How different would WW2 have been if the allies had assault rifles?

Who's got better heavy, medium, and light artillery? Who's got better support, who's got better lines of communication?

Small arms aren't for killing, they're for ground taking.

We were armed fine. We had the M1 Garand, which was a fullsize caliber semi automatic and outclassed the bolt action Mausers and Arisakas. Not to mention our other armaments, M1 Carbine, Grease Gun, Browning that also served well.
Maybe if we didn't have the M1 it would have been different but we did.

the garand is underrated.

Small arms are overrated. Logistics, air power and artillery win wars, in that order.

>in WW2 the french had way better firearms than the germans

Read a fucking book seriously.

Land acquisition needs to be the goal, otherwise it's pointless to have an array of abilities. The standard “school solution” (Infantry School, Ft. Benning) is “Well, that depends upon the situation and the terrain.

It's why we lost in:
>Korea, abondoning Pork Chop Hill
>Vietnam, abandoning Hamburger Hill

I mean, there's just dozens and dozens of examples in history why land acquisition is the determining factor in any war. Agincourt, Suribachi, Mt. Cassino Abby, cupola at Gettysburg.

No land, no victory.

I should mention that requires boots on the ground and *small arms*

No different, just more expensive because of increased ammo used but no extra casualties

>t.

Attached: PLFbBVn.jpg (1280x720, 39K)

Not faggot OP, but what are good books on ww2 that aren't boring af?

I'm a huge fan of Collin's Atlas of the Second World War myself, lots of fantastic maps.

>french had way better firearms than the germans
ok Ian

Attached: AAD06D01-6845-4249-B58C-3C185594F715.jpg (640x360, 46K)

>losing hamburger hill mattered
The problem with that battle is that the ground was totally pointless strategically. The army could have put a fire base on the summit and the NVA would have just gone around and wreaked havoc as usual. Vietnam was lost because hardly anyone actually wanted us there and the south was corrupt as fuck and the leadership was less willing to fight and die than the north.

Further, that war was lost the moment a bullet went through Diem's head in the back of that APC.
Maybe it was already lost by that point.

No different. We had effective SMGs and their rifles slightly longer barrels would have no appreciable effect due to the crude sights.

Maps are cool, thanks going to check this out

It was lost before then. Diem was really disliked as well. There was lots of civil unrest under Diem. If someone sets themselves on fire as a public protest, shit is fucked.

Wouldn't have made a difference. Both sides had effective full-auto smgs, and the americans in particular had widely issued semi-auto rifles when everyone else was still issuing bolt action. Besides, weapons win battles, tactics win campaigns....logistics win wars.

This is historical fiction (plus I read allies as aliens- not sure why), but if you're interested in how stuff like jet aircraft, helicopters, and standard issue assault rifles would have stood up to WWII weaponry, they're pretty awesome.

Attached: Worldwar_Into the Balance.jpg (297x499, 43K)

>t. SK1, USN

This
Only lanky bois win wars

They had BAR's tho?

>be a little pussy playing rts games doing nothing but turtling
In reality the infantry and armored had to spearhead the fight both arty and cas were dependent on the infantry and the infantry with better rifles did better jobs