Best weapon systems of WWII

[Korpraali V]

ORIGINAL: Dragoon 45

Standard piece of equipment for a T-34 driver was a small sledge hammer used to knock the transmission into gear on the earlier models. I doubt there is much out there on the overall reliability of the T-34.

And quess what still comes with every Soviet/Russian weapon (for example AT-missile) as a basic tool.


Yes!



A small sledgehammer! [:D][:D][:D][:D]

[Einar Fridgeirs]

Sledgehammers? Is this for real?

[Dragoon 45]

Einar, The original transmission as has been noted by others in the T-34 was not very reliable. As someone else stated in the early days of the war, T-34's went into battle with spare transmissions tied down on the engine deck. In these original transmissions a driver had to have considerable body strength to actually push the gear shift level into gear. It was found out by some of the drivers that you could hit the gear shift lever with a small sledge hammer and force them into gear that way. As word of this field expedient method of getting the tank into gear spread, official notice was taken and all the tank drivers were issued a small sledge hammer for this purpose.

Soviet and Russian tanks have had a reputation, deservedly so in my opinion, for rather crude manufacturing and quality control. Soviet autoloaders in some of their tanks were known for loading the arm of the gunner into the breach resulting in a one-armed gunner with appropriate blood and gore splattered around the inside of the turret. The Stalin tanks especially the JS-4 series had a very bad reputation for the hull of the tank to break in half. This same tank also was plagued with the bow plates of the hull falling off if hit on a weld seam. These were all weaknesses that were beaten into our heads by US Army instructors when dealing with Soviet tanks. The rear door of the BMP-1 APC is the vehicle's fuel tank. In all Soviet era tanks little provision was made for the survival of the crew when the armor was breached by a projectile. The overall theme of Soviet tank design was quantity over quality and a lot of Soviet tank crews paid with their lives over this premise.

ORIGINAL: Einar Fridgeirs

Sledgehammers? Is this for real?

[264rifle]

I read somewhere that the Soviets expected 30-40% of their T-54s to be out of action in 4 days with blown or burned out main and steering clutches if they attacked the west in the late 50's,early 60's. That is one reason why they had so many tanks (little known in the west at the time) They were compensating for the unreliabilty with numbers.

I dislike trying to evaluate WWII weapons by using modern weapons as a reference but it soes make one wonder at times[&:]

[Einar Fridgeirs]

Quantity over quality has always been a Soviet maxim, and why not? It won them WWII, and they would have won even without the allies eventually. It was a doctrine that worked.

[264rifle]

Not saying that it did not work or that the soviets were wrong given what they had to work with.

Many "commentators " of the 50-60's complained that American tanks with their automatic transmissions were to costly and complex compared to the Russian tanks. What was not widely known at the time was this "clutch" problem. Russian tanks were also praised for their low silhouette, over looking the fact that this was achieved by severly limiting gun depression which then limited their ability to fire from reverse slopes.

Sometimes to get a true picture of what a weapon was really worth we have to dig a little deeper than just reading a few numbers out of a table.

[Einar Fridgeirs]

I totally agree 264 rigle. All I´m saying is that many people may catch the vibe that the only reason Russian tanks were the way they were was because they were so awful at building quality tanks they had no other option than to resort to quantity over quality....while my theory is that it was done intentionally in the post-war era based on a specific military doctrine - not due to a technologically inferior industry per se, although that was also a factor I guess..

[Dragoon 45]

The Soviets could build excellent equipment when they wanted to, their aircraft industry is a good example. Also the Soviets had a reputation for building very good light weight artillery pieces and mortars. In the case of the T-34 I believe that if the tank had been introduced a couple of years later than it had, it would not have near the reputation it has today. When it was introduced it was a good tank, but it was obsolete within 2 years of its introduction and was outclassed by the newer models of the Pz Mk-VI by late 42. But once again there were so many of them on the battlefield, they had a quality given to them by sheer quanity.

In regards to the quantity over quality doctrine that the Soviets used in WW II, it is not well known in the west, but the Soviets had reached a manpower crises by late 1944. They had literally called up all their available military age males by this point of the war. Stalin in early 45 warned his commanders about this manpower crunch and cautioned them to keep casualities as low as possible in the final months of the war. Their strategy worked long enough for them to win their part of the war, but if the war had continued for another year or two, things might have turned out different.

ORIGINAL: Einar Fridgeirs

I totally agree 264 rigle. All I´m saying is that many people may catch the vibe that the only reason Russian tanks were the way they were was because they were so awful at building quality tanks they had no other option than to resort to quantity over quality....while my theory is that it was done intentionally in the post-war era based on a specific military doctrine - not due to a technologically inferior industry per se, although that was also a factor I guess..

[264rifle]

Interesting book on this subject:

Arms of Destruction------Ranking the world's best land weapons of WWII.

By Robert A. Slayton from Kensington books.

Unpaid advertisement[;)]

[OKW-73]

Must agree with that T-34 definately. Cheap to build, wide tracks made easy in snow and swamp, where german tanks had a lot more troubles. Easy to fix in front when compared german tanks, that did need to be send back to factory in many cases what i've read...

Someone pointed that germans did destroy 20k of em, doesnt mean much if you compare numbers they were build and numbers german build/lose their tanks, also im pretty sure without T-34 history could be a lot different...

Did read Anthony Beevors Stalingrad not a long ago and it sure had some nice info about T-34's, like in Stalingrad they did drive into battle directly from factory, before gun sights were installed, gunner did aim thru gun.

[Jullutin]

Best personal weapon: Suomi smg.

[PimpYourAFV]

The M-1 Garand and the 1891/30 Mosin Nagant won WW2 for the allies and therefore are the best weapon systems of the war.

The Mosin Nagant killed more Germans than any other weapon used in the war. Over 17 million of these rifles were made and used to defend Russia in WW2. The Mosin was also used by the North Koreans and Chinese to defeat the UN forces and force them to agree to recognize the communist state. The finnish M/28 is their version of the Mosin Nagant and was used by Simo Hayha to score over 500 kills.

The Garand was used in both US theatres in WW2 as well as in Korea and still mass produced until 1957 when the M-14 took over as the main army rifle.

[forgorin]

German U boats. They struck the fear of God into all sailors in the Atlantic.

Gives me the willies just thinking of this thing stalking me in the middle of know where!

[Zardoz]

hm........

I think that I diagree in many points..

best artillery:

88 is not an artillery device, it was sometimes used as artillery, i. e. for indirect fire, but this was obvioulsy not the best use; also, as AT weapon it is much overrated, I think; the myth results especially from the desert war where in the beginning the UK tanks could not fire HE rounds, this gave the 88 crews a chance to survive; I thin the 7,5 Pak was much better, especially because it was much smaller; even in the game I prefer a 7,5 PaK than an 88...

maybe the UK 17 pounder was best..?

I assume that US artillery was best...

best tank

hm....T34 was rather reliable an cheap; however..on long rang, it was even no matchfor the PzKpfW IV H; still, I think the Panther was the best tank evene considering that they had technical problems...but front armor and gunnery were much, much better...kill ratios were tremendeous..

best rifle

I do not know..I heard that the British Lee Enfield was very good

best MG

definitely MG 42...no discussion..I myself shot with the MG3 the moden version still in use in the German army..I remember an exercise where a company "attacked" in a wave acroos a field...two MGs from our postion fired and immmediately the "umpire" decides to break off the attack...

best fighter

Mustang, i think

best pistol

I do not know but I heard that the Colt was best if thrown *s*

[264rifle]

When rating weapons like this years of use sometimes come into play. Later weapons should be better than early weapons. So I will agree with Zardoz on the 88 issue. It may have been the most famous but that does not mean it was the best. British 17pdr was the best AT-gun. Think of Panther gun and with with APDS later in the war the 17pdr could kill ANYTHING. British 6pdr wasn't bad for it's size and late in the war with the APDS it was still useful.

Game play vrs real life leads to some strange results. German taper bore AT guns were VERY effective but suffered from extreme barrel wear. In some cases 150-300 shots made the gun just about useless. In the game all of our guns are brand new, factory fresh for every battle. Using 88's for general artillery support was done but because it had to be done, not because the 88 was the best tool for the job. It used more propellant per pound of projectile delivered. It needed it's barrel replaced more often than a field gun. It was available however.

T-34 probably upset the Germans more in 1941 than the T-34/85 did when it came out because the Germans had tanks that could deal with the T-34/85 (not enough of them) unlike 1941.


British Lee-Enfield was the BEST BOLT action rifle. M-1 was best rifle. It was a "force multiplier". It allowed a given amount of men to have more influence in a battle than if they had been equipt with bolt action rifles. It also made up for the Americans trying to use BARs against MG-42s.

MG-42 might get the nod because it replaces 2 guns. It does the job of both the Vickers gun and the Bren. Maybe not quite as good at either job but maybe better in combining them[&:]

Best fighter almost goes year by year. Think of the effect of the Japanese Zero in the first few months of the Pacific war. Just a few hundred fighters spread panic among the allies from California to India.

Best pistol is still the .45 Colt 1911. Most reliable and if you couldn't hit with it it still made a better club.[:D]