The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 239

Weapons of WWII (Poland and other countries)


time means 5 | 1,310
2 Oct 2009 #31
The Bren gun. In use with the British army from 1935 up to the early 90s. During my basic training we did a small amount of training on them, including range work.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bren_light_machine_gun
OP Wroclaw Boy
2 Oct 2009 #32
Lets bash the yankees a bit.

The AK 47 (vietnamese weapon of choice) was superior weapon to the M16.

Sherman tank was a piece of shite.
time means 5 | 1,310
2 Oct 2009 #33
The AK 47 (vietnamese weapon of choice) was superior weapon to the M16.

I would take the M16 anyday!
Mucha 2 | 32
2 Oct 2009 #34
My vote would be for something maybe not so grand, even a bit ugly... but innovative and amazing in it's time: the US M1 Garand rifle.

Later in the war of course other nations started regularly fielding semi-auto rifles, some that were more advanced than the Garand, but the Garand was the first universally issued semi-auto and set the stage. It was accurate, rugged, simple and exceedingly effective.

I've fired them before on the range and there is NOTHING that compares. I'm getting all warm and fuzzy just thinking about it now..:^P



time means 5 | 1,310
2 Oct 2009 #35
the US M1 Garand rifle

Good choice mucha, they had a kick like a mule. The one downside they had was that you couldn't add extra ammo and you had to use all of the clip first, it would then give that tell tall "ching" meaning it was time to reload (as did your enemy)
Mucha 2 | 32
2 Oct 2009 #36
Wroclaw Boy

M-16 vs AK - classic mistake to try to compare. They're like apples and oranges.

M16: very very accurate, light weight and easy recoil make it more comfortable and less fatiguing to shoot, smaller ammo so more can be carried. Bad points - must be kept meticulously clean otherwise dependability suffers, more prone to breakage and damage than AK.

AK-47: exceedingly rugged and simple, bigger ammo packs more punch than M16's smaller rounds, cheap to produce. Bad points, poorer accuracy when compared to M16, larger ammo packs more recoil and is more fatiguing to shoot.

neither wins this fight, they are different animals. (That said, I'd rather have the AK personally )

Sherman tank - absolutely not a piece of crap. It was an amazing piece of machinery. The trouble is that it was mismatched with it's main adversaries. You had a medium tank vs heavy tanks - two different categories. To understand it, you need to look at the circumstances and concept behind it - the allies needed NUMBERS when it was first produced. To get large numbers of vehicles across the Atlantic, you need to make them smaller and be able to produce them in LARGE numbers to get them where they need to be FAST. In this regard, the Sherman was a phenomenal success.

My memory is failing me at the moment, but wasn't it a German tank officer who once said something to the effect of:
"a Tiger tank can take on 4 Shermans and beat them all, trouble is that there were always 5..."

OK back to work before my boss kills me :)!
tornado2007 11 | 2,274
2 Oct 2009 #37
You're an idiot or an American, in 1940 Russians had the best tanks, the best artillery their purpose built PPSH was a beast in urban and assault fighting, in land combat Russians were 3 years ahead of Germans in 1940.

jeez could you not see i was joking, i mean really come on, i was relating to the James Bond view of Russians (their all spies and sneaky basterds :) )

I would take the M16 anyday!

fook that, atleast the AK 47 does not jam all the freekin time!!!!
Mucha 2 | 32
2 Oct 2009 #38
time means

The M1 kicks like a mule for sure.. to shoot one feels like your shoulder-firing artillery!
One thing though - when it comes to the problem of not be able to add extra ammo to top off your magazine, that's not as big an Achilles heel as it's made out to be. Here's why - you are able to eject the remaining clip/rounds with ease. So within seconds you could eject the remaining rounds and reload a fresh clip. Not overly efficient but for sake of speed and ease - it worked, and not all that much different than an AK or M16 when you think about it? You would still have to eject the clip, press in a few more rounds, then reload your clip, no?

Thant damn "ping" though - I'm sure that's got many a soldier killed back in the day...
OP Wroclaw Boy
2 Oct 2009 #39
Sherman tank - absolutely not a piece of crap. It was an amazing piece of machinery.

Thats no excuse for them running on petrol a highly flammable liquid. As designs go what ever came off the produciton board the US had the resources to build them and in high quantities.

as for weight and quote your "a Tiger tank can take on 4 Shermans and beat them all, trouble is that there were always 5..." better to build a better tank and save a few lives than the alternative....

must be kept meticulously clean otherwise dependability suffers

better to have a gun and not need it than to need one and not have it. Seems to me that that could be the case with the M16.

Gimme an AK47 any day.
Mucha 2 | 32
2 Oct 2009 #40
You're still missing the point (I think?) what I'm saying is this:

if the US was building heavy tanks on par with what the Germans were producing, how quickly would they have been made, shipped, and put into service? How many would have even fit on a cargo ship for the long voyage across the Atlantic? How about the fuel - how much quicker would it have been to produce diesel vs standard? The Sherman was a marvel in that they could be built, shipped, and put into action in amazing numbers.

You see what I mean? You're absolutely right in that it was a hazard to the crews, but it served it's purpose and did it well. But hell yes, it must have sucked to be a tanker in a Sherman...

M16 - I agree with you there. Give me the AK. Still, the M16 is not at all the beast it's made out to be. It's an excellent weapon.
gumishu 11 | 5,638
2 Oct 2009 #41
M4A3 (as far as I know) main gun (and 76,2 instead of 75mm) longer than in the original version (differnt turret too I reckon) was an excellent piece of artillery - very precise and quite powerful too - I read a book by a Polish armour officer from the Anders's army on his Italian exploits - a battalion of these (M4A3) could fire such a precise and consistent salvos Polish artillery officers were amazed - it could easily be used as mobile infantry support artillery but of course were a match to german middle tanks too - the book is also a tribute to British armour training quality - the author trained with the elite troops of the 8th army in Egypt (his name was Bohdan Tymieniecki)

btw there is a situation described in the book where a Panther has been disabled by a single shot from the Sherman from quite a distance (well they actually had great deal of luck cause the shot smashed the Panther's radio antenea which burned the whole electric system of the Panther)
OP Wroclaw Boy
2 Oct 2009 #42
Sherman tanks fitteds with the 75 mm cannon were referred to as fireflys. Atleast this shite tank could pack some fire power if need be.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
2 Oct 2009 #43
jeez could you not see i was joking, i mean really come on, i was relating to the James Bond view of Russians (their all spies and sneaky basterds :) )

Sorry then, my bad.

M16: very very accurate, light weight and easy recoil make it more comfortable and less fatiguing to shoot, smaller ammo so more can be carried. Bad points - must be kept meticulously clean otherwise dependability suffers, more prone to breakage and damage than AK.

Not anymore, newer M-16s are better in that regard but its smaller caliber means that enemies quite often will manage to shoot back even when shot in the chest/lower torso.

AK-47 kill outright and even if you shoot someone in the limb he'll get thrown back.

Sherman tank - absolutely not a piece of crap.

High profile, thin armor and weak main gun also flammable like dry crap.

You had a medium tank vs heavy tanks - two different categories.

It sucked against Pz IVs as well.

the allies needed NUMBERS when it was first produced.

Well they could have produced a decent tank like Russians did, T-34 was a very good tank and it definitely had the numbers, it was also cheaper to build then Sherman and could take on every German tank including the Tiger.

you need to make them smaller and be able to produce them in LARGE numbers to get them where they need to be FAST. In this regard, the Sherman was a phenomenal success.

No it was not, compare it to Russians who were in the same situation and produced a tank orders of magnitude better in every aspect save for crew comfort, but thats mainly cuz Russians never gave a sh*t bout people.

My memory is failing me at the moment, but wasn't it a German tank officer who once said something to the effect of:
"a Tiger tank can take on 4 Shermans and beat them all, trouble is that there were always 5..."

Actually Tiger tanks typically took on Shermans in ratio of 5-10 to 1 and pissed all over them with warm yellow balls juice, it took 75-150mm howitzers and dedicated tank destroyers both aerial and land based.
gumishu 11 | 5,638
2 Oct 2009 #44
T-34

could take on every German tank including the Tiger.

hmm - with it's short low velocity short range 76,2mm gun T34 stood no chance with Tiger (unless in big numerical advantage) - there were engagements were a couple of Tigers were able to destroy over 50 t-34s - only the uparmed t34-85 version could have a go at Tiger though the 85mm cannon still was significantly inferior to the 88mm of Tiger (in effective range, velocity, precision) - the thing was Russians had tanks galore during this phase of the war (they actually had tanks galore all through the wartime and currently too ;)

and it's true that Russian valued their own tanks much higher than lend-lease Shermans - for a whole range of reasons including better armour
Mucha 2 | 32
2 Oct 2009 #45
Sokrates -
Sorry, I'm still a goof when it comes to using the tools here so I'll quote you the old fashioned way :)

"Not anymore, newer M-16s are better in that regard but its smaller caliber means that enemies quite often will manage to shoot back even when shot in the chest/lower torso.

AK-47 kill outright and even if you shoot someone in the limb he'll get thrown back."

M16a3's are better in that regard, more importantly, the AMMO is better, but it still suffers more from misfires and issue than does an AK. The ammo does certainly have a lot less stopping power. The idea is though that it's more prone to hit the target to begin with, and more often. A 7.62 x 39 has more kinetic energy transferred to the target for sure, but if it's harder to HIT that target what good is it?

"High profile, thin armor and weak main gun also flammable like dry crap."

Mmm.. I'll give you that - the design wasn't the greatest in some respects but people are still missing my point - PART of it's success was the fact that it was produced, shipped and fielded in record numbers and in record time. Quantity has a quality all it's own, right? Plus, a big mistake that a lot of people make is thinking that a Sherman was designed for tank vs tank battles. WRONG. It's designed as an infantry support vehicle. The US fielded tank destroyers to take on German armor. Successful at that? Minimally but that was the intent.

And another thing - while it's understandable to think in Euro-centric terms, you also need to think globally - there was a war in the Pacific too, right? Well we had to ship tanks there too and they did very very well against anything the Japanese had.

"Well they could have produced a decent tank like Russians did, T-34 was a very good tank and it definitely had the numbers, it was also cheaper to build then Sherman and could take on every German tank including the Tiger"

Depends on which model of T-34 actually, but yes I agree. I love the T-34, but we didn't design the T-34, we designed the Sherman. Sure we could have taken our time, and slowly developed the "perfect" tank, but we didn't. When tanks were needed, we had one and we managed to ship thousands and they did the job they needed to do.

"No it was not, compare it to Russians who were in the same situation and produced a tank orders of magnitude better in every aspect save for crew comfort, but thats mainly cuz Russians never gave a sh*t bout people."

Better in every respect? I highly doubt that...lack radios for one thing.

"Actually Tiger tanks typically took on Shermans in ratio of 5-10 to 1 and pissed all over them with warm yellow balls juice, it took 75-150mm howitzers and dedicated tank destroyers both aerial and land based."

Either share your source or the great drugs you're taking :P
j/k But that's not true at all.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
2 Oct 2009 #46
Quantity has a quality all it's own,

Not if you're a tanker sitting inside a Sherman and knowing even a loud fart can kill you.

PART of it's success

Sherman was not a success, there were a lot of them and thats it, whenever they were used without artillery support or tank destroyers they died like gerbils in a meat grinder, yes there are several exceptions but thats what they are, exceptions.

The tank had two good features, it was cheap and easy to repair on the field, everything else about it was crap.

Sherman was designed for tank vs tank battles

Actually it was, it sucked at it but it was definitely designed for an AT role.

Depends on which model of T-34 actually

All models, T-34 goes from good to a f*cking monster on wheels when it got an 85mm main gun.

Sure we could have taken our time, and slowly developed the "perfect" tank,

Russians developed the T-34 in one year and that was in peace time, Sherman was designed and developed in 2 years.

we had one and we managed to ship thousands and they did the job they needed to do.

Only because there was so much artillery and air support behind them, as a stand alone offensive platfom they sucked anal orifice.

Better in every respect? I highly doubt that...lack radios for one thing.

By 42 every Russian tank had a radio and an intercomm.

As for tank ratios research the battles around Calais.

My personal opinion in regards to why Sherman was so crappy, people made money producing tanks, producing a good tank would not neccesitate such massive production numbers so it was deliberately shite, of course thats my theory but its the only reasonable excuse i can come up with as to why Americans would outfit their soldiers with such utter junk.

there was a war in the Pacific too, right?

Shermans were not very usefull in the pacific, too heavy, there were a few there but the main tank used against the japs was the Stuart.

hmm - with it's short low velocity short range 76,2mm gun T34 stood no chance with Tiger

I mean the 85mm D-T5 gun which shat all over Tigers frontal armor and made a firefly look like a kitten.

there were engagements were a couple of Tigers were able to destroy over 50 t-34s - only the uparmed t34-85 version

Yes but thats because of Russian habit of giving conscripts tank training that went "this level does that, dont touch this level and push button X to shoot".

The tank was by then an equivalent of a Panther, the crews were still a bunch of civilians with crapped pants.

though the 85mm cannon still was significantly inferior to the 88mm of Tiger

It had the same range and penetration because it, like the 88 originated from an AA gun but it did had much less precision.
Harry
2 Oct 2009 #47
Russians developed the T-34 in one year and that was in peace time

The Finns might have something to say about the idea that the time the first prototype T34 was completed could be described as "peacetime". And given that the name T34 refers to the year the design started, your maths teacher may have something to say about the idea that it was developed in one year.
Mucha 2 | 32
2 Oct 2009 #48
Sokrates
Sokrates - all good points made, but I still disagree and here's why:

Not if you're a tanker sitting inside a Sherman and knowing even a loud fart can kill you.

If you fart inside an enclosed space like a tank, your crew mates are much more likely to kill you than the fart by the way..

Shermans were a great success - US doctrine emphasized combined arms warfare. They were NOT intended to attack alone and without air or Arty support. They did and got smashed yes, but alternatively, if German armor was caught without Luftwaffe support and Allied airpower intervened, what happened? Yep, meat grinder. Does that mean German armor is crap? No, it means simply that they were caught in a predicament that they were not designed for.

Actually it was, it sucked at it but it was definitely designed for an AT role.

No, it was absolutely not designed for tank vs tank combat - it was designed for infantry support which can include a variety of roles. The only US tank designed to specifically go head to head with other tanks was the M26 Pershing but that tank arrived very late.

All models, T-34 goes from good to a f*cking monster on wheels when it got an 85mm main gun.

Why the constant comparisons to the T34? The T34 is/was an excellent tank but the issue is "was the Sherman a piece of crap". I'm telling you why it wasn't, not how it compares to the T34.

My personal opinion in regards to why Sherman was so crappy, people made money producing tanks, producing a good tank would not neccesitate such massive production numbers so it was deliberately shite, of course thats my theory but its the only reasonable excuse i can come up with as to why Americans would outfit their soldiers with such utter junk.

Capitalist evil, lol I see. Nice theory but full of holes. The jeep was great, no? How many were made? sheesh.
Once again - the Sherman was not shite, it was a tank that was provided when needed in large numbers, & did it's job until something better came along.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
2 Oct 2009 #49
Shermans were a great success - US doctrine emphasized combined arms warfare

If by combined arms warfare you meant shell the sh*t out of a target, then bomb it, then fire some more cannons for good measure and then move in land units then yeah.

The only general who practiced mobile war was Patton. Allies did not use combined arms like the Germans did.

were NOT intended to attack alone and without air or Arty support.

They were also not intended to get murdered by enemy tanks, yet they did.

They did and got smashed yes

Yet they were a great success:))

if German armor was caught without Luftwaffe support and Allied airpower intervened, what happened?

Typically? German armor withdrew while murdering all ground based opposition, you needed up to thirty combat flights to destroy a tank with a plane, why do you think German armor was able to operate for weeks in Normandy under allied air dominance.

No, it means simply that they were caught in a predicament that they were not designed for.

So you're arguing that Sherman was not designed to be a tank?:) The Sherman was first employed in Africa where it was superior to most German armor (which at the time was even crappier) and it was sent there specifically to fulfill an anti-armor role, thats what it was created for.

The only US tank designed to specifically

Americans sent them to Africa as assault platforms superior to anything Germans had at the time, all US tanks were designed specifically to fight other tanks including Stuarts that had a 75mm main gun.

Why the constant comparisons to the T34? The T34 is/was an excellent tank but the issue is "was the Sherman a piece of crap". I'm telling you why it wasn't, not how it compares to the T34.

Both were medium tanks, both were produced as basic tanks of their armies and as medium tanks both were each others close equivalents. Sherman had weak armor and a weak main gun therefore it was not a good tank.

Your argument is that it was cheap so i brought in T-34 which was about 20% cheaper, the same class of tank and superior in terms of speed, range, armor and gun, just because a tank is cheap doesnt make it a good fighting machine, its characteristics do and thats where Sherman fails across the board.

The jeep was great, no?

There was a much greater demand on a jeep then on the Sherman, there were over 600k built, to give you an idea, you need only so many tanks but jeeps worked in resupply, reconnesaince,medium transport, towing, engineering, ambulance duties, logistics etc, there was no need to inflate the demand on them.

the Sherman was not shite

Because you think so? If a tank performes so very poorly in two basic fields, is flammable, easy to hit and is slow (Panzer IV was 9 kmph faster, T-34 was 15 kmph faster, the panther was 17 kmph faster).

So unless you can provide an argument for its good combat performance it was a very very bad tank, T-34 is a good example that you can make a cheap(er) tank thats much much better.
wildrover 98 | 4,451
2 Oct 2009 #50
75 mm cannon

The standard weapon fitted to all Shermans was the 75mm gun...the firefly was uprated with the much better British 18 pounder anti tank gun.....There was also an open topped version fitted with a 90 mm gun
tornado2007 11 | 2,274
2 Oct 2009 #51
all this chat is kool and all but what about some footage of these babies in action???
Mucha 2 | 32
2 Oct 2009 #52
Bloody hell, every time I come back to post, you have a novel waiting for me!

Ahh there's just no convincing you there Mr Sokrates, is there?

You hold your opinion I'll hold mine :)

how about a change of venue, aircraft - the Brewster Buffalo specifically - Americans HATED it, claimed that it was one of the worst fighters ever made, yet the Finns loved it and claimed that it was one of their favorite fighters..why?
wildrover 98 | 4,451
2 Oct 2009 #53
It was a Sherman firefly that ended the career of one of the most successfull of the German tiger aces Michael witman....Caught out by a bunch of Shermans he was hit from behind and his tank blew up killing all the crew....Earlier that month Witman had destroyed an entire British armoured unit almost single handed in his tiger 1....
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,447
2 Oct 2009 #54
all this chat is kool and all but what about some footage of these babies in action???

Youtube is full of it actually :)

Sherman vs. Tiger

At the end of the three part doku they ask veterans which tank they would prefer to sit in....they were quite unanimous in their choice! ;)
wildrover 98 | 4,451
2 Oct 2009 #55
How about a shout up for a great Japanese weapon....the Mitsubishi zero....a great fighter that scared the hell out of the allies when it first appeared...fast , and able to outfly most allied aircraft due to its light weight.....Unfortunatly the light weight was due to lack of armour and self sealing fuel tanks...it was soon found that a good burst of gunfire would turn it into a fireball....
southern 75 | 7,096
3 Oct 2009 #56
Weapons of WWII

The best were:
Machine guns:German MG42(still in use as MG3)
Semi-automatic guns:Soviet PPSH1(did wonders in Stalingrad,even Germans prefered it)
Rifle:US M1
Automatic guns:German Stg44

Tanks
1.German Tiger 1,Konigstiger,Panther
2.Soviet T-34,Stalin

Artillery:
German cannon 88m

Fighter planes:
1.German ME242(the first jet)
2.US Mustang P51

Bomber planes:
1.US B29.

Anti-tank weapons:
1.German Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust
wildrover 98 | 4,451
3 Oct 2009 #57
German cannon 88m

The German 88 , much acclaimed as the best anti tank gun of the second war was actually designed as a flak , or anti aircraft gun , and was around quite some time before the second war....

I believe it was during the Spanish civil war that a German flak unit approached by enemy tanks turned one of the 88,s on the tanks and found that it was able to blow the enemy tank into pieces....

Later all panzer units had a unit of 88s mounted on wheels and used as anti aircraft defence , tho more often than not they were used against tanks....A version of this weapon was fitted to the tiger one and two , as well as the tank hunter version of the Panther , and right up untill the end of the war it was capable of knocking out any allied or Russian tank...
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,447
3 Oct 2009 #58
Fighter planes: 1.German ME242(the first jet)...

Hmmm....revolutionary surely but not reliable enough and to few a numbers to really call them "the best" as they were still more or less in an experimental phase.

The workhorses of the Luftwaffe was the Bf 109 series...who drowned unheard numbers of enemy fighters year after year after year.
(Till Göring figuratively run out of pilots and machines)

Just look at these numbers:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_air_aces

Also the Stuka get's a nod from me, a flying terror of an anti-tank weapon if there was any.
One can see on the exploits by accomplished pilots like Rudel what this little flyer was able to achieve in skilled hands (he killed more enemy tanks than most tank crews and even managed a ship).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudel

...Rudel flew 2,530 combat missions and successfully attacked many tanks, trains, ships, and other ground targets, claiming a total of 2,000 targets destroyed - including 800 vehicles, 519 tanks, 150 artillery guns, a destroyer, two cruisers, one Soviet battleship, 70 landing craft, 4 armored trains, several bridges and nine aircraft which he shot down...

And that all with a Stuka (and later only one leg)...
Svenski 1 | 159
3 Oct 2009 #59
Huge Japanese I-400 Class Submarine Aircraft Carrier
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400_class_submarine

A submarine with an aircraft hanger and 3 seaplanes.
scrappleton - | 830
3 Oct 2009 #60
Americans would outfit their soldiers with such utter junk.

The Jeep was junk? The M1? The Mustang (which was designed , built and put into action on 117 days)? You must be a simple ass brain or Socrates.. oh sorry, carry on then.

they were quite unanimous in their choice! ;)

Well.. it's only been pointed about about 20 damn times on this thread .. and on the Youtube video you even provided... the Sherman was not conceived for tank to tank combat. So naturally the Tiger which was much larger and heavier would be a safer tank to be in, etc.


Home / History / Weapons of WWII (Poland and other countries)
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.