What if STG44 was...

What do you guys think would've happened if the German STG44 (MP44) would've been produced before 1944?

I believe it would've turned the tide of war drastically. The majority of German soldiers would have been armed with automatic STG44's instead of the bolt-action Mauser. Thats my input.

 

German soldiers would have definitely been better equipped and the war surely would have lasted longer, but for advanced weaponry to have won the war many other types would have been needed. Earlier jets, better U-boats introduced before they were, and more. All of this combined might have secured a victory for Germany. Even if Germany had started out the war with the mp44, too many factors turned against them, lack of resources and manpower, two fronts, etc, for just one weapon (other than the a-bomb) to change the outcome in any significant way.

[ 31 July 2002, 01:23 AM: Message edited by: dasreich ]

 

Hello, Berquist !

The MP/StG44 is my 'favourite gun', so it's tempting to think of it winning the war.
But I don't think it would have done. For sure, it would have made a great difference in many tactical situations - and I guess you could argue that a lot of tactical points adds up to one strategic gain !

But overall, I think the MG42 was probably most important in such situations anyway.

It would have been more efficient for German industry, too - as I think MP44 would have superseded both K98 and MP40 and dispersed construction could have left other areas of industry free for other use.

No, MP44 wouldn't have won the war, but it would have made the German frontline soldier an even more formidable opponent.

 

hi colleagues!

Indeed mp44 looks great and probably if it would have been produced in large quantities would have given the troops quite an extra punch to the fighting, even if only for special troops like waffen SS. Unfortunately it is the same as with Me 262, too little too late. But it was a revolutionary beginning to the trooper´s weaponry as we have seen, the same kind of weapon is used everywhere in the army, and Ak 47 looks just like it. I don´t know, maybe someone who is expert can tell the similarities and differences between these guns.

I am from Finland and have been to the army, and if I should choose between rifle and mp 44 you bet i would choose the latter.

However wonderful a gun it was, i don´t think it would have won the war. After Hitler started war against The USA I think the end result was obvious.

MG 42 was another fine gun. I only mention that according to several books ( especially on waffen ss ) the german soldiers if possible would always choose during house-to-house fightings MG 42 and shotguns, probably flamethrowers as well, but the first two would scare the shit out of those in the houses...I think the russians called MG 42 Hitler´s saw.

Ok. See you later!

 

Welcome, Kai-Petri ! It's great to have someone from Finland at the Forums !

Although the AK-47 and MP44 look very similar, I belive that internally there are considerable differences. But without doubt, Germany was 'first' with the assault-rifle idea and I'm sure the Russians must have looked very closely at captured weapons for their inspiration.

 

Interesting one...
I actually think this one would have made more impact than many of the other what-ifs. This would have given german infantry an incredible advantage against all other infantry. How about this- what if mp44 AND Panzerfausts were in good supply at the beginning of the war? This might have actually turned the tide in some cases. Infantry could have handled tanks from the start, and the mp44 would have given them much concentrated firepower against soft targets.

Martin, I'll have to check up on this, but I'm pretty sure that the mp44 and the AK are actually very similar. They both work of the same principle- the breech is attached to a locking piston assembly in the upper tube. I'll get more specific info at some point on this, although maybe some of our other members who have more current military experience could answer that one. I do remember seeing an interesting show on History Channel comparing the two weapons. You should have seen M. Kalishnikov when it was suggested that he copied a german weapon- little guy got so pissed!

 

Sorry to disagree,

Several factors made the MP44 not the wonder weapon it seems to be:

1) Production - The German army was mainly equipped with rifles for several reasons, one of them the fact that most factories were equipped to make this particular weapon since long before the war. For that reason earlier introduction would not mean that the weapon would be available in bigger quantities;
2) Ammo production - German industry was simply not able to produce sufficient quantities of bullets for so many guns which use ammo at such a high rate, compared to the Mause rifle;
3) Ammo distribution - German supply columns were not organized to keep a huge number of soldiers with MP44 well supplied with ammo. Massive use of the MP44 at an earlier date would have caused serious supply problems which could not be solved.

These same factors are the reason why the MG34 was not produced in higher numbers. Think of the extra ammo needed if one Infanterie Division used twice as many MG34s?

In short: both the German weapons industry and the German army were not even prepared for the MP44 when it was introduced, let alone for an earlier introduction of this weapon.

By the way: those veterans I know who used the MP44 in late 1944/early 1945 disliked it and preferred the Mauser rifle. See the connection with my statements above? Indeed, platoons with MP44's were too often out of ammo too soon.

Just my 2 cents,
Timo

 

You could well be right, Crazy. I'm sure I've seen MP44/AK47 comparisons elsewhere on the Forum. Must confess I'm a lttle hazy on this one.

Very good point about Panzerfaust. This could be worth a thread of its' own. By all accounts, in the right hands Panzerfaust was a remarkably effective weapon.

 

In my opinion the STG44 was the first assault rifle and that many modern day assault rifles (AK-47) are based off of the STG44.

 

Good point on the ammo usage Timo. That would be a major issue, especially as raw material supplys lessened as the war progressed. Although, the MG42 had a far higher rate of fire than the MG34, an the 42 was apparently very popular, so the ammunition issue must not have been insurmountable. But if a platoon had MP44s AND the regular compliment of MGs, your point would be HUGE- each platoon would need it's own supply truck, constantly going back and forth. And somehow, I don't think that would have worked!

Martin, I'd have to say the Panzerfaust was one of the most significant and effective weapons from all WW2. Cheap, easy to use, effective- this was the ideal anti-tank weapon for the german army. The only drawbacks were obviously range and accuracy; but considering the firer could easily conceal himself and use ambush tactics, even these were not major issues.
Hmmm... a thread on this one... hmmm...

Berquist, I'd definetely agree. As we have mentioned, there is certainly a chance that the AK47 was based on the MP44, and the two are definetely very similar (I really wonder about this part- looking at the two, it seems obvious that the 47 was clearly a rip-off, but Kalasnnikov denies that.). And the AK47 is certainly the most successful and popular assault rifle of all time, according to the numbers.

[ 31 July 2002, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: CrazyD88 ]

 

Just found the previous discussion I mentioned.
Our friends Andreas, Talleyrand & MP38 made some interesting comments under 'MP44' on the 'Weapons' listing which I just 'bumped' up to read.

 

Certainly, you should know that in WWII the superiority on hand guns made almost any diference. The Japanesse, by example had some very bad guns and they fought quite well against the Americans. It is not like aztecs versus Spanions, where the hand guns meant victory.

Timo has very nice points about the gun. Even in great quantities it would have made the German soldier even a more incredible fighting machine, but this assault rifle is just a little tactic detail. And when it came out the whole strategic situiation was ruined and therefore it could not have done anything. Just some weaponry could have changed things seriously, like the jet air-craft and the new submarines. But even those did not work, because the whole strategic situation was already ruined.

Yes, we invented the assault rifle, but it was like any German technology: very advanced, very good and very complicated. The AK-47 is typically Russian: advanced, ultra-reliable and very, very good. That little thing 50-years-old is still the best assault rifle in the world...

 

Of course it would use more bullets to have an assault-gun than a rifle, but the beauty of it is that you can switch between single shots and machine gun fire. The latter being the first choice during street fightings. If you need accurate shooting, then single shots.

And for example the US forces shot quite alot of useless rounds with a rifle , because the cartridge was such that you couldn´t fill it after a few rounds. It is understandable because you don´t want to change the cartridge in the middle of the fighting. So you shot the cartridge empty first and put a new one in. So a rifle is not necessarily saving bullets compared to an assault gun.

And here´s a requirement for perfect assault gun: you can hide it in the sand and take it out and it works like nothing happened. I guess it is called reliability. One example is the russian Degtaryev, the finnish soldiers in WW2 were very fond of it. Light machine gun with a round drum on top. And a distinct sound which put fear into your brain...

 

Was there such a switch on the MP44? I'd better tell Merscher because now I know what he did wrong. He cursed the gun when he found himself and the rest of his squad without ammo after one day in the Bulge. The other squads of the Platoon did not have that problem yet because they were equipped with the old fashioned Mauser rifle

 

I found a pretty good article from "Full Auto" magazine from 1985 comparing the AK47 and StG44. First off, to answer your question, Timo-
"A flip-type thumbpiece changes the rifle from "safe" to "fire", but the firing mode is changed to full or semi-auto by pushing a shaft to protrude from either side of the lower reciever, as with the safety of the MG42 machinegun."
Looking at a photo in the article, this shaft is located right over the pistol grip.
Interesting points- (I don't have time now to re-read the whole article- I'll do more at lunch)
-"Other than basic breakdown, the StG cannot be disassembled because it is riveted together."
-"... the fully closed mechanism of the AK is superior to the open slot in the reciever of the StG as far as keeping out dirt."
-"The cyclic rate of fire for the StG44 is 500 rpm, as opposed to 600 rpm for the AK..."

I'll do some more reading after meetings/lunch. See if anything else comes up in the article...

 

it´s funny how sometimes you are not so sure anymore...I checked it from the net, and it says that StG 44 alias StG 43 is semi-automatic, so it should give single shots as well. The switch seems to be behind the trigger ( in the picture ) on the left, and it is turned back and front I think. Later on ( in many pictures of assault guns ) it is on the right hand side and moved up and down in guns while the highest position is safety, and the lowest machine gun fire. In the middle single shots.

Sad to hear that the guys lost their ammunition so soon. Great gun though.

Here´s the page to see for yourselves which I thought was very good on this. Very enlightning..

www.cruffler.com/historic-february00.hmtl

 

Berquist, you wanna tone down that sig a bit? It is a little hard on the eyes.

 

That switch is actually the selector for fire or safe. The semi-and full-auto selector is above that switch, about a half inch above the top of the pistol grip- a small knob like thing sticking out of the side of the gun. Push thiss through one side, the guns on semi; push it to the other, the gun's on full auto.
The article actually goes on to note that this semi/full selector was preferred over the selector on early AKs. Apparently the early AK selector was very loud and required more manipulation.

 

Too much for me...

 

Im thinking that the main problem was that Hitler didnt want to waste so much ammo with all or most of the troops armed with this weapon.

I could think of the battles for the Seelowe Heights being much different and or not ever have taken place, BECAUSE of arming the majority of troops with this weapon.