Best weapons of WW2

[Captain Seafort]

I've been browsing through a few old threads, including quite a few discussing various types of weapons. We have not, however, ever really discussed the realtive merits of said weapons in their own context - more in the context of "how badly would army X slaughter Jemmies/Xenomorphs/zombies/etc". So, to remedy this, what in your opinion are the best weapons of the Second World War in the following categories? Any suggestions for extra categories would be welcome.

Handgun
Rifle
SMG
Light machine gun (rifle calibre, magazine-fed)
Medium/GP machine gun (rifle calibre, belt-fed)
Heavy machine gun (greater than rifle calibre)
Infantry anti-tank weapon

Light/Field artillery
Medium artillery
Anti-tank
Light AAA
Heavy AAA

Tank

[Mikey]

Are we talking about the weapons on their own merits, or with all of the ancillary stuff that made them successful? For example, the best tanks of the war on their own merits were obviously the Panzers; but the Tommycookers and T-series were more successful overall because of their ability to be built in far greater numbers and far more quickly.

Anyway, I'll try to think of at least a few...

handgun: I should say "pistol," because I'm going to say the M1911. In an era predating effective anti-small-arm body armor, what was lost with the weight of the bullet from a 9mm cartridge vs. that of a .45acp hardball was not regained with penetration capabilities. I know the movies showed Cpl. York using a captured Luger, but that was only because blanks wouldn't cycle the low-pressure M1911.

rifle: The U.S. Rifle, caliber .30, M1... aka, the M1 Garand. Patton called it "the greatest battle implement ever devised," and it's use in skilled hands led to the German nickname of "devil dogs" for the USMC. 'Nuff said.

SMG: Thompson. Although also anachronistic by this time, the same analysis of the .45ACP vs. the 9mm Para applies in an time before advanced body armor and highly-supersonic 9mm cartridges... which analysis puts it ahead of the Sten and the Schmeissers. The Tommy's performance in Italy speaks for itself as well.

MMG: I have to go outside the 'States for this one - the MG42, aka "Hitler's buzzsaw."

HMG: Ma Deuce. Still nothing like it.

[Captain Seafort]

handgun: I should say "pistol," because I'm going to say the M1911.

Agreed - the reason I said handgun was to cover both pistols and revolvers, and while I think the Webley VI provides serious competition, the ease of use and slightly greater magazine capacity of the M1911 gives it the edge.

rifle: The U.S. Rifle, caliber .30, M1... aka, the M1 Garand. Patton called it "the greatest battle implement ever devised," and it's use in skilled hands led to the German nickname of "devil dogs" for the USMC. 'Nuff said.

I wouldn't go as far as Patton - I think the SMLE was a better weapon for its day than the Garand was for its, and would still run the Garand close even in WW2 due to its greater capacity and the Garand's flaws (only being able to load full clips, and making a loud ping when the magazine's emptied aren't good). Nonetheless, you can't beat semi-auto in an age of bolt-action weapons.

SMG: Thompson. Although also anachronistic by this time, the same analysis of the .45ACP vs. the 9mm Para applies in an time before advanced body armor and highly-supersonic 9mm cartridges... which analysis puts it ahead of the Sten and the Schmeissers. The Tommy's performance in Italy speaks for itself as well.

Here I disagree. Regardless of the Thompson's quality, I'd go for the PPSh-41 - lighter, better punch, and greater capacity. Also, saying it's better than the Sten isn't exactly the greatest compliment you could pay it.

MMG: I have to go outside the 'States for this one - the MG42, aka "Hitler's buzzsaw."

HMG: Ma Deuce. Still nothing like it.

Agreed on both counts, and I would be very surprised if anyone disagrees.

[McAvoy]

Is this only ground pounder weapons or air and naval weapons can be included? I mean categories of course.

[Captain Seafort]

Is this only ground pounder weapons or air and naval weapons can be included? I mean categories of course.

Sure, although if it starts causing too many headaches keeping track of discussion we might end up slitting them off to their own threads.

[McAvoy]

I wouldn't include actual naval ships because... well that would be a huge discussion in itself. The whole British carrier vs. US carrier is a much heated one.

I would suggest best guns for the ships. Like best AA gun, AA machine gun, Medium guns, Heavy guns etc.

[Mikey]

while I think the Webley VI provides serious competition

I agree with you - the reason that the M1911 beats the Webley isn't capacity, or even the ease of a removable magazine over a top-break revolver. The .45ACP negates the advantage of the .455 Webley, and the Herculean trigger pull on the Webley means that the same shooter will be more accurate with the single-action M1911 than with the Mk IV.

I wouldn't go as far as Patton - I think the SMLE was a better weapon for its day than the Garand was for its, and would still run the Garand close even in WW2 due to its much greater capacity and the Garand's flaws (only being able to load full clips, and making a loud ping when the magazine's emptied aren't good). Nonetheless, you can't beat semi-auto in an age of bolt-action weapons.

Again, I agree. I was citing Patton, not saying that he wasn't being hyperbolic. The SMLE was a phenomenal weapon, and chambered a phenomenal war-fighting cartridge. The M1 wasn't as accurate as the SMLE; but it was accurate enough to 1,000 yds. and as you said had the advantage of being SA.

PPSh-41 - lighter, better punch, and greater capacity.

Certainly lighter and more compact. Greater capacity - IDK, but remember the Tommy could be fitted with 50-round drums. Better punch? Let's see, a 7.62 Tokarev w/ 85-grain FMJ's will give you about 400-550 ft-lbs. at the muzzle; a .45 ACP FMJ will produce just the same range, but with a 230-grain ball.

I wasn't ignoring the other categories, they're just the ones in which I don't have enough knowledge to have a ready opinion to hand. What are your takes on some of the areas I omitted?

[Mikey]

BTW, if we're talking about naval artillery, I'd have to say the 16-inchers on the Iowa-class (yes, Reliant, even over the 18.1's on the Yamato.)

[Captain Seafort]

I would suggest best guns for the ships. Like best AA gun, AA machine gun, Medium guns, Heavy guns etc.

I'm not convinced that's a particularly useful way of doing things - I think you can only really judge the effectiveness of weapons systems, and while a rifle or field artillery piece can be treated as an integral system, I don't think you can say the same about a warship's guns any more than you can discuss muzzle velocity independently of weight of round or RoF (for example) - they're too heavily influenced by other aspects of the design.

[Mikey]

I would suggest best guns for the ships. Like best AA gun, AA machine gun, Medium guns, Heavy guns etc.

I'm not convinced that's a particularly useful way of doing things - I think you can only really judge the effectiveness of weapons systems, and while a rifle or field artillery piece can be treated as an integral system, I don't think you can say the same about a warship's guns any more than you can discuss muzzle velocity independently of weight of round or RoF (for example) - they're too heavily influenced by other aspects of the design.

Pretty much the reason I like the Iowa's 16-inchers over the 18.1's on the Yamato - individually the 18.1's had greater range and could fire those nasty Type-3 AA rounds... but you could put nine 16-inch guns on a battleship, vs. three 18.1's on the Yamato.

[Captain Seafort]

Pretty much the reason I like the Iowa's 16-inchers over the 18.1's on the Yamato - individually the 18.1's had greater range and could fire those nasty Type-3 AA rounds... but you could put nine 16-inch guns on a battleship, vs. three 18.1's on the Yamato.

Huh? The Yamato had a nine-gun main battery.

[Captain Seafort]

Certainly lighter and more compact. Greater capacity - IDK, but remember the Tommy could be fitted with 50-round drums.

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

Better punch? Let's see, a 7.62 Tokarev w/ 85-grain FMJ's will give you about 400-550 ft-lbs. at the muzzle; a .45 ACP FMJ will produce just the same range, but with a 230-grain ball.

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) and (more importantly) that that's what the Red Army thought - they weren't keen on Thompsons because they felt it lacked punch.

Regarding some of the others:

Light MG - has to be the Bren. Solid, reliable, and beats the BAR through magazine capacity and position and having a quick change barrel.

Field artillery - 25-pdr, 'nuff said.
Anti-tank - 17-pdr, with the Pak 43 giving it a close run
Light AA - 40mm Bofors

Tanks will be the really tricky one, given the general technical superiority of German designs and mechanical superior of allied designs. I'm starting to lean towards splitting this section into medium and heavy categories, with the former going to the Panther, closely followed by the T-34/85, and the latter an almost exact three-way tie between the Königstiger, IS-2 and Pershing, in that order.

[Mikey]

So it did. What was I thinking of? It had three of something, maybe I was conflating those with the 1/2-inch AA guns. *shrugs*

[Captain Seafort]

So it did. What was I thinking of? It had three of something, maybe I was conflating those with the 1/2-inch AA guns. *shrugs*

She had threes of all sorts - three triple main turrets, a couple of triple 6.1" turrets and as many triple 25mm AA guns as they could cram onto her.

[McAvoy]

I would suggest best guns for the ships. Like best AA gun, AA machine gun, Medium guns, Heavy guns etc.

I'm not convinced that's a particularly useful way of doing things - I think you can only really judge the effectiveness of weapons systems, and while a rifle or field artillery piece can be treated as an integral system, I don't think you can say the same about a warship's guns any more than you can discuss muzzle velocity independently of weight of round or RoF (for example) - they're too heavily influenced by other aspects of the design.

Pretty much the reason I like the Iowa's 16-inchers over the 18.1's on the Yamato - individually the 18.1's had greater range and could fire those nasty Type-3 AA rounds... but you could put nine 16-inch guns on a battleship, vs. three 18.1's on the Yamato.

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.