What is Your Favorite WWII Weapon?
- Thread starter cojo965
- Start date
I'd either say the SVT-40 or (for a lesser known one and an absolute favorite of mine overall) the Mosin 1895, 7 shot revolver that can be fitted with a suppressor and almost sounds like a suppressor in the movies:
Something which I find hilarious in light of Democrats wanting to ban assault weapons, but Joe Biden telling people to get shotguns.albino boo said:
Otherwise my basic attitude is that in a real war there are no rules or humanitarianism. When one side plays by artificially imposed rules, and the other side does not, the guys that don't abide by them typically win, or wind up being able to stand off vastly superior forces. Most US military actions since World War II have been an example of this.
Another example is that the US loved it's flamethrowers, but I believe they have been banned also.
I've pointed out myself on many occasions that the biggest bastards win in wars, and as much as people want to knock the Nazis, the US won because we were so much more ruthless than they were at the end of the day. A surprising number of the "rules of war" were more directed at the US/Allies for the tactics used to beat the Nazis, as opposed to being aimed at "Nazi War Crimes". For example when it comes to bombings, a lot of people like to focus on the horrors of the Nazi "Blitz" and the attacks on the British with their airforce and V-1 and V-2 rockets. They tend to overlook the even more effective job done by guys like "Bomber" Harris who was decorated by both the US and Brits, and was known to the Germans as "Butcher" Harris. The guy who was once quoted as saying how he valued the lives of tens of thousands of german civilians less than the life of a single British Grenadier (or something similar to that)... that was the attitude that won the war. Then of course we have Patton who modern liberals argue should have been viewed as a War Criminal (of course we only won because of that attitude... the Nazis came very close to winning the war overall).
At any rate my favorite weapons from the "period" are believe it or not handguns. I think the German Lugar and the good old fashioned .45 (single action or otherwise) are among the most enduring designs, and are both in use to an extent today, and even have people using them in competitions, long after the retirement of most other weapons from the period. It's probably not hard to find someone using either of those handguns, even in the military (as a matter of preferance, when allowed) but finding someone who uses say the M1 for actual combat or competition shooting where there aren't specific rules in play, is probably going to be a lot harder.
ISU-152 : take a massive multipurpose gun, slap it on one of the biggest heavy tank production model the Soviets made in the war, and there you have it.
This thing was so powerful, the sheer explosive power of its shells could rip the turrets off German Tiger 2s, punch through bunker, act as makeshift artillery, and lots of other cool stuff.
One of them fired through the streets of Vienna, and blew every single window in the street before hitting the unfortunate target.
As a gun/rifle : Mosin-Nagant, because that thing is a rifle, a club, a bayonet holder, a tent pole, it does everything.
Lastly, the plane: the Tempest. Because nothing says fuck you nazis like a massive plane powered by a GIGANTIC 24 cylinder engine, sporting quad hispano cannons, bombs, rockets and amazing pilots, since only experienced pilots could handle the dangerous engine and massive speed.
This thing was so powerful, the sheer explosive power of its shells could rip the turrets off German Tiger 2s, punch through bunker, act as makeshift artillery, and lots of other cool stuff.
One of them fired through the streets of Vienna, and blew every single window in the street before hitting the unfortunate target.
As a gun/rifle : Mosin-Nagant, because that thing is a rifle, a club, a bayonet holder, a tent pole, it does everything.
Lastly, the plane: the Tempest. Because nothing says fuck you nazis like a massive plane powered by a GIGANTIC 24 cylinder engine, sporting quad hispano cannons, bombs, rockets and amazing pilots, since only experienced pilots could handle the dangerous engine and massive speed.
I like the PPSh-41. That thing was (is?) badass. Fires standard Soviet pistol rounds, weighs 12 pounds, 71 rounds in the drum, 1000 rounds per minute, low maintenance, low cost and extremely durable. As for its counterparts: Sten was a cheap bullet hose and nothing more, Tommy gun was heavy (Soldiers complained about it), less durable and had a much lower rpm and the MP40 had malfunction issues because soldiers used to use the magazine as a foregrip and the gun had issues with that.
If they solved the PPSh-41 feeding issues and made it less likely to fire when dropped then this would've been the AK-47 of submachine guns.
In terms of other weapons:
StG 44 for assault rifles
Mosin Nagant for rifles
MG 42 for machine guns
Luger for pistols (but that's just because I like the design)
Potato masher Model 24 for grenades
If you mean "weapon" as in machine then I like Spitfires and Lancaster Bombers but that's mostly latent propaganda from my history lessons.
If they solved the PPSh-41 feeding issues and made it less likely to fire when dropped then this would've been the AK-47 of submachine guns.
In terms of other weapons:
StG 44 for assault rifles
Mosin Nagant for rifles
MG 42 for machine guns
Luger for pistols (but that's just because I like the design)
If you mean "weapon" as in machine then I like Spitfires and Lancaster Bombers but that's mostly latent propaganda from my history lessons.
Therumancer said:Something which I find hilarious in light of Democrats wanting to ban assault weapons, but Joe Biden telling people to get shotguns.albino boo said:
Otherwise my basic attitude is that in a real war there are no rules or humanitarianism. When one side plays by artificially imposed rules, and the other side does not, the guys that don't abide by them typically win, or wind up being able to stand off vastly superior forces. Most US military actions since World War II have been an example of this.
Another example is that the US loved it's flamethrowers, but I believe they have been banned also.
I've pointed out myself on many occasions that the biggest bastards win in wars, and as much as people want to knock the Nazis, the US won because we were so much more ruthless than they were at the end of the day. A surprising number of the "rules of war" were more directed at the US/Allies for the tactics used to beat the Nazis, as opposed to being aimed at "Nazi War Crimes". For example when it comes to bombings, a lot of people like to focus on the horrors of the Nazi "Blitz" and the attacks on the British with their airforce and V-1 and V-2 rockets. They tend to overlook the even more effective job done by guys like "Bomber" Harris who was decorated by both the US and Brits, and was known to the Germans as "Butcher" Harris. The guy who was once quoted as saying how he valued the lives of tens of thousands of german civilians less than the life of a single British Grenadier (or something similar to that)... that was the attitude that won the war. Then of course we have Patton who modern liberals argue should have been viewed as a War Criminal (of course we only won because of that attitude... the Nazis came very close to winning the war overall).
At any rate my favorite weapons from the "period" are believe it or not handguns. I think the German Lugar and the good old fashioned .45 (single action or otherwise) are among the most enduring designs, and are both in use to an extent today, and even have people using them in competitions, long after the retirement of most other weapons from the period. It's probably not hard to find someone using either of those handguns, even in the military (as a matter of preferance, when allowed) but finding someone who uses say the M1 for actual combat or competition shooting where there aren't specific rules in play, is probably going to be a lot harder.
Flamethrowers were not banned by the Geneva and were widely used by all sides. Only the US used shotguns during WW1 and they were not a war winning weapon. US troops made very little contribution on the battlefield, the greatest effect of US troops came from the fact the Germans would run out of soldiers before the allies. The the Germans in WW2 totally ignored any artificial humanitarian limits on the eastern front that did not exactly work out very well for them.
I am also unaware of the great need for trench clearing by civilians in the US, which is the role the shotguns were replaced by smgs.
No they don't. The only objection to their use was raised by the Germans in WW1, which was rejected.albino boo said:
I'm going to have to go with the StG44. First real assault rifle that saw widespread deployment.
Second favourite would have to be the Mauser Broomhandle, more specifically the full-auto version the M1932. There's just something about the design that really appeals to me, and the fact it's a mini machinegun is pretty cool too.
I think I'm going to have to give the honor to SMG's in general. Sten, PPSH, Thompson, MP40. WWII had some badass sub-machine guns.
Honorary mentions go to the Spitfire and Lancaster bomber.
Honorary mentions go to the Spitfire and Lancaster bomber.
I like the Lee-Enfield Rifle- It's very accurate and fast firing and there's a lot of history within that rifle. When the Germans first came up against British soldiers in WW1 they actually thought they were facing machine gunners. Needless to say the Enfield was used in both world wars and beyond. It's still actually used as a reserve rifle in a number of countries today.
Agree on all counts, except I'd put the Kar98 for rifle.Scorched_Cascade said:
Even if just for the sound, that is one badass rifle.
Not to mention it just looks sexy.
If I could own any weapon...
Edit: Or the PTRS41
14.5mm of "fuck your armour."
I am shocked... shocked to be ninja'd on this. Very happily so, mind you. They say it worked better than the other big two after sand, mud and water immersion, and proved ideal for jungle warfare. It served well into Vietnam.thaluikhain said:
Big Bertha was a gun from WW1, not WW2, and it wasn't railroad mounted. Chances are kailus13 is thinking of the colossal 80cm superheavy guns Schwerer Gustav and Dora- the largest artillery piece ever used in combat, firing the largest artillery shells ever.kailus13 said:
Actually, I'm going to say my overall favourite is Dora.
80cm of German built ass kickery.
This baby could fire a 7.1 tonne round up to 47km.
It could only be fired around 14 times a day, due to reload times.
It's crew consisted of 250 to assemble the gun in 3 days (54 hours), 2,500 to lay track and dig embankments. 2 Flak battalions to protect the gun from air attack.
80cm of German built ass kickery.
This baby could fire a 7.1 tonne round up to 47km.
It could only be fired around 14 times a day, due to reload times.
It's crew consisted of 250 to assemble the gun in 3 days (54 hours), 2,500 to lay track and dig embankments. 2 Flak battalions to protect the gun from air attack.
Just want to clear up a common misconception which is cropping up in this thread,
The Geneva Convention relates to the treatment of wounded soldiers and prisoners of war.
The Hague Convention relates to the use of weapons in war - poison gas, expanding bullets etc.
The Geneva Convention relates to the treatment of wounded soldiers and prisoners of war.
The Hague Convention relates to the use of weapons in war - poison gas, expanding bullets etc.
You think the Tiger was too heavy for its own good?! Nowhere near as bad as the King Tiger... which used the same freakin' engine (Maybach HL230 P30) as the Panther! A tank weighing more than 25tonnes less... eeesh...Barciad said:
Anyway, I am now obliged to post this:
Silliness aside, I am personally partial to the aforementioned Pzkpfw V. Once all its teething problems were sorted out, it was generally superior to every allied tank in terms of performance and the KwK 42 L70 was a brilliant gun despite being only a 75mm. Hell, it was rated better than the KwK 36 L56 (the characteristic 88mm gun) in virtually every way.
Interesting fact time: production cost of a Panther (in 1940 money): approx. 120000RM = USD29000. Production cost of a T-34 in 1942: approx. 190000 rubles = USD35800 (though it did decrease to about 130000 rubles in 1943).
Yeah, oddly, the Panther was cheaper to produce for pretty much the same all round performance (dodgy early reliability notwithstanding, but shut up! I like the damned panzer.). -.-
They had similar things in WW2, they just weren't really used. Things made to defend the UK against German invasion, for example, only Operation Sealion would have been a complete disaster for the Germans.Hawk of Battle said:
One idea was to use ordinary diesel drums, which had the benefit of there being zillions of harmless ones abandoned around, so the invaders had to worry about them all or risk the odd one being a fougasse. They also worked out how to get a diesel drum to jump over the wall it was hiding behind before igniting as well.
Was the Panther a better tank than the T-34? I would say that the T-34 was sturdier, more practical, easier to use, and cheaper to build. Yet the Panther was the more refined model. However, the question is, which tank gave you more bang for your buck? Remember this was a building war. No one said it better than Joseph Stalin himself when he said:-SckizoBoy said:
"This war is being fought with the petrol engine. Whoever produces the most, shall win".
Russia remember had a great advantage over Germany regarding production owing to its alliance with the US. America (and to a lesser extent the UK) was providing Russia with trucks, grain, and general logistical equipment. This was mostly being sent via land through Iran. This allowed Russia to concentrate on building munitions. Thus, you have Tankograd churning out T-34's by the thousand whilst elsewhere Sturmovicks are being produced in equally staggering quantities. Also, the Russians limited themselves to only a few vehicles. The Germans over complicated things by building far too many types of tanks, planes, etc.
However, I would finally add that the British Comet Tank is a much forgotten and underrated machine. It just came a bit too late in the day. The Germans and Russians must have looked at it and wondered why it took the Brits 5 years to build a decent tank.