Best German Weapon of WWII

[GermansRGeniuses]

Here it is, then!

http://ak47-vodka.cdetc.com/

and here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe...ov.vodka.reut/

[Nonskimmer]

I like how the rifle appears on the label, with him!

[HealzDevo]

I would have to say in my opinion that the best German Weapon overall was the Bf109. I don't really know whether it is personnel weapons you are talking about or overall. It was the fighter/bomber that stayed in production for so long and was deadly in all its varients to Hurricanes and could stand up to Spitfires. I think personally though the German Anti-Tank Gun, whatever that was, was the most useful and therefore Best German Personnel weapon of WW2, judging by its usefulness in Bf1942. It rocks for taking out massed enemy infantry as well as tanks, jeeps and APCs. Only thing it isn't equipped to deal with is aircraft...

The MG42 was an outstanding weapon unmatched in WWII, and is still pretty much the standard of design. The M60 and several other SAW type weapons are based upon it even today.

The Panzerfaust was a powerful weapon, but the US bazooka was its equal. Not as powerful, but better range and accuracy, and sufficient to take out most german tanks (except maybe the Tiger II) from any angle other than the front.

The Bf-109 was produced for political reasons more than its quality. By 1941 it was outclassed by the Spitfire and it continued to fall behind from there on. Only half as many 190's as 109's were made because Willie Messershmitt was tighter with the Nazi's than Kurt Tank, even though the FW was by far the superior plane. Had tank been given his choice in engines rather than having to make due with something Messershmitt didn't want, the 190 line might have been far better than it was. Many other designers simply didn't get contracts because of politics.

The 109 is the plane that lost the Battle of Britain. Had the German's had the A6M2 Zero instead, they may well have won. The 109 had no range, and that made it a looser for supporting any kind of serious offensive airwar.

=S=

Lunatic

[BombTaxi]

I plumped for the Panzerfaust, because the concept behind it revolutionised the battlefield (IMHO).

I fully appreciate the impact of the Stg.44 and MG42 on the modern battlefied, but they were, ultimately, refinements of existing concepts. On the other hand, the panzerfaust and its predecessors were the first weapons to give the infantry section the power to destroy an MBT with one shot. This radically changed the battlefield relationship between tanks and infantry, insofar as it was now essential for tanks to be protected by infantry, so that enemy infantry could not destroy them. Also, the Panzerfaust represented a truly mass-produceable AT weapon. AT guns were big, and a battalion could only have a few. But a Panzerfaust/Bazooka/PIAT was cheap, portable, and could be issued in hundereds or even thousands to formations.

So, Panzerfaust gets my vote

[HealzDevo]

I said the Panzerfaust because I see it as a true revolution in the battlefield. It also led to the idea of Stingers, for personnel in the 1950s, which changed the relationship between troops and aircraft/helicopters significantly by giving troops an effective hand-held weapon that could lock-on to an aircraft's exhaust system and blow up the aircraft/helicopter. That is why aircraft are forced to fly high and fast over the battlefield unless they have modern heat suppression technology built in.

Originally Posted by HealzDevo

I said the Panzerfaust because I see it as a true revolution in the battlefield. It also led to the idea of Stingers, for personnel in the 1950s, which changed the relationship between troops and aircraft/helicopters significantly by giving troops an effective hand-held weapon that could lock-on to an aircraft's exhaust system and blow up the aircraft/helicopter. That is why aircraft are forced to fly high and fast over the battlefield unless they have modern heat suppression technology built in.

I think crediting the Panzerfaust as being an "inspiration" for stingers is stretching things quite a bit. And besides, the Panzerfaust is really more like an RPG than a Bazooka, where the Stinger is more like a Bazooka than an RPG.

And besides, the USA invented the Bazooka, and this in turn inspired the Panzerfaust. The Bazooka was deployed to US and I think also to British units in early 1942, and Panzerfaust development began in summer 1942. It is extremely likely that German spies saw this weapon and reported on it, resulting in the Panzerfaust which Germany badly needed on the E. Front.

I also think the Bazooka was at least as good as the Panzerfaust. The M1 and M1A1 Bazooka's range of up to 300 yards (with 150 yard shots being common for anti-tank use) far exceeded the Panzerfaust 30's 30m effective range, and the much later Panzerfaust 100's 100m range. The Panzerfaust 150 barely made it to combat, and the M9 was still generally superior. The M1 and M9 bazook's both had 100 mm penetration, good enough to kill almost any German tank except for frontal attacks on a few of the heavies.

http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust.htm (see page 13 for bazooka history and info)

=S=

Lunatic

[Yeomanz]

Yep the panzerfaust was a good weapon but you'd be pretty vunerable id say

Originally Posted by Yeomanz

Yep the panzerfaust was a good weapon but you'd be pretty vunerable id say

It was made for defense. You find a kid and tell him to hide until he sees an Allied vehicle and then sneak out and shoot at it.

[Adolf Galland]

Panzers, 10 votes because itz suberb effective agaist all targets when properly helped w/ infantrys

Originally Posted by Adolf Galland

Panzers, 10 votes because itz suberb effective agaist all targets when properly helped w/ infantrys

You mean the Panzer tanks?

Russian tanks were better.

[cheddar cheese]

Ill second that.

[Medvedya]

Depend what you mean by better. The German tanks were far superior as the engineering went, but it was this in itself which caused problems. If something broke (as it surely did) you needed specialist tools, parts, and skills to make running repairs.

In the case of Russian tanks, a strategically placed whack from a sledgehammer would often do the trick! Also, Hitler took the view that since sloping armour was used on Russian tanks, to copy it would be saying that the Bolsheviks could produce something useful - completely potty? Quite.

So the Tigers were forced to have flat angular armour everywhere, which added much more weight, and thus gobbled up more fuel, which leads on to the fact that German engines were petrol injection, rather than Diesel ones as was the case on the Russian tanks. It's much harder to start a petrol engine in extreme cold weather, and German tankers had to light fires under their vehicles to warm them enough to start! Again, the Russians had no such problems.

But outside of all of those practical considerations, the German tanks were much more sophisticated bits of kit.

[cheddar cheese]

I agree with that, but because the Russian tanks were so much more treliable and were churned out in greater numbers they managed o get the better of the German tanks. Although a hit from the gun of a German tank was bloody lethal....

[Medvedya]

Yeah, there was even a place in the Urals called Chelyabinsk, which was dubbed 'Tankograd.' The whole city was given over to churning out T-34's, and anyone who could hold a monkey-wrench were helping to build them - old men, kids, you name it, working in appaling conditions.

Look at this link about it.

http://www.vor.ru/English/Victory/vict_18.html

It's been written by the Russian World Service, which you can listen to on short wave radio. (49 -41 metre band SW) I recommend it, it's a really good little station.