Semi automatics vs. Bolt actions during WW2

>>31456752
Little to none strategically. So no, not worth the switch.

>>31456752
Wouldn't have made much of a difference

And while SVT40s and Gewehr 43s were popular with German snipers, they were not as well-liked by regular troops on both sides (well okay, Germans liked the SVT40 in general)

It would have been actively detrimental for the Soviets, as most of their effectiveness in '43 and '44 can be attributed to their decision to equip entire armies with the PPSh. It'd be such a gross reduction in firepower for the average infantryman.

>>31456832
Any reasons why the average infantryman didn't like the semi autos?

>>31456921
The average infantryman doesn't want to have to worry about maintaining fragile semi-auto actions in a time where major nations were still experimenting to see what works.

>>31456921
Magazines were known to be finicky (especially with the G43), and the guns required more frequent maintenance

For the average conscript, simpler was better

What I don't get is, if WWI had so many Semi Automatic and Automatics, why did WWII go back to largely Bolt Action rifles?

>>31457090
>he thinks battlefield 1 is realistic

>>31457090
>if WWI had so many Semi Automatic and Automatics
It didn't.

>>31457106
>he thinks my post isn't satirical

File: 1467345346083.jpg (34KB, 385x368px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 385x368px

>>31457090

>>31457090
kek

>>31457113
>Twas a ruse!

>>31456921
People were fucking dumb back then, education wasn't valued as much as it is today especially in non-industrial countries like the Soviet Union (basically still a feudal land up until WWII). Give potato farmer conscript anything that isn't dead simple and shit will go wrong.

>>31457138
It was my fault for believing in you. I'm sorry, I'll never make that mistake again.

>>31457090
dont you have homework to do buddy?

>>31457113
Only pretending to be retarded

>>31456752
Virtually none. Within a certain degree of parity, small arms mean nothing in the wider scope of a conflict

>>31457144
....

Have you even heard of the 5 year plans?

>>31457192
Yea, the 5 year failures. Socialism is assbackwards, who knew?!

File: Stalin.gif (3MB, 291x300px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 291x300px

>>31456752

It would have been better if the Soviet had enough rifles and skilled field commanders that weren't offed during the Purge and replaced by the ones who sucked politburo dick.

Fix that, then the Red Army would have just marched into Berlin earlier.

>>31457201
>he fell for the anti-commie meme
the Five Year Plans had their fair share of shortcomings, but they played a major role in the Soviet populace's rapid transition from an uneducated, agrarian society into an educated, industrial one.

>>31457201
Www.amazon.com

You can find many books here. I suggest you read news or two.

>>31457675
That rapid transition would have been twice as fast if they'd just adopted a capitalist system.

>>31457714
Maybe so, but that is irrelevant when concerning the idea of the Soviet Union being a massively industrialized nation, which it was.

>>31457675
it was less the communist government and more that they had a strongman dictator who would gulag any official who didn't get results. Saying something wasn't possible would get you killed, you had to make shit happen.

>>31457371
Fix that, and Finland probably would've lost the Winter War.

>>31457714
I highly doubt that, central economic planning has its advantages.

>>31457797
the general atmosphere of Stalinism definitely contributed to the economic growth (and the war effort) but such environments become counter-productive as dissent ferments in a society and people become less willing to break their backs without benefit.

Khrushchev had some interesting ideas about how to run a communist state and incentivize productivity and growth without being overly-repressive, unfortunately his tenure was haunted by Stalin's mistakes and his reforms were mostly tossed out when Brezhnev replaced him.

>>31457144
People then werent any less intelligent then they are now. The only difference is education and luckily you dont need 12 years of schooling to figure out a basic machine like a gun.

>>31457799
Finland did lose. They surrendered and accepted the Soviets terms.

File: 37946-728x1089.jpg (228KB, 728x1089px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 728x1089px

>>31456832
>>And while SVT40s and Gewehr 43s were popular with German snipers
the SVT-40 sniper was really bad that Soviet go back with Mosin equited with SVT-40 PU scope, wasn't it?
i thought the SVT-40 was only popular with German in the beginning of Boperation barbarossa

>>31456752
Memers will tell you it doesn't matter when in urban areas the group with semi autos will win every time. If Every German had MP40s and StGs while the other side still had bolt actions they could have won Stalingrad if the supply train kept up.

>>31458169
The Germans and the Finns both thought very highly of the SVT. The Russians did as well, but it was simply too costly to produce compared to the Mosin.

But yes, they did not like it as a sniper rifle, even with their concept of snipers being much more similar to designated marksmen today.

>>31458210
How may MkB.42s were in Stalingrad?

>>31457090
It had a lot of prototypes in the last months of the war, but none were accepted in larger numbers because they didn't work properly.

>>31458232
Not enough. Assault rifles could have been substituted with submachineguns but didn't bring enough self repeating weapons to make actions like building clearing a non nightmare.

>>31458290
Was it a case like later in the war where Gernamy spread its money in too many places?

>>31458285
I dunno, the French RSC made it to pretty decent issue.

>>31456832
>And while SVT40s [...] were popular with snipers

No they weren't. The SVT was great for a rifleman who knew how to maintain his weapon, but when employed in precision roles its drawbacks became so pronounced that they mostly just went back to the 91/30 (the biggest flaw of the SVT in marksman roles is that it starts stringing pretty badly when the rifle gets warm, with the way the barrel/receiver are seated in the stock).

>>31458303
More like the Kar 98 was "good enough" according German decision makers.

>>31458210
>they could have won Stalingrad if the supply train kept up.
>if the supply train kept up.

You mean, they could have won Stalingrad if the-thing-that-caused-them-to-lose-Stalingrad didn't happen?

>>31458370
Using semi autos would have sped up the time to capture it in the first place.

>>31456752
The US was the only country that had most of its infantry with a semiautomatic.

Do you think more US troops would have died if they didn't have semiautomatic rifles or not?

>>31458169
>>31458325
I did specify German snipers, I never said the Soviets liked the SVT in sniper configuration

>>31457090
Top post m8

>>31458405
Probably, but then again the US was ridiculously well armed vs most armies in ww2.

For the USA, every squad had a BAR or 2. Thats stupid. They said they did on paper, and they did in real life. For comparison, the Germans stated that every squad was to have an mg34 at least, but in reality sometimes entire platoons might not have one.

The US could put down a ridiculous amount of firepower at the squad level. Soviets by 43 and 44 too, they had alot of captured MG's and were shitting out DP's and PPSH's. The German's inability to match squad firepower might be determinative, but then again remember you have to supply them to keep that firepower up, and the Germans could barely supply their forces by 44 and lost because they couldn't.

>>31458686
>every squad had a BAR or 2
Pretty impressive.

File: whut.png (122KB, 254x247px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 254x247px

>>31457090

>>31458210
>Memers will tell you it doesn't matter

It doesnt. And it still dont compared to ther systems like tanks, aircraft and artillery. You are better of spending your shekels on that

>>31458232

According to Red Orchestra a lot.

>>31456752
>he thinks it was technology holding the slavs and krauts from fielding a semi automatic rifle
It was a logistic thing familia, the US was the only country to do it because we were the only country with the production capabilities to do so.

>>31457714
>twice as fast
It may have been bloody, it may have been inefficient, but there is no way that a free market would have industrialized even close to as fast as the USSR did.

>>31458232
None, go away Tripwire

>>31461570
the garand was also a more reliable design

although that might just because the soviet were crap at quality control, and the german was running into problem.

>>31458401
I highly doubt that the average infantrymans weapon really makes a difference in the big picture. All things constant they would have lost the battle anyways.

File: 9tcwhr0r.gif (2MB, 217x217px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 217x217px

>>31457090

>>31458152

This. We also let down the germans after backstabbing them. Finland is the worst shithole country ever!