# Best guns of WW2



## Soren (Sep 11, 2007)

Hi I'm back after some really hard working weeks, anyways back on topic:

Who made them ?

What features attributes made it/them the best in their field ?

How did it/they compare to others in the same field and of the same category ?


This should make for an interesting debate  

Best regards;
Soren


----------



## ccheese (Sep 11, 2007)

Man...... ! You opened up a Pandora's Box here. Everybody will jump in
from the BAR to the Sten, Bren, and heaven only knows what.

Charles


----------



## SoD Stitch (Sep 11, 2007)

Yeah, this is a pretty broad category; you're gonna get all kinds of guns, from railroad guns to .303's.

I'm gonna cast my vote for the Rheinmetall-Borsig MG 34/42, and the good ole' Browning M2 HB.


----------



## Soren (Sep 11, 2007)

Yes its broad, but like I pointed out its within different catgories, for example:

IMO the 8.8cm Kwk43 L/71 was the best AT tank gun of WW2. It fired a 10.2 kg Pzgr.39/43 (APCBC) projectile at a muzzle velocity of 1,000 m/s, being capable of penetrating 132mm's of armour laid back 30 degree's from vertical at 2,000m. Accuracy was phenominal in part because of the unusually high quality of the gun projectile but also because of the excellent high precision sights provided by Carl Zeiss Optik. 

While it wasn't the most powerful gun to be mounted on a tank during WW2, that honour belongs to the 12.8cm Pak44, it nonetheless is the most powerful AT gun to be mounted on a tank with a rotatable turret during WW2. The anti personnel effectiveness of the 8.8cm round was more than satisfactory, but compared to a 12.2cm or 12.8cm round it was lacking, its real strenght lay in armour penetration where the high kinetic energy coupled with the narrow surface area ensured great armour penetrative performance.


The above was strictly about tank guns and my opinion on which is the best of WW2. 

The next could be which fighter armament was the best ? Which infantry LMG or HMG was the best ? Which rifle, SMG or handgun was the best ? Artillery? etc etc...


----------



## SoD Stitch (Sep 11, 2007)

Soren said:


> Yes its broad, but like I pointed out its within different catgories, for example:
> 
> IMO the 8.8cm Kwk43 L/71 was the best AT tank gun of WW2. It fired a 10.2 kg Pzgr.39/43 (APCBC) projectile at a muzzle velocity of 1,000 m/s, being capable of penetrating 132mm's of armour laid back 30 degree's from vertical at 2,000m. Accuracy was phenominal in part because of the unusually high quality of the gun projectile but also because of the excellent high precision sights provided by Carl Zeiss Optik.
> 
> ...



You are absolutely right about the "dreaded" 88 . . . it is widely considered by many armament experts to be the best all-around tank gun of WWII. In particular, the KwK 43 L/71, as mounted on the PzKpfw VI Ausf. B, was probably the best tank gun of the War.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 11, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> You are absolutely right about the "dreaded" 88 . . . it is widely considered by many armament experts to be the best all-around tank gun of WWII. In particular, the KwK 43 L/71, as mounted on the PzKpfw VI Ausf. B, was probably the best tank gun of the War.



The reason I would vote the 88 as the best all around artillery piece is its versatility as AA, AT and Infantry support. The US 90mm with its proximity fusing is a worthy consideration for AA but rarely needed in comparison to 88.

I would go with the Mg42 as best LMG and M2 as best heavy MG..

As and air to air weapon, against anything except US bombers, I would go with the M2 once again with due consideration to Mg131/20 depending on mission.. The M2 was an exceptionally reliable and powerful aircraft machine gun while the 20mm had more lethal one round punch. A matter of personal taste when strafing and air to air fighter vs fighter or light/medium bomber is concerned... but the 50 had basically 2x ammo.

Don't know where exactly to put the Bren and BAR but would subordinate to mg 42 for most uses except where a lot of show leather is used. In those cases I would give the edge to Bren over BAR as squad weapon

Battle rifle - M1. The German '44 and the Johnson Rifle deserve consideration but neither made a particular impact on the war.. I wouldn't want to hear much about SMLE, Mauser or Springfield in context of WWII other than good ballistics and fought everywhere.

Sub Machine gun - Mp40 or Thompson - matter of taste although Thompson expensive in contrast with M3 (or Sten) or the Russian favorite - but hardest hitting of them all with 45 ACP round.

Large Naval Rifle - Japanese 18" with close second to US 16"

Small Naval Gun - US Navy 5" as dual purpose AA and beach close support with good rate of fire and fusing flexibility but a lot of very high quality choices available from Japan and Germany and GB. 

Shipboard AA - Bofors 40 

Medium Artillery - US 105 or Russian 122 with consideration to 155mm for mobility and firepower and versatilty.. 88 strong but top of range velocity reduced its plunging fire flexibility but a matter of taste.

Anti Tank - 88 hands down... with Russian 76 and US 90 worthy of consideration as distant seconds.

Stricly opinion.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Sep 11, 2007)

I'll go for the bren....
Just perfect......
i have spoken to many vets and none have said they disliked it....


----------



## Soren (Sep 11, 2007)

I agree with about everything except:

Air to air - I would always choose the 20mm MG-151/20 over the M2 as fighter vs fighter armament because of the much larger amount of damage caused on the target, a single hit from a 20mm MinenGeschoss being enough to rip an entire section of a wing apart. The 15mm MG-151 with its high velocity round (960 m/s) excellent ballistics penetration power was a very effective fighter vs fighter armament as-well. The M2 was nonetheless a very effective weapon for fighter vs fighter combat, benefitting from excellent ballistics and good penetration power. The 20mm Hispano deserves to be mentioned as-well, being a very effective fighter vs fighter armament.

As an anti bomber weapon nothing beats the 30mm MK108 MK103 though, with the MinenGeschoss it didn't take many hits to permanently down any US bomber.

Battle-rifle - The StG.44 hands down! To say it had no impact on the war is just plain wrong. The Sturmgewehr was many times the single reason some German units made it through the day alive, once saving an entire regiment from certain extinction, enabling the infantry to accomplish the otherwise impossible, punching through a USSR pincher made up of millions of russian troops. This was made possible only because of the huge firepower the StG44 provided the individual soldier. 

This having been said the M1 Garand is definitely the runner up, with the G43 as a close third. 

Bolt action rifles - the K98k hands downs because of its superior 7.92mm FMJ-BT projectile ingenious bolt design and top strength. The SMLE is the runner up and the Swiss K31 as third.

SMG - The MP-40 simply because it was as effective as the Thompson with the added benefit of being cheaper to produce. But in the ned its a matter of taste as the Thompson shoots faster while the MP-40 shoots slower but more accurately. It is debatable wether the .45 ACP packs a bigger punch than the 9mm Parabellum, but nomatter what both do their job well.

LMG - MG42 MG34

HMG - M2 no doubt. The MG42 MG34 both get honourable mentions here as-well though because of their huge effectiveness at laying down accurate deadly long range suppression fire, being refered to as a cannons by the Allied troops in Afrika.

Shipboard AA - The 4cm Bofors or the German 3.7cm SKC/30.

Anti Tank - The 8.8cm Kwk/Pak43 L/71 hands down, with the 7.5cm Kwk/Pak42 L/70 as a very close second, the 8.8cm Kwk36/Flak18 L/56 17 pdr sharing the third place. 

IMO the Russian 7.62cm doesn't deserve a place on the list because it didn't prove effective enough from 1942 and onwards, and the US 9cm M1 3 hardly saw any service as an AT weapon during WW2.

Medium Artillery - I'll go for the Rheinmetall 10.5cm leFH 18(M) with its excellent accuracy, long range and high RoF. The US 10.5cm M2 howitzer is the close runner up. The 8.8cm Flak18 gets an honourable mention as it proved very effective as medium artillery, and the plunging angle wasn't an issue as it depended on the firing angle.

Heavy Artillery - The 17.3cm Kanone 18 Mörserlafette, with the US 15.5cm Long Tom as the runner up.


----------



## Glider (Sep 11, 2007)

Air to Air - Hispano V excellent combination of gun weight, ROF, MV and weight of shell
Battle Rifle - Stg44 nothing came close and it would hold its own in many armies today
Bolt action - Lee Enfield
SMG - MP40
LMG - Bren for its additional mobility
MG - MG42, the first true GPMG
Naval Gun US 5in L38 best DP gun of the war by far
AA - 40mm Bofors probably used by more nations than any other heavy weapon.
Anti Tank - 75L70
Medium Art - 25pd its mobility, range and ROF
Heavy Art - Long Tom


----------



## drgondog (Sep 12, 2007)

Soren said:


> I agree with about everything except:
> 
> Air to air - I would always choose the 20mm MG-151/20 over the M2 as fighter vs fighter armament because of the much larger amount of damage caused on the target, a single hit from a 20mm MinenGeschoss being enough to rip an entire section of a wing apart. The 15mm MG-151 with its high velocity round (960 m/s) excellent ballistics penetration power was a very effective fighter vs fighter armament as-well. The M2 was nonetheless a very effective weapon for fighter vs fighter combat, benefitting from excellent ballistics and good penetration power. The 20mm Hispano deserves to be mentioned as-well, being a very effective fighter vs fighter armament.
> 
> ...



We are close, Soren - and I think personal preference, without great distinction on performance, is a separator. I like the StG 44 as a great design but do not classify the weapon as a 'battle' rifle, nor would I have a separate category for 'bolt action'

If there is an 'asault rifle' category then the StG 44 is hands down over the M-2 Carbine, but in retrospect I lump the 44 in with Thompson and Mp-40 and give it the edge there also.

My comment about effectiveness was that only 8% of the total number of M-1s were built.. and didn't show up until 1944. 

Last, I would go with the 1911A1 for personal sidearm. If the SiG 220 existed then I would favor it due to double/single action feature as well as de-cocking. I've never 'lost' a round in the .45 due to manually releasing the hammer - but the SiG/H&K features are outstanding... 70 years later.

The Browning 9mm Hi Power and P-38 would be close seconds for me.


----------



## ccheese (Sep 12, 2007)

I've been reading about the StG 44. I've seen it in the hands of German's
in documentarys but didn't realize just what it was.

Wiki says this (in part):

"The Sturmgewher 44 was the world's first true assault rifle and 
was introduced by the German army late in WWII. It was the direct
inspiration for the Russian AK47, the most prolific gun in the world. 
*If the war had continued another year, the SG44 would have 
replaced every other rifle, light machine gun, and submachine gun 
in the Wehrmacht, including the antique Karabiner 98k and anemic 
MP38.*

The SG44 was revolutionary in that it combined the best elements 
of both rifles and submachine guns. It fired an intermediate cartridge 
that was powerful enough to hit targets accurately at long ranges, 
yet not so overwhelming that automatic fire became impossible."

Guess it gets my vote as the best (assault) rifle.

And..... I agree that the German "88" was the best for AA and
anti-tank. I didn't realize it was used as anti-personnel too.

Charles


----------



## SoD Stitch (Sep 12, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Last, I would go with the 1911A1 for personal sidearm. If the SiG 220 existed then I would favor it due to double/single action feature as well as de-cocking. I've never 'lost' a round in the .45 due to manually releasing the hammer - but the SiG/H&K features are outstanding... 70 years later.
> 
> The Browning 9mm Hi Power and P-38 would be close seconds for me.



Totally agree with you about the M1911A1; I think it's the best personal sidearm in history. As much as I like the P08 Luger for it's looks, it wasn't terribly reliable, and it only fired a 9mm round (not much stopping power). To this day, certain branches of the US unconventional warfare armed forces prefer the 1911 over any other sidearm, even the newer 9mm jobs (like the SiG-Sauer 250).


----------



## drgondog (Sep 12, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> Totally agree with you about the M1911A1; I think it's the best personal sidearm in history. As much as I like the P08 Luger for it's looks, it wasn't terribly reliable, and it only fired a 9mm round (not much stopping power). To this day, certain branches of the US unconventional warfare armed forces prefer the 1911 over any other sidearm, even the newer 9mm jobs (like the SiG-Sauer 250).



I have a Wilson 1911A1 which is unbelievably accurate and I replaced it with the SiG 220 only for the reasons I mentioned above plus it was almost a one holer at 15M with factory rest - I would not give up either willingly. 

The Wilson is sub 1" at 25 yards with 5 and the 220 about 1 1/2 (Machine rest - I don't shoot pistol THAT well)

The other reason I favor the 220 is ability to keep one in the chamber, hammer down, and use it in double action- essentially as safe as a double action revolver.


----------



## renrich (Sep 12, 2007)

Since this is a thread about WW2 guns I have a question that some of you may be able to answer. At the beginning of the war for the US, our navy had an AA gun called, I believe, the 1.1 inch hose gun. Often they were mounted in quads. I figure that was about a 25mm caliber. I heard somewhere a long time ago that they were unsatisfactory in some way. I believe they were still in action at Midway. In fact some of the underwater photos of the Yorktown seem to show these guns. At a family reunion years ago one of my uncles who was a CGM on Salt lake City asked another who was a CGM on Chicago about an incident where a 1.1(Ibelieve) continued to fire when depressed below the edge of the gun tub and that is all I remember and now they are both gone. Sometime after Midway those guns disappeared and the Bofors and Oerlikons took over. Does anyone know the story on that gun?


----------



## SoD Stitch (Sep 12, 2007)

drgondog said:


> I have a Wilson 1911A1 which is unbelievably accurate and I replaced it with the SiG 220 only for the reasons I mentioned above plus it was almost a one holer at 15M with factory rest - I would not give up either willingly.
> 
> The Wilson is sub 1" at 25 yards with 5 and the 220 about 1 1/2 (Machine rest - I don't shoot pistol THAT well)
> 
> The other reason I favor the 220 is ability to keep one in the chamber, hammer down, and use it in double action- essentially as safe as a double action revolver.



Sweet! You've got a Wilson? Is it the Pro model? I like the simplicity of the Wilson 45's, as compared to other units.


----------



## Soren (Sep 12, 2007)

drgondog said:


> We are close, Soren - and I think personal preference, without great distinction on performance, is a separator.



I choose the 10.5cm LeFH 18/40 over the 10.5cm M2 because it possesses a longer range according to reports better accuracy than the M2 howitzer. I choose the 17.3cm Kanone 18 over the 15.5cm Long Tom for roughly the same reasons and because the Kanone 18 fires a more potent shell further while hthe weight of the two guns are quite similar.



> I like the StG 44 as a great design but do not classify the weapon as a 'battle' rifle, nor would I have a separate category for 'bolt action'



The StG44 can be considered a battle rifle as its effective range is beyond 700m at which range steel helmets were easily penetrated, and the fact that it can be fired controllably at full automatic (500rpm) makes for alot of firepower.

The reason the MP-40 is more accurate than the Thompson is because its far more controllable at full automatic fire, the MP-40 is infact one of the most controllable SMG's on full auto even to this day. And when I say that its debatable wether the .45 ACP packs a bigger punch than the 9mm arabellum it is because the KE of the 9mm is infact higher, giving the 9mm parabellum better penetration capability. In terms of stopping power with expanding bullet the .45 ACP is the best, hence the SOCOM reports, there's simply more surface to immediately dump the energy of the round inside the target. There's no difference between a .45 ACP FMJ bullet and 9mm FMJ bullet in terms of stopping power, the 9mm just possesses slightly better penetration power. 



> If there is an 'asault rifle' category then the StG 44 is hands down over the M-2 Carbine, but in retrospect I lump the 44 in with Thompson and Mp-40 and give it the edge there also.



The M-2 Carbine doesn't qualify as an assaukt rifle though, its round isn't intermediate and features far poorer ballistics than the 7.92x33mm Kurz round, plus the M-2 Carbine couldn't fire full automatic. You'll have to consider that the StG44 fires a 8.1 g FMJ Spitzer bullet at 686 m/s while the M-2 Carbine fires a 7 g FMJ round nosed bullet at 580 m/s.



> Last, I would go with the 1911A1 for personal sidearm. The Browning 9mm Hi Power and P-38 would be close seconds for me.



Very understandable. Though I would personally prefer the Belgian Fabrique Nationale (FN) Browning "High Power" over the M1911A1.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 12, 2007)

Soren said:


> I choose the 10.5cm LeFH 18/40 over the 10.5cm M2 because it possesses a longer range according to reports better accuracy than the M2 howitzer. I choose the 17.3cm Kanone 18 over the 15.5cm Long Tom for roughly the same reasons and because the Kanone 18 fires a more potent shell further while hthe weight of the two guns are quite similar.
> 
> *Always the question of 'reports' - I'm willing to be educated - what reports?*
> 
> ...



A matter of choice - I still like the .45 ACP, and today the .40 S&W would be second with the 158gr Hydro shock - I just don't like the 9mm. How much experience do you have with the 1911A1?


----------



## Soren (Sep 13, 2007)

The M-2 did feature selective fire, I was thinking of the M-1 Carbine, but the M-2 didn't arrive until 1945 and I'm pretty confident it didn't see action in the ETO.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 13, 2007)

Soren said:


> The M-2 did feature selective fire, I was thinking of the M-1 Carbine, but the M-2 didn't arrive until 1945 and I'm pretty confident it didn't see action in the ETO.



It was introduced in Oct 1944 and replaced the M-1 Carbines issued to US Airborne troops.. I don't think either 82nd or 101st had them at the Bulge but they did on the 24 March, 1945 Rhine jump. It saw service with USMC and USA all during 1945 in PTO.

Irrelevant - it was designed more to replace the Thompson, the M3 and the M-1 Carbine. It was found to jam in extreme cold weather in Korea but worked well in Viet Nam. It had a MV of 600m/s with a 110 grain bullet and a cyclic rate of 850 rpm. More like an Mp40 with the collapsible stock

From an accuracy standpoint, in semi auto, I had an M-1 Carbine that would group 4 inches at 200 yards with 5 shot groups but I bedded it and polished the sear to get a 4 pound trigger pull. When the AR-15 became available for civilian use I got rid of the M-1.

I would choose an StG 44 every day


----------



## Soren (Sep 13, 2007)

Sorry I forgot to answer your question.

Yes I have plenty of experience firing the M1911A-1, a very nice but abit heavy sidearm (Heavy as in by contrast to other sidearms) The P-38 is also a very nice sidearm, very reliable and accurate. The Luger, well haven't shot it many times but the times I did it performed beautifully, being very comfortable to aim and shoot with, and pretty darn accurate - nt sure where the rumor that it was unreliable comes from, according to veterans it never jammed, not even in extreme cold (Most likely because it was always very well wrapped up when carried)

The Howitzer report is on the way, its from an allied intelligence bullitin where they interviewed US troopers at the front.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 13, 2007)

Soren said:


> Sorry I forgot to answer your question.
> 
> Yes I have plenty of experience firing the M1911A-1, a very nice but abit heavy sidearm (Heavy as in by contrast to other sidearms) The P-38 is also a very nice sidearm, very reliable and accurate. The Luger, well haven't shot it many times but the times I did it performed beautifully, being very comfortable to aim and shoot with, and pretty darn accurate - nt sure where the rumor that it was unreliable comes from, according to veterans it never jammed, not even in extreme cold (Most likely because it was always very well wrapped up when carried)
> 
> The Howitzer report is on the way, its from an allied intelligence bullitin where they interviewed US troopers at the front.



I never found a Luger un relaiable with commercial factory ammo but never fired it with military ball.. I liked the slight extra heft of the 1911A1 - firing 230 gr ball in that weight was easy.

Thanks for the Howitzer report - does it have a 'side by side' comparison?


----------



## Soren (Sep 17, 2007)

Haven't had much success in finding the howitzer report, simply haven't had enough time, but you can find it on this site: Lone Sentry: Photographs, Documents, and Research on World War II


----------



## drgondog (Sep 17, 2007)

I'll check it out. Thanks. Have a great Octoberfest


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 23, 2007)

drgondog said:


> I never found a Luger un relaiable with commercial factory ammo but never fired it with military ball.. I liked the slight extra heft of the 1911A1 - firing 230 gr ball in that weight was easy.



The Luger's main problem seems to be the fact that it was expensive to manufacture - a dang sidearm and yet it cost about as much as a standard issue Mauser rifle. Never fired it myself (for legal reasons, it's rather difficult to get live guns here), but got a replica loooong time ago and it's simply the most 'natural' gun I have ever had in mind hand. Perfect grip, great balancing.

Not sure about reliability, all semiautos I've handled are very sensitive to ammunition. It has a rather unusual mechanism, but I guess if it worked in the WW1 trenches, it worked everywhere, not to mention it's the 9mm itself was tailored for it and not vica versa!


----------



## mkloby (Sep 23, 2007)

I have some personal experience with an M2 in an exercise as a FO. The howitzer firing was about 8 clicks away, as I recall. The target I was calling for fire on was an old tank hulk about 1000-1500m from me. The first fire I called in landed close, slightly short, but within the effective casualty radius. I adjusted the fire and seconds later there were 105s raining down within feet, all around the hulk.

How's that for a report of the M2's accuracy.


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 23, 2007)

Within feet, 8 clicks away..? 

Unlikely for anyone who had seen an actual range&ballistic table for howitzers if you ask me.


----------



## Soren (Sep 23, 2007)

drgondog said:


> I'll check it out. Thanks. Have a great Octoberfest



Thanks Bill, but I'm not from Germany 


*Kurfürst,*

I agree completely, the Luger is a very well balanced pistol with a great grip and that was also the very first thing I noticed about it - it makes it very comfortable to shoot with.

*mkloby,*

There's no doubt that the M2 was an accurate howitzer, most ww2 howitzers are, however take a look on the website I linked, there US troopers explain how the Germans would blow small narrow roads to pieces with just one or two artillery pieces, not a single shell landing outside of the small narrow road. One soldier makes the following remark: _"On the other hand, we were impressed with the accuracy of German field artillery. I've seen a 150-mm battery concentration hit a crossroads so consistently that engineers had to be called on to make it passable for a 2 1/2-ton truck. As far as thoroughness goes, the Germans get more out of a round than the devil himself gets on a lump of coal." _


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 23, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> Within feet, 8 clicks away..?
> 
> Unlikely for anyone who had seen an actual range&ballistic table for howitzers if you ask me.



Well he is talking from experience. He was the one calling it in.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 23, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> Within feet, 8 clicks away..?
> 
> Unlikely for anyone who had seen an actual range&ballistic table for howitzers if you ask me.



Seriously Kurfürst? Well, with that kind of response - what else can I say. You're right - I concede. I completely made that story up. You're book knowledge is superior to my actual experience. I'm sorry I questioned your numbers.



Soren said:


> *mkloby,*
> 
> There's no doubt that the M2 was an accurate howitzer, most ww2 howitzers are, however take a look on the website I linked, there US troopers explain how the Germans would blow small narrow roads to pieces with just one or two artillery pieces, not a single shell landing outside of the small narrow road. One soldier makes the following remark: _"On the other hand, we were impressed with the accuracy of German field artillery. I've seen a 150-mm battery concentration hit a crossroads so consistently that engineers had to be called on to make it passable for a 2 1/2-ton truck. As far as thoroughness goes, the Germans get more out of a round than the devil himself gets on a lump of coal." _



I do believe it based off of my limited experience with field artillery. I will check it out when I get time later.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 23, 2007)

Soren said:


> Thanks Bill, but I'm not from Germany



Neither am I but I haven't missed too many in the last 30 years.. We usually try to get to Munich and Madrid this time of the year but missing this year.


----------



## Soren (Sep 23, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Neither am I but I haven't missed too many in the last 30 years.. We usually try to get to Munich and Madrid this time of the year but missing this year.



I've never experienced it, but I've heard from friends that its well worth the long trip. I must admit I like the idea of women with lovely showing cleavages walking around with ten or more glasses of beer


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 24, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well he is talking from experience. He was the one calling it in.



That's all right and I understand that, still, I have this itchy feeling it's not only pilots who have their own anecdotes... this is for a 152mm captured russian howitzer piece. I doubt other howitzers would be lightyears more accurate.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 24, 2007)

Kurfürst - I'm glad you whipped out your book to prove your "itch" that this is an anecdote. That book is a great reference I am sure. BTW, I'm a military pilot - I have no vested interest in arty. When I said "feet," I probably more accurately meant meters, without realizing a campstool commando would be picking the post apart. I'll tell you what, though - the fire was not nearly as poor as in your table above.

Just a thought - before you degrade someone's experience, remember that just because you have a book that says something contrary doesn't mean it is untrue. I'm going out on a limb guessing that you don't have any experience of your own to back yourself. It's a shame - I used to think your posts were rather well thought out and insightful.


----------



## Soren (Sep 25, 2007)

Oh dear...


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 25, 2007)

Dear Mkloby,

A few comments.

1, This 'book' was made by people with vastly more experience than either you or me.

2, I've seen our own arty on live fire excercise. There's a safety zone for a good reason. Doesn't concern flyboys but it rather concerned us, poor meatbags. 

3, The table shows that for this particular piece of arty equipment, at 8000m 50% of the shells will land in a 70 meter long and 8.8 meter wide area. The area is typically ellipitical shaped along the longitudal axis, and the scatter can be described with Gaussian probability formulea. Which of course can mean that a few shells will land within a few meters, but most won't.

Sidenote : In case of a 152mm shell however, the diameter of the crater it will be making is about 10 meters, so 8 meters of sideways spread is little comfort anyways. The real dispersion will still appear distance-wise. If we take into account the size of a tank hull you've seen as a target, it sure seems less than it actually is.

That of course is true for before today's ballistical computers, which constantly monitor and adjust for barrel wear, ambient temperature, air pressure and million other things. However we're talking about WW2.

There's no need for you to take this so personal anyways. It's a discussion board, we merely exchange our opinions.


----------



## Soren (Sep 25, 2007)

Guys remember things have probably been altered quite a bit within US army since WW2  the range adjustment piece for a M2 in the 70's up until now likely differs quite abit from its WW2 counterpart - hence why mkloby mentions the range was estimated in meters.

Just my two cents worth..


----------



## mkloby (Sep 25, 2007)

Good point regarding the modern fire control center - I didn't think of that.

K - I apologize for my reaction. My experience may very well not be the norm. Maybe my grid coords were perfect, maybe the arty crew was sh*t hot, or maybe it was dumb luck. You're right - the men that compiled that data were probably arty officers with tons of experience, and I do not doubt its accuracy. Maybe I misunderstood you, but the part that got me was when you insinuated that it was a tall tale.

Cheers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2007)

Soren said:


> I've never experienced it, but I've heard from friends that its well worth the long trip. I must admit I like the idea of women with lovely showing cleavages walking around with ten or more glasses of beer



Having been to it many times, it is not worth it. There are too many people there. You are better off going to smaller fests that are all over Germany and less crowded. You pretty much get the same beer and the same big chested women.

Hell you are better of going to Munich when the Oktoberfest is not going on and just going to the famous Hofbrau Haus and you get the same. I will be at the Hofbrau Haus the first weekend in November.

Now having said that the Oktoberfest is a must atleast once in your life just to say you have been there.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 28, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Having been to it many times, it is not worth it. There are too many people there. You are better off going to smaller fests that are all over Germany and less crowded. You pretty much get the same beer and the same big chested women.
> 
> Hell you are better of going to Munich when the Oktoberfest is not going on and just going to the famous Hofbrau Haus and you get the same. I will be at the Hofbrau Haus the first weekend in November.
> 
> Now having said that the Oktoberfest is a must atleast once in your life just to say you have been there.



Munich and Madrid are still my two favorite cities.. I remember my first trip down the Rhine on the way to Munchen with that Deja Vu sense of having done that before in a different time.

The summer after HS grad, before I reported for football practice at Ga Tech, I spent 60 days riding a Norton Commando from London to Calais (ferry) then up to Arnhem, on an excursion down the Rhine, on to Munchen - then to Vienna, Venice, Rome, Barcelona, Madrid, Porto and Lisbon ,across the mountains in S. France Normandy, Paris and back to London. MATS ride from UK back to Andrews AFB Greatest experience of my single life. I sold my Norton when I got back to US and cleared my trip expenses with the difference.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 19, 2009)

Just've seen this topic...

#1: Sidearm: Browning HP, just because of many ammo in magazine.

#2: Personal weapon: PPSh-41, until MP-44 becomes available.

#3: LMG: MG 34 until MG 42 emerges

#4: HMG: ma deuce is the winner

#5: Mortars: Russian 50, 82 and 120mm pieces.

#6: AT guns (towed): 45mm, then 57mm zis-2, then 17pd

#7: Medium artillery: 122mm M 1938 howitzer

#8: Heavy artillery: 17 K 18 gun


----------



## Amsel (Jan 19, 2009)

1. Flak 88

2. MG 42

3. M1 Garand

4. Pak 40


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 20, 2009)

Now how I've forgot the triple A....
Okay, 40mm Bofors for point defence, while I have no favorites when it comes to the heavies. It's really up to the radar to make those effective.


----------

