Impact of Small Arms on WW2.

[yacinator]

What was the impact of small arms on WW2? Like if every German soldier had a Stg42 at the war's outbreak would Germany have won? What about Stalingrad, if every German had a Stg42 would they have won? I think that small arms have impact on battles but not wars. Discuss.

[Dave H]

This is something like Robert E Lee's men all having AK-47's in the Civil War, right? I'm under the impression that the small arms had very little impact on most of the fighting. When you're getting hit with a barrage of 105 and 155 mm artillery, the rifle in your hand doesn't really make too much of a difference. :eek: :eek:

[imported_no_one]

Originally posted by Dave H:

When you're getting hit with a barrage of 105 and 155 mm artillery, the rifle in your hand doesn't really make too much of a difference. :eek: :eek:

I dunno,one rifle might be heavier and more cumbersome.That might slow you down when tossing your rifle in the air and running away while shouting for Mommy!

[Leopard_2]

I just lost a lengthy post to a browser hickup... :-(

I'd say it's the other way around. Small arms don't win battles, but they might tip the scales just that crucial bit. If every encounter would have cost the Russians two men more than it did, and the Germans two less, would that additional attrition - constantly applied over many months - have given them that little more momentum it would have taken to capture all of Stalingrad, including the west bank of the Wolga? Would not having a beachhead have cost the Russians so dearly that the Germans could have swung around the tide again?

(No, I don't want to discuss that particular example; I just used it to show how minor cause, over time, could result in major effect.)

I think that's why it's so hard to picture. It's easy to imagine how, if Germany had Panthers in 1941, they could have wiped out the Russian tanks. It's easy to imagine how Fw190's could have turned the Battle over Britain. But a Stg42 in 1939 wouldn't have had any super-uber-devastating effect. Just a trickle, a constant additional bias in losses.

I think it could have had a major effect.

[The_Enigma]

wondering but is this stg42 you all, is the stg44?

[Michael Dorosh]

A search of the CMBB forum will show this topic was discussed in depth - the types of small arms were largely irrelevant since most killing was done with artillery and machineguns...

[yacinator]

Originally posted by Leopard_2:

I just lost a lengthy post to a browser hickup... :-(

I'd say it's the other way around. Small arms don't win battles, but they might tip the scales just that crucial bit. If every encounter would have cost the Russians two men more than it did, and the Germans two less, would that additional attrition - constantly applied over many months - have given them that little more momentum it would have taken to capture all of Stalingrad, including the west bank of the Wolga? Would not having a beachhead have cost the Russians so dearly that the Germans could have swung around the tide again?

(No, I don't want to discuss that particular example; I just used it to show how minor cause, over time, could result in major effect.)

I think that's why it's so hard to picture. It's easy to imagine how, if Germany had Panthers in 1941, they could have wiped out the Russian tanks. It's easy to imagine how Fw190's could have turned the Battle over Britain. But a Stg42 in 1939 wouldn't have had any super-uber-devastating effect. Just a trickle, a constant additional bias in losses.

I think it could have had a major effect.

Very intresting point. I disagree that small arms don't win battles, I think that if all other things being equal the side with a higher ROF will win and if one side has more men the odds will be evened. I agree that the attrition would increase for the Russian and decrease for the Germans, but I'm not sure if it would be enough to have any significant effect on the outcome of the war. Maybe if you could come up with some numbers that would help to clarfiy that? As to the Civil War example if every Johnnie Reb had an AK the South would have won. It would literally be like firing an MG into a crowd that can only fire back only 3 times a minute resulting with horrendous casualties for the North and almost none for the South. That kind of attrition would be enough to win a war. BTW by Stg42 I meant Stg44.

[Michael Dorosh]

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=007100#000000

Here is the link to the earlier discussion.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Leopard_2:

I think that's why it's so hard to picture. It's easy to imagine how, if Germany had Panthers in 1941, they could have wiped out the Russian tanks.

LOL - check out this quote from page 3 of the thread linked to above -

by Monty's Double posted 07 May, 2003

I think it's fairly telling that all the posters with direct or anecdotal combat experience tend to the view that changing a single piece of equipment would have had sod all effect on the war's length or outcome. Haven't we had this same debate with tanks? "If only the Germans had built Panthers and nothing else from 194x....". All the evidence of WWII is that the decicive factors tactically aren't equipment but training and combined arms doctrine, and that as you move further from the tactical, quality of equipment becomes even less relevant, so long as it is basically fit for purpose.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by yacinator:

As to the Civil War example if every Johnnie Reb had an AK the South would have won. It would literally be like firing an MG into a crowd that can only fire back only 3 times a minute resulting with horrendous casualties for the North and almost none for the South.

How would Johnny Reb get within range? The Union had artillery pieces that could fire up to a mile away. Unless his tactics changed, the type of rifle he had wouldn't have mattered much. In fact, that was why casualties were so heavy in the Civil War to begin with - tactics should have changed even with rifled muskets, but didn't.

The Union would very likely have changed their own tactics, or developed their own weapons to counter them. Weapons development does not take place in a vacuum - tactical or otherwise. The situation you describe is based solely on fantasy.

[junk2drive]

From what I have read, France had the best tanks in the world in May 1940. They just didn't know what to do with them.

[David I]

One of the worse "alternate history" novels I have ever read, speculated just that: That Bobby Lee was given 20,000 AK-47s just prior to the Gettysburg Campaign! A total and complete waste of print.

DavidI

[Dave H]

Originally posted by David I:

One of the worse "alternate history" novels I have ever read, speculated just that: That Bobby Lee was given 20,000 AK-47s just prior to the Gettysburg Campaign! A total and complete waste of print.

DavidI

I used that example on purpose. Personally I enjoyed "The Guns of the South". As to Michael's excellent point about the Union artillery, in the book the men from the future used modern weapons to knock out Union fortifications and artillery before the Confederate infantry attacked.

[Michael Dorosh]

My guess would be that the Union Army would turn to entrenchments - much as the Southern army did in places like Vicksburg (?).

An even better guess would be that many Confederate commanders would reject the new weapons - they wouldn't be able to produce ammunition fast enough to meet demands, and the whole Scots-at-Culloden romance about a bayonet charge would probably convince other commanders to keep their long arms, and decide battles with cold steel and stout hearts.

At least initially. The British infantry in 1914 rejected the idea of encompassing automatic weapons within the battalions due to concern about "upsetting the balance of firepower" whatever that meant. Even late in the war, the Vickers was used in specialist units (indeed, even throughout WW II they were used in specialist units, not in the infantry battalions directly). The Lewis Gun, however, was adopted in the infantry units directly, though only about midwar through the War.

Did MGs change the course of World War One? The Germans were stopped in 1914 by British regulars trained with the Lee Enfield. The race to the sea began, and while MGs dominated No Man's Land - did they really offer any advantages over massed rifle fire to the point that it made a strategic difference?

What broke the deadlock? Innovative tactics, above all with the artillery, and of course the tank. But these also helped the infantry move forward against massed rifle fire, not just MGs - they weren't a specific solution to machineguns (though the use of stormtroop tactics did allow the infantry to take out these MG strongpoints).

I wouldn't say the MG was insignificant - it obviously was and caused more casualties, so the stats say, than rifle fire. But the MG was a problem - not a solution - at least from my perspective.

Alternate viewpoints appreciated.

[ January 31, 2005, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Hamstersss]

While I demur to Michael on matters regarding WWII, the American Civil War was a small-arms battle and a change in small-arms technology would've affected it. The heavy artillery in use at the time was too unweildy except for siege and, in those cases (Such as Petersburg and Vicksburg), sieges were won through starvation and maneuver, not shelling. The majority of casualties were a result of big, accurate, rifled bullets, and any technology that would've increased the amount of big, accurate, rifled bullets would've had a significant effect on ACW battlefields.

Of course, if I had a choice between 20,000 AK47s, a battery of 155s and the Battleship Iowa, I'd take the latter. With proper naval support, then the ACW becomes interesting.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

While I demur to Michael on matters regarding WWII, the American Civil War was a small-arms battle and a change in small-arms technology would've affected it.

I agree completely, but I wonder how long it would take for the other side to come up with counter measures - either in tactics or equipment.

Didn't the US cavalry have repeating carbines exclusively by the middle of the war, for example?

[MikeyD]

I chuckle slightly at the 'its already been discussed' line above. Hell, if we were limited on these forums to only topics that hadn't been discussed before we'd be talking about Vedic poetry by now!

As to small arms impact, a lot of copy has been written about the supremacy of the Garand vs the Mauser bolt-action, and the close-in lethality of those Russian (SMK?) submachineguns. The only way to mentally process the impact of a particular weapon is to think - what would've happened if everybody on both sides had nothing but Mauser bolt-actions? Do you imagine a significant impact to the tide of war or a minimal impact?

[junk2drive]

I have been accused of Haiku here already so that one is out.

In the ACW, wasn't it the tech advances that shaped the war?

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by junk2drive:

I have been accused of Haiku here already so that one is out.

In the ACW, wasn't it the tech advances that shaped the war?

I think technical advances increased the casualty count, without significantly shaping the way the war was fought.

Men in tight formations still marched across open territory against defensive positions, even after the rifled musket was brought into use, and they still maintained those formations in the face of fairly accurate long range artillery.

IMO, had the tactics kept up with the technology, you would have seen trench warfare on a larger scale.

[Joachim]

The French-German war in 1870/71 was partly decided by the Prussians using a new breech loading rifle. But the more important part was using railways for transport. And I guess it wasn't just troops they transported.

I recall a quote that the North did not use breech loading rifles because they used too much ammo and thus costed too much. The less time to reload the less will an average soldier care about actually hitting and just throw as many lead in the general direction of the enemy as possible (when in doubt - empty the magazine). Thus he will need much more rounds to actually hit somebody. Given the logistics in the CW, I doubt they could have transported so much ammo except along the railroads. Are there enough railroads? Enough soldiers to protect them? The need for rear area guard duty personnel might just outweigh the benefit of the added combat value of the front line troops.

And it is really annoying if you can only attack along railroad tracks.

Gruß

Joachim

[Guest Mike]

Um...no it wasn't - the French rifle - the Chassepot - was also breach loading, and as far superior to the Dreyse "Needlegun" the Prussians were using.

the Prussians weer frequently outshot and their attacks halted because of superior French musketry!!

the Prussian artilery used steel breech loaders made by Krupps that were much better than the French muzzle-loading artillery.

However teh real reason the war was won/lost was the Prussian General staff - which enabled the Prussians to manouvre, communicate, plan and supply themselves much better than the French system could do for their side.

the war that was "decided" by the Needlegun was the 1866 Franco-Austrian war - often called the 6-weeks war. the main battle there was Koniggratz IIRC

[flamingknives]

Regarding the conservation of ammo, I understand that the SMLE was originally issued with a magazine cut-off so soldiers would only fire one shot at a time.

[klapton]

Originally posted by Joachim:

The French-German war in 1870/71

Actually, the French introduced the machinegun in that war, but it didn't prevent their defeat.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Regarding the conservation of ammo, I understand that the SMLE was originally issued with a magazine cut-off so soldiers would only fire one shot at a time.

This is correct. Not sure how widespread the use of same was. SMLE was the Kalashnikov of its day, you could mount wire cutters, grenade launcher, telescopic sight and all other manners of goodies on it.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

...they wouldn't be able to produce ammunition fast enough to meet demands...

As you say elsewhere, the whole idea is fantasy. In the novel where it is broached, the guns and their ammunition are supplied by time traveling South Africans who for reasons of their own want to see a continuation of slavery in the Americas.

So, in this scenario, ammunition supply is not a problem. It is apparently delivered anywhere in the necessary quantities.

Life is great when you have a magic wand, ain't it?

Michael