elmilitaro
Senior Airman
Hey guys I was just wondering, what army do ya'll think had the best weapons during WW2. This includes all types.
Army with best weapons
- Thread starter elmilitaro
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
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?
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
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
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 said:
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
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.........
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
Chief Master Sergeant
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.
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.
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.
:{)
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
Staff Sergeant
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
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 gunAs for planes, tanks, subs and ships, I'll let the rest of you decide
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
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
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
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?
and dont forget about the SVT40, was that a good gun as a Garand?
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.
:{)
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
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
trackend:
Yes, but it encouraged defensive (Maginot Line) rather than offensive (BlitzKrieg) 'play'.
Same goes for the Tiger tank.
CurzonDax:
Er, the DShK was actually superior...
Visa-versa happened too. They were both good in different scenarios.
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:
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
Yes, but it encouraged defensive (Maginot Line) rather than offensive (BlitzKrieg) 'play'.
Same goes for the Tiger tank.
CurzonDax:
Er, the DShK was actually superior...
Visa-versa happened too. They were both good in different scenarios.
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:
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
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!
:{)
:{)
PS
It took me a second to finish this, we just had a slight riot at the school I teach at. TGIF!
:{)
loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
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?
look, leave the suppressive fire to the MGs, how many Garands does it take to match the Firepower of an MG34/42?
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
CurzonDax:
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?
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)
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 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.
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?
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)
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 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.
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
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
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.
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
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
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.
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 ...
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 ...
