Good points Marc.
Would Germany have benefitted from large numbers of jeeps and military trucks? Yes, absolutely–as long as it had sufficient gasoline for them. Germany had significant shortages of gasoline throughout WWII. Without a plan to address that gasoline shortage, all the jeeps and military trucks in the world would have been so much scrap metal.
Kurt.
I think you mean Diesel. And it should be noted that the Germans were the ones with the patent and design to make diesel from Wheat.
But of course… the “FOOD CRISIS” meant there was no wheat to convert to diesel! :)
Kurt.
I think you mean Diesel. And it should be noted that the Germans were the ones with the patent and design to make diesel from Wheat.
But of course… the “FOOD CRISIS” meant there was no wheat to convert to diesel! :)
Good catch!
I hadn’t known about their ability to turn wheat into fuel. Thanks for pointing that out! But as you also pointed out, that ability is fairly useless when you don’t even have the wheat with which to feed POWs conscripted to work in German weapons factories.
What Germany did have was a reasonably good supply of coal. It has also developed the ability to convert coal into synthetic petroleum. Well prior to the war, Hitler demanded the construction of synthetic oil facilities. He was told he was being unreasonable, and that such facilities were an economic impossibility. According to one historian, those who’d told Hitler this underestimated his “sheer bloody-mindedness.” During the war, Germany made a significant portion of the petroleum it needed synthetically. (However, synthetic oil production never equaled the output Germany received from Romanian oilfields.)
You put this kind of an advancement into the hands of the German military in 41, the Russian war wouldn’t have lasted to 42.
I’m sorry but this is patently untrue. Germany’s inability to defeat the Soviet Union had much less to do with the efficacy of her small arms and much more to do with the quality of her machines, the manner in which the war in the East was fought, and the appallingly large gap in manpower and the production of war materiel between the two countries. Having the MP44 available to the Germans in 1941 would have made very little difference, if a difference at all.
One thing I thought I would mention, when you look at the rifle the outline is similar to the AK, bu tup close it apears and is much more technical. Like with most German designs from that time. Also when you pick it up you notice a big difference It’s suprisingly heavy, I would say twice the weight of a modern military rifle. Definately a solid steel weapon.
I went to a WW2 re-enactment and held one too. It is heavy when compared to an M16. It made me think of how the Nam soldiers thought the M16 was a toy gun because it was made out of plastic. If you were used to carrying around something that heavy and solid I can see why you would think that.
I have posted before about this weapon, and will state my opinion again. WW2 geeks like us like to speculate about “which weapon would have won Germany the wary”. Not counting the atomic bomb, this is the weapon. Jets, rockets, and big tanks may be sexy; but at leasting doubling the combat capacity of every soldier is a war winner. The USSR would have surrendered in 1941 IMO, and that would have pretty much ended the war.
Luckily Hitler went for flashy instead of practical. Big expensive King Tigers, and even the Me-262 (which were effective, but not a war winner) is what he wanted. You give every soldier a sturmgewr, and throw in some night goggles (the Germans had developed those too) and that wins Germany the war.
Other than the A-bomb Germany dominated technology during the war. I think the 88 is an amazing piece of equipment. It started, and ended the war being the most dominant artillery piece on the battlefield. That says a lot when you consider many countries started the war using bi-planes, and Germany ended it with Jets; and us with the atomic bomb.
Not counting the atomic bomb, this is the weapon. Jets, rockets, and big tanks may be sexy; but at leasting doubling the combat capacity of every soldier is a war winner. The USSR would have surrendered in 1941 IMO, and that would have pretty much ended the war.
If you seriously believe this then you have, at best, only an elementary understanding of why Germany lost the war. Having the STG44 in the hands of the Wehrhmacht in 1941 would have done nothing, absolutely nothing to address the problems Germany faced in her war with the Soviet Union. A more capable small arm would not have addressed the imbalance in wartime production between the Axis and Allied powers, would not have made Barbarossa any less of a disorganized or disjointed plan of attack, and certainly would not have rectified Germany’s crippling manpower problem that reared its head shortly after the war in the east began.
Germany was completely and totally outmatched by its adversaries, and no single innovation or change to the timeline is going to give them a chance at winning the war. Many of the problems that beset the Wehrhmacht were endemic to the Nazi regime itself, and you can’t really address those without putting someone else in charge. The problem is that you can’t really do that either, both on account of the fact that if Hitler wasn’t in charge there’s a good chance the war never would have happened and because taking him out of the picture puts leaves you with a tonne of variables that makes it impossible to sort out what could have or would have happened.
