HuntingNet.com Forums - Who had the best weapons of WWII?

HuntingNet.com Forums (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/)

- Guns (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/guns-10/)

- - Who had the best weapons of WWII? (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/guns/189388-who-had-best-weapons-wwii.html)

RE: Who had the best weapons of WWII?

The Iowa could put almost twice the amount of explosive in the air as the Bismarck and from a longer range. Just on guns alone the Iowa should be a superior ship. Add in the advantage of speed and armor andthe german battleship Bismarck would have been fairly easy preyfor either the Iowa or Yamato battleship. Even the South Dakota classwould have had an edge over the Bismarck.See the attached links whichare twoof the best comparisons I have read on WWII battleships. They both go into detail in the various areas:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

http://www.peachmountain.com/5star/Other_TheBest.asp#BestBattleship

RE: Who had the best weapons of WWII?

Quote:

My vote would be for the USSR. Their weapons systems were simple, reliable, and effective. They had no where near the manufacturing capacity and technology of the US, yet they were still one of the most formidable armies in the world.

Come on, Tex, for the first four years of the war they won their victories by sending millions of screaming grunts to their death. It was simply a matter of throwing human meat at the enemy until the enemy ran out themselves. The Soviet leadership didn't start using their brains until the last year of the war. But, still, you make some excellentpoints. And I guess if you look at it from Moscow's perspective, it's better to kill millions of your own than see millions more die under Germany's boots.

And about this M2 vs. MG42 comparison...the M2 was a heavy MG and was not deployed as a standard weapon inthe vast majority of groundunits. The proper comparison between U.S. and German infantry-type machine guns would be the M1919 .30 vs. the MG42.

RE: Who had the best weapons of WWII?

Quote:

ORIGINAL: saladin

now there's a typically myopic american viewpoint. pound for pound, the best soldiers of the 20th century were (and maybe still are) our Australian infantry. ever since the Anzac (Australian and New zealand Army Corp)forces hit the beaches at Gallipolion this dayin 1915 we have fought well above our weight division, and almost always with distinction. The Gallipoli campaign, Poziere's, Fromelle,Paeschendaele, Menin Road, Bullecourt, mont st quentin -during the first war, australians became the "go-to" men for accomplishing the near impossible ( the canadians were also magnificent in WW1).
likewise in WW2, where the Australian 6th division (again volunteers) gave the SS divisions a bloody nose in the ill-fated greek campaign(and drew the praise of the previously untouchable german elite), or throughout the African campaign where we clung on to tobruk when all was lost (and had rommel lamenting if only he had some australians on his side), then played vital roles in cracking the german kernal at 1st and 2nd El Alamein. then cross to the pacific where australians inflicted the 1st japanese land defeats at Milne Bay and kokoda (aided greatly by the americans hammering the japanese in the Battle of the Coral Sea, of course), then the bitter fighting on the north coast of New Guinnea.
in korea, the 3rd RAR (royal australian regiment) saved the situation at Kapyong ( it has been said that the whole campaign rested on the actions of 4 members of 3RAR 'B' company who held a defensive postion against multiple waves of chinese assault) and won an American Pesidential Citation.
i won't comment on Australiansoldiers opinions of American troops during vietnam -i don't wish to cause offence- but suffice tosay that your nations heart was not in it, and this became reflected in your troops.
sorry about the history lesson, but since today is a public holiday (Anzac Day) to commemorate those who gave the ultimate gift to serve this country, i had to put our viewpoint across. the american boys were not the best. they are behind us, and probably the German SS lads, in the "best" awards.

what you guys did have, though, were large amounts of good quality manpower and a heavy industry capacity that dwarfed all other nations.

Not to get too far off topic here but I think each country is going to believe their fighting men and women were the best. To say one was better than the other is subject to opinion most of the time.

That being said my father served in Korea beside most of the UN troops (at one point or another) including the Aussie's. He tells me that pound for pound the bestfighters bar none were the Ethiopians. He fought beside the Kagnewbattalionon Pork Chop Hill and marveled at their fighting abilities, spirit and tactics.

It's good to be proud of your country and it's fighting men and women. You will find great soldiers, leaders and stories of heroics in every great army of the world....and even in those armies thataren't precievedgreat at all.;)

To say thatthe US Army had (and has) the best fighting men and women is not a"typically myopic american viewpoint" There are many many cases of US troops doing great and heroic acts through out all of american history.

Lets not forget the 101st airborn that fought in the Arden inDecember 1944 and into January 1945 holding off Hitlers best and elitest fighters without air cover, winter clothes, ammunition, food, and very much out numbered. Or the US Marines who battled the Japanese on Iwo Jima Island who held the high ground and were so well dug in that even the intense shelling from the US fleet off shore had little effect at all on them.

It's fine to be proud of your troops but you will never change my mind as to who were and still are the greatest fighting men andwomen...the United States Armed Forces.

RE: Who had the best weapons of WWII?

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Aught Six

Come on, Tex, for the first four years of the war they won their victories by sending millions of screaming grunts to their death. It was simply a matter of throwing human meat at the enemy until the enemy ran out themselves. The Soviet leadership didn't start using their brains until the last year of the war. But, still, you make some excellentpoints. And I guess if you look at it from Moscow's perspective, it's better to kill millions of your own than see millions more die under Germany's boots.

Many of those millions were peasants that were given a rifle and told "Go get'em!" They were enlisted and given little to no military training. They also had little skilled labor. The Russians developed weapons systems that any idiot could manufacture, maintain, and use. Their weapons were simple and reliable. They made tanks and planes that almost anyone could learn to use, and that were reliable and simple enough that almost anyone could keep them running.

RE: Who had the best weapons of WWII?

True enough, every Soviet/Com-Bloc weapon I've come across is simple to operate and built with the average Russian in mind. But, and this kind of speculation isa big but, if not for the Russian Winters, all of those unskilled peasants with unzeroed rifles probably would've not only died by the millions, but lost the war. Had the Germansbeen ableto hold onto Moscow and Stalingrad (and not blow it at Kursk), I doubt Stalin could'vejust set up shop on the other side of the Urals and hope to strike a fatal blow toGermany from there. In many ways, he was a lucky man to rule over such a harsh country. No general in any conflict would be wise to discount luck in war.

RE: Who had the best weapons of WWII?

The German armyat Stalingrad surrendered in early February, 1943.It was all down hill from there.

RE: Who had the best weapons of WWII?

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Aught Six

True enough, every Soviet/Com-Bloc weapon I've come across is simple to operate and built with the average Russian in mind. But, and this kind of speculation isa big but, if not for the Russian Winters, all of those unskilled peasants with unzeroed rifles probably would've not only died by the millions, but lost the war. Had the Germansbeen ableto hold onto Moscow and Stalingrad (and not blow it at Kursk), I doubt Stalin could'vejust set up shop on the other side of the Urals and hope to strike a fatal blow toGermany from there. In many ways, he was a lucky man to rule over such a harsh country. No general in any conflict would be wise to discount luck in war.

Yes. But I read a book once entitled "Montgomery of Alamein". Writtten by Monty himself, of course, and of course, ABOUT Monty-naturally.

In it, the great Field Marshal announced "Montgomery's Principles of War", which he no doubt intended to replace the classic ones. Most were indeed similar to the classic principles of war, but one he added bears examination:"DON'T INVADE RUSSIA"!!

RE: Who had the best weapons of WWII?

Thousands of years of trying should have been a good teacher on that one..lol.

RE: Who had the best weapons of WWII?

quote" The U.S.'s advantage was our industry. We didn't have to produce the best of anything. In a war of attrition, we could simply outproduce everyone else. We could produce Shermans faster than German panzers could destroy them. We could produce Liberty ships faster than U-boats could torpedo them. We could produce carriers at rates the Japanese could never hope to sink. We could feed, clothe, and equip our military at rates no other country could match. " quote

I have to agree with North Texan on this one. It was the ability of the American people to be able to mass produce everything need forr the war.

Ron:D

RE: Who had the best weapons of WWII?

one that hasn't been mentioned is the german 88mm anti-tank/anti-aircraft gun. this thing was devastating in it's anti-tank role, and was later modified to be fitted to the panzers. enemy armour lured onto a nest of 88's was in for a very bad day.

similarly, the anti-tank capabilities of the typhoon was lethal once air superiority had been gained.

BIGJ12: you make some valid points. all armies can claim some great and heroic deeds. certainly american troopsperformed magnificently throughout WW2. but the "american is best" statement that i was responding to isstill doubtfulin the extreme.and it is "typically myopic". a large percentage of the american population have no concept of anything that does not happen within their own borders.they think america is great, but have no knowledge with which to balance a counterpoint view.