Do you think n**i Germany would had a better chance if the used they Sturmgewehr?

Question

Or were they due to collapse because they were tag King of the North according to the scriptures?

Answer 1

They did use the sturmgewehr. so no it didn't help.

What would have helped - and I'm not saying this because I'm some kind of n**i sympathiser - would be having a leader who wasn't an insane megalomaniac...

Answer 2

They would ultimately had no chance even against the Soviet Union, much less all of the USA and Europe.

Answer 3

The MP44? No, it was only good in close combat I think I read and they were already using the MP40 for those situations effectively enough.  n**i Germany would have had a better chance if they had not killed some 6 million people half of which they could have put in uniforms to help them conquer more territory.  

Answer 4

If they had a Sturmgewhatsa?

Answer 5

My head itches.

Answer 6

Hello,

No; they essentially had a failed artist, a wall paper hanger but an astute speaker and politician not knowing where his job ended and his generals' began. No weapon or elite unit could ever prevent such a catastrophe given that condition.

Cheers,

Michael Kelly

Answer 7

I don't think it had anything to do with scripture and I don't think a better rifle would have ultimately made a difference. They were hopelessly overextended by the end. Once the US gained the atomic bomb and Japan folded it was over regardless if they had a better gun or not.  

Answer 8

Take the pencil out of your ear and pay attention in grammar class.

Answer 9

Communism never works. Look at China, they're becoming more liberal by the minute.  

Answer 10

The MP44 was a fine weapon, the grandfather of the assault rifle.  However, German lost because of poor tactics and poor leadership, not because of poor weaponry.  In fact most of their weapons were superior to anything the Allies had.  Look at the Tiger tank, the MG42, the ME262, nothing the Allies had matched up to these.  However the Germans spread their forces and supply lines to far, and the Allied ability to produce shear numbers eventually outweighed the techonlogical advantages of germany.  

Answer 11

They did use the Sturmgewehr but it wasn't designed or tested until 1944. When it did reach the field it was too little and too late.

Perhaps their mistake was not putting their economy on total war footing until 1942,, Invading the Soviet Union should have been put off until matters with England were settled,, They should have done much more to encourage Non-Russian nationalists and Anti-Communists this could have turned the invasion of the Soviet Union into another Civil war.

Perhaps it should have never been done at all, Maybe the Soviet Union was just too big.

Someone should have reined HItler in,, The best example of ole' dolf making matter much much worse is Stalingrad,, the Battle of the Bulge was a pretty bad idea too.

Never heard of the "King of the North" thing.

Answer 12

I think what let the StG44 down was it's own inherent failures; a case of poor design, rather than intelligent design.

I'll leave it up to those of a more theological bent to argue the Scriptural merits of the Sturmgewehr.

Answer 13

They were due to collapse because they opened up two fronts in a war they couldn't sustain in personnel, supplies, and logistics.

Answer 14

The Sturmgewehr (MP44 assault rifle) was a good weapon, but that's not really the issue.  

I think n**i Germany would have had a better chance of winning (or at least surviving) WW2 if they:

1. Hadn't stupidly attacked Russia, thereby bringing the wrath of Joe Stalin and the multi-million man Soviet Army down on their heads, as well as forcing them to fight a war on two fronts.

2. Not signed a pact with Italy and Japan which obliged them to support either of the other two in the event of war.  When Japan attacked the US on 7th December 1941, Hitler can't have been pleased but was compelled to declare war on America thereby bringing the most powerful industrialised nation in the world into conflict with Germany.

3. Hadn't carried out the senseless genocidal extermination of Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, and many other ethnic, religious, political or other groups, thereby tying up huge amounts of manpower and resources which would have been much more use on the Front Line. The Holocaust also made this a war for evil, rather than simply one for territory or ideology, ensuring that when Germany inevitably lost they could expect no mercy from anyone.

4. Hadn't been led by a man who was an arrogant and uncompromising dictator who was absolutely convinced that he was fighting the war correctly right up to the point where the Soviets were practically knocking on the door of the Fuhrerbunker in downtown Berlin.

In short, it's an object lesson that any plan for world domination which starts with a bunch of white supremacists in a bar probably won't work out well in the long run.

Answer 15

They were doomed no matter what they did. The idea of taking over the world in that way would always be defeated. The way to get the whole world under a person or government is to cause them to want to. Make them think it's a better way. That way you can get people in their own countries to turn in any dissenting voice within that country.

I am convinced that such a government is on the way. The leader will be able to convince countries of people that his way is the right way. We can see the world already bowing to their governments and excessive taxation. Draconian taxation, without complaint. These people think little about it, they just accept it.

Answer 16

They did use it, but it was introduced too late in the war to be a "breakthrough" weapon.

For those not in the know, the Sturmewehr or MP44 was the first modern assault rifle and the precursor to the AK-47.