Wars, battle rifles - then and now

[Wedge]

So I was watching the Military channel last night and there was an episode about the top 10 combat rifles.

So I got to thinking. In WWII, the US had the Garand, a semi-auto, the Brits had the Lee Enfield, a bolt, the Russians had the Mosin-Nagant, a bolt and the Germans had the K98 also a bolt. All shooting full power DRT type loads.

Today the worlds forces all shoot semi-auto, burst or full auto and fire an intermediate round (7.62x39, 5.56 NATO, 5.45x39, etc.)

Obviously I skipped about 40 years and the 7.62 NATO firearms like the M14, FAL, etc. Since they were full power and relatively uncontrollable in full auto I will lump them in with the WWII weapons but with a higher capacity and a little higher rate of fire.

So my question is...how would the outcome of WWII changed if the allied or the axis powers had adopted the intermediate, FA firearm. I know that the Germans were developing the Sturmgehwer 44 (I learned a lot last night), but it wasn't adopted until near the end of the war. Would the adoption of an intermediate round have swayed the battles in the favor of the full auto side or would it have allowed the full power rifle side to engage the enemies further away?

Would we have been better off having M16s instead of M1s? If the Germans had adopted the Sturmgehwer 44 at the outset would we have been outgunned? If the Russian's had already had the AK-47 in place would Hitler have even bothered trying to invade Russia?

Finally, does strategy and tactics really trump all and no changes in the weapons used would have changed the outcome of the war?

Obviously I am thinking too hard for a Friday morning, but thought it might be interesting.

 

[Pilot]

Finally, does strategy and tactics really trump all and no changes in the weapons used would have changed the outcome of the war?

I don't think rifle technology made any difference in the outcome of WWII. The Allie won on shear numbers alone, not techmology. As and example, when you can afford to have a 4 or 5 to 1 kill ratio between a Sherman tank and a Tiger, you're going to win on shear numbers alone. It was the manufacturing capabilities of the U.S. and numbers of tanks, planes, artillery and troops that won that war. Not to mention the Russians coming from the East. It was a testament to the German military forces that they held up as long as they did.

 

[doubleg]

I doubt if the Germans would have won the war if they had developed an assault rifle earlier. They had much bigger problems to worry about, Like their habit of taking HUGE military gambles and our relentless allied bombing raids. Sure we probably would have sustained a higher number of casualties but we still would have won in the long run. If Hitler wouldn't have invaded the Soviet Union I bet 90% of Europeans today would have blonde hair and blue eyes.

 

[BozemanMT]

If you read any history of WW1, you can clearly see that the germans had figured out (long before the western powers, if they ever did) that most killed and injured are from artillery, not the rifleman. Look up a TOE for a german battalion vs a british one. Lots and lots of machine guns and incredible amounts of artillery, grenades, flamethrowers, etc (all invented/re-invented by Germany. (much better artillery than the brits and french). The wars went from the 1800's where a single rifleman did most of the damage to WWI where most of the damage was from artillery.

This same concept flowed thru the german army into WWII. You see tanks, etc, but the infantry is mostly to keep the enemy off the artillery, tanks and machine guns and to occupy areas that have been broken thru. For this a bolt action is fine.

When rifles aren't doing most of the killing/injuring, it doesn't help much to have the best rifle.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Mass issue of the StG-44 would have given German units and edge against their opponents down at the small unit level, but like other people have said, the war was decided by bigger picture issues ranging from crew served weapons all the way up to national industrial capacity, etc.

The main thing that would likely have happened had the Germans kicked off the war with the StG-44, or had it as a standard weapon early (say '40, '41) is that this would have likely spurred the Allies to field competitive designs, so we would have probably seen some sort of intermediate round from the US, UK, Russians (though 7.62x39 was a WW2 development) and such. Troops would have insisted on having something that at least got them close parity to the bad guys small arms, even if masses of tanks and bombers and such were the war winners.

 

[kBob]

An old SS man (eek! he was a year younger than me currently when he said this and I the young US Infantryman thought him an old man!) used to tell the same joke atleast every other month:

WHo ws the Greatest American General?


Motors.


Another SSman that fought in the East told me of being on a wood gathering expedition/patrol when they had a meetig engagement with RUssians gathering wood and putting it in a brand new American truck. His best friend stood staring at the truck after they had killed or run off the russians and mumbling "The War is over. We have lost."

As has been stated it was US production capability and Russian (and other allied) bodies that won the war, more than what rifles were available.

As to the comment that had Hitler not invaded Russia most Europeans would have been blond haired and blue eyed, possibly, but they would speak Russian. Had not Hitler attacked Russia, Stalin would have continued his weapons upgrades and military purges, elevating younger and more modern thinking (if also partymen)to positions of power. Eventually it would be too tempting to replace his neighbor's National Socialism with Socialist Republic tied as strongly to Russia as the Ukrane et al.

-Bob Hollingsworth

 

[Eightball]

how would the outcome of WWII changed if the allied or the axis powers had adopted the intermediate, FA firearm. I know that the Germans were developing the Sturmgehwer 44 (I learned a lot last night), but it wasn't adopted until near the end of the war.

Could've helped them in russia a whole lot. Especially those city confrontations. Maybe, no "Cold War" after WWII.

Would the adoption of an intermediate round have swayed the battles in the favor of the full auto side or would it have allowed the full power rifle side to engage the enemies further away?

Engagements typically wouldn't occur at ranges outside of the capability of the intermediate power round. Same as now--every now and then, engagements are long-range, but that's why we have SAWs nowadays.

Would we have been better off having M16s instead of M1s?

With a conscripted army of a nation that still grew up shooting? Maybe. Would've been a long time before logistics got figured out--.'06 for the 1919 and 1918's rolling around, and .223 for the MBR? We had millions/billions of '06 rounds, and they meet the "it needs to kill them dead" criteria well, as well as the "it ain't broke" rule.

If the Germans had adopted the Sturmgehwer 44 at the outset would we have been outgunned?

Probably.

If the Russian's had already had the AK-47 in place would Hitler have even bothered trying to invade Russia?

He wanted oil, and was insane. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. If he knew the whole "russian winters have frozen armies for hundreds of years", he might've planned better, but still would've invaded.

Finally, does strategy and tactics really trump all and no changes in the weapons used would have changed the outcome of the war?

I think that the weapons available to each side determine strategy. If your enemy has bolt actions and you have an AR, for example--frontal assaults might seem like they could work initially, but flanking/causing a diversion, they pop up to use their first round, kill them while they reload would work. Ammo supply and weapons capability have determined tactics for a while--how long you can hold out, how long they can hold out, how much firepower each person can bring to bear, etc. Changes confrontations from "one-shot wonderfights, you either die or you don't" to "slightly higher chance of survival." But given the nature of the fighting--across nations, covering lots of countries rapidly with conscripted troops, modern tactics probably wouldn't've worked so well, so it's hard to say.

Fun train of thought, though. Gives me something to dwell on in the middle of class in...20 minutes.

 

[doubleg]

As to the comment that had Hitler not invaded Russia most Europeans would have been blond haired and blue eyed, possibly, but they would speak Russian. Had not Hitler attacked Russia, Stalin would have continued his weapons upgrades and military purges, elevating younger and more modern thinking (if also partymen)to positions of power. Eventually it would be too tempting to replace his neighbor's National Socialism with Socialist Republic tied as strongly to Russia as the Ukrane et al.

I doubt the Nazi's would have lost to a Soviet only invasion. To bad the Brits didn't keep to themselves. Communism and National Socialism could have destroyed each other with out the west even getting involved.

 

[Lucky]

The Russians were using 7.62 SMGs the whole time, roughly equivalent firepower to M2 select-fire carbine, which used an intermediate round. No-one else panicked and immediately changed their guns.

I think that evidence is needed to show the Soldiers *Wanted* smaller cartridges. I've read first-hand account of a guy in WW2 who was assigned a grease gun and had to run back and forth through combat alot, and he ditched it for a Garand. Said he wanted BIG firepower, especially at close ranges.

If damned near everyone except some logisticians are set against a decrease in firepower (though increase volume) it's going to be very hard to implement a change, especially when current designs are being mass produced and training is already in place for them.

 

[Lonestar.45]

If either the Germans or the Japanese, in WWII, been given a choice of any modern day battle rifle/assault rifle for their troops....the outcome would not have changed. The war was won on domestic production. Russia and the U.S. flat out out-produced the Axis powers in terms of planes, tanks, ships, etc. Could they have postponed the outcome with better rifle technology? Maybe. But I doubt it.

If the Axis powers had all changed from bolt actions to semi auto/full auto weapons early in the war, it would have just meant they used up their lead/brass/power supplies quicker. Heck, the war might have even ended sooner because they'd have run out of ammo sooner.

 

[jabotinsky]

Had they built more U-Boats early...had we not cracked their codes...had Hitler not killed his best generals...

My grandad got out early. His mom/dad/brothers/friends never made it. F*** the Germans and their f***** weapons.

 

[Lonestar.45]

I doubt the Nazi's would have lost to a Soviet only invasion. To bad the Brits didn't keep to themselves. Communism and National Socialism could have destroyed each other with out the west even getting involved.

That's a naive view of history. It's kinda hard for Britain to "keep to themselves" and watch as their troops are being pushed out of France and into the ocean when Hitler's blitzkreig over-ran France, an ally. The West had no choice BUT to be involved by virtue of Hitler's attach on France and other non-communist and non-national socialist countries (allies) all over Europe. Britain new they were next, and they were.

 

[tpelle]

Up until the end of WWI, all military long arms - smoothbore musket, muzzle loading rifle, breechloading cartridge rifle, repeater, whatever - were often used in "indirect" fire. That is, your sergeant would tell all his soldiers to set their rear sight at x yard (or meters, or arshins), aim at the top of the trees on that ridge way over there, and fire a volley on command. He would then watch for the bullet strikes - observe the beaten ground - and then issue orders for his soldiers to adjust their aim up or down. The beaten ground was maybe 1000 or more yards away. But this was indirect fire.

Direct fire - picking out one enemy soldier, placing your front sight on his center-of-mass, and pulling the trigger - was also used, but it's pretty hard to do at much over 200, 300, or 400 yards. The problem is that iron sights pretty much obscure a man sized target at much over that distance. Direct fire was and is limited to closer ranges.

WWI and the machine gun changed all that. The machine gun took over the indirect fire role, and the rifle assumed the direct fire role.

But what didn't change was that a rifleman was hard pressed to score a direct fire hit on an enemy soldier at anything over 200 yards.

After WWI, it was pretty much taken to be a fact that nearly all casualties due to direct fire occurred at 400 yards or less. Nevertheless, all military organizations were still fielding rifles that fired ammunition with ballistics that let them reach out to 1000 yard and more.

The Germans were the first to figure out that if they reduced the power of their rifle cartridge to something that gave good ballistic performance out to 400 yards, but not much beyond, they would benefit in several ways. Logistics would benefit, as the cartridges would be cheaper, lighter and smaller, and the trooper having to carry the ammo would be able to carry more of it with the same load weight. In addition, the smaller and lighter less powerful cartridge would recoil less, and consequently full auto fire would now be a practical mode of fire. Thus was born the 7.92 x 33, chambered in the MP43(H) and MP43(W), and in the Stg's.

(Note also that the prototype of the FN FAL was chambered in 7.92 x 33.)

The Russian 7.62 x 39 was a direct result of the Russian experience of being on the receiving end of the German cartridge, but for the most part it's pretty much the same idea as the 7.92 x 33. But it can also be said that the German development of 7.92 x 33 was a direct result of being on the receiving end of the profligate use by the Russians of submachine guns. As the world turns.

To cut to the chase, another influence, especially in the U.S. and with it's adoption of the 5.56 cartridge in the M16, was the development and perfection of the "combined arms" principle of military operations. No longer is the rifle the infantry's main instrument for delivering death and destruction to its enemies. Today it's the GPS and the radio. The infantry's role is becoming one of detecting the enemy and reporting his position, and remaining hidden while they call in the iron rain. The rifle is becoming more and more an instrument of self-defense, to be used if one walks into an ambush or stumbles into a meeting engagement with a similar detachment of enemy soldiers trying to do the same thing to you. It can almost be said that if an infantryman has to resort to using his rifle, then he has already screwed up!

It's interesting to note that the "assault rifle" as fielded by the U.S. (and the rest of the world is following suit) in a small caliber (5.56 for the "free world") really only works in the "combined arms" role. In Iraq with the current situation being as it is today, fighting an insurgency and unable to use the "combined arms" techniques, our soldiers are finding the 5.56 inadequate. They are up against an intermediate cartridge - the old 7.62 x 39 - with better terminal ballistics, and as a result are either arming themselves with Kalisnikovs of their own obtained on the black market or as battlefield pickups, or are calling for the old M14's to be brought out of retirement.

(I've heard that the remaining M14's are pretty much all used up, and that the army is buying brand-new FAL's. It's also darned hard to find any 7.62 NATO battlepacks of ammo on the surplus market.)

 

[KBintheSLC]

Would we have been better off having M16s instead of M1s?

Since much of WWII was fought on vast battlefields with very long ranges, I doubt that the M16 would have been very successful. It works well for clearing houses in Baghdad, but probably not so well for tacking a German machine gunner at 800 meters.

 

[RNB65]

.how would the outcome of WWII changed if the allied or the axis powers had adopted the intermediate, FA firearm.

It wouldn't. The sniper, the machine gun, and artillery are the real forces on the battlefield (+ air power). The infantry rifle is just a sideshow.
.

 

[Jim Watson]

An article about the Civil Air Patrol said that one of the few surviving U-boat commanders, when asked why Germany pulled back submarines from US coastal areas, said: "It was those damned little red and yellow airplanes."

You can see the same sort of thing in about any field. The USA had the population, resources, and industry to do almost everything that even looked helpful. Germany and Japan were trying to conquer their neighbors for their resources as much as anything.

 

[H2O MAN]

It's interesting to note that the "assault rifle" as fielded by the U.S. (and the rest of the world is following suit) in a small caliber (5.56) really only works in the "combined arms" role. In Iraq with the current situation being as it is today, fighting an insurgency and unable to use the "combined arms" techniques, our soldiers are finding the 5.56 inadequate. They are up against an intermediate cartridge - the old 7.62 x 39 - with better terminal ballistics, and as a result are either arming themselves with Kalisnikovs of their own obtained on the black market or as battlefield pickups, or are calling for the old M14's to be brought out of retirement.

(I've heard that the remaining M14's are pretty much all used up, and that the army is buying brand-new FAL's. It's also darned hard to find any 7.62 NATO battlepacks of ammo on the surplus market.)

The M14 has never been out of service and there are plenty of M14s available to modernize and re-issue

 

[Evil Monkey]

our soldiers are finding the 5.56 inadequate.

That's not what I've heard. I hear it's doing pretty well.

They are up against an intermediate cartridge - the old 7.62 x 39 - with better terminal ballistics

Ha! Do some research on the terminal effectiveness of the typical M43 that's being used in Iraq.

and as a result are either arming themselves with Kalisnikovs

No they're not. Those who were armed with pistols (tank crews) tried to get folding stock AK's because they were rifles. I've heard others got M4's instead. Of all the footage I've seen, I've seen more of everything than AK's in US troops' hands.

or are calling for the old M14's to be brought out of retirement.

For the DMR role? Yes. For general issue? no, no, no..........

 

[Slamfire]

Seldom does one weapon platform, particularly a rifle, make that much of a difference in total war. Of course one could argue the power of the Maxim over the “Fuzzy Wuzzis” (Sudenese ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_Wuzzy was a huge factor for British conquest. But between technological equals, other factors are far more important.

Good leadership is essential. Hitler was absolutely incompetent, both as a Civil leader and as a Military leader, but he was unable to recognize his limitations. If you read books written by around his inner circle, he did not provide clear leadership. There were too many overlapping and duplicative efforts, organizations, etc. It is clear that his inner circle were more interested in gaining personal power, and using that for vain glory, rather than working in a concerted National effort. This dispersion of resources and conflicting efforts hampered Germany throughout the war.

Stalin was incompetent as a military leader, and it took him a while to figure that out, but he was far more adaptable than Hitler, and for the most part, let his top rate Generals win the war.

And interesting book to read about this is Paul Kennedy : The Rise and Fall of the Great powers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Great_Powers

If you look at Warfare as a contest of National Resources and national output, as Paul Kennedy has, it is evident that Germany, even with its allies, created obligations that far outstripped its ability to pay. It just could not sustain a long term war. But his opponents could. Particularly America. Hitler’s’ horrible military mismanagement, loosing for example, Armies at Stalingrad, which represented one years production of hardware, and maybe a million men, just hastened the end.

By the way, I have heard that 70-90% of the casualties of the war were caused by Artillery. Sure, at a "man on man" level, a better side arm makes a huge difference. But the individual was more likely to be killed by artillery or machine guns, before he got within effective small arms range. And don’t forget the grenades. Lots of people were killed by those.

Hitler was a gambler, he bet badly, bet too much on loosing hands. In the end, he had no more chips on the table. End of game.

 

[HorseSoldier]

It's interesting to note that the "assault rifle" as fielded by the U.S. (and the rest of the world is following suit) in a small caliber (5.56 for the "free world") really only works in the "combined arms" role. In Iraq with the current situation being as it is today, fighting an insurgency and unable to use the "combined arms" techniques, our soldiers are finding the 5.56 inadequate. They are up against an intermediate cartridge - the old 7.62 x 39 - with better terminal ballistics, and as a result are either arming themselves with Kalisnikovs of their own obtained on the black market or as battlefield pickups, or are calling for the old M14's to be brought out of retirement.

There's not a whole lot I'd call factual in this paragraph, just internet myths, rumors and exaggerations.

US troops aren't arming themselves with Kalashnikovs. There were some cases of guys in 2003 picking up AKs for foot and hum-vee patrols in favor of their issue 9mm handgun. Basis of issue was adjusted for LIC type conflict and this went away pretty quick . . . except online, where some guy at least once a month here on THR brings up how "the troops are using/prefer the AK over the M16/M4" because they heard from a guy at a gun store or read an article online from five years ago or whatever. Being in a unit where guys downrange could carry AKs at will if they wanted to (well, the ODA guys, anyway), I can safely say I don't know any who choose to.

M14s aren't being put back into service because 5.56mm lacks lethality at combat ranges. They're being used (with mixed, at best, results) as DMRs for precision rifle engagements. Their killing power is so superior . . . that they're being replaced with 5.56mm rifles.

7.62x39 terminal ballistics better than 5.56mm . . . no. Not in the technical sense that "terminal ballistics" is usually meant to mean, not at all.

As for 5.56mm assault rifles only working in combined arms environments, the rifles was adopted to fight a counter-insurgency in Vietnam. Its adoption was spurred by glowingly enthusiastic reviews from special operations soldiers advising ARVN troops on the battlefield in a counter-insurgency. Issue of the M16 was delayed in Europe, where a combined arms operation would take place, because the rifles were needed to fight a counter-insurgency in SE Asia.

 

[slzy]

the second ardennes offensive ,the battle of the bulge, the germans had probably the heaviest concentration of stg 44 and "schmeiser" smgs to even the odds.
the result may show a microcosm of how things still would have turned out on all fronts.

if the soviets had attacked germany before hitler crossed any borders the brits would have probably at least given aid. during the winter war both germany and england sent aid to the finns.

 

[H2O MAN]

M14s aren't being put back into service because 5.56mm lacks lethality at combat ranges.
They're being used (with mixed, at best, results) as DMRs for precision rifle engagements.

Their killing power is so superior . . . that they're being replaced with 5.56mm rifles.

Talk about your internet myths, rumors and exaggerations!

The current Crazy Horse® DMR/SDM, SASS and MK14 Mod 0 versions of the M14
and the new M21A5/C-IED are delivering outstanding results in the sand box.

Field reports from Iraq are coming in and the 2nd Infantry Division REALLY REALLY loves their Crazy Horse® rifles.
The reports are that the Crazy Horse® rifle has over 500 confirmed kills in-theater.
The U.S, Navy SEALS are also using their Mk14 Mod 0 to great effect with nearly 300 confirmed kills.

For how many decades have they been trying to replace the M14 with 5.56mm rifles?

 

[Vaarok]

WW2 was a war of economics. Good generals talk about tactics, great generals talk about logistics.

America was a fortress-factory that was never threatened by enemy armies, England was a giant aircraft carrier, and the Russians just had manpower.

 

[Wedge]

It sounds like the infantry's rifle in modern (Post WW1) war is not nearly as important as the strategy, tactics, HEAVY support (heavy guns, air, ships, etc.) and finally the general resources of either side.

About what I expected to hear.

FWIW, my grandfather that was in direct action in WW2 (Battle of the Bulge, Liberation of Dachau) was as a tank driver and I honestly don't know if he had a weapon and unfortunately can't ask him :-(

 

[HorseSoldier]

The current Crazy Horse® DMR/SDM, SASS and MK14 Mod 0 versions of the M14
and the new M21A5/C-IED are delivering outstanding results in the sand box.

Look, I know you like the M14, I get it (or you're paid to do promotions for Smith Enterprises . . .). But your claims of its performance don't have anything to do with the actual feedback coming out of official sources or the unofficial word of mouth I hear working in a unit that trains both combat marksmanship and precision rifle work. Reports on M14 performance, in either format, are mixed, at best, and there's certainly no rush to acquire them or put them back in service in units that don't have to rely on the limitations of Big Army procurement and logistics (though, as noted, Big Army is getting rid of them, too . . .) .