Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best?

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best? - 8/6/2008 1:30:15 PM

Anthropoid

Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline

I know small arms are only represented in these games as statistics, but still important. Moreover, I'll bet there are some serious experts on here. Me personally, I know just a superficial bit about this stuff and mostly I'm just being selfish and hoping to learn more from you guys who probably know all kinds of interesting trivia about WWII weapons, units, etc.

So, what do you think was the best WWII small arm device for each of the basic categories? Give reasons based on what you know. Maybe someone else will know a bit more or something different and change your mind

Bolt-Action Rifles
I'm going to say the Mauser Karabiner 98K, just simply for the accuracy and range. Maybe there were better ones though?

Semi-Automatic Rifles
Was there a better SAR in the WWII era than the M1-Garand?

Sub-Machine Guns
I'll go with the Russian PPs-41. Sounds slightly unreliable, but a nice balance of accuracy, lethality, range, and burst size (71 rounds is more than 3X what a single clip in a Thompson held!!). I thought this line was chilling

quote:

Over 6 million of these weapons were produced by the end of the war. The Soviets would often equip whole regiments and even entire divisions with the weapon, giving them unmatched short-range firepower.

Yikes! An entire DIVISION of high-capacity SMGs!? Not what I'd want to have sneak up on me in a dark alley on a cold Stalingrad night!!

I suppose the MP44/StG44 could be argued to fit the same role as an MP40, a Thompson, a Sten, a PPs-41, etc., but since it came so late in the war and fits into its own category of "Assault Rifle" maybe it should be considered an apple to the orange of the true sub-machineguns?

I wonder if things might have turned out a bit differently had the Nazi programs to develop the first assault rifles been 3 or 4 years advanced? I seem to recall reading about how assault rifles "revolutionized" warfare yet again, but I can't say I totally get how and why.

_____________________________

The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ328&feature=autoplay&list=AL94UKMTqg-9CocLGbd6tpbuQRxyF4FGNr&playnext=3

Post #: 1

RE: Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best? - 8/6/2008 1:38:30 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

The SMLE was probably marginally better than the Kar 98, but not by much. Garand beat all other semi-auto rifles.

The PPSh-41 had ease of manufacture and use, along with high clip capacity, but I don't think it was strictly speaking a good firearm (not very accurate). Interestingly, the two sides on the Eastern Front favoured each other's submachine guns highly; German troops would use the PPSh, and Soviet troops liked the MP-40.

As for machineguns, the MG-34 and the MG-42 were the obvious candidates. I'd prefer the -34 over the -42, the reason being the latter's heavy drain on the logistics of its users (HUGE ammo expenditure).

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 2

RE: Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best? - 8/6/2008 1:40:02 PM

Anthropoid

Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline

Mistmatz argues for the MG42 which probably shouldn't be compared to single-action rifles, semi-automatic rifles, sub-machineguns and assault rifles.

So maybe consider one other category in addition making five (so far) total (well maybe six . . .).

1) Single shot rifles
2) Semi-automatic rifles
3) Sub-machineguns
4) Assault rifles
5) Machine guns
6) Pistols

It is interesting to consider whether pistols really matter. I mean, imagine a Division or Brigade or whatever where NO PISTOLS were issued. Would it _really_ have mattered?

ADDIT: maybe carbines need to be their own category too?

< Message edited by Anthropoid -- 8/6/2008 1:42:14 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 3

RE: Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best? - 8/6/2008 1:49:10 PM

Anthropoid

Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline

Okay, based on a post by Wdolson over in the other thread where this idea got started, why not have "THE WORST" in each category as well!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

quote:

I do think the hands down worst small arm was the Japanese officer hand gun (I forget the designation). I read an article about it a year or so back. They are prized collectors items today because they were so awful, the souvenir collectors would throw them away. If I recall, they had a nasty habit of firing when jarred, even if the safety was on

It does kinda fit with the whole Bushido, Kamikazi, honorable suicide warrior theme though (oooh, hope that doesn't sound too, eh, "mean?")

Can't say I have the expertise to really say much about WORST for each category.

But I do seem to recall that the Japanese machineguns were pretty problematic. Something about how they were constructed, made it impossible to get into a low-down prone position with them? Actually, did the Japanese just have the worst small arms in general?

_____________________________

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 4

RE: Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best? - 8/6/2008 2:16:32 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
Can't say I have the expertise to really say much about WORST for each category.

But I do seem to recall that the Japanese machineguns were pretty problematic. Something about how they were constructed, made it impossible to get into a low-down prone position with them? Actually, did the Japanese just have the worst small arms in general?

Between the Japanese and the Italians. I think the market for "Lousy Small Arms" was pretty much "cornered".

I'd give the edge in MG's to the MG-42 for ease of manufacture and it's "intimidation" value..., I don't think any other MG was featured in a propaganda training film designed to reduce the "fear factor" of troops asked to face it. Though I have seen comments from those on the recieving end complaining about having a .50 cal "Ma Duece" turned on them.

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 5

RE: Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best? - 8/6/2008 2:35:58 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

What about automatic rifles?

The BAR was a class all it's own.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 6

RE: Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best? - 8/6/2008 2:44:18 PM

Anthropoid

Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The SMLE was probably marginally better than the Kar 98, but not by much. Garand beat all other semi-auto rifles.

Checked that out on Wiki. Fascinating.

quote:

The Lee-Enfield family of rifles is the oldest bolt-action rifle design still in official service,[13] after the contemporary Mosin-Nagant M91/30 was officially retired by the last of the former Communist Bloc in 1998�a testament to both the durability of the original Lee-Enfield design and the influence of the British Empire.

I guess in many senses the "Sun Never Has Set" on the Empire.

quote:

What about automatic rifles?

The BAR was a class all it's own.

So you'd consider the B.A.R. an "automatic rifle" not a "machine gun?" Please, elaborate :)

I find the evolution of firearms to be one of the most fascinating topics in human natural history. Maybe after I get tenure, and the political blowback will be largely irrelevant, I'll try to write an article for American Anthropologist on the topic.

_____________________________

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 7

RE: Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best? - 8/6/2008 2:58:52 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

So you'd consider the B.A.R. an "automatic rifle" not a "machine gun?" Please, elaborate :)

I'd call the BAR an automatic rifle. The concept was that a squad could carry something that was more portable than a machine gun and that it fired the same round as the M1. In a pinch, riflemen could donate some of their rounds the the BAR gunner. The BAR provided the fire support base for the maneuver element of the squad.

The drawback was that it didn't have the ability to keep up sustained fire for a long period of time. Lack of ammo, inability to change barrels, etc.....

It was a mobile, automatic weapon to support a squad. I'd much rather carry around a BAR than a MG (or tripod), or even hump ammo for one.

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 8

RE: Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best? - 8/6/2008 3:06:29 PM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

Garand, MG-42, Sturmgewehr 44. For sub-machine guns and pistols it is difficult to say depends on propose.

Curiosity:The Japanese type I rifle for SNLF's came from Italy and the last batch arrived by submarine in 1942.

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 9

RE: Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best? - 8/6/2008 4:01:41 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

I agree with Mike Solli regarding the BAR.

It wasn't a machine gun and was not a substitute for a machine gun much to the chagrin of the US Army doctrine boys.
The US thought it could substitute the BAR for the squad level machine gun and US army small unit firepower suffered greatly for it.

Even at the platoon level the US was seriously hurting for lack of machine gun firepower. That's why games depicting even units at company level such as the Panther Games engine model US infantry companies as extremely weak in direct firepower compared to a German company who's squads were built around the machine gun. The US army made up for the lack of small unit direct firepower with prodigious amounts of indirect fire support.

Don't get me wrong, the BAR was an impressive weapon in it's own right. It just wasn't suited to the role intended for it.

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 10

RE: Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best? - 8/6/2008 5:25:53 PM

thegreatwent

Posts: 3011
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: Denver, CO
Status: offline

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned pistols. My nomination is the Colt 1911. Runner up would be the Browning Hi-Power.

_____________________________

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 11

RE: Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best? - 8/6/2008 6:23:28 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Even at the platoon level the US was seriously hurting for lack of machine gun firepower. That's why games depicting even units at company level such as the Panther Games engine model US infantry companies as extremely weak in direct firepower compared to a German company who's squads were built around the machine gun. The US army made up for the lack of small unit direct firepower with prodigious amounts of indirect fire support.

Actually it made up for it with a prodigious number of radios at all levels and the most modern and effective artillery fire direction system in the world.

Though all game depictions of US infantry suffer because they fail to reccognize the proclivity of the American Infantryman to "aquire" additional firepower when they discovered the need. One of the factors leading to the collapse of the 106th Division in the Ardennes was that it took over the frontage that had been held by the 2nd Division. The 106th found itself holding dozens of positions for MG's and mortars and other equipment it didn't have..., but which the 2nd had aquired on it's journey from Normandy.

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 12

RE: Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best? - 8/6/2008 7:03:00 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
The US army made up for the lack of small unit direct firepower with prodigious amounts of indirect fire support.

Actually it made up for it with a prodigious number of radios at all levels and the most modern and effective artillery fire direction system in the world.

So you found a different words to say the exact same thing I said......kudos

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 13

RE: Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best? - 8/6/2008 7:03:06 PM

scott64

Posts: 4019
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

Anyone watch the History Channel a few years ago, when they had the program, Tales of the Gun? Some neat episodes on WWII. Also, The Military Channel runs a top ten series on assorted guns planes and tanks and such.

_____________________________

Lucky for you, tonight it's just me

Any ship can be a minesweeper..once !! :)

http://suspenseandmystery.blogspot.com/

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 14

RE: Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best? - 8/6/2008 9:14:22 PM

engineer

Posts: 590
Joined: 9/8/2006
Status: offline

The G43 gives the Garand a run for its money. It has a similar weight and fires a full size cartridge, but instead of the stripper clip it used a box magazine. Like a lot of German weapons it fell into the too little too late category to dramatically effect the war.

Of course, the Marines and, to a lesser extent, the US Army also used shotguns for close quarters fighting. The Winchester 97 was getting a little long of tooth but I think it was the Model 12 that was also issued to combat units.

(in reply to scott64)

Post #: 15

RE: Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best? - 8/7/2008 12:28:09 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
The US army made up for the lack of small unit direct firepower with prodigious amounts of indirect fire support.

Actually it made up for it with a prodigious number of radios at all levels and the most modern and effective artillery fire direction system in the world.

So you found a different words to say the exact same thing I said......kudos

Actually, I was making a particular distinction. It wasn't that the US had a particular advantage in number of tubes. The advantage was in being able to bring EVERY tube in range into action against a single target quickly. In most armies even an FO could only bring down a single battalion of guns in support.

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 16

RE: Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best? - 8/7/2008 12:52:02 AM

2ndACR

Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline

M2 .50 cal hands down for machine guns. Just about everything used it......ships, a/c, tanks, troops. Heavy hitting, super range (with still excellent penetration). But it was/is a heavy beast. IIRC, 128 lbs fully assembled with tripod. Plus the ammo cans are heavy too.

M1 Garand
Thompson SMG
Colt 1911 pistol
I do like the MG42 for sheer putting bullets down range and fear factor

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 17

RE: Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best? - 8/7/2008 2:42:57 AM

jcjordan

Posts: 1900
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline

Well being a collector of some of these

Bolt - Enfield 10rds plus ability to fire them fast vs 5rds of others but M1903 very close 2nd (I'd stack a Marine w/ a 1903 vs anything!!!) Swiss K31 gets a mention
Semi - Garand
Auto - STG44/MP44
MG - MG42 something to be said when we're still using it's decendant
Shotgun - only US has anything to consider, enough said
Pistol - P38/1911 very close
Sub - MP40 w/ Sten/M3 Grease

Not saying anything the IJ or Italians has was bad they just get bad reps but sometimes like the Nambu pistol do somewhat deserve the rep.

(in reply to 2ndACR)

Post #: 18

RE: Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best? - 8/7/2008 3:42:59 AM

Big B

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

Well being a collector of some of these

Bolt - Enfield 10rds plus ability to fire them fast vs 5rds of others but M1903 very close 2nd (I'd stack a Marine w/ a 1903 vs anything!!!) Swiss K31 gets a mention
Semi - Garand
Auto - STG44/MP44
MG - MG42 something to be said when we're still using it's decendant
Shotgun - only US has anything to consider, enough said
Pistol - P38/1911 very close
Sub - MP40 w/ Sten/M3 Grease

Not saying anything the IJ or Italians has was bad they just get bad reps but sometimes like the Nambu pistol do somewhat deserve the rep.

Not a bad list

The only items I would address are the 'machine guns'

Ma'duce - well it doesn't need defense from me.
The M1918A2 B.A.R. - a 'jack of all trades-master of none', but an extremely valuable weapon in the squad role, and a rather unique weapon.
Bren gun - a very reliable S.A.W. - outstanding in nothing in particular(ballistics, ROF, etc), but did everything it was asked very well.

The MG-42. Well, it has a mystique all its own, it was (I think) the first true 'General Purpose MG', it is still in production today as far as I know - in NATO cartridge, and had a very very good quick barrel change, and I know of no stories of battlefield failures in its working - at least nothing you could call a design flaw.
In my opinion, its chief drawback was its extremely high ROF (better suited to the AA role). I know that is heresy - and will cause forum members to roll their eyes, but in the infantry role - that is a genuine drawback.
Why?
Because automatic weapons fire is all about volume of fire over a sustained period of time to suppress a target. The drawback that the MG42 had (in its most common role - squad automatic weapon) is that the ROF is so high the barrel heats up in seconds - this means you must fire it in very short bursts. Further aggravating that problem is - like it or not - the weapon was served by a 75 RD saddle-drum (not clip-together disintegrating link belt)\, that gives you only a few bursts of fire before you must change drums - and after a couple of drums you must change the barrel.
The net result is, as a machine gun, you are not putting rounds in the 'beaten zone' continually enough for best effect....over a sustained period of time.
If you have visions of mowing down a hundred exposed men in two seconds - it aint gonna' happen. Automatic weapons fire is extremely inaccurate because of vibration and barrel climb - a fact that was driven home to me at Ft.Benning Georgia.
So for those limitations, it wouldn't be my support weapon of choice.

The best machine gun to support a squad or platoon in WWII would IMHO be the Browning M1917A1 heavy machine gun.
The old water-cooled was heavy with tripod, ammo, and radiator - but its reliable volume of sustained fire was unmatched. During proving trials it fired over 20,000 rounds continuous, non-stop, without a stoppage(that's 33 minutes by the way)...until the Army inspectors stopped the test saying 'you proved the weapon's reliability'.
Furthermore, it fired 250 round ammo belts, and its cal .30-06 (7.62x63mm) ammunition had the best long range ballistics of the time (to this day actually). To top it off, at a ROF of 600 rds per minute, it was quite capable of fulfilling a machine guns true role of laying down lead.
I know it aint sexy, and looks anachronistic, but it was the champ (IMHO). By the way, if I am not mistaken, the Brits hung on to their water-cooled Vickers until the mid 1960's for the same reason.

B

< Message edited by Big B -- 8/7/2008 4:42:26 AM >

(in reply to jcjordan)

Post #: 19

RE: Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best? - 8/7/2008 5:20:16 AM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

The high volume of fire of MG42 is/was very important to catch the enemy soldier hoping between protecting obstacles.

F

quote:

urther aggravating that problem is - like it or not - the weapon was served by a 75 RD saddle-drum

I think that is MG 34 not MG 42

< Message edited by Dili -- 8/7/2008 5:27:02 AM >

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 20

RE: Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best? - 8/7/2008 8:31:21 AM

Local Yokel

Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline

Got to raise the flag for Blighty here.

Big B mentions the British Vickers: he's quite correct, the gun remained in service with the British Army until the sixties (and possibly even longer with the Royal Marines). I think it last saw action at Aden in 1967.

As to reliability:

"On 24 August [1916] one of the most celebrated machine gun actions of all time took place nearby. This was the famous barrage fired by 100th Machine Gun Company in support of the capture of High Wood [Somme]. With the assistance of two companies of infantry to do the fetching and carrying, rapid fire (officially laid down as 250�300 rounds per minute) by 10 guns was maintained continuously for twelve hours. At the end of this period they had fired 900,750 rounds. Their target was the area behind the crest-line on which High Wood stands, through which German infantry attempting to counter-attack had to pass. According to a German prisoner, the effect of the machine-gun fire was �annihilating'." (Source)

This machine gun represented an improvement by Sir Hiram Maxim of his original design, changes to the lockwork having the effect of reducing substantially the weapon's weight. That said, attempts to lighten the tripod mount to less than 40lbs failed; I believe any lesser weight degraded stability/performance unacceptably.

So, for the most reliable sustained fire weapon, my vote goes to the Gun, Machine, Vickers, .303-inch.

_____________________________

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 21

RE: Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best? - 8/7/2008 10:44:57 AM

String

Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B
Further aggravating that problem is - like it or not - the weapon was served by a 75 RD saddle-drum (not clip-together disintegrating link belt)\, that gives you only a few bursts of fire before you must change drums - and after a couple of drums you must change the barrel.

Only the MG34 was capable of using the saddle-drum's. This option, as well as the semi auto capability, was eliminated in MG42 to ease production and to make the weapon simpler. The standard load was a 250 round belt, which naturally could be linked together.

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 22

RE: Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best? - 8/7/2008 11:45:33 AM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
The US army made up for the lack of small unit direct firepower with prodigious amounts of indirect fire support.

Actually it made up for it with a prodigious number of radios at all levels and the most modern and effective artillery fire direction system in the world.

So you found a different words to say the exact same thing I said......kudos

Actually, I was making a particular distinction. It wasn't that the US had a particular advantage in number of tubes. The advantage was in being able to bring EVERY tube in range into action against a single target quickly. In most armies even an FO could only bring down a single battalion of guns in support.

Agreed, but again I think you are splitting hairs. While somewhat more amiguous than your statement, my statement made no mention of numbers of tubes. You mearly clarify the methodology for the application of the "prodigiopus amounts of indirect fire support" I mentioned. I sometimes find it amazing that opinionated people can carry on a debate over something they agree on, especially when I'm doing it.

< Message edited by HansBolter -- 8/7/2008 11:47:24 AM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 23

RE: Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best? - 8/7/2008 2:13:14 PM

Big B

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

I stand corrected here, that was model confusion on my part, compounded by the 50 or 250 rd belt feed of the MG42.

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B
Further aggravating that problem is - like it or not - the weapon was served by a 75 RD saddle-drum (not clip-together disintegrating link belt)\, that gives you only a few bursts of fire before you must change drums - and after a couple of drums you must change the barrel.

Only the MG34 was capable of using the saddle-drum's. This option, as well as the semi auto capability, was eliminated in MG42 to ease production and to make the weapon simpler. The standard load was a 250 round belt, which naturally could be linked together.

EDIT:

This was the source of my confusion above. It shows the MG-42 with its 50-rd drum in the LMG role (I was of course thinking 75-rd saddle drum of the MG-34.)

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Big B -- 8/8/2008 1:03:42 AM >

(in reply to String)

Post #: 24

RE: Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best? - 8/8/2008 10:40:28 AM

Japan

Posts: 754
Joined: 10/26/2007
From: Heaven on Earth (Scandinavia of course)
Status: offline

The Best Serialprodused (BY FAR THE BEST)� Hand Weapon of WW2�was by far the STG44 - Sturmgewehr 44

Thay Prodused in� 430 000 in Total.�� Note that this is the Best Serialproduced Weapon only. (IMHO)

< Message edited by Japan -- 8/8/2008 10:41:11 AM >

_____________________________

AAR VIDEO
THE FIRST YEAR + THE SECOND YEAR
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2133035&mpage=1&key=&

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 25

RE: Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best? - 8/8/2008 10:52:26 AM

Japan

Posts: 754
Joined: 10/26/2007
From: Heaven on Earth (Scandinavia of course)
Status: offline

But anyway, The Best Weapon of WW2 is (IMHO) BY FAR is the FG42 - Fallschirmj�gergewehr 42

It was Prodused for Paratroops and Special Forces only (due to the high cost to produce it).

Also, the Weapon was brought to US, were he developed the M60, who is a Improved FG42.

FG42

M60

_____________________________

AAR VIDEO
THE FIRST YEAR + THE SECOND YEAR
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2133035&mpage=1&key=&

(in reply to Japan)

Post #: 26

RE: Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best? - 8/8/2008 11:53:53 AM

Japan

Posts: 754
Joined: 10/26/2007
From: Heaven on Earth (Scandinavia of course)
Status: offline

Pritty sad to think about it actualy, Germany Entered WW2 with a Standard Infanrty Rifle from 1898.
the Kar 1898 (Renamed Kar 98 due to morale phurpesses) was Standard Infantery Rifle of the German Army...� And i read here for a few days ago that the Germans had the Capebilety to verey Easy Produce the G41/G43 already in 1937, and that thay had the capebilety and knowlage of how to produce a Automatic Light Weight Assult Rifle such as the STG44 already in 1939... But never did it untill much much later..

Well Well, in another hand thay were doomed anyway as thay didnt evan start War Production and Gear Up untill late 1943...

_____________________________

AAR VIDEO
THE FIRST YEAR + THE SECOND YEAR
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2133035&mpage=1&key=&

(in reply to Japan)

Post #: 27

RE: Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best? - 8/8/2008 12:03:50 PM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

The best small arms are not always the most accurate, most produced,etc.
The best were the ones that be dropped in the mud, picked up, and still fired without problems.

Been there, done that, got the shirt.

_____________________________

(in reply to Japan)

Post #: 28

RE: Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best? - 8/8/2008 5:02:06 PM

Anthropoid

Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline

Very interesting stuff guys!

I'm an anthropologist by trade, with a focus on things like evolutionary psychology, human evolution, health. Generally anthroids tend to be so left-wingish that they don't even wanna think about things like firearms, though there are some famous anthropologists who study warfare.

When I put humanity into natural historical perspective, and consider that, the first fricking bow-and-arrow applied to warfare at mass scale was in like 4000 BC (mighta been 2000BC) I am utterly amazed at the evolution of weapons in general but projectile weapons in particular. The whole 6000 to 4000�years of it is amazing, but especially the last 500 or so since the application of gunpowder to guns. From that broad perspective, the last 150 years or so is even more dizzylingly amazing with the period of "The Great War Acts I & II" being still even more amazing.

These brains and these bodies are still "being built" from the same genotype-environment dynamics that our Hunter-Gatherer ancestors armed with piddly short-bows against lions and antelope used. But our "bows" have become something so totally new it boggles my mind.

Stop and think for�a second about the evolution of firearms during the Am Civ War. At the beginning rifled barrels and breechloaders were fairly uncommon. By the end, you have light-weight, compact repeating carbines and rifles that (if I understand correctly) are not that much different than what were used as the primary infantry and cavalry weapons for the next 40 years, for example the Kar 1898, and indeed right up into WWI.

Then we have other examples of a similar pattern of "punctuated equilibrium" in firearm evolution in the example of the MG42 being the same (basically) weapon as its modern descendants.

As I understand it, basic design�exemplified in devices like the�springfield bolt action have not really changed that much in the last 80 or 90 years eh?

quote:

Pritty sad to think about it actualy, Germany Entered WW2 with a Standard Infanrty Rifle from 1898.
the Kar 1898 (Renamed Kar 98 due to morale phurpesses) was Standard Infantery Rifle of the German Army... And i read here for a few days ago that the Germans had the Capebilety to verey Easy Produce the G41/G43 already in 1937, and that thay had the capebilety and knowlage of how to produce a Automatic Light Weight Assult Rifle such as the STG44 already in 1939... But never did it untill much much later..

Well Well, in another hand thay were doomed anyway as thay didnt evan start War Production and Gear Up untill late 1943...

Hey Engineer! I see you are in here too!

I wanted to comment here. Engineer's Western Citadel mod for WPO is one of the best game mods I have ever experienced. Indeed, the interest that this mod evoked for me is basically what got me over the hump of the learning cliff with the WPO/WiTP. The key thing that really hooked me on this mod: it has a very compelling, simple, yet fascinating STORY behind it. To put it simply: one Japanese naval official does not get killed because Titanic does not sink, and this reshapes both Japanese and American policy in the 1920s. Beautifully done mod.

Every since this mod, I keep thinking in terms of how small things can have massive long-term consequences. This idea is promoted in party by my knowledge of bottle-neck effects, and founder effects in biological evolution. Example, it is now thought that all New World Monkeys are derived from a very small population (perhaps a few score) of Old World monkey individuals carried across the early (and much less wide) Atlantic Ocean on some sort of natural floating raft (e.g., a mass of vegetation flushed out of a river by a storm). All the modern north American Starlings (some 200,000 birds) are descendants of a couple score birds released in Central Park NY.

In sum, I think the idea of alternate histories is a very compelling and fascinating one, and alternative scenarios can be hinged on really rather simple pretexts. For example, the point Japan makes about Germany's capacity to mass produce assault rifles in 1937, but IRL they continued to make use of the 40+ year old bolt-action as their primary infantry weapon. To say nothing of the much larger issue of full-scale war mobilization being delayed until 1943.

I'm about to try out RHS-AIO using the Level 7 maps, so maybe I'll find an outlet for all these deep thoughts!

< Message edited by Anthropoid -- 8/8/2008 5:14:33 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 29

RE: Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best? - 8/8/2008 5:04:14 PM

Adnan Meshuggi

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Japan

The Best Serialprodused (BY FAR THE BEST)� Hand Weapon of WW2�was by far the STG44 - Sturmgewehr 44

Thay Prodused in� 430 000 in Total.�� Note that this is the Best Serialproduced Weapon only. (IMHO)

Well, the STG44 was a revolutionary weapon, but still with pistol ammo, the short cartridge.

The idea to make a rifle cartridge automatic weapon, the final solution, was made by a certain russian who was deeply inspired by this weapon. His weapon will be remembered as the finest automatic rifle in the world, the AK47. (and yes, i know that now other ars are better - but how many of them had been used/produced and work after been mistreated like the ak47?

For MGs, the MG42 was and is the best maschinegun of the world. It is to heavy for modern warfare, but an enemy aproaching this weapon will be in deep trouble.

_____________________________

Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit

(in reply to Japan)

Post #: 30