Favourite weapon

Discussions on the equipment used by the Axis forces, apart from the things covered in the other sections. Hosted by Juha Tompuri
Post Reply
Polynikes
Member
Posts: 2229
Joined: 03 Jan 2004, 03:59
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

#46

Post by Polynikes » 11 Nov 2005, 21:19

Oleg Grigoryev wrote:
well it is a bit of oversimplification is not it
It is of course a generalisation but true none the less as studies showed.

jimbotosome
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: 23 Aug 2005, 16:56
Location: USA

#47

Post by jimbotosome » 11 Nov 2005, 21:33

Oleg Grigoryev wrote: Well, it is a superiorit fighter on the Eastern front. The main advantage of a Yak was that it could start in the cold. Russian equipment was built for the cold weather. This is why Germany didn't finish them off, they simply ran out of time.
I can agree with that. The Yak was not a piece of crap. It was a nice plane too.

Oleg Grigoryev wrote: Let me understand bellow 5000 m P-47 has worse climb rate, worse turn radius, worse roll rate – how is this dominant in any way? As what it would do at low altitude- well I don’t know –seek ground targets? Trying to protect ground troops from ground attack planes? I am not even sure how effective .50 cla against armored attack of Hs-129 or Il-2/Il-10 would be. Or and Yak-3 would surely escape it –the same way it able to escape Me-109K.
Seems to be a lot of misunderstanding here. First of all, there were few German defense fighters throughout the ground campaigns thanks to the dominance of the Jug and the destruction of the Luftwaffe before D-Day. No plane was a fast climber at low altitude except those that were tin cans and couldn't stand up to rounds. Never said roll rate. The Jugs didn't fight below 10000 feet. They were not designed for that and were forbidden to do so. Why fight where your relative weaknesses are? You won't dominate anything that way. They only time they went below 10000 was to strafe or bomb airfields and armor. The rest of the time they flew high cover in which everything is below it is highly vulnerable. A 7.5 ton aircraft is not going to "mix it up" with planes at low altitude. That's how the first P47s were shot down in 1943. They simply had not learned how to use the weapon and therefore could not dominate. When you are higher than your enemy, you have dominance over him. Unless he can come up and get you, he better scram before you see him. The only German plane that could come up to the ceiling of a Jug (almost) is an ME-262, but he could never kill one, they are simply too nimble and can dive too fast. No matter what you are in if he had altitude on you, you are dog meat. Seems like people are more enamored with performance stats or some obscure advantages rather than the dominance of using a weapon properly and playing to its strengths. No wonder people don't even know what a Jug was. They have no clue how the "west was won" in WWII.


User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
Location: Russia

#48

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 11 Nov 2005, 23:08

belongs to "that (admittedly off-topic) experiment"
Last edited by Oleg Grigoryev on 23 Jan 2006, 03:31, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
Location: Russia

#49

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 11 Nov 2005, 23:09

belongs to "that (admittedly off-topic) experiment".
Last edited by Oleg Grigoryev on 23 Jan 2006, 03:31, edited 1 time in total.

Polynikes
Member
Posts: 2229
Joined: 03 Jan 2004, 03:59
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

#50

Post by Polynikes » 11 Nov 2005, 23:49

Oleg Grigoryev wrote:
well chosing between Js-2 and Panther I would probably rather be in Panther than Js-2.
Me too.

The problem with naming anything as the "best" or "better" is that your criterea needs to be set out first.

The Panther was the best medium tank of the war from a users POV. One on one it would probably best all other medium tanks but then again it would find itself with few friends against many enemies so production costs DO play a part in anyone's criterea.

Because the T34/85 was almost as capable as the Panther it takes the prize as the best tank of the war because of its simplicity and good design.

I've seen people claim that the M4 Sherman was as good as if not better than the T-34 which plainly isn't the case. Although the T34/76 did have an inferior 2 man turret.

Allied airpower nullified German superiority in tank design but that doesn't alter the basic qualities of the respected tank designs one bit.
When the Sherman was being designed, no-one could know that it would operate with the benefit of overwhelming air superiority.
Certainly no consideration was ever paid the the M4's designers with this respect in any publication on the tank that I've ever seen.

jimbotosome
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: 23 Aug 2005, 16:56
Location: USA

#51

Post by jimbotosome » 12 Nov 2005, 00:27

The Yak did what they needed it to do. Maybe the best of is simply vanity. For me, I would rather have a Jug in any situation. The reason is not that it is neccessarily superior but that it was so incredibly survivable. There was no safer plane any why few pilots died in them even when they were lost. By tin can I just mean it was lightweight. It is like the Zero in that respect. If you shoot it down or hit it with flak, odds are you lose the pilot. Planes were easy to replace, pilots were not.

jimbotosome
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: 23 Aug 2005, 16:56
Location: USA

#52

Post by jimbotosome » 12 Nov 2005, 00:42

Polynikes wrote:When the Sherman was being designed, no-one could know that it would operate with the benefit of overwhelming air superiority.
Certainly no consideration was ever paid the the M4's designers with this respect in any publication on the tank that I've ever seen.
The Sherman was developed for a war thousands of miles away across the sea. The US was not looking for a war when Hilter rose. Wilson opposed the Treaty of Versailles that started WWII (in my opinion). War was forced on this nation and it had to make certain snap decisions that included "shipping" tanks overseas. The M6 was proof that they idea of a dominant tank was being investigated. Everybody got it wrong or they would have had diesel tanks. The Germans had tremendous tanks. I just don't value tanks. The US's priority was on aircraft. That's what they sought to perfect. B29s were illustrative of that. Great fighters, and a good doctrine that was hard to beat. Germany was preparing for war since 1934. That's a tremendous advantage but assumes you are a trouble maker. German engineers were brilliant but then again they were focused on perfecting war weapons. The Allies were not but did a bang up job to have to react. By the end of WWII Allied engineering had caught up and passed Germany in many respects like jets, radar, and penicillian to save the lives of their soldiers. Before the war, the US was building tractors, combines, earth moving equipment and cars. Things for the private sector. They were beating swords into plowshare. They wanted no part of either world war. The Germans were beating plowshares into swords. It's not how clever a nation is, it is how decent it is. Those are the things that mattered. Look at communism. Look at the misery it caused so many. There is no nobility in the Soviet cause in WWII and beyond. The only thing that really matters is freedom. If the German people were in control of their country the rest of the world would have stood with them against communism. Nothing the Soviets can do can make up for the Communism they spread. Stalin was worse than Hitler. But both were horrible humans, selfish greedy and cruel.

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
Location: Russia

#53

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 12 Nov 2005, 00:46

[belongs to "that (admittedly off-topic) experiment"
Last edited by Oleg Grigoryev on 23 Jan 2006, 03:31, edited 1 time in total.

Polynikes
Member
Posts: 2229
Joined: 03 Jan 2004, 03:59
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

#54

Post by Polynikes » 12 Nov 2005, 07:22

jimbotosome wrote:
The Sherman was developed for a war thousands of miles away across the sea. The US was not looking for a war when Hilter rose. Wilson opposed the Treaty of Versailles that started WWII (in my opinion).
The M1 Abrams was also developed for wars thousands of miles accross the sea - yet it is clearly of a difference dochtrine.

Britain also objected to the punitive nature of Versailles (as did many in France) but French politicians were obsessed with punishing Germany. To be honest though, I think that Germany would look to avenge their defeat in any case.

Germany had a decent economy in the 1920's and a democratic government - that all changed with the Great Depression.
The Germans had tremendous tanks. I just don't value tanks. The US's priority was on aircraft. That's what they sought to perfect. B29s were illustrative of that. Great fighters, and a good doctrine that was hard to beat.
It is true that US aircraft were amonst the best in the world whereas US tanks were not.

However tanks are important & they have great value. Or rather I should say had great value as the nature of warfare is changing now away from large formation operations.
Perhaps we have seen the last generation of MBT's.
...German engineers were brilliant but then again they were focused on perfecting war weapons. The Allies were not but did a bang up job to have to react. By the end of WWII Allied engineering had caught up and passed Germany in many respects like jets, radar, and penicillian to save the lives of their soldiers.
Well jet engines and RADAR were actually both British inventions and it was a case of Germany cathcing up with the British.
It's not how clever a nation is, it is how decent it is. Those are the things that mattered. Look at communism. Look at the misery it caused so many. There is no nobility in the Soviet cause in WWII and beyond. The only thing that really matters is freedom. If the German people were in control of their country the rest of the world would have stood with them against communism. Nothing the Soviets can do can make up for the Communism they spread. Stalin was worse than Hitler. But both were horrible humans, selfish greedy and cruel.
Nice, decent countries don't always win.

Communism was warped and twisted by those who exercised it...Socialism is a great idea that just doesn't work because of man's basic greed.

Communism failed but as it came to power usually through violent means, there was no democratic tradition in the countries where it took root and so the leaders of those nations turned into tyrants when they lost the support of their people, rather than willingly leave office.

Certainly Soviet Communism was hardly an idyllic paradise but it wasn't Nazi rule either. I'm not sure who stacks up as the worse tyrant (Hitler or Stain) but I'd say that life for the Soviet people would be a lot worse under Hitler than under Stalin.
Russians died in the millions not to preserve communism but to defend their country - surely you can see the justification and nobility in that.

After the war, the Soviet people remained convinced the West wanted to invade them again - they built up great armies which the West assumed was to invade Western Europe.
It turned out that the Soviets never wanted to invade the West - they just wanted to ensure their own security.

Two last points. The Germans followed Hitler willingly at first...if you look at pictures of the German troops invading Russia in '41, you'll see a highly motivated army totally supportive of the German war aim.

Second, no-one would've supported Germany's invasion of the USSR regardless of the form of government Germany had.

User avatar
Gen_Del_Pilar
Member
Posts: 130
Joined: 22 May 2004, 21:00
Location: Europe

#55

Post by Gen_Del_Pilar » 12 Nov 2005, 07:48

jimbotosome wrote:There were several things about the Sherman that made it a superior tank for offensive operations doctrine...
This encapsulates the very heart of the matter (i.e. best weapon), and you listed some interesting factors.
jimbotosome wrote:It was the tank doctrine that made it a better offensive weapon... I am saying that what is better was the doctrine and how weapons were used that made the Sherman better.
This on the other hand most certainly does not. To illustrate my point, take the following scenario:

Allied weapon: Springfield 1861
Allied doctrine: Fire at will

Axis weapon: MG42
Axis doctrine: Use exclusively as a melee weapon

So does this mean that the Springfield is a better weapon than the MG42?

Polynikes
Member
Posts: 2229
Joined: 03 Jan 2004, 03:59
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

#56

Post by Polynikes » 12 Nov 2005, 14:53

Gen_Del_Pilar wrote:
So does this mean that the Springfield is a better weapon than the MG42?
My thoughts exactly Gen.

A weapon is judged by it's design alone not how it was used.

I have seen people say the T-34 was inferior to the M4 because the Soviets didn't always fit radios to them.

This is not a criticism of the T-34 desgin but the Soviet economy.

User avatar
Legionnaire
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: 04 Jun 2005, 21:32
Location: England

#57

Post by Legionnaire » 13 Nov 2005, 20:00

I dont mean to be rude but this thread is basically about what peoples favorite ww2 weapons.
Unfortunatly this thread has deteriorated into yet another series of arguments about which tank/plane/gun is better, even comments on why communism doesnt work! These arguements can be found on other sections of the forum. So can people please post their thoughts and ideas in more appropriate threads and bring the topic back into it's origional context.
Many Thanks

Polynikes
Member
Posts: 2229
Joined: 03 Jan 2004, 03:59
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

#58

Post by Polynikes » 15 Nov 2005, 03:14

You can't really have a debate on your favourite weapon though can you?

If you don't want to engage in a discussion but simply post your favourite weapon, then I think you're wasting your time.

User avatar
Johnny_H
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 26 Nov 2005, 09:37
Location: Canada
Contact:

#59

Post by Johnny_H » 28 Nov 2005, 08:52

Favorite Small Arms
FG42
98k
Enfield No.4

Favorite Artillery
Flak 88
Nebelwerfers

Favorite Naval Vessels
I have always had a effection for Tribal Class Destroyers
And Flower Corvettes

Favorite Tank
This one is tough but I will have to go with ....
Panther

Favorite Fighter aircraft
Spitfire ... no contest

Favorite Bomber
HE 111
and
B-17

User avatar
The Edge
Member
Posts: 4166
Joined: 28 Nov 2005, 11:18
Location: Serbia

Armoured fist

#60

Post by The Edge » 01 Dec 2005, 15:52

My favourite WWII weapon is Assault gun (StuG/H, SU-85/100/122, Semovete 75/105, etc).

It fits well with my view how to fight ("Hit them hardest") and was the economical solution for a pressing issue (support & protection of infantry)

Post Reply

Return to “Other Equipment”