War winning weapons

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


Jan 20, 2004
This relates to all services and all allied nations, what piece of kit do you think contributed to the down fall of Germany, Japan, and Italy ;)
As a starter i think that the Spitfire and Lancaster have a very good claim for Britain, The T-34 and Sturmovik for Russia, and The Sherman Tank, pureley because of the numbers produced and the B-17, and B-24 in the European Theater and the B-29 in the Asian theater for the Americans any other nominations!!
good point mp-willow, but then so did the Germans, italians and Japanese have women workers backing up the blokes, i think Hitler declaring war on America, was almost as bad as invading Russia when he did.
The Americans alone produced 250,000 Combat Aircraft of all types.
i think this is the same as another topic that's around somewhere, i think we had to split it into when we were on the defensive (the early years) and when we were on the offensive (post D-Day).............................

M1 Garand Rifle
Spitfires of all marks

The Few

(Weapons Again)

Will post more as I think of 'em...
I don't get the M1 Garand, that wasn't war winning. It would have been the same had the Americans had a bolt action.
Uh-uh. The Garand not only was reliable and powerful, the clear advantage was that it could provide a follow-up shot.

"The greatest battle implement ever devised"~George C. Patton

Why this would help is that if you missed, you shoot again. Also, in an urban environment, what's better? a) missing your enemy and shooting again, this time killing him while he fumbles with his bolt, or b)shooting, missing, trying to hit the American very quickly before he shoots again, or else grabbing your pistol in a hurry to shoot him?
I well trained soldier doesn't fumble with his bolt, the fact that the Garand was semi-automatic doesn't make it a war winning weapon. Looking at it like that the Germans, British and Russians were getting shot to pieces. It's quite amazing how fast people can shoot on a bolt action.
But they can shoot even faster on a semi-auto. Patton LOVED the M-1 Garand and there isn't a person on this site qualified to argue with him!

I think the Essex-class carriers and the Hellcats are also worthy of acclaim as 'war-winning.'
You don't have to be qualified to argue with a man who doesn't care about human life. If you believe that the Garand was war winning there's something lacking up there. If the American forces were equipped with Springfield .03 as standard rifle, the out-come would be the same. The British got on fine with the Lee Enfield Mk. IV, the Russians with the Mosin-Nagant and the Germans did damn well with the K98.
I well trained soldier doesn't fumble with his bolt, the fact that the Garand was semi-automatic doesn't make it a war winning weapon. Looking at it like that the Germans, British and Russians were getting shot to pieces. It's quite amazing how fast people can shoot on a bolt action.

That is quite true.
During the Fisrt Battle of Ypres the German Solders were alleged to have reported that, "The British Solders have 2 Machine Guns Each*" such was the rate of fire from the British Trenches by Lee Enfield Bolt Action Rifles.

*From a book called "The Old Contempibles" I cannot remember the Authors Name

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Yep, that's quite correct - Wilfred Saint-Mande's, 'War,Wine and Women', the WWI story of his 4 years in the trenches, also states that. - Patton only loved Patton, but the M1 Garand WAS a fine rifle too...
- Also, the de Havilland DH98 Mosquito was a significant 'War Winner'.....
WE can all say what we want and mot likely to make point and counter point for each one. So on that why not say the lack of a unified frount between the three main Axis countreys? Germay was the most ready for war in 1939, but Italy waited and Japan did not really talk much. They had no clear plan of how the war would go long turm. So that is my other thought. Or why not the free tinking fighting sargent! :)
Have you ever seen the footage of a Garand being fired along side a bolt action rifle? The Garand was getting off more than twice as many aimed shots. That extra rate of fire was extremely useful in close combat situations such as the jungles of the South Pacific and the cities of Europe. Granted that a Thompson, Sten, or Grease Gun was even better, but a semi-auto rifle is much better that a bolt action for close in fighting.
i've fired both a bolt action and a semi-auto, i cud get more control with the bolt action........................
The Garand could get off more but that doesn't mean it's war winning. A well trained soldier gets enough off a bolt-action rifle, he doesn't fumble with the bolt he does it naturally.
The Germans up until 1944 were using bolt-action rifles, and up until 1942 they were winning. Would the STG.44 in 1940 made any difference? No.
Bolt-action works fine for distance shooting and is more accurate than a semi-auto (which is why most sniper rifles are bolt-action). The Garand was clearly the better weapon for close-in work and was more flexible (bolt actions can be difficult to work in anything other than a prone position). Other advantages include the larger magazine and that (when emptied) a fresh magazine was simply inserted rather than hand loading the individual rounds. However, the Garand should be considered war-winning for no other reason that the numbers produced. When it's production was ceased in 1950 more than 5.5 million had been made.
The only reason the Springfield .03 was loaded individually was the scope didn't allow for the quick-mag. The Lee Enfield and K98 had quick-loaders which were 5 rounds on a clip which was inserted just like a Garands clip.
And Bolt Actions can be used in any position.
All other arguments aside, I'm not saying the Garand was a war-winner, but given the choice I'd choose to go into battle with a semi-auto rifle over a bolt-action any day. The main thing the bolt-action has going for it, besides slightly better accuracy, is its inherent simplicity and the resultant reliablility.

Users who are viewing this thread