Best weapons of WW2

[Captain Seafort]

Now, infantry anti-tank weapons: personally, I'm going to ignore AT rifles like the Boyse and panzerbusches,

Why not - the tanks did.

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

True, and I think "clumsy" is giving the thing too much credit. Given the right circumstances, however, the PIAT had all other infantry a/t weapons beaten - firing from enclosed spaces.

[Mikey]

Why not - the tanks did.

Exactly my point. The people who were hurt most by those things were the guys who had to shoot them.

Given the right circumstances, however, the PIAT had all other infantry a/t weapons beaten - firing from enclosed spaces.

It could do that, but the ability to fire from an enclosed space is sort of moot when you still can't hit or damage your target.

[Captain Seafort]

It could do that, but the ability to fire from an enclosed space is sort of moot when you still can't hit or damage your target.

The PIAT could do both, effectively - its problem was that it was a brute of a thing to operate, heavy, had a vicious kick, and didn't go off until a second or two after the trigger was pulled. It killed tanks, but user-friendly it certainly wasn't.

[Mikey]

Fair enough. What about other AT weapon systems, such as those that weren't man-pack? I think an honorable mention needs to be given to the M18. It certainly had its flaws, such as an exposed turret and awfully thin armor, but it covered its lack of armor with speed and acceleration and it achieved a 5:1 kill ratio against a panzer brigade at Nancy.

[Reliant121]

What about the likes of the Jagdpanther or the Stug III; I know very very little about them but perhaps they are viable alternatives to the American alternatives? Whenever I think of a Tank Destroyer, I instantly think of the German ones for some reason.

[Mikey]

What about the likes of the Jagdpanther or the Stug III; I know very very little about them but perhaps they are viable alternatives to the American alternatives? Whenever I think of a Tank Destroyer, I instantly think of the German ones for some reason.

I know very little about the German panzerjagers/jagdpanzers, save that the Germans generally used them in a line which their retreats a/o feints would cross, hoping to draw the enemy into a firing line of tank destroyers. This leads me to believe that their speed was not up to the par of the Hellcat, which survived its light armor by actually moving faster across country than a panzer's turret could traverse. Being relegated to a static position isn't good for a tank destroyer; although the German varieties were more heavily armored than the M26, none of them had armor enough to stand up to a shot from an MBT.

[Jim]

Handgun - Luger - Not as much power as the 1911 but far more accurate.
Rifle - M1 Garand - used for many years after WW2. It's only downside was when it expelled the "clip" everyone knew it: CLANG!
SMG - The Thompson gets all the glory because of it's .45 round and the gangster connection, but it was extremely heavy. The German MP40 gives it a run.
Light machine gun (rifle calibre, magazine-fed) - BAR M1918 might get most nods, but I opt for the Sturmgewehr 44 as it was the base for the APEX predator: AK-47.
Medium/GP machine gun (rifle calibre, belt-fed) - MG42
Heavy machine gun (greater than rifle calibre) - Browning M2
Infantry anti-tank weapon - Panzerfaust

Light/Field artillery - No knowledge
Medium artillery - No knowledge, but probably the German 88's
Anti-tank - No knowledge
Light AAA - No knowledge
Heavy AAA - No knowledge

Tank - The Tiger was the strongest and most powerful, but he T-34 was easily produced and was the first to utilize slopped armor which is used on EVERY tank today.

[Captain Seafort]

Light machine gun (rifle calibre, magazine-fed) - BAR M1918 might get most nods, but I opt for the Sturmgewehr 44 as it was the base for the APEX predator: AK-47.

The StG 44 was an assault rifle, not an LMG. It also contributed very little to the AK beyond the basic concept, given the completely different operating principles.

Medium artillery - No knowledge, but probably the German 88's

Your complete lack of knowledge is obvious, given that the 88 wasn't medium artillery.

[Mikey]

The Sturmgewehr 44 was neither a LMG in role, nor did it meet the criteria set out in the OP for that category. IIRC, Seafort qualified his category as "rifle caliber and magazine-fed." While the latter was certainly true of the StG 44, the former most certainly wasn't. I can't think of any way to call the 7.92 Kurz a rifle-caliber cartridge without laughing at the absurdity.

[Jim]

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.

Too bad it rarely hit what it was aimed at...

[Mikey]

Sorry for the double, but I just realized that a modern M249 or MINIMI wouldn't meet Seafort's criteria as an LMG either, as they use intermediate rounds. Which intermediate (aka "assault rifle") rounds had their origins in the 7.92 Kurz, BTW. As to the others:

Luger - fair alternative, but IIRC tended to be a little hit-or-miss on whether it would decide to go bang when the trigger was squeezed.
SMG - "gangster connection?" That era of the Thompson's rep was in the mid-to-late 20's and eary 30's... we're talking about WWII. The .45 ACP and the reliability factor made it preferable to the MP38/MP40 Schmeissers. The only advantage of the 38 and 40 over the Tommy was weight, and there were other SMG's lighter than the Tommy that beat the Schmeissers.

I agree with the rest, though I also think terrain (i.e., open country) could make the panzerschreck preferable to the panzerfaust on a case-by-case basis.

[Jim]

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

I would consider unbiased opinion of today over EXTREMELY biased opinions of the days it was used. I am sure that the Nazi's thought t hat all of their stuff was the best, the GI's that theirs was the best and the Red's thought theirs was the best. And each bashed the value of the other's equipment. I do not really care that a Russin soldier thought that the .45 was a weak round, or that the Nazis thought that the Ruskies couldn't build a good tank. i would care more as to which WW2 era SMG (etc) an expert of today would want if heading into the field.

[Mikey]

Again, the Russians chose not to adopt the Thompson because they couldn't get .45 ACP ammo to feed it, not because they didn't like it.

[Captain Seafort]

Sorry for the double, but I just realized that a modern M249 or MINIMI wouldn't meet Seafort's criteria as an LMG either, as they use intermediate rounds. Which intermediate (aka "assault rifle") rounds had their origins in the 7.92 Kurz, BTW.

Actually it would fail because it's belt-fed, albeit with the ability to accept a magazine. It would pass the cartridge test because it uses the standard NATO rifle round.

The main reason I specified "rifle calibre, magazine-fed" for LMGs was to provoke a debate, rather than the obvious winner walking away with it as would have happened had I allowed belt-fed weapons.

[Captain Seafort]

I would consider unbiased opinion of today over EXTREMELY biased opinions of the days it was used.

Why? The reason their opinions are biased are because they used those weapons in action, rather than simply jotting up weight/magazine capacity/RoF/muzzle energy. How many people today have the experience of using the PPSh and Thompson on the battlefield?

I am sure that the Nazi's thought t hat all of their stuff was the best

They knew it wasn't - why do you think they started screaming for a new tank when they ran into the T34, or Galland demanded a squadron of Spitfires as a prerequisite for winning the Battle of Britain?

GI's that theirs was the best

So "Ronson" is an admiring nickname for a tank is it?