What if the stg/mp44 were introduced earlier in the war and replaced almost all k98s? Would it push the US to mass produce the M1/M2 carbine instead of the Garand and use it like an "assault weapon"?
Is that a M1 or a M2?
>>29317475
no
that is why we had thompsons & grease guns
the british had the sten & Aussies had the owen iirc
>>29317475
No. U.S. Doctrine was, and to a large degree still is, based on the idea of long range accurate rifle fire.
>>29317534
Thompsons were expensive as fuck. The M2 wasn't designed to be a submachine gun.
>>29317475
>Would it push the US to mass produce the M1/M2 carbine instead of the Garand and use it like an "assault weapon"?
Well they'd have to develop the assault tactics to go along with it otherwise things wouldn't change that much.
If they did and it gave them an upper hand against US infantry then its more likely that the Army would have produced the M1 Garand with a detachable magazine like John Garand's original design.
>>29317475
We probably would have stuck with the same weapons, but maybe changed the proportion of SMGs and LMGs in rifle squads to offset the firepower difference.
That's the MOST we might have done.
Why not a tactical garand?
>>29317593
Thomson gets a lot of shit for being expensive despite the fact that the BAR is 50% more expensive
>>29317475
It wouldn't matter much since Germany is located in the center of Europe. When you combine that with them fighting against the USSR, England, and the US simultaneously, you have an unwinnable war for Germany. The only way that they could've survived the war would be if they had honored their pact with Russia and focused on an invasion of Britain, and even then they would have been done as soon as the US stepped in, which was inevitable due to Japan's imperial ambitions. The Third Reich was doomed from the start, and as long as Germany remains in the same location, they will never win a land war in Europe unless backed by a power like the US, Russia, or England. Germany may have excellent weapons, tactics, and soldiers, but they lack the resources and strategic angle to employ them to full effect. It would've meant a lot of cool milsurp after the war though.
>>29317723
>comparing apples to oranges
>>29317730
Can you even read? I'm not talking about 3rd Reich here
>>29317840
I just said that it wouldn't change anything, retard. Meaning that the Allies probably wouldn't have changed their doctrines because they wouldn't have needed to, though I suppose it can be difficult for autistic people to understand implications of described situations. Nobody would have developed some assault rifle to counter the STG-44 because it was a poorly-implemented, poorly-maintained, over-engineered weapon that had no place on a dirty battlefield where it would be easier to get another one than replace a trigger part if one broke. They were shitty weapons for standard infantry, and the Allied powers would've seen that as soon as they captured some.
>>29318733
And here's a picture to explain why no one would've copied the STG-44.
>>29318754
>Kraut Space Magic.jpeg
>>29318733
Holy shit you autist.
OP is talking about the M2 being largely adopted not about copying the Sturmgewehr or the nazis winning the war
>>29318912
Yes and he is saying that it would not have changed any of the weapons issued in large amounts the USA would have still have issued the M1 Garand to most of its troops, the UK the no.4 Lee Enfield, and the USSR the nugget.
>>29317475
>Would it push the US to mass produce the M1/M2 carbine instead of the Garand and use it like an "assault weapon"?
They pretty much did when the M2 was made and pushed it to having more Carbines than Rifles in Korea. But the problem would be that the .30 carbine was .357mag tier.
>>29318754
I'm so glad they went with w/e HK trigger pack you want for the HMG STG.
.300BLK STRONK!
>>29318936
Still marginally better than 8mm Kurz.
>>29319148
>>29317528
M2 Note selector switch.
>>29319148
>better than 8mm Kurz.
>.30 carbine
Retard detected
>>29317475
Kind of related
I think if armies were using basically assault rifles in ww2 it would have pushed gun laws much faster because until the m16 a combat rifle practically was semi auto
I honestly believe what is stopping gun legislation is social media
>>29319148
Sauce?
>>29319361
no it wouldn't have, wtf are you talking about.
machine guns were already very restricted since the NFA in 1934 and no one could actually afford to register a machine gun for $200 at the time.
>>29320033
I think he is globally speaking. Rifles weren't hard to get in europe and even Russia.
>>29317593
> The M2 wasn't designed to be a submachine gun.
In fact the M1 Carbine was designed from the start to be a select-fire sub-machine gun but the full-auto capability was dropped before it went into production, only to be reintroduced late in the war with the select-fire M2 Carbine.
Regardless of the Army labeling it a "carbine", both the M1 and M2 Carbines were in fact pistol caliber sub-machine guns.
>>29317475
>>29320049
Nope. They were design to be light and fire a .30 cal bullet up to 300yd with low recoil.
