Nazi Germany Starts with StG 44

Germany starting WW2 with the StG 44 Assault Rifle would...

  • Have had a major impact

    Votes: 21 13.8%
  • Have had a medium impact

    Votes: 66 43.4%
  • Have had little to no impact

    Votes: 65 42.8%

  • Total voters
    152
Does anyone have any speculation on the effects that the StG 44 or 45, if adopted early by the Wehrmacht, would have on the various urban assaults in Operation Barbarossa?

Could it have mitigated the meat grinder at Rostov or prevented the destructon of the 6th army.
 

Deimos

Banned
The British would be and were quite willing to risk their Empire if it meant maintaining the balance of power in Europe. The loss of India hurts British prestige, losing London means losing everything.
Sorry if I need to be educated on that fact but how would have peace in 1940 meant having to lose London? When Napoleon did tore down this golden calf of continental balance London was not in danger. It can even be argued that after the industrial, chemical and electrical revolution(s) hit the continent there was no real classic balance of power anymore as Britain was falling behind in several sectors.
The balance of power in itself is just a narratively more palatable term for the self-interest of Britain keeping its Empire opposite a disunited continent. The balance of power is the means to an end and not the end in itself. In 1940 they had a choice between keeping some measure of being a Great Power and giving up on a disunited continent or gambling on factors they had only minor control over in order to ultimately keep their Empire.
 

Deleted member 1487

Does anyone have any speculation on the effects that the StG 44 or 45, if adopted early by the Wehrmacht, would have on the various urban assaults in Operation Barbarossa?

Could it have mitigated the meat grinder at Rostov or prevented the destructon of the 6th army.

Not by itself. It wouldn't be that valuable for urban combat, the MP40 was better for a lot of that; the big deal is just in general infantry combat outside of urban areas, especially in swamps and forests. The cumulative effect would save a fair bit of German combat power that may have an effect down the road.
 
Sorry if I need to be educated on that fact but how would have peace in 1940 meant having to lose London? When Napoleon did tore down this golden calf of continental balance London was not in danger. It can even be argued that after the industrial, chemical and electrical revolution(s) hit the continent there was no real classic balance of power anymore as Britain was falling behind in several sectors.
The balance of power in itself is just a narratively more palatable term for the self-interest of Britain keeping its Empire opposite a disunited continent. The balance of power is the means to an end and not the end in itself. In 1940 they had a choice between keeping some measure of being a Great Power and giving up on a disunited continent or gambling on factors they had only minor control over in order to ultimately keep their Empire.

Because any "deal" with worthless and everyone knew it by that time. Hitler broke deal after deal, why would he keep his word this time? London itself would be at risk if it made a "deal" and Hitler started building a large navy.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
No but I'm accusing Wiking of being a Quisling Nazi fetishist

I have no idea why the hell you two want to seem to be the same person, since one of you is in Nebraska and the other is in Arizona, and really don't much care.

You WILL cease and desist with this juvenile BS. I will help you out by giving you a week to practice.

One damned inch out of line upon return and you're on the next train to Coventry.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
No but I'm accusing Wiking of being a Quisling Nazi fetishist

I have no idea why the hell you two want to seem to be the same person, since one of you is in Nebraska and the other is in Arizona, and really don't much care.

You WILL cease and desist with this juvenile BS. I will help you out by giving you a week to practice.

One damned inch out of line upon return and you're on the next train to Coventry.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
You're adorable :D No I mean it you really am. Upset about getting warned? No, warry? Yes. I don't do the same mistake twice, so if you want me warned or kicked you'll have to do better then that.

For cris'sake, you see there are sharks in the water and you decide to hang over the side as chum?

Don't do that.
 
You say that, but Halifax was eager to make peace; it was Churchill that was the critical factor in keeping Britain in the war; he fought a major political struggle with Halifax in 1940 to keep Britain in the war and ultimately won. That was not guaranteed and if Churchill had gotten unlucky when that Uboat torpedoed the Nelson in 1939 Britain would have been out of the war in 1940.
Completely agree that Churchill winning the struggle wasn't guaranteed, but I don't think that would mean Halifax losing it. Not to put too fine a point on it, the Labour Party hated him and would never have joined a government with him as PM. I think Halifax was also correct in his assessment that he couldn't have governed from the Lords - he could certainly have taken the Alec Douglas-Home route, but there's also a problem there. He'd never been in the Commons, and the style of debate there is very much more robust than in the Lords. Put simply, he can win the Conservative leadership, but I really don't think he can hold together a majority in the Commons on anything controversial - and after Guilty Men comes out, probably can't hold together anything at all.

Sorry if I need to be educated on that fact but how would have peace in 1940 meant having to lose London? When Napoleon did tore down this golden calf of continental balance London was not in danger. It can even be argued that after the industrial, chemical and electrical revolution(s) hit the continent there was no real classic balance of power anymore as Britain was falling behind in several sectors.
It may not have been, but the British themselves thought that it was at the time - the Grande Armée was in Calais, leading to all sorts of grandiose pronouncements along the lines of "I do not say the French cannot come, I only say they cannot come by sea" and worries as to what would happen if the wind changed. A hostile continent has always been seen as an existential threat to the UK, and nothing has changed even today - witness all of the angst about the EU, the rise of UKIP, etc.
 
*wanders back in here*

Woah, jesus did things escalate quickly there. I might occasionally accuse Wiking of being a Wehraboo when things get heated (although I do have my doubts he actually is one) but I'd never accuse him of being a Nazi fetishist. There is a difference between having a German bias, being a Wehraboo, and being a Nazi fetishist. Big differences.

In any case: had Halifax been PM then there is a good chance that Britain would have accepted terms after the fall of France, assuming Hitler doesn't try to be a vindictive winner (not guaranteed, but plausible) and Mussolini doesn't fuck-up with outrageous demands on his part (less plausible, but still eminently possible).

That does not mean, however, that Britain would just have lain back and acquiesced to Nazi dominance. While Halifax might have accepted a generous peace, there is no chance he would have signed a surrender. The British would have followed the same practice they used in the Napoleonic wars. Sullenly retreat back to their island with the loss of their continental allies, build up their military, and then restart the war once Hitler looked vulnerable (that is, once he attacked the USSR). All Hitler would have bought himself with a favourable peace with Britain would have been a short respite during which the British would have continued frantically re-arming, while looking for any opportunity to plunge in the knife.

And of course with Britain peaced out there is the possibility that Stalin goes in "we are fucked" mode and starts preparing for war in 1940 on the basis that the Germans would come after him in 1941. Because the continued war with Britain was the single main reason he judged a German attack in 1941 as unlikely.
 
The MP40 is not necessarily a better weapon for urban combat. When fighting in cities there is a lot of firing at targets across squares, down the road, etc, and 9mm MP are not very useful at anything over 100m. And despite all the press Stalingrad gets, urban combat was not that decisive in Russia.

German infantry Squads worked around their MG. an upgrade to assault rifles gives them a slight edge on closer range actions. That edge will have an incremental effect.
The overall impact on Infantry intensive actions will be felt, but not a game changer.
Speaking as an infantry officer, I would rather have Stg 44 than KAR 98 for my soldiers any day (provided I could retain a few designated marksmen with the rifles)
I would, depending on the mission , expect a 5% to 20% increase in my overall combat capability, and the % would be lower the bigger the unit.

One area where the Stg would shine would be in anti partisan ops, were most fighting was of the close range, short and intensive firefight type without much in the way of heavy weapons. Those troops would however, be probably last in line to get Stg.
 
That does not mean, however, that Britain would just have lain back and acquiesced to Nazi dominance. While Halifax might have accepted a generous peace, there is no chance he would have signed a surrender. The British would have followed the same practice they used in the Napoleonic wars. Sullenly retreat back to their island with the loss of their continental allies, build up their military, and then restart the war once Hitler looked vulnerable (that is, once he attacked the USSR). All Hitler would have bought himself with a favourable peace with Britain would have been a short respite during which the British would have continued frantically re-arming, while looking for any opportunity to plunge in the knife.

And of course with Britain peaced out there is the possibility that Stalin goes in "we are fucked" mode and starts preparing for war in 1940 on the basis that the Germans would come after him in 1941. Because the continued war with Britain was the single main reason he judged a German attack in 1941 as unlikely.


This is a fascinating point you make Nuker.

If you've ever played Hearts of Iron 3, capturing London as the Germans actually leads to an auto-DOW on Hitler by the USSR.

So this point you make that the State of War between UK and Germany circa 1941 maybe helped the Germans for Operation Barbarossa, seems to have dawned on others as well.
 
Wehrmacht fanboy PTSD; it prevents them from considering anything about Axis logically because they assume its coming from position of fanboy-ism and because the Allies won they was no other possible outcome. Its actually surprising how much could change with some early changes.

I don't think that's fair. Yes the forum is very critical of TLs exploring the ways in which Nazi Germany could have done better. A fair deal of that is probably caused by the fact that these kinds of What-Ifs are very common and usually very poorly thought out (like this one, incidentially). There are many myths around Nazi Germany, many people still assume Germany was technologically superior in all fields and only lost to overwhelming numbers. Add to this the "coolness" factor that Nazi weapons and "Nazis win" TLs have in popular culture, and you get a lot of seemingly (to non-historians) plausible but ultimately severely flawed TLs about ways the Nazis could have done better. That leads to a certain suspicion and annoyance towards these kinds of topics. For example, the constant repeats of "how could Barbarossa have been won" topics when there really isn't much left about that topic that hasn't been discussed 10 times over, always with the same result. You can call it unfair that some TLs have to overcome this suspicion and others do not, but acting like there is a forum-wide conspiracy against certain viewpoints is uncalled for.


Plus you, specifically, clearly come across as biased in topics like this one. This isn't meant as an insult or even much of a criticism, really. Most posters here (me included, though I am probably just as often simply ignorant of all the facts) are biased towards some positions. And I also know that you are knowledgeable about WW2 history and do your research. But still your initial response to this thread speaks a clear language to me:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=217652


It would have a substantial impact even though small arms are generally a lesser casualty inflicter. In rough terrain it offers a decisive advantage and in normal combat when backed by the MG42 it was a monster. They actually used it as a semi-automatic rifle unless in serious trouble then used three round burst. In the early years it would be extremely helpful and probably replaced by something like this in short order:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_45%28M%29
A lot cheaper to make and easier to make too.

Until 1943 it would be a pretty decisive weapon against all comers and by 1944 it would probably be countered. During Barbarossa it would be highly useful and probably help keep casualties significantly lower given the large amount of unsupported small arms combat going on, same as of course as the war in the East went on. Not a war winner, but would have a pretty large cumulative effect in terms of casualty infliction and casualty sparing for the Germans. Plus a lot of tactical victories added up mean operational and strategic differences.

This topic has an incredibly threadbare PoD. It simply assumes somehow the Germans get an StG 44 with no regards to when the development of the weapon started or what changes in overall weapons or doctrine development have caused the accelleration of the project. But you don't seem to care for any of that, and instead immediately go ahead and imagine all the positives this change could have for the Germans without so much as a word about possible effects for other nation's militaries. And then you also just assume that even though TTLs development was obviously different from OTL, the Germans of course also get the better and cheaper to mass produce version shortly afterwards, despite the pressures that let to it's development OTL not being the same ITTL. Even as I try to keep an open mind to all viewpoints, thats a bit much to take, especially if other posters have already presented some of the effects an accelerated StG research could have on other nation's progams and decisions.
 

iddt3

Donor
I don't think that's fair. Yes the forum is very critical of TLs exploring the ways in which Nazi Germany could have done better. A fair deal of that is probably caused by the fact that these kinds of What-Ifs are very common and usually very poorly thought out (like this one, incidentially). There are many myths around Nazi Germany, many people still assume Germany was technologically superior in all fields and only lost to overwhelming numbers. Add to this the "coolness" factor that Nazi weapons and "Nazis win" TLs have in popular culture, and you get a lot of seemingly (to non-historians) plausible but ultimately severely flawed TLs about ways the Nazis could have done better. That leads to a certain suspicion and annoyance towards these kinds of topics. For example, the constant repeats of "how could Barbarossa have been won" topics when there really isn't much left about that topic that hasn't been discussed 10 times over, always with the same result. You can call it unfair that some TLs have to overcome this suspicion and others do not, but acting like there is a forum-wide conspiracy against certain viewpoints is uncalled for.


Plus you, specifically, clearly come across as biased in topics like this one. This isn't meant as an insult or even much of a criticism, really. Most posters here (me included, though I am probably just as often simply ignorant of all the facts) are biased towards some positions. And I also know that you are knowledgeable about WW2 history and do your research. But still your initial response to this thread speaks a clear language to me:



This topic has an incredibly threadbare PoD. It simply assumes somehow the Germans get an StG 44 with no regards to when the development of the weapon started or what changes in overall weapons or doctrine development have caused the accelleration of the project. But you don't seem to care for any of that, and instead immediately go ahead and imagine all the positives this change could have for the Germans without so much as a word about possible effects for other nation's militaries. And then you also just assume that even though TTLs development was obviously different from OTL, the Germans of course also get the better and cheaper to mass produce version shortly afterwards, despite the pressures that let to it's development OTL not being the same ITTL. Even as I try to keep an open mind to all viewpoints, thats a bit much to take, especially if other posters have already presented some of the effects an accelerated StG research could have on other nation's progams and decisions.
This. The OP is too sparse with his PoD, but you went with by far the most optimistic possible interpretation of his setup, which is "exactly as OTL except perfected Assault rifle fully rolled out". In general Wiking, you seem to have an extremely strong grasp of WWII related tech and trivia, and you're definitely no Nazi apologist, but you seem to be systemically over optimistic about the results.

Do you really think, based on the OP, that the *most* likely scenario where Germany somehow got an assault rifle early, is one where Germany made optimal decisions at all points regarding it's design and rollout, that they didn't in OTL despite having much more experience and pressing needs, while all of Germany's neighbors stand by and do nothing? The run up to WWII is littered with countries trying to oneup each other in the tech race, and putting out severely flawed and improperly tested new kit. Until the actual war, everyone made those sorts of mistakes, and no one appears to have really taken manufacturability and testing seriously enough.

It's vaguely plausible that someone could pitch the general idea of Assault Rifles (Intermediate Cartridge, capable of automatic fire) to Hitler, and he could run with it. The idea had been vaguely floating around since the 20's. But there were good reasons no other military implemented a fully auto rifle prewar, not just institutional conservatism, and there are definite consequences to trying to roll out a non battle tested *new* weapon system to your entire army on the eve of a total war. While there are definitely benefits as well, you have to give consideration to both sides.
 
One thing that is almost guaranteed in this timeline is that Tube Alloys is going to get a LOT of extra funding. Additionally, Mr Whittle is going to find his R&D budget substantially increased.

It all depends on whether the UK government goes onto a war footing.
 
Top