During the 80s I served in the Bundeswehr as a conscript and always kept my interest for military matters, both historic and contemporary. While I knew quite a number of the details presented here beforehand, you are the first one to paint a complete picture for me. Suddenly everything falls in place. Thank you so much! Greetings from Germany!
How was the concept of „der Vergangenheitsbewältigung“ (in reference to WWII) For you while serving in the military? I learned about the concept while studying German at university and my professor has a German mother and American father so she went through that. A few of her relatives that she met fought in WWII and she said it was very hard to wrap her mind around it growing up. I ask this with no judgement and out of pure curiosity.
I'm here after watching the Rhodesian Fireforce presentation, from which I learned a lot about a conflict I've never studied. Like most people interested in military history, I know a fair bit more about the situation in Europe in the 1940's than I knew about Rhodesia/Zimbabwe in the 70's, but I bet I'm still going to learn plenty from this presentation. Excellent content, I like the simple but effective graphical elements and the clear unhurried narration. New subscriber here, thanks for your work!
Dylan Roof, white supremacist mass shooter who massacred 9 Black churchgoers, wore the Rhodesian flag in many of his pictures because white supremacists still uphold Rhodesia as a failed attempt at a white ethnostate that should be honored both for its ideals as well as the genocide on Zimbabweans that it perpetrated.
The U.S. lost an opportunity to up-scale their Thompson SMGs to the .30 carbine cartridge to be defacto Assault Rifles. The essential problem is the pistol cartridge offers a crap range reach of under 100m. Still true today. The 9mm x 19mm Luger pistol cartridge in some easily, mass-produced, SMG form was tried by the desperate Rhodesians in the 1960s/70s.
Are you a Soldier? If not stop DENYING MILITARY COMBAT HISTORY. The pistol bullet lacks RANGE that's why the Russians created the SKS and the Germans the Stg44. Had the Tommy SMG been chambered in .30 carbine it would have been an "assault rifle" instead of a crap close range weapon. Where do people like you come from? At least go READ some firearms history. Sheesh. Tommy gun fangirl. @@31terikennedy
Your channel is AMAZING. You explain things in such a natural way that is so rare in RU-vid (which is either superficial or too verbose), I love your animations with the dates which makes it easy to put things into context easily. You are a teacher by heart. "The history of firearms has a certain rhythm to it. There are brief periods of revolutionary innovation followed by a steady paradigm during which new designs are adopted and gradually perfected". Amazing quote and the animation with it makes it even easier to understand what happened. The only thing you need to know is the basics of the 1st and 2nd world wars. I know these videos take too long to make and the view are not there yet, but I urge you to never stop making videos. It is only a matter of time before you blow up and make it big!
Thank you so much for the kind words! The videos will keep coming and they will only get bigger. Teaching Tactics is just the stepping stone for what is coming in the future. Your support in this early stage means a great deal to me. Thank you!
Perfect comment, i tried to say the same thing but i have a way of forgetting what i want to say, as i say it lol. Anyway, the main message is never stop making high quality vids digi!
This monograph describes commando attacks in infantry echelon: - high fire-power, leap-frog advance - grenadier defense - tactical maneuver & direction in short communication lines - reasonable field logistics & tactical initiative
I am convinced the original turn-of-the-century rifle had such a powerful cartridge not only for volley firing at a hypothetical combat range, but also to shoot a charging horse in the breastbone and still kill it.
Yep, Also I think targeting things like gun-carriage horses, or mounted infantry horses at 700-1000 meters and still being lethal were considered important.
A beautifully seamless presentation such that I feel like I've easily retained 90% on the first pass. As a visual learner the graphics helped tremendously. The paintings were absolutely captivating as well. I still don't understand how these guys were able to perform under fire...amazing.
Hoi from Duitsland. I stumbled over your channel and this video. First, I want to compliment your meticulous work. Second, I want to point out that the development of semi automatic and full automatic rifles in the German arms industries was also influenced by experiences i.e. from the Ostfront and the weapons encountered there. The SWT-40 is worth mentioning as an example. Third, the invention of advanced manufacturing techniques such as Blechprägeverfahren (metal sheet shaping technique) made the production of weapons like MG42 or StG44 possible. Thank you for the informative content and good visualisation. Cheers.
I also think that the division of the rifle and fire team now became necessary due to them using different cartridges. Which also explains why the Soviets (and later everybody else) gave their rifle squads additional lmg's in an intermediate cartridge. It is also interesting to note that, whilst not using an intermediate cartridge, a very similar thing happened with the support versions of the FAL, M14 and G3.
Good points. The introduction of the intermediate cartridge machine gun as a way to return some concentrated firepower to the squad without burdening them with a GPMG in an incompatible cartridge is a very interesting development. It falls outside the era I typically focus on, but it may nonetheless be a worthwhile topic for a future video.
@@DigitalBattlefieldTours No rush. You are provided with, potentially, years if not decades of material if you're gonna cover both ww2 and everything modern or cold war. All books combined would probably serve very well as armor for a battleship or two. :)
What an excellent presentation. From the scripting and pacing to the visuals, it's consistent information with a strong chronological backing. It helps to quickly introduce and understand some ideas as to the basic evolution of the military firearm, almost from end-to-end, briefly enough, but without too much omission. You display many of these firearms that are revolutionary in their time, success or not - like the MP-18 and Vollmer M35. Because of my poor hearing, I think it might be useful to add their names on-screen when they appear. Thank you again for putting these together, I will subscribe and watch your Rhodesia content I see people talking about! It's a bit peculiar but I am happy so many people take an educational interest in my neck of the woods. Stay safe!
Excellent work and is actually a staff level presentation. Some of this is covered in US military schools but I didn't see the whole picture until I spent time with NATO allies. This presentation is the most concise synopsis I've ever seen. Had a chance to read through old Wehrmacht after action reports for awhile when I was in Germany and it really made me appreciate the precise method of technical writing characteristic of the German military. Combat on the Eastern Front shaped so much of today's military thinking from the squad-battalion level. Thoroughly enjoyed working with the Bundeswehr during the late 80's & 90's and would feel confident under fire with them. Again, great presentation, it really is high level work that could easily be used in formal military instruction.
My great grandfather in the Civil War was issued a muzzle loaded rifle. By the end they had to purchase their own rifles with magazines. My grandfather in world war 1 was issued the bolt action. I was issued the m-16 in Vietnam. Fast firing but no penetration. Each squad was issued a machine gun but the rest carried the light weight m-16. As the point man, I insisted on the machine gun up on the point. Three generations of wars.
By the way, participant in Vietnam taught me to make sure the next 2 generations avoid military service. None of our current run of Presidents did this. There is a message there about the yawning space between elites and service.
Really cool stuff you're doing here! Thanks. Could you at some point elaborate a little more about the defensive side of tactics possibly up to Platoon or Company level?
Defensive tactics will definitely be covered in a future episode. The plan is to make Teaching Tactics a comprehensive guide to World War era combat, including a broad range of subjects.
Amazing content. Im trying to tell my girlfriend about some historical events, which I believe can often be better understood by war facts and battlefield strategics. Your videos are therefore of great help, and the quality is superb. Thank you!
I would add that an additional drawback of the Kar98 was its internal magazine. It was both restricted to five rounds but reloading via stripper clips. Whereas detachable magazines (or enbloc loaders) could offer greater capacity and speedier reload. Another thing to add context to this video is the German reliance on the squad LMG to enable fire and maneuver or fire and movement. The Americans understood that eliminating the MG42 or MG39 would often be enough to give an American unit the advantage. This could be a side effect of a malfunction or breakage as well as combat actions. The ability of the MP43/STG44 to suppress targets in an IBOF role created a bridge between riflemen and machine guns. This was the dawn of the automatic rifleman separate from the SAW. It’s funny to see the attached logistics element at the platoon level. It reminds me of the Contubernium with its mule, cart, slaves, and grindstone. In modern times it’s either the burden of the infantry to carry or the responsibility of company or higher elements to conduct such supply tasks. I find it very interesting to consider there is no deputy/ adjutant/ PltSgt for their platoon. But the way they assign such a similar command ability to the fire squad leader fills the gap in combat decently. It’s akin to American machine gun section or squad leads. Nowadays most western doctrine has the platoon sergeant attached to the SBF while the officer is with the assault element (though those roles can be reversed it’s rare). Your “practice attack” section does a great job showing the tactical flexibility of the assault rifle in suppression and close combat Again a fantastic video, gives me plenty to chew on and consider. If you ever want some insight on this stuff, though you seem plenty capable, let me know! I really look forward to seeing this channel grow.
Thank you for your comment. You bring up some great points! A translation of the German assault platoon manual is linked in the video description. I'm curious what you think of it, especially when compared with modern infantry tactics.
@@DigitalBattlefieldTours I took a read! My brief (kinda) thoughts are as follows… The most obvious difference between modern military and the German Sturmzug is the presence of internal squad automatic weapons and grenadiers. Most modern armies have a “squad automatic weapon”(SAW) or “automatic rifle within the squad. The role of the SAW verses the AR are debated, but they’re roughly equivalent (broadly speaking). However the grenadier throughout the video sticks out to me. In most western militaries the grenadier is a member integral to the squad. In the American army there is one per fireteam, in the American Marine Corps It’s often one per squad. However these men are armed with a rifle and launcher as separate systems. (Russians forces employ an RPG/ AT team for the grenadier billet in one team, and grenadiers in another.) Rifle grenades as employed by the Germans require changing of ammunition in the rifle to go from firing grenades to bullets. So I believe this separation is indicative of how specialized they were. Section 26B & C illustrate this attitude of attaching grenadiers with the assault element. I would also recommend looking at the machine gun section with the perspective of the MG42 as a general purpose MG. Depending on its configuration it became a LMG, MMG, or HMG (though it wouldn’t quite fit modern HMG standards it certainly did then). This creation of a separate machine gun section makes more sense as typically MMG’s or heavier are employed in the SBF, whereas LMG’s in the IBOF or assault itself. Machine gun teams, squads, and sections in the American military often do this as well. They are a separate “weapons platoon” with attachments like a machine gun section, mortar section, forward observers, etc (engineers in a USMC context). These sections are granted special autonomy within the platoon and even company to enable them to achieve their tasks. This means they’re used to operating independently within their own ranks. This is why the MG section leader acting as a deputy platoon leader makes sense. The logistics section in the Sturmzug is also entirely foreign for most militaries nowadays. They would have a supply section at the company level or higher. This would be composed of trucks, not pack animals (there would be exceptions for some alpine units here, also some units may be supported by helicopters not trucks). The messenger role has also been made somewhat obsolescent as this is most often now replaced by an RO (radio operator). The RO can be found with the platoon commander or more often the platoon sergeant. Which leads me to my next comment, stretcher bearers. At least in an American context platoon sergeants and company first sergeants will handle CASEVAC. They will be accompanied by the platoon or company line medic, and a litter team (2-4 people). The aid and litter team, lead by this SNCO will move throughout the battlefield between casualties and a casualty collection point, possibly from there to an ambulatory point. The squad layouts are very similar to what most armies worldwide employ, 8-10 troops (with the exception of the USMC). This can also be reinforced by attached elements. The machine gun teams are also similar to American machine gun teams. Typically these consist of a gunner, assistant gunner, and an ammo bearer. The assistant gunner, like a sniper’s spotter, is the most experienced man. Followed by the gunner, and then the ammo bearer. They can also be employed by two men assuming the ammunition needs are not too great (the senior man may be a third in this case but he will act as a team leader not a part of the gun’s operation). The use of two guns to form a squad is also in line with modern operations. The load-out of 6 magazines of 30rds is nearly identical to modern load-outs. This is often 6-7 magazines worn on the body readily accessed. However up to 14 magazines (420rds) have been carried with some in the packs of troops for prolonged fights. Interestingly the Germans kept about 4 load-outs per soldier in the supply carts, indicating prolonged operations without higher resupply. The “assault platoon in combat” section appears to lack the maturity of perspective on their weapon platform. They do not see the assault rifle in a broad sense as we do today, and I believe it reflects well in this context. It seems they’re on the edge of discovering their importance in combined arms as the mechanized infantry, despite the already existing Panzergrenadiers. Much of this publication speaks broadly on fire and movement, or fire and maneuver. Section 28B roughly illustrates the concept of “assaulting through” the objective as employed in the US (most likely other nations in just not as familiar). In this stage your forces are coming together in mass and advancing by either walking or very short bounds as they fire. Section 29 however, is not in line with the thoughts of a deliberate assault. In urban warfare or against an otherwise entrenched enemy grenades are strongly encouraged. The “frag/ grenade battle drill” is well rehearsed and taught at the most basic level for combat arms troops. Though these grenade bombardment is usually directly precedes a deliberate assault. This is the concept of “exploitation” of high explosive effects. In a hasty context such as reacting to contact such a practice is typically not seen. Section 31 briefly describes what is referred to as “consolidation”. They collect ACEW reports, EPW’s, UXO/ CEA Reports, CASEVAC, and prepare for counterattack. Sections 34 & 35 are very interesting in a modern context. I believe modern military employment of NVD’s renders these less relevant in modern times. The perception of the battlefield at night has shifted enabling greater operations in hours of darkness. Section 38’s employment of hand grenades is identical to American use of grenades and claymores to cover dead space. I would add for context here that the Germans had separate offensive and defensive grenades. American grenades can be best described as defensive, using fragmentation liners and relatively low blast effect. Offensive grenades often rely on greater blast pressures, something amplified in confined spaces. In describing the counter thrust it is clear they intend to utilize the shock of the Sturmzug to slow the enemy’s momentum. This is key as troops gain a huge morale boost from victory, and breakthroughs almost always are followed by reinforcements (if well coordinated). There is little time to stop the attacker’s momentum and stop the rush of follow-on forces. I’m disappointed to see how general this manual is, it’s clear this concept had not yet matured or spread in the German military thinking. Special considerations for raids and ambushes were not explored, nor mechanized operations. Areas where we now know carbine-assault rifles perform excellently were not yet apparent to the German thinkers. It’s also interesting to see the concept of a designated marksman was not introduced here. I suppose the machine gun section was the greatest option for ranged engagements with the 8mm cartridge. I think this also ties into general thinking on snipers within the German military (verses the Russian or American approaches to long range assassins). The German military had no formal sniper program until 1943. Especially so late in the war, to call for an attached sniper with a Kar98 may have seen far fetched to them writing this doctrine. I would imagine unit diaries and first hand accounts would shed more light on how these units were employed and integrated. I would be very interested to see thoughts from non-Sturmzug units issued Stg44’s.
Thanks again for another great list of observations! The modern perspective really highlights how the Sturmzug was both advanced and outdated for its time, something that can be said for a lot of German wartime developments. I plan on making a similar episode on the US infantry company of the Second World War and how the standardization of self-loading rifles affected the employment of automatic weapons throughout the company, with special interest in how the parachute infantry adapted to the need for greater dispersal of firepower. I look forward to your comments when that video releases.
@@DigitalBattlefieldTours Very cool! It’s very interesting to see how the concept of the Sturmzug matured. You’re absolutely correct in noting how this was so common of German concepts and forces of the time. Just a few years, possibly a decade of foresight would see many of these concepts mature. I looked forward to seeing this paratrooper analysis. Airborne units always require special considerations so far as infiltration upon consolidation, sustainment, and employing effective firepower despite being so lightweight and detached. The German approach always amused me in how vulnerable their forces were, particularly against an opposed drop. It will be interesting to see how the American approach was forced to adapt!
I am by far not an expert on the subject, but have spent a decent amount of time looking through German K.St.N. (T/O&E) documents as well as perusing sites like Axishistory. So far as I can tell, the attachment of logistical elements at the platoon level was more a concept of organization rather than actually followed in practice; they, much like in modern practice, would be conglomerated at the company and then battalion level. Barring the introduction of the Freie Gliederung units later in the war, where supply companies were introduced at the battalion and regimental level, the Germans tended to practice a system of 'packetization' for lack of a better word. This is especially apparent in mid war heavy companies in infantry or reconnaissance battalions, where a number of different individual types of platoons would be combined together. These platoons were then assigned to a standardized headquarters and supply unit. Treated akin to something like building blocks, each platoon would have it's individually required transport and support personnel and capabilities above what would otherwise be provided by the company HQ. Regarding the lack of a platoon sergeant, the Germans did actually have the role for their rifle platoons prior to the November 1943 reorganization, or at least it was a designated billet. How often that role was actually filled is beyond me. That being said, something else to consider is that unlike most western militaries that I can think of now, the Germans also so no problem with experienced NCOs filling the platoon commander slot. And by at least by mid to late 1941 the practice of only having a single platoon commander billet be listed as an officer was standardized. While there'd definitely be a potential gap in command and control capabilities presented, it perhaps wouldn't be as great as in countries where relatively inexperienced junior lieutenants often fill the role. At least regarding normal rifle platoons. In so far as the specific function performed, I think it's important to point out the actual billet groups specified by the KStN. In the case that a platoon possessed an NCO in their headquarters, they were part of the G billet with the exact rank being somewhat variable. Regardless this group very roughly translated to junior sergeants or somewhere in the E-4 to E-6 range in the US. This is the same billet group as specified for squad leaders. So it's very possible that within the sturmzug that the NCO in control of the machine gun element would be the senior most one. Potentially a formalization of the standard practice done to reduce overlap in positions and thus manpower requirements.
I play alot of strategy games and my friends jokingly call me a god of war , but they dont realize that alot of the time im using time tested battle tactics against them most of the time. i watch videos like this all the time, and i find it fascinating.
@@poggywoggy1999 girls only care for the top 20% of men. If you want to spend your life slogging on a career with a 50% chance your wife then leaves with your house and kids for no fault of yours, then great advice.
My compliments! This may have been the most professional video I have seen in years! This is not the most sexy topic, but you kept me very interested through the whole video.
I LOVE your channel, Man! It's very professional as well as informative! The way you lay things out is so systematic & logical making everything so EASY to understand! THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS! MORE! MORE!
As a tabletop miniatures player who plays Bolt Action, this makes sense on an organisational level, having 2 storm squads running in with firepower and having the MG in the background supporting. The cumbersomeness of a mixed team comes out in the game as well.
@@martthesling yes they work very well, you pin down the opponent with LMG fire from the two LMG small squads (5 people each, you can give them additional transports like Sdkfz 250 with an MG they will pin down anything in 36" range you have 10 dice from the squads and 12 dice from the mounted MGs). Then you bring in an Sdkfz 251/1 with a squad of 7 men all with assault rifles + the NCO and 2 men again with assault rifles - they will attack together using the extra activation from the NCO. Bring 2-3 panzerfausts in this "big" squad of 7, just in case. Again 6 dice in mounted MG fire from 36". Once the squad is in range with 7+3 men that is 10 dice after movement with no penalty (assault) and packs a punch in close quaters as well. Add a panzershrek team of 2 to fill out the 12 spaces in the Sdkfz 251/1. Alternatively these two can be snipers instead or a flamethrower team, depending on what you face. This is 8 activation dice in all and a lot of suppressing MG power at 775 pts. I would use this as a core. If you need fewer points get one of the MG squads out you are at 571 pts with still a lot of firepower.
Wooo its here! I didnt know it was about the sturmgewehr!! Ill comment again after i finish it, ive really been waiting for a vid like this for ages, thank you 🖒🖒
Hey again, just finishing in the closing remarks, a lovely video. Ive checked other videos for an extensive look at the sturmgewehr. This video is very well done, and highlights the evolution of firearms at the squad and platoon level. Thank you for creating this, the teaching tactics series, is my favourite of your content, please keep it up!! Also, do you look at other periods of time as well? Ive always wondered how the air cavalry was used in vietnam. Thanks.
Glad you liked it. Teaching Tactics will continue to be a staple of the channel. It will remain focused on the World Wars, although there is at least one special episode coming up that you will like if you are into helicopters. I won't reveal it just yet, but it isn't the Vietnam War, although it is close to it in time.
Another great episode! I have heard the BAR was designed as a very light machine gun but was at best an assault rifle, however to fewly deployed to make a difference. Similiar to the 1-2 StG 44 in a standard infrantry squad.
The BAR is difficult to define because its role changed through the decades. It was originally designed as an Automatic Rifle (hence the name Browning Automatic Rifle). This was meant to give WWI-era riflemen some portable automatic firepower to fight their way across No Man's Land and into the enemy trenches. Then in the Interwar-era the squad-level LMG became the norm for infantry firepower, so the U.S. adapted their BAR for this role by giving it a bipod and some other features. It never had the firepower to compete with purpose-built LMGs, however, so this made it an awkward weapon for the role. The US compensated for this by equipping all riflemen with the semi-automatic Garand and giving every company a weapons platoon with two belt-fed machine guns, so in the bigger picture the relatively low firepower of the BAR was balanced out. What then happens in the field is that troops start converting their "LMG" BARs back into lighter automatic rifles by removing the bipod (you see this very often in pictures). Squads typically also acquired more than one BAR. The USMC late-war squad even used a fireteam structure where one in four men carried a BAR. To summarize: the BAR wasn't a universal assault rifle like the StG, but it wasn't an underpowered LMG either. Its best seen as a light automatic weapon that gave small teams of infantrymen a portable boost in firepower. There is a lot more to write on this subject, and it will certainly get its own video in the future, but hopefully this answers your question.
The French asymmetric rifle squad was the model for everybody. This rifle squad consisted of a shock or assault team of riflemen and a machine gun team. In 1918 the standard French rifle squad had a Chauchat automatic rifle, one or more rifle grenade launchers, bolt action repeating rifles--and sometimes a semiautomatic service rifle. Hand and rifle grenades were common. The squad automatic weapon was the primary killing system of the rifle squad. Prior to the Great War every army wanted a semiautomatic service rifle but hardware didn't catch up until after the end of the Second World War. At the end of the Great War every army wanted a light machine gun at the rifle squad level, too--but millions of repeating rifles and the fact that the LMG was the most effective squad-level weapon placed priority on LMG development. Germany's MG34 was a universal machine gun that could be mounted in aircraft (fixed and flexible mountings), used in armored fighting vehicles and mounted on other vehicles, formed part of the organic anti-aircraft defense, could be configured as a sustained-fire long-range ("heavy") machine gun, and was useable as a squad machine gun, too. This made the MG34 heavier, more complex and more expensive than the true light machine gun optimized for squad-level use. Germany's 1938 rifle squad gained submachine guns as soon as they were available because experience in the Spanish Civil War, the Polish Campaign, and the Battle of France all demonstrated that the French rifle squad could use greater short-range firepower. The US Army's M1 Rifle (aka "Garand Rifle") was adopted in 1936 to replace two models of bolt action service rifles (the M1903 and M1917), the Browning Automatic Rifle (M1918), and the few Thompson submachine guns that filtered into service. The new 1940 organization was supposed to be 12-man rifle squads with every man issued the M1 Rifle. For the older squads that had the M1903 rifles, the Browning Automatic Rifle was organic to the squad and an automatic rifle squad with two more automatic rifles was part of the platoon organization. The Browning Automatic Rifle was not a light machine gun. In 1918 the Browning Automatic Rifle was tops in its class, more maneuverable than the Lewis gun and more effective than the pioneering Chauchat. Designer John M. Browning intended his automatic rifle to be added to rifle companies armed with the M1903 service rifle, replacing those bolt action rifles one-for-one without changing organization or tactics--but the US Army went crazy over a "machine gun" and tried to use it as such. The failure in peacetime, expense of the Browning compared to the service rifle, weight, and added complexity of a new weapon (repair parts and training on a different weapon) led to the US Army developing its semiautomatic service rifle and reverting to a homogenous rifle squad. The 1940 planned US Army rifle company was designed to have just two automatic weapons--a pair of M1919A4 light machine guns at company level, with everybody else issued either a pistol or the M1 Rifle. This mindset was shattered by American experience in World War Two and prejudiced the US Army against something like the StG44 because the StG44 didn't fit into the established practices of the US Army. Oddly enough, the USMC rifle squad of 1944 onward was three balanced fire teams built around the Browning Automatic Rifle and supported by the M1 Rifle--sounds like an inverted French asymmetric rifle squad. The Marines could have integrated the StG44 into their rifle platoons with little change in their organization and tactics. Stopping this were the logistical system and the fact that 5 million M1 Rifles and 350,000 Browning Automatic Rifles had been produced and were on hand at the end of an expensive war--with the atomic bomb delivered by aircraft, it was thought that ground combat was a thing of the past. Thanks for a well-presented video on the StG44 and how its theoretical employment would have changed organization and tactics of the German rifle squad. Fortunately, Germany was not able to produce many of them--I think there were more Browning Automatic Rifles produced than StG44 and variations. By 1945 Germany was short of everything but enemies.
The Finnish film "Unknown Soldiers" was pretty neat, would you mind exploring some of the tactics used by the Finnish army during the continuation war?
It's a good movie indeed. I would also recommend reading the book it is based on. It contains some wonderful insight into the characters that the film doesn't include. I can't promise anything yet but if I make a Teaching Tactics on forest combat it may include some examples from the Continuation War.
This video is absolutely great to see. It's always interesting to get a bit more context about the stuff I've been slowly puzzling my way through over the years. It's probably a forlorn hope, but is there any chance you have the information to do a discussion more broadly on KStN 1114a (fg) 1.11.44 or KStN 1114a (gp)(fg) 1.11.44? Those being the motorized and mechanized variants of the concept that I'm aware of. The sheer difference in organization at the platoon and especially company level between those two and KStN 131v is incredibly interesting.
Thank you! The plan is for Teaching Tactics to become a comprehensive catalogue of World War era tactics. I certainly look forward to covering motorized/mechanized forces in the future.
Excellent Closing comparison of the varied efforts by Germany, USSR and US armies. Since it had the Garand M1, the US had an excellent self-loading rifle. But that superiority made changing from it difficult until it was clearly outmatched by the Sturm-44 and later AK-47. History is full of examples where a weapon (or product) was superior until suddenly it wasn't. Battleships are a great example with Japan continuing down the Yamato class path when carriers would rule the waves in that war. In consumer goods, Sony went from global tv dominance to bankruptcy. Nokia did the same with mobile phones. Success can lead directly to obsolescence and failure.
You cant compare at all the M1 Garand with the STG 44. One was the first semi automatic rifle produced in mass that gave to US the highest firepower, the other was produced in too few number to be even a match for the M1
Outstanding presentation, narration, graphical support, information. Also thanks for the English translation of the manual, any chance we can get the accompanying graphics that go with it? Subscribed.
Excellent video, very informative and very good graphics. I hope you get around to talking us through the organisation and tactics of the Soviet tank riders one day. Many thanks in advance :)
Thank you very much! I definitely plan to broaden this topic in future videos. The US airborne and marine infantry already have my attention, and the Soviet SMG units would certainly make an interesting study as well.
This is all quite theoretical and in practice, the distribution and availability of assault rifles and rifle grenades were not always present. Especially by the time assault rifles were deployed in any meaningful quantity (1944), there was not much to overpower the small arms of the US infantry who were armed with a large amount of semi automatic rifles or the Soviets who employed a large amount of sub-machine guns and use of marksmen at the platoon level, the Soviet unit is one of which overpower the average German unit. The employment of tactics were not up to par to theoretical standards as the quality of German troops were heavily diminished by 1944 due to severe losses and many conscripts were of little quality. This is also not taking into account the firepower superiority of allied troops in terms of airforce, artillery and vehicles who could overpower axis weapons. This was especially present in Operation Bagration, Operation Spring Awakening. The example provided in the video is an example of a 'perfect' assault.
I wonder what the reason was for equipping even the fire squad with assault rifles. They mostly stay out of close range with the enemy, so they don't need the full auto mode in their rifles. And they already have the 2 MG's, so they don't really need the added long range firepower from the semi-automatic mode. Given the extreme shortage of assault rifles, I personally would have equipped them with carbines in the same caliber as the grenadier team (and MG's). It's a possibility to easily save on 1/5th of the rifles needed to equip one platoon, and thus allowed to stretch the weapons out to a 5th platoon for every 4 fully equipped ones. Even with Kar98k's the assistants and leaders in that squad would have not been completely uselsess in the firing positions of the MGs (in fact, at ranges above 400m they might have been more effective than with Stg44's). And in case they come under fire while catching up to the assault squads they would have a means of engaging the enemy quickly.
The manual offers a firing exercise example where the assistants supplement the fire of the two LMGs with single shots out to 300 meters. This is more the exception than the rule however, and you are right that they could have been equipped with bolt-action K98s without compromising the role of the fire squad. It would even benefit them as it streamlines their ammunition supply to a single type. One explanation would be that the Sturmzug was intended as a blueprint for a future organization where both the K98 and MP40 were completely replaced by the StG. By this point in the future the grenadier team would also be equipped with StGs fitted with rifle grenade launchers. A more tactical reason may be that it gave the fire squad the flexibility to fight closer to the enemy. The drill that is covered in the video shows the Sturmzug attacking on its own, so the fire squad is kept back as a base of fire. In most cases, however, the platoon would attack with outside support from mortars and other heavy weapons, so their own fire squad could move in closer with the assault squads. Having the additional close-range firepower of assault rifles could come in handy in such a situation. The same is true for the defense where assistants with StGs could provide vital flank protection for the MG.
Check out: "How BRITISH Infantry Squads Evolved over 100 Years" by Battle Order. This has exactly the same style of visual chart, detailing changes in weaponry up to 2015.
My grandfather fought in North Africa as a machine gunner. He survived the war because I’m obviously here. I’m sure he witnessed this exercise and adjusted to the pattern and tempo of battle. I’m sure grandpa learned quick at which the rate the Germans moved and when to fire.
If they were able to make a riffled grenade adapter for the STG44 and had a very light weight and compact LMG that use belts and fired 8mm Kurz. Each squad having of each. Then would literally have modern Platoon that used modern tactics. It was so revolutionary.
The U.S. lost an opportunity to up-scale their Thompson SMGs to the .30 carbine cartridge to be defacto Assault Rifles. The essential problem is the pistol cartridge offers a crap range reach of under 100m. Still true today. The 9mm x 19mm Luger pistol cartridge in some easily, mass-produced, SMG form was tried by the desperate Rhodesians in the 1960s/70s.
I want to ask. There's some claims on the internet that the troops could fire the stg44 while moving. Was there any kind of evident in the sturmzug pamphlet that said soldier could fire while on the move or just to storm the enemy position like sturmtruppen did in world war 1?
Good question. Firing on the move from the hip or shoulder while assaulting an enemy position is indeed recommended in the manual. It even states that this is preferable to halting and throwing grenades first. The StG-44 was particularly suited for this, but most armies of the time taught 'walking fire', even with bolt action rifles. (See the Teaching Tactics episode on Fire & Manoeuvre for more on this). You can read it for yourself in my translation of the document (point 28 mentions walking fire), available for free on Patreon here: www.patreon.com/posts/free-translation-66996183?Link&
@@DigitalBattlefieldTours Hello, the Dienstvorschriften and other sources are saying even it was forbidden to fire full auto, Only the first Mag could be fired at the soldiers own will, the 2-3 Mag only orderd by Zugführer or Gruppenführer, and the 4. Mag never, only when new ammo came.
Awesome video. Utterly informative. Thank you. Your videos are outstanding. The only thing. In the third part, the exercise, the defenders would have been a bit naive - or still living in the Middle Ages. Presidiating the wood on their side of the creek was a must. And maybe having scouts in the woods around the crosspoint. Not mentioning mining and maybe reserves. That would have been more realistic, indeed. Nevertheless, a good example f the assault tactics, that were still used in the '80s during my duty. Let's say the assailants would have met a tougher defense.
Except each round for the K98 weighed 50% more than the 8mm Kurtz. This is why modern armies have assault squads supported with squad automatics in the intermediate cartridge. However, if you know about machine guns, you understand why they need a high power cartridge. E.g., US trying 338.
@@External2737 oh cool so Germany had a general issue 8mm kurz round at the start of the war to equip all their infantry? Or was the K98 all they had out of the gate, and in the nightmare of German logistics at least having a common infantry rifle and MG round was one advantage?
@@NYG5 The 8mm Kurtz was developed. I'm not aware of anything but a Walther and Mauser prototype gun in the cartridge. The 8mmK really was a late war use.
@@External2737 exactly. so all things considered, not being able to develop and begin mass producing a reliable, intermediate cartridge rifle until 1943-1944; the K98/G41/K43 at least had the benefit of not requiring logistics to account for both a general purpose MG round and the service rifle round, they only had to circulate the standard rifle and pistol round.
Very important squad weapons were grenades. Hand grenades used to be siege equipment used by special forces troops called grenadiers. Rifle grenades were also used by grenadiers. World War One forced the issue and use of grenades by ordinary riflemen. In the German rifle squad, rifle grenade launchers were the mate for the machine gun, dealing with targets behind cover. By war's end, the rifle grenade was also used to destroy light armored fighting vehicles. The Panzerfaust, a recoilless disposable anti-tank launcher, was short on range but proved to be destructive on even the heaviest tank. Rifle grenades and Panzerfaust provided platoon-size elements with organic high-angle explosive fire beyond the reach of the hand grenade and also protected the platoon against close-in tank attack. The StG 44 was intended to launch rifle grenades but launching rifle grenades was hard on the rifle and hard on the rifleman/grenadier. Accuracy wasn't great, but 200 meters was a lot better than only 50 meters.
Thanks for commenting. The inclusion of the small grenadier team in the Sturmzug shows how important the rifle grenade was. The instruction manual mentions them frequently, often recommending their concentrated use (almost like a man-portable artillery battery) whenever a stubborn target presents itself. In contrast I found the hand grenade to be underutilized in the manual. Perhaps because their use would slow down the assault squads at a critical moment just outside the enemy position.
@@DigitalBattlefieldTours Earlier German specialist units primarily using submachine guns also list a few with rifles, specifically for using rifle grenades and dealing with long range targets. Regarding hand grenades, I feel it might just be due to the firepower provided by the assault rifles to the riflemen. My impression from manuals is, that riflemen with bolt-action rifles were expected to fight near exclusively with grenades and bayonets in close combat. So while hand grenades are still important, they are less crucial when automatic fire is available to everyone.
@@fridrekr7510 Point 29 of the Sturmzug manual seems to confirm this. It recommends exploiting the firepower of the StG to shoot your way into the enemy position, instead of stopping just outside it to throw hand grenades.
good god those mp40 animations from squad44/post scriptum DON'T use them might give people idea that every soldier equipped with mp40 was doing HK slap while reloading otherwise absolutely great video
the modern way of holding and loading a gun has bled its way into ww2 shooters , a lot of people are also unaware that the chicken wing was the typical way to hold a gun during the world wars for example which is why you see modern ways of holding a gun in ww1 and ww2 shooters , also HK slap on a mp40 is just big xd
Great video although I find it interesting that the assault rifle didn't achieve full adoption until the 80s when the Europeans adopted their bullpups (SA80/G36/Famas/Aug). They'd been using semi auto higher power intermediate cartridge rifles before that despite seeing the M16 series used by the US and the AK series. Wonder whether that was just inertia or there was a good reason.
Basically most European nations were set on an intermediate cartridge post war based on their studies and experiences. Germany already had the 7.92mm Kurz and the British had the .280 to go with their EM-2. Meanwhile in NATO standardisation the US insisted on a full power cartridge for their doctrine of full accuracy marks-/riflemen. Of course the US got their standard 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge while settling on their own M14 rifle instead of the FN FAL which most of the rest were using. It was only in the Vietnam war where the US found out about the merits of a light cartridge and switched to 5.56x45mm which was later basically imposed for allies as standard hence all the new bullpup and non bullpup rifles. The soviets already had combat experiences against the stg-44 and based on captured stg-44 they developed their own cartridge 7.62x39mm and the rifle to go with it the sks (semi only) and the ak assault. Everyone was on it but the US just said no. Sarcastically in that light I can hardly see the sentiment "despite seeing the M16 series".
If squad leaders were trained in assaulting a position, how come they couldn't construct a suitable defence. If you looked at your position and how you would attack it; then thats how you set up defence. Mines in the grass on the right would be one option, having adrenaline close in a team leaders perspective is understandable. Perhaps attrition over numerous battles, sleep deprivation or lulls in battles led to poor defensive set ups. Gutsy people to charge up a hill. Thankyou for an excellent video, very informative.
Fun fact. The Machine gun might have used tracer rounds to aim with aiming, but often machine gunners and their crew did not want to use them and "replaced" them with normal bullets. The reason for it is because you simply highlight where you are exactly, and draw all fire towards your direction. Not a very healthy way to fight if you know what I mean.
Yes. The platoon leader was supposed to lead the main effort with the assault squads. This would also be the place where the medic was most likely needed. The messengers would keep the platoon leader in contact with the fire support squad or higher command.
Very nicely done indeed. Two notes: the US M-14 was first American 'assault rifle', introduced in 1957, tho granted it was just a tarted up version of the M-1 Grand and still in the Gewehr 43 paradigm. The other is that I would expect by late '44/early '45 the Grenadier Team would be carrying Panzerfausts, with whatever small arms were handy.
@Nebris M14 is a battle rifle. An assault rifle requires an INTERMEDIATE cartridge like a 5.56 or 7.62x39. 7.62 NATO is a full power round so the M14 is in fact not an assault rifle. There is no debate.
The bolt action service rifle usually had a battlesight zero of 400 meters and could deliver grazing fire to 600 meters with that sight setting. Aim for the belt buckle and hit enemy infantry somewhere between forehead and ankle within that distance. The service rifle's sights often had 400 meters as the lowest setting and this became a problem in trench warfare. Distances in trench warfare ranged from 50 meters between trenches to perhaps 600 meters--at 100 meters, the group center could be 25cm or more above the point of aim with a very small part of the enemy visible. No wonder it took tens of thousands of rifle cartridges to produce one enemy casualty!
I know this probably isn’t your balliwick, but…what place does the BAR, introduced in WWI, crazy heavy, 20 round magazine, yet often wielded as an AR in this analysis? Did the sturmzug concept develop in conversation with the US’ employment of the BAR? What about the garand, arguably a similar weapon in its ease of use, but not its volume of fire? (Ok you answered the BAR question) And then there’s the rifle grenade, which I have very little knowledge of how available and integrated it was in Ww2
Do you happen to know something about Begleit? first time i got to know about them was in a miniature wargame as part of an specific Sturmgeshutz abteilung during Bagration and they were described as tank escort supposedly armed with STGs but i could never find info about it and while playing steel division 2 stumbled again with that unit so i am not sure if it something with very little data in english or if it was a 1 in a kind unit.
Good question! As far as I know the only unit under that name was the divisional 'Begleit-Kompanie', which was a well-equipped company intended for the protection of a division's headquarters and other vital installations. 'Begleit' means 'escort', so it may also be used to refer to a unit tasked with protecting a vehicle. I'm not sure if such specialized units actually existed with their own tables of organization or if it was just a generic term applied to any infantry working closely with combat vehicles. (The British for example used the similar term 'close escort' to refer to small teams of riflemen that protected tanks in dense terrain). I've got 'tank-infantry cooperation' scheduled as a future video topic, so hopefully I can find out some more when I start research on that.
@@DigitalBattlefieldTours Here is what i found in the wargame manual "The 189 Sturmgeschütz-abteilung pioneered the use of Begleit, or escort, troop at Kursk. These grenadiers ride atop the StuGs when the battalion is manoeuvring, offering the assault guns their own infantry protection. When in combat, the Begleit riders often dismount and fight alongside their tanks, working together to mount successful counterattacks." in both games these units are the representation of when they were attached 78. Sturm Division during Bagration. Maybe that can help you with something.
That sounds very interesting. It reminds me of the Soviet 'tank riders'. In that case it would make sense that the Begleit received StG-44's when these became available, as their Soviet counterpart made heavy use of SMGs. Thanks for sharing!
