|
Posts:
2
Registered:
11/4/09
|
|
(1 of 45)
Who had better weapons in ww2?
Nov 4, 2009 1:21 PM
|
|
Didd aAlies or Nazis have better weapons?????
|
|
|
Posts:
68
From:
Where the snow never falls.
Registered:
10/30/09
|
|
(2 of 45)
Re: Who had better weapons in ww2?
Nov 4, 2009 2:37 PM
|
Your question is too ambiguously worded to give a sensible answer. What stage of the war. What weapons in particular. You can’t paint the entire war with one brush stroke.
PS. Was Toomtabard your English teacher.
--
Kenny thinks the Tempest was not a Fighter/Bomber.
|
|
|
Posts:
297
From:
USA
Registered:
4/26/08
|
|
(3 of 45)
Re: Who had better weapons in ww2?
Nov 4, 2009 3:34 PM
|
Rifles, Snipers, Tanks, MG, Naval Guns, Naval Ships (specify), Mines, Fighters, Bombers.
The more specific the better the answer.
--
Why join the Army and sleep in the dirt and eat MREs when you can sleep in a bunk and get steak and eggs in the Navy?
|
|
|
Posts:
171
Registered:
5/6/09
|
|
(4 of 45)
Re: Who had better weapons in ww2?
Nov 4, 2009 5:05 PM
|
" Didd aAlies or Nazis have better weapons????? "
YES !!
|
|
|
Posts:
8,830
Registered:
12/30/03
|
|
(5 of 45)
Re: Who had better weapons in ww2?
Nov 4, 2009 10:26 PM
|
The real weapons which counted were the ones considered least exciting: Good reliable and numerous transports.
In that vein, the Allies had the most advanced systems in that regard.
6x6 trucks, DC-3's, Liberty Ships, easy to produce, easy to maintain vehicles to get stuff from point A to point B in the most reliable fashion had no real comparable analogs among the Axis
Logistics, the recognition of its importance and the ability to protect one's own is what wins conventional wars. George Marshall's efforts in handling wartime production and overall material management were worth a dozen Romels or Mansteins.
--
If irony were strawberries we would all be having smoothies right now.
|
|
|
Posts:
506
Registered:
7/1/09
|
|
(6 of 45)
Re: Who had better weapons in ww2?
Nov 4, 2009 10:38 PM
|
> The real weapons which counted were the ones
> considered least exciting: Good reliable and numerous
> transports.
> In that vein, the Allies had the most advanced
> systems in that regard.
>
> 6x6 trucks, DC-3's, Liberty Ships, easy to produce,
> easy to maintain vehicles to get stuff from point A
> to point B in the most reliable fashion had no real
> comparable analogs among the Axis
>
> Logistics, the recognition of its importance and the
> ability to protect one's own is what wins
> conventional wars. George Marshall's efforts in
> handling wartime production and overall material
> management were worth a dozen Romels or Mansteins.
Let's give credit where credit is due. All the things you mentioned were American.
|
|
|
Posts:
221
Registered:
10/7/04
|
|
(7 of 45)
Re: Who had better weapons in ww2?
Nov 5, 2009 5:50 AM
|
Let's give credit where credit is due. All the things you mentioned were American.
Yep those Ruskies only won because they used our trucks and killed 75% of The German Army with tins of spam...we saved their as**s!!!
--
The Real IRA is a gorilla army......................
That's probably something the half-wits on this board no nothing about..... ..........
Putin and his hoards...........
Sam says Admiral King asked the British, in November 1942, to send an aircraft carrier to help the USN at Midway--fought in June 1942!!!!!!
|
|
|
Posts:
107
From:
California
Registered:
8/26/09
|
|
(8 of 45)
Re: Who had better weapons in ww2?
Nov 5, 2009 6:25 AM
|
This is a serious question and deserves accurate answers:
1. The German tanks had much better armor than that of American tanks,yet, they were fewer in number and broke down more often. Germans were best in battle. Which would you rather have coming at you?
2. The German machine guns fired at twice the number of bullets per minute as those of the Americans. They had metal clips holding the string of bullets together. American machine guns had web(canvas) bands holding bullets together. Germans best.
3. Pistols: The German Lugar and P-38 were far better than American pistols due to balance.
4. Steel helmets: The Germans were the better steel and deflected bullets much better.
5. Shoes: The Germans had good leather boots. americans and English had canvas leggings. The German boots were above the mud level. Italy: American shoes and leggings let the water in.
6. Rifles: In good weather conditions, the Garand M 1 semi-automatic rifle was better than the German bolt action single shot rifle. More fire power. Yet, the Germans were trained to take the time and shoot for accuracy while the U.S. M1 splattered out more bullets. In freezing and and wet weather the German rifle was more dependable.
7. Anti Tank: Early on (Africa) the Americans were using the 37 mm anti-tank gun. In every case, these projectiles(bullets) glance off the German tanks. In Italy, the English supplied the Americans with 57 mm anti-tank guns. This was about 10 times more powerful than the our old 37 mm due to size of the projectile.
8. Bazookas: The German panzerfaust had much better penetration than American bazookas.
I could go on and on on infantry weapons but I'm afraid that the Germans "outbested" us.
|
|
|
Posts:
107
From:
California
Registered:
8/26/09
|
|
(9 of 45)
Re: Who had better weapons in ww2?
Nov 5, 2009 7:22 AM
|
The thing that really COUNTED was QUANTITY MORE THAN QUALITY.
We all know the answer here.
|
|
|
Posts:
555
Registered:
4/19/09
|
|
(10 of 45)
Re: Who had better weapons in ww2?
Nov 5, 2009 1:13 PM
|
6. Rifles: In good weather conditions, the Garand M 1 semi-automatic rifle was better than the German bolt action single shot rifle. More fire power. Yet, the Germans were trained to take the time and shoot for accuracy while the U.S. M1 splattered out more bullets. In freezing and and wet weather the German rifle was more dependable.
ww2vetttt, did you see the M1 fail to perform just because of the temperature ? or, did it take a combination of cold, wet & dirt to cause them to seize up ? by "dirt" I mean soil from dropping, or otherwise mistreating the weapon, not powder residue.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,450
Registered:
11/16/04
|
|
(11 of 45)
Re: Who had better weapons in ww2?
Nov 5, 2009 2:23 PM
|
> This is a serious question and deserves accurate
> answers:
Any time you are ready please put up an accurate post. If you are truly a WWII vet, all due respect, did they issue you a helmet?
|
|
|
Posts:
8,830
Registered:
12/30/03
|
|
(12 of 45)
Re: Who had better weapons in ww2?
Nov 5, 2009 5:31 PM
|
Also those T-34's which had Christie suspension systems, and leftover Aircobra attack planes.
Hey, spam and trucks when you need them did more to win the war than outsized tanks, jets, assault rifles and ballistic missles did.
It doesn't matter how fancy the hardware is, if you can't keep the "feet on the ground" fed and armed, its pointless.
--
If irony were strawberries we would all be having smoothies right now.
|
|
|
Posts:
221
Registered:
10/7/04
|
|
(13 of 45)
Re: Who had better weapons in ww2?
Nov 5, 2009 5:52 PM
|
Also those T-34's which had Christie suspension systems
and?
As the tank itself was 'invented' by Britain don't they have a better claim to have saved the Russians 'as*s"
Hey, spam and trucks when you need them did more to win the war than outsized tanks, jets, assault rifles and ballistic missles did.
Perhaps the Rusians should have simpled bludgeoned all the Germans to death with the tins of spam?
Is there no stretch too difficult to try and snatch the glory for the Russian's triumph
It doesn't matter how fancy the hardware is, if you can't keep the "feet on the ground" fed and armed, its pointless.
You got it ar*e first. Without a massive military and the ablity to meet and defeat your enemy in the field you have no chance.
--
The Real IRA is a gorilla army......................
That's probably something the half-wits on this board no nothing about..... ..........
Putin and his hoards...........
Sam says Admiral King asked the British, in November 1942, to send an aircraft carrier to help the USN at Midway--fought in June 1942!!!!!!
|
|
|
Posts:
293
From:
Alabama
Registered:
9/5/06
|
|
(14 of 45)
Re: Who had better weapons in ww2?
Nov 5, 2009 7:01 PM
|
A special thanks to the HIstory Channel morons who deleted my earlier post about this subject.
> This is a serious question and deserves accurate
> answers:
I agree.
>
> 1. The German tanks had much better armor than that
> of American tanks,yet, they were fewer in number and
> broke down more often. Germans were best in battle.
> Which would you rather have coming at you?
One on one, the German tanks were far superior to the Allies' - even the T-34 wasn't equal to a Panzer V 'Panther'. BUT, as you say, they German tanks were highly outnumbered and less reliable - especially in muddy conditions or rough terrain.
>
> 2. The German machine guns fired at twice the number
> of bullets per minute as those of the Americans.
> They had metal clips holding the string of bullets
> s together. American machine guns had web(canvas)
> bands holding bullets together. Germans best.
I break this one into two categories: Heavy MGs and Medium MGs. For Medium MGs, the German MG42 was by far the best - very high rate of fire (twice the ROF of the American Browning and British Vickers medium MGs), an excellent quick barrel change design, and overall versatility were some of its top features. For Heavy MGs, the US Browning M2 .50cal was the best - hands down.
>
> 3. Pistols: The German Lugar and P-38 were far
> better than American pistols due to balance.
I have to disagree. The Colt .45 was a far better design than the two German pistols you mentioned - so much better in fact, that the Germans would snatch up any .45s that the captured and would use them instead of their issue pistols (so long as they had ammo for them).
>
> 4. Steel helmets: The Germans were the better steel
> and deflected bullets much better.
Can't argue this one - I've never thought about comparing them.
>
> 5. Shoes: The Germans had good leather boots.
> americans and English had canvas leggings. The
> e German boots were above the mud level. Italy:
> American shoes and leggings let the water in.
I agree with you here.
>
> 6. Rifles: In good weather conditions, the Garand M
> 1 semi-automatic rifle was better than the German
> bolt action single shot rifle. More fire power.
> Yet, the Germans were trained to take the time and
> d shoot for accuracy while the U.S. M1 splattered out
> more bullets. In freezing and and wet weather the
> German rifle was more dependable.
Can't fully agree here. The M1 was by far the best issue rifle on any nations' in the war. The problems in very cold and/or very muddy weren't restricted to the Garand - the K98k had similar issues.
>
> 7. Anti Tank: Early on (Africa) the Americans were
> using the 37 mm anti-tank gun. In every case, these
> projectiles(bullets) glance off the German tanks. In
> Italy, the English supplied the Americans with 57 mm
> anti-tank guns. This was about 10 times more
> powerful than the our old 37 mm due to size of the
> projectile.
The 37mm projectiles did not fail "in every case". At this point in the war, the Germans were still using a large number of early model Panzer IIIs. The armor on these models could be penetrated by the 37mm. The 57mm WAS a tremendous improvement, but still didn't compare to the German 88mm gun. It wasn't until the 76mm and 90mm American AAA weapons were modified for use against tanks that the 88's superiority was challenged.
>
> 8. Bazookas: The German panzerfaust had much better
> penetration than American bazookas.
Agreed - the panzerfaust was a must better overall weapon than the bazooka, although the bazooka did have a better range than most of the panzerfaust models. The panzerschreck (which was modified copy of the American bazooka) was even better - good range and very powerful warhead (able to penetrate over 200mm of armor).
>
> I could go on and on on infantry weapons but I'm
> afraid that the Germans "outbested" us.
Sorry, evidence does not support such a conclusion. In some areas the Germans had an advantage; in others, the advantage went to the Allies.
|
|
|
Posts:
8,830
Registered:
12/30/03
|
|
(15 of 45)
Re: Who had better weapons in ww2?
Nov 5, 2009 8:21 PM
|
Perhaps the Rusians should have simpled bludgeoned all the Germans to death with the tins of spam?
In essence they did Well fed and well supplied troops trumped poorly supplied increasingly hungry ones. Think about it this way, during the encirclement at Stalingrad, the Soviets were eating spam while German soldiers were eating their transportation animals, leather boots and small furry vermin.
The greatest act of the Soviet war effort, the one most helpful to them, was the shipping of production factories to the Urals Out of the reach of German land and airpower. That feat of logistics and production management gave them the protected boundary that the Atlantic Ocean served for the US.
But when talking about hardware (the original premise here), the Soviets didn't have anything special when it came to logistics like the US. My premise is the tools of logistics won the war over fancy weapons. The Soviets understood that as much as the Allies. The Axis powers never understood its importance at all, much to their detriment.
--
If irony were strawberries we would all be having smoothies right now.
|
|
|
|
|
