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

What if the Germans Had MP44 (Stg 44) in 1941?

Discussion in 'What If - European Theater - Western Front & Atlan' started by akashd, Jan 23, 2012.

  1. akashd

    akashd Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey guyz, what would've been the outcome of war with USSR if the Germans had Stg44 Assault Rile (worlds first practical assault rifle) in 1941 distributed widely to all German troops?

    And I would also like to know if they had the Panther's too this time?

    Just Curious!
     
  2. TheRomanRuler

    TheRomanRuler New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    STG 44 is excellent rifle even modern day, but after all it is just infantry weapon. Most of soviet forces were infantry, so it is very likely soviets would have lost all their forces before they had time to build enough tanks to over-power Germans. I would guess Germans would have won the war in east, if not defeat SU then at least succeed in their plans in greating Grossdeutschland. If Germans would have succeeded in creating grossdeutschland, allies would have never landed on Normandy, and second fight for Britain would have started, and as USA wanted originally join on German side, it is possible Brits would have been forced to do that themselves (with some allied help).
    Oh, but before 2nd battle of Britain, Germans would have destroyed allied forces in Africa. With superior forces, there is no change Brits would have survived there. And eventually, but i don`t know how long it would have taken, succesful landing on Britain would have been made, and inferior British forces would have been wiped out. If brits would get USA assistance in this point, it is possible Britain would have survived- for a while. At this point, it is Greater-Germany vs USA, and since both Germans and USA don`t like Japanese, they would have allied.

    EDIT: I must say i am not expert in WW2, so it is possible SU would have still won.
     
  3. KodiakBeer

    KodiakBeer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    6,329
    Likes Received:
    1,712
    Location:
    The Arid Zone
    I don't think it would have changed the outcome, though it might have lengthened the war. The Russians would have ramped up SVT40 production to counter the German rifle, and we'd have likely seen something like the AK or SKS introduced sooner. The Russians already had the T34, which was the equal of the Panther in most respects.

    What might have changed the outcome is if the Germans had captured Moscow in that first summer, but that failure was one of strategy - they pulled forces from the central front to exploit the southern front into the Caucasus oil fields. Even without that weakening of the central thrust, had they reached Moscow it would have been another Stalingrad. There were deep defensive rings around the city, covered by massed artillery.

    One might also look at Leningrad. It was under siege for 900 days, yet they could never break through. Better rifles would not have helped, nor would Panther tanks. Moscow would have been no different - it was much further from their supply lines when winter eventually struck.

    One of the "what if's" I've kicked around is that of the Luftwaffe losses in the Battle of Britain. If the Germans had not lost all those aircraft and experienced pilots in that fruitless affair, but used them in Russia to knock out Tula and Izhevsk (the arms production facilities), they might well have won the war in the east and then had greatly superior forces to counter any eventual western allied thrust.
     
  4. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    584
    KB: I think you are confusing that first summer, and the second; in '41, the panzers were diverted from the drive to Moscow to deal with the vast number of Soviet forces in the south (Kiev). They could hardly leave them there, because of the danger they posed to the German flanks. Additionally, the German supply train needed time to catch up to the depth of the advance, so it is debatable as to whether Army Group Centre could actually have continued deeper into the USSR in August.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kiev_(1941)

    In the second summer ('42), the Germans raced for the Caucasus Oil. But in the first, they were not even close to the Caucasus; Sevastopol and Crimea had yet to fall.
     
    ptimms likes this.
  5. ptimms

    ptimms Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2011
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    98
    Yes GS, have a read of Glantz for a thorough debunking of the "the road to Moscow was open in Summer 41" and Hitler diverting the Panzers south saved Russia.
     
  6. ptimms

    ptimms Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2011
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    98
    On the STG44 question the Germans would have struggled to supply enough ammo. Even with the limited numbers issued there were problems with troops (especially inexperienced ones) using far more ammo than they did with the traditional rifles.
     
  7. KodiakBeer

    KodiakBeer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    6,329
    Likes Received:
    1,712
    Location:
    The Arid Zone
    Methinks you're right! Same deal though, I think the Germans would have found a much tougher nut to crack than they thought had they reached Moscow. It was one thing to defeat the disorganized and badly led Soviet forces in the field in those first couple of years, but places like Leningrad prove that all of those German tactical advantages in the field were useless against an entrenched opposition - especially with NKVD forces at its back to shoot anyone falling back.

    If they couldn't take Leningrad in 900 days with a relatively short supply line, they weren't going to take Moscow with a much longer supply line, especially when winter struck.
     
  8. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    584
    Well, I say "debatable" because 1) to be polite ;o) 2) because the Germans pulled off some extraordinary things 3) I realise there's stuff yet to learn 4) to me the real issue is; you can't leave more than 600,000 armed Soviet soldiers, tanks and artillery, receiving supplies daily, on the deep flank of two army groups, regardless of any German supply issues.

    One of the principle ideas of the quick war on which the whole of Operation Barbarossa hinged, was the requirement to quickly defeat the standing Soviet army in the Field, to achieve Strategic Freedom. The capture of Moscow was not really a requirement. Destroying the Soviet army was. The entire US army in 1940 was one third the size of the forces the Soviets had in and around Kiev.

    Besides, I'm reading about Nomonhan at the moment :D, but thanks for the tip.
     
  9. von Poop

    von Poop Waspish

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,300
    Likes Received:
    1,919
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    'One Swallow never made a spring.'
    And one Infantry Rifle would make not a blind bit of difference to a building strategic disaster.


    I do not understand the question?
    Ah, urrrm, I seem to have wandered into the What-If section, of course I don't understand the question....

    I'll have a stab though, nothing ventured etc.
    If you mean 'what if Germany had Panthers for the '41 assault on the SU? ; again I can't see it making a blind bit of difference.
    A handful of excellent Soviet Heavy tanks were encountered, and caused isolated incidents of quite severe embarrassment to the Germans, but they really weren't widely deployed enough to have caused any wider problems that the Mk.IIIs&IVs could not handle. Famous KV1/KV2 'Was zum Teufel ist das?!' incidents were eventually adequately dealt with by Infantry & Engineers.

    ~A
     
    belasar likes this.
  10. von_noobie

    von_noobie Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,079
    Likes Received:
    73
    Having better Infantry weapons and tanks would be a help but it would also depend on how such equipment and there associated forces are utilized other wise all the better equipment could come to naught.

    STG44, Would it help? yes but in the training period they would have to learn quickly to teach there troops about ammo conservation or a scared soldier will empty his clip in a few minutes but if ammo could be taught to be used wisely then on both offensive and especially defensive operations there would be a large productivity improvement from the average soldier.

    Panther's... Depends on when you are implying when they came into service and as such what model? if it's there first model there where off the top of my head only about 200 and they still had serious flaws that took years to overcome before a good reliable panther came to be so having the panther in 1941 would make no difference, not unless it came into play in 1939 or earlier...
     
  11. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    73
    since the Panther was developed off of the T34 it would not be available till 1943 anyway, unless the Germans stopped their practice of over engineering.
     
  12. von_noobie

    von_noobie Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,079
    Likes Received:
    73
    Rather then the Panther the Germans would be better off with a larger number of the long barreled 75mm Pz IV's, The Pz IV would be more realistic in there ability to acquire with out yet have encountering Soviet T-34's.

    In any case while having the Panther, Stg44 and/or Pz IV (in larger numbers) would help out in many instances there help would only be as good as the number of them that they have and how they are used and historically the Invasion of the Soviet Union was full of problems with the constantly changing plans and beleif that taking Moscow would win them the war... Taking Moscow would have helped for a time seeing as it was a central point for a lot of rail traffic but that would only last so long and serve more of a reprieve for the Axis then a victory.
     
  13. Fris

    Fris New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2013
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scotland, United Kingdom
    I don't think it would have changed much.
     
  14. von Poop

    von Poop Waspish

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,300
    Likes Received:
    1,919
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    I still don't understand.
    The first stage of the assault on the Soviet Union was a massive success, despite the over-ambition of such an attack which would be exposed in the years to come.
    There was no real need for 'better' offensive machinery as they quite ably chased 'Ivan' from pillar to post in that first year.

    More half-tracks and off-road capable trucks, along with some warner knickers and the odd woolly hat, however... Now yer talking.
     
  15. belasar

    belasar Court Jester

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,515
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    Adam makes a valid point. killing slightly more Soviet troops in close combat, or T-34's at somewhat longer ranges would not be the all powerful Force Multiplier that it may at first seem. Then there are the drawbacks, both short term and long.

    Short term the higher rate of fire of MP-44 and the higher fuel consumption of the Pzkw Mk V, along with its more expensive high velocity ammunition, would add an element of strain to an already overstretched logistics system. Then of course is the logistics of another Panzer variant that must have replacement parts and service.

    Long term it would force the Reich's enemies to adopt counter measures. Russia would likely increase the ratio of SMG's to help compensate and this could begin to be felt by early 1942. They too attempted a "Auto-Rifle" which I recall saw limited service, this could be expanded and perfected.

    The Western Allies would also add more SMG's, Bren's and possibly BAR's to close the gap in firepower in the short term. Canada might start production of the M-1 Garand and Carbine for general use by Commonwealth troops in Europe. Not as good perhaps, but a increase in rate of fire.

    Bottom line, that with every German technological advance deployed effectively, the greater technologic and Industrial base of the Western Allies (and to some extent, Soviet Russia) offered a counterpoint. The last thing Germany needed was more lethal enemies, as their one truly exhaustible asset was manpower.
     
  16. Poppy

    Poppy grasshopper

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    7,740
    Likes Received:
    820
    I think they would have used a whole lot more ammunition. For pretty much the same result.
     
    SKYLINEDRIVE likes this.
  17. KodiakBeer

    KodiakBeer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    6,329
    Likes Received:
    1,712
    Location:
    The Arid Zone
    "The artillery does the killing and the infantry does the dying..."

    I don't know who said that first, but it was repeated a lot during WWII.
     
  18. Poppy

    Poppy grasshopper

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    7,740
    Likes Received:
    820
    Wondered about that phrase. Doesn't arty pretty much rely on surprise, or lousy scouting back in the day? WW1 had the trenches, so they knew where to fire. Would there ever be a massed arty fire in this day and age? Someone once said " Artillery is the god of war", but at one time God was the battleship. ..Arty has lost some of its' cache. Unless it is a mobile NBC, it may be obsolescent? No more massed formations...ROV's are the new god of war.
     
  19. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,773
    Likes Received:
    568
    Location:
    London UK
    I agree that couple of improvements in personal weapons or tanks wouldn't have made that much difference to the folly of invading the Soviet Union. An improved rate of fire from personal weapons is irrelevant to the firepower generated by the section's MG 34 or MG42.

    However, 1941 might have been a closer run thing if the German tank were half a generation in advance of the Russians rather than half behind. T34s and KV1s were a nasty shock and did slow the German advance. (One KV1 stopped Army group North for 48 hours). A tank fleet of 1943 vintage Pz IV, V and VI might have helped the Germans achieve their tight timescales. However, the increased fuel consumption and lower mechanical reliablity might have slowed down the logistics. That begs the question whether the Soviets would have given in if Moscow fell. Hitler's racial policies made the War in the East a fight to the death and left the Soviets no option but tof ight on. Arguably Hitler's decision to declare war on the USA on 10 Dec made the German eventual defeat inevitavble.

    Heinz Guderian reckoned that the choice the Germans made of motorising their anti tank artillery rather than medium guns was a major error.
     
  20. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    I think it might have made a considerable difference. Consider that the PZ V wasn't as reliable as the earlier PZ's. It was also not as fuel efficient and it was significantly heavier. The result is likely to be even more strain on an already over taxed logistical system.
     
    Dave55 and von Poop like this.

Share This Page