Best weapons of WW2

[Captain Seafort]

I think you mean on a similar displacement as the Iowa? Actually, during the design process, the USN figured it could fit six or seven 18" guns on a Iowa without much changes to the overall design.

How did they think they could fit seven on? Triple in "A" position, or simply running rough numbers?

[Mikey]

The standard for a '41 was 71-round drum.

Fairy snuff.

On that point I'm basing my argument on the '41's greater muzzle energy (1600ft/s m/v compared to 935 for the Thompson)

Those are figures for muzzle velocities. I just showed you figures detailing comparable muzzle energies, but the .45 ACP achieves it with a bullet almost three times as massive as that of the 7.62 Tokarev.

Fair on the rest, though the Pak 43 might be a dead heat with the 17-pounder.

Heavy tanks might be a nolo contendere. The most technically superior ones - the Tigers - were slipshod in their engineering due to the Germans' desire/need to field them quickly, and were generally too heavy for their own suspensions. The M26 is a tricky one, because of it's niggling transmission issues and because of the fact that a grand total of 20 whole tanks ever saw service in the war. The Stalin might be the winner by default, even though its ability to penetrate a Panther was grossly overstated.

[McAvoy]

I think you mean on a similar displacement as the Iowa? Actually, during the design process, the USN figured it could fit six or seven 18" guns on a Iowa without much changes to the overall design.

How did they think they could fit seven on? Triple in "A" position, or simply running rough numbers?

I have to check. But I assume the triple would be aft where the hull is the fullest and twins forward. You can find this info in Norman Friedman's US Battleships book. It is considered the definitive book on US battleships. Very much equal to D.K. Brown's books.

Regardless, the USN preferred the 16"/50 gun with the super heavy 2,700 lb shell over 18" guns even though they were developing a super heavy 18" shell.

[Mikey]

Indeed, I think if you discount the Japanese Type-3 shell and just look at bombardment rounds, the 16" wins.

[Captain Seafort]

Those are figures for muzzle velocities.

Indeed. I was quoting them because you'd already quoted bullet weight - the result from running the numbers is that the '41 has slightly better energy.

I just showed you figures detailing comparable muzzle energies, but the .45 ACP achieves it with a bullet almost three times as massive as that of the 7.62 Tokarev.

Nonetheless, the Russians weren't impressed by the Thompson's hitting power.

Fair on the rest, though the Pak 43 might be a dead heat with the 17-pounder.

In armour penetration, yes, but the 17-pdr was lighter (and therefore less of a barn door to manhandle), and longer-ranged (almost twice the effective range).

Heavy tanks might be a nolo contendere. The most technically superior ones - the Tigers - were slipshod in their engineering due to the Germans' desire/need to field them quickly, and were generally too heavy for their own suspensions. The M26 is a tricky one, because of it's niggling transmission issues and because of the fact that a grand total of 20 whole tanks ever saw service in the war. The Stalin might be the winner by default, even though its ability to penetrate a Panther was grossly overstated.

Maybe, but I think the Pershing comes close to it and the Tiger II was superior given the perpetual poor performance of Soviet a/t guns - those of both the Stalin and T-34/85 were clearly inferior in performance to the Panther and Tiger, despite their much greater calibre.

[Mikey]

Nonetheless, the Russians weren't impressed by the Thompson's hitting power.

OK, now let's look at worldwide popularity of the .45 ACP and it's derivative vs. that of the 7.62 Tokarev...

In armour penetration, yes, but the 17-pdr was lighter (and therefore less of a barn door to manhandle), and longer-ranged (almost twice the effective range).

Fair enough, I don't have the details to speak to those points.

Maybe, but I think the Pershing comes close to it and the Tiger II was superior given the perpetual poor performance of Soviet a/t guns - those of both the Stalin and T-34/85 were clearly inferior in performance to the Panther and Tiger, despite their much greater calibre.

The Tiger series were definitely superior in both technology and firepower... the problem was that superior technology meant superior complexity, superior breakdown rates, superior length of build time, and superior cost... to say nothing of its tendency to crush itself. All things which were the exact antithesis of what the Germans needed. The Pershing perhaps could have been the great WWII tank, but we can't say it was because of its lack of participation. The Stalin's new gun was determined by the Soviets to be able to penetrate a Panther at up to a 30-degree-from-head-on angle - and was determined by the Germans to be completely incapable of penetrating the front glacis of a Panther at any angle. That said, it ran and it participated, which is more than can be said for either the Tigers or the Pershing.

[Deepcrush]

Pistol/Handgun - M1911, just no beating this one. Clip + stopping power + reliability and ability to exchange ammo with the Thompson.

SMG - Thompson - As above its just a solid weapon. 20 or 30 round mags with 50 and 75 round drums is just impossible to beat IMO. Add to the fact you can fire, use as club, return to firing without hamper... just a well built weapon.

Rifle - Garande, simply the best weapon of the time. While the reload had its issues, the fact that it took less then a second to reload did compensate nicely. Range, rate of fire, rate of reload and ease of use made it perfect for the standard infantry of the time.

LMG - BAR without a doubt. While the 20 round box was a bit of an issue, the bonus was that everyone man could be effectively equipped with this weapon. It took minimal training and could be picked up by any serviceman around and put to work. Other plus is that the 20 round box staked perfectly in a grenade satchel. 20 boxes of 20 rounds could be carried on a man's waist/hip without worry of care since the rounds and boxes were so reliable.

MMG - MG42, hard to even question this one.

HMG - Ma Deuce, again there's just no other to even come close.

(A lot of my thoughts to weapons are based on the survivability of the weapon in combat. I prefer a weapon I can trust on top on a weapon that is effective in killing.)

[Captain Seafort]

OK, now let's look at worldwide popularity of the .45 ACP and it's derivative vs. that of the 7.62 Tokarev...

On the other hand, lets look at which army won the war...

The Pershing perhaps could have been the great WWII tank, but we can't say it was because of its lack of participation.

You could say the same about the Cent, and if you look at their specs and post-war performance the Cent was easily the superior of the two. Had it got into action I would unhesitatingly call it the best tank of the war, bar none. However, the Pershing got into theatre a few months earlier, and as such went into action whereas the Cent didn't.

That said, it ran and it participated, which is more than can be said for either the Tigers or the Pershing.

The Tiger, while buggy, certainly ran - or at the very least sat - and was an effective obstacle to any advance. The Pershing did likewise, albeit in limited numbers, and at least on paper was even less mobile than the Tiger II. The fact that neither of them could match the Stalin for mobility is somewhat compensated for by their far more effective main armament. Ultimately, they all participated in sufficient numbers to at least get an idea of their qualities.

[Captain Seafort]

SMG - Thompson - As above its just a solid weapon. 20 or 30 round mags with 50 and 75 round drums is just impossible to beat IMO. Add to the fact you can fire, use as club, return to firing without hamper... just a well built weapon.

All the above also apply to the PPSh-41, with the added benefit of being lighter, and having better punch.

LMG - BAR without a doubt. While the 20 round box was a bit of an issue, the bonus was that everyone man could be effectively equipped with this weapon. It took minimal training and could be picked up by any serviceman around and put to work. Other plus is that the 20 round box staked perfectly in a grenade satchel. 20 boxes of 20 rounds could be carried on a man's waist/hip without worry of care since the rounds and boxes were so reliable.

It's not just the limited mag that's a problem, it's the lack of a quick-change barrel - you can't use it to provide sustained covering fire. The BAR was a good, solid weapon, no doubt about it, but it simply wasn't suited to the LMG role. If you want to give an assaulting fireteam extra punch, its fine, but the Bren is also capable of doing so, has an equally good reputation for reliability, and is better suited to the role of providing sustained fire support to an infantry section Bren.

[Deepcrush]

Thompson v 41

Never heard a reliable source state the PPSh-41 as being as reliable as the Thompson. As to its being lighter, made its recoil a LOT harder to handle over the Thompson which left an unreliable weapon for use over 20m. The high capcity drum in the 41 was known for its jamming and difficulty in reloading, something that the pop open Thompson drum didn't suffer. Mostly because if you had a jam you just ran the slide or pulled the drum and just opened it. Lastly being punch, the 45ACP is effective enough against the human body and even concrete. Having more punch in a weapon without correction that causes it to lose its combat effectiveness isn't what I would ever consider "good" in a weapon. The 41 looks good on paper, but falls short in real life use. The Thompson however looks good on paper and handles even better in real life use.

BAR v Bren

Considering the Bren's need of a two man crew to support a single Bren. Or a two man BAR crew... which carried two BARs. The ability to field is instantly better. I also understand that the Bren's box mags had jamming problems when not loaded softly enough into their slots. Sorry, but in a firefight, I don't feel the need to stop and brace a weapon while my "mate" slowly loads the mag to avoid shaking a round. Or that before they can fit a mag, they have to remove then reseat the top round in the mag to help avoid jamming. BAR, I take a mag, slam it in place, fire till empty, slam new mag in place... repeat. The Bren while not firing is nice, but once the shooting starts its no longer a survivable weapon. The BAR also had superior effective range to the Bren, if I'm oping as a LMG'man, the ability to reach my target is always important. A final difference over the Bren by the BAR is its ability of single aim shots. Something that isn't able with the Bren. You can sight and fire a BAR just like a rifle and it will hit just as true, then turn it on a enemy squad and pour the other nineteen rounds into them at will. With the Bren's lack of useful forward sighting, anyone over 100m can't be picked out in single fire. This wastes a lot of ammunition that I've known to be a problem for several British units. The BAR can be rifle, assault or LMG, the Bren can only be an LMG and only at moderate range and only with high ammunition expense. In the end, while the Bren is a good weapon at times, the BAR is a good weapon at any time.

[Mikey]

went into action whereas the Cent didn't.

Ultimately, they all participated in sufficient numbers to at least get an idea of their qualities.

No, they didn't. I wasn't exaggerating or being facetious when I said that a sum total of 20 M26's participated in WWII. I cannot (and you cannot, and anyone else cannot) judge the wartime performance of a class of tank based on a sample that limited in wartime service length and in numbers.

Clip

Deep, you of all people know the difference between a clip and a removable magazine!

Add to the fact you can fire, use as club, return to firing without hamper... just a well built weapon.

Excellent point. Anytime there is a discussion about what a great weapon the AK-47 is, the fact of its reliability and durability is paramount. There's no reason such a criterion is any less valid here.

having better punch.

We've been over this. The 7.62x25 and the .45 ACP have similar muzzle energies, but the .45 ACP standard FMJ cartridge carries a 230-grain ball compared to the 85-grain ball of the Tokarev. Same muzzle energy + 3x more massive (and wider) bullet =/= "less punch." BTW, the Russians were impressed by the Thompson - they just couldn't feed them.

[Captain Seafort]

Never heard a reliable source state the PPSh-41 as being as reliable as the Thompson. As to its being lighter, made its recoil a LOT harder to handle over the Thompson which left an unreliable weapon for use over 20m. The high capacity drum in the 41 was known for its jamming and difficulty in reloading, something that the pop open Thompson drum didn't suffer. Mostly because if you had a jam you just ran the slide or pulled the drum and just opened it.

Everything I've heard suggests it was well-liked by its users, even with the problems of the drum, to the extent that the order to withdraw the drum from service in favour of the box was widely ignored. I don't see how you can get a better recommendation than from those who were using both weapons in some of the worst conditions of the war.

Lastly being punch, the 45ACP is effective enough against the human body and even concrete. Having more punch in a weapon without correction that causes it to lose its combat effectiveness isn't what I would ever consider "good" in a weapon.

Again, I'm basing this on the views of the Red Army.

The 41 looks good on paper, but falls short in real life use. The Thompson however looks good on paper and handles even better in real life use.

I think the best you can say is that they were both equal in performance, and both solid, reliable weapons. In which case the '41 still wins out due to being far less of a drain on a country's resources - I think you'd agree that one big problem with the Thompson, albeit not one that the front-line soldier was likely to care too much about, was how resource-intensive it was to produce.

Considering the Bren's need of a two man crew to support a single Bren. Or a two man BAR crew... which carried two BARs. The ability to field is instantly better.

I wouldn't consider the need to deploy two or three BARs to match a single Bren to be a point in the former's favour, be that because of the need to reload more frequently, or to cease fire to let the weapon cool down.

I also understand that the Bren's box mags had jamming problems when not loaded softly enough into their slots. Sorry, but in a firefight, I don't feel the need to stop and brace a weapon while my "mate" slowly loads the mag to avoid shaking a round. Or that before they can fit a mag, they have to remove then reseat the top round in the mag to help avoid jamming. BAR, I take a mag, slam it in place, fire till empty, slam new mag in place... repeat. The Bren while not firing is nice, but once the shooting starts its no longer a survivable weapon.

You're exaggerating the Bren's issues. Yes, it wasn't perfect, with most of the problems a result of converting it from the rimless Czech round the vz 26/27 used to the rimmed .303 British, but the way to get round that was careful loading of the magazine, and I've never heard any issue of having to baby the magazine while fitting it to the weapon. Pretty much any problem could be solved by either hitting it or turning up the gas flow

The BAR also had superior effective range to the Bren, if I'm oping as a LMG'man, the ability to reach my target is always important.

Where are you getting that from? My sources give 1000+m for the Bren, 800+ for the BAR.

A final difference over the Bren by the BAR is its ability of single aim shots. Something that isn't able with the Bren. You can sight and fire a BAR just like a rifle and it will hit just as true, then turn it on a enemy squad and pour the other nineteen rounds into them at will. With the Bren's lack of useful forward sighting, anyone over 100m can't be picked out in single fire. This wastes a lot of ammunition that I've known to be a problem for several British units.

It's an LMG, not a sniper rifle, and in such a role being too accurate is a problem (one the Bren had until they fixed it to increase the beaten zone). As it was, again contrary to your suggestion, the Bren was certainly accurate enough to be used as a sniper rifle, and had a slow enough rate of fire that single shots could be fired (albeit this required an experienced gunner).

The BAR can be rifle, assault or LMG, the Bren can only be an LMG and only at moderate range and only with high ammunition expense. In the end, while the Bren is a good weapon at times, the BAR is a good weapon at any time.

However, the category under discussion is LMG. The BAR is versatile, and as part of an assault team is a better weapon than the Bren (although the Bren was certainly usable in that role), but as an LMG it's the inferior weapon. If you've got the resources, I think the ideal infantry squad/section would be a light-role MG-42 in support plus BARs in the fireteams, but given the structure used by the US and British armies during the war, with a single LMG supporting the rifle group, the Bren beats the BAR.

[Mikey]

The issue with the Bren's mag was vibration, and it was a common one. IDK that it was commonly a cause of misfires, but it could shake like hell sitting on top of the action and was often claimed (by soldiers in the field who used the Bren) that the vibrating mag would make the Bren operator an easier target. Given that, though, the Bren had the ability to change barrels easily and could be used by a single operator; IMHO the ability to keep up fire, the wider cone of fire (useful in a support role, not so much in a DSM role, but we're talking about LMG-role weapons,) and the lack of need for duplicate fireteams to overlap during reload/cool-down give the edge to the Bren.

However, we are forgetting another contender - the Johnson. Certainly nowhere near as ubiquitous as either the Bren or the BAR, the Johnson MG used direct blowback and wasn't nearly as picky about sand and dirt as the Bren's adjustable gas action or the BAR's complex rate limiter - it also had the useful distinction of being the first (along with the Johnson rifle) weapon to have an in-line stock. Compared to the Bren, it was less prone to environmental complications and perhaps easier to fire well; OTOH, because of it's stupid Sterling-esque side-mounted, single-stack mag, it couldn't be used for walking fire from the hip nearly as easily as the Bren or BAR - a tactic which the Ozzies often proved to be useful. I'd say it's nearly even between the Bren/CZ and the Johnson, with the edge depending on the predicted environment.

Again, if reliability is a key factor then we are forgetting another SMG as well - the Owen. It also wasn't popular outside of Australia, but for the ability to stand up to wet, mud, sand, dirt, or whatever it beat the pants off of any contemporary SMG. The downside is that in the form in which Australia finally adopted it, it was chambered in the 9mm Para although IIRC Owen created it in a .45 ACP version as well.

[Captain Seafort]

Certainly nowhere near as ubiquitous as either the Bren or the BAR, the Johnson MG used direct blowback and wasn't nearly as picky about sand and dirt as the Bren's adjustable gas action or the BAR's complex rate limiter - it also had the useful distinction of being the first (along with the Johnson rifle) weapon to have an in-line stock. Compared to the Bren, it was less prone to environmental complications and perhaps easier to fire well; OTOH, because of it's stupid Sterling-esque side-mounted, single-stack mag, it couldn't be used for walking fire from the hip nearly as easily as the Bren or BAR - a tactic which the Ozzies often proved to be useful. I'd say it's nearly even between the Bren/CZ and the Johnson, with the edge depending on the predicted environment.

Fair enough, although I think you're exaggerating the issues with the Bren's gas regulator a bit - while it could cause problems, they were also very easy to clear.

Again, if reliability is a key factor then we are forgetting another SMG as well - the Owen. It also wasn't popular outside of Australia, but for the ability to stand up to wet, mud, sand, dirt, or whatever it beat the pants off of any contemporary SMG. The downside is that in the form in which Australia finally adopted it, it was chambered in the 9mm Para although IIRC Owen created it in a .45 ACP version as well.

Excellent point - any weapon that can rival the 47 in the sort of handling it could take has to be up near the top.

[Mikey]

The Bren's gas regulator - I don't know if that feature was part of the original Czech weapon or not - was a double-edged sword: while it made the weapon more prone to problems, it was also part of the "adjust the gas or hit the gun" de facto manual of arms, which I'm led to believe became as natural a fix to Bren operators as "tap it, rack it, bang it" is to modern pistol users.

Now, infantry anti-tank weapons: personally, I'm going to ignore AT rifles like the Boyse and panzerbusches, and go right to the blowy-uppy sort. I have to go with the Germans on this one, though the difference between the panzerfaust and the panzerschreck is, IMHO, one of deployment. The panzerschreck was an improvement over the Bazooka which it copied, and had the advantage of range and penetration; while the panzerfaust was far easier to use and could be used in tight quarters in which the panzerschreck couldn't, and didn't require a dedicated operator who could otherwise be an additional rifleman in his squad.

EDIT: Sorry for the national slight, but the PIAT was just too clumsy.