User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 6:48:29 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Garand, Thompson SMG, and 1911 pistol were all superior to their German counterparts (KAR-98, MP-38/40, P-38) IMHO. They sort of had us in missile technology though.  I have mixed feeling about the subguns. The mp 38 and mp40 were top shelf for their intended use. The Thompson is an excellent weapon but it has drawbacks also. The weight being one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 6:48:51 PM EDT
[#2]
Pretty much everything except for tanks and torpedoes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 6:49:15 PM EDT
[#3]
vs. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 6:49:30 PM EDT
[#4]
The American Soldier, Sailor, and Marine.
None of the planes, guns, ships, tanks, etc. would've mattered without the guts, skill and determination of the men using them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 6:50:26 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would think you can throw that potato masher looking thing much farther and more accurately. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I always wondered if our pineapple grenade was better than their potato masher I would think you can throw that potato masher looking thing much farther and more accurately. I've heard that Americans didn't need handles, because baseball had conditioned their arms and aim. Not sure if that's an urban legend or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 6:52:13 PM EDT
[#6]
Superman
Can you imagine how the war would have turned out if Clark Kent grew up in Bavaria? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 6:53:20 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The American Soldier, Sailor, and Marine. None of the planes, guns, ships, tanks, etc. would've mattered without the guts, skill and determination of the men using them. Sounds good. Isn't really true, the Germans weren't slouches and had much more experience, we defeated them with numbers not supermen. Bombing them around the clock and throwing millions of lives away on two fronts won it in the end. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 6:54:00 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have mixed feeling about the subguns. The mp 38 and mp40 were top shelf for their intended use. The Thompson is an excellent weapon but it has drawbacks also. The weight being one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Garand, Thompson SMG, and 1911 pistol were all superior to their German counterparts (KAR-98, MP-38/40, P-38) IMHO. They sort of had us in missile technology though. I have mixed feeling about the subguns. The mp 38 and mp40 were top shelf for their intended use. The Thompson is an excellent weapon but it has drawbacks also. The weight being one. In terms of toting a Thompson around all day, I agree, the weight would be a possible drawback. But in terms of firing one, the weight is a plus, because it helps tame recoil and muzzle rise - or at least that was my impression from the sole specimen I fired in full auto. I have read that the Germans actually preferred the Soviet PPSh over their own MP-38/40s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 6:54:19 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, they had no long range bombers. They coulda used it on the Eastern front. They did have a few experimental prototypes, including one that flew to new york and back. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Long range/heavy bombers? I'm not sure but I don't think the Germans had anything very good like that. No, they had no long range bombers. They coulda used it on the Eastern front. They did have a few experimental prototypes, including one that flew to new york and back. That's been debunked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 6:54:29 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They didn't have any Shermans. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
One Tiger tank was the equal of five Shermans. But the Americans always had a sixth Sherman. The Germans didn't  They didn't have any Shermans. Exactly. If they had concentrated on a Sherman or T-34 equivalent instead of trying to build super tanks all the time, the Third Reich might have lasted longer. Thank God they didn't
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 6:54:58 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The American Soldier, Sailor, and Marine. None of the planes, guns, ships, tanks, etc. would've mattered without the guts, skill and determination of the men using them. From what I've read, the average German platoon was better than any other similar sized unit in the war, mainly due to the experience of their NCOs. Their field craft was supposedly top-notch as well. They were reportedly very good about hiding behind enemy lines after action then sneaking back to their units to fight again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 6:55:09 PM EDT
[#12]
 " />
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 6:57:16 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Exactly. If they had concentrated on a Sherman or T-34 equivalent instead of trying to build super tanks all the time, the Third Reich might have lasted longer. Thank God they didn't
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
One Tiger tank was the equal of five Shermans. But the Americans always had a sixth Sherman. The Germans didn't They didn't have any Shermans. Exactly. If they had concentrated on a Sherman or T-34 equivalent instead of trying to build super tanks all the time, the Third Reich might have lasted longer. Thank God they didn't
In terms of tying up production resources on a very expensive project, yes, the Tiger program was a disaster for Germany, and they would have been better off producing something cheaper in much greater numbers. But WOW was that an awesome tank! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:00:17 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sounds good. Isn't really true, the Germans weren't slouches and had much more experience, we defeated them with numbers not supermen. Bombing them around the clock and throwing millions of lives away on two fronts won it in the end. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The American Soldier, Sailor, and Marine. None of the planes, guns, ships, tanks, etc. would've mattered without the guts, skill and determination of the men using them. Sounds good. Isn't really true, the Germans weren't slouches and had much more experience, we defeated them with numbers not supermen. Bombing them around the clock and throwing millions of lives away on two fronts won it in the end. To that end I'd say that military logistics were and always have been the one thing we are better at than any other military in the world. General Brehon Somervell really deserves more respect for his work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:00:38 PM EDT
[#15]
I can't articulate this very well. The German command philosophy was process managed, where we were encouraged to obtain the objective any way we could. Improvise, adapt overcome.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:03:05 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In terms of toting a Thompson around all day, I agree, the weight would be a possible drawback. But in terms of firing one, the weight is a plus, because it helps tame recoil and muzzle rise - or at least that was my impression from the sole specimen I fired in full auto. I have read that the Germans actually preferred the Soviet PPSh over their own MP-38/40s. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Garand, Thompson SMG, and 1911 pistol were all superior to their German counterparts (KAR-98, MP-38/40, P-38) IMHO. They sort of had us in missile technology though. I have mixed feeling about the subguns. The mp 38 and mp40 were top shelf for their intended use. The Thompson is an excellent weapon but it has drawbacks also. The weight being one. In terms of toting a Thompson around all day, I agree, the weight would be a possible drawback. But in terms of firing one, the weight is a plus, because it helps tame recoil and muzzle rise - or at least that was my impression from the sole specimen I fired in full auto. I have read that the Germans actually preferred the Soviet PPSh over their own MP-38/40s. Then as now, the soldiers life involved more walking than fighting. The PPsh is one of the best subguns ever built so I might agree. More because it had a usable stock than the mg38-40 series and the drum mag held more rounds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:04:01 PM EDT
[#17]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:05:59 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To that end I'd say that military logistics were and always have been the one thing we are better at than any other military in the world. General Brehon Somervell really deserves more respect for his work. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The American Soldier, Sailor, and Marine. None of the planes, guns, ships, tanks, etc. would've mattered without the guts, skill and determination of the men using them. Sounds good. Isn't really true, the Germans weren't slouches and had much more experience, we defeated them with numbers not supermen. Bombing them around the clock and throwing millions of lives away on two fronts won it in the end. To that end I'd say that military logistics were and always have been the one thing we are better at than any other military in the world. General Brehon Somervell really deserves more respect for his work. Yes sir. You are correct. Edit friggin iPad things it needs to correct my thoughts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:06:35 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In terms of tying up production resources on a very expensive project, yes, the Tiger program was a disaster for Germany, and they would have been better off producing something cheaper in much greater numbers. But WOW was that an awesome tank! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
One Tiger tank was the equal of five Shermans. But the Americans always had a sixth Sherman. The Germans didn't They didn't have any Shermans. Exactly. If they had concentrated on a Sherman or T-34 equivalent instead of trying to build super tanks all the time, the Third Reich might have lasted longer. Thank God they didn't
In terms of tying up production resources on a very expensive project, yes, the Tiger program was a disaster for Germany, and they would have been better off producing something cheaper in much greater numbers. But WOW was that an awesome tank! They had the right idea when they concentrated on assault guns and tank killers when they went on the defensive after 43, they could have up gunned the P-4 a bit, but they should have stopped at the Panther. Everything else was a waste of time and resources. Same thing with the Luftwaffe. It's hard to peg what meaningful piece of equipment was superior to its German counterpart, I'd have to go with the Garand over the 98k. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:08:42 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wasn't tanks. Objectively, their tanks were shit too. The Sherman was just worse. The tiger is intimidating as fuck, but I mean... It's a giant steel box... The armor might have been reasonably thick, but it wasn't sloped. Other than the gun it used, it wasn't that great. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:08:55 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Women. Ours were so hot that they were painted onto planes. http://artfiles.art.com/5/p/LRG/29/2995/16OQD00Z/nose-art-sack-happy-pin-up.jpg Yep, and those good looking ladies buit the planes as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:09:57 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They had the right idea when they concentrated on assault guns and tank killers when they went on the defensive after 43, they could have up gunned the P-4 a bit, but they should have stopped at the Panther. Everything else was a waste of time and resources. Same thing with the Luftwaffe. It's hard to peg what meaningful piece of equipment was superior to its German counterpart, I'd have to go with the Garand over the 98k. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
One Tiger tank was the equal of five Shermans. But the Americans always had a sixth Sherman. The Germans didn't They didn't have any Shermans. Exactly. If they had concentrated on a Sherman or T-34 equivalent instead of trying to build super tanks all the time, the Third Reich might have lasted longer. Thank God they didn't
In terms of tying up production resources on a very expensive project, yes, the Tiger program was a disaster for Germany, and they would have been better off producing something cheaper in much greater numbers. But WOW was that an awesome tank! They had the right idea when they concentrated on assault guns and tank killers when they went on the defensive after 43, they could have up gunned the P-4 a bit, but they should have stopped at the Panther. Everything else was a waste of time and resources. Same thing with the Luftwaffe. It's hard to peg what meaningful piece of equipment was superior to its German counterpart, I'd have to go with the Garand over the 98k. At the start of the war the k98 was the equal of any battle rifle in use anywhere in the world. The problem was a decision by the German command to keep it even after better semi/full autos became available for production. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:10:25 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
On the German side, these things were pretty impressive.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrgUvKlXZP4Quote HistoryQuoted:
On the German side, these things were pretty impressive. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrgUvKlXZP4But they didn't hit shit with them. 
I can't remember the exact hit rate, but it was very low. It's bark was worse than it's bite, unless it did manage to hit you. Here's what the British had to say about it: From a recent British source comes the following information under the heading "Epitaph to a Secret Weapon."
The British Eighth Army has described the 150-mm smoke mortar (Nebelwerfer 41*), in official reports, as being "in effect noisy but negligible." In recent operations the Eighth Army has encountered HE fire from this weapon and the reporting officers have described it as: (1) Not effective in blast; (2) Not effective in fragmentation; (3) Quite effective in noise. One of the reports states that no effect was felt at a distance of 60 yards from the burst. No reports of the ammunition, other than HE, used in this weapon have been received. The Schwere Wurfgerät, having a higher charge/weight ratio, should prove more effective. The latter is a heavy, rocket-bomb thrower (see Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 8, p. 28) projecting a 181-pound HE bomb. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:11:21 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Longer range bombers P51's Garand Aircraft carriers Don't forget we had the Ma Duce and the best subs too. Can't say that about our torpedoes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:12:06 PM EDT
[#25]
As long as Hitler was making the decisions, Germany was going to lose regardless.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:12:43 PM EDT
[#26]
The Jeep .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:14:01 PM EDT
[#27]
Not much the Germans had was superior to ours.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:14:18 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I bet when it's all said and done we'll do Fascism a whole lot better. And tyranny. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:15:01 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As long as Hitler was making the decisions, Germany was going to lose regardless. He lost the war for Germany the same way we tied in Korea and lost in Vietnam, when you quit listening to the professional soldiers and let political leaders run a war you've lost, it's just a matter of when you realize it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:15:23 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In terms of toting a Thompson around all day, I agree, the weight would be a possible drawback. But in terms of firing one, the weight is a plus, because it helps tame recoil and muzzle rise - or at least that was my impression from the sole specimen I fired in full auto. I have read that the Germans actually preferred the Soviet PPSh over their own MP-38/40s. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Garand, Thompson SMG, and 1911 pistol were all superior to their German counterparts (KAR-98, MP-38/40, P-38) IMHO. They sort of had us in missile technology though. I have mixed feeling about the subguns. The mp 38 and mp40 were top shelf for their intended use. The Thompson is an excellent weapon but it has drawbacks also. The weight being one. In terms of toting a Thompson around all day, I agree, the weight would be a possible drawback. But in terms of firing one, the weight is a plus, because it helps tame recoil and muzzle rise - or at least that was my impression from the sole specimen I fired in full auto. I have read that the Germans actually preferred the Soviet PPSh over their own MP-38/40s. The Thompson was a very expensive and time consuming gun to make. The military simplified the design by eliminating the Blish lock, the hammer actuated firing pin, detachable stock, and many more features, however the gun was still expensive and time consuming. The PPSh, STEN, and MP-40s use of sheet metal construction placed them well ahead of the Tommy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:15:27 PM EDT
[#31]
Useable radios, all the way down to the squad level. Tied to an artillery fire control system better than some countries use today.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:15:44 PM EDT
[#32]
Panzerschreck beat anything we had as did the 88 mm gun
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:16:38 PM EDT
[#33]
The G43 is the equal if not BETTER in some areas than the M-1.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:16:44 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They had the right idea when they concentrated on assault guns and tank killers when they went on the defensive after 43, they could have up gunned the P-4 a bit, but they should have stopped at the Panther. Everything else was a waste of time and resources. Same thing with the Luftwaffe. It's hard to peg what meaningful piece of equipment was superior to its German counterpart, I'd have to go with the Garand over the 98k. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
One Tiger tank was the equal of five Shermans. But the Americans always had a sixth Sherman. The Germans didn't They didn't have any Shermans. Exactly. If they had concentrated on a Sherman or T-34 equivalent instead of trying to build super tanks all the time, the Third Reich might have lasted longer. Thank God they didn't
In terms of tying up production resources on a very expensive project, yes, the Tiger program was a disaster for Germany, and they would have been better off producing something cheaper in much greater numbers. But WOW was that an awesome tank! They had the right idea when they concentrated on assault guns and tank killers when they went on the defensive after 43, they could have up gunned the P-4 a bit, but they should have stopped at the Panther. Everything else was a waste of time and resources. Same thing with the Luftwaffe. It's hard to peg what meaningful piece of equipment was superior to its German counterpart, I'd have to go with the Garand over the 98k. They should have dropped the JU-87 sooner than they did, and hitler made a mistake when he declared the ME-262 must be a "terror bomber". If he had gone along with keeping it a fighter and giving it priority earlier, it would have made the air war more expensive for us. If fact, if he hadn't insisted on fighters being close escort to bombers during the battle of britain, they might have succeeded in breaking Britains air power. IOW, they should have been more fluid in evolving their aircraft. Dropping earlier models instead of trying to adapt them all the time. Letting them do the roles they were designed for. I don't know if they'd have had the logistics to handle that though, making so many production changes in the middle of a war. The US did have the logistics to do this, and did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:17:01 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Panzerschreck beat anything we had as did the 88 mm gun The 88s and MG-42s were top of their class in WW2. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:17:59 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Garand, Thompson SMG, and 1911 pistol were all superior to their German counterparts (KAR-98, MP-38/40, P-38) IMHO. They sort of had us in missile technology though. Noty in the case of the MP-40 vs Thompson. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:18:22 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Panzerschreck beat anything we had as did the 88 mm gun I disagree: 
Might have come at the end, but still counts!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:21:20 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Objectively, their tanks were shit too. The Sherman was just worse. The tiger is intimidating as fuck, but I mean... It's a giant steel box... The armor might have been reasonably thick, but it wasn't sloped. Other than the gun it used, it wasn't that great. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wasn't tanks. Objectively, their tanks were shit too. The Sherman was just worse. The tiger is intimidating as fuck, but I mean... It's a giant steel box... The armor might have been reasonably thick, but it wasn't sloped. Other than the gun it used, it wasn't that great. The German tanks broke down a lot too, didn't they? Great on paper, junk in the field? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:21:28 PM EDT
[#39]
It's not just that the US produced the Garand, the Mustang, the 4 engined bombers.
We produced a LOT of them. Streams of trucks and jeeps, bombers lined up as far as you could see. So many ships, the U-Boats couldn't sink them all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:22:11 PM EDT
[#40]
DDT
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:23:28 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fw190, Ju87 and Hs123 were all very effective CAS platforms. The He51 in the Spanish Civil Was was the grand-daddy of all CAS AC. The Germans had impressive half-tracks - the Sk250 was kept in production long after the end of the war. The half tracks were also used with very advanced heavy infantry tactics, they were well ahead of us there. In fact, in the 60s the Soviets were ahead of us in this area, because they learned it the hard way in WW2. We didn't have the smae WW2 experience, for the most part our total dominance of the air spared us that, so we didn't develop in that area . . . I'll add in Panzerfaust as another German weapon we lacked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:25:07 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not much the Germans had was superior to ours. Me-262 Panther King Tiger Panzerfaust MG-42 StG-44 V-2 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:25:19 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've heard that Americans didn't need handles, because baseball had conditioned their arms and aim. Not sure if that's an urban legend or not. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I always wondered if our pineapple grenade was better than their potato masher I would think you can throw that potato masher looking thing much farther and more accurately. I've heard that Americans didn't need handles, because baseball had conditioned their arms and aim. Not sure if that's an urban legend or not. You can throw the German potato masher much further then the American pineapple grenade. There was a history channel or Military channel episode on grenades and they did this comparison with a few folks and the potato masher was thrown significantly further. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:26:50 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sherman was built with the Panzer III and IV in mind and could handle those easy enough. Panther and Tiger were a whole different story, that's why we designed the M-26 Pershings....they just got into the war too late Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wasn't tanks. Sherman was built with the Panzer III and IV in mind and could handle those easy enough. Panther and Tiger were a whole different story, that's why we designed the M-26 Pershings....they just got into the war too late Easy 8 Sherman was a match for Panther when it came out, and was much more reliable and much better logistically. Panther was essentially hand fitted; the Germans did poorly at mass production. So really, their tanks were not really better, unless you look at them in a 1 vs 1 situation. But that's not how war is fought. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:27:21 PM EDT
[#45]
Food.
We fed ourselves and helped to keep Great Britain, and, to some degree, Soviet Russia, from starving. Malnutrition and starvation were a fact of life in Germany and those countries they controlled. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:27:24 PM EDT
[#46]
1.) Four engine bombers.
2.) Pretty much anything to do with radio, radar, or electronics in general. 3.) Long Range Fighters. 4.) Capital Naval Ships. 5.) Trucks, Jeeps, and other utility vehicles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:28:36 PM EDT
[#47]
Radar and countermeasures
Proximity fuses. Had they had American fusing in their flak,losses would have been even more staggering Rations Field medicine Transportation/mechanization Footwear Small arms made no difference whatsoever. The fact that everyone now uses something closer to the MP.44 and MG42 than the Garand and tripod mounted 1919 shows technical and tactical superiority but no battle in WWII was decided by the difference in small arms let alone for the love of all that is holy 9mm vs .45. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:30:01 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Food. We fed ourselves and helped to keep Great Britain, and, to some degree, Soviet Russia, from starving. Malnutrition and starvation were a fact of life in Germany and those countries they controlled. Until the very end of the war, the Germans didn't go hungry. They starved the conquered countries to feed themselves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:31:22 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then as now, the soldiers life involved more walking than fighting. The PPsh is one of the best subguns ever built so I might agree. More because it had a usable stock than the mg38-40 series and the drum mag held more rounds. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Garand, Thompson SMG, and 1911 pistol were all superior to their German counterparts (KAR-98, MP-38/40, P-38) IMHO. They sort of had us in missile technology though. I have mixed feeling about the subguns. The mp 38 and mp40 were top shelf for their intended use. The Thompson is an excellent weapon but it has drawbacks also. The weight being one. In terms of toting a Thompson around all day, I agree, the weight would be a possible drawback. But in terms of firing one, the weight is a plus, because it helps tame recoil and muzzle rise - or at least that was my impression from the sole specimen I fired in full auto. I have read that the Germans actually preferred the Soviet PPSh over their own MP-38/40s. Then as now, the soldiers life involved more walking than fighting. The PPsh is one of the best subguns ever built so I might agree. More because it had a usable stock than the mg38-40 series and the drum mag held more rounds. I've shot all three. The MP-40 is actually much more controllable than the Thompson. The PPSh, however, is in a class all its own. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2014 7:32:59 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Me-262 Panther King Tiger Panzerfaust MG-42 StG-44 V-2 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not much the Germans had was superior to ours. Me-262 Panther King Tiger Panzerfaust MG-42 StG-44 V-2 The V-2 was an incredibly stupid weapon. It costs roughly as much to build as a B-17 but only delivered a single 2,200 bomb very inaccurately. It's a shining example of how Adolf Hitler was not a military genius. The whole German war machine was shot through with similar weapons systems. Expensive baubles that were never deployed in sufficient quantities to make much of an impact but robbed them of funds to build simpler, less sexy systems that could have made a difference (like four engine bombers). |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
