Apparently they thought good MG and a bunch of brave men with grenadea were good enough.
Also semis were expensive.
Also also, as guys above said, it was a standard thing to do. It’s US being “weird” and doing things differently.
Ok expensive is a valid point, but war is expensive so either spend the money or lose
And just because your squad is centered around a machine gun doesn’t mean you can’t modernize your basic rifleman as well. They don’t need to use turn of the century relics to fight. You can give them better equipment. It can only help
- they had different infantry doctrine
- they were country recovering from bankruptcy, massive foreign debt and various arms restrictions.
- tank development was response to soviet tanks. if you check early war tanks they were pretty shit against soviet tanks, so later it become arms race of adding armor and bigger gun.
- german heavy tanks were a good idea but were hampered by fast (faulty) design of adding too much weight on existing solutions and inexperienced manufacturer which caused logistical issues for tanks in the field.
- they started changing their infantry doctrine too late (mostly after initial battles with soviets)
- it is easier to use existing tooling and experienced workers to produce inferior or more complex/expensive rifle than switching to new tooling and starting from scratch (one of the reasons why ppsh41 continued to be produced after introduction of pps42/43)
their infantry doctrine which was still somewhat influenced by ww1. every army had different doctrines on how to achieve superior firepower. germans believed that squad based on MG provided enough firepower, US switched to SA rifles providing more firepower per person alongside BAR and soviets would probably switch to SA rifles also if war didnt start, but cause it did they achieved firepower by mass producing ppsh41 which was faster to make and was much cheaper than svt40.
by the time germans realized that they needed better rifles, they were already in war. research into german SA rifles started in 40s resulting in g41 and after copying some of the svt40 elements from captured rifles they improved the rifle to g43. in that time they were already getting bombed by allies and their industrial capacity was getting reduced by the day.
1 Like
Except you don’t have any SA rifles because you were forbidden from developing them. They are known for being expensive and unreliable. And your huge army is based on an economy of a next to banckrupt country that holds thanks to a pinky promise that the monney is still worth something.
Not the best conditions for innovations and development of unreliable gear.
As of North Africa, most US troops did not had a M1G and even later many troops in Asia still used the M1903. What is the point of a superior expensive weapon, if you cannot even issue it to at least majority of the troops since 1936 or 37?
Also, now the Germans and others should spend more into arms. Not like before where they were critized for spending money on “Wunderwaffen”.
Many nations tested SA rifles before WW2 but most of them were too unreliable, expensive and/ or used different ammo, skrewing up your existing logistics.
Also, semi-auto or auto does not equal superiority. The AVT, AVS, G41, SVT-38 or even the early Garands may be worth noting (at least the Brits were not pleased about it).
Funny enough, the Germans captured M1 Garands but never bothered to copy them and it was not well liked by German troops while they liked the SVT and the M1C more.
1 Like
So a stupid doctrine, got it
So was everyone else from treaties to prevent future arms races to the Great Depression
Yeah it is easier. It’s also how you lose wars because you refuse to advance and innovate. Allowing all your adversaries to get one up on you in technology. The Germans may have won the LMG contest but they lost in every single other aspect of the small arms race
So basically they just took to long to realize modernizing their infantry was a good idea. Got it. Lol
They were also forbidden from developing tanks
Based off of what the French and Russian designs of WWI? I mean sure the BAR was expensive and really heavy but it was reliable enough with semi auto
At this point, why did the fast-tap nation of Earth took four years or so to defeat pity plebs with BAs and only one 1200rmp GPMG per squad? Plus Japan who could not even afford a actual mass issued SMG?
Economic SMG
Rocket Launcher
Assault Rifle
And BAR would make great service rifle.
1 Like
So stupid even US used it and uses to this day.
I wasn’t aware Fr and UK were forbidden from producing and developing tabks and heavy artillery because of the treaty of versales.
I learn something every day.
Germany: sticks to old stuff that works
Some ameriboo: reee germany fails to innovate
Germany: puts monney to experimental stuff
Some ameriboo: reee wundervafe
US got lucky with development and implementation of SA rifles as everybody tried it earlier when tech was unreliable so they didn’t give it a go. They were late for the party so a lot of work was already done for them.
Garand “wartime” production is around 4 million. From 1932 to 1945 Springfield made around 3.5 million while the rest, around 500k, were made by Winchester from 1940 to 1945.
I don’t know the specific numbers but wartime production of the Kar98 and the WW2 Mosin is above the 10 million. On extra note i remember reading in a supposed report that the StG was less time consuming to made than the Kar98.
Apparently they thought tanks that proved to be effective were more important than SA rifles that proved to be not effective. Trully a mistery.
Yes. There are no better weapon tests than actual war.
Yeah, and weighted twice as much as a rifle and was like 5 times more expensive.
No we had innovation and gave our men top of the line equipment like semi auto’s and eventually assault rifles. Even as we speak our M4’s are being replaced by a new rifle
There was a boat treaty
That’s ALL firearm development. Everyone takes from everyone else
Stamped sheet metal vs wood
what refusal to innovate? any possible german opponent at that time didnt even have access to SA rifles(or at least in significant quantities). britain and france were still using BA rifles and russia had made only few SVT38 or SVT40 for their army while vast majority of army was still using mosin nagants.
not really. check here Treaty of Versailles - Wikipedia
1 Like
then why did US still use m1903 in ww2? and why did they start producing new m1903 in ww2 after they had stopped production for number of years.
1 Like
Just saying it’s something they should’ve looked into earlier than 41
After germany.
So who is really the innovative one?
Yeah, but not everybody takes other ppls homework, finishes it and claims to be innovative.
That was Germany.
US took like 20 years or so after WW2 and the failure of the M14 to come up with the M16. Even the Soviets were faster.
Like literally every normal nation on Earth tends to do nowadays.
Important for firearms.
1 Like
why doesnt US have phasers. why do they refuse to innovate? when aliens come it will be too late to develop them…
2 Likes
No, no that’s literally everyone when it comes to firearms. The AK-47 was based off of the Garand and StG for example