Over rated weapons of WW II

[Shortround6]

To keep from clogging/derailing the aircraft thread we could discuss overrated ground weapons here.

Tomo has suggested the German 88mm gun as a starter. And he certainly has a point.

Any other contenders/ candidates?

 

[fubar57]

M1 Carbine.............Just Kidding . Posted just so it will show up in my Alerts.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

BAR for me. Thoroughly outdated in its light machine gun role by the second world war, but still touted to this day as one of the best.

 

[Glider]

Stem gun arguably the worst Sun machine gun of the war

 

[Clayton Magnet]

My question would be, who is over rating the Sten gun?!
As far as I know, everyone knew it was a stamped together war emergency weapon, and treated it as such. Although, I would personally rather carry a sten gun than a Thompson or Reising

 

[soulezoo]

Disagree with the above about the BAR. The BAR was not a light machine gun but an automatic rifle. The Bren was a light machine gun. Differences are small, yet large at the same time. However, your opinion, I respect that. (This is an opinion thread after all)

I've read a number of anecdotal stories where the opposition feared the BAR and it was certainly useful in the jungles of the Pacific where its relative mobility was a plus over heavier weapons. Also useful to Clyde Barrow...

I think the V2 was overrated. A technological marvel for the time, yes. Fear producing? Yes. It's overall impact versus the resources it consumed however wasn't really worth it. Another that could be argued is the T-34 tank. I think while it had some good qualities, it was its sheer numbers that made it a winner, less than the qualities of the tank itself.

 

[soulezoo]

The German 88 gun, in my mind, is like what the Ju88 was for aircraft. Very versatile performing a lot of duties well, even if not great at any one of them. I'd like to hear why it may be overrated.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

The BAR was not a light machine gun but an automatic rifle

My point being that it was USED as a light machine gun, and was not very successful in that role. Yet it seems to maintain a reputation beyond its usefulness. For WWI, it was excellent, but completely overshadowed by WWII

 

[soulezoo]

^^^ and that's where we disagree. That's all.

On edit: if what you are saying is true, then that is an indictment on the service misusing the weapon, not an indictment on the weapon itself.

 

[Peter Gunn]

*SNIP*

Another that could be argued is the T-34 tank. I think while it had some good qualities, it was its sheer numbers that made it a winner, less than the qualities of the tank itself.

I can agree with that, the T-34 was good but also I believe holds the distinction of the most knocked out tank of WWII. Having read some of the evaluation done on it by Aberdeen Proving Grounds early on, they weren't too impressed with initial build quality, for one, it leaked like a sieve in the rain which shorted out the turret motors, which were electric.

 

[GrauGeist]

One such weapon that comes to mind, is the Mosin Nagant rifle - I have seen it placed on a pedestal and some have even gone as far as to say it "won WWII".

It was certainly a rugged weapon, but in reality, it was a liability for infantry in a fast-paced engagement, particularly street to street fighting.

Even the Germans were replacing the K98 with the MP40 at unit level by 1943 for that very reason.

 

[Shortround6]

The BAR was not a very good LMG but then we may be confusing things. The US considered the Browning 1919 air cooled machine gun the LMG and each company had two in the heavy weapons platoon. The BAR being more of a squad automatic.
The British and Germans carried tripods to mount their LMGs on for long range/heavy support fire. The Americans never expected the BAR to perform that duty. The Americans used the Browning 1917 water cooled at batallion level while the British used the Vickers and the Germans used the same tripods as the company level guns and just provided more spare barrels
The Americans never really (except for a period BEFORE Pearl Harbor) figured to use the BAR as an AA gun. Unlike the Bren and MG 34/42. The Browning 1919A4 filling in as the vehicle mounted AA gun until supplanted by the .50 cal.
Some of this is escuse making, but the BAR was not as bad as some foreign LMG/squad weapons and was never intended or expected to perform some the roles other LMGs did.

 

[Glider]

I would disagree with the T34 as being overrated. Quality control was an issue but the Russians didn't have a monopoly on that. However they scared the neck out of the Germans who often used them in combat.
Losses were more due to the tactics not the tank design

 

[soulezoo]

One such weapon that comes to mind, is the Mosin Nagant rifle - I have seen it placed on a pedestal and some have even gone as far as to say it "won WWII".

It was certainly a rugged weapon, but in reality, it was a liability for infantry in a fast-paced engagement, particularly street to street fighting.

Even the Germans were replacing the K98 with the MP40 at unit level by 1943 for that very reason.

We agree on this. The Mosin was a stone ax vs the more refined qualities of the K98.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

The Mosin was a stone ax vs the more refined qualities of the K98

Agreed x3. The ONLY reason that rifle is so popular in North America is because it is still inexpensive. Once supplies start to dry up, and the price goes up to match other milsurps, it will be regarded more accurately

 

[Shortround6]

With the T-34 we run into design/concept vs production reality and then add user training/tactics.
The T-34 was rather a mixed bag of good ideas and poor execution. Like many things the manufacturing quality changed with time.

 

[Glider]

Agreed x3. The ONLY reason that rifle is so popular in North America is because it is still inexpensive. Once supplies start to dry up, and the price goes up to match other milsurps, it will be regarded more accurately

Not entirely relevant but I used a Russian Vostok .22 target rifle for a while. It looked as if it had been used as a cricket bat but it shot very well. Don't let it's look out you off

 

[soulezoo]

Well, there were over 80,000 t-34's produced in WWII. By contrast, only about 1200 Tiger I's were made. Russia was producing 3 times the number of T-34's in one month than Germany produced Tigers for the whole war.
To the earlier comment on T-34's being the most knocked out, that is true. I think over 44,000 were lost in action.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

M91/30's can be very accurate, I don't think that is in dispute. The design of the rifle, and its handling characteristics leave much to be desired. Its bolt design is particularly bad, needlessly complex and difficult to manipulate. Almost like Nagant was trying to circumvent Mauser and Lee patents.

 

[soulezoo]

Not entirely relevant but I used a Russian Vostok .22 target rifle for a while. It looked as if it had been used as a cricket bat but it shot very well. Don't let it's look out you off

I've shot them. It was that experience that forms my opinion on them.