“Limitations

In their attempts to produce a light, accurate weapon having considerable fire power by mass production methods, however, the Germans encountered difficulties which have seriously limited the effectiveness of the Sturmgewehr. Because it is largely constructed of cheap stampings, it dents easily and therefore is subject to jamming. Although provision is made for both full automatic and semiautomatic fire, the piece is incapable of sustained firing and official German directives have ordered troops to use it only as a semiautomatic weapon. In emergencies, however, soldiers are permitted full automatic fire in two- to three-round bursts. The possibilities of cannibalization appear to have been overlooked and its general construction is such that it may have been intended to be an expendable weapon and to be thrown aside in combat if the individual finds himself unable to maintain it properly.”

Idk how much of this was propaganda of the time, but wasn't McClellan also focused on the presidency in '64? I know he eventually ran against Lincoln, banking on the support of his men who largely enjoyed his leadership.

My favorite George B. quote: "The President is no more than a well-meaning baboon. I went to the White House directly after tea, where I found "The Original Gorilla", about as intelligent as ever."

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

I’ll check it out, thanks!

Thanks, I’ll check it out! I was thinking more to the very young

Here is a copy of the official 1945 report from the US Army which may have something to do with why the weapon was not adopted.

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html

[removed]

Thanks! This is another interesting video on D-Day from the 20th anniversary, which I recently found in my YT suggestions (glad it was there). They interviewed Eisenhower, and visited some of the locations with him to provide some insights on the planning for the invasion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNaxTXfjfXk

'Major turning point' really? Why is the US always so desperately trying to convince the world they did free the world? Where was Hitlers army? Where the hardened Wehrmacht and SS? Western Europe was used to rest the sickened and tired troops. The real battle was in eastern part. Where millions where fighting each other.

You could say it has helped a lot, oh yes.. But like with Napoleon, the Russians would have come to the Atlantic to free us..

Hitlers army was a considerable fighting machine and although I am not pro-russian atm, these people did the tremendous job..

Read only War's Unwomanly Face from Svetlana Alexievich. They where going through hell and beyond. And they had their reasons. It's always good to fight for a reason. Just take a look at the ongoing dispute in Ukrain.

Plus bigger bullets weight more so consequently soldiers can carry fewer.

Yes Civ of course! Civ4 was one of my favorite games growing up. Strategy games are uniquely situated to capture the underlying structural processes and relations. I’d say Paradox games are best at this (confirmed by historian Bred Devereaux”).

*edit: deleted the comment because others got the same ideas I came up with.

Check out Forgotten Weapons on YouTube for military weapons history.

I’ve seen interviews of vets that’s survived this. And their stories were heart breaking. Talk about that part.

The STG-44 was both.

Interesting. It's not often one sees a Russian propaganda bot so clearly. Usually they're better disguised.

[removed]

[removed]

It wasn't that the US couldn't develop assault rifles, it was that they didn't like what they offered as much compared to the accuracy, stopping power, range, and ammo conservation provided by other options.

First, the US exited WW2 with a few million M1 Garand rifles. In the post-war drawdown, there was no urgency to replace that proven platform. Development of the replacement began in 1944, but really didn't go anywhere until the Korean War.

The UK proposed the .280 British round, in part based on the StG-44's 7.92 performance. The US rejected anything under .30 and found the .280's ballistics substandard compared to the .30-06. The 7.62mm was selected because it's ballistics matched the .30-06 due to newly developed powder. Also because the US Bureau of Ordnance wasn't keen on a non-American design.

[removed]

The assault rifle concept is a bit counterintuitive because compared to the M1 Garand/M14 rifle, the StG-44 has a shorter effective range. The US military wanted to squeeze a "full power" cartridge into an automatic rifle like the M14 to achieve that greater range. We now know that 200-300 meters is the typical engagement range in a modern firefight, and therefore the /.62 mm NATO cartridge is unnecessarily powerful and the recoil is too much for the user to control it during full auto.

Another factor was an obsession with "stopping power", the M16 was derided as a "varmint rifle" because it used a .223 caliber cartridge.

A third factor was the arrogance of the victor, it can happen to every nation. The US military felt that since they won WWII with the Garand, it was a proven winning concept, so they went ahead with the /.62 mm NATO cartridge for the M14 which was essentially a further development of the M1 Garand.

[removed]