# Army with best weapons



## elmilitaro (Feb 22, 2006)

Hey guys I was just wondering, what army do ya'll think had the best weapons during WW2. This includes all types.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 22, 2006)

All together?

I probably couldn't even choose between singular subjects; planes, tanks, infantry etc.

Anyway, I'll say roughly equal. Can I do that?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 23, 2006)

in terms of the most advanced army i'll say it's the Jerries, but it cirtainly was the most reliable so i'll hold judgement for a bit........


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 23, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> in terms of the most advanced army i'll say it's the Jerries, but it cirtainly was the most reliable so i'll hold judgement for a bit........


Agreed they probably had the most advanced equipment and although they where not the most reliable if they had had the resources who knows what would of happened and what they would of come up with...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 23, 2006)

you say that but allied equiptment wasn't rubbish, it did the job, and that's all it had to do, and most of it was very reliable and and some cases it was very advanced, which could easily be used as an argument for the allied armies having the best equiptment.........


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 23, 2006)

I didn't say it was rubbish in the air I would say it was evenly matched. On the ground the allies had some good equipment as well but the MG42 and STG44 where slightly better in my opinion. In armour the Germans have a clear superiority with few allied tanks being able to penetrate them. All in all it is a very hard decision to make but a lot of the allied designs came as a result of German innovations and vice versa.


----------



## trackend (Feb 23, 2006)

The STG44 was a rarity compared the standard bolt action rifle issued to the vast majority of troops and I believe the US Garand a superior weapon. Agreed the 42 was excellent hence the numerous copies of the basic design churned out since the war conversely the Potato masher was inferior to the Mills bomb although slightly more powerful it was clumsy and once activated had to be discharged, a big disadvantage.
The Bren was a super light machingun. 
Everyone used the Orliekon and the Bofors. 
The US 105mm was a great weapon and the British had the do it all 25pounder while the 88 was legendary. So I shall sit on the fence and say it all depends on the role as to who had the best weapons. The one thing that stands out more than anything regarding the various army's was that the US by miles outstripped everyone when it came to logistical support I read In the series of books entitled World War 2 (volume 7) that for each US front line soldier there was ten tons of logistical support keeping him there per week. Now that's what I call support.


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 23, 2006)

I agree not all Allied equipment was rubbish, in fact in some cases it was even more advanced than the Whermacht's. Take the M1 Garand, arguably the best Infantry rifle of the war. Also no one had a big MG like the .50 for its stopping power. I also have to agree, while the 88 is legendary, the US 105 and 155 were exellent tubes. 

Also when you add all the weapons together, organic and support, I will argue that a US platoon had more firepower than thier contemporaries. Now I know that some of you will scream about this Whermacht MG or that SMG. But the majority of Whermacht grunts were armed with bold action rifles that no matter how fast you are, you will never squeeze out more rounds than a GI with a M1 or a M1 carbine. 

Sooo all and all make mine made in the USA.

:{)


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 24, 2006)

The Germans believed that the 25 pounder was an 'automatic' field gun. Some German prisioners taken by 25 lbr batteries in Normandy were quite astounded when they found out it was hand loaded  George G. Blackburn's "The Guns of War" has a couple of good first hand accounts of this.

Weapon for weapon it's interesting

My assesment of mass produced stuff:

Pistol: M1911A1
Infantry rifle: Garand
LMG: Bren gun
MMG: MG 42
HMG: Berezin UB
SMG: Owen gun/Ppsh-41

Very Light AT: S. PzB. 41 28/20mm
Light AT gun: 6lbr
Heavy AT gun: Flak-18/KwK 36
Light AAA: Flak 38
Medium AAA: QF 40mm MK III Bofors

Light tank gun: 45mm 1932/38
Medium tank gun: 17 pounder/ 75mm L70
Heavy tank gun: 88mm Kwk 36
V heavy tank gun: 128mm Pak 44/ 100mm D-10

Armoured car: AEC Mk III/ SdKfz 234/2 Puma
Light tank: Chaffe/ Bt-7
Medium tank: Sherman Firefly/ T-34/85
Heavy tank: Panther V
Very Heavy Tank: Tiger I

Light Mortar: Japanese Type 89 50mm
Medium Mortar: Italian 81mm mortar
Heavy Mortar: 12cm Granatwerfer 42

Light Artillery: US 75mm M1A1 Airborne Howitzer
Medium Artillery: 25lbr/ US 105mm
Heavy Artillery: US 8 inch
Very Heavy artillery:  But i want to say a rail gun

As for planes, tanks, subs and ships, I'll let the rest of you decide


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 24, 2006)

well i'd go along with a fair ammount of your choices but i don't think ships and subs come under the army


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 24, 2006)

if its only the army, i think that the Germans and Soviets had the good army, but in terms of navy and airforce, very very hard to decide

and dont forget about the SVT40, was that a good gun as a Garand?


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 24, 2006)

Also I would have to say that part of having a good army is reliability. Even if you have the best stuff if it does not work well, how can it be considered the best? Take for example the Tiger, great tank when it worked. I have read several accounts about the Bren (read Pegasus Bridge by Steven Ambrose for example) where the Brit paras tossed thier Brens for German MGs. 

Also I have heard this story about the Brit 25 pounders. The Japanese had the same reaction when they went against Garands at Guadalcanal. They thought that all of the Army troops there had been issued MGs or SMGs.

Lastly, best sub, Gato Class.

:{)


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 24, 2006)

*trackend:*



> Agreed the 42 was excellent hence the numerous copies of the basic design churned out since the war



Yes, but it encouraged defensive (Maginot Line) rather than offensive (BlitzKrieg) 'play'.
Same goes for the Tiger tank.

*CurzonDax:*



> Also no one had a big MG like the .50 for its stopping power.



Er, the DShK was actually superior...



> I have read several accounts about the Bren (read Pegasus Bridge by Steven Ambrose for example) where the Brit paras tossed thier Brens for German MGs.



Visa-versa happened too. They were both good in different scenarios.



> Also I have heard this story about the Brit 25 pounders. The Japanese had the same reaction when they went against Garands at Guadalcanal. They thought that all of the Army troops there had been issued MGs or SMGs.



The Germans also thought this about the bolt-action Lee-Enfield! ("Mad Minute") 8) 

*Jabberwocky*, you've made me think; was the FlaK 38 ever fitted to an aircraft?

What are it's performances vs the MG 151?


*loomaluftwaffe:*



> and dont forget about the SVT40, was that a good gun as a Garand?



Was never used properly...(except in German/Finnish hands).
Also not mass-produced. I do like the G/K43 though (which was part based on it)


There's also different ways of thinking; The Germans and Soviets had central armament. The Soviets said "What good is impressive armament, if it can't be brought to bear??" 

The Allies preffered wing armament that would just blast opponents out of the sky, no skill involved.

Horses for courses...


I borrowed your layout Jabberwocky, hope you don't mind?  

IMHO you made good choices,  these are my only changes:

My assesment of mass produced stuff: 

Pistol: Browning HP (All theatres) Colt .45 (vs Japan Germany)
Infantry rifle: K43 or StG44
Sniper Rifle: K98 or G43
Anti-Materiel rifle: PRD/PTRS 
SMG: Lahti (Suomi) or Patchett (Sterling)

Very Light AT: Puppchen 
Heavy AT gun: 32pdr 
Light AAA: Flak 38, yes - or maybe "Quadmount" Maxaret "Meat Chopper"

Light tank gun: Soviet 57mm or 'Little John'
Heavy tank gun: 88mm PaK 43 
V heavy tank gun: Anything big firing HEAT shells or the 380mm SturmMorser the Petard seems good...

Armoured car: Daimler AC
V Light tank: Tetrarch
Light tank: Skoda 38t or late PzII
Heavy tank: KonigsTiger
Very Heavy Tank: Maus 

V Heavy Mortar: 38cm SturmMorser


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 24, 2006)

As far as mortars though I don't think that anyone could touch the US four deuce, the 4.2 inch mortar. Though I found it strange that no one thought of producing HE rounds for it until 44. Sniper rifle I would have to go with the Springfield (The VC and the NVA were using them well into the 70s) though I will concede that the Germans had better optics. I will also argue that the Japanese Type 96, the famous Nambu, was just as effective as the Bren. Also, while the Browning HP is an exellent weapon its still a 9mm. You get hit by a .45 from a 1911, you will go down whereas a 9mm may not get the job done every time. I also will argue that all other infantry rifles, Allied or Axis, were obsolete once the garand came on the scene. Again semi vs bolt. 

:{)

PS
It took me a second to finish this, we just had a slight riot at the school I teach at. TGIF!

:{)


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 24, 2006)

The Japs were clumsy with their Arisaka rifles cause they were too big for most of them little island ppl... so they tried to get ome M1 Carbines as they were lighter and smaller.

look, leave the suppressive fire to the MGs, how many Garands does it take to match the Firepower of an MG34/42?


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 26, 2006)

*CurzonDax:*



> I will also argue that the Japanese Type 96, the famous Nambu, was just as effective as the Bren.



Nope, prone to dirt and jamming. The 6.5mm Arisaka round was designed to be weak. Horrendouus build quality.

The ZB-26 and Bren are interesting comparisons though, as the .303 suited the gun better IMO, but the rimless design of the German 7.92mm made it less prone to jamming. The Bren could offset this by leaving 2 bullets out the clip however and as the Bren Mk2 was much easier to manufacture, I'd go for the Bren.

I take Nambu to mean a crappy, unreliable, Japanese Luger clone pistol of WW2 - though the company may have made LMG's?



> You get hit by a .45 from a 1911, you will go down whereas a 9mm may not get the job done every time.



The .45's penetration is ineffective against thick winter clothing, the 9mm, while less powerful, has the penetration necessary.

The HP also has nearly twice the magazine capacity.

In the Far East and Western Front's, the M1911 did rule IMHO. 8) 



> I also will argue that all other infantry rifles, Allied or Axis, were obsolete once the garand came on the scene. Again semi vs bolt.



Have you ever done or seen a Lee-Enfield "Mad-Minute"? I myself can match or even beat the Garands 20 rpm if I want with a SMLE.


*loomaluftwaffe:*



> The Japs were clumsy with their Arisaka rifles cause they were too big for most of them little island ppl



The Arisaka was a weak bullet in a normal-sized gun. The Meiji Carbine was a normal bullet in a musket-sized beast!  

- They were 2 different weapons, but the Arisakas were still reasonably big for the little Japanese.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 26, 2006)

The MG42 did not encourage defensive attitudes in the Wehrmacht, schwarz. It was just a MG, and a very good one! The Tiger certainly did not encourage defensive attitudes since it was designed to be used as the spearhead armour, never a defensive weapon but used as one when appropriate.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 26, 2006)

I know, hence the original DW designation.

Using any tank like that is silly. The T34 was also designed for this.

At times though, that technique can be effective (as a distraction, for e.g.)

The MG42 was severely lacking in 'run and gun' ability. For trench warfare though, it'd be ideal.  Seriously though it could be used when off it's tripod/pintle, but not that effectively.

It could not fill the role of the Bren or StG44.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 26, 2006)

who said it had to? the bren is an LMG, the MG34/42 is an MMG, u cant replace an LMG or an Assault Rifle with an MMG.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 26, 2006)

You haven't the slightest clue. The MG42, or MG34, WERE the squad support weapons in the Heeres. The STG.44 was a fuckin' assault rifle ... it was used by every troop in the platoon save the squad support soldier. 

And what are you talking about with the tanks! Any tank can be used defensively or offensively .... the Tiger was THE offensive weapon of the Wehrmacht ... it was used in the defensive role when the Heeres was on the defensive ... the Tiger did not make anyone think defensively ... it probably did the complete opposite ... Germans after an easy kill (which would be anythin' ) would more likely chase the enemy to whoop his ass back to hell ... come on, be serious ... the Tiger was the fuckin' dogs bollocks ... in defence or offence. .. 

And best *army* weapons ... the Heeres ... obviously. Air Force and Navy are not Naval commands ... I could even be a prick and say the Waffen-SS had the best equipment ... but I won't ...


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 26, 2006)

an offensice weapon can be used in the defensive, attacking the attackers is essentially defending


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 26, 2006)

To attack is the best from of defence...


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 26, 2006)

That is certainly true in the air, but on the ground and armed with defensive weapons, it can be a different matter.


*loomaluftwaffe:*

The MG34/42 is not an MMG, it is actually a GPMG and was meant to fill the role of both MMG, HMG LMG - hence the bipod and Gutrommel.

Certain people can use a GPMG as an LMG, but I certainly couldn't for long!  

My personal belief is that the MG42 was pathetic as a HMG, but some people say it's effective enough. I'm not too sure about this, but know even the Bren could be used in this role with some success, so...  


*PlanD:*

I know the MG34/42 were SSW's. So were the StG44 and MG26 used.

I don't think that 'one size fits all', that's all.

I think the GPMG system is flawed if it completely replaces LMG's and MMG's, don't you?

If you want a modern example, look at the SA80. It was intended to replace LMG's, Battle Rifles, SMG's and GPMG's and so is a Jack of all trades, master of none. Even Geoff Hoon has put Minimi's and FN MAG's back in, sharpish.

The Steyr AUG and HK G36 do OK from SMG-LMG though IMHO.



> Any tank can be used defensively or offensively



The Tetrarch/Locust??  

Not if it breaks down or is too slow, the Tiger was a fine tank when all was well, but was a logistical knightmare.

A Tiger was great at ambushes, but in a close range fight with even a T34/85 it was dead meat and that is how it was all-too-often used.

Admittedly the commander is probably responsible for this, after all you can't blame a screwdriver for being a bad hammer.



> Germans after an easy kill (which would be anythin' ) would more likely chase the enemy to whoop his ass back to hell



Getting a pounding from everything the enemy had, in '43 onwards this was suicidal. The problem with boastful Tiger commanders is they got too big for their boots IMHO. Pride comes before a fall they say... There were weapons that could destroy the Tiger, likeit or not, those are the facts.



> the Tiger was the fu*kin' dogs bollocks ... in defence or offence



I agree, but when used properly and with all logistical considerations taken into account.



> And best army weapons ... the Heeres ... obviously.



What? Obviously?? K98k's vs Garands, Lee-Enfield and others? Those were standard issue, the Germans having at best equal equipment 'till it was too late and in too few numbers.

What's wrong with saying the Waffen-SS had the best equipment? I can actually see your point there.

The Tiger was horribly overweight for the DW (Breakthrough) role it was intended to do, so had to be reclassified as a SdKfz SchwerePanzer (Special Purpsose Heavy Tank).

Tring to use a defensive weapon for attack is usually extremely difficult.

Having said that, you could get away with it... The StuG being an example - just not too often.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 26, 2006)

please explain how is the SMLE better than the 98k? i dont know that much about them


----------



## plan_D (Feb 27, 2006)

How was the MG42 being used as an all-round weapon when only a couple in the squad would be carrying the MG? It was the squad support weapon, and was not a purely defensive weapon. 

The Tetrach and Locust were both offensive tanks, since they were used in airborne operations. Which is distinctively an offensive operation. Even when used in the scout role, they're being used offensively and defensively. 

If the Tiger had enough spares, or if the commander handled marches properly then the Tiger was fine. A Schwere Pz.Abt in Russia managed an 86.6% readiness, which is impressive for any armoured battalion. This was maintained with proper marches to keep up maintenaince levels, and enough spares. 

When Germany was on the offensive the Tiger was the offensive point weapon. I would much rather be in a Tiger than a T-34/85, since at ranges up 3,000 metres the T-34 was vulnerable to the KwK36. At close range the T-34 would be smashed to pieces. 

In 1943 the Tiger was still untouchable, it was not until 1944 that the Tiger commanders had to realise the enemy was catching up. And yes, the Tiger commanders became too used to being invulnerable which caught them off-guard in the summer of '44. But this was soon rectified. 
True, there were weapons that could destroy the Tiger. No one has denied this. But the Tiger was a much more formidable opponent than anything the Allies or Soviets had in their arsenal. 

The Tiger was not over-weight for the breakthrough role, that is why the Germans continued to use it as such. It was the pinpoint of the assault and broke the lines to allow the lighter armour through behind it. It was an offensive weapon, in fact all tanks are offensive weapons.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 28, 2006)

what about the IS-2? that 122mm gun should be able to kill a tiger?


----------



## plan_D (Feb 28, 2006)

The IS-2 was introduced in 1944. It's D-25T 122mm cannon could destroy a Tiger at combat ranges (400 - 600 m) but compared to the KwK36 88mm it was weak, and the IS-2 only carried 28 rounds. 

In a moving combat from 3,000 m the Tiger will most likely win every time. The IS-2 was vulnerable to the KwK36 at ranges up to 1,000 m - and that was it's frontal armour.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 28, 2006)

wow, cause when i set huge tank battles in IL-2 sturmovik, a tiger II will only destroy its side armor


----------



## plan_D (Feb 28, 2006)

Then the game is wrong, because the IS-2 was vulnerable to the Tiger and Panther at distances up to and including 1,000 metres. And the Tiger II could, most likely, destroy it's frontal armour at distances up to and including 1,500 m .


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 28, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> an offensice weapon can be used in the defensive, attacking the attackers is essentially defending



Remeber, bullets have the right of way, in a defense or an offense.

Read Murphy's laws of war.

:{)


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 28, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> The Japs were clumsy with their Arisaka rifles cause they were too big for most of them little island ppl... so they tried to get ome M1 Carbines as they were lighter and smaller.
> 
> look, leave the suppressive fire to the MGs, how many Garands does it take to match the Firepower of an MG34/42?



But still when you compare the ration of GIs firing Garands vs the ratio of Germans answering back with MG34/42, the GIs still put more rounds in the air. Good example is the 101st assault on Brecourt Manor where the Germans had MG42s anchoring the flanks. The paras were able to supress the MG on thier US left because by sheer volume of having semi and auto weapons on one target. Remember most Whermacht grunts were armed with bolt action rifles, not MGs.

:{)


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 28, 2006)

*loomaluftwaffe:*

The Enfield had it's disadvantages against the K98k (debatable), but here are the advantages:

It could fire faster; the handle was nearer and more ergonomic, it had an easy breech mechanism and required exactly half the reloading. Reloading more not only decreases the RoF, but also increases the chances of getting dirt in the mechanism, some Mauser's even had an (unsuccessful) 20-round box to try to prevent this!!

It was better suited to close-quarters fighting, especially with the "18 inches of steel" sword-bayonet on the pre-No.4 models.

It is in long-range shooting and reliability where the LE and K98k differ, though that is purely a matter of personal opinion.

*PlanD:*

Yes, I understand what you're saying regards Support Weapon. The point I'm trying hard to make is that with it's heavy weight/role and lafette tripod, it may have inadvertantly slowed an advance down? The Sokolov mount the Soviets had was a good idea IMHO.

The MG 42 could be used 'rambo stylee' I suppose and was probably better than the Soviet DP I'd say.


Tetrarch/Locust; Yes, I suppose any Military equipment or action is offensive or defensive?


I agree with you on most of your points on the Tiger (on your last post, that is!). It maintained a better operational readiness than the Panther!!

If I had such a precious and decisive piece of equipment, I would certainly take the best care of it I could.

There were Soviet tanks SPG's in '43 that could take on a Tiger (not necessarily on equal terms) though these were relatively few and far between.

The breakthrough role the Tiger could do - and well - but IMO it should not have been used for exploitation also.


The IS2:



> the IS-2 only carried 28 rounds.



Yes and 18 of those were HE. Enough to kill a Panther at point-blank, but not a Tiger.

The early IS2 AP rounds (non-normalised) were near useless against a Panther, but I think not against a Tiger.



> The IS-2 was vulnerable to the KwK36 at ranges up to 1,000 m - and that was it's frontal armour.



The front turret of the IS2M (Western) was vulnerable here, especially against the later APCR. The entire front of the early IS2's were vulnerable here also.

A Tiger II would possibly have no trouble killing an IS2M (W) @ even 2,000m, provided it found it's mark.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Mar 4, 2006)

elmilitaro said:


> Hey guys I was just wondering, what army do ya'll think had the best weapons during WW2. This includes all types.



Arguably the Russian T-34 tank was the best tank of the war, but other than that the Germans had the best equiped military.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Mar 4, 2006)

I'd be tempted to say the Late Panther G *102first_hussars*, but I can't argue with your choice.

IMHO the failings of the K98k against other standard-issue weapons was a huge dissadvantage.


*CurzonDax:*

I think you're right on the merits of standard-issue SLR's.

Germans were the first to experiment with SLR's, wonder why they weren't adopted? - reliability is my guess.


----------



## redcoat (Mar 4, 2006)

CurzonDax said:


> I have read several accounts about the Bren (read Pegasus Bridge by Steven Ambrose for example) where the Brit paras tossed thier Brens for German MGs.
> :{)


While they may have thrown away their Stens (cheap cr*p) They wouldn't have thrown away their Brens, a weapon many consider the best squad LMG of WW2.
Most people consider that Ambrose got the Sten and Bren mixed up in this story.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 5, 2006)

Question:

What are the ballistic datas for the tank guns? I do now have armor schemes , projectiles weight and design, armor quality datas and muzzle velocities but still miss the following datas:
Angle of fall and striking velocity in comparison with range (for example:
1.000 m: AoF 0.8 degrees, striking velocity: 840 m/s for APC rounds). If anyone post me the missing datas I will post the immune zones of Tiger, Tiger-II, Panther, T-34/76, T-34/85, JS-II, Su-100, Su-152 against each other. 
Interested?


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 5, 2006)

> Most people consider that Ambrose got the Sten and Bren mixed up in this story.


And I am one of them redcoat...


----------



## plan_D (Mar 5, 2006)

I can argue that the T-34 was not the greatest tank of the war, for the simple reason that the Panther G was far superior! It could stand up to anything in the war, it was not complex (in comparison to some German designs), it could be mass produced, it was relatively cheap (for it's ability) ... and it could blast the hell out of several T-34s without loss to itself! 

And I also believe that Ambrose mixed up the Bren and Sten ... British soldiers loved the Bren - and it was an excellent weapon.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Mar 5, 2006)

*redcoat:*



> While they may have thrown away their Stens (cheap cr*p)



A decent enough gun in it's own way - copied by the Germans as the MP3008, also influential to the M3 Grease Gun and a lot of post WW2 weapons.

I suppose the SA80 overshadows it's crapness somewhat.



> They wouldn't have thrown away their Brens, a weapon many consider the best squad LMG of WW2.



That and the ZB26, they all had their good points, the BAR, MG42 and DP( M) were all great weapons.

In certain situations, one would outshine the other e.g. defence: MG42.


*delcyros:*



> Angle of fall and striking velocity in comparison with range



I might have them some somewhere. APCR is extremely different to AP for e.g. Which guns do you want, all of them??



> I will post the immune zones of Tiger, Tiger-II, Panther, T-34/76, T-34/85, JS-II, Su-100, Su-152 against each other.



I know all these, I will post if I find, but I don't like the 'swapsies' attitude delcyros.

Anyways KonigsTigers, T34/76's and JS2's frontal armour varied in both thickness and quality, just one number doesn't count.

PzIV/III and just about every other tank of the war's armour varied also tank-to-tank.


*PlanD:*

The Panther was complex, even the G, but it was on the way...

Quality was also a bit too variable.


I think Ambroze probably meant Sten's, but it could have been Bren's if : 

1. They were on the defensive?

2. They had run low on .303's and had a healthy supply of 7.92's?


- That's another blow against the MG42, enough ammo to feed it's huge hunger for ammo was very, very heavy.

The tripod and ammo were the main weight factor's, not the gun itself (only 5lb's heavier than a BAR BTW 8) )


----------



## plan_D (Mar 5, 2006)

The Panther G was not complex in comparison, is what I said. It took half the time to build than it did a Tiger. And for the ability of the Panther it's build time was practically none , since it paid for it's man hours on the battle field. 

Quality was nowhere near as bad as you make it out to be . The Panther could withstand most punishment , throughout the war. Now the IS-2 quality didn't vary , it remained poor !


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 6, 2006)

at least 5 shermans/T-34s to a panther.


----------



## Soren (Mar 6, 2006)

> IMHO the failings of the K98k against other standard-issue weapons was a huge dissadvantage.



And what exactly would those failings be Schwarz ?? 

The K98k was the most accurate bolt action rifle of WW2, it was the strongest and most reliable as-well. Only in RoF is the Lee Enfield and Garand superior, nothing else.


----------



## CurzonDax (Mar 6, 2006)

Germans were the first to experiment with SLR's, wonder why they weren't adopted? - reliability is my guess.[/quote]

Actually it was not reliability. I remember reading somewhere that the reason why the a German SLR was not done is because of lack of resources. The resources that could have been used to make a SLR went to "wonder weapons". I think I read this MHQ a LONG time ago. I daresay that if the Whermacht were to have deployed a SLR I think it would have been as good as the Garand.

:{)


----------



## CurzonDax (Mar 6, 2006)

plan_D said:


> I can argue that the T-34 was not the greatest tank of the war, for the simple reason that the Panther G was far superior! It could stand up to anything in the war, it was not complex (in comparison to some German designs), it could be mass produced, it was relatively cheap (for it's ability) ... and it could blast the hell out of several T-34s without loss to itself!
> 
> And I also believe that Ambrose mixed up the Bren and Sten ... British soldiers loved the Bren - and it was an excellent weapon.



The it was the Paras that got it mixed up because not only is he quoting from them but in the ABC documentary on D-Day it is also said be vets. I am not saying the Bren was crap but if I could use a MG 42 instead well...

:{)


----------



## CurzonDax (Mar 6, 2006)

Another thing about the Sherm is that even damaged, unless ti was blown to picces, it could be retrieved, repaired and put back into action. I still think that the Sherman was the best all around tank, not because of its armour and gun but because of its speed, numbers, and reliability. It could also be modified to serve in a plethora of roles from DD tank to crab, to dozer without too much effect on its performance. It was a good all around tank. But yes it would take 5 to 9 Sherms to kill one Tiger. But does anyone know what the ratio was for a Pershing vs Tiger/Panther?

:{)


----------



## CurzonDax (Mar 6, 2006)

The K98k was the most accurate bolt action rifle of WW2, it was the strongest and most reliable as-well. Only in RoF is the Lee Enfield and Garand superior, nothing else.[/quote]

I will argue that if we are talking bolt action rifles, the 1903 was the best for the same reasons, I feel it was the strongest most reliable BA rifle of WWII. Now before I hear that I skew US, I would not give a plug nickle for a M1 Carbine, Resing SMG and that .30 caliber MG thang with a stock.

:{)


----------



## Soren (Mar 6, 2006)

CurzonDax said:


> I will argue that if we are talking bolt action rifles, the 1903 was the best for the same reasons, I feel it was the strongest most reliable BA rifle of WWII.



With normal issue iron sights, I would agree, with a scope, hell no. With a scope an excellent condition K98k will outshoot an excellent condition M1903 all day long. The combination of the above average quality barrell and superb long range ammunition, helps ensure the K98k is the sure winner in any long range precision shooting between the two. (I'm talking with all original rifle's here, not Bubba-ized ones) 

As for the action, besides being very similar(The M1903 nearly a complete copy), the K98k's action is stronger, simpler and more robust. Also there were some quality issues with early number Springfield actions, and these are down right dangerous to shoot.


----------



## CurzonDax (Mar 6, 2006)

Agreed with it used as a sniper rifle and the quality issues with the early 1903s. But, and I think I mentioned this before, in 'Nam all sides used the 1903 as a sniper rifle.

:{)


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Mar 6, 2006)

*PlanD:*



> The Panther G was not complex in comparison, is what I said. It took half the time to build than it did a Tiger. And for the ability of the Panther it's build time was practically none , since it paid for it's man hours on the battle field.



Yes, still numbers and reliability were what was needed, the Panther G almost solved these, but could still have been better.



> Quality was nowhere near as bad as you make it out to be .



Not as bad as the KonigsTiger's, but nowhere near that of the TigerI's.

The Panther could be defeated by an allied 75mm, and was. The JS2 could not - though an early one definately could, how embarrasing!

The JS2 quality was variable, but then variable is almost as bad as always poor.


*loomaluftwaffe:*



> at least 5 shermans/T-34s to a panther.



Depends on usage, crews and terrain. In certain circumtances 10 tanks could fall to a Panther's gun, maybe even more! In others 1 T34/Sherm could kill a Panther.


*Soren:*



> The K98k was the most accurate bolt action rifle of WW2, it was the strongest and most reliable as-well. Only in RoF is the Lee Enfield and Garand superior, nothing else.



Accuracy, strength and reliability are roughly the same as the Mosin-Nagant, Springfield or SMLE/No.4. It depends on your viewpoint of the weapon, but that is a professional gunsmith's opinion.



> The combination of the above average quality barrell and superb long range ammunition, helps ensure the K98k is the sure winner in any long range precision shooting between the two.



To my knowledge all WW2 Sniper rifles had heavy barrels and special ammunition.


For silly ranges, I personally would choose the G98, others may not, but we _were_ talking about standard issue weapons.

Anyway give me the choice of any bolt-action WW2 sniper rifle and I'll plump for the PTRD, thankyou!  



> (I'm talking with all original rifle's here, not Bubba-ized ones)



That would be the PTRD!  



> Also there were some quality issues with early number Springfield actions, and these are down right dangerous to shoot.



I don't think any pre-'06 Springfield were used in WW2??  


*CurzonDax:*



> The resources that could have been used to make a SLR went to "wonder weapons".



Are you meaning the 19th Century tests, or were they nearer WW2 time?

What wonder weapons do you mean?



> I daresay that if the Whermacht were to have deployed a SLR I think it would have been as good as the Garand.



If it was anything like the G41, forget it!!  


I think the Sherman was terrible, a hit usually burned one into an unuseable crisp.

The survivability of most tanks was terrible in WW2 though.



> But does anyone know what the ratio was for a Pershing vs Tiger/Panther?



I know on the Zebra Missions, a Pershing destroyed a Tiger and a few PzIV's. A Super-Pershing apparently even destroyed a King Tiger!

- They were too rare for effective data, but were formidable vehicles.



> .30 caliber MG thang with a stock.



BAR? Pederson? I have a feeling you mean the M1919A6?



> But, and I think I mentioned this before, in 'Nam all sides used the 1903 as a sniper rifle.



Yup and the Mosin-Nagant and Kar98k were also used.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 6, 2006)

The Panther G solved all problems that were encountered in a tank during World War II. Imagine the Panther G as the priority vehicle in the Western Allied forces. There'd be less Panthers than there were Shermans, but they'd be more deadly and they'd be much more built by America than Germany ever hoped to build. 

It was extremely rare to defeat a Panther with a 75mm , although I will not deny that it did happen. Because I know of a few incidents, and all were lucky hits or from constant bombardment. 
The IS-2 was constantly poor , extremely poor build quality plagued that vehicle. While the Panther, Tiger and Tiger II - even with this amazingly awful build quality you go on about , were still the three most powerful tanks of the war. 

On average, it took nine T-34s to bring down a Panther. And it wasn't unusual for the Western Allies to swamp a single Panther with fifteen Shermans.


----------



## Erich (Mar 6, 2006)

shots to the back of the turret and engine compartment were the key to success against the Panther ausf A and G. confronting the unit from the front was suicidal as the Panther wins hands down


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 7, 2006)

confronting it with a really slow plane in front.... hmm can tanks kill planes? (not AA tanks)


----------



## CurzonDax (Mar 7, 2006)

I will not argue that if you got hit in a Sherm, in fact most WWII tanks for that matter, you would be a crispy critter. But the thing about the Sherman is that even those that were damaged or even "destroyed" could be repaired and put back into action. There are dozens of sources about this and this ability to not only build a lot more tanks in general plus bringing back those that had been knocked out was something that the Germans could not compete with. Yes it would take an average of 9 Sherms to kill a Tiger/Panther but how many of those Tiger/Panthers were recovered, repaired and put back into service? Even if the Germans could have recovered them how many could have been put back into service? 

And yes I was talking about the 1919A6 BTW. Also you are right, the G41 sucked. I withdraw my statement about German SLRs. 

:{)


----------



## plan_D (Mar 9, 2006)

Are you kidding me ? The Wehrmacht were the champions of recovering armour and putting it back into service!


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 9, 2006)

is the bergepanther a good recovery vehicle?


----------



## plan_D (Mar 9, 2006)

Yes.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 9, 2006)

i thought the panther had a bad chasis/ was underpowered?


----------



## plan_D (Mar 9, 2006)

You thought wrong. 

The problem with the Panther centered around it's suspension system and gearbox. The D Model had some problems with setting itself alight after long running times, because the clutch tended to overheat. 

In the Ausf A , the running gear was strengthened and the number of wheel-rim bolts was doubled. Amongst this the drive-train was improved to increase reliability. And the engine exhaust cooling was modified. While not completely solving the Panther's problems, these made them much less of a trouble than in the D ! 

On the G, the reliability issue centered around the drive-train and this was constantly improved. The rearmost damper was also removed, but the suspension remained much the same. A gearbox oil cooler was fitted also, which was extremely important. 

No other real problems were present, only improvements based off soldiers experience were made. Such as a new commanders cupola in the Ausf A, armoured ammo bins in the Ausf G - amongst other things. I could list all the changes, but they didn't affect the reliability.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 9, 2006)

oh cool tnx man


----------



## CurzonDax (Mar 9, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Are you kidding me ? The Wehrmacht were the champions of recovering armour and putting it back into service!



But when you compare it to the ability of the USA to recover thier vehicles and put these back into service, there is no comparison.

:{)


----------



## plan_D (Mar 11, 2006)

You haven't a clue, I'm sorry. But the US forces were the worst ! They wasted so much material , they would just leave tanks that were easily recoverable behind because they knew full well plenty more brand new vehicles would come in anyway. 

The Germans had to collect and make use of whatever they could recover and find. The Wehrmacht were much more efficient with their material than the US were. The US were probably the worst !


----------



## Henk (Mar 11, 2006)

Yes you are right Plan D. I have a picture in one of my books where a Sherman is stuck in mud and the US army just left it there, but it can be recoverd easaly. 

The Germans only left something if they knew they can not use it any more or they are dead. In North Africa the Germans did leave quite a lot of stuff, but they were in a rush to get out.

Henk


----------



## plan_D (Mar 12, 2006)

When the Germans left North Africa a lot was left behind , but much of it was destroyed. During the North African campaign the Commonwealth forces were amazed at the efficiency of the German recovery crews. To them it always seemed the Germans would hold the battlefield to recover all vehicles left behind, by both sides.


----------



## Glider (Mar 12, 2006)

I can second that comment of Plan D. In the desert my Father was in the Royal Army Medical Corps. On one occasion he and his team went to the scene of a skirmish which the British had 'won' to tend the wounded. For some reason the medical teams were on their own and the Germans turned up to recover the damaged equipment. He spoke German and it was agreed that the Germans left them to tend the wounded while they recovered one tank and stripped another two of some spares. The British REME turned up a couple of hours later to find the spoils of victory had flown.

It should be noted that this happened behind what was officially the British lines. In reality there were no front lines in the majority of the desert. These only happened if both sides were squaring up for a major battle.


----------



## CurzonDax (Mar 12, 2006)

plan_D said:


> You haven't a clue, I'm sorry. But the US forces were the worst ! They wasted so much material , they would just leave tanks that were easily recoverable behind because they knew full well plenty more brand new vehicles would come in anyway.
> 
> The Germans had to collect and make use of whatever they could recover and find. The Wehrmacht were much more efficient with their material than the US were. The US were probably the worst !



Where did you get that from. I can list a plethora of sources from Ambrose to official US records to bios to third parties that if there was one army that could recover thier damaged vehicles, especially Shermans, and put them back into order it was the US. Read Citizen Soldiers, read Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II. I have either interviewed vets or seen documentaries where vets of all levels back this up. Also watch Speilberg's documentary Shooting War, its even mentioned here.

:{)


----------



## plan_D (Mar 12, 2006)

Stop reading American reports about how amazing they were. Read accounts of how U.S forces left trails of waste behind them. Read Monte Cassino by Matthew Parker, it has interviews from British, German, New Zealander and Indian troops mentioning U.S wastage of material. Read any book about German actions in the West, against the U.S, and all will have some mention in the amazement the Germans got from the US forces leaving equipment behind. 

Sure, they didn't always leave their vehicles behind. But in no way were they on par with the German Wehrmacht in recovery. The Germans needed to recover their vehicles , and they made sure they did. Even if it meant towing a Tiger with a Pz.Kpfw III. And yes, that did happen.


----------



## Henk (Mar 12, 2006)

Yep, the Russians were also like that. The Germans got a lot of T-34 that the Russians left behind. The Germans also used the captured US tanks to compare them against their own or use them against their former owners.

I must say that the US WW2 books are not always a good thing to read. I have read so much bullshit in them that I read a book a bit before I buy it or I look what it has in. Most of my books are from the UK, like Readers Digest books, but the few US books I have are great.

I do not buy a book that takes sides or only have half the info in it. It must be a book that does not take a side.

Henk


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 12, 2006)

I must agree that the US was wasteful but they alone could afford the waste many years ago i had the chance to fly along the Alaska highway .In 8 months they built a 1520 mile road through virgin wilderness including lots of muskeg and permafrost which was a fabulous project in which the US Army built a highway in order to resupply Alaska if the Japanese had been sucessful in that theatre along the length of that highway it is still possible to see where once the heavy equipment had become stuck or broken down it was shoved aside and replaced with new equipment the sheer numbers of equipment left behind is simply staggering at the time it was possible to see parking lot sized areas just jammed with abandoned equipment it was also used to resupply airfields positioned along the route which were used to fly lend lease a/c to the russians it was called the North West Staging route and it is still possible to find a/c that didn't make it


----------



## plan_D (Mar 12, 2006)

They were understandably wasteful, as you say pb, the U.S had an abundance of resource. They did not need to make the best of what they had. On the other hand, the Germans were in a desperate situation throughout the entirety of the war when it came to machine. They made the best of what they had and tried their best to keep it. 

The Red Army were not so bad, they abandoned a lot on the retreat. Which seemed to be all too often until 1943, giving the Wehrmacht plenty of oppurtunity to capture the Soviet equipment. 

The Wehrmacht managed to capture armour from all opposing sides, and did test many vehicles against their own. Sadly near the dying days of World War II the German efficiency in recovery began to falter, as it was hampered by lack of fuel and constant harassment from the air. An example lay in the Panther G captured by the 6th Coldstream Guards in the Ardennes Offensive, in perfect working order it was abandoned in a barn and named "Cuckoo" by it's new, British, crew. 







Source


----------



## Henk (Mar 12, 2006)

I think it must have been real bad for the Germans to leave their equipmant behind becuase of a lack of feul and the lack of parts and the unsafe air over you.

Henk


----------



## CurzonDax (Mar 12, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Stop reading American reports about how amazing they were. Read accounts of how U.S forces left trails of waste behind them. Read Monte Cassino by Matthew Parker, it has interviews from British, German, New Zealander and Indian troops mentioning U.S wastage of material. Read any book about German actions in the West, against the U.S, and all will have some mention in the amazement the Germans got from the US forces leaving equipment behind.
> 
> Sure, they didn't always leave their vehicles behind. But in no way were they on par with the German Wehrmacht in recovery. The Germans needed to recover their vehicles , and they made sure they did. Even if it meant towing a Tiger with a Pz.Kpfw III. And yes, that did happen.



I could say the same about you, quit reading exclusively German/Brit stuff about how great they were too. To me much of this stuff reads like Southerners writing about the Union after they lost the Civil War. A lot of it is great but for example Parker's book reads this way to me. 

Everyone wasted materiel especially the US. Hell even Bill Mauldin made fun of it. Willie and his pal meet a Tommy and the Tommy says "You Yanks leave a messy battlefield." Still I will stick to my point. 

:{)

PS 
At least I still think we agree that French bombers are fugly.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 12, 2006)

you wouldn't want the allies to get a hold of a panther or a tiger and copy it

the Germans had a shortage of raw materials and many countries hated Nazism


----------



## Henk (Mar 13, 2006)

> To me much of this stuff reads like Southerners writing about the Union after they lost the Civil War.



     

Please explain what you mean?

Henk


----------



## plan_D (Mar 14, 2006)

He's claiming that German and British after-action reports are lies. And the, in actual fact, America were excellent at recovering material and saving men. 

It's the nature of the U.S Army, and in fact it's people, to be wasteful. This shows in peace and war , they have an abundance of resource and will waste when there's more just around the corner. 

I haven't read solely German and British reports, so don't assume I have. The interviews read came from all over the Axis and Commonwealth, and I'm sure if I went digging in my books they'd be Americans in there too. 

How can you state that the Americans were the best when you haven't read up on German, Soviet or Commonwealth resourcefulness in recovery?


----------



## trackend (Mar 14, 2006)

Well im not going to get too deeply involved in this thread but ill go with you D that the US did not worry about waste but then they had the logistics to back it up no one else did.
This is not from any book this is from an eye witness incident (my old man) his landing craft had been using the same two ford V8's engines for 6 months and the stoker had been fiddling and mucking about to keep them running as there where no spares availabe.
Two days after D Day with the usual engine trouble they where drifting about when a US engineering boat pulled along side and asked if they could help. They shot off back to they depot ship when then where told the engines where playing up. They returned, craned out the old ones and dropped them straight into the sea, fitted two new ones all in less than 30 minutes, then said take it easy mac and left it a cloud of spray.
I dare say the power plants would have been overhauld by nearly everybody else but with the USA industrial might at there disposal it was not worth their effort to recover or repair them.


----------



## Henk (Mar 14, 2006)

Amen.

It is like that today in the US like plan_D said.

Henk


----------



## plan_D (Mar 15, 2006)

Not just in the U.S - in the Western World, we are wasteful. It's a throw away society. No one repairs equipment anymore, they throw it away and buy a new one.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 15, 2006)

so different in the far east... i saw someone throw away half a burger cause it was cold, and 3 slices of pizza. it reflects on the behavior of them lol


----------



## plan_D (Mar 15, 2006)

We have food to waste in the West - but we've earnt it, and toiled for centuries to become what we are today. I'm sure if there was a way, we'd send all the food we would throw out to Africa - but I hardly think they'd appreciate half eaten McDonalds and rotten eggs ...


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 15, 2006)

im sure every side of the world has it's own hunger story


----------



## plan_D (Mar 15, 2006)

We don't ... !


----------

