Stop gaps until enough M1’s could be produced and the Marine Corps. The Kar98k wasn’t a stop gap it was their main rifle
when you are recruiting 13.5 million people any rifle is stopgap rifle.
We were behind on tanks, planes, boats; small arms, tactics, doctrine, everything. Except the M1 Garand
well again i would say jap gun and tank are behind everyone (i mean come on a stuart can beat most jap tank)
didnt jap field a bunch of Ha-Go? i will look it up probably
and germans suffered least losses from USA.
Wow they suffered from the last one to enter the war and fight the least?
We really should add in all the Germans that died to American Lend-Lease equipment to pad our stats. Lol
if germans only fought west, they could have easily wont despite m1 garand. ffs germans actually did excellent despite being heavily outnumbered, having least resources and fighting on 2(3?) fronts.
1 Like
yea we do have to keep in mind that germany fought against russian and Allies which heavily outnumber them (pretty impressive tbh)
1 Like
Semi-autos win war, mate.
Only if they were semi-autos.
Didn’t say they fought poorly
btw just to put numbers in perspective
germans
soldiers: 17-18 million (army was ~13.6 million)
population: 80 million
military deaths: 4.5-5.3 million
military wounded: 7.3 million
soviets
army: 34 million
population: 205 million
military death: 8.7-11.4 millions
military wounded: 14.7 millions
US
army: 16 million
population: 130 million
military death: 420k
military wounded: 670k
UK
army: 5.4 million
population: 48 million
military death: 383k
military wounded: 376k
italy
army: 4 million
population: 45 million
military death: 320k
military wounded: 225-320k (incomplete)
germany didnt lose cause it didnt have SA rifles, it lost cause it was heavily outnumbered and had enemy countries that far outstripped her in manufacturing capacity and resources. if anything germany performed extremely well based on its conditions. soviets had SA rifles and loads of ppsh41, but it didnt help them suffer any less casualties, nor did it made them more effective soldiers.
also you forget that lots of casualties on battlefield isnt caused by bullets, but by poor logistics and cause of poor environmental conditions.
6 Likes
But non the less - it had the ability of suppressive fire.
That being said, ever heard about the “mad minute”?
And combat casualities by artillery, mines and areal bombing.
4 Likes
Can you stop putting words in my mouth? I said perform BETTER. Not WIN. What do I look like a German? One advanced piece of equipment doesn’t win a war. It helps, but it alone will not turn the tides of war. That’s why you develop a little bit of everything and not just one or two things
Yeah yeah dysentery
According to you, Germans were defenseless because of “high” likability to lose the MG and US soldiers can therefore instantly overpower them or that they cannot have same firepower with an 1200rmp MG as 12 people with a semi-auto that fires 50 rounds a minute with 8 bullets.
So technically, according to that logic German infantry should have been ez win all the time by just killing the MG gunner, thus making it impossible for German infantry to hold lines or attack, ultimately making the German frontline collapses instantly whenever Team American with SAs show up, at least until tanks or so arrive, but they were also bad according to you.
Dont worry. We know you are American.
Germans also had the MP40, the StG/Mp43 and best man-portable anti-tank weapons but you kept ignoring them and refered to a SA rifle and an WW1 battlerifle versus the best WW2 GPMGs.
i was not referring to that. i was referring to getting ammo, weapons, spare parts, fuel, food and clothes to the front. everything that germany has lacked in late war and even in early/mid war on eastern front cause they expected victory in 6-8 weeks.
earlier you attacked germans for investing into heavy tanks, even though they had excellent K/D ratio and it would be even better if they had spare parts that would bring their tanks into action even sooner after malfunctions. cause of lack of spare parts their tanks were out of commission for much longer than they needed to be.
one of the reasons why germany collapsed rather easily on western front is cause it had fresh divisions with lack of supplies. just look at battle of bulge where whole battle basically hanged on capturing allied fuel supplies.
SA rifle wouldnt really help germany perform better in ww2. thing that would have helped the most would be if germany had massive oil field to run their machinery.
Wow. I can see why I blocked you. More words in my mouth
What part of “better” do you not understand? I proposed a what if situation that gives the perfect example of why you don’t rely on a single man to deliver all of your firepower. You lose that single source and you’ve lost some 30-40+ years of technological development in an instant because all the rest of your men are using old WWI guns. It would be BETTER if all the rest of your men had BETTER firearms to BETTER to their job after you lose one aspect of your squad
Dysentery is the largest casualty of war. By far. More have died by dysentery than literally every other source
Why create things you can’t support? They expected the Tiger and Panther and the Holy Grail to win them the war. Tanks are important, yes. But again, what’s the point of a breakthrough if your infantry don’t have the capability of exploiting said breakthrough?
Yes oil would’ve been massive for them. All I’m saying is an improvement at the squad level would have helped in individual engagements which compound to the larger war as a whole. Kill more enemy faster. That’s literally all there is to it. Kill more enemy faster. End of story. This conversation is literally already done. I got what I asked for. Why are we still on about this?