The Germans in WW2 and the Mauser


PDA






Nick_007
July 28, 2009, 11:14 PM
And do you think it would have been different had they invented the assault rifle sooner?

If you enjoyed reading about "The Germans in WW2 and the Mauser" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Doogy
July 28, 2009, 11:19 PM
"different"? tough to say.....I do however think that we would have lost a good many more of our boys if they had that technology. The extra loss of allied lives would have been tragic

627PCFan
July 28, 2009, 11:20 PM
No. Rate of fire was not the Germans downfall.

Nick_007
July 28, 2009, 11:27 PM
Was it just they were outnumbered by forces who had more or less the same training then? I can imagine the Russians having inferior troops, but the allied forces all had autoloaders at least. Then why didn't they just stick with their k98s? Although I guesss JRS is probably right. I can't believe our troop levels in Afghan and Iraq are fewer than 200k, and I'm guessing the insurgents have AK47s for the most part. Anyone know how many of them there are?



Also this may merit its own thread, but since I'm on the subject: would a Reminington auto loader make a better rifle for combat then some of these old milsurps with bolts and 5 round mags like a Mosin or a K98 or even an sks? How come no one is happy with just one of those then for self defense?

Nick_007
July 28, 2009, 11:42 PM
I just did some reseearch and didn't realize the AK had been invented after the war. I thought they were going up against the Soviets who had AKs and SKSs not 5 round bolt guns as well.

SaxonPig
July 28, 2009, 11:43 PM
WW II was won by superior manufacturing, not firepower of the individual soldiers. We built planes and tanks and ships 100X faster than they could and simply buried them.

Same thing with the Union vs. The Confederacy 1861-1865. The agrarian South was no match for the industrialized North.

happygeek
July 28, 2009, 11:45 PM
They probably would have killed a few more Russians, but I doubt it would have changed anything else. I just finished reading The Third Reich at War by Richard J Evans (http://www.amazon.com/Third-Reich-at-War/dp/1594202060/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1248834562&sr=8-1). In an oversimplified explanation, the Germans basically went into the USSR with about 3.5 million guys. That's all the guys they had; they had no reserves and no one left to draft in the military in Germany save old men and teenagers. The Red Army just kept growing in numbers as the war went on; they lost far more casualties and captured than the Germans, yet outnumbered them by orders of magnitude after Stalingrad. Simply put, the Germans just didn't have the manpower and just as importantly didn't have the resources to take on the USSR in a prolonged war. Hitler was betting on a quick knockout blow like the one they pulled on France. When that didn't work out, it was really just a matter of time until the Russians overran them by sheer force of numbers.

Course it didn't help that our boys were killing the krauts on two other fronts using the rifle I hope to own one day (and the sidearm I do own :) ).

alemonkey
July 28, 2009, 11:58 PM
I read somewhere once that something like 80% of German combat casualties were caused by allied artillery. Not sure if that's the right number, but it was something on that order. The U.S. especially had a huge advantage in artillery available.

jerkface11
July 29, 2009, 12:05 AM
If issuing assault rifles to enough troops had prevented the landings at Normandy we simply would have waited a year and nuked them. So yeah it would have been different.

mudriver
July 29, 2009, 12:06 AM
Artillery was the great killer in WW2, followed by machine guns. The US and the Russian Army tried to use artillery to obliterate German defenses instead of trying to outshoot them. The US artillery in particular was very flexible and accurate (I had a CMH winner once describe how he used artillery to take out Tiger tanks - great story).

GRIZ22
July 29, 2009, 12:10 AM
Artillery is generally the biggest killer on the modern battlefield.

German Infantry tactics during WWI and WWII centered around the machine gun. We use machine guns to support the riflemen and the Germans looked at the complete opposite. They most likely felt the bolt action was sufficient for most of this. the attitude apparently changed when they started dealing with the Russians and the large number of SMGs they hard used as the war progressed.

Ohio Gun Guy
July 29, 2009, 12:15 AM
I actually think it would have made a difference, weather it would have changed the outcome, we'll never know. An automatic rifle would have fit very nicely into the blitzkreig battle plan. The German army definately would have been that much more deadly, especially if they had it early enough to train & develop its use.

Look at our M1 Carbine & Garand rifles. I like Mausers as much as the next guy, but if my butt were on the line, I'll have the garand.....thanks.:rolleyes:

^
What he said... The German Army was set up to be support to a piece of equipment. Field gun, machine gun, tank, etc. Infantry were supporting to a crew served weapon...... Post WW2 most armies are still set up this way. We take it to an extreme. The US military prefers to bring in the heavy guns, airplanes, or some piece of equipment to bear on resistance.

Jim Watson
July 29, 2009, 12:16 AM
I agree with Griz. The guys with the Mausers were mostly there to keep anybody from bothering the MG42 crew at work.

jackdanson
July 29, 2009, 12:40 AM
Read one or two of Donal Burgett's books. He says on more than one occasion that he was very thankful to have a semi-auto over the German mausers. I'm guessing an "assault rifle" of sorts would have made a lot of soliders lives shorter and rougher, although I highly doubt it would have changed the outcome of the war. Armor/arty/airpower had way more to do with the victory than low level weapons.

just did some reseearch and didn't realize the AK had been invented after the war. I thought they were going up against the Soviets who had AKs and SKSs not 5 round bolt guns as well.

Doh! What are they teaching the kids in schools nowadays!? AK 47

THE DARK KNIGHT
July 29, 2009, 01:04 AM
WW2 is a complex chain of events, the outcome of the war was not decided by what rifle. It surely played a part, but there were much bigger things affecting the outcome.

KenWP
July 29, 2009, 01:18 AM
People have to remember that the Russians went to war with not everyone armed also. When the guy in front fell you grabbed his rifle and moved forward. The germans didn't have a whole line of men behind each rifle.

Acera
July 30, 2009, 02:50 PM
An assault rifle in the hands of the Germans earlier in the war would have probably meant that they got to be the first to experience an atomic bomb blast, before the Japanese got theirs.




I read it by reading books

Did Yogi Berra join in on this discussion??

black_powder_Rob
July 30, 2009, 05:56 PM
If the Germans would have had the sturm gaver any sooner I don't think it would have made a difference as they had committed the same mistake of invading Russia before the other Front was finished. They then had to wage a 2 front war and did well for a while but were just worn down on material. After D-day the Logistics really hit the fan when HITLER had to shift troops from one border to the other trying to stop the inevitable invasion of Germany. The Allied bombers probably did not help any when they bombed the major industrial centers.

jimmyraythomason
July 30, 2009, 05:59 PM
FINALLY!! Thank you SSN Vet!!!

Mandolin
July 31, 2009, 06:04 PM
Ok, lets think about this th US had the M1 garand, M1 carbine, BAR ,and Thompson. The Garand was the only semi-auto rifle that saw any real service in WW2. The carbine was a great compromise between full-pwoer rifles and pistols. The BAR was probaly the third-worst squad-level MG in WW2, beating only Italian and Japanese designs. It was magazine-faed(low capacity) and had the mag on the bottom (slow reload). However, it was very mobile and didn't need a sqaud to haul the ammo. The Thompson, aside from the $$$ issue and weight (11lb), was near-perfect.

The British had the Lee-Enfiled No. 4, the Sten gun, and the Bren gun. The No. 4 was the best bolt gun of the war, with a large magazine and a high ROF (for a bolt-action gun) The Sten has a reputation as one of the worst guns ever, though it wasn't. It worked and was there, in fairly large numbers. The Bren gunwas top-fed, and the only complaint I've heard was that it was too acurate for supresive fire.

The Germans had the MP38/MP40, the Kar98k, and the MG42. THe Mp40 was good, though hoplessly under-issued for most units. The kar98's only failing was that it was semi-obsolete. It was slow-firing bolt gun in a world dominaded by M1s, no. 4s and the PPSh-41. The MG 42 was heavy and a nightmare-fore allied infantry and German quartermasters. its high ROF ate up ammo and barrels very fast.

The Russians had the Mosin-Nagant, the PPSh-41, and the DP. The Mosin was little more than a sidenote by the end, though it gave good service. The PPSh-41 was the greatest SMG of the war, as it was Mass-produced in huge numbers. With its 71 round drum and 900prm fire rate, it was well-like. The DP wa s typicaly russian, with crude but sturdy engineering and a top-mounted pan magazine. It was easy to change but hard to carry a lot of, IMHO.

I'll adress the :wonder weapons in another post, this one in long enough

CZguy
July 31, 2009, 06:31 PM
The Garand was the only semi-auto rifle that saw any real service in WW2.

You forgot the Johnson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1941_Johnson_rifle

Cosmoline
July 31, 2009, 06:36 PM
People have to remember that the Russians went to war with not everyone armed also. When the guy in front fell you grabbed his rifle and moved forward. The germans didn't have a whole line of men behind each rifle.

That's a bit of a myth. It's true of the FIRST world war, where the Russian Imperial army had chronic Mosin shortages and lost tons of them to the enemy. By WWII they were much better equipped. Their shortages were in good officers. The scene from "Enemy at the Gates" is fiction. By that time the Red Army had been through the period of disorder and was much more squared away, which is why they were able to stop the Germans.

The Garand was the only semi-auto rifle that saw any real service in WW2

That's not true at all. The Soviets had been using them all along, and the Germans also deployed their own in respectable numbers.

jimmyraythomason
July 31, 2009, 06:44 PM
Semi-autos in WWII also included Germany's Mauser Model G41 (abandoned in 1943),Gew.41(saw limited use),Model G43, and Volksturm Gew.VG2 a last ditch defense weapon. Japan had a semi-auto built on the Pedersen principle which saw little action but was in the Japanese arsenal since the 1920s. Germany and Japan both chose to go with bolt action battle rifles over semi-autos because the bolts actions could be produced much cheaper and in much larger numbers.

jerkface11
July 31, 2009, 11:01 PM
Wow so I'm the only one who realizes that prolonging the war would have made Berlin sprout a giant mushroom? You can speak of German bombers, fighters, rifles, tanks, wonder weapons, and tactics all you like. It doesn't change the fact that we had nukes and a bomber to deliver them.

Acera
July 31, 2009, 11:18 PM
jerkface11 wrote:
Wow so I'm the only one who realizes that prolonging the war would have made Berlin sprout a giant mushroom?

No that was mentioned 45 posts ago.:neener:

Limeyfellow
August 1, 2009, 01:08 AM
Semi-autos in WWII also included Germany's Mauser Model G41 (abandoned in 1943),Gew.41(saw limited use),Model G43, and Volksturm Gew.VG2 a last ditch defense weapon. Japan had a semi-auto built on the Pedersen principle which saw little action but was in the Japanese arsenal since the 1920s. Germany and Japan both chose to go with bolt action battle rifles over semi-autos because the bolts actions could be produced much cheaper and in much larger numbers.

The US had the same problems fielding the M1 Garand. That is why there were far more M1 Carbines fielded to frontline troops than any other weapon, since it was so much cheaper and quicker to make them compared to the Garand making process. Sure they were never supposed to be front line weapons, but it still became the most used US weapon of the US forces.

black_powder_Rob
August 1, 2009, 01:12 AM
^ are you sure about that? :uhoh:

HorseSoldier
August 1, 2009, 03:37 AM
are you sure about that?

I'm not sure on basis of issue, but more carbines than Garands were built.

Limeyfellow
August 1, 2009, 04:00 AM
It is true, especially in the likes of Marine campaigns like Iwo Jima, Okinowa and so on and later in the war, when there was a need to quickly supply troops with a weapon. Not so sure in the European theatre, but it still probably had enough M1 Garands to go around back then. The problem is they couldn't produce the design fast enough.

It not much different than say WW1, where despite the fame, the M1903 made up about 1/4 of the rifles issued to troops for the US forces and the rest being given the M1917.

Larry Ashcraft
August 1, 2009, 08:23 PM
We now return you to your regularly scheduled bickering.
Well, no. Time to put this one to bed.

rbernie
August 1, 2009, 10:32 PM
One hundred and forty three posts originally in this thread, and one hundred and fourteen of them had NOTHING to do with Rifles.

That must be a new record.

If you enjoyed reading about "The Germans in WW2 and the Mauser" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!