Best weapons of WW2

[Mikey]

what was the best weapon in each category as an absolute

I don't think that can be determined, except for arbitrarily choosing one determining criterion (which would then be skewed.) If we say, "What was 'absolutely' the most effective tank of WWII?" the answer as determined by the effect of a class of tank would be the T-34. If you then took that answer and asked, "If you had to pick one tank in which to try and survive, what would it be?" then your answer would probably NOT be a T-34.

[Atekimogus]

Fair enough, the topic-title says "best weapons" and I admit that for me "the best" always means which piece of equipment is actually the most able one, not the cheapest, or most affordable or effiecient. In that categories a Lada beats a Ferrari but I wouldn't label the Lada as "best". Just me though,......

[IanKennedy]

Fair enough, the topic-title says "best weapons" and I admit that for me "the best" always means which piece of equipment is actually the most able one, not the cheapest, or most affordable or effiecient. In that categories a Lada beats a Ferrari but I wouldn't label the Lada as "best". Just me though,......

Yes, but that can be a wider picture than it just being the best on paper. For example the most successful 'modern day' weapon could arguably be the AK-47. It's pretty reliable, easy to use and cheap. Take your Ferrari and Lada to Africa and then decide which is best. If you can drive the Lada but not the Farrari then...

[Mikey]

Exactly. The most capable tank (or gun, or whatever) on paper is worth less than a skinny rat's ass if it's not functioning. The AK-47 is considered such a great assault rifle not because it's accurate (it isn't) or because it's got the most effective cartridge, but because it's easy to become proficient with it and because it keeps working... anywhere in any conditions.

[Captain Seafort]

because it's got the most effective cartridge

For an assault rifle, it probably is the most effective round - the 7.62mm NATO is too powerful, and the 5.56 is ineffective at long range.

[Tholian_Avenger]

In what way is the 7.62mm Nato too powerful Captain Seafort?

Would a lighter round such as the .276 Pedersen and a detachable box magazine have made any improvement to the life of the grunt? The Army didn't like the idea of logistics for a rifle in .276 and machine guns in .30-06. Specifically, Chief of Staff Douglas MacArthur didn't care for the round, I guess he thought it was too puny.

[Captain Seafort]

In what way is the 7.62mm Nato too powerful Captain Seafort?

In that if you try using the thing in anything smaller than a BAR you'll have an anti-aircraft weapon.

The Army didn't like the idea of logistics for a rifle in .276 and machine guns in .30-06.

Understandable, but they've got 5.56 and 7.62 now.

Chief of Staff Douglas MacArthur didn't care for the round

I've never heard of the .276 Pedersen, but this comment is probably the best recommendation it could get.

Would a lighter round such as the .276 Pedersen and a detachable box magazine have made any improvement to the life of the grunt?

About that. The ideal round would be somewhere between 7.62 NATO and 5.56 - the current experimentee is the 6.8x43mm Remmington. To which I can only say "we told you so".

[Mikey]

because it's got the most effective cartridge

For an assault rifle, it probably is the most effective round - the 7.62mm NATO is too powerful, and the 5.56 is ineffective at long range.

Perhaps, but my point was that the chambering isn't what makes the AK-47 a great assault rifle. Comparing the 7.62 NATO isn't really fair, as it's a battle rifle round rather than an assault rifle round.

The Army didn't like the idea of logistics for a rifle in .276 and machine guns in .30-06.

I don't know much about the .276 Pederson, but the 30-ought-6 was just fine, if a little more rainbow-y than the .303, until it's replacement came down the pipe - that is, the .308 Winchester, aka the 7.62x51. That seems to have caught on a bit.

the current experimentee is the 6.8x43mm Remmington.

Or the KA 6.5mm. The problem with these new cartridges is the process of adopting them... we've all seen what happened to the OICW, the JCP, and every other type of innovation. When the USMC was waiting for a new MARSOC pistol, they got so sick of waiting for the red tape to clear that they finally just sic'ed their armorers on some original vintage M1911's, put in new ramps and match-grade barrels and called it a day.

[Captain Seafort]

Perhaps, but my point was that the chambering isn't what makes the AK-47 a great assault rifle.

And my point was that the round was part of it - not the most famous part, true, but an important part nonetheless. If it had used the old 54R, I doubt we'd have people single its praises in the same way.

Comparing the 7.62 NATO isn't really fair, as it's a battle rifle round rather than an assault rifle round.

It was the standard issue NATO round, just as the 7.62x39mm was the standard Soviet round. The fact that it simply wasn't suited to its use doesn't change that.

When the USMC was waiting for a new MARSOC pistol, they got so sick of waiting for the red tape to clear that they finally just sic'ed their armorers on some original vintage M1911's, put in new ramps and match-grade barrels and called it a day.

I thought the problem was that they simply didn't like the alternatives they were offered relative to the M1911?

[Mikey]

It was the standard issue NATO round

Into the late 60's, when the cartridge's weight with a standard load became the entire reason for adopting Eugene's folly. We're getting into semantics - you can say that it was the standard issue round, and it was; but the fact is that it was the standard issue round when the M14 - a battle rifle - was the standard kit.

I thought the problem was that they simply didn't like the alternatives they were offered relative to the M1911?

As I understand it (and U.S. military procurement processes are convoluted enough that I can't be sure anybody really does) the outcome of the JCP was the wholesale adoption of the M9 by the Army and the jarheads; while MARSOC, who expected to be graced by the process with a new SOF pistol, ended up giving up on the whole boondoggle and adopted the MEU(SOC) pistol, aka re-barreled and machined M1911's with accessory rails. Certain other SOF commands, like Naval Special Warfare, also ended up with a new pistol from the JCP process - except it wasn't the M9 at all, but rather the SIG P226 (known after adoption as either the M11 or the Mk 24.)

I'm sure you're aware of the giant sucking black hole of time and money that was the OICW initiative, and the absolutely mind-boggling lack of any results therefrom.

[Captain Seafort]

Into the late 60's, when the cartridge's weight with a standard load became the entire reason for adopting Eugene's folly. We're getting into semantics - you can say that it was the standard issue round, and it was; but the fact is that it was the standard issue round when the M14 - a battle rifle - was the standard kit.

The fact that anyone thought full-auto infantry weapons firing rounds the size of the 303 or 30-06 were a sensible idea is part of the problem, and it lasted, with dwindling enthusiasm, into the late 90s. Three of the four major NATO rifles of the Cold War were designed as such, and they all ran into the problem that the round was too powerful for the weapon. If you cut back to the basic concept of an automatic infantry weapon firing something more effective than pistol rounds, the AK-47 was the only one of the five that can be considered successful.

[Mikey]

The problem may have persisted, but the idea of using a cut-down or intermediate round for what would become known as an "assault rifle" came about with the very origin of the type. You do know what "kurz" means, right? BTW, the lack of control wasn't the primary reason for the disuse of the M14 - rather, it was the weight of the ammo, especially when compared to the weight of the new-fangled 5.56mm round that had just come onto the scene.

[Captain Seafort]

The problem may have persisted, but the idea of using a cut-down or intermediate round for what would become known as an "assault rifle" came about with the very origin of the type. You do know what "kurz" means, right?

Of course, but the 7.92x33mm wasn't used in any of the five main Cold War-era weapons.

BTW, the lack of control wasn't the primary reason for the disuse of the M14 - rather, it was the weight of the ammo, especially when compared to the weight of the new-fangled 5.56mm round that had just come onto the scene.

It was one of the reasons nonetheless, and an important one given the problems inherent in the original concept.

[Mikey]

Of course, but the 7.92x33mm wasn't used in any of the five main Cold War-era weapons.

But it was used in - moreover, developed specifically for - the weapon that was the genesis of the assault rifle. The problem to which you refer is therefore patently not one of people not yet having seen the advantages of an intermediate round.

It was one of the reasons nonetheless, and an important one given the problems inherent in the original concept.

It was a problem, no doubt, albeit not one that couldn't be overcome with training. I think that aspect of the issues with the M14 was less one of bullet weight and powder load and more one of the action itself. Remember that the M14 is still in limited use as a DMR, which in turn means that the action is very likely longer - almost .30-06 sort of long - and tighter on the bolt-face lugs. Anytime the bolt face travels closer to the cheek weld, the controllability will be affected at least as much as by bullet weight and powder load.

[Captain Seafort]

But it was used in - moreover, developed specifically for - the weapon that was the genesis of the assault rifle. The problem to which you refer is therefore patently not one of people not yet having seen the advantages of an intermediate round.

Of course it wasn't - the problem was one of gross stupidity on the part of the US Army in adopting the 7.62x51mm round, despite having a far superior alternative available, and everyone else having to adopt it for the sake of standardisation. They then went too far the other way and adopted a round that was too light to be effective at long range, and vulnerable to deflection in jungle warfare. They now seem to be moving towards the 6.8 Remmington - a round almost identical to the one they rejected sixty years ago. It's reminiscent of the quip about the British government's tendency to always choose the right course of action, having exhausted all possible alternatives.

It was a problem, no doubt, albeit not one that couldn't be overcome with training. I think that aspect of the issues with the M14 was less one of bullet weight and powder load and more one of the action itself.

That might have made the problem worse, but it was common to all 7.62 NATO full-auto rifles.