Quoted:
So how different would it have been if:
These bright young men had been trained as NCO cadre and dispersed, [b]with training in the new fast tactics and need for endurance[/b] to the regular units;
View Quote
My [b]theory[/b] is that they would have brought more of the SS Sturm tactics into the army. My example is the armies premier division - GD. They took the best and brightest in the army, and look at their record. They used many of the same tactics the SS did.
The veterans were allowed to rotate back into training billets instead of staying in the combat units until they died;
View Quote
This was done quite often already. Many individual soldiers were not allowed combat after they reached a certain "fame" at the front. Pz Lehr was a whole army division made up of experienced tankers that went to teach at the training schools then formed into a fighting division.
And The German Army had learned [b]early [/b] the use of semi and full auto longarms for all of the troops.
View Quote
This would have made little to no difference early on as the opposition was not as well armed, or at best, evenly armed as the Germans. Once they got into Russia, they just didn't expect the type of warfare they ran into.
By the end of the war, 40% of German forces were armed with a selfloading firearm of some type. At this point attrition had taken away most of the well trained experienced soldiers rendering this less effective.
No doubt though, if the G-43 and / or MP-44 had been in [b]full[/b] service much earlier in Russia, it would have heped greatly. Due to hitlers screw ups, it would be hard to say if it would have made a difference in the end.
it is my understanding that the K-98k stayed in use because it was felt to be a relatively unimportant adjunct to the MG, rather than important in and of itself; this necessarily slowing advances as the MG is slower to advance.
View Quote
This is mostly true. In the German army, the MG was the main weapon of attack, and the rifle was intended only for support and to finnish off the job once the infantry had closed with the enemy. Also, throw Hitlers stupidity into the mix and you have your answer. Remember, the MP-44 was developed AGAINST Hitlers orders. The story goes that they were only placed into production when he asked an officer what they needed more of at the front, and he was told that "We need more of those new rifles".
They should have learned from [i] [b] Talvisota [/i] [/b]the importamce of rapid, maneuverable firepower.
View Quote
Guderian wrote the book on rapid mobile firepower. (after reading about it from some British officer who was dicretited for this theory). Most modern warfare is derived from what the Germans came up with and learned in this war. The one thing that hampered the Germans was the lack of ability to move.
Lack of supply trucks, trains etc. This meant lack of food, fuel, spare parts etc. Also German vehicle prodution during the whole war was less than what the Americans GAVE the Russians in each of the last three years of the war.
They were simply not able to use their own theory to its potential due to a lack of equipment.
Too bad for the Wehrmacht that no-one had really seen the advantage of the M1 Garand in action prior to the war.
View Quote
Many armies are slow to adopt new weapons. This is nothing new to history. There were designes on the table, but as stated above, they were not needed or wanted because of their tactics. German semi-auto weapons designed and used were quite good. Overly complex, but good weapons. Most would say not as good as the M-1, but again, the tactics were different.