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

I severely doubt that, esp. seeing as they failed to come up with a single counter for the MG42 or let alone the MG34, the latter having been inservice since the mid 30's! Also they didn't come with a direct counter to the German heavy tanks until 1945 when the war was pretty much over.

So I very much doubt they'd be quick to switch to a new std. service arm just like that. And giving the Garand a bigger magazine capacity wouldn't have helped at all, it would still be semi automatic fire versus full automatic. And full automatic fire is absolutely essential for maximum suppressive fire effect, and the StG44 had this over any weapon out to 200 meters (MG's excluded). Beyond that range and single shots are the way to go, and the StG has 30 rounds pr. mag and the lethality of a rifle out to 600 meters.

It's no wonder nearly all armies in the world were soon to adopt this style of weapon after WW2, and that it is now the main style of std. infantry smallarm used by any army today.

 

The rattenkrieg or so called "war of the rats" which went on inside Stalingrad was an excellent environment for a weapon like the StG, and had it been issued as std. to the German troops there then you can be sure it would've had a dramatic effect on things. I think you can pretty much be sure they would've pushed the Soviets out infact. And that's despite the many thousands of Germans dying of cold, and malnutrition, a thing which could've have been partially alleviated by winning the battle sooner and better controlling the battle, making resupplying troops easier and less risky.

The StG was one option that could've helped the Germans win the war in the east, the premise being that the Soviets are defeated at Stalingrad and thus weakened significantly. The Caucasus being captured either simultanously or shortly after.

As already mentioned the StG proved so effective when first used that it allowed a relatively small German battalion to fight its way directly out of a Soviet encirculment force consisting of an entire division. And this was accomplished simply by use of the StG greatly superior firepower. It was actions like these that finally made Hitler come around regarding the full scale introduction of the weapon.

 

Again you are assuming that the Russians would not simply retreat further east stretching the German Supply lines further and making their own logistics chain shorter.

For all the inovations of the StG44 it did not provide a viable source of: Food, Fuel or Warmth; which is what the German Army needed. If the StG was chambered in the 7.92x57 , standard to the German Army, it might have made a difference. As it was, the 7.92x33(K) only represented one more box of material heading east that was not food, fuel or clothing.

 

Retreat? From Stalingrad? Don't think so. Not only would Soviet moral plummit, the capture would also more importantly cut off the Soviet transportation of resources and goods to the north and secure the western flank as the Germans advanced into the Caucasus region. The capture of Stalingrad would also allow the Germans to direct most of its forces outside the city to encircle it with a defensive barrier, preventing the Soviet Pincer. Defending the city once it was taken would've been easy, it was taking it and clearing it for Soviet troops that was insanely difficult as it was.

And had Stalingrad fallen then the Caucasus region was soon to follow, and the capture of this region would help fuel the Wehrmacht onwards while at the same time chopping off a huge source of supply for the Soviets.

It's really simple, more StG's means less Kar98k's, G41's & G43's, which in turn means much less 7.92x57mm rounds to be produced.

In short: Considerable resources would be diverted from making Kar98ks, G41s, G43's & 7.92x57mm ammunition into simply making StG rifles and 7.92mm Kurz ammunition instead.

This would have close to no effect on the logistical situation, it would to the contrary mean that same size boxes would be recieved but in them containing over double the ammunition. And even better is the fact that each man can carry much more of these rounds as-well.

 

First off, capturing the Baku I fields would have done the Nazis no good at all. The Soveits themselves had capped and abandoned the field on the west of the Caspian Sea before the Nazi forces even got close. The new (known but undeveloped) Baku II field then opened up and the original field the Germans were headed toward produced NO oil during the war. It took a couple of years for the Soviets themselves (in peace time) to get the Baku I field producing again. The Germans didn't stand a chance of exporting a barrel of Baku oil back home. Just like the two fields they did over run, not a barrle of oil went back to Germany.

In fact the pipe they moved to the area of Grozny was taken by the Red Army, hooked up to their own fields when they retook them, and used to pump the oil back to the Soviet.

The Germans had no chance of capturing the fields, no chance of putting them into production, and no chance exporting the oil home. Zero chance. Taking Stalingrad won't change that, ignoring Stalingrad won't change that, taking the oil fields won't change that.

Not historically, not even in a "what if".

The V-2 was a scaling up of Goddard's patents, in fact when von Bruan was captured and interogated his first question was (paraphrasing); "..why don't you just ask your own Dr. Goddard? I'm using his ideas!" Von Bruan was unaware that the man he copied had died in the last year of the war, and had abandoned liquid fuel propulsion rockets to concentrate on JATO and RATO units for the US Navy, and US Army Air.

W. von Braun then went on to sue the NACA and NASA in conjuntion with Robert Goddard's widow for patent infringement (200+ patents), while he was employed by them. He and she won in 1960, the largest (at that time) patent infringement case in American history. A million dollars to the Goddard estate.

The patent infringment included gimbled nozzles, gyroscopic stabilizer/direction controls, high speed pumps, fuel mix ratios, rocket nozzle cooling systems, and other V-2 propulsion and re-fueling concepts he himself had used. If von Bruan could recognize he was standing on the shoulders of Goddard, why can't you?

 

Not true, the Germans actually did extract oil from the Caucasus, however precious little.

Furthermore:
"At the outbreak of the war, Germany’s stockpiles of fuel consisted of a total of 15 million barrels. The campaigns in Norway, Holland, Belgium, and France added another 5 million barrels in booty, and imports from the Soviet Union accounted for 4 million barrels in 1940 and 1.6 million barrels in the first half of 1941. Yet a High Command study in May of 1941 noted that with monthly military requirements for 7.25 million barrels and imports and home production of only 5.35 million barrels, German stocks would be exhausted by August 1941. The 26 percent shortfall could only be made up with petroleum from Russia. The need to provide the lacking 1.9 million barrels per month and the urgency to gain possession of the Russian oil fields in the Caucasus mountains, together with Ukrainian grain and Donets coal, were thus prime elements in the German decision to invade the Soviet Union in June 1941.

The smallest of the Russian oil fields at Maikop was captured in August 1942, and it was expected that the two remaining fields and refineries in Grozny and Baku also would fall into German hands. Had the German forces been able to capture these fields and hold them, Germany’s petroleum worries would have been over. Prior to the Russian campaign, Maikop produced 19 million barrels annually, Grozny 32 million barrels, and Baku 170 million barrels."

Braun was joking when first asked, that is rather clear. Eventhough Goddard did inspire Braun for sure, the German program was influenced more by work done back in Germany than any by Goddard, esp. since Goddard didn't like sharing his knowledge with anyone.

And sure enough did Braun expand on some of Goddards ideas, but nothing Goddard ever designed or contructed even came close to the complexity of the V-2 program. Not even by a long stretch. The V-2 rocket incorperated so much NEW technology that Goddard had nothing to do with, that he really can't be said to have had much influence beyond the basis of idea.

 

I'n sorry, the decline in the Baku I field production after 1942 was due to the Soviets themselves pumping cement into the wells and closing them down as the Nazis approached and threatened the fields. Stalin told the man (Nikolai Baibakov) that he put in charge of the sabotage that "…if the Germans get one drop of oil out of Baku, you wil be shot." He then added; "…if we cannot recover the oil later, you will be shot again!" By late 1942 764 wells had been "capped" off, and weren't re-opened until late 1946 (I think) when Baku I came back online.

And the US did supply a great deal of the missing POLs to the USSR through Lend-Lease, mostly in high-grade avgas and refined lubricants. The Soviets production was then largely diverted toward diesel, petroleum distillate, kerosene, and low grade gasoline production. They excelled in producing low octane fuel for the GAZ trucks (as low as 50 octane rating), and upon which many engines could function.

The Maikop and Grozny fields were captured by the Nazis, and those too must be figured into the "Caucuses’ " production, not just Baku I. They never got back into production until they were retaken by the Red Army, and that at a very low level. Baku I was out of the mix after 1942, and the other two (Maikop and Grozny) not back up to snuff until post war either.

As to von Bruan making a "joke" I doubt it. And while Goddard never produced a system like that wasteful expense of the Third Riech, it was his ideas and patents upon which von Bruan expanded. Goddard had done all his work on his "own dime" so to speak, he had some funding from a few private contributers, but NO government backing.

This is the difference here, with government money it is hard to say what Goddard and a team of dedicated rocket men could have come up with. A V-2 like unit? Highly likely. A better unit? Perhaps. But I think we are talking at cross purposes in the area of the liquid fueled rockets. Von Braun knew whose ideas he was expanding upon, and Goddard wasn't in that monetary government loop of expansion.

As to the "captured" oil of the Soviets, I would enjoy reading any source which can verify any POL returning to the German state from the Soviet territory post Barbarossa. I have never seen a single one. I have however seen sources (both German and Soviet) which contradict that position.

 

From here: The Role of Synthetic Fuel In World War II Germany

Grozny and Baku, however, were never captured, and only Maikop yielded to German exploitation. As was the case in all areas of Russian production, the retreating forces had done a thorough job of destroying or dismantling the usable installations; consequently, the Germans had to start from scratch.

 

That's right.....Germany would have simply stopped using the stock piles that were created during the inter war years; just used the StG and only made 7.92X33 (K) ammunition. Of course that would mean replaceing all of their MG-34's and FG42's on every platform they were employed on to include aircraft. I bet a messerschmidt would have been very effective firing that round...NOT!

Here is a clue:
If you have to alter historical events to make your thesis viable then it's not a viable thesis. You have to make too many assumptions. Germany did not have the means to make the StG an effective component to any battle at any time.

You have hijacked the thread and turned into a what if. Despite continued efforts to steer the thread back on track you continue with your fool hardy effort. Maybe you should prose this in the "What If?" / Alternate History department.

 

Regarding the counter of MG 34 and MG 42, you approach it as an attritional theorist = Counter weapon by weapon, and mine is bigger than yours. This rarely yield good results.

The biggest acheivements of the wehrmacht was in the 1940 campaign in France. They fought with worse tanks, less men, less equipment etc. But they had done long strides in the tactical area, 3CI and doctrine compared to the western allies.

The solution is to counter asymetrical. A Russian air Colonel was asked how the new F-18 would be countered. His response was a T-72 on an American airfield.

Morshead negated the armour, the 88 and the Spandaus by fighting at night.

Tactical air support and logistic strikes knocked out tanks and stopped the precious fuel from reaching the frontline.



Regarding the last bit about the STG. 44

Full auto supressive fire with a battle rifle? Two and a half seconds of rock 'n roll and then change clips.

In my experience the use of rock 'n roll with a battle rifle is only profitable on moving targets at close range. There is another cheaper and easier weapon for this called SMG.

The 'rattenkrieg' and the winterwar showed the value of the smg.

Full auto at longer ranges means a bipod and a belt.

Supressive fire is a means to get somebody to crawl into their helmet and start praying to Jesus whom they two seconds ago didn't beleive in. The LMG is well suited for this purpose. Prefabrly from a firing position with a good field of fire and plenty of cover.

Well aimed shots is a lot scarier than rock 'n roll kicking up the dust around you. And well aimed shots are perfectly possible with a bolt action rifle. (just ask my freezer, it is full of venison)

The '44 may have the lethality of a rifle at medium range (600 m) but it is bloody hard to hit home at that range. A longer rifle is better and especially a self loading one (bearing in mind that it is beeing used by conscripts that will change arm, head and leg position when operating the bolt)

The 44 is a bit of a bastard design. The kurtz cartridge is my main beef with it. The G-3 has a 57mm long cartridge and I have used it since 1996. A good calibre, but it has some drawbacks. The Kurtz has worse performance but neglible advantages.

During ww2 the Germans would have been better off using more smg's than introducing the '44. Ammo is lighter (carry more, shoot more costs less, comparable performance in practical use) and the weapon platform is tried and tested and even more important: in production.

The Germans would not have won by introducing the '44. What they needed was a lot more food, oil, ammo, men.

What they didn't need was more complicated designs, bigger challenges to the Log tail, and fewer enemies.

The Stg 44 was and still is cool. So is the apperance of a Tiger tank. But wars are usually won by the crowd with the dull uniforms and dodgy weapons.

 

Where are you getting this from? Ofcourse the stockpiles would be used, how was that ever a question in your mind ? And where on earth was replacing MG34's & MG42's ever suggested? They were still VERY much needed! It was the Kar98k which was to be replaced (not any machinegun), as the std. issue rifle by the StG.

So what is being said is that there would be an increase in 7.92x33mm Kurz production for a decrease in 7.92x57mm JS production. The already made stockpiles of 7.92x57mm ammunition would simply be distributed as before, while actual production of the round would decrease to lower levels. Meanwhile 7.92x33mm Kurz production would massively increase.

 

I Might have gotten it from your post here:

What you fail to see is that production of the 7.92x33(k) rounds would have to increase exponentialy, as more of the StG's entered service, to about 500% more. So that means in addition to MG 34, MG 42, Kar 98 and 9MM ammo the Germans would have to ship an increasing amount of the 7.92x33(k) ammo east. 7.92x57MM production wouldn't decrease as there were too many weapons that already used that ammunition. The only difference would be that less Kar 98 Ammo would be loaded on stripper clips and more would be in the form of disintegrating linked belts adding another burden to the steel resources.

 

Let me throw this one out into the fray. If YOU were going to be in any army involved in WW2, would you want your army equipped with the weapon of the time or AK-47s (the immediate, direct descendant of the STG, no)? I know this probably belongs over in the WHAT IF? forum, but with some of the posts in this thread, I thought to toss it out there. I know the range (at least I know it now) of the STG was much less than the Garand or Enfield or the Mauser (I SHOULD know as my brother has a WW2 Australian Enfield and we have hit targets out to 800 meters with it that my old AK-47 just could NOT reach on its best day).

Anyhow, if the Wehrmacht could have been mass equipped with the STG, would it have made a difference?

And back to the original question which eluded some folks (hey, no penalty) . . . what categories do YOU think makes for the best infantryman's rifle of WW2? Do you think the categories I posted in the OP make a valid set for consideration? Obviously I do as I posted them, lol.

Oh, going back to range for a moment . . . I know the Garand and others out ranged the STG, but what battles in WW2 had a lot of combat out to constant 800+ meter shooting? Weren't most of them either in towns/cities or forests? Just something I thought of. Thanks for the really cool and interesting posts I have seen. I watch the thread every day with growing enjoyment.

Ciao!

 

Range = Safety.

Most soldiers were killed by something else than small arms fire. Most small arms fire kills would be form a LMG.

The big battles were won by air superiority, followed by ground manouvre and a large POW haul.

You don't win wars by killing soldiers. Killing their will to fight is much better.

In the nitty gritty city fighting the SMG is handier than any rifle, so a wholesale change for Assault rifles would not have changed anything drastically.

 

formerjughead,

Production AND demand of 7.92x57mm ammunition would naturally decrease as less and less weapons using the round would be in active service, I really don't know why you won't see that.

Furthermore the 7.92x33mm Kurz cartridge was manufactured using the same machines which were used for manufacturing 7.92x57mm ammunition, cause as explained the Kurz round was in actual fact just a necked down 7.92x57mm round. That means no modification was needed to the production line other than a very few parts. So the eksponential transition from the 7.92x57 to the Kurz round would've been accomplished easily to say the least.

The end goal would be to have only a limited amount of Kar98k's in service, mainly in areas where it would be the most effective solution (Sniping for ex.), making machineguns like the MG34 & MG42 the main consumers of the this ammunition type.

 

If that was really the case then why is every single self respecting army in the world today mainly arming its' troops with direct descendents of the StG44 ?

Also SMG's have pretty much ceased to exist in most armies, with only Spec Ops using these, and mostly for stealth reasons. So how can they be more effective than assault rifles in urban combat? Answer is they are not, esp. since they lack the penetration performance.

 

Probably because we dont have 5 million bolt action rifles in mint conditions in our stockpiles and still in production, or that we are caught up in a global war to the death where our factories are going flat out 24/7 producing what we can (but not enought) and beeing bombed around the clock. The trains reach their destinations without beeing shovered with rockets, and our ships are not torpedoed.

And since the assault rifle is a good compromise between the two it is a good thing to opt for.

If you care for hitching a ride to the north of Afganistan you will find that the 30mm Bushmaster III on our CV90, FAC, MG and .50cal Sniper rifle is the weapon platforms that dish out the pain.

The SMG is thriving because of it's lower penetration and weight/length. It is now a versatile weapon.

 

Hello Hummel,

It is my clear opinion that introducing the StG44 earlier on would've made a very noticable difference, and depending on how early it was introduced it might even have helped the Germans win the war in the east; like I said in my first post, it at least had the potential to do so, even if it demanded some different strategic decisions to be made.

One thing is clear though, the StG would add a massive boost in firepower to any unit in which it was incorperated, providing superior firepower to any other smallarm on the battlefield safe from MGs.

 

The parent case for the cartridge in the 7.92X57MM. That means the only thing the two rounds have in common is the size of the cartridge at the base! In actuality the only part of the production equipment that could be used in both production lines is the bullet seat.

The Kar 98 bolt action 7.92x57MM fired a projectile wieghing between 181gr-198gr. Whereas the StG's 7.92x33 fired a projectile weighing 125gr.
There is a 24MM disparity in cartridge length.
The Kurz required less powder.

Nevermind that the Kurz round, being intended for use in an auto matic rifle, needed to be produced to higher tolerances than the Kar 98 rounds which were bolt operated.

The rounds are very very different and nothing about them is interchangeable.

 

Sounds like you haven't been to the greenzone. I sure wouldn't like to haul a .50 cal sniper around in that place.

Assault rifles are better than SMGs & semi auto rifles in by far the majority of cases, and they are here to stay as the std. issue smallarm of most armies for decades to come.