Small Arms of WWII: What Were the Best?

[Anthropoid]

I know small arms are only represented in these games as statistics, but still important. Moreover, I'll bet there are some serious experts on here. Me personally, I know just a superficial bit about this stuff and mostly I'm just being selfish and hoping to learn more from you guys who probably know all kinds of interesting trivia about WWII weapons, units, etc.

So, what do you think was the best WWII small arm device for each of the basic categories? Give reasons based on what you know. Maybe someone else will know a bit more or something different and change your mind [:D]


Bolt-Action Rifles
I'm going to say the Mauser Karabiner 98K, just simply for the accuracy and range. Maybe there were better ones though?

Semi-Automatic Rifles
Was there a better SAR in the WWII era than the M1-Garand?

Sub-Machine Guns
I'll go with the Russian PPs-41. Sounds slightly unreliable, but a nice balance of accuracy, lethality, range, and burst size (71 rounds is more than 3X what a single clip in a Thompson held!!). I thought this line was chilling

Over 6 million of these weapons were produced by the end of the war. The Soviets would often equip whole regiments and even entire divisions with the weapon, giving them unmatched short-range firepower.

Yikes! An entire DIVISION of high-capacity SMGs!? Not what I'd want to have sneak up on me in a dark alley on a cold Stalingrad night!!

I suppose the MP44/StG44 could be argued to fit the same role as an MP40, a Thompson, a Sten, a PPs-41, etc., but since it came so late in the war and fits into its own category of "Assault Rifle" maybe it should be considered an apple to the orange of the true sub-machineguns?

I wonder if things might have turned out a bit differently had the Nazi programs to develop the first assault rifles been 3 or 4 years advanced? I seem to recall reading about how assault rifles "revolutionized" warfare yet again, but I can't say I totally get how and why.

[Terminus]

The SMLE was probably marginally better than the Kar 98, but not by much. Garand beat all other semi-auto rifles.

The PPSh-41 had ease of manufacture and use, along with high clip capacity, but I don't think it was strictly speaking a good firearm (not very accurate). Interestingly, the two sides on the Eastern Front favoured each other's submachine guns highly; German troops would use the PPSh, and Soviet troops liked the MP-40.

As for machineguns, the MG-34 and the MG-42 were the obvious candidates. I'd prefer the -34 over the -42, the reason being the latter's heavy drain on the logistics of its users (HUGE ammo expenditure).

[Anthropoid]

Mistmatz argues for the MG42 which probably shouldn't be compared to single-action rifles, semi-automatic rifles, sub-machineguns and assault rifles.

So maybe consider one other category in addition making five (so far) total (well maybe six . . .).

1) Single shot rifles
2) Semi-automatic rifles
3) Sub-machineguns
4) Assault rifles
5) Machine guns
6) Pistols

It is interesting to consider whether pistols really matter. I mean, imagine a Division or Brigade or whatever where NO PISTOLS were issued. Would it _really_ have mattered?

ADDIT: maybe carbines need to be their own category too?

[Anthropoid]

Okay, based on a post by Wdolson over in the other thread where this idea got started, why not have "THE WORST" in each category as well! [:-]
 

ORIGINAL:  Anthropoid

I do think the hands down worst small arm was the Japanese officer hand gun (I forget the designation).  I read an article about it a year or so back.  They are prized collectors items today because they were so awful, the souvenir collectors would throw them away.  If I recall, they had a nasty habit of firing when jarred, even if the safety was on

It does kinda fit with the whole Bushido, Kamikazi, honorable suicide warrior theme though [:'(] (oooh, hope that doesn't sound too, eh, "mean?")

Can't say I have the expertise to really say much about WORST for each category.
 
But I do seem to recall that the Japanese machineguns were pretty problematic. Something about how they were constructed, made it impossible to get into a low-down prone position with them? Actually, did the Japanese just have the worst small arms in general?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
Can't say I have the expertise to really say much about WORST for each category.

But I do seem to recall that the Japanese machineguns were pretty problematic. Something about how they were constructed, made it impossible to get into a low-down prone position with them? Actually, did the Japanese just have the worst small arms in general?

Between the Japanese and the Italians. I think the market for "Lousy Small Arms" was pretty much "cornered".

I'd give the edge in MG's to the MG-42 for ease of manufacture and it's "intimidation" value..., I don't think any other MG was featured in a propaganda training film designed to reduce the "fear factor" of troops asked to face it. Though I have seen comments from those on the recieving end complaining about having a .50 cal "Ma Duece" turned on them.

[HansBolter]

What about automatic rifles?

The BAR was a class all it's own.

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The SMLE was probably marginally better than the Kar 98, but not by much. Garand beat all other semi-auto rifles.

Checked that out on Wiki. Fascinating.

The Lee-Enfield family of rifles is the oldest bolt-action rifle design still in official service,[13] after the contemporary Mosin-Nagant M91/30 was officially retired by the last of the former Communist Bloc in 1998—a testament to both the durability of the original Lee-Enfield design and the influence of the British Empire.

I guess in many senses the "Sun Never Has Set" on the Empire.

What about automatic rifles?

The BAR was a class all it's own.

So you'd consider the B.A.R. an "automatic rifle" not a "machine gun?" Please, elaborate

I find the evolution of firearms to be one of the most fascinating topics in human natural history. Maybe after I get tenure, and the political blowback will be largely irrelevant, I'll try to write an article for American Anthropologist on the topic.

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

So you'd consider the B.A.R. an "automatic rifle" not a "machine gun?" Please, elaborate

I'd call the BAR an automatic rifle. The concept was that a squad could carry something that was more portable than a machine gun and that it fired the same round as the M1. In a pinch, riflemen could donate some of their rounds the the BAR gunner. The BAR provided the fire support base for the maneuver element of the squad.

The drawback was that it didn't have the ability to keep up sustained fire for a long period of time. Lack of ammo, inability to change barrels, etc.....

It was a mobile, automatic weapon to support a squad. I'd much rather carry around a BAR than a MG (or tripod), or even hump ammo for one.

[Dili]

Garand, MG-42, Sturmgewehr 44. For sub-machine guns and pistols it is difficult to say depends on propose.

Curiosity:The Japanese type I rifle for SNLF's came from Italy and the last batch arrived by submarine in 1942.

[HansBolter]

I agree with Mike Solli regarding the BAR.

It wasn't a machine gun and was not a substitute for a machine gun much to the chagrin of the US Army doctrine boys.
The US thought it could substitute the BAR for the squad level machine gun and US army small unit firepower suffered greatly for it.

Even at the platoon level the US was seriously hurting for lack of machine gun firepower. That's why games depicting even units at company level such as the Panther Games engine model US infantry companies as extremely weak in direct firepower compared to a German company who's squads were built around the machine gun. The US army made up for the lack of small unit direct firepower with prodigious amounts of indirect fire support.

Don't get me wrong, the BAR was an impressive weapon in it's own right. It just wasn't suited to the role intended for it.

[thegreatwent]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned pistols. My nomination is the Colt 1911. Runner up would be the Browning Hi-Power.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Even at the platoon level the US was seriously hurting for lack of machine gun firepower. That's why games depicting even units at company level such as the Panther Games engine model US infantry companies as extremely weak in direct firepower compared to a German company who's squads were built around the machine gun. The US army made up for the lack of small unit direct firepower with prodigious amounts of indirect fire support.

Actually it made up for it with a prodigious number of radios at all levels and the most modern and effective artillery fire direction system in the world.

Though all game depictions of US infantry suffer because they fail to reccognize the proclivity of the American Infantryman to "aquire" additional firepower when they discovered the need. One of the factors leading to the collapse of the 106th Division in the Ardennes was that it took over the frontage that had been held by the 2nd Division. The 106th found itself holding dozens of positions for MG's and mortars and other equipment it didn't have..., but which the 2nd had aquired on it's journey from Normandy.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
The US army made up for the lack of small unit direct firepower with prodigious amounts of indirect fire support.

Actually it made up for it with a prodigious number of radios at all levels and the most modern and effective artillery fire direction system in the world.

So you found a different words to say the exact same thing I said......kudos

[scott64]

Anyone watch the History Channel a few years ago, when they had the program, Tales of the Gun? Some neat episodes on WWII. Also, The Military Channel runs a top ten series on assorted guns planes and tanks and such. [:)][8D]

[engineer]

The G43 gives the Garand a run for its money.  It has a similar weight and fires a full size cartridge, but instead of the stripper clip it used a box magazine.  Like a lot of German weapons it fell into the too little too late category to dramatically effect the war. 
 
Of course, the Marines and, to a lesser extent, the US Army also used shotguns for close quarters fighting.  The Winchester 97 was getting a little long of tooth but I think it was the Model 12 that was also issued to combat units. 

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
The US army made up for the lack of small unit direct firepower with prodigious amounts of indirect fire support.

Actually it made up for it with a prodigious number of radios at all levels and the most modern and effective artillery fire direction system in the world.

So you found a different words to say the exact same thing I said......kudos

Actually, I was making a particular distinction. It wasn't that the US had a particular advantage in number of tubes. The advantage was in being able to bring EVERY tube in range into action against a single target quickly. In most armies even an FO could only bring down a single battalion of guns in support.

[2ndACR]

M2 .50 cal hands down for machine guns. Just about everything used it......ships, a/c, tanks, troops. Heavy hitting, super range (with still excellent penetration). But it was/is a heavy beast. IIRC, 128 lbs fully assembled with tripod. Plus the ammo cans are heavy too.
 
 M1 Garand
 Thompson SMG
 Colt 1911 pistol
 I do like the MG42 for sheer putting bullets down range and fear factor

[jcjordan]

Well being a collector of some of these

Bolt - Enfield 10rds plus ability to fire them fast vs 5rds of others but M1903 very close 2nd (I'd stack a Marine w/ a 1903 vs anything!!!) Swiss K31 gets a mention
Semi - Garand
Auto - STG44/MP44
MG - MG42 something to be said when we're still using it's decendant
Shotgun - only US has anything to consider, enough said
Pistol - P38/1911 very close
Sub - MP40 w/ Sten/M3 Grease

Not saying anything the IJ or Italians has was bad they just get bad reps but sometimes like the Nambu pistol do somewhat deserve the rep.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

Well being a collector of some of these

Bolt - Enfield 10rds plus ability to fire them fast vs 5rds of others but M1903 very close 2nd (I'd stack a Marine w/ a 1903 vs anything!!!) Swiss K31 gets a mention
Semi - Garand
Auto - STG44/MP44
MG - MG42 something to be said when we're still using it's decendant
Shotgun - only US has anything to consider, enough said
Pistol - P38/1911 very close
Sub - MP40 w/ Sten/M3 Grease

Not saying anything the IJ or Italians has was bad they just get bad reps but sometimes like the Nambu pistol do somewhat deserve the rep.

Not a bad list [;)]

The only items I would address are the 'machine guns'

Ma'duce - well it doesn't need defense from me.
The M1918A2 B.A.R. - a 'jack of all trades-master of none', but an extremely valuable weapon in the squad role, and a rather unique weapon.
Bren gun - a very reliable S.A.W. - outstanding in nothing in particular(ballistics, ROF, etc), but did everything it was asked very well.

The MG-42. Well, it has a mystique all its own, it was (I think) the first true 'General Purpose MG', it is still in production today as far as I know - in NATO cartridge, and had a very very good quick barrel change, and I know of no stories of battlefield failures in its working - at least nothing you could call a design flaw.
In my opinion, its chief drawback was its extremely high ROF (better suited to the AA role). I know that is heresy - and will cause forum members to roll their eyes, but in the infantry role - that is a genuine drawback.
Why?
Because automatic weapons fire is all about volume of fire over a sustained period of time to suppress a target. The drawback that the MG42 had (in its most common role - squad automatic weapon) is that the ROF is so high the barrel heats up in seconds - this means you must fire it in very short bursts. Further aggravating that problem is - like it or not - the weapon was served by a 75 RD saddle-drum (not clip-together disintegrating link belt)\, that gives you only a few bursts of fire before you must change drums - and after a couple of drums you must change the barrel.
The net result is, as a machine gun, you are not putting rounds in the 'beaten zone' continually enough for best effect....over a sustained period of time.
If you have visions of mowing down a hundred exposed men in two seconds - it aint gonna' happen. Automatic weapons fire is extremely inaccurate because of vibration and barrel climb - a fact that was driven home to me at Ft.Benning Georgia.
So for those limitations, it wouldn't be my support weapon of choice.

The best machine gun to support a squad or platoon in WWII would IMHO be the Browning M1917A1 heavy machine gun.
The old water-cooled was heavy with tripod, ammo, and radiator - but its reliable volume of sustained fire was unmatched. During proving trials it fired over 20,000 rounds continuous, non-stop, without a stoppage(that's 33 minutes by the way)...until the Army inspectors stopped the test saying 'you proved the weapon's reliability'.
Furthermore, it fired 250 round ammo belts, and its cal .30-06 (7.62x63mm) ammunition had the best long range ballistics of the time (to this day actually). To top it off, at a ROF of 600 rds per minute, it was quite capable of fulfilling a machine guns true role of laying down lead.
I know it aint sexy, and looks anachronistic, but it was the champ (IMHO). By the way, if I am not mistaken, the Brits hung on to their water-cooled Vickers until the mid 1960's for the same reason.

B

[Dili]

The high volume of fire of MG42 is/was very important to catch the enemy soldier hoping between protecting obstacles.


F

urther aggravating that problem is - like it or not - the weapon was served by a 75 RD saddle-drum

I think that is MG 34 not MG 42