

 

[mikkel the great]

I'd say having a Stg44 instead of the Kar 98 would make quite a diffrence advancing on an enemy position...

 

[Ule]

I'd say having a Stg44 instead of the Kar 98 would make quite a diffrence advancing on an enemy position...

well only for shear ammount of firepower they would be able to put down, where as with the kar youd be able to shoot further and more accurately (and use your bayonet). the mp40 is more usefull when assualting positions. plus by the time the stg came out germany was on the backfoot, and was mostly defending, with very little assualting.

the stg was only really usefull in streetfighting, more agile than a bolt action rilfe and has the rof of the smg with a bit more range.

 

[mikkel the great]

While its got lower accuracy, the more firepower and versability of the gun makes up for it by far. Whenever you get 'close' a bolt action rifle ain't worth much compared to a assault rifle. And I do be live that some some versions had a bayonet mount.

隐藏

Not that it its important with a 30 round mag, but in an emergency, why not.

The stg44 beat all other assault rifles at the time (as far as I know at least..) in both accuracy and range. And obviously, every single man in the Wehrmacht nor the SS would be running around with an Stg. But instead of the Mp40, and perhaps a few rifles while still maintaining a balanced force.

 

[Haresus]

My answer to the topic’s question:
The STG 44 can not destroy tanks or airplanes.

Next!

 

[mikkel the great]

Earlier introduction of FlkPz IV, King Tiger and Stg44? Not saying they could have won the war with the Stg44, but when the knot started to strain the germans, and when fighting in various citites, the Stg44 would have made a hek of a diffrence considering that tanks were sparesly used in urban combat due to their vulnerbility from at attacks from the buildings.

 

[Úlfheðinn]

The problem was several failures by the German's on both strategical and tactical levels.

Ultimately however, they were simply facing such a massive disadvantage in numbers that winning the war against the allies is pretty much only a "what if" scenario dream.

Best case it even if somehow the Germans had the StG-44 earlier and in greater numbers(both presumptions which are rather "unrealistic") they would be buying some time, still it is not as if the war would suddenly have become a stalemate.

 

[Ule]

no once they were ****ed at kursk, they could not produce the amount of war materials required to hold back the allies on any front, no matter what super weapons they brought out or produced earlier.

plus fuel/ammo shortages kicked them in the bollocks more than their tanks being sub par.

so no Hitlers superweapons were the delusions of a mad man, and arguing about this is very much the same.

The stg44 beat all other assault rifles at the time (as far as I know at least..) in both accuracy and range.

and no the stg was the only assault rifle of its time, bar semi auto rifles, svt, gerrand, bar etc.

which not to be mean, kinda shows the sort of person whos trying to argue its point

 

[Skot the Sanguine]

and no the stg was the only assault rifle of its time, bar semi auto rifles, svt, gerrand, bar etc.

which not to be mean, kinda shows the sort of person whos trying to argue its point

No, you are right, I picked up on that as well.  Not to sound arrogant (but there is no way this doesn't) but I already knew I was discussing a matter with someone who hasn't studied it as much.  I wrote a rather in depth paper in college on German infantry tactics and had acquired the field manuals for doing so.  I also have just started the process of reloading my own ammo for my Kar 98k and M1 Garand.

Another thing to keep in mind is that all this stuff of whether the StG can put out more firepower than a Kar 98 is mostly irrelevant when the German army wasn't about straight attrition fighting but encirclement and so-called "Kesselschlacht" (cauldron battles) as seen over and over in the Eastern Front.  Would the StG 44 have helped a little?  Of course, just look at how the Fallschirmjaeger did with their higher proportions of automatic weapons...but the majority of what they achieved was more due to their excellent training and morale.  As I said before, an assault rifle as the standard firearm in the American and British armies would have had a greater impact than it would in the German army simply because of the way Germans approached infantry combat and its lack of emphasis on the average infantryman in favor of the squad machinegun.

 

[Jhessail]

plus by the time the stg came out germany was on the backfoot, and was mostly defending, with very little assualting.

That's not how military operations work. Even when strategically on the defensive, there is a need for tactical and/or operational counter-attacks and Germany even mounted few large-scale offensives in 1944 and 1945.