The best weapon of WW2?

With its problems the T-34/76 was the king of the hill in the eastern front until Tiger tank ( and Panther and the long barrel Pz Iv )entered the scene as the PzIII-IV and other AT guns than 88 mm could not kill it except from the side.That is somewhere about spring-summer 1943, I think. By early 1944 the Russians had the T-34/85. As well I think they made some corrections with the cupola but I´m not sure about the number of men as the T-34 was made better in the later series.

The Russians had a model of T-34/76 with commander cupola but they did not have time to switch to this model in 1940 as the production was hurried.

Anyway if you think that the T-34/76 could be made ready in just about 24 hrs or less it was quite an amazing vehicle.Thinking about the working hours for German tanks...

[ 29. September 2003, 07:26 AM: Message edited by: Kai-Petri ]

 

On T-34

http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_76_2.html



Version of T-34 with commander cupola ( not in use early in war anyway??! ) from the site above.

[ 29. September 2003, 07:27 AM: Message edited by: Kai-Petri ]

 

Here's something interesting from John W. Schaefer, you guys might want to check this out.

In the opinion of many analysts the best tank of the war was T-34 which
>>was mass produced by the Russians on the scale unmatched in the West.

>Previous comment I made on the above about numbers of Shermans produced.
>I did find a ref that gave 19000 T-34's made and a slightly larger number
>of T-34/85's. Given both, I doubt we approached those numbers with the
>Sherman's production.

The problem with American WWII AFV engineering was that for some
reason we had no effective feedback to lead to an improved design. We had a
huge amount of tool-and-die capability, and so many plants building Shermans
and related AFVs that a new family could have been introduced on-the-fly
without an unacceptable drought of supply. Somehow, though, we took at least
a year longer than reasonable to introduce the Pershing. Meanwhile, the tech
sergeants in the armored division shops were modifying things like crazy to
try to increase performance and survivability. Even the M4A3E8, which caught
up to most of the mods, was minimally acceptable. Not a very impressive
performance from the most sophisticated vehicle manufacturing and using
nation on earth.

I've argued elsewhere that quantity is more important than quality,
but the Sherman was ridiculous, given that the resources to do it so much
better and in comparable numbers were clearly available.

After the war, the Israelis got their hands on some Shermans and
modified them well enough, with British 105s, engine mods and external armor,
that they were successful in first-line mobile combat use against T-54s
through the 70s. When they first did that work, their resource base was not
very big. All in all, our AFV design and engineering talent during WWII
should have been ashamed of itself.

>On another similar subject; my German neighbor who was in panzers during
>WWII insists the T-34 could be taken apart and put back together again
>with only 4 standardized tools. He had lots of praise for that trait!

Brilliant, eh? Supposedly many of their drivers had never driven a
motor vehicle before, but the T34 was designed tough and simple with such
drivers in mind. Crude but effective--just what they needed to win.

John Schaefer

 

Now I know there has been talk of only two tanks but I would like to bring up another that didn't see much action but was I think a very good tank: the Tiger II. I know that it was brought out only at the end of the war when the allies had the air but I wonder what it would have been like if the Tiger II came out sooner.

 

Uh-Oh, Crazy's back...

Most effective overall weapon- Atom Bomb. In two shots, it ended the war with Japan. Horrible civilian casualties, and some nasty after-effects- but it did end an entire front.

"Best" tank, all things considered- easily the T-34. It had the most impact not only on the front where it was used, but also on tank design, both during and after the war.

As far as reliability and maintenance, the T-34 was unequaled. Numbers make the Sherman look similar, but it is often neglected that the Shermans, especially from 44 onward, were operating in conditions where massive amounts of logistical support-including repair shops/units- were FAR more available than anything ever experienced for the T-34. And yet the T-34 could still be relatively easily maintained in the field with a minimum of specialized personell/equipment.

And on the battlefield... the T-34 (especially the T-34/85) could match MANY of it's opponents throughout the war. The early T-34/76 had some serious impediments- commander/gunner problem and lack of radios being most obvious- but the quality of the armor and gun left it still on an equal playing field.
And by the end of the war, the T-34/85 was a match for nearly any tank being fielded.

The only glaring weakness throughout the war for the T-34 (and all Russian tanks, for that matter) was the poor quality of the optics.

"Best" tank- all things NOT considered- the Tiger I. Duh. Tigers owned.
Performance... Technical... Crews... Reputation...
Don't think any AFV has ever made such a legend for itself.

As far as the Tiger II goes, it was a good tank... but in the Tiger II, in many ways the German designers had "pushed the envelope" TOO FAR. The Tiger II was simply too heavy. Operational mobility was always a problem- most bridges could not be used, any soft ground would result in bogging down, all engine components were often over-stressed. It should be noted though, that once a Tiger II could actually be brought into action, it was one of the best tanks of the war in a firefight. The armor-especially frontal- could stop more or less any enemy projectile. And the gun and optics could knock out just about any enemy that the tank could hit.

Cheers!

 

Oh no he is back in schule ! C how are things ? good to see you back. Also Andreas from the back of my PC, posted last week so it is good to see him as well. A hearty welcome back one and all... !

Well you guys know my thoughts on the T-34 which I will not post, but it would of been a wonder if the Germans had the amount of Panthers at their disposal as the Soviets did during the war. Little too late........

The Königstiger with all the reading I have done never should of been used as an attack Panzer and it proved itself repeatedly to be the "King" on the Russian front when used in a defensive role with it's thick frontal armor and the wicked long range of it's high power 8.8cm weapon. Nothing could stand up to this. But it never really fullfilled it's role due to the shortcomings listed.......slowness, easily bogged down n terrible terrain, faulty mechanics and severe engine problems and maybe something overlooked, just not enough man-power in the in the way of troops on the gound to protect this beast; in 1945

~E

 

So I guess the desicion is made: the T-34 and the Tiger 1 were the best tanks of the Second World War. Now of course this question is very broad but what was the best gun of WW2 including, rifles, machine guns, explosive launchers, grenades/explosives and handguns? This is overall, generally, what was the most effective.

 

I´d go for the Russian Katjusha rocket launcher on this spesification. I bet any soldier who got even close to a barrage remembers it forever...

 

wow, only one gun suggested, theres got to be more than that out there.

 

3cm Mk 108 a/c weapon equipped with the Minen-Geschoss. ugly weapon as it delt out it's wrath of destruction especially against Allied 4-engine bombers. Only problem with it was the range and was used as a close in gun.

~E

 

My favourite for WW2 machine gun ( as in frequent use )

The Suomi machine gun



Plus more details:


http://www.saunalahti.fi/~ejuhola/7.62/suomi.html

 

It seems these two guns were pretty good, there's got to be more though. I think of the Panzershrecks, Brens, M-1 Garands. Anything you guys could think of.

 

alright three now, wow Kai seems like we posted two things at almost the same second. Good one!

 

Alright now I know this one is tough but what about planes. Out of all fronts, all countries, which was the best? I know there's been some comparisons between only two but I wonder which one out of all?

 

My definite favourite:



or with the piston engine

 

For an aircraft that manages to last the war and is constantly upgraded and is still used for a long time after i would have to say the Supermarine Spitfire. It is constantly upgraded and fulfills many different roles from fighter to a photo recon bird. It also accomadated many upgrades such as the powerful Rolls Royce Griffon engine and the change to a bubble canopy, thus curing one of its early faults. its only main fault was a lack of range but this was inherent in its design as it was originally designed as a interceptor fighter not a escort fighter like the mustang. It was a product of its era in that respect as air forces believed that the bomber would always get through and did not need fighter protection. The spitfire also accomadated many differect wings to enable it to operate at different altitude. this show a great achieve in the airframe design that it could incorporate these modifications. it was also succesfully used in many different condition arounf the world, from the dust of the desert to the jungles of burma. it was also succesfully modified to operate of aircraft carriers. In my opinion a truely magnificent aircraft.

 

Stg 44 and the Type 100 !

 

Darn Alpha you beat me to it, of course the Stg 44 is the best, it revolutionised armed combat as we know it. Every army eventually reequipped with assault rifles after that, superceeding bolt actions, semi-autos, machine pistols, and eventually even submachine guns.

The '44 was the Electric Commuter Train of Guns. No other weapon (other than the A-bomb) since ww2 has so completely made obsolete every other weapon before it.

 

Does anyone have any good pics of the STG44 or 100?

 

I posted a few already along with some other people on www.thirdreichforum.com under the "equipment", & "MP43/44" thread, no point doing so here there are heaps on that forum.