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

Again your posts puzzle me as German companies frequently had a 81mm mortar squad in two sections attached, or three 50mm mortar sections.

 

The 50mm was abandoned as an issue item by the end of 1940. Its use was generally discontinued. By 1942 it only remained in serivce with secondary and rear area units where it continued to be issued. The problem with the 5cm mortar is that it is little more effective than a grenade launcher although it does have a bit more range. This is why it was abandoned in front line service.
The 81mm mortar is issued at battalion (as it was in US service and the 3" was in British service) level in non-mechanized / motorized infantry units to the heavy weapons company at an issue of 6 tubes. In mechanized formations each company received 2 of the shorter Kurzer 8.1cm GW 42. But, since mechanized formations are the exception not the rule in the German military the general commentary stands; a line German infantry company has no mortars in it.
Depending on the orgainzation, the standard German infantry company from about 1942 on has 3 platoons of either 3 or 4 squads and a heavy weapons section with 2 tripod mounted mg giving 9 to 12 line machineguns. A supply section would have an additional mg assigned as this unit also serves as a first line replacement pool and manpower reserve. Thus, the typical line German infantry company has 2 HMG and 13 LMG with a line strength of about 140 to 160 men.

Now, in some cases the battalion mortar platoon was broken up and distributed by section to the line companies on a 2 per company basis. But, this is an ad hoc improvisation and not TO&E.

 

IMO the StG was the most advanced mass produced infantry weapon of the war, modern rifles are all "logical descendents" of the StG, the M14 and the other full power round automatic rifles proved to be a dead end.

Whether it would have been a war winning weapon is a different story, IMO rifles are not, the Chassepot was much better than the Dreyse but the Germans still won in 1870.

Comparing it to the M1 carbine is interesting, does anyone have tables on the relative performace of the two? I read lots of complaints about the M1 ammo being underpowered, In Italy it was issued to the police because of the low chances of "collateral damage" by stray bulllets, which doesn't speak well for it, the Korea era complaints about the kapok winter coats of the NK stopping the bullets are also well known. I never heard anything similar about the "short" bullets but I prefer hard data over anedoctes.

The economics/logistics of the StG are also worth looking into, does anyone have comparable costs of the StG, K98K and MP40 and for their ammo? I expect the kurtz to be cheaper than the rifle round but have no data.

The K98K was intended to replace the SMG as well so the main rounds in the squad would still be two (handguns are emergency use only so have very limited normal ammo expenditure, don't think the Colt M1911 was a logistical nightmare though it's incompatible ammo was a procurement hassle that ultimatly led to it's replacement).

The late Vietnam era squad with the MG firing a different cartrige from the rifle is similar to what the Germans wanted to do, and it was a result of meeting in combat the AK47/AKM that is heavily inspired in concept to the StG though it's inner workings are more different than the external similarity would make you think.

 

Indeed most seem to have both burst and full auto modes. I remember that the caseless rifle the Germans were developing was to use the 3 round burst as the standard setting. Not to sure about others.

The problem with full auto is fire discipline. Spec Ops troops don't usually have a problem with that. Looks like the US in general doesn't have as much of a problem with it as they did at one time. Indeed some of what I've read indicates that it was easy to tell the difference in Iraq bettween US fire and that of our oponents as single shots were the rule for US troops.

 

Good post TiredOldSoldier,

While I agree that any rifle in itself wouldn't prove a war winner I believe that the StG44 might very well have provided that extra push needed for victory at important battles such as Stalingrad, Monte Cassino etc etc.. Lets not forget how close the Germans really were to winning in the first place during the first two years of the war.

As for the price of 7.92x33mm Kurz ammunition, it was cheap, esp. since it was simply a necked down 7.92x57mm round, thus the production line didn't need any big modifications to start mass production. It was pretty much done overnight.

 

Sounds like we all agree on this now.

Well if they start introducing it in 42 how many are likey to be at Stalingrad? As for Monte Cassino if it proves that tough perhaps it will just be by passed.

Yes not very. They didn't loose because of small arms they lost because they didn't have an adequate logistics system.

In that case it's not going to be much cheaper than the 7.92x57 round.

 

Never said they lost because of smallarms, you like twisting everything I say, don't be that stupid. There are a number of ways the Germans could've won, and they did come close, wether you like it or not.

One way was strangling the British supply lines in the Atlantic, which the Germans very nearly did.

Second was winning in the USSR, which again the Germans very nearly did.

An introduction of the StG in 1942 would've probably enabled the Germans winning the battle for Stalingrad, and no doubt speeded up several advances as the smaller skirmishers would've been won much easier & quicker.

How on earth this gets twisted inside your head into that all the Germans needed to win the war were a pair of socks and an StG44 I don't know!

 

Do not insult other members, play nice.

 

Let's see, Hitler was adamant about NO NEW rifles and so his armament people had to hide the weapon which became the StG from him under the name of a "machine pistol" which he wouldn't look too hard at.

He didn't know the thing existed until confronted with it, and a request for more of the "new rifles". He wouldn't let it be developed, he didn't know it had been, and the logistics for supplying the weapon with ammo didn't exist. This is a non-starter in the Stalingrad "time-frame". The fact that it "might have made a difference" is of little impact for that battle. It couldn't be developed (openly), and couldn't be supplied. It was also a rather complicated unit in the beginning of its production, and may or may not have been a workable weapon in the cold of Stalingrad. Even the venerable Mauser was sometimes useless due to its own gun oil in that environ. A complicated, precision weapon with close tolerances isn't a step up in lethality, but a complication the Heer didn't need.

 

Agree the StG in a 1942 timeframe is highly unlikely and even more that small arms don't win wars but I've seen no evidence the StG, in it's final form, was less reliable than a K98k. The MG 42, that was designed with similar criteria, was more reliable than the previous generation MG 34 and the somewhat similar AK 47 is a paragon of reliability.

What I would really like to know is the cost difference, I expect the ammo would be slightly cheaper than the full round but did the use of stamped components and more modern mass production oriented design compensate for the greater number of parts compared to the K98? A cost comparison with the MP40 that was also designed for mass production, but is much simpler mechanically, would also be interesting.

A search revealed this

http://ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/30132-cost-ww2-weapons.html

That shows the StG as marginally cheaper than the K98k and a lot cheaper than the Garrand, what is surprising is the high comparative cost of the MP40, while it was not oversimplified as the STEN it's still a vey simple piece of machinery.

 

You didn't? Then how do you explain this quote:

I've yet to see anyone make a convincing case of it. Not a matter of my "likes".

Not really. Even when things were at their worse in this regard Britain was months if not years away from defeat.

Did they? Again I've yet to see a good case made for it.

Introducing the StG in 42 would likely have had little or no impact on Stalingrad especially if it wasn't introduced very early in the year.

That looks to be a rather warped strawman. Certainly no where near my position.

 

I dont need to explain it, cause it doesnt even come close to expressing what you claim. I cannot fathom how you see that as me saying they lost the war because of smallarms.

Again, you're not being very objective about this.

Another weapon that could've potentially won the war for the Germans had it been introduced earlier and recieved a higher priority status was the Messerschmitt 262 jet fighter.

Also Germany could've only gained in more important areas had they not went as far with the V2 program as they did, an undertaking even more advanced & expensive than the multinational Manhattan project.

Another dead end was the MAUS super heavy tank design.

These last two wonder weapon projects did nothing to help the Germans win the war, they only took away an enormous amount of resources from other more important projects.

That doesn't change the fact that the weapon could've been in service already in 1942 had it not been for Hitler's initial dismissal of the weapon. Had Hitler granted the idea from the beginning, which he might have had he been better explained about it, then the weapon could've been made ready in 1942. The Kurz round was ready in 42, and Haenel had already made the first Mkb42(H)'s by mid 42 under complete secrecy.

And had it been introduced into full service in 1942 or even 43, then it most definitely would've made a great impact on the war.

 

The entire "jet" engine program received short schrift from Hitler and many others of the higher-ups. They were planning on a "short war" and figured they had all the weapons they would ever need. The jets (Me-262 specifically) weren't shut down to make them into bombers (as some contend). They were launched into too late, and by the time they were examined the Nazis had lost the ability to import the alloys they were to need for the turbine blades.

I agree on the V-2, it was a waste of time and effort. But, lastly the very reason the "jets" were ignored, is the reason the StG wouldn't have shown up any sooner than it did. I'm not totally disagreeing with you here, just pointing out how unlikely it was that this or anyother "wunderwaffe" could have saved the dispicable regime from defeat in the end.

 

I think the biggest impact it would have had is depleting Germany's already taxed logistics and manufacturing chain. Weapons with increased rates of fire are going to require more ammunition to be produced, which in turn is going to stress Germany's material resources that much more quickly. Especially when you transition from a bolt action rifle (Kar 98) firing 20 -30 rounds per minute to a weapon capable of firing 300-500 rounds per minute.

 

I agree, putting even more stress onto the German Economy would have simply diminished it even faster.
The STG was by far a wonder weapon, and certainly not a weapon as a standalone capable of winning the war, and to simply change from the standard bolt rifles would have taken too much time and effort, the Germans were flat out supplying weapons and ammunition with what they had let alone another war winning weapon. Think of how many captured or annexed countries weapons that were introduced into the German Forces, the French tanks, the Czechoslovakia tank chassis's, the Russian small arms, and on and on.

 

Saying that if they had had it they might have won is the equivalant of saying they lost because they didn't have it.

How so?

Unlikely. First of all you need a POD prior to 1939 to have a chance of getting a reliable version of it in service even as early as 43.

The V2 program was more expensive and advanced than the Manhattean project? I just don't see it. How can scalling up some of Goddard's work be more advanced that creating a whole new technology? As for expensive Manhattan Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia states "cost nearly US$2 billion" and V-2 Rocket - Identification of Munitions states "The development program cost just over $2 billion in 1944 dollars " which given the dificulties in coming up with a good dollars to RM conversion means they cost about the same.

True but the question is so what? By the time much of these costs were sunk there was no way Germany was going to win.

Or not. For one thing if it's in service by say mid 42 then expect the US to have a counter in service by late 43 at the latest. Furthermore the allies have the manufacturing and logistics to support their version better than the Germans do. It might mean that the Soviets don't advance quite as quickly in 43 and/or take more casualties doing so but I don't see it having a major impact. Historically small arms just didn't.

You are flailing. Trying to make a case for Germany being close to winning the war is an uphill battle and you are loosing ground.

 

No it isn't, and how you can even conclude such a thing puts your own sense of logic into question.

You could for example say that the Germans might also have won had they had a nuclear bomb, but that's not the same as saying they lost it because they didn't have the bomb - only to you it somehow is?? If you can't even see that then I can certainly understand why you can neither see that the Germans were very close to winning at one point during the war.

But let me put it like this:

1. How many German advances were ground to a halt simply because of a lack of fuel?

2. How many German vehicles had to be abandoned simply because of a lack of fuel?

3. How many German vehicles broke down simply because of a lack of lubricants?

4. How many German a/c had to sit on the ground because there was no fuel for them, and how many of their sorties were cut short because they took off with only half full fuel tanks?

Had the Germans won at Stalingrad in 41-42 and captured the Caucasus oil fields after that, then the Soviet Union was soon going to collapse and the Germans would have neal unlimited natural resources and more than enough oil to fuel all their machines. The StG could've helped this happen.

Now what would this have meant for the Allies? It would've first of meant that an invasion of both Southern Italy and Normandy would've been out of the question, esp. since the eastern front occupied some 78% of all German armed forces. With the USSR defeated you'd see an extra 2.5 million German soldiers in the west, with hundreds of thousands extra vehicles and all of them properly fueled.

The addition of the StG in 42 during the battle for Stalingrad would've surely won the Germans the fight there, eventhough the battle for the city was completely unnecessary.

Infact some historians claim that the Germans could've won the war in the east had they merely bypassed Stalingrad, encircling it, and went straight for the Caucasus.

So you're saying the V2 rocket wasn't new technology? Says quite abit about how much you know about the inner workings of that weapon! Esp. when you compared it to Goddards rockets :lol:

There's a reason Von Braun was chief designer on the Apollo rockets, it was no simple affair.

Furthermore the splitting of an atom wasn't new technology, it had been done even before the war. It was assembling enough of the right materials and designing the triggering mechanism that was the tricky bit, but this wasn't even as complex and advanced as the inner workings of the V2 rocket; Hence the price tag!

I love how you use those sites as your source... The Manhattan Project cost a combined of ~1.8 billion US dollars up till wars end, while the V-2 development program, which was more advanced & complex and therefore naturally more expensive, cost at least 2.2 billion US dollars and likely more, some historians believing 2.5 billion more reasonable.

Sorry mate, but it's the other way round.

 

Really? You actually think that reducing 7.92x57mm production for a the increase in production of a necked downed versions of it would strain the German logistical system in any serious way? Perhaps you even believe more so than using 2.2+ billion dollars and countless amounts of manpower & resources on the V-2 program ??

Sorry man, but introducing the StG earlier would've only made things much better for the Germans, not worse. And eventhough it was first fully introduced in 44 the Germans still managed to make roughly half a million of these weapons before the war was over.

 

Well technically there is the difference of the conditional. But if you say the could have won if they had X then it's the same as saying they might not have lost if they had X. Either one implies that you think X made (or might have made) the difference between winning and loosing.

Nope. The drive in the Caucauses was already halted when Stalingrad started. Oh by the way it was mid 42 to early 43 that the battle was fought. Even if they had captured the Caucus oil fields which wasn't going to happen in 42 it would have taken them a year or more to get them back in operation. Look at what happened when the Japanese took over the Dutch oil fields and the Dutch had less time to prep them for destruction.

Your taking great leaps of faith. The Soviets stopped the German offensives in 41 and 42 and even if you start fielding the rifle in 42 it isn't going to be in time to save those offensives. If they try to push for the Caucuses in 43 they are just lengthening a line that's already too long for them.

I don't see how. First of all there's even the question of how many if any would be in Stalingrad. Then there's the point that the Soviets were feeding enough troops into the city to keep the Germans busy. They weren't trying to win their they were preping the counter attack that would encircle the German army and the counter attack was aimed at allied forces which assuredly would not have had the StG. Once Stalingrad is encircled it doesn't make any difference any more what kind of rifle the Germans have.

Which historians?

Do you know what the largest patent infrinment payoff ever made by the US government was and why it was paid out?

Did I claim it was?

Splitting the atom is a natural phenomena. Harnessing it was an entirely new technology. So yes atomics were more advanced than the German rocket program. As for complex that's a matter of how you measure complexity. But rockets were mostly a matter of engeneering where atomics required both science and engeneering.

 

But they didn't.....There are too many things you have to "adjust" to make your premise feasible. Simply put: If the Germans had adopted the StG44, earlier in the war as you suggest, chances are that it would have only prolonged the inevitable. Russia still would have prevailed at Stalingrad. The further the German Army pressed into Eastern Europe the longer their supply lines stretched and the shorter the supply lines got for the Russians.

There is a statitic floating around that the more German Soldiers died as a result of disease, cold and malnutrition than died in combat during the push to and the Battle for Stalingrad.

A common misconception is that wars are a shooting competition; history has shown that is just not the case. Wars are a competition to see which side can expend it's resources more efficiently than the other.

One way, that is feasible, for the StG44 to have effected the outcome of the war is if Hitler had been given a verticle buttstroke to his brain housing group with one.

I guess I'll respond to this while I am here:

Yes I do. It's not like the German army was policing up, and reusing, their brass from the battlefield. These rounds were being produced in addition to the standard 7.92x57MM. Towards the end of the war the cases began to be produced from steel which required the cartridges to be coated with laquer. Laquer is not only a petroleum by product; but, it is also a contaminant which will foul a rifle causing it to be less accurate and make automatic weapons more prone to malfunction. Automatic weapons are considerably more finicky than bolt action weapons.
The Addition of the 7.92x33 kurz just added more stress to an already over burdened german war machine, especially in 1943-44.

The Germans may have made 500,000 copies; but the US made 5,000,000 M1 Garands during the course of the War and 6,000,000 M1 Carbines. Surplus WW2 vintage Ammunition can still be found for these. So I don't care how shiny and neato the StG 44 was/ is it would never have been produced in sufficient numbers to overwhelm the production capabilities of the US.