TexasCHLforum.com

I'm watching Triggers. I didn't realize Germany made the first Assault (storm) Rifle. Apparently historians believe that if Hitler had produced them in larger numbers earlier, they would have beaten Russia and possibly changed the results of the war.

clarionite wrote:I'm watching Triggers. I didn't realize Germany made the first Assault (storm) Rifle. Apparently historians believe that if Hitler had produced them in larger numbers earlier, they would have beaten Russia and possibly changed the results of the war.

It wasn't a lack of small arm firepower that defeated the Wehrmacht. That SG 44 is pretty useless when there's no ammo for it, or no parts to repair it, or no fuel or vehicles to move the user from point A to point B, or food to keep the user fed.

The Wehrmacht had all kinds of "issues", but lack of significant SG 44 fielding was down near the bottom of the list, and ultimately, insignificant.

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:
It wasn't a lack of small arm firepower that defeated the Wehrmacht. That SG 44 is pretty useless when there's no ammo for it, or no parts to repair it, or no fuel or vehicles to move the user from point A to point B, or food to keep the user fed.

The Wehrmacht had all kinds of "issues", but lack of significant SG 44 fielding was down near the bottom of the list, and ultimately, insignificant.

Yuup. The transport truck and the cargo ship defeated Hitler. (accompanied by great efforts in war time production back home, of course).

Though its a blast to discuss the ins and outs of the weapons, troops and battles....supply lines are what REALLY matter.

"Amateurs talk tactics...professionals talk logistics.".

Hitler got bogged down in Russia due to overextended supply lines and that greatest of
all Russian defenses - WINTER.

SIA

74novaman wrote:

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:
It wasn't a lack of small arm firepower that defeated the Wehrmacht. That SG 44 is pretty useless when there's no ammo for it, or no parts to repair it, or no fuel or vehicles to move the user from point A to point B, or food to keep the user fed.

The Wehrmacht had all kinds of "issues", but lack of significant SG 44 fielding was down near the bottom of the list, and ultimately, insignificant.

Yuup. The transport truck and the cargo ship defeated Hitler. (accompanied by great efforts in war time production back home, of course).

Though its a blast to discuss the ins and outs of the weapons, troops and battles....supply lines are what REALLY matter.

"Amateurs talk tactics...professionals talk logistics.".

Yes and no. The American economy (backing our fine fighting men, of course) beat Germany and Japan. The USA could easily gen up industry and churn out much more stuff, of all kinds, than a command economy like the Nazis had. And I don't want anyone saying that Communist Russia churned out just as much stuff...they got a LOT of stuff "given" to them by the USA...tanks, planes, trucks, you name it...along with all the other Allies that got stuff from the USA, as well.

You guys are probably right... And I've always heard in history classes that fighting the Russians during the winter was his downfall. But it was an interesting viewpoint. The next show talked about the Tiger tank, and how even though a Sherman was no match for it, the tank really didn't make much difference in the war because they weren't able to get enough of them built to have many in one place. The buzzsaw was another story though... Man that thing sounds amazing (as long as you're standing behind it)

The Germans made some good stuff, but tended to over-engineer them making them difficult to repair in the field and expensive to manufacture. There were many factors that lead to their downfall. Hitler was touted as a military genius at first only to make many tactical mistakes later. What did they expect from a corporal that was a messenger in the first world war?

I've always heard in history classes that fighting the Russians during the winter was his downfall.

Your history class is correct.

After the successful invasion of France, the Soviet front became, and remained, the German main effort until the bitter end. As much as we would like to credit U.S. and British allied forces for their contributions, the Germans never treated the Western front, or the African theater, as anything other than a supporting effort, and never allocated the resources needed to do little more than defend. Had they been able to focus their resources in the west, then IMO, I don't think the allies could have taken France back.

As much as we like to pat ourselves on the back for our European contributions during WW II (and we certainly did contribute), when you examine the forces arrayed in theater, and the casualty figures inflicted on both sides, reality shows that it was the Soviets who bore most of the burden, and were ultimately responsible for the downfall of Nazi Germany.

The Soviets had their own cool toys they were building. They took a complete different path, but there's a reason the AK47 is the assault rifle with the highest numbers out there.

clarionite wrote:The Soviets had their own cool toys they were building. They took a complete different path, but there's a reason the AK47 is the assault rifle with the highest numbers out there.

Yup. Simple, reliable, and interchangeable parts from one rifle to the next. The AK47 didn't make it into WWII, but the manufacturing principles used by the Russians and the US were basically the same. Keep it simple and they'll be easy to fix and replace. It was also like that with ships. Germany and Japan couldn't sink them as fast as we could build them.

The Soviets had their own cool toys they were building. They took a complete different path...

The Soviets / Russians have some smart muldoons, despite their politics.

They've consistently been able to produce a lot of equipment that has had comparable performance, with a much simpler and rugged design, than their western counterparts. That trend started in WW II, but persisted throughout the cold war.

I'm glad we never had to tangle with those dudes. It would have been ugly.

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:

The Soviets had their own cool toys they were building. They took a complete different path...

The Soviets / Russians have some smart muldoons, despite their politics.

They've consistently been able to produce a lot of equipment that has had comparable performance, with a much simpler and rugged design, than their western counterparts. That trend started in WW II, but persisted throughout the cold war.

I'm glad we never had to tangle with those dudes. It would have been ugly.

They also had a good penchant for stealing and reverse engineering a lot of things.

C-dub wrote:

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:

The Soviets had their own cool toys they were building. They took a complete different path...

The Soviets / Russians have some smart muldoons, despite their politics.

They've consistently been able to produce a lot of equipment that has had comparable performance, with a much simpler and rugged design, than their western counterparts. That trend started in WW II, but persisted throughout the cold war.

I'm glad we never had to tangle with those dudes. It would have been ugly.

They also had a good penchant for stealing and reverse engineering a lot of things.

That is the way I think of the AK, great weapon that it is: as something cobbled together from bits and pieces of other designers' weapons. Kalashnikov and the other members of the design team just picked good things to put together. Not great, just good...the ergonomics just aren't all that great, for instance. Its the simplicity and reliability that make it the weapon that it is...