Were German weapons of WWII superior to U.S. weapons?

Status
Not open for further replies.
More like the Allies are lucky we destroyed/crippled,

Luck has nothing to do with it..

I guess we were just LUCKED to having the 8th air force.

By all accounts Japan had a much more advanced nuke program tha Germany did. The entire notion of nuclear weapons was never taken thourghly seriously by the Germans. I guess cause we were LUCKY enough that the germans forced out all of thier Jewish physicists.
 
Our boys were, for the most part, pretty damn skilled with a rifle, whereas most German troops were not - to the exception of the 'crack SS' troops, which were mainly superior due to discipline and not riflery.
A nice thought, but by 1942 more than 60% of the population was urban, as opposed to 39% in 1900. It has only increased by 10% (relatively) since 1942. I think this idea of America as full of riflemen is a nice idea, and maybe accurate up to WWI, but the idea that other countries were less so just happens to be false. Germany, Britain, and the US were all proud of the fact that they emphasized riflery. I would bet that if you went to Switzerland, Finland, or Sweden, you would get the same attitudes.

see this:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=4381
 
Just to add that FG42 and MG42 designs where incorporated into the M60.

A bit more. Anyone that believe German soldiers were inferior to Allied soldier's has not read any history books, and his basing their opinion on Hollywood movies. The common German solider, was better trained, and better disciplined, than anything the allies could produce. For example they where trained to work together in small groups. They were trained on every small arm weapon that was fielded by the German military, so if the machine gunner went down, another squad member could take his place. If the Squad leader went down another solider could take his place. They where taught to think on the move, and always adapt to their current situation, and overcome. That is why small groups of soldiers could hold off thousands of enemy soldier's in delaying tactics. The German excelled on the platoon and squad level, that after the war, German infantry officers rewrote our infantry tactics. To this day our soldiers use some of the same tactics the Germans used in WWII.
 
Last edited:
I read that book too, balletto. A very good read.

I was mad b/c Patton suppressed the development and deployment of the M26. A lot of crews paid for that mistake with their lives.
 
The short version, our tanks = bad, german tanks = good. Our artillery and air support = really good. Our support/logistics guys = really good.

That's the sense I've gotten as well. The mighty German war machine by 1944 was a thin line of excellent tanks supported by mules and horses. Years of fighting Ivan had taken a toll, and our own military had the advantage of being extremely new. We were far more mechanized than they were.

The common German solider, was better trained, and better disciplined, than anything the allies could produce.

That would likely have been true in 1939, but not 1944. By that time the best of the best had been through the meat grinder. Like the elite British professional soldiers of 1914 who could fire SMLE's as fast as a semiauto, they were sacrificed to the war. And just as the elite British troops were replaced by the poorly trained shopkeepers of Kitchener's army in WWI, the well trained German units that swept across Europe in 1939 were replaced by increasingly ill suited units of the young and old, until the Germans resorted to recruiting children as part of the Volkstrum. The army we fought in 1944 and 1945 was literally a different army full of different soldiers than the one that swept across France and Poland. It had suffered casualty rates in Russia that boggle the mind. Also, the number of foreign troops fighting in Axis ranks is often overlooked. The Germans had to resort to recruiting from occupied territories to fill out the ranks on all fronts. So the "German" soldiers we encountered would sometimes be Polish or Bulgarian or even Croatian.

At the same time, while they were getting worse we were getting better and better. In 1942 our Army was a shambles. But two and half years later we had the best trained and best equipped army in the world, if not the most experienced. There's an advantage to starting from scratch--namely that you get to buy all new equipment and don't have to weed out the ranks of a huge peacetime military.
 
Last edited:
Take a P-38:
change the magazine to a double column design
bring the mag catch to the thumb position
extent the slide forward to the muzzle (almost)
leave the slide open along the top
What pistol does it pretty much turn into? (hint - locking wedge)

Peter Kokalis had a great article in Shotgun News a while back about the genesis of the M-60. It's biggest take-off from the MG-42 is the feed tray and top cover. The rest is pretty much a Lewis gun IIRC.

The Garand allowed smaller sized US units to compete with larger sized enemy units. It was a force multiplier and allowed us to win a war that we were outnumbered in. I agree that doctrine and logistics win wars, but our doctrine was based on forces equipped with self-loading rifles. Supply of ammunition (sepecially artillery rounds) was probably more critical.

The neatest thing about the Garand was that John G was a tool designer, and designed his rifle to be easy to manufacture. He developed all the tooling concurrent with the prototypes. Cost per unit, time to build, skill level required to build, etc, have an impact on the ability to get the weapons into the hands of the troops. Also clears up the "mystery" (to some) of why his rifle was picked over the Johnson. I can figure why the Johnson might have seemed like a real serious competitor in 1940, but by 1945 you gotta admit that the proof was in the pudding.

I'd agree that pistols probably have very little to do with winning wars. However, anything that inspires confidence does impact success.

Ma Deuce is still the best. The Germans had nothing equivalent I can think of.

The BAR seems to have been reliable and effective. The 20 rd mag is a bit small but then again it's mag doesn't stick up and give you away from the prone like a BREN or Nambu light. The SS had Czech ZB equivalents as SAWs, the FJ had the FG-42, the Wehrmacht lacked an equivalent. Toss-up.

The US Army came out of WWII believing that the M1919 .30 was less effective than the MG-34/42 style of general purpose MG. At least the 1919 was reliable and robust.

M-1 Carbine. I think we've all shot one and probably owned one at some time. The are so close to being perfect - but not quite. I don't want to get into the cartridge thing, but the 30 carbine cartridge does seem to sit in the mediocre middle. I never understood people who think the 30 carbine cartridge is laughable, but then go out and buy a 9mm carbine.

The MP-43/44/StG-44 was definitely "the thing". Quite the pattern for things to come. It definitely exceeds the effectiveness of the M-1 carbine, and does things the Garand wasn't made to do. If they could have built 6 million of them (like we built 6 million carbines) it might have been something.
 
Given that most casualties resulted from artillery and mortar fire, I doubt the relative merits of individual infantry weapons made all that much difference.

One of the keys to the Allied victory was the ability to think strategically, rather than tactically. The Allies knew they had to destroy the German economy to win, and they set about doing that. If that had not been done, the German Army might well have been able to hold out.

As others have mentioned, the combined arms approach of the US made a big difference on the battlefield.

The Germans lagged sorely in the air and that eventually hurt them badly.
 
I didn't read everyone's replies but I fell the Russians had a pretty decent tank.

The Germans had some outstanding light machine guns and also developed modern missile technology.
 
I honestly believe that german weapon designs were superior to the allies in just about every respect--their tanks were better, their machine guns were better, their SMGs were far simpler, and their soldiers were trained impeccably (early to mid-war). The problems laid with logistical support, their frontline units were armed according to doctrines of WWI, and their commanders' hubris was outstanding. If you were to input american logistics (end war, not "operation torch"-like disasters) and better commanding officers (not so stubborn, though the German genious of tactics is hard to replace) and arm the frontline units with more MGs per company and more semi-auto rifles to match the Americans (not botch the design of the G41, for example), I think that the Germans would have been 'nigh unstoppable on the ground; as far as the aireal aspect goes, that's up for debate. If they hadn't screwed up tactically with their attacks and choice of alliances, WWII may have wound up for a stalemate, or with the Germans coming out ahead.

Just my thoughts on the matter.
 
That would likely have been true in 1939, but not 1944. By that time the best of the best had been through the meat grinder. Like the elite British professional soldiers of 1914 who could fire SMLE's as fast as a semiauto, they were sacrificed to the war. And just as the elite British troops were replaced by the poorly trained shopkeepers of Kitchener's army in WWI, the well trained German units that swept across Europe in 1939 were replaced by increasingly ill suited units of the young and old, until the Germans resorted to recruiting children as part of the Volkstrum. The army we fought in 1944 and 1945 was literally a different army full of different soldiers than the one that swept across France and Poland. It had suffered casualty rates in Russia that boggle the mind.

Very true that German military was in beaten but not defeated in 1944 but even with the introductions of conscripts from invaded countries, the Volkstrum, and older men in the regular forces. The German military still remained an effective fighting force that still had enough experience and well trained troops, though not enough supplies and materials, to hold back the Allies on both major fronts, and create a stalemate in Italy. In 1944 they where still a force to be reckon with.
 
Here is a excerpt of a letter that appeared in the Russian Pravda:

During the WWII years, the USA delivered defense technology in the sum of $46 billion to the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition. The costs made up 13 percent of America's defense spending. The lion's share of deliveries was given to England - $30.3 billion. The Soviet Union received defense technology in the sum of $9.8 billion, France $1,4 billion and China $631 million. In total, the USA supplied arms to 42 countries.

The USSR received hundreds of thousands of military vehicles and motorbikes. Lack of fuel was ameliorated with deliveries of 2.5 million tons of petroleum products. The profusion of Roosevelt's "garden hose" provided Stalin with 595 ships, including 28 frigates, 105 submarines, 77 trawlers, 22 torpedo boats, 140 anti-submarine vessels and others. The Soviet air force received 4,952 Aerocobra and 2,410 Kingcobra fighter jets. Soviet pilot Alexander Pokryshkin fought with Hitler's Luftwaffe aces in Aerocobra planes, which made him a Hero of the Soviet Union hero three times over.

The lend-lease agreement supplied the USSR with 2,7 thousand A-20 and 861 B-25 bomber planes. Soviet tank divisions received 7,056 tanks, 8,218 anti-aircraft emplacements, 131,600 machine guns and other arms.

Soviet propaganda tried to diminish the importance of the American help. Back in those years, it was said that the Soviet Union had produced 30,000 tanks and 40,000 planes since the middle of 1943. Well, as a matter of fact, this was true. However, one has to take into consideration the fact that lend and lease deliveries were made to the USSR during the most difficult period of the war - during the second half of 1942. In addition, the USSR would not have been capable of producing its arms without the lend-lease agreement: The USA shipped 2.3 million tons of steel to the USSR during the WWII years. That volume of steel was enough for the production of 70,000 T-34 tanks. Aluminum was received in the volume of 229,000 tons, which helped the Soviet aviation and tank industries to run for two years. One has to mention food deliveries as well: 3.8 million tons of tinned pork, sausages, butter, chocolate, egg powder and so on. The lend-lease agreement provided orderlies with 423,000 telephones and tens of thousands of wireless stations. Deliveries also included oil distillation equipment, field bakeries, tents, parachutes, and so on and so forth. The Soviet Union also received 15 million pairs of army boots.

The help was delivered to the USSR via Iran and major Soviet sea ports. About 3,000 transport vessels arrived at the ports of Murmansk, Arkhangelsk and Vladivostok, and delivered 1.3 million tons of cargo. It would be incorrect to diminish the significance of such all-embracing help from the New World as a serious factor that assisted in the victorious ending of the war.

Historians and politicians keep on arguing about the results and lessons of WWII. The basic results of the war are known: the war was lost by the two major participants inthe "grand political game" of 1939-1940 - both Hitler and Stalin. Of course, the Soviet leader defeated Hitler, although it then resulted in the ideological crisis and, eventually, in the tragic collapse of the totalitarian superpower - the USSR. It is worth mentioning here that the debt of the Soviet Union - $722 million - for the lend-lease contract has not been completely paid to the States yet
.

http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/363/9941_roosevelt.html

If these figures are accurate, then I don't think anyone could say that Russia was the major culprit in defeating Germany, it was irrefutably the United States war effort. The Russians may have fought just as much and just as hard, but a with a lot more difficulty and a lot less effectively. I wonder if the heavy Russian armor being produced at the end of the war would have even been considered for manufacture if the Soviets weren't receiving huge supplies of free steel, free gas, and over a half million free trucks, jeeps and other vehicles to carry it.
 
German technology was equivalent to the Allies, however they were more prone to deploy weapon systems that were still in prototype; the Tiger tanks are a perfect example: underpowered, cantankerous but well armed and armored. built in small batches they could not be maintained.

M4, while underarmored and, at least with the 75mm, underarmed were fast, reliable and available!

Me262 was brilliant but required concrete runways. It was also used improperly as a bomber; the Germans could have halted Allied bombing if the plane was properly used.

Hitler's influence on German war machine significantly reduced it's effectiveness and the duration of the war.

Just my opinion..
streakr
 
I honestly believe that german weapon designs were superior to the allies in just about every respect--their tanks were better, their machine guns were better, their SMGs were far simpler, and their soldiers were trained impeccably (early to mid-war).

Let's not overlook the single most important technological innovation of the war, and the most powerful weapon. In *that* area we were way ahead of the Germans. Thanks in large part to their idiotic racial theories that sent the best physicists the world has ever known to our shores. If the war had lasted longer and come down to a test of technologies, we still would have one.
 
If these figures are accurate, then I don't think anyone could say that Russia was the major culprit in defeating Germany, it was irrefutably the United States war effort.

This ignores the fact that Stalin was willing to feed millions of people into the meat grinder to USE those weapons (in addition to the ones they were able to produce for themselves). All the weapons in the world are useless without someone to use them.
 
In-so-far as SMALL ARMS are concerned, there was a basic philosophical difference between the U.S. Military and the Germans.

In the German Army, riflemen supported and protected machine guns. In the U.S. Military, machine guns supported Infantry.

Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
I love the way that this discussion always pop up again and again. :D

I have used a 1911A1 in Australia, which is pretty similar to the original 1911, but that and first person shooter WWII games are all I know when it comes to the arms of WWII. There were great weapons used on both sides, but I do think that the Americans had an edge with the Garland rifle. Of course Ze Germans had the MG42 and all that lovely stuff too.
 
Cromlech, its Garand ( or more specificly United States Rifle, Caliber .30, M1 ) ;)

refresher

Garland- american actress, star of "the wizard of oz"
dorothy_u1926078.jpg

Garand- Excentric Canadian
JohnGarand.jpeg


argueably both making huge controbutions to civilization as we know it
 
If these figures are accurate, then I don't think anyone could say that Russia was the major culprit in defeating Germany, it was irrefutably the United States war effort.

This ignores the fact that Stalin was willing to feed millions of people into the meat grinder to USE those weapons

No, it doesn't ignore it at all. It just acknowledges that feeding millions of people into the meat grinder would have been futile without adequately arming and supplying them, and the USSR could not have done that without Lend Lease, period. The Czarist Army was also willing to feed millions of people into a First World War against Germany, and without adequate logistics and armaments, it didn't go so hot for them.

As Patton said, no one wins a war by dying for their country, they win by making the other guy die for his country. Without Lend Lease, Ivan would have still went to war with the Germans, it just would have been more likely he would have went on foot, with a Mosin Nagant, and not inside a T-34 and behind a 76mm gun. That makes those obsolete Pzkfw IIIs and IVs and Stukas a lot more deadly.
 
Well, all I have to go on is what I was told by my (now deceased) Uncle, who was in the Army Infantry in Europe in WW2.

If I remember correctly he had high regard for the German weaponery.. I think his issued weapon was the M1 Garand, and he thought that was a fine rifle too..

He wound up being the BAR man after the regular BAR man was killed, and the next grunt in line was handed the BAR and was killed and so on.. My Uncle did say that he was able to kill the same German sniper twice before he himself was wounded in the leg and taken out of action. He said the BAR position was a favorite target of the Germans and for good reason.. Apparently it was an awesome weapon.

To be fair he said the German he "killed twice" was in fact wired in a tree and he killed him while advancing, then in the confusion he wound back up in the same general location and saw the sniper in the tree and shot him again.. He said then he realized it was the same guy he shot before.. He didn't seem too distressed at the overkilll.

Don't know how this fits into the German vs USA firearm question, but it was an interesting story he told me many years ago, and thought someone might enjoy hearing it.

J. Pomeroy
 
For the most part, the American philosophy that has governed us since the Civil War came into play, WE do not throw men's lives away as did many of the other nations. It was the determined efforts of Generals like Ike, Bradley and Patton who decided it was more important to kill the other sides troops than to kill ours. We built planes, ships, submarines, and tanks with the intent that our troops should come home. The Sherman was an easy tank to get in and out of, and when designed was thought to be capable of defeating most enemy tanks. All of our fighters from the Wildcat on were built to take punishment and get the most important part home, the pilot. Stories abound about US planes shot up so bad there was nothing to do but shove them off the runway or carrier deck after they had gotten the pilot home.

When we had to feed men to the meat grinder, and there was no other choice, we did it. However, we knew we could make more tanks, more planes, more ships and guns but the hardest part to replace was the trained operator.

We used real experts to train our people too, Our best fighter bomber and transport pilots were pulled out of combat and used to train new replacements, on the theory that better replacements were worth more than a few superior but easily lost combat pilots.

materials. We had the manufacturing might to produce more than any other nation AND we never had those facilities under attack. Detroit, Gary, Long beach, Wichita and Seattle as well as as nyc, Newport news, and Philadelphia never had to endure bombing campaigns. We mined ore in Minnesota and it went to Erie and Gary and then to build the tools of war without being bombed. Texas produced oil and we never had to worry about an airraid.

as for weapons one on one,
we had a better rifle, we had a better combat support arm. and we had a better pistol.

We had the HMG, we had a SAW, they had a better GPMG.

Despite the comments that the 88 was not a good arty piece, read up about it's use by Rommel in the desert. It ate Montgomery's troops up.
It was also not the only field piece used by the germans. The German army had pioneered the use of mobile artillery in the early years as well as the use of CAS as a fighting tool. Read about the Blitz era of the war and the use of the Stuka as flying artillery. Stumble on to a fixed position gun that was holding up an advance, and call in the dive bombers. This was a lesson learned very quickly by the USA.

Germany was a nation that prized engineers, and America was a land that prized industrialists. WE had lots of guys who were trained as engineers, but were also industrialists, meaning they understood what it took to take and idea and make it into a product. A product that worked when it should, was safe when it was supposed to be, and easy to use, and economical to make.

WE had world class aeronautical engineers, none better really. WE also had the luxury of sitting on the sidelines for a couple of years and watching what worked and what did not. We preferred to have planes that had plenty of protection, plenty of speed and plenty of firepower. Both the germans and the brits started the war with fighters that had only 4 .30 cal machine guns. We started with fighters that had six .50 cal guns. the germans had fighters that could barely make it over the channel and fight for fifteen minutes before needed to return home, Very shortly after we had fighters that would fly a thousand miles fight and fly that much to get home,

WE studied the best of the best and fielded the 105 and 155 howitzers, guns good enough to serve for nearly 50 years. we adopted other nations ideas when it came to mortars and rockets and by wars end were producing the best mortars there were. The 81 was perhaps the best of its type weapon we had by wars end for the infantry man. able to stop attacks with very accurate fire and with great lethality.
 
Head to head, categorical comparison:

Infantry rifle candidates:
M1 Garand
Springfield 1903 (used by the Marines as an infantry rifle early on)
K98
G43
Stg44 (Yes, I could this as an infantry rifle)

The Springfield and K98 are nearly identical as combat arms, but that doesn't matter because the others in this category do the job better, anyway. The M1 is also nearly identical to the G43 and it's a real toss-up. The M1 was better made and had better sightes, but the G43 used detatchable box magazines. However, the Stg44 is a better infantry rifle than either, with a large magazine (30?) and firing the forward-thinking intermediate cartridge that is all the rage nowadays.

Winner: Stg44

Squad automatic, or squad light machine gun candidates:
MG42
MG34
BAR
M1919A6 (used by paratroopers as a SAW)

The BAR is nice but is too heavy and holds only 20 rounds in detatchable box magazines. The 1919A6 is an improvement with its belt feed, but is long and heavy and awkward. The German MGs are better than either, and out of those two I have to give it to the MG42 for being easier to build and more reliable.

Winner: MG42

Tripod mounted machine gun candidates:
MG42
MG34
Browning 1917
Browning 1919A4

Well the water jacket on the 1917 helps with sustained fire, but is a weighty liability on a fast-moving battlefield. The 1919A4 and MG34 are pretty much identical, combat wise, but the MG34 was better because of its quick-change barrel. The MG42 was easier to produce than any of them and had a higher rate of fire, so i'm giving it the category.

Winner: MG42

Officer's/NCO's long arm candidates:
Thompson
M1 Carbine
Reising
MP40

The Reising (used by the Marines early on) was terrible. The Thompson was much better but was expensive to produce and way too heavy. The M1 Carbine was light, extremely handy, and packed some punch. The MP40 was maybe less handy and packed not so much of a punch, but held a larger number of rounds. For this purpose, I think they both performed about as well, so i'm tying the category.

Winners: Tied with the M1 Carbine and MP40.

Marksman/Sniper's rifles:
Scoped K98
Scoped Springfield 1903
Scoped G43
Scoped K98

The semi-autos here are less handy than the bolt-actions, and probably less accurate. The 1903 and K98 are virtually identical, so they're tied.

Winner: Tied with 1903 and K98

There are probably more categories to consider, but these are all I could come up with because I have to make dinner now!
 
Logistics.
US.
Hands down, THE winner. Once the pipeline was in place.
Timing was critical as mentioned earlier.
Speer was able to have German industry turn out MORE weapons in 1944 under the most intense bombing anyone in the world had ever faced than Germany had produced in '41 - '43, even with the dispersal of industry around the country. They just ran out of manpower and fuel to run their war machine.
One might make a pretty good argument for Allied military strategic leadership and planning when compared to the effect the madman in Berlin displayed. (Never a good sign when your Generals try to assassinate you).
Germany's 88mm compared to the US 75mm? Hmmmm
Small arms, you guys covered it well already.

But if you ever have to plan a war, think logistics. (Not to mention politicians who'll stay the course)
 
I believe that as far as standard battle rifles, M-1 was a far superior rifle to the K-98. More shots, higher potential rate of fire. However, if we compare apples and apples- bolt guns and bolt guns- the 1903 Springield series was highly influenced by the Mauser action. The 1917 rifles of WWI vintage that the US furnished the British for homeguard use during WWII also exhibited significant Mauser influence.

The P-38, not the Luger was the WWII German standard issue pistol, though Lugers were still issued. I would much rather have a 1911A1 than a P-38 or a Luger, considering the fact that the capacity was similar. However, there is something to be said about a double action in a single action world. In fact the P-38 lives on in the Beretta M-92 series.

Machine guns are a bit of a toss up. The browning patterns are still in use all over, but the German machineguns found themselves in todays weapons as well.

Each sides weapons have their own merits and demerits...
 
I've got nothing to add to this thread that hasn't been discussed. I just wanted to thank you guys for having this discussion. It has been a very interesting read and I appreciate all the effort you guys have put into it.


Thanks.


John
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top