The weaponry of Second Rate German Divisions

[Kelvin]

You did say:

The Germans produced the best weaponry in World War Two. ..

This is a matter of some debate.

True. It would be more accurate for me to have said, "The Germans produced most of the best weaponry of WW II.

One further note:

Germans produced in some areas the best equipment, but in least amounts. That why they did lose...

US of A produced most of the best equipment (Soviets contributing to good cause in tanks).

Regards

US produced most of the best equipment ? Examples ?

[LWD]

DC-3, Liberty ships, Essex class carriers, Fletcher and later class DDs, B-29s, Garand, the list goes on although I wouldn't state it the way Mark did.

[LWD]

You did say:

The Germans produced the best weaponry in World War Two. ..

This is a matter of some debate.

True. It would be more accurate for me to have said, "The Germans produced most of the best weaponry of WW II.

But still highly debateable. Depends a lot on what you consider weaponry, whether you are talking quantity of systems or types of systems, how you define "best", etc.

[Mark V]

DC-3, Liberty ships, Essex class carriers, Fletcher and later class DDs, B-29s, Garand, the list goes on although I wouldn't state it the way Mark did.

....SCR-300, P-47, P-51, VT-fuse, SG-radar, SCR-584, SCR-536, K-14 gyro-sight, C-54 ... the list is endless...

Top notch equipment produced in vast scale.

There is no comparison if production quantities are taken in to account. USA outproduced everyone, and above all, mostly with 1st class equipment. Sometimes Americans settled to "good enough" when dimisnishing returns were clearly seen, and when production lines rolling without interruptions was judged being 1st priority - like M4 Sherman (its size though was integrated to transportation system that crossed the whole world from production facilities to Rhein/Saipan - not so easy to change).

Other powers were beggars compared to Americans, in what was available.


Regards

[nebelwerferXXX]

Was this a typical second rate German infantry division's weapons in France 1944?

---7,800 German rifles, 1,300 German pistols
---72 French Army mortars, 634 French rifles
---3 Russian pistols, 81 Russian rifles
---322 Czech rifles
---1,183 Polish pistols
---160 Belgian pistols

plus many horses and carts and the bicycles as means of transport. Rommel disliked these items in the Seventh Army sector.

[murx]

What criteria make a tank a "good tank"? Speed? Durability? Armement? Armour?


Is a cal .45 Colt Government (11.3 mm) with low muzzle velocity "better" than a 9 mm (cal.38) Luger, Beretta, SIG , H & K or a 7.65 mm (cal .22) Walther with higher muzzle velocity? Other criteria, e.g.which one can be shot in winter war, wearing gloves and which one gives up in the sand of the Sahara? Is it the accuracy on the target? Weight? What makes a hand gun a "good" gun?

Wouldn't we all have the same type and calibre if that would be so clear?

[nebelwerferXXX]

What criteria make a tank a "good tank"? Speed? Durability? Armament? Armour?

Three design criteria dominate tank design: firepower, mobility and protection. Some designs balance all three elements, others favor one or two at the expense of the third.

[Tim Smith]

Is a cal .45 Colt Government (11.3 mm) with low muzzle velocity "better" than a 9 mm (cal.38) Luger, Beretta, SIG , H & K or a 7.65 mm (cal .22) Walther with higher muzzle velocity? Other criteria, e.g.which one can be shot in winter war, wearing gloves and which one gives up in the sand of the Sahara? Is it the accuracy on the target? Weight? What makes a hand gun a "good" gun?

Wouldn't we all have the same type and calibre if that would be so clear?

Handguns are a balance between size and weight, calibre (size of bullet), muzzle velocity, accuracy, and magazine capacity.

The 1911 has low muzzle velocity but a huge .45 bullet. So it might not be particularly accurate at longer ranges but if you hit with it at close range, it will reliably put a man down. But it has relatively low magazine capacity, only 7 rounds.

The 9mm Browning Hi-Power (the best handgun of WW2) has a smaller bullet, but higher muzzle velocity and accuracy, and a huge magazine capacity of 13 rounds, almost twice that of the 1911. If you're in a close combat situation that is so desperate that you need a pistol to defend yourself, it's best to have as many rounds in the mag as possible, since the man who runs out of ammo first is often the one who dies first while trying to reload under fire.

The major Italian service pistol of WW2 was the Beretta M1934. This was 9mm, but with short, low-powered cartridges with little stopping power (it was a bit like a Walther PPK). The pistol held only 7 rounds. But, it had one advantage - it was very light, small and compact, which was ideal for pilots and tankers working in very cramped cockpits where a big pistol in a big holster would just get in the way, snag on things and hinder movement - no-one wants to burn to death in a flaming plane or tank because their pistol holster snags on something while they're trying to bail out.

So different handguns have different advantages and disadvantages. As an infantry officer, I'd take the Browning Hi-Power. As a pilot or tanker, I'd take the Walther PPK or Beretta M1934.

[Sid Guttridge]

I'm generally with Tim Smith on this. German equipment wasn't necessarily superior. (However, hand guns were such an insignificant combat factor that I am not much fussed who had better).

Just off the top of my head:

The Czech rifle, and many others, were almost identical to the German rifle.

German SMGs were heavy and matched by the Italian Beretta. Indeed, Germany even put the lighter, cheaper Sten gun into production late in the war.

The Czech ZB27/30 LMG was more accurate than German LMGs,though it had a lower rate of fire.

The Czech ZB37 HMG was also a thoroughly modern weapon of high value to the Germans.

(Incidentally, both the ZB30 and ZB37 were adopted by the British as the Bren gun and Besa tank machine gun.)

The Polish anti-tank rifle was better than its German equivalent.

The Brandt 60mm and 81mm mortars used by most French-supplied armies were arguably the best in the world and Germany had no equivalent to the Soviet 120mm mortar when it first appeared. (Germany, by contrast, retained specialist infantry guns, which were obsolescent in concept).

The German 37mm anti-tank gun was no better than most of its foreign equivalents, such as the Bofors 37mm.

Recent Czech 105mm guns were also thoroughly modern and fully equivalent to their German opposites.

One reason why Germany coveted the Skoda artillery works was that it produced better super heavy artillery than them in the late 1930s.

The Germans adopted the Czech LT38 chassis themselves for their light tank destroyers.

And so on..... Indeed, in 1939-40 one could equip an entire army to the highest international standards without necessarily using much German equipment at all! (Indeed, 7th W-SS Division came quite close to doing so in 1941!) And who in their right mind would have bought the Pzkpfw I as their most numerous tank from choice?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It is true that German second line divisions had a "dogs breakfast of weaponry", but this was because much of what the Germans captured in 1939-41 was obsolescent WWI-vintage weaponry, which did not represent the state-of-the art weaponry developed by many of the defeated countries during their rearmament in the late 1930s. Germany had the great advantage of having rearmed before almost all of them, with the result that much of its first-line weaponry was more modern than most of what it captured off its opponents. (Italy rearmed earlier, but had the disadvantage that the weaponry it introduced in the early 1930s was already obsolescent a decade later.)

[LWD]

What criteria make a tank a "good tank"? Speed? Durability? Armament? Armour?

Three design criteria dominate tank design: firepower, mobility and protection. Some designs balance all three elements, others favor one or two at the expense of the third.

But do they really? How about reliability? Or produciability? or repairability? or supportability? and when you talk about mobility are you talking about tactical mobility or operational mobility or strategic mobility or some mix? and how are you measuring firepower? Even protection can be a bit more complex than the simple word suggests.

[Spontoon]

Don't armies issue pistols to supply the enemy with a source of souvenirs?

[Carl Schwamberger]

Don't armies issue pistols to supply the enemy with a source of souvenirs?

A secondary purpose is to shoot individuals who wont obey orders

[Spontoon]

I suppose putting horses out of their misery is a legitimate use, too.

[Jay Felsberg]

As the owner of both a Hi-Power and a P-1 (post-WW II version of P-38) I get better groups from the Browning. Plus, the Hi-Power holds 13 rounds vs. 8 rounds in the P-38. Both are very reliable, very functional pistols but to me the Hi-Power is the better weapon.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Spontoon,

You are righter than you know.

The only living thing I have ever knowingly killed with a pistol is a horse.

My boss on a coffee farm in Rhodesia was an ex-cavalryman (11th Hussars) and couldn't bring himself to destroy his own elderly horse when he left the farm. Instead he left me an old Webley to do the job.

Not one of my happier memories.

Cheers,

Sid.