Stalingrad what-if

[coe]

I was just thinking (scary isn't it?), I looked at the German squad stats including their pioneers, and they seem very Kar98 bound (ok there is the LMG and the MP40/MP38). This can't be too good for for street fighting. Historically were there any adjustments the Germans made to this. It kinda seems like the Germans were sending in their troops with not with a full plate against the ppsh heavy Russians.

This brings me to wonder how the British infantry (which was said to be superb) would have faired against the russians in Stalingrad...or the "quasi-semi automatic rifled Americans would have done (ok ok assume you can't do carpet bombing) with their vast array of mechanized stuff.

[Tim S]

IMHO the most critical aspect of the German defeat at Stalingrad was their own unshakable belief that they and they alone, were the best things since sliced bread. Repeated warnings from the Rumanians and Hungarians went unheeded because, after all, what could they possibly understand of the situation!

Until the actual encirclement of the 6th army, it pretty much out gunned the Russians, even though allot of German equipment didn't work too well in the intense winter cold.

The British infantry were essentially Lee Enfield bound just as the German infantry was essentially Mauser bound. US infantry would have been more capable in matching the Russian's firepower but regardless, either or both of the allied powers would have presented a more cohesive effort than the German's one man show. The joint efforts of the Allies proved time and time again to be the real trump card in overall victory, verses the somewhat single handed efforts of the Axis powers. This applies especially to the Germans and Japanese who could have had the war winning strategy of a two front attack, from the east and the west, on the Soviet Union.

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by coe:

I was just thinking (scary isn't it?), I looked at the German squad stats including their pioneers, and they seem very Kar98 bound (ok there is the LMG and the MP40/MP38). This can't be too good for for street fighting. Historically were there any adjustments the Germans made to this. It kinda seems like the Germans were sending in their troops with not with a full plate against the ppsh heavy Russians.

This brings me to wonder how the British infantry (which was said to be superb) would have faired against the russians in Stalingrad...or the "quasi-semi automatic rifled Americans would have done (ok ok assume you can't do carpet bombing) with their vast array of mechanized stuff.

Take a look, at any photgraphs from the street fighting in Stalingrad, especially after September of 42, and you will see a lot of German soldiers carrying Soviet SMGs and MP 40s. The type of fighting that raged in Stalingrad, i.e, room to-room, rubble pile to rubble pile, did not lend itself very well to aimed fire with bolt action rifles. The grenade, the entrenching tool and knives were the weapon de jour in most encounters. I think the Germans adapted to the style of fighting as best they could, even though they went into it armed with the standard KAR98.

As for your speculation about the Brits and the Yanks, the Brits proved themselves in urban fighting pretty well in Arnhem, for example. The Americans fought well in Aachen. You have to remember that the Brits had Sten Guns and Thompsons, the Americans had Thompsons and the standard semi-automatic M-1. I dont think the standard shoulder weapon carried by a particular army, is any indication of how it will fight under any given circumstance. Intelligent soldiers have a way of learning to adapt to particular circumstances, the longer one is under those circumstances, i.e. urban combat, the more they will learn to adapt and overcome. IMHO

[Sgt. Steiner]

The weapons carried can sometimes be a decisive factor. An account I read (in American Rifleman, I believe) of an encounter in the last weeks of the war between GI's armed with Garands, and Germans with K98K's ended in the total destruction of the German force, and without loss to the Americans. The two forces were of approximately equal (company) size. Troop quality, morale etc may have been factors as well, but is still a good example of the extreme disadvantage of bolt-action against semi-auto..

[coe]

Are there any accounts out there on how it was like using the bolt action in the street fighting? (we hear about many a soviet Stalingrad sniper but rarely anything about successful axis snipers)

I read "Enemy at the Gates" and it was interesting in that it would describe in detail many Soviet small unit successes (inflicting great casualties) but then it would just say that the Soviets lost enormous numbers of men also but giving no clue as to what particular aspects of the axis fighting techniques were very effective....

[Maxx]

Steve has interesting things to say about urban fighting and German small arms (in late '42) here.

[ November 30, 2002, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Maxx ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sgt. Steiner:

The weapons carried can sometimes be a decisive factor. An account I read (in American Rifleman, I believe) of an encounter in the last weeks of the war between GI's armed with Garands, and Germans with K98K's ended in the total destruction of the German force, and without loss to the Americans. The two forces were of approximately equal (company) size. Troop quality, morale etc may have been factors as well, but is still a good example of the extreme disadvantage of bolt-action against semi-auto..

I think that action was reported in LIFE Magazine, but occurred in Tunisia - one of the first encounters between German and American troops.

The Canadians fought an urban battle at Ortona as well, with Lee Enfields. Street fighting was done - as mentioned in this thread - primarily with grenades, but also with pioneer equipment - flamethrowers, and explosives (for mouseholing, and for larger destruction tasks).

The rifle was irrelevant not just in urban combat, but in open battle as well; machineguns and artillery produced the overwhelming majority of casualties among combat infantry in WW II. Had the Germans been armed with a semi-auto rifle in Stalingrad instead of the K98 - it would have made no difference at all. There were much bigger issues at play.

[Keith]

One of the primary reasons the Russian infantry was more successful than their German counterparts was that the Russians used specialized street fighting tactics. Chuikov ordered that the Russian troops should "hug" the Germans closely so as to negate the artillery, air superiority, and tank advantages of the Germans. Secondly, Chuikov did not commit troops in battalion or company sized units, but instead deployed small groups of 12 men with AT guns and automatic weapons to control important lanes of fire and critical buildings. "Mouse holing" techniques were used to blow holes in walls for inter-building movement. Of course we all know how the Russians routinely used the sewer system to infiltrate behind the German lines to attack supply troops bringing up food and ammo. By comparision, in all of my books I have read on Stalingrad there is no mention of any special tactics the Germans used. In essence, the Russians out foxed the Germans through the use of innovative tactics.

[ November 30, 2002, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: Keith ]

[Michael Dorosh]

One needs to look at how an urban battle was conducted - Keith and I both mention mouseholing. Simply put, setting foot in the street was death. Why? Because automatic weapons could fire along long avenues and inflict multiple casualties. Sewers and mouseholes (ie the blowing of holes in walls to allow free access between rooms) were the main methods of advancing from building to building.

What does this have to do with the K98? Well, in such an environment, fighting room to room, the grenade become far more important than the rifle or machinegun. The SMG could be used very well at close quarters to clear a room - generally after grenades, expolosives or flame weapons were brought to bear first on an occupied room, house or building.

Stalingrad was an attrition battle - while the Russians could constantly reinforce from across the Volga, don't forget the Germans were fighting in a pocket after the collapse of their flanks. Had they been able to keep open supply lines (including reinforcements), things may have gone differently for them. We will never know. But given the attritional nature of the battle, things like small arms seem to be small matters indeed.

[Sgt. Steiner]

True, semi-autos would not have helped the Germans to win in Stalingrad. Although they might have helped them break out (if they'd had them, and if they'd tried). Now, the Mkb42 machine carbine is supposedly responsible for enabling the Germans to break out from an encirclement elsewhere. They were air-dropped approx. 10,000 Mkb42's, giving them enough firepower to escape.

As for the Garand vs K98K incident, what I read was definitely not Tunisia. It was March/April 1945 timeframe, and appeared in an issue of American Rifleman.