Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Was the STG-44 the best infantryman's rifle of the war?

Discussion in 'Small Arms and Edged Weapons' started by Hummel, May 30, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    6,131
    Likes Received:
    894
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    Okay, the technical aspects of this weapon and a number of others has been beaten beyond the dead horse stage here. Yes, the SG 43/44 has its good and bad points as do a number of other weapons it has been compared to here.
    But the premise of this thread really comes down to this:

    Now, I have read literally hundreds upon hundreds, if not well over a thousand, of after action reports, histories, and other material on the later part of WW 2 and have yet to come across any accounts that clearly show the SG 43/44 gave its users any significant advantage in combat There are plenty that discuss the merits of the German machineguns and their dangerous properties. The advantages of having good communications can be demonstrated from these. Coordination of action and combined arms too. But, nothing that even remotely shows that the SG 43/44 could have significantly influenced any of the actions it was used in.

    So, once again, the argument made here is that the SG 43/44 was so significant a development it could have influenced the outcome of battles and that that makes it the best infantryman's personal weapon of the war. I for one don't see that result from the evidence.
     
    Triple C, brndirt1 and formerjughead like this.
  2. Proeliator

    Proeliator Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    20
    What evidence is that T.A. Gardner, and which reports are you refering to? You say hundreds, that means you should easily be able to direct me towards at least a dusin or so.

    Next comes the fact that this weapon was rarely seen fielded in concentrated numbers with any unit during the war. The weapon was scattered across all fronts and branches of service. Thus finding instances where German forces wielding this weapon 'en masse' were encountered will be difficult. And so unless you've got an Allied report describing contact with a German unit containing many of these rifles with the results noted, then you don't have evidence of any sort.

    The evidence that there is however, stemming from German combat reports (the guys who used the weapon), dos nothing but support my opinion, the StG recieving nothing but praise from the soldiers at the front who carried it, all claiming it significantly increased the fighting effectiveness of the units who fielded them.
     
  3. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    6,131
    Likes Received:
    894
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
  4. Proeliator

    Proeliator Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    20
    Oh no you don't! You claimed that:
    Now, I have read literally hundreds upon hundreds, if not well over a thousand, of after action reports, histories, and other material on the later part of WW 2 and have yet to come across any accounts that clearly show the SG 43/44 gave its users any significant advantage in combat

    This seems to be a case of talking the talk but not walking the walk.

    How can you conclude that you, and I quote "have yet to come across any accounts that clear show the StG gave its users any significant advantage in combat" if infact you haven't seen a single report describing an encounter with enemy forces equipped with said weapon???

    Pure propoganda. You should read what is said about other German weapons in that series, its funny to read some of the conclusions they feed the soldiers, some of them downright dangerous for their own safety. I so clearly remember the "its bark is more dangerous than its bite" propoganda films shown to US troops to get rid of their fear of the German MG42, films that in hindsight didn't do anything but mislead anyone who watched them. As a former Navy Seal put it: In actual fact its bite is ten times worse than its bark!

    Also as Daniel Musgrave writes in his book German Weapons of War regarding the criticism of enemy equipment in the US intelligence bulletins:
    "Many of these criticisms are more a testimonial of the Allied aversion rather than an accurate view of the weapon's characteristics which were proven in combat during the war."

    Anyway actual testing of the weapon had the US army properly impressed with the weapon, so much so that research & development of similar weapons started right there and then. That the US army didn't get their own assault rifle until 1960 is another issue.
     
  5. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    No. You are the proponent of the idea. He is merely stating that he has done a lot of research and hasn't seen anything to support your contention. If he had said it was a piece of garbage then a call for documentation would be reasonable. Now a polite request for what action reports and where to find them might have got you a bit further here.
     
  6. von Poop

    von Poop Waspish

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,300
    Likes Received:
    1,919
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    There's a very positive troop-trial report of the MP43/1 (to all intents the final weapon) in Handrich's book. From one Captain Gottfried Uhlig 3Ko. Gren.Regt 43 in 1943 (A Knights cross winner later in the war I see.).
    I could scan it in if anyone still retains the will to live on this thread? (And once I've unburied the scanner)

    It won't and doesn't prove anything, a local tactical assessment that still doesn't touch on that old bugbear 'supply' - but it's a good read anyway, without all this dry stuff about ballistics.

    No Rifle was ever a war winner anyway was it? (excepting possibly Martini-Henrys against sharpened fruit.)
    Not in WW2 though, too many other factors dominate the possible impact of one advanced gun.

    ~A
     
  7. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    6,131
    Likes Received:
    894
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    What purpose is there to me putting up a bunch of after action reports that say nothing about the SG 43/44? This is a case of you having made a claim and needing to back it. You have clearly, and repeatedly, stated that the SG 43 could have made a significant difference not just tactically but strategically on the outcome of the war.
    That claim has been challenged and is clearly not being accepted as fact here. You need to show at least a minimum of proof that it could have done so. One means of that is through posting of after action reports or other historical accounts of battles where it actually did make a difference.
    So far when this is brought up you have made an pro hoc, propter hoc argument instead. That is, you put effect before cause. In essence you say it made a difference because it could make a difference without providing proof of either.
    The counter argument is that it didn't have any real effect on the outcome because it is irrelevant as a cause. What is being asked for are examples where it did make a difference. After all, that is the foundation of your argumen.

    I come to that conclusion by the ommission of any references to the weapon having a profound impact on the battles reported. That is why I have asked you supply some proofs from history of battles where the weapon did have a signinficant impact.
     
    Triple C and lwd like this.
  8. Tomcat

    Tomcat The One From Down Under

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,048
    Likes Received:
    267
    Alright, I think enough is enough, members have been insulted, posts ignored, arguments not supported and this thread has constantly gone off topic.

    Therefore this thread will now be closed, if anyone can come up with a reasonable argument to keep it open please PM me with the request and reason why.

    Thread closed.


    USMCPrice has asked that his references be added to the end of this discussion and I have agreed. Whether they prove his case or not is irrelevant but they have been added none the less.

    USMCPrice's references.
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986/MVT.htm
    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Guns+of+the+Wehrmacht-a03243977
     
    USMCPrice, Jaeger and lwd like this.
  9. Tomcat

    Tomcat The One From Down Under

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,048
    Likes Received:
    267
    Alright rouges as per request from a few members this thread will now be reopened.

    Try to play nice, and be mindful of others references, posts and opinions.

    Thread Reopened.
     
  10. Proeliator

    Proeliator Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    20
    I have provided plenty of proof, people such as yourself just choose to ignore it however.

    The German high command was showered in reports about the StG and how effective it was in combat by troops at the front in 1943, explaining how this single weapon often had the ability to turn the tides in many skirmishes with the enemy. And as also mentioned long ago by now; one of the first units to recieve the StG fought its way straight out of a Soviet encirclement force over ten times its own size, a feat only made possible because of the much superior firepower provided by the StG.

    And what battles are you talking about ?

    Also it is hard for something to have a profound impact on anything if it is hardly present and on top often operated by ill trained personnel. But ofcourse you wish to ignore this?
     
  11. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    I've stayed out of this thread for a while ... and it seems to have gone off course from "best rifle" to "rifle as war winning weapon".
    As far as the OP question goes so far I've seen no evidence to disprove the claim of the StG45/MP44/SG43 or however you want to call it, being the best rifle of WW2 and lots to prove it was.

    Logistics have nothing to do with a rifle's qualities, unless you can prove the better weapon was unaffordable but this does not seem to be the case with the StG. If ammo expenditure was that significant an issue it would make sense to remove the MGs from the squad as it's by far the biggest consumer, I think the other side would be delighted. As an interestting fact G. Markham, that knows a lot more about small arms than I do, states in his book that late production StG, thanks to it's modern mass production intended design, suffered significantly less from quality issues than contemporary K98 or G43, the only figures I've been able to find show the StG as actually cheaper than the K98k!

    On the other hand I have seen no evidence to prove a rifle was or could have been a war winning weapon, apart from a well known quote by a Garrand worshipping US general. IMO rifles were not decisive in WW2, the soviets made an apparent backwards step giving up on the Tokarev SVT to mass produce the Mosin-Nagant, and still got to Berlin. So the reasoning "rifles win wars" + "StG best rifle" = "StG would have won the war" is not valid as the first assertion is false.

    As very few units were fully equipped with the StG, most pictures I've seen show the StG mixed with all sorts of stuff (including the occasional M1 carabine !!!), it would be very hard to show it was hisorically decisive anywhere above squad or at best platoon level.

    There is evidence it was a morale booster to the units issued with it, but, despite what Napoleon says on morale, that's not enough to turn it into a war winning weapon.
     
  12. Proeliator

    Proeliator Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    20
    The StG44 would not win the war for the Germans alone, that is clear, but it could've provided the last push needed to turn the tide in battles such as Stalingrad, Monte Cassino & Normandy etc etc. And some of these battles were important enough that they could've decided the course of the war.
     
  13. Triple C

    Triple C Ace

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,599
    Likes Received:
    230
    Stalingrad was not a close-ran thing.

    Paulus never engaged the full weight of the Soviets in Stalingrad. Zhukov was merely indulging the German delusion that they were close to "winning". To quote Shelby Foote, the Red Army was fighting with one arm tied behind its back. Had the Germans came closer to "success" in Stalingrad, the Red Army would took out its "other arm" from its back and repulse the 6th Army with both hands. That other arm was the fresh tank corps and rifle armies earmarked for URANUS.

    The Allies won Normandy with air power, superiority in armored forces, and plain old crushing weight of numbers. I for one do not see how Panzer Lehr could hold out longer than it did with a new rifle after 6,000 metric tons of HE and Frag bombs fell into their position. Nor do I see how the 1st, 2nd, 9th, 10th and 12th SS Panzer could better defend itself from Montgomery's bombers and tanks with a change of small arms.
     
  14. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    Putting more automatic weapons in German hands may possibly have made a difference at Stalingrad, AFAIK the battle was toch and go on a couple of instances, but it's very unlikely, and in urban warfare more MP40s would probably have the same effect. But IMO taking Stalingrad would only delay the end for the Germans in the East, by late 1942 they were on the strategic defensive and getting progressively weaker in relation to the red army that had mostly recovered from the shock of the previous year losses.
    Normandy and Cassino would not be affected, the Germans never had a chance of comming out on top in either one, the best a better rifle could have done is delay the result for a couple of weeks in Normandy (that was mostly an attrition affair) and no effect on Cassino where the Germans were outmanouvered out their position by the French colonial troops. BTW did 1st FJ use FG42s at Cassino? the time frame looks correct but I've never see a pic of one.

    TripleC if you read more recent accounts like Michael K. Jones it was close, the soviets were walking a tightrope by witholding reinforcements to Chuikov, and on a couple occasions he had to throw in his last reserves, some key events were platoon level where more auto weapons may have made a difference.
     
  15. Triple C

    Triple C Ace

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,599
    Likes Received:
    230
    I know. He sent his staff officers to fight as infantry to plug holes in his line, and German soldiers were throwing grenades down the entrance to his HQ at the last weeks of the battle. However for every action there is a reaction, and this applies to counter-factual as well. You cannot change the strategy or equipment of one side without anticipating how the other side would have correspondingly changed & adapted to a different threat.

    If Chuikov received the proverbial "one more rifleman", wouldn't this nullify the effect the counter-factual StGs created? The Russians withheld a numerous strategic reserve. If the tempo of the German onslaught increased, they could send more rifle divisions to Chuikov's aid. Historically, by the time the Germans controlled 90% of the city, preparations for Uranus was complete. At this point the city had served its purpose and was of no further value to the Russians.

    Furthermore, in Operation URANUS the Red Army crossed the Volga on solid ice. Losing the Stalingrad bridgehead in fact would have no bearing on subsequent Soviet operations. The 6th Army would still be frozen, bled and exhausted (not to forget, immobilized!). They would be wiped out in the ruins of Stalingrad which they controlled.
     
  16. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    It really depends on the timeframe, had he Germans pushed back Chuikov early enough, say one month before the Soviets (and the weather) were good for URANUS, they just might have been able react to stop the encirclement, the Soviets didn't have that overwhelmig superiority and had the panzers had time to reorganize and stockpile some fuel and ammo (iffy but not unreasonable).

    The action/reaction argument is valid but would require Stavka "guessing" right about how much to commit to the city without having to give up URANUS, historically they did, with different variables not a sure thing they would. From what I read, if having to choose, they would have sacrificed URANUS in favour of keeping STAR and the German supply situation was less bad in AGC.

    But I agree that in the long run it would change nothing, the red army had regained the initiative, wars are rarely won by defensive battles and the Germams had shot their bolt and were on a downhill slope.

    What they needed East was better logistics and operational planning from the start (and I doubt the Nazi regime would allow for either, Hitler was still thinking of "butter" in 1941), not a better rifle.
     
  17. vathra

    vathra Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    7
    Don't understimate sharpened kiwi, mate! :waving:

    PS I wonder if we could sum up of all of "If Germany had done ______, war would last ___ months longer.", how many years we would eventually get. :rolleyes:
     
  18. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    5,168
    Likes Received:
    2,140
    Location:
    God's Country
    Three months or so. That's when the mushroom clouds would have started sprouting over Berlin and other German cities.:rolleyes:
     
    formerjughead and brndirt1 like this.
  19. Proeliator

    Proeliator Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    20
    The thing about Normandy is that it was pretty much decided in the first few hours of the invasion on June 6th. And the German troops at the beaches weren't exactly very well armed or very many, often having to rely on old WW1 style MGs for their automatic firepower. The bulk of the men were armed with K98ks, with a few MG08's spread around. Had the StG long been the standard service arm by then it would've resulted in a dramatically different response to the Allied invasion of Normandy. The Allies might very well have been pushed right back out to the sea before they could ever secure a foothold.
     
  20. formerjughead

    formerjughead The Cooler King

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,627
    Likes Received:
    1,006
    Good lord man.......if my aunt had a mustache she'd be my uncle. The tactic was for the Infantry to get off the beach and under the guns, into defilade, of the Germans. In the 600-1000 meters of beach if Spandaus and MG-34/42's couldn't prevent that then a StG44 wouldn't have done any better.

    Let it go man.....just let it go
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page