If only the Nazis had won...
- Thread starter Traditio
- Start date
Good point.
Edit:
He didn't like the idea early on, because he was a stubborn purist, and put a premium on full power rounds for maximum range, and marksmanship within his armies. What he neglected to value appropriately was the multiplier effect of the sturmgewehr. A mediocre marksman could put more lead on target per unit time, than the accomplished marksman without a sturmgewehr, so the former was effectively more than one soldier's worth of firepower, while the latter was just one.
In short, had Hitler not been so stubbornly resistant to his people having assault rifles, things might have turned out differently for them.
Plus...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa
This last thing was probably the far more important one of the two, as far as explaining how the Nazis didn't win.
Edit:
They could have at least won most of Europe, if not for Hitler's early reluctance to invest in the sturmgewehr, which didn't show up in numbers in Nazi hands until it was too late to avert their utter failure.
He didn't like the idea early on, because he was a stubborn purist, and put a premium on full power rounds for maximum range, and marksmanship within his armies. What he neglected to value appropriately was the multiplier effect of the sturmgewehr. A mediocre marksman could put more lead on target per unit time, than the accomplished marksman without a sturmgewehr, so the former was effectively more than one soldier's worth of firepower, while the latter was just one.
In short, had Hitler not been so stubbornly resistant to his people having assault rifles, things might have turned out differently for them.
Plus...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa
This last thing was probably the far more important one of the two, as far as explaining how the Nazis didn't win.
Last edited:
