Best man-portable weapon of WWII?

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Best man-portable weapon of WWII?

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.

Posted: 8/5/2005 11:16:51 AM EDT

[#1]

um, I think the results are already on this one!

Posted: 8/5/2005 11:16:54 AM EDT

[#2]

Panzerfaust!

Eh, MG42. Bastard is still in use today and was the premier MG in its time.

Posted: 8/5/2005 11:16:54 AM EDT

[#3]

BAR!
Thud thud thud thud thud!

Posted: 8/5/2005 11:16:58 AM EDT

[#4]

bolt rifle: Finnish M39
Semi rifle: Garand
Subgun: tossup between the Finnish Soumi and Soviet PPSH
MG: MG42 hands down

Posted: 8/5/2005 11:17:31 AM EDT

[#5]

Posted: 8/5/2005 11:17:38 AM EDT

[#6]

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.

Posted: 8/5/2005 11:17:58 AM EDT

[#7]

Betty Grable!!!!

Posted: 8/5/2005 11:18:20 AM EDT

[#8]

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.

Posted: 8/5/2005 11:18:45 AM EDT

[#9]

The MG42 did whoop some ass

Posted: 8/5/2005 11:19:00 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
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*

Posted: 8/5/2005 11:21:25 AM EDT

[#11]

The M1 Garand rifle was the oustanding weapon of WWII, only the US was able to develop and issue all it's troops with a reliable semi automatic rifle as standard that gave them superior firepower to their adversaries… it led the way.

ANdy

Posted: 8/5/2005 11:22:09 AM EDT

[#12]

Sturmgewehr

Posted: 8/5/2005 11:23:44 AM EDT

[#13]

My vote is the thompson sub machine gun.

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

[#14]

Quoted:
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.

Posted: 8/5/2005 11:27:59 AM EDT

[#15]

Flamethrower.

Posted: 8/5/2005 11:30:05 AM EDT

[#16]

Posted: 8/5/2005 11:31:07 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
The M1 Garand rifle was the oustanding weapon of WWII, only the US was able to develop and issue all it's troops with a relable semi automatic rifle as standard that gave them superior firepower to their adversaries? it led the way.

I'd agree. The Garand was probably the most significant small arm because it represented a huge improvement over the bolt actions, and was widely issued.

Posted: 8/5/2005 11:31:15 AM EDT

[#18]

M1 Garand "the greatest battle implement ever devised" Gen George S. Patton
Nuff said.

Posted: 8/5/2005 11:33:51 AM EDT

[#19]

P-38 can opener.

Posted: 8/5/2005 11:34:14 AM EDT

[#20]

M1 Thompson

Posted: 8/5/2005 11:39:59 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

+1

With that you could call in an artilery barrage. In other words "Don't bring a MG to a howitzer fight."

Posted: 8/5/2005 11:54:24 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Flamethrower.

Damn it I should have said that.

Posted: 8/5/2005 12:12:56 PM EDT

[#23]

Yeah, but what killed more, the MG42 or the Garand?

Posted: 8/5/2005 12:17:55 PM EDT

[#24]

MG42, baby!

Posted: 8/5/2005 12:18:43 PM EDT

[#25]

Grand, hands down

Posted: 8/5/2005 12:20:23 PM EDT

[#26]

I'd have to say the portable anti-tank weapon (bazooka, panzerfaust, etc) as it turned an infrantryman into a real threat to tanks...

Posted: 8/5/2005 12:20:32 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
BAR!
Thud thud thud thud thud!

+1

Posted: 8/5/2005 12:22:02 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
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.

Posted: 8/5/2005 12:25:54 PM EDT

[#29]

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.

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

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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.

Posted: 8/5/2005 12:37:18 PM EDT

[#31]

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.

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

[#32]

Quoted:
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.

Posted: 8/5/2005 12:44:10 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
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.

Posted: 8/5/2005 12:44:59 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

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.

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

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:
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.