Why do you think....
- Thread starter Clancy
- Start date
MauserMike
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- SW Ontario
I would argue that the Nazi sword was blunted by the millions of Soviet soldiers that threw themselves upon it. America's industrial might was the key to tying the Soviet army over until they could gain the upper hand.
Had the Soviets collapsed, USA would have never set foot in Europe. Well maybe not unless they were going to nuke the place first. Glad that we'll never know. There is at least one conspiracy theory out there that the Germans did in fact test a nuclear device, and that radiological evidence of the testing still exists somewhere in Germany, and that the USA covered it up. (I'm not talking about Werner Heisenburg's recovered experiments)
Last edited:
Back on topic
I think it was a a matter of focus and money, and attitude.
The English had no money (sound familiar) after all there would not be another war. They cut back on all most all military development for a number of years prior to the start of war.
The Germans focused on the aircraft, tanks and squad MG's the MG 34 was functionally the 1st GPMG in service. The general idea was the rifleman supported the MG's not the other way around. The production capacity was spent on those items.
In the US case, there were some individuals who at, least in the area of the basic infantry rifle saw the need for a better system and got it built. But even then look at the initial production numbers they were quite low until the US got into the war, when they ramped right up
As to focus the European countries all derived different lessons from WW1 than the US. Heavy losses and generally bad leadership, lead most to believe the artillery, machine guns and slow moving armour were the way to go. The basic infantry would be supported by those weapons, so his basic kit was perfectly fine.
The US having less time in the trenches, seems to have drawn the conclusion that a smaller round that could be fired faster would be a better solution. But SMG type solutions were not acceptable.
The Germans went more to SMG's, based on the stormtrooper tactics of World War 1, where quick firing light automatic weapons were preferred. Once again leaving the basic rifleman with his bolt action rifle.
I think it was a a matter of focus and money, and attitude.
The English had no money (sound familiar) after all there would not be another war. They cut back on all most all military development for a number of years prior to the start of war.
The Germans focused on the aircraft, tanks and squad MG's the MG 34 was functionally the 1st GPMG in service. The general idea was the rifleman supported the MG's not the other way around. The production capacity was spent on those items.
In the US case, there were some individuals who at, least in the area of the basic infantry rifle saw the need for a better system and got it built. But even then look at the initial production numbers they were quite low until the US got into the war, when they ramped right up
As to focus the European countries all derived different lessons from WW1 than the US. Heavy losses and generally bad leadership, lead most to believe the artillery, machine guns and slow moving armour were the way to go. The basic infantry would be supported by those weapons, so his basic kit was perfectly fine.
The US having less time in the trenches, seems to have drawn the conclusion that a smaller round that could be fired faster would be a better solution. But SMG type solutions were not acceptable.
The Germans went more to SMG's, based on the stormtrooper tactics of World War 1, where quick firing light automatic weapons were preferred. Once again leaving the basic rifleman with his bolt action rifle.
Britain tested the Cei Gas Rifle, an early semi-auto, in 1901. Problem is that it was reliable, but not considered reliable ENOUGH for general issue.
France ISSUED on a limited basis a high-velocity semi-auto rifle.... in 1916. And an 8mm gas-operated semi-auto in 1917 and again in 1918.
Not to mention quantities of Winchester 1907s and Remington Model 8s that were used for tactical studies.
Political "problems" also intervened. Britain had centralised ALL smallarms production, maintenance and repair in one facility (Enfield) and it just was not possible. There was a strong anti-war movement in Britain AND a strong pro-Nazi element in certain corners of the Government. Remember, Churchill was regarded as pretty much a crackpot...... until he was needed. "Wiser heads" who "thought internationally" were still destroying Britain's surviving stocks of WWI equipment as late as 1937. When the fit finally his the shan, there was no time to do anything new........ note that the first German aircraft brought down over England was, I believe, a Heinkel 111...... which was shot down by a platoon of Home Guards armed with Martinis.
The whole thing was a mess.
Americans can thank Gawd the USA was smart enough..... and rich enough....... and regarded their men highly enough....... to provide a semi-auto rifle.
France ISSUED on a limited basis a high-velocity semi-auto rifle.... in 1916. And an 8mm gas-operated semi-auto in 1917 and again in 1918.
Not to mention quantities of Winchester 1907s and Remington Model 8s that were used for tactical studies.
Political "problems" also intervened. Britain had centralised ALL smallarms production, maintenance and repair in one facility (Enfield) and it just was not possible. There was a strong anti-war movement in Britain AND a strong pro-Nazi element in certain corners of the Government. Remember, Churchill was regarded as pretty much a crackpot...... until he was needed. "Wiser heads" who "thought internationally" were still destroying Britain's surviving stocks of WWI equipment as late as 1937. When the fit finally his the shan, there was no time to do anything new........ note that the first German aircraft brought down over England was, I believe, a Heinkel 111...... which was shot down by a platoon of Home Guards armed with Martinis.
The whole thing was a mess.
Americans can thank Gawd the USA was smart enough..... and rich enough....... and regarded their men highly enough....... to provide a semi-auto rifle.
Another thing I think that I think is missing from this discussion is most military's rearmed using new manufactured infantry firearms.
If they wanted to spending the money instead of developing the No.4 rifle and instead going with a semi-automatic rifle WAS possible, just wasn't the "Military Way".
Both FN and the French were in development of semi-automatic rifles (MAS39-40 scedualed to go into service in 1941 and the SAFN 49 was to go into production late 1938).
I think about the fact most militaries as their standard infantry weapon was some sort of remodified BOLT action rifle. I'm thinking they wanted the reliability of a bolt action that just needs the bore and bolt cleaned, and without the "hassles" of having to train mass numbers of consrips (or volunteers in a short time) in time of war.
Dimitri
If they wanted to spending the money instead of developing the No.4 rifle and instead going with a semi-automatic rifle WAS possible, just wasn't the "Military Way".
Both FN and the French were in development of semi-automatic rifles (MAS39-40 scedualed to go into service in 1941 and the SAFN 49 was to go into production late 1938).
I think about the fact most militaries as their standard infantry weapon was some sort of remodified BOLT action rifle. I'm thinking they wanted the reliability of a bolt action that just needs the bore and bolt cleaned, and without the "hassles" of having to train mass numbers of consrips (or volunteers in a short time) in time of war.
Dimitri
