Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/5/2005 11:15:31 AM EDT

What was the best small arm throughout the world during the 1940's?

The Garand was a solid, dependable, accurate, hard-hitting MBR.

The MP44 was a case of too-little, too-late, but it still was a terriific weapon in it's own right, which paved the way for future designs.

The MG42 probably killed more men than any other small arm of the war, and was arguable the best MG the world over.

The PPsH-41 was cheap and easy to manufacture, and gave poorly trained Russian troops a terrific edge in battle, using mass fire to overcome the enemy.

So - post your own opinions. Anything that a dismounted soldier could carry and fire himself is acceptable.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 11:16:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/5/2005 11:17:06 AM EDT by BeetleBailey]

um, I think the results are already on this one!
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 11:16:54 AM EDT
Panzerfaust!

Eh, MG42. Bastard is still in use today and was the premier MG in its time.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 11:16:54 AM EDT
BAR!
Thud thud thud thud thud!
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 11:16:58 AM EDT
bolt rifle: Finnish M39
Semi rifle: Garand
Subgun: tossup between the Finnish Soumi and Soviet PPSH
MG: MG42 hands down
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 11:17:31 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 11:17:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/5/2005 11:18:13 AM EDT by Goonboss]
I think the Panzerfaust.

Cheap, effective, and, gave AT capability to even the smallest unit. If you've ever played Microsofts Close Combat series, you'll get an idea what happens if your armored vehicles try to clear a town or hedgerow without Infantry screening.

ETA: Oops...Didn't see it was "Small arm". Carry on.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 11:17:58 AM EDT
Betty Grable!!!!

Link Posted: 8/5/2005 11:18:20 AM EDT
I've always been a fan of the British Bren gun.

But as far as best technology goes, I have to go with the MP44.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 11:18:45 AM EDT
The MG42 did whoop some ass
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 11:19:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By WildBoar:
www.toysoldierbrigade.com/images/Dragon%20WWII%20Pictures/WWII%20Allied%20Gear/US%20Equipment/scr536_radio_sm.jpg



+1.

Time on target innnnnnnnnnn....3-2-1- *BOOM*
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 11:21:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/5/2005 12:53:13 PM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 11:22:09 AM EDT
Sturmgewehr
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 11:23:44 AM EDT
My vote is the thompson sub machine gun.

Link Posted: 8/5/2005 11:27:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Goonboss:
I think the Panzerfaust.

Cheap, effective, and, gave AT capability to even the smallest unit. If you've ever played Microsofts Close Combat series, you'll get an idea what happens if your armored vehicles try to clear a town or hedgerow without Infantry screening.

ETA: Oops...Didn't see it was "Small arm". Carry on.



No, that's a perfectly acceptable answer. I'd call that a man-portable system.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 11:27:59 AM EDT
Flamethrower.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 11:30:05 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 11:31:07 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 11:31:15 AM EDT
M1 Garand "the greatest battle implement ever devised" Gen George S. Patton
Nuff said.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 11:33:51 AM EDT
P-38 can opener.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 11:34:14 AM EDT

M1 Thompson
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 11:39:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By WildBoar:



+1

With that you could call in an artilery barrage. In other words "Don't bring a MG to a howitzer fight."
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 11:54:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sydwaiz:
Flamethrower.




Damn it I should have said that.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 12:12:56 PM EDT
Yeah, but what killed more, the MG42 or the Garand?
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 12:17:55 PM EDT
MG42, baby!
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 12:18:43 PM EDT
Grand, hands down
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 12:20:23 PM EDT
I'd have to say the portable anti-tank weapon (bazooka, panzerfaust, etc) as it turned an infrantryman into a real threat to tanks...
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 12:20:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BlairHous:
BAR!
Thud thud thud thud thud!



+1
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 12:22:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pyro6988:

Originally Posted By Sydwaiz:
Flamethrower.




Damn it I should have said that.



I was thinking the same thing, but I've always wondered if it's a movie myth that if a round or shrapnel pierced the tank, would it explode in a ball of fire on the users back (like the mythical exploding car gas tank). I'd imagine that even if it didn't erupt in flames, the sudden release of pressurization wouldn't be good for the person wearing the thing.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 12:25:54 PM EDT
Well, it was OBVIOUSLY the Garand.

It was so widely issued, and so far superior to what the enemies were carrying, that it made a significant impact on the battlefield.

Link Posted: 8/5/2005 12:37:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LoginName:

Originally Posted By pyro6988:

Originally Posted By Sydwaiz:
Flamethrower.




Damn it I should have said that.



I was thinking the same thing, but I've always wondered if it's a movie myth that if a round or shrapnel pierced the tank, would it explode in a ball of fire on the users back (like the mythical exploding car gas tank). I'd imagine that even if it didn't erupt in flames, the sudden release of pressurization wouldn't be good for the person wearing the thing.



If I remeber right they had a show about them and yes, they were not forgiving if they got damaged. Aerosol fuel is extreamly bad, like Egon Spangler bad.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 12:37:18 PM EDT
No question that the Garand was a far superior weapon compared to the Mauser bolt gun.

But you need to consider that the German army did not see the individual soldier primarily as a rifleman. His main job was to carry extra boxes of ammo for the MG-42. Their tactics revolved around the use of the MG-42 and the squad was viewed as "helpers" to the MG-42 gunner.

Much different tactical view compared to the US Army.

Link Posted: 8/5/2005 12:39:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:
No question that the Garand was a far superior weapon compared to the Mauser bolt gun.

But you need to consider that the German army did not see the individual soldier primarily as a rifleman. His main job was to carry extra boxes of ammo for the MG-42. Their tactics revolved around the use of the MG-42 and the squad was viewed as "helpers" to the MG-42 gunner.

Much different tactical view compared to the US Army.






I said almos that exact same thing once here...(Yes, I know it's factual and, accurate) and got all kinds of holy hell regarding how wrong I was. I have some popcorn around here somewhere.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 12:44:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:
No question that the Garand was a far superior weapon compared to the Mauser bolt gun.

But you need to consider that the German army did not see the individual soldier primarily as a rifleman. His main job was to carry extra boxes of ammo for the MG-42. Their tactics revolved around the use of the MG-42 and the squad was viewed as "helpers" to the MG-42 gunner.

Much different tactical view compared to the US Army.




Hmmm that's interesting. So did that make them a little less manuverable or did they change tactics when on the offensive? I'd think basing tactics on that would chain you to the gunner and limit your flexablity. I see that being pretty effective in a more defensive posture.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 12:44:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MachinegunManiac:

M1 Thompson
www.tommygun.com/images/M1.gif



I wish everyone would stop calling these semi auto replica POS "Thompsons."

If you had ever handled a real Thompson, you'd never do it again.

Link Posted: 8/5/2005 12:52:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Goonboss:

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:
No question that the Garand was a far superior weapon compared to the Mauser bolt gun.

But you need to consider that the German army did not see the individual soldier primarily as a rifleman. His main job was to carry extra boxes of ammo for the MG-42. Their tactics revolved around the use of the MG-42 and the squad was viewed as "helpers" to the MG-42 gunner.

Much different tactical view compared to the US Army.






I said almos that exact same thing once here...(Yes, I know it's factual and, accurate) and got all kinds of holy hell regarding how wrong I was. I have some popcorn around here somewhere.



If they had spent as many hours watching the Military channel as me, they wouldn't argue.

When you see film of American troops in WWII, the majority are carrying their Garand.

When you see film of German troops, they are carrying their Mauser in one hand and an ammo box for the MG in the other. Or sometimes, the rifle on their backs and both hands carrying ammo boxes.

Just watch and take notice.

An MG-42 can empty ammo boxes quickly.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 12:57:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:
Yeah, but what killed more, the MG42 or the Garand?



M1, by far.

My 44 Springfield is a beast. Probably got some of those knicks in the stock whacking North Koreans !

Ben
Top Top