Army with best weapons

[schwarzpanzer]

CurzonDax:

I will also argue that the Japanese Type 96, the famous Nambu, was just as effective as the Bren.

Nope, prone to dirt and jamming. The 6.5mm Arisaka round was designed to be weak. Horrendouus build quality.

The ZB-26 and Bren are interesting comparisons though, as the .303 suited the gun better IMO, but the rimless design of the German 7.92mm made it less prone to jamming. The Bren could offset this by leaving 2 bullets out the clip however and as the Bren Mk2 was much easier to manufacture, I'd go for the Bren.

I take Nambu to mean a crappy, unreliable, Japanese Luger clone pistol of WW2 - though the company may have made LMG's?

You get hit by a .45 from a 1911, you will go down whereas a 9mm may not get the job done every time.

The .45's penetration is ineffective against thick winter clothing, the 9mm, while less powerful, has the penetration necessary.

The HP also has nearly twice the magazine capacity.

In the Far East and Western Front's, the M1911 did rule IMHO.

I also will argue that all other infantry rifles, Allied or Axis, were obsolete once the garand came on the scene. Again semi vs bolt.

Have you ever done or seen a Lee-Enfield "Mad-Minute"? I myself can match or even beat the Garands 20 rpm if I want with a SMLE.


loomaluftwaffe:

The Japs were clumsy with their Arisaka rifles cause they were too big for most of them little island ppl

The Arisaka was a weak bullet in a normal-sized gun. The Meiji Carbine was a normal bullet in a musket-sized beast!

- They were 2 different weapons, but the Arisakas were still reasonably big for the little Japanese.

[plan_D]

The MG42 did not encourage defensive attitudes in the Wehrmacht, schwarz. It was just a MG, and a very good one! The Tiger certainly did not encourage defensive attitudes since it was designed to be used as the spearhead armour, never a defensive weapon but used as one when appropriate.

[schwarzpanzer]

I know, hence the original DW designation.

Using any tank like that is silly. The T34 was also designed for this.

At times though, that technique can be effective (as a distraction, for e.g.)

The MG42 was severely lacking in 'run and gun' ability. For trench warfare though, it'd be ideal. Seriously though it could be used when off it's tripod/pintle, but not that effectively.

It could not fill the role of the Bren or StG44.

[loomaluftwaffe]

who said it had to? the bren is an LMG, the MG34/42 is an MMG, u cant replace an LMG or an Assault Rifle with an MMG.

[plan_D]

You haven't the slightest clue. The MG42, or MG34, WERE the squad support weapons in the Heeres. The STG.44 was a ****in' assault rifle ... it was used by every troop in the platoon save the squad support soldier.

And what are you talking about with the tanks! Any tank can be used defensively or offensively .... the Tiger was THE offensive weapon of the Wehrmacht ... it was used in the defensive role when the Heeres was on the defensive ... the Tiger did not make anyone think defensively ... it probably did the complete opposite ... Germans after an easy kill (which would be anythin' ) would more likely chase the enemy to whoop his ass back to hell ... come on, be serious ... the Tiger was the ****in' dogs bollocks ... in defence or offence. ..

And best army weapons ... the Heeres ... obviously. Air Force and Navy are not Naval commands ... I could even be a prick and say the Waffen-SS had the best equipment ... but I won't ...

[loomaluftwaffe]

an offensice weapon can be used in the defensive, attacking the attackers is essentially defending

[Gnomey]

To attack is the best from of defence...

[schwarzpanzer]

That is certainly true in the air, but on the ground and armed with defensive weapons, it can be a different matter.


loomaluftwaffe:

The MG34/42 is not an MMG, it is actually a GPMG and was meant to fill the role of both MMG, HMG & LMG - hence the bipod and Gutrommel.

Certain people can use a GPMG as an LMG, but I certainly couldn't for long!

My personal belief is that the MG42 was pathetic as a HMG, but some people say it's effective enough. I'm not too sure about this, but know even the Bren could be used in this role with some success, so...


PlanD:

I know the MG34/42 were SSW's. So were the StG44 and MG26 used.

I don't think that 'one size fits all', that's all.

I think the GPMG system is flawed if it completely replaces LMG's and MMG's, don't you?

If you want a modern example, look at the SA80. It was intended to replace LMG's, Battle Rifles, SMG's and GPMG's and so is a Jack of all trades, master of none. Even Geoff Hoon has put Minimi's and FN MAG's back in, sharpish.

The Steyr AUG and HK G36 do OK from SMG-LMG though IMHO.

Any tank can be used defensively or offensively

The Tetrarch/Locust??

Not if it breaks down or is too slow, the Tiger was a fine tank when all was well, but was a logistical knightmare.

A Tiger was great at ambushes, but in a close range fight with even a T34/85 it was dead meat and that is how it was all-too-often used.

Admittedly the commander is probably responsible for this, after all you can't blame a screwdriver for being a bad hammer.

Germans after an easy kill (which would be anythin' ) would more likely chase the enemy to whoop his ass back to hell

Getting a pounding from everything the enemy had, in '43 onwards this was suicidal. The problem with boastful Tiger commanders is they got too big for their boots IMHO. Pride comes before a fall they say... There were weapons that could destroy the Tiger, likeit or not, those are the facts.

the Tiger was the fu*kin' dogs bollocks ... in defence or offence

I agree, but when used properly and with all logistical considerations taken into account.

And best army weapons ... the Heeres ... obviously.

What? Obviously?? K98k's vs Garands, Lee-Enfield and others? Those were standard issue, the Germans having at best equal equipment 'till it was too late and in too few numbers.

What's wrong with saying the Waffen-SS had the best equipment? I can actually see your point there.

The Tiger was horribly overweight for the DW (Breakthrough) role it was intended to do, so had to be reclassified as a SdKfz SchwerePanzer (Special Purpsose Heavy Tank).

Tring to use a defensive weapon for attack is usually extremely difficult.

Having said that, you could get away with it... The StuG being an example - just not too often.

[loomaluftwaffe]

please explain how is the SMLE better than the 98k? i dont know that much about them

[plan_D]

How was the MG42 being used as an all-round weapon when only a couple in the squad would be carrying the MG? It was the squad support weapon, and was not a purely defensive weapon.

The Tetrach and Locust were both offensive tanks, since they were used in airborne operations. Which is distinctively an offensive operation. Even when used in the scout role, they're being used offensively and defensively.

If the Tiger had enough spares, or if the commander handled marches properly then the Tiger was fine. A Schwere Pz.Abt in Russia managed an 86.6% readiness, which is impressive for any armoured battalion. This was maintained with proper marches to keep up maintenaince levels, and enough spares.

When Germany was on the offensive the Tiger was the offensive point weapon. I would much rather be in a Tiger than a T-34/85, since at ranges up 3,000 metres the T-34 was vulnerable to the KwK36. At close range the T-34 would be smashed to pieces.

In 1943 the Tiger was still untouchable, it was not until 1944 that the Tiger commanders had to realise the enemy was catching up. And yes, the Tiger commanders became too used to being invulnerable which caught them off-guard in the summer of '44. But this was soon rectified.
True, there were weapons that could destroy the Tiger. No one has denied this. But the Tiger was a much more formidable opponent than anything the Allies or Soviets had in their arsenal.

The Tiger was not over-weight for the breakthrough role, that is why the Germans continued to use it as such. It was the pinpoint of the assault and broke the lines to allow the lighter armour through behind it. It was an offensive weapon, in fact all tanks are offensive weapons.

[loomaluftwaffe]

what about the IS-2? that 122mm gun should be able to kill a tiger?

[plan_D]

The IS-2 was introduced in 1944. It's D-25T 122mm cannon could destroy a Tiger at combat ranges (400 - 600 m) but compared to the KwK36 88mm it was weak, and the IS-2 only carried 28 rounds.

In a moving combat from 3,000 m the Tiger will most likely win every time. The IS-2 was vulnerable to the KwK36 at ranges up to 1,000 m - and that was it's frontal armour.

[loomaluftwaffe]

wow, cause when i set huge tank battles in IL-2 sturmovik, a tiger II will only destroy its side armor

[plan_D]

Then the game is wrong, because the IS-2 was vulnerable to the Tiger and Panther at distances up to and including 1,000 metres. And the Tiger II could, most likely, destroy it's frontal armour at distances up to and including 1,500 m .

[CurzonDax]

Originally Posted by loomaluftwaffe

an offensice weapon can be used in the defensive, attacking the attackers is essentially defending

Remeber, bullets have the right of way, in a defense or an offense.

Read Murphy's laws of war.

:{)