Had every German infantryman been issued a StG-44 in 1941, Operation Barbarossa would've been a success, making the later Overlord landings by the Allies or any assault on Fortress Europe, impossible.
StG-44 Couldve99 Won the War
Had every German infantryman been issued a StG-44 in 1941, Operation Barbarossa would've been a success, making the later Overlord landings by the Allies or any assault on Fortress Europe, impossible.
no timmy it would not have germany was always gonna lose eventually either go to sleep since its past ya bedtime or go back to
Ok retard
>ok retard
did i ruffle ya feathers timmy go to bed or the tooth fairy wont come and I'll report you for being underage user on here so skedaddle
its been 100 years let it go they were doomed before they started for being retards
This reply bothers me because, a lot of things could have caused Germany to win the war. Largely the same string of luck that made them win in 39 and 40 and almost let them win in 41. Realistically speaking, Germany shouldn't have been able to defeat Russia. In 1917. But they did, largely thanks to societal issues with Russia itself. Had Stalin been couped, had he committed suicide, had he a heart attack from the stress, there's no telling what could have happened. If you look at half the wars Germany fought they should have lost them, but they have a pretty good track record because at the end of the day German culture has been very cooperative and high speed, low drag. It has not had to deal with the gross institutional incompetence and corruption countries like France and Russia and Eastern Europe in general has, and thus it came out on top of a great many wars that it realistically should have lost in.
I think a lot of people miss the forest for the trees. It wasn't that Germany wasn't ever going to win a war. It's that Germany was never going to win a long war. When Russia DIDN'T collapse, that basically put a timer on how long Germany had to defeat them or else suffer a loss by the numbers. But WW2 was never guaranteed to be a long war. Change a few variables, maybe Churchill gets throat cancer and dies in 37, maybe Stalin gets bumped off during Barbarossa for being a tard and trying to make a deal with the Devil, maybe Churchill dies in WW1. History only happens one way and thus was always going to play out the way it did. But I just want to make the point that it's not Germany could never have won, it's that Germany could never have won a long war. And that's something both sides of the aisle here forget, though the wehraboos are the most guilty of this of course.
>field trials expedited (Stalingrad) and yeeted straight into production
>rollout is limited to certain formations/units
>significant frontline use before '43 rolls in
More ammo on tap in the face of meatwaves wouldn't hurt, and they were a leap in firepower and maneuverability, but it having an M1 Garand cachet of single handedly deciding the Russo-German conflict is a big stretch.
Mostly Lend Lease, which barely kept Moscow in the game with economic and food crisis mid-war. Ball bearings alone, rubber & logistics trucks. Any number of things and that rotten edifice really wouldn't be in place for future Cold War nuclear proliferation and MAD blackmail.
You know the alternative universe that has the Nazi's win? Well, to most of the multiverse, we're the Naziverse, where the Germans didn't get their heads kicked in by 1942.
Yes, theoretically they might have won. But they already had a vast degree of luck to get as far as they did in 1945. You're trying to change events to help them, but any butterflies causing changes to history would likely be a net negative to the Axis just because the odds they end up less lucky overall. For example say Stalin dies, but the French and British forces don't push forward en-masse into Belgium as they are hoping to make the germans and Soviets fight rather than fight themselves; and so don't get encircled by the Ardennes push. Or Churchill dies in WW1, but the absence of his voice means that others we ignore today take his place as the anti-German voice, and without his troubled history manage to do a better job of calling for re-arming.
>a lot of things could have caused Germany to win the war.
No. Only one thing could win WW2 for any individual country: be on the side of the USA.
Dammit, forgot my picture.
But they would, and that's what counts.
>Germany could have never beat Russia
Lmao and no
Western allied material support is the only thing that kept the USSR from capitulating
yeah
Subhuman replies.
Small arms matter. Not in regard to directly killing people, but definitely in regard to taking territory on the field and keeping your boys alive.
Amateurs always underestimate the massive advantage in mobility any squad with assault rifles has.
>Subhuman replies.
"Subhumans" decisively won the war and crushed your vaunted ubermenschen into the dust.
Your funky AR does nothing about the artillery bombardement that is turning you, and most of the rest of your battalion around you, into so much paste.
A literal sun in a can that the Americans were hardballing on using against the Germans who had no defense against such a force mogs your shitty tac driver you fucking tard.
See
No war means no funding.
Posting a quote and understanding it are different things entirely, midwit.
>Amateurs always underestimate the massive advantage in mobility any squad with assault rifles has.
Sure.
75% of casualties at the frontline in ww2 came from artillery...
Read the post you replied to again, retard.
Here's something funny:
Assault rifles make your artillery better too.
And the reasons for it are in the post you clearly didn't manage to grasp the meaning of.
I actually think better artillery makes better artillery.
That I can agree to, anon.
Tactics don't matter if your ammo factories have been strategic bombed into rubble, Kraut boi
->
NTA but if Dunkirk happens differently Hitler has 300k hostages which were basically the whole British army and used to train the rest later.
Britain was also extremely anti war at that point since the BoB hadn't happened yet.
Result: Peace with Britain.
Not issuing the haltebefehl would've helped a lot there, but the vast increase in tactical and operational mobility assault rifles provide would have had the British army overrun anyway.
Even if every German soldier had one at the onset of the war, they still would have lost. A groundbreaking small arm cannot make up for drastic strategic over reaching and manufacturing constantly hampered by day& night bombing. Logistica and numbers won WW2, not tactica and small arms
>Had every German infantryman been issued a StG-44 in 1941, Operation Barbarossa would've been a success, making the later Overlord landings by the Allies or any assault on Fortress Europe, impossible.
>Meanwhile, in Los Alamos...
Remember that this was being paired with the Convair B-36 Peacemaker. The absolute best named nuclear strategic bomber ever built. If Britain had fallen, and the USSR folded, the US would have had a fully operational intercontinental strategic bomber capable of delivering a conveyor belt of nukes to the third Reich.
>If germany actually had fuel, they would have won
>If germany took moscow, they would have won
>If germany only had 500000 tigers in 1941, they would've won
>If germany only had nuclear weapons in 1941, they would have won
it turns out that being such massive assholes that you make everyone fucking hate you is a bad strategy
if germany won they would have won
>If the [x/y/z] military replaced the most irrelevant piece of military equipment, they would have won an industrial war in while being at an incredible, almost comical disadvantage in resources, processing, fabrication, logistics, intelligence (military) and intelligence (civilian), but also intelligence (Nazis were and are retards.)
Nah Germany needed to discover the Ukrainian or Norwegian oil fields and develop a better AA gun to win the war. They were a fucking horse carriage army trying to take on the whole industrialized world, they needed loadsa oil and intact factories. That would've let them grind Soviet forces out of offensive capabilites and hold a desperate defense on the western front until they hopefully produced a fission bomb, which would've let them sue for peace on favorable terms.
Ah yes, the Norwegian oil fields that are located 100s of km off the coast in the North Sea. Surely Germany, a country without navy, can protect them from attacks.
>small arms
>relevant in an industrial war
Pick one.
Remidner that artillery was responsible for a large majority of casualties in WWII, while small arms were an afterthought.
Also, Germany holding on into summer 1945 just means Berlin gets nuked.
Considering Germany had issues supplying ammunition for the weapons they already had, why do you think things would have gone any better if they were using the Mp44?
they couldn't feed the ones they had. Germany's problems were with overall strategy, resources, and bad generals.
Germany could've won with 50,000 toyota hiluxes each with a bed full of full jerrycans of gas
IMHO, all Germany needed in 1941, was ready semi-automatic rifle design.
Not even an assault rifle.
Worst opinion ever
Nah. Axis were killing Soviet soldiers just fine by the hundreds of thousands with the weapons they had. Handing each Axis soldier a plasma rifle in the 40 watt range would have made little difference. Warm winter clothes to everybody would have made a bigger one. Then of course they would have needed transport to move the clothes across several 1000 mile distances without roads or planes or railways, and we are back to step one.
ok asphalt and rollers, then send the clothes then the stgs, when i go back in time ill tell them.
Okay how many miles per month can you deliver? Reminder that road work in autumn, winter and spring will be very interesting.
>If X, then Germany would have won WW2.
Is this bait?
I am, relatively speaking, a newfag compared o most /k/ users but even I know this is a bullshit argument that Wheraboos make.
>Muh Wunderwaffe
Yeah. Nothing short of creating nuclear weapons could have saved Germany in WW2. And even with nukes, victory wasn't garanteed.
Tell me guys, is OP's post bait?
Because it sure smells like it.
>new
>Wheraboos
>Germany had no chance
You need to shut the fuck up and leave this site permanently.
>be new
>whine about wehraboos without understanding the term
Protip, redditor: Words have a meaning and wehraboos haven't been an issue here for like a decade. Germany was cool in both world wars, agreeing with that general sentiment just makes you normal and disagreeing with your uninformed shit-takes is probably a sign of intelligence most of the time.
>Nothing short of creating nuclear weapons could have saved Germany in WW2. And even with nukes, victory wasn't garanteed.
Exactly, because only one country had the industrial might to create multiple nukes (not singular) with two alternative designs, whilst propping up another superpower, fighting on two land fronts (Europe and Pacific), absolutely demolishing in the air war and casually pulling off D-day - and even then they still had budget and manpower left to project nuclear hellfire at a pace that would scare the Japs into surrender.
Most of the time, a difference in small arms has been so minor as to not make a huge difference - but you could certainly argue that one army armed with needle rifles and the other with modern assault rifles, all else being equal, the former would get their teeth kicked in. Hard.
>WWI would have easily been won with assault rifles.
In WW1, armies could barely sustain the slow and limited advance of tanks, it took them the better part of a year to figure that out. Giving them assault rifles while they are struggling to manufacture sufficient ammo would not change much.
You're more insufferable than OP, dumb nagger. Be gone.
>I am, relatively speaking, a newfag compared o most /k/ users but even I know this is a bullshit argument that Wheraboos make.
You sound like a pudgy fag. Dunno why.
Yeah you like them pudgy don't you.
Germany was still using horses to transport equipment for the vast majority of their army. They were running out of oil which is why they made a desperate attempt at Siberia. They had to do forced conscription because the lack of man power. Even if you gave everyone and STG44 based ENTIRELY on a war of attrition Germany will lose every single time.
What's with the particular strain of retard who thinks that a difference in small arms would have changed the outcome of any post napoleonic war?
...daydreamers? If only this, if only that. But hey, dreaming is still free. Better enjoy it while it lasts.
>who thinks that a difference in small arms would have changed the outcome of any post napoleonic war?
WWI would have easily been won with assault rifles.
Literally would have rolled up the trenches easily and more likely just won the war during the early pushes before it became static in the first place. The Franco Prussian war would've been won by French assault rifles too.
Fucking pseudo intellectual nigtards repeating the sane reddit shit every thread.
Stop pretending you understand things you clearly don't.
>if people had assault rifles then they wouldn't sit in entrenched positions for months and months waiting for someone else to do something about all of the artillery and MG positions and enemy entrenched positions.
how... how has anyone on this board avoided the constant Ukraine thread spam?
>Ukraine is comparable to the World wars particularly WWI
Anon, you genuinely cannot appreciate how retarded you sound.
WWI was nearly won early on by Germany before the war became static, but even if we pretend that somehow would've happened anyway assault rifles would've still made a massive difference. Even just massive amounts of SMGs would have.
They broke into trenches all the time on both sides, holding them and expanding the breach was the issue. Assault rifles would've rolled up the early unsophisticated trenches and broken the front if either side had any.
Ukraine is neither representative for modern western warfare nor WWI.
While particularly the work with drones and Ukrainian artillery targeting systems will be influential in the future that situation would never happen in any NATO conflict.
You dumb fuck.
Assault rifles have not stopped long-term entrenchment stalemates.
Retard.
Not being a retarded slav has.
Assault rifles would have in WWI.
See
America hadn't even joined at that point.
Peace was never an option though.
Valid.
>In WW1, armies could barely sustain the slow and limited advance of tanks, it took them the better part of a year to figure that out. Giving them assault rifles while they are struggling to manufacture sufficient ammo would not change much.
Retarded and irrelevant.
WWI wouldn't have become a trench war in the first place and would have ended way earlier if it magically would have because assault groups would've had the ability to defend and deepen their breakthroughs. Look at actual WWI reports, they managed to take trenches all the time,they just couldn't do much more at that point and getting MGs and ammo over was imperative.
With assault rifles soldiers don't need to stop to let the MGs setup a perimeter, they all carry one.
>But they would, and that's what counts.
War's over without France and Britain.
Whom would the US join?
Ah yes, the magical WW1 were commanders did not have their heads up their ass so far you could consider it a breaching of the enemy line. Sure, assault rifles would have worked wonders - but what about the elan?
If France and Britain are out of WW1 (the latter being highly questionable due to Germany's lack of naval power projection), the second Japan does their big oops, well, the giant still awakens.
>Ah yes, the magical WW1 were commanders did not have their heads up their ass so far you could consider it a breaching of the enemy line. Sure, assault rifles would have worked wonders - but what about the elan?
You have no idea about WWI history.
>If France and Britain are out of WW1 (the latter being highly questionable due to Germany's lack of naval power projection), the second Japan does their big oops, well, the giant still awakens.
You have no idea about WWII history and if Pearl Harbour would have happened at all then Hitler would not have joined Japan since he only did it due to already being at war with the US in all but name for years.
Look up the actual political situation and war sentiments and why they changed in Britain. Naval power has exactly 0 influence there.
Anon, I'm serious, you have no idea what you're talking about, please educate yourself on the basics, there's literally no point in talking to you otherwise.
>Ah yes, the magical WW1 were commanders did not have their heads up their ass so far you could consider it a breaching of the enemy line. Sure, assault rifles would have worked wonders - but what about the elan?
>when you literally get your WWI knowledge from memes
I hate zoomers
Ukraine has become static due to a lack of modern air assets, a relative abundance of anti air weapons and a mix of mine fields, artillery, incompetence and accomplice inability to control large mobile operations even before the fronts froze.
Unless there is some little-known hidden property of the STG-44 that magically feeds and clothes the Easter Front and makes B-17 Flying Fortresses explode then they are irrelevant.
What if I told you it would literally solve both problems?
But you're gonna have to stop being picrelated for that conversation.
>StG-44
>in 1941
>44
>41
Are you retarded
The MP44 being available in 1941 wouldn't help with any future strategic blunders the German Army makes. Which is what cost them the war in the first place.
NTA but if Dunkirk happens differently Hitler has 300k hostages which were basically the whole British army and used to train the rest later.
Britain was also extremely anti war at that point since the BoB hadn't happened yet.
Result: Peace with Britain.
Not issuing the haltebefehl would've helped a lot there, but the vast increase in tactical and operational mobility assault rifles provide would have had the British army overrun anyway.
>muh 300k hostages
At the cost of France not surrendering because you just wrecked the Panzerwaffe by headbutting it into the concentrated, dug-in defenses in unsuitable terrain around Dunkirk, which makes Fall Rot impossible. Congrats, you just lost the war earlier than Hitler did IRL.
And LMAO, you need to be flat-out delusional (aka a retard who thinks Germany could win the war in a single battle) to think for a microsecond that Britain would exit the war just because you bagged the BEF. You could annihilate it to the last man, and Britain would still be in an effectively invincible strategic position with no reason whatsoever to relent.
>cope seethe and delusions
Kek
Reminder that brits were overwhelmingly against the war until the BoB,so you're wrong on every level of your dumb reply.
>they had no reason to give up after losing their entire army!
Anon, they had no reason to fight and were keenly aware of that.
>cope seethe and delusions
Yes, that's what your posts are, naziboo.
Reminder that the british government was overwhelmingly for the war since the moment the Germans marched into Poland and that Chamberlain was literally pushed out of government for not being hard enough on the nazis.
Adn yes, retard, Britain does in fact have no reason to give up after losing a mere expeditionary force. The Royal Navy still rules the waves, the Royal Air Force still stands ready to defend the skies, the Empire is still spinning up an industrial machine that by itself is in time going to outproduce the entire german war economy. Britain is untouchable and no amount of seething about how you took out a couple divisions is going to change that.
>Anon, they had no reason to fight
Absolute and utter delusion. Try telling that to the average Brit in 1940 and all you'll get is a punch in the face.
See
Can't stick to your delusions without the support of the population, sorry anon.
Pointing back to your already debunked retarded delusion is not actually a valid answer to it being called and debunked as being out as a retarded delusion, naziboo subhuman.
Neither is projecting your behaviour upon me for calling it out.
Britain was in the war and determined to see it through, and noi amount of losses on the continent in 1940 were going to change that outside of your wishful thinking. That is what the actual, undeniable historical evidence and records show. Prove me wrong, motherfucker. And no, repeating your ignorant delusions another time does not and will never constitute actual proof. Sorry, not sorry.
But hey, we both know you're just going to repeat your nonsensical shit yet again like ma good little naziboo subhuman, so let's make this short:
Your de facto concession that yopu're a wortthless subhuman naziboo who knows and understands literally less than nothing about WWII, and that any and all of your claims are hence wrong by default, is duly accepted.
No kindly go and do the human genepool a favour by following your Führer's example from April 30th 1945.
Tldnr see
Brits were overwhelmingly anti war until the BoB and the "expeditionary force" were basically they had.
Maybe somebody else is gonna read your post.
>were basically they had.
*was **all
I should take a nap, it's Friday.
Dunkirk had nothing to do with the small arms that were being used, Goring said he could destroy the brits with the Luftwaffe and the army was ordered to halt for numerous reasons. Again, having MP44s won't relieve fighting a two front war or a crippling oil and logistics issue
>Dunkirk had nothing to do with the small arms that were being used
I mention the Haltebefehl in the post you're replying to.
I know the reasons why it was issued and the drama preceding it.
I think the stg44 (what's with calling it mp44? That's retarded on so many levels, and it's Goering not Goring) would have been a great advantage at the time for the reasons mentioned.
Victory at Dunkirk means no 2 fronts.
The thing about WWII, was that the moment Germany started facing actual resistance, the had no chance of winning the war.
Germany would have won if the US didn't Lend Lease the fuck out of the USSR. Germany could inflict terrible losses on the Soviets, but the fact is that they just sent more and more. Not taking Moscow was a mistake, whether the Heer had K98s or the STG doesn't matter. Logistics wins wars, and taking the Soviets' main form of mobilization would have won the war.
Germany would have won AGAINST THE USSR
No way they could have won against the allies, the discrepancies in air and naval power and just raw manpower would make Germany lose only later
It was a good rifle and certainly helped win firefights, but winning firefights doesnt win full wars
The greatest strength of an assault rifles lies in the tactical and operational mobility it enables, not in actually killing people.
The fact nobody here seems to understand that is a testament to the midwits that plague the board.
It enables next to no tactical (and literally, absolutely no strategic) mobility over semi-autos and LMGs. You're being highly delusional and ignorant.
You're wrong, I didn't mention strategic mobility but operational mobility (if you don't know the difference shut the fuck up) and we have plenty of reports directly describing the differences in mobility between the leapfrogging made necessary by MG based squads and the fluid movement enabled by assault rifles.
Stay mad.
Oh sorry, you mentioned "operational" mobility. Which having a spiffy AR does absolutely nothing about, either.
>the leapfrogging made necessary by MG based squads and the fluid movement enabled by assault rifles
Absolute retardiation. In practice a squad will still leapfrog fireteams anyway, and having ARs and an LMG in each fireteam or having Semi-autos and an LMG in each fireteam makes little real difference. And certainly not in a massive industrial war in which meaningful advances rely on massed use of artillery and armor to be feasible at all anyway.
>Absolute retardiation
I forgive you since you are clearly retarded and too autistic to put yourself in the position of a squad back then.
Nothing you say is meaningful here, if you ask nicely I will explain the difference between a bolt squad with an MG42 compared to an stg44 squad with one for you one time.
I'll paraphrase the explanation given by the soldiers during the front trial of the Stg44 itself.
If you're interested, go ahead and don'tforget to say please. If you'd rather wallow in your retardation, that's fine too. I won't force actual knowledge on you as you're so clearly content with your LARPing.
>Operation Barbarossa would've been a success, making the later Overlord landings by the Allies or any assault on Fortress Europe, impossible.
aka: The good ending
>would have x weapon won any war?
Wunderwaffen delusion never changes, it always gives just enough so that people really think there was/is a chance.
See german tanks in ukraine, german v rockets, gas in trench warfare, agent orange in vietnam, drones in the last 20 years, sf forces trained for counter insurgency getting thrown into front line combat, the list goes on. People really want to believe that this is the thing that changes everything. In 20 - 40 years historicans will write how retarded and wastefull that was. Stgs in 1941 would have been insane without supporting industry and would have made nearly the same impact.
See
See above and slavs were officially classified as eastern aryan.
You fell for Stalin's genocide propaganda.
>see above
Yeah, it's yourepeating a retarded old myth that outside your delusions has been shot down in flames a million times over for literal decades by this point. Good job proving beyond any shadow of doubt that you're an ignorant, delusional nitwit who understands literally less than nothing about WWII. Aka the average wehraboo.
>muh Stalins propaganda
Generalplan Ost was not made up by Stalin or the Allies, naziboo. It's really ironic that you try to spread these lies, when the actual OG nazis would have scoffed at the very idea of hiding or denying those intentions and detested you as a degenerate weakling for trying to do so.
See
>generalplan Ost
>when the actual OG nazis would have scoffed at the very idea of hiding or denying those intentions and detested you as a degenerate weakling for trying to do so.
Is that why there is literally 0 written evidence for genocidal ideations in generalplan Ost?
What you're describing is a "reconstructed" post-war version with no hard evidence to support it which even wikipedia admits despite the massive biases there.
Maybe you shouldn't get your historic knowledge from Hollywood and video games, redditor.
Sorry, untermenschen stay untermenschen, no matter how often you wank it to azov. Not even the israelites want to hear about you anymore.
>German encyclopedia of 1943 sanctioned and checked by the party disagrees
>muh Ukraine azov israelites blabla
Seethe, vatnik.
The real wunderwaffen was the R4M Orkan 55mm rocket which wasn't built until too late.
It could be fired from beyond the range of allied 4-engine bombers with dispersion that guaranteed a hit, and the 1lb warhead guaranteed a kill.
It would have ended the Allied bomber campaign if built at the beginning of the war.
the stg might have been the best small arm of ww2 but it still wouldn't have saved them
>If the country at a massive industrial and economic disadvantage that still relied on horse drawn carriages for their logistical needs had a gun that cost ~20x as much to manufacture and spent ~100x as many bullets earlier then they'd have magically not had to worry about American and British strategic bombers choking their already inferior industry to death.
Literally the only path that keeps Germany from "losing" WW2 is to sit on their hands and do literally nothing for however many years after taking the Czechs that it takes for Stalin to find the balls to invade Poland.
Had every French infantryman been issued an AR-15 in 1941, they would have won the war.
Had every English infantryman been issued an SMLE no.4 in the hundred years war, they would have won the war.
Time travel is fucking rad, bro.
This anon understands.
But what if we gave the Germans 1(one) Abrams Tank in WW1?
Composite armor kinda sucks at taking repeated hits.
They would have tried to make it heavier and bankrupted themselves even sooner. I'd still be morbidly curious, and the tank would still be morbidly obese.
Shut the fuck up, that's why it's a what if scenario.
So basically the discussion you were looking for is "yeah lol"? In which case yeah lol.
I hope you weren't being ironic or I'd have to take this back.
What are you doing on /k/ if you don't like alt history?
That's like 90% of military related discussions.
Hear me out. It's the Battle of Agincourt, and the French have one B2 Spirit, a competently trained pilot, complete with enough fuel for one bombing run and enough payload for the same.
The frogs would bomb themselves and we'd get a new myth about a dragon.
>Jarvis, bring up the statistics concerning percentage of WW2 combat deaths caused by artillery, and cross-reference it with the percentage of small-arms deaths as a whole.