20 Best and Worst WWII Small Arms

[old_pop2000]

I thought we could change the action here, and do some analysis of some small arms and get opinions on the best and the worst. Categories should be but are not limited to:

Pistols
Rifles - Bolt action, semiautomatic, assault rifles
submachine guns
Light/medium machine guns
small mortars
Miscellaneous - for things like anti-tank rifles, rocket propelled antitank launchers, etc.

I will start. The best weapon, IMO, was the Sturmgewehr 44. This was the prototype assault rifle firing a medium size cartidge-7.92mm x 33 Kurtz, stamped receiver, gas operated and magazine fed, that fired on full auto. Some say it was heavy, but it was the prototype for the AK-47, G3, and many other post war weapons of this type. Greatly increased the firepower of the average German infantry squad.

The worst has to be the post-1942 Type 99 Arisaka Rifle. 7.7 x 58 mm cartridge, 5 round mag. The later versions were made from inferior metals, that were not heat treated, no coating to protect the metals and were, frankly, more dangerous to the shooter than the shootee. It was termed "the last ditch" for obvious reasons. It made committing hari-kiri far easier. Just keep shooting and the gun will eventually kill you.

[Warship NWS]

My personal favorites have always been the Thompson, Garand, and BAR. Close combat automatic fire, long range repetitive fire, and squad portable LMG. Lots of firepower if in the right hands.

Thanks.

[djcyclone]

Anything that was a decent sniper rifle gets my vote. Sniper Rifles proved their worth in WW II. Whenever I play games that allow the player to choose their weapons, I always get a sniper rifle. I love to be able to just find a hiding place and snipe enemy soilders from about 1/2 mile away.

I'm pretty accurate too.:D

[keschofield]

My vote for the worst bolt action rifles goes to the French Mannlicher-Bertheir and MAS rifles. NO SAFETY THAT I COULD FIND!

[old_pop2000]

My vote for the worst bolt action rifles goes to the French Mannlicher-Bertheir and MAS rifles. NO SAFETY THAT I COULD FIND!

Yuch! Such confidence in your soldiers.

[old_pop2000]

My personal favorites have always been the Thompson, Garand, and BAR. Close combat automatic fire, long range repetitive fire, and squad portable LMG. Lots of firepower if in the right hands.

Thanks.

I can't totally disagree with the Garand, we have one and it shoots nice with a reasonably tight group at 100 yards. Haven't fired at the 300 yard distance on the range yet. Sound's like we need to do that. HeHeHe:D

Thompson is fine weapon, however the pistol cartidge is insufficient for many applications. I believe the Stg 44 with an intermediate rifle cartridge with full auto is a better choice. Our .30 cal M1 carbine was a nice weapon but the cartidge was underpowered for regular combat. The assault rifle rounds were better.

The BAR is another good weapon, but I believe that it's dependance on magazines and lack of full auto is a deficience. Very accurate, but I am not certain in my doctrine and hence my tactics, that full auto with belts doesn't fit better.

A squad equipped with Stg. 44's and a base of fire established on an Mg-42 is a great mix.

Just one person's opinion. This is the centerpiece of this thread. It's everyone's opinion.

[Ed Rotondaro]

My vote for the worst bolt action rifles goes to the French Mannlicher-Bertheir and MAS rifles. NO SAFETY THAT I COULD FIND!

Kurt:

I'm glad you brought that one up, it was a lousy weapon for sure.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I thought we could change the action here, and do some analysis of some small arms and get opinions on the best and the worst. Categories should be but are not limited to:

Pistols
Rifles - Bolt action, semiautomatic, assault rifles
submachine guns
Light/medium machine guns
small mortars
Miscellaneous - for things like anti-tank rifles, rocket propelled antitank launchers, etc.

I will start. The best weapon, IMO, was the Sturmgewehr 44. This was the prototype assault rifle firing a medium size cartidge-7.92mm x 33 Kurtz, stamped receiver, gas operated and magazine fed, that fired on full auto. Some say it was heavy, but it was the prototype for the AK-47, G3, and many other post war weapons of this type. Greatly increased the firepower of the average German infantry squad.

The worst has to be the post-1942 Type 99 Arisaka Rifle. 7.7 x 58 mm cartridge, 5 round mag. The later versions were made from inferior metals, that were not heat treated, no coating to protect the metals and were, frankly, more dangerous to the shooter than the shootee. It was termed "the last ditch" for obvious reasons. It made committing hari-kiri far easier. Just keep shooting and the gun will eventually kill you.

Dennis:

For bolt action rifle it's a toss up between the Mauser and the Springfield for best. The British Enfield had a quicker bolt action and held more rounds, but the .303 cartridge was nothing to write home about for accuracy in most cases.

Submachine gun I give the German MP-38 (incorrectly called the Schmeisser) the slight nod over the Thompson due to it being lighter and a bit cheaper to manufacture.

Semi-automatic rifle its hands down the Garand since there really is very competition. Personally I think its the best pure rifle of the war since I consider the Sturmgewehr to be in a totally different class.

Light MG, the German MG42 wins hands down even if it ate up ammo like crazy. It pretty much set the pattern for post war GPMGs. Honorably mention to the Bren gun for falling somwhere between a LMG and a squad automatic weapon.

Medium MG its a toss up between the US Browning .30cal and the British Vickers MG 9although this weapon might be more properly considered a heavy MG due to its use of water cooling). Both weapons are highly reliable and potent. The Vickers gets a nod for better sustained rate of fire due to its water cooling.

Heavy MG its hands down the Browning .50cal with the proof being its still in service to this day. No other nation deployed heavy machine guns to the extent that the US did and it was justly feared by all its opponents. Entire German infantry companies would hit the ground the minute Ma Duce opened up.

Pistols are tough because they are such a personal weapon. Objectively, the Browning High Power was probably the best overall design, being a refinement of the Colt .45 action. The double action P-38 was ground breaking and helpe define the future of semi-automatics, while the large capacity of the High Power set the standard for the "Wonder Nines" that followed. The venerable Colt .45 certainly was reliable and powerful and remains in service to this day which speaks volumes for its capabilities.

With mortars, it can be tough since many nations used weapons that were licensed copies of French designs. The famous Japanese "knee mortar" which was actually a grenade launcher deserves notice, but I'm not sure what category to put it into. I can't see any nation having a clear advantage in small infantry mortars (2" to 3" diameter here). As mortar sizes go up, the Russians certainly produced some potent designs that were more like howitzers than mortars.

Rocket launchers I give the nod to the US with the bazooka. Sure the Germans copied it and produced a weapon with a larger rocket and better penetration, but this increased weight and complexity. The British PIAT was at best a weapon of last resort. Honorable nods to the German Panzerfaust one shot disposable rocket lauchers as they inspired future weapons like the LAW that gave the individual infantryman the means to kill a tank, especially in urban environments.

Anyone have an thoughts on which nation had the best flamethrower?:D

[Kyle Holgate]

I'm not sure I'd give too many kudo's to the Piat. Trying to fire it downward the round would slide out of the launcher. That could be a bit emberassing - I can picuture the tank commander noticing the round plopping down to the ground and looking up at the British infantry who have a big guilty smile on their faces and laugh and wave saying 'oops' (then RUN!!!).

The Panzerfaust deserves some mention I think - it was the first really easy to use tank buster that could take down even heavy tanks. Point & shoot (then run in case it missed).

[Ed Rotondaro]

I can't totally disagree with the Garand, we have one and it shoots nice with a reasonably tight group at 100 yards. Haven't fired at the 300 yard distance on the range yet. Sound's like we need to do that. HeHeHe:D

Thompson is fine weapon, however the pistol cartidge is insufficient for many applications. I believe the Stg 44 with an intermediate rifle cartridge with full auto is a better choice. Our .30 cal M1 carbine was a nice weapon but the cartidge was underpowered for regular combat. The assault rifle rounds were better.

The BAR is another good weapon, but I believe that it's dependance on magazines and lack of full auto is a deficience. Very accurate, but I am not certain in my doctrine and hence my tactics, that full auto with belts doesn't fit better.

A squad equipped with Stg. 44's and a base of fire established on an Mg-42 is a great mix.

Just one person's opinion. This is the centerpiece of this thread. It's everyone's opinion.

Dennis:

The Stg.44 along with the MG-42 and Panzerfausts kept German infantry a potent force right up to the end. Squads, platoons, companies, battalions, etc. all were downsized but still put out enough firepower to delay opponents that outnumbered them by a considerable margin.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I'm not sure I'd give too many kudo's to the Piat. Trying to fire it downward the round would slide out of the launcher. That could be a bit emberassing - I can picuture the tank commander noticing the round plopping down to the ground and looking up at the British infantry who have a big guilty smile on their faces and laugh and wave saying 'oops' (then RUN!!!).

The Panzerfaust deserves some mention I think - it was the first really easy to use tank buster that could take down even heavy tanks. Point & shoot (then run in case it missed).

Kyle:

I certainly didn't give the PIAT any kudos, I merely mentioned it in comparison to the other weapons.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

The Stg.44 along with the MG-42 and Panzerfausts kept German infantry a potent force right up to the end. Squads, platoons, companies, battalions, etc. all were downsized but still put out enough firepower to delay opponents that outnumbered them by a considerable margin.

I believe that to be true. The Lonesentry site has some good WWII stuff and so does the US Army History site. Maybe a good research topic during this kind of weather. At this moment, outside in my gazebo, my remote thermometer reads 97 degrees at 1113 hours. I believe that I will stay inside my room, where the air conditioner and fans keep the old man cool.:eek::D:D

[Ed Rotondaro]

I believe that to be true. The Lonesentry site has some good WWII stuff and so does the US Army History site. Maybe a good research topic during this kind of weather. At this moment, outside in my gazebo, my remote thermometer reads 97 degrees at 1113 hours. I believe that I will stay inside my room, where the air conditioner and fans keep the old man cool.:eek::D:D

Dennis:

One hopes that at least it is a dry low humidity heat? We had a stretch of muggy humid weather in the upper 90s last week and it was very unpleasant (don't know how Chris stands Florida or Scott handles Texas). It is now just the reverse, upper 60s low 70s with a breeze and very low humidity. Good sleeping weather as we say around here.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

One hopes that at least it is a dry low humidity heat? We had a stretch of muggy humid weather in the upper 90s last week and it was very unpleasant (don't know how Chris stands Florida or Scott handles Texas). It is now just the reverse, upper 60s low 70s with a breeze and very low humidity. Good sleeping weather as we say around here.

Well, it is usually dry where we are(25 miles from the coast behind some hills) so even though it is now, at 1312 hrs 100 degrees, humidity is probably below 50%. BUT IT IS STILL HOT OUTSIDE!!:eek::eek::D:D

[Warship NWS]

Guys.. stay on topic please.. weather chatter can be put on our general purpose section. Thanks. ;)

[Ed Rotondaro]

Well, it is usually dry where we are(25 miles from the coast behind some hills) so even though it is now, at 1312 hrs 100 degrees, humidity is probably below 50%. BUT IT IS STILL HOT OUTSIDE!!:eek::eek::D:D

Dennis:

I can understand that too. I golfed in Las Vegas in 104 degree heat and while it wasn't sticky it was still hot. Cold beer never tasted so good.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Guys.. stay on topic please.. weather chatter can be put on our general purpose section. Thanks. ;)


OK. What is the group's opinion on the Soviet light machine gun, the Degtyaryov 7.62mm? It was lighter than the Bren, had a 47 round pan magazine and was manufactured in large quantities. It is sometimes referred to as the DP machine gun and pretty much occupied the same niche as a Bren good would in a British rifle platoon.

[old_pop2000]

OK. What is the group's opinion on the Soviet light machine gun, the Degtyaryov 7.62mm? It was lighter than the Bren, had a 47 round pan magazine and was manufactured in large quantities. It is sometimes referred to as the DP machine gun and pretty much occupied the same niche as a Bren good would in a British rifle platoon.

The Russian DP was a light, easy to build and rugged but had feed problems due to the magazine. But, in their environment and with the level of abilities in the Russian Army, probably the best gun. A gun like the MG-42 would have been a nightmare for the Russians.

[old_pop2000]

Guys.. stay on topic please.. weather chatter can be put on our general purpose section. Thanks. ;)

Yea, I did not mean to start something. It was an aside comment.:o:D

[Warship NWS]

The BAR is another good weapon, but I believe that it's dependance on magazines and lack of full auto is a deficience. Very accurate, but I am not certain in my doctrine and hence my tactics, that full auto with belts doesn't fit better.

I am no small arms expert.. but the BAR was capable of 300-650 RPM.. I would consider that "full auto" capable. ;)

[Kyle Holgate]

I don't know much about the Soviet LMG - but their SMG which looked alot like the US tommy gun (it's only 59 degrees here, :p) gave soviet guards infantry impressive if short range firepower. They never did get a good AT weapon, though I guess the molitov wan't bad if you had balls enough to get close enough to a tank to use it!

[old_pop2000]

I am no small arms expert.. but the BAR was capable of 300-650 RPM.. I would consider that "full auto" capable. ;)

Yes, and at that rate of fire you are firing 10 rounds a second, correct? With a twenty round magazine, how many seconds do you have, before you have to reload a new magazine? Also, you could not replace the barrel.

[Warship NWS]

Yes, and at that rate of fire you are firing 10 rounds a second, correct? With a twenty round magazine, how many seconds do you have, before you have to reload a new magazine? Also, you could not replace the barrel.

Hey now, you only specified "full auto".. be fair now Mr. Picky. ;)

Still though, it did give the WW2 GI a bit more suppressive firepower and an LMG capability until something better came along. If nothing else, if it failed at least they could supply the guys with Garands ammo since they used the same rounds. ;)

[old_pop2000]

Hey now, you only specified "full auto".. be fair now Mr. Picky. ;)

Still though, it did give the WW2 GI a bit more suppressive firepower and an LMG capability until something better came along. If nothing else, if it failed at least they could supply the guys with Garands ammo since they used the same rounds. ;)


If I were the guys whose life depended on the squad light machine gun as a base of fire, I might like to have more than 2 seconds worth of firing before I have to change mags. Silly me, I want a chance against an MG-42 firing at me.:D:D

[Warship NWS]

If I were the guys whose life depended on the squad light machine gun as a base of fire, I might like to have more than 2 seconds worth of firing before I have to change mags. Silly me, I want a chance against an MG-42 firing at me.:D:D

It is interesting to consider that all magazine fed LMGs had around 2-3 seconds of firing - so I could not knock the BAR too much in that regards. It was also useable by one man, the MG42 lacked the same accuracy (unless mounted securely) and required more then one man since it chewed up ammo at a high rate. Don't get me wrong though, the MG42 was a fine weapon, but was used for different tactical applications then the BAR. Both overall were good weapons though IMHO. ;)

[old_pop2000]

It is interesting to consider that all magazine fed LMGs had around 2-3 seconds of firing - so I could not knock the BAR too much in that regards. It was also useable by one man, the MG42 lacked the same accuracy (unless mounted securely) and required more then one man since it chewed up ammo at a high rate. Don't get me wrong though, the MG42 was a fine weapon, but was used for different tactical applications then the BAR. Both overall were good weapons though IMHO. ;)

Both weapons served their purpose well. But if I am in an infantry platoon with 3 squads and all I have against a German MG42, is 5 BAR's with 2 seconds of firepower, I would really like to have a little more help when I use my fire and maneuver. It's a two part equation-fire-maneuver. Ok, the MG-42 isn't the most accurate weapon on a bipod. I really don't want to be the poor grunt who tests that theory. What if it is wrong? Let's keep the gunner's head down, maneuver and throw a grenade and all go home alive.

[Warship NWS]

Both weapons served their purpose well. But if I am in an infantry platoon with 3 squads and all I have against a German MG42, is 5 BAR's with 2 seconds of firepower, I would really like to have a little more help when I use my fire and maneuver. It's a two part equation-fire-maneuver. Ok, the MG-42 isn't the most accurate weapon on a bipod. I really don't want to be the poor grunt who tests that theory. What if it is wrong? Let's keep the gunner's head down, maneuver and throw a grenade and all go home alive.

In terms of fire and maneuver.. I would prefer the BAR. In terms of defensive.. I would prefer the MG42. Shoot and scoot with a BAR was far easier then with an MG42. Fire that MG42 a second or two and everyone knows where you are. Fire the BAR for 2 seconds.. move and reload, repeat. Good weapons with different applications and tactics. :)

[old_pop2000]

In terms of fire and maneuver.. I would prefer the BAR. In terms of defensive.. I would prefer the MG42. Shoot and scoot with a BAR was far easier then with an MG42. Fire that MG42 a second or two and everyone knows where you are. Fire the BAR for 2 seconds.. move and reload, repeat. Good weapons with different applications and tactics. :)

That's a good theory, but it did not work that way. The usual tactic was to break into three teams-team able, baker and charlie.

Team able of two men were the scouts and would locate the enemy position

Team baker of one bar and four riflemen would provide essentially the base of fire upon the enemy position.

Team charlie- the remaining four men and the squad leader assaulted the position

Nice and neat. The key was, according to the Handbook of the Infantry company-fire superiority. Unfortunately it did not work.

A US rifle company of 193 men had two machine guns both of which were independent. The German rifle company had fifteen machine guns and 28 submachine guns-we had no submachine guns. The US rifle company was dependent on 9 BAR's. Somewhat of a mismatch. Another little bug was that our guns emitted a puff of blue smoke and flame. The Germans noted this and put fire down keeping the US infantrymens heads down. We were not using smokeless, flashless powder. The Germans were and they were camoflaged and they learned to change positions.

No, the BAR equipped company's usually had to ask for fire support from.... dare I say it..... the queen of the battlefield- artillery or heavy mortars.

[Warship NWS]

Knowing the typical infantry.. did they not come up with their own on the fly solutions or did they just always depend on artillery to save the day? Rhetorical question there. ;) Note, I was implying the tactics I would try for.. not what they actually used. ;) The main point I was making though is that the BAR was more tactically portable then the MG42. One was meant more for offensive and the other, much like the .30s, was meant more for defensive or suppressive fire. The BAR was more or less a stop gap betwen the .30s and the Garands until something better was developed. As you say, it was a mismatch as the Garand was a faster firing weapon then the K98 and both were accurate weapons. Infantry tactics alone could produce a thread in itself. Geez.. I wish I had as much time as you do to type all day..LOL! ;)

[old_pop2000]

Knowing the typical infantry.. did they not come up with their own on the fly solutions or did they just always depend on artillery to save the day? Rhetorical question there. ;) Note, I was implying the tactics I would try for.. not what they actually used. ;) The main point I was making though is that the BAR was more tactically portable then the MG42. One was meant more for offensive and the other, much like the .30s, was meant more for defensive or suppressive fire. The BAR was more or less a stop gap betwen the .30s and the Garands until something better was developed. As you say, it was a mismatch as the Garand was a faster firing weapon then the K98 and both were accurate weapons. Infantry tactics alone could produce a thread in itself. Geez.. I wish I had as much time as you do to type all day..LOL! ;)


Are you prompting me for another thread? Ok, you've got it. New thread, coming up.

[Warship NWS]

Are you prompting me for another thread? Ok, you've got it. New thread, coming up.

Being the small arms freak that you are.. I knew you would do that..LOL! ;)