Quote:
Originally Posted by JCFalkenbergIII
Here it is. Thanks and credit to T.A. Gardner.
"It isn't the weapon that is important, it is the orgainzed unit within which it is being used that is critical. The difference on the battlefield between the various submachineguns, excepting those of very poor quality, is insignificant, just as the choice of rifle is. Yes, semi-automatics do make a small difference as do assault rifles. But, in infantry units the only weapons of real military siginficance are machineguns, mortars, and grenade launchers / man portable HE /AT weapons."
http://www.ww2f.com/information-requ...tml#post277452 |
I mostly agree with that.
The real benefit of the assault rifles is that they provided each soldier who had one with a multipurpose weapon, which could do the job of both an SMG and (at normal ranges) a rifle. So compared with a unit equipped with a mixture of SMGs and semi-auto or bolt-action rifles, the useful firepower was, on average, higher, since the rifle-armed men weren't very handy in street fighting while the SMG-armed men weren't much use in open country.