Germany Weapons Superior?

[ogukuo72]

Fallenangel wrote:

German WW2 were superior to Allied aircraft. Had the Me262 gone into production in late '43 instead of late '44 when they were first designed as fighters, they would have given the numberically superior mustangs a run for their money. And that's not even mentioning the slaughter Russian pilots would recieve.

The K98 rifle was different from the M1 because the early German system was different from the American system. In the American system, each squad member was an offensive unit. The Germans however made the MG of their squad the offensive unit. The K98 was issued to troops who would support the flanks of the machine gun- being defensive in nature. Later in the war, German tactics changed a bit- thus the emergance of the MP/StG44.

German tanks were hands down superior to their allied counterparts. It was estimated that it took at least 5 Shermans to knock out a Panther and up to 10 to kill a Tiger. Hand the King Tigers in the Battle of the Bulge had enough fuel, it is quite possible that those behemoths (even by today's standards) would have decimated all in their path. The T-34's only saving grace was it's sloped armor although even with that many were lost.

P-51s attacked Me262s on final approach for landing, when the jet was almost stalling it was going so slow. Not exactly the best senario for comparison of combat capabilities. The Me162 Salamander was simple, cheap and highly manueverable. Had the Germans had enough time, these would have formed the bulk of the German fighter units. Such fighters would have control over even the Allied Jets at the time- Gloster Meteor and Bell P-59/P-80.

German aircraft (and most arms) production in the last year of the war actually INCREASED. The problem for the Germans was that they only had so many pilots and they had no gasoline for their machines of war.

In the end, I would say that generally, the Germans were beaten by superior quantity rather than quality.

I took the initiative to take the above discussion out of the HK4 pix thread and start a new one. Strictly speaking, many German weapons fielded were technically superior. But this superiority is apparently useless, since the Germans still lost the war.

Looking at the quote above, several points stand out: the Germans simply do not have enough time (not to mention resources such as metal, fuel, manpower, etc.) to fully exploit their superior technology. In fact, we might argue that the obsession with 'secret' weapons like the V1 and V2, and Me262 actually DAMAGED the German war effort by diverting valuable resources away from producing practical weapons in sufficient quantity. While not the most technologically superior aircraft, the FW190 had proven itself by 1944, and raw material should very well have gone into producing more and better FW 190's. As it was, the Me262 did not appear in anywhere near sufficient numbers and the Me192 was merely a pipe dream.

With regards to tanks, it is more questionable if the Tigers, King Tigers and Panthers were truly superior to the T34's. I might even add that it is questionable if these tanks - while no doubt superior to the Sherman - were actually that much more superior.

First, all of these tanks were huge and heavy, but powered by inadequate engines built to significantly lower standards than American engines. This accounted for the huge number of mechanical breakdown. Once a tank breaks down, it becomes vulnerable to infantry attacks and is always in danger of being by-passed.

It is almost an article of faith that German tanks have better cross-country mobility on account of their wider tracks. But any student of physics will tell you that ground pressure is calculated based on mass and track area. A King Tiger is almost 70 tonnes in weight, compared to a Sherman's 25 tonnes. Even a Panther is twice the weight of a Sherman. This means that the track areas of these tanks must be correspondingly larger. This in turn a proportionate increase in the width of the tanks. On broad plains, this is fine, but fighting in wooded and hilly country - which is the terrain of most of Europe - this means pretty much that German tanks would not be able to manouvre off road as well as smaller Allied tanks. Indeed, many roads during WW2 would have been hard pressed to accomodate these monsters - which account for why the Germans had to fight so desperately to capture road nexus such as Bastogne and why they could not by-passed these heavily defended cities.

Indeed, the Battle of the Bulge was a very good example of this myth. German tanks were forced to fight down roads. Even minor rivers became major obstacles to German tanks as the river beds could not bear the weight of German tanks - they had to capture bridges, which in turn, were repeatedly blown up by American engineers ahead of them. There were several instances as well when the bridges simply could not bear the weight of 55 tonne monsters, and collasped.

Which finally leads to the question of armour and guns. No doubt the 75mm and 88mm on German tanks were superior to the American 75mm and 76mm, but it is much harder to argue that the 85mm on the T34-85 were inferior to German guns. This argument become even harder when we include the Josef Stalins with 122mm guns.

In any case, we must remember that in war, the instance of one to one confrontation was rare. Unit tactics and competency accounted for just as much as technical superiority. The 75mm and the 76mm did not serve the Americans too badly, and German tanks were still destroyed.

Which leads finally to the question of armour. Let's not fall into the trap of the tanker's dream - the more armour the better. For a lowly tanker in a tank, you would want the most armour about you that you can get. It's only natural. But we must remember that every ounce of armour means one more ounce of weight. Many historians talk about the armour of Panthers and Tigers as if they weigh nothing. But it is precisely the thick armour that makes the King Tiger a 70 tonne monster with all its attendant problems.

You might not be able to take out one with a bazooka with one shot, but you can blow up the bridge and mine the road. Once the bridge is down, and the tank blow a track, it is stuck. Because it is so heavy, it will not be easy to push it out of the way. And because the other tanks behind it are just as heavy and wide, they could not by-pass the first tank. The whole column becomes stuck until the poor bloody infantry could deploy to the flanks and clear the area, and the engineers could come forward to deal with the broken down tank.

This is why, while one-to-one the German tanks are superior to the Shermans, you will never find an instance where German tanks spearhead unstoppable attacks against Allied defences, smashing them to bits. The debut of the Panthers and Tigers at Kursk is a good example. They were deployed in great armoured wedges that theoratically should have blown the Soviet defences to bit. Instead, they were destroyed in huge numbers by mines, artillery, poor bloody infantry, and - yes - inferior T34s. The same thing happened in Mortein and Ardennes on the Western Front.

German weapons are technically superior, but in the end, they are not operationally superior to Allied equipment.

[Delta Niner]

I always thought that it was the individual soldiers that wins the war. Weapons are just tools. :)

[Havoc]

i got this table of charts where is king tiger vs. allied tanks. only gun that penetrated front armor was english 17 pdr gun with armor piercing super velosity sabot ammunition, what wasnt popular ammunition couse lack of accuracy. American 75 mm and russian 76 mm gun penetrated side hull in the range of 100 m. But you have to remember that these are german studies and not proven facts!

[digrar]

The lack of fuel and air cover were big factors in the closing stages of the War. While the weapons may have been better, they aren't any good if the machines haven't got fuel to drive/fly. Without air cover the tanks became slow targets for allied aircraft.

[ronin2172]

u bring up good points but u also forgot some.

The allies had supremacy in the air over the battlefield (recall the Falaise Pocket?). I think the germans lost more tanks to allied fighter bombers than to allied tanks. A kill ratio of five to one (against american and british tanks) is indicative of a large superiority gap.

U are correct the tiger especially the king tiger was too cumbersome to be effective in offensive operations, but in defensive operations it was superb. A lone tiger in a well prepared site caused havoc in disproportion to it's number. Remember Michael Whitman? He destroyed 25 tanks and held up an entire division, with one Tiger 1! Only 1300 Tiger 1s were produced and only 485 tiger 2's were produced. Also these tanks were never massed but fielded in units of four or five tanks apiece.

You mention Kursk and the panther, but you neglected to mention that the Panther was fielded before it was ready (because of Hitler).

In the Ardennes the germans were stopped by the stubborn defence of Bastogne by the 101st and the timely arrival of good weather (which allowed the dreaded fighter bombers to wreak havoc)

And actually the main tank used by the germans was the Panzer mkIV (production numbered 8000 ) and this tank was more easily tackled by the sherman. And u also forgot to metion the assault guns which were very effective (especially the Stug 3 and the jagdpanther).

The Me262 simply appeared too late, it could have started production as early as 1943 , and was never produced in the numbers needed. The highest number produced in a month was 280 in february 1945 and was misused at first (hitler insisted it was used as a bomber). Had it been fielded earlier and had it been used in it's correct role it could have made a difference. For instance JG7 the first operational Jet fighter squadron averaged 100 victories a month (their total was 450+ victories), they only had 30 aircraft available at any one time.

u also forgot to mention some of the superior infantry weapons, what about the Mg42 (the first GPMG) and it's cousin the Mg 34? Or the Stg 44, the first operational assault rifle? Or the MP 38/40 (weapons much coveted by the allies). The only Infantry weapon that was better than the german ones was the m1 garand (the best rifle of the war; too bad the british never adopted it and too bad the US never adopted the Bren!)

What it boils down to is numbers; (the allies had more of everything) and the air superiority. That combined with dumb mistakes on hitler's part doomed germany to defeat (such as attacking russia when he did without finishing the british off first). If u closely look at how the germans performed u might see that they actually outperformed the allies. Read up on the performance of the SS panzer divisions post D-day (Hitlerjugend, Libestrande were the main ones i think). When i find the book I read I will post the title, it was written by a former British Army officer and used the official histories of the units involved both allied and german. And he mentions the qualitative gap of german weapons versus allied weapons.

[ogukuo72]

You made excellent points yourself. War is a complex phenomenon, which goes beyond technological superiority. As I had written, Bastogne and St Vith were crucial battles as they denied the Germans the use of these crucial road networks. Precisely because German tanks were road-bound, these heroic defense successes became their downfall.

I do not agree that the MG42 was such a good weapon. I say this from experience. Unlike many armchair historians, I was trained as a PBI (Poor Bloody Infantryman), and I had to lug a GPMG around on exercises. I know how heavy and inconvenient these things are.

There was no doubt that the MG42 was a very good defensive machine gun with its high rate of fire and quick change barrel design, but it's too heavy and cumbersome (as well as been two-men operated) for infantry attacks. And in strictly defensive battles, water cooled designs such as the British Maxim gun and the American M1917 would be superior as they can be kept in action longer - with or without rapid barrel change. And the 0.50in M2 would have been superior to anything the Germans had. Again taking an example from the Battle of the Bulge, on the opening night, an Intel and Recce platoon held up the advance of an entire battalion with M2's and M1917's mounted on jeeps.

If MG42 were actually issued to American and British units as they fought in Europe, they would not have treated it with as much respect. I can almost imagine the GI or the Brit Tommy cursing and swearing at the weight and dangling ammo belts as they tried to fight their way through bocage country or Dutch towns, against skillfully sited German defensive positions. For poor bloody infantry combat, I would say the British Bren would have been more balanced weapon and more versatile. The BAR will be come in further behind because of its 20-round magazines and light barrel, but still better than the MG42.

In terms of SMG's, I completely disagree that the MP38 or MP40 were good weapons. The long single-stack magazines led to reliability problems. The best SMG during WW2 were the Finnish Soumi <sic?> and its clone, the Soviet PPsh-41 - utterly reliable with massive firepower from 71-round rums. The Thompson would come in a close second with the heavy punch of its 0.45 rounds. Of course, there is nothing good to be said about the Sten, except that it was there when it was needed.

And let's not forget the MP43 or StG44. No doubt superior weapons to other infantry rifles - including the American M1. But also no doubt not what Germany needed in 1944. There were more than enough of the perfectly serviceable K98 to go around, and there's really no sense in coming up with another weapon system using another ammo type to the already stretched logistics system.

I must admit that German SPG's were good designs, much more balanced in terms of weight and size than their more famous tank counterparts. Indeed, given the defensive needs of Germany in Winter 1944, what they needed more of were SPG's, not tanks. Of course, SPG's would not be as useful on the offensive, but Germany were not fighting many of these battles - except for the BOB. It said much about the German obsession with technology that they continued to try to build tanks that were too large and expensive, when they could very well have made do with superbs SPGs like the Marder and the Hertzer.

I think the Me262, the StG44, the King Tigers, the V2's, etc. all pointed to the same problem the Germans had - an obsession with technology. Instead of producing cheap and cheerful weapons that did their jobs adequately and could be produced in large numbers for hastily trained personnel, they tried to overdo it by producing 'marvels' that were really too expensive and difficult to operate.

There is one German weapon which bucks this trend, and it is no surprise to me that it is the weapon that the Allied fear the most. It is not the mighty V2 or King Tiger. It is the Panzerfaust. Cheap and cheerful one-shot disposable weapons that even a teenage boy without training can use effectively. Now, THAT'S a superior weapon.

[ogukuo72]

You made excellent points yourself. War is a complex phenomenon, which goes beyond technological superiority. As I had written, Bastogne and St Vith were crucial battles as they denied the Germans the use of these crucial road networks. Precisely because German tanks were road-bound, these heroic defense successes became their downfall.

I do not agree that the MG42 was such a good weapon. I say this from experience. Unlike many armchair historians, I was trained as a PBI (Poor Bloody Infantryman), and I had to lug a GPMG around on exercises. I know how heavy and inconvenient these things are.

There was no doubt that the MG42 was a very good defensive machine gun with its high rate of fire and quick change barrel design, but it's too heavy and cumbersome (as well as been two-men operated) for infantry attacks. And in strictly defensive battles, water cooled designs such as the British Maxim gun and the American M1917 would be superior as they can be kept in action longer - with or without rapid barrel change. And the 0.50in M2 would have been superior to anything the Germans had. Again taking an example from the Battle of the Bulge, on the opening night, an Intel and Recce platoon held up the advance of an entire battalion with M2's and M1917's mounted on jeeps.

If MG42 were actually issued to American and British units as they fought in Europe, they would not have treated it with as much respect. I can almost imagine the GI or the Brit Tommy cursing and swearing at the weight and dangling ammo belts as they tried to fight their way through bocage country or Dutch towns, against skillfully sited German defensive positions. For poor bloody infantry combat, I would say the British Bren would have been more balanced weapon and more versatile. The BAR will be come in further behind because of its 20-round magazines and light barrel, but still better than the MG42.

In terms of SMG's, I completely disagree that the MP38 or MP40 were good weapons. The long single-stack magazines led to reliability problems. The best SMG during WW2 were the Finnish Soumi <sic?> and its clone, the Soviet PPsh-41 - utterly reliable with massive firepower from 71-round rums. The Thompson would come in a close second with the heavy punch of its 0.45 rounds. Of course, there is nothing good to be said about the Sten, except that it was there when it was needed.

And let's not forget the MP43 or StG44. No doubt superior weapons to other infantry rifles - including the American M1. But also no doubt not what Germany needed in 1944. There were more than enough of the perfectly serviceable K98 to go around, and there's really no sense in coming up with another weapon system using another ammo type to the already stretched logistics system.

I must admit that German SPG's were good designs, much more balanced in terms of weight and size than their more famous tank counterparts. Indeed, given the defensive needs of Germany in Winter 1944, what they needed more of were SPG's, not tanks. Of course, SPG's would not be as useful on the offensive, but Germany were not fighting many of these battles - except for the BOB. It said much about the German obsession with technology that they continued to try to build tanks that were too large and expensive, when they could very well have made do with superbs SPGs like the Marder and the Hertzer.

I think the Me262, the StG44, the King Tigers, the V2's, etc. all pointed to the same problem the Germans had - an obsession with technology. Instead of producing cheap and cheerful weapons that did their jobs adequately and could be produced in large numbers for hastily trained personnel, they tried to overdo it by producing 'marvels' that were really too expensive and difficult to operate.

There is one German weapon which bucks this trend, and it is no surprise to me that it is the weapon that the Allied fear the most. It is not the mighty V2 or King Tiger. It is the Panzerfaust. Cheap and cheerful one-shot disposable weapons that even a teenage boy without training can use effectively. Now, THAT'S a superior weapon.

[ogukuo72]

You made excellent points yourself. War is a complex phenomenon, which goes beyond technological superiority. As I had written, Bastogne and St Vith were crucial battles as they denied the Germans the use of these crucial road networks. Precisely because German tanks were road-bound, these heroic defense successes became their downfall.

I do not agree that the MG42 was such a good weapon. I say this from experience. Unlike many armchair historians, I was trained as a PBI (Poor Bloody Infantryman), and I had to lug a GPMG around on exercises. I know how heavy and inconvenient these things are.

There was no doubt that the MG42 was a very good defensive machine gun with its high rate of fire and quick change barrel design, but it's too heavy and cumbersome (as well as been two-men operated) for infantry attacks. And in strictly defensive battles, water cooled designs such as the British Maxim gun and the American M1917 would be superior as they can be kept in action longer - with or without rapid barrel change. And the 0.50in M2 would have been superior to anything the Germans had. Again taking an example from the Battle of the Bulge, on the opening night, an Intel and Recce platoon held up the advance of an entire battalion with M2's and M1917's mounted on jeeps.

If MG42 were actually issued to American and British units as they fought in Europe, they would not have treated it with as much respect. I can almost imagine the GI or the Brit Tommy cursing and swearing at the weight and dangling ammo belts as they tried to fight their way through bocage country or Dutch towns, against skillfully sited German defensive positions. For poor bloody infantry combat, I would say the British Bren would have been more balanced weapon and more versatile. The BAR will be come in further behind because of its 20-round magazines and light barrel, but still better than the MG42.

In terms of SMG's, I completely disagree that the MP38 or MP40 were good weapons. The long single-stack magazines led to reliability problems. The best SMG during WW2 were the Finnish Soumi <sic?> and its clone, the Soviet PPsh-41 - utterly reliable with massive firepower from 71-round rums. The Thompson would come in a close second with the heavy punch of its 0.45 rounds. Of course, there is nothing good to be said about the Sten, except that it was there when it was needed.

And let's not forget the MP43 or StG44. No doubt superior weapons to other infantry rifles - including the American M1. But also no doubt not what Germany needed in 1944. There were more than enough of the perfectly serviceable K98 to go around, and there's really no sense in coming up with another weapon system using another ammo type to the already stretched logistics system.

I must admit that German SPG's were good designs, much more balanced in terms of weight and size than their more famous tank counterparts. Indeed, given the defensive needs of Germany in Winter 1944, what they needed more of were SPG's, not tanks. Of course, SPG's would not be as useful on the offensive, but Germany were not fighting many of these battles - except for the BOB. It said much about the German obsession with technology that they continued to try to build tanks that were too large and expensive, when they could very well have made do with superbs SPGs like the Marder and the Hertzer.

I think the Me262, the StG44, the King Tigers, the V2's, etc. all pointed to the same problem the Germans had - an obsession with technology. Instead of producing cheap and cheerful weapons that did their jobs adequately and could be produced in large numbers for hastily trained personnel, they tried to overdo it by producing 'marvels' that were really too expensive and difficult to operate.

There is one German weapon which bucks this trend, and it is no surprise to me that it is the weapon that the Allied fear the most. It is not the mighty V2 or King Tiger. It is the Panzerfaust. Cheap and cheerful one-shot disposable weapons that even a teenage boy without training can use effectively. Now, THAT'S a superior weapon.

[Mark Sman]

One american weapon deployment often overlooked is the POZIT or VT artillery fuse. POZIT saw its first large scale deployment in the Ardennes campaign

This was the first time that large artillery formations had a good supply of artillery rounds that would explode in the air and were easy to use. They were fused to go off before impact, thus making top cover very important. Previous efforts at this type of fuse had not meet with near this success.

US forces were also able to coordinate artillery very well in Time on Target barrages. Artillery fire control was accurate and the units were very mobile.

Self propelled artilley (different than an SPG really) were an excellent way to go. And one that the US did not use to its fullest advantage, although they realized the value after the war. Even towed artillery had addequate supply of 2 1/2 ton and 5 ton trucks to haul them and the ammo around.

German soldiers that had seen the results of US and USSR artillery called the US artillery less numerous and far more lethal.

Rifles

The German STG-44 was probably the best all around rifle of the war. However I shudder to think what the German army could have done if they had STARTED the war with a rifle like the Garand in place of the K98. The K98 is a great rifle, but the Garand is more accurate (yes you read that right) is semi-auto and holds more rounds. If German first line units that started the war very well trained had been issued this, well it would have been very nasty.

Sidebar: Garand accuuracy. The Garand is an extremely accurate design. Shooters in John. C Garand matches can testify just how much. The sight group is basically the same type of sight used from then until the M-16 series went flat-top. The rear sight is click adjustable for windage and elevation very quickly in two stages. One where you set "mechanical zero" and lock it in, and the second where you adjust for shot condition.

The Garand rear sight is peep as opposed to a v for the K98. The peep is easier to teach and more accurate. Also the distance from the front to the rear sight is significantly longer on the Garand than the 98K. Longer sight spacing equals greater shot accuracy. This is why the UK switched the site design of their Enfield from one model to another.

As far as the round goes they are similar enough to not matter. Both rifles have well deserved reputations for reliability under harsh conditions. If you give me the choice of rifles I'll take the Garand every day.

The Garands big failing is that mounting a scope is a beyotch.

None of this means a darn thing without a good soldier.

[ronin2172]

cool all your points are valid (especially the Panzerfaust one), and i see your point on the MG 42, i never said it was a perfect weapon,there is no 'perfect' weapon.


There was no doubt that the MG42 was a very good defensive machine gun with its high rate of fire and quick change barrel design, but it's too heavy and cumbersome (as well as been two-men operated) for infantry attacks. And in strictly defensive battles, water cooled designs such as the British Maxim* gun and the American M1917 would be superior as they can be kept in action longer - with or without rapid barrel change. And the 0.50in M2 would have been superior to anything the Germans had. Again taking an example from the Battle of the Bulge, on the opening night, an Intel and Recce platoon held up the advance of an entire battalion with M2's and M1917's mounted on jeeps.

* I'm sure u meant vickers

here's the rub, u slam the MG 42 for being too heavy and crew intensive yet these weapons u mention had to be carried on vehicles or by a crew of three ( one for the gun, one for the tripod, one for the water can, not to mention ammo.)

The US basically had two types of automatic weapons issued to squads (the BAR and the .30 browning) whereas the germans had one type the MG42 and it's cheaper, but still effective cousin the MG 34. The allies dreaded going up against these guns because they were ferocious. Add to this that the germans had a higher concentration of MGs per squad and you see the germans had a bit of an edge in the firepower stakes (at the squad level anyway). At one point in time the US gave serious consideration to copying them (in fact if i remember correctly the M60 is based on the MG 42). The BAR was no lightweight weapon itself and the bipod made it cumbersome (there are plenty pics of GIs and marines with the bipod removed) add to this that it had 'only' a 20 round magazine.

Now look at the MG 42/34. heavy yes, but belt fed, possessing an awesome rate of fire, capable of being operated by one man(i know in practice it wasn't but it didn't need a tripod so it is capable of one man operation), and can be employed in the sustained fire role. Now the browning .30 cal was a good design, but most versions required two men (one to carry a tripod) and it had the same limitations u said the MG 42 had.

And to be honest all ww2 machine guns had two man crews I have seen plenty of pics of brens with a two man team (one to fire the weapon the other to change mags) If i had the choice between having a BAR in my squad or a MG 42...well the BAR would lose.

The Bren was a better weapon more suited to an infantry squad (which is why i said the US shoulda adopted the Bren) but in terms of firepower there is no comparison to the MG 42. I remember the british army saying the LSW had replaced the ol heavy GPMG (FN MAG), but when they went to war (gulf wars 1 and 2) they reappeared in the hands of the infantry. U think the US Marines in Fallujah mind having a M240 (FN MAG) backing them up?

All infantry men curse at what they have to carry, they have been doing it since there have been infantry men, it's their lot in life (the lighter they make the weapon the more ammo they make u carry). I'm sure the hoplites would have liked lighter armor and those spears musta been a bitch to carry but ask the persians what they thought after Thermopolae after facing the phalanx. I think if u had to lug a weapon around a battlefield IMO u would want one that the enemy absolutely feared.

As to your whole SMG point I can't really say. Everyone i have read from said the MP 38/40 was an excellent weapon. If u say that it was unreliable, i won't argue, although the Whermacht seemed to be happy with them. But none of us has fired any of the types mentioned in combat so who is to really know?

[jassemon]

The best SMG during WW2 were the Finnish Soumi <sic?> and its clone, the Soviet PPsh-41

The correct spelling is Suomi. Great thread guys, I almost feel bad about not posting something more relevant.

[ronin2172]

Mark Saman great info on the Garand, i never knew that (and they say the 'net is only good for ****!) and jassemon don't worry spelling counts so your post is useful!lol ;) and u r right this thread isn't too bad! Thanks for the good topic Ogukuo 72! I look forward to your reply!

[German_American]

How was the FG42 in combate. I know only paratroopers carried them and the big rounds made them almost impossible to fire in full auto but I never heard how combate effective the rifle was.

[Mark Sman]

I don't know about the FG-42, seems like a good idea.

Fallschirmjägergewehr 42
Fallschirjägergewehr 42 Technical Information

Caliber: 7.92mm (0.312 inch)
Length overall: 940mm (37 inch)
Length of barrel: 502mm (19.76 inch)
Weight: 4.53kg (9.99lb)
Muzzle velocity: 761m (2,500ft) per second
Magazine capacity: 20 rounds
Maximum effective (combat) range: 800m
Rate of fire: 750-800 rpm cyclic

More of a parts and sales site http://www.fg42.net/
A little info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FG-42
Intreresting: "When it was fired in semi-automatic mode, it fired from a traditional closed-bolt position. When fired on full-auto, it fired from an open bolt. All FG-42 rifles were also equipped with high-powered rifle scopes."

U.S. Rifle, Cal. .30, M1
Weight 9.5 lb
Length (over-all) rifle only 43.6 in.
Length of barrel 24 in.
Muzzle velocity 2,800 fps
Type of mechanism Gas-operated, semiautomatic
Loading device 8 round Clip (ejects on last round, bolt locks back, bolt releases and comes foward when a new clip is inserted)
Sight radius 27.9 in. at 100 yd range
Cartridge, ball type Cal. .30, M2

I don't know if these are loaded weights.

Unfortunately I have no experience with the FG-42. I would love to fire one. I'm not saying I'd give Cousin Hulka (the left one) up for the chance, but I would definitely go out of my way to do it. Problem is I believe these are select fire, and I live in the US where this would require extra effort to do. It is however in a nice commonly available caliber.

[Mark Sman]

Heres a decent site with FG-42 info
http://www.cruffler.com/historic-november00.html

[German_American]

cool site thanx

[FallenAngel]

Good points all around.

Especially the part about Infantrymen bitchin' about what they have to carry not matter what it is ;)

Hitler himself was the cause of much of the problems as stated before. As said, many of the superior weapons lost their potential due to Hitler's unwise judgement. Not just weapons, but tactics too. Rommel wanted his divisions (15 I think) released from Calias on D-day the instant the landings began. It was mid afternoon before anyone even dared raise the request to Hitler to postponed his decision for HOURS. Had those divisions been released, it is very possible the Allies would have been driven back into the sea.

Things like the StG44 and Me262 could have been fielded in massive numbers starting in mid 1943. That's nearly TWO YEARS before the end of the war. Germany was on the defensive, but by no means defeated.

The Russians had numerical superiority more so than the other Allies. The numbers for Kursk are as follows:

Russia
Men: ~1.5 Million
Tanks: ~3,750
Artillery: ~20,000
Aircraft: ~2,500

Germany
Men:~850,000 (almost half)
Tanks: ~2600 (a good ~1200 less)
Artillery: I could find numbers, but probably in the 12-15,000 range.
Aircraft: ~1800-1900

Against such odds and with the Russians on the Defensive- meanind the Germans had to go through obstacles and mines first- no wonder the Germans lost. If it had not been for their superior technology, the slaughter would have been greater than it was.

Technology is what kept Germany in the game. That's why they obseessed about it- the same way the US obsesses about it today. It's been proven that a smaller unit equiped and trained to use better technology can easily defeat forces X times their number.

[rob]

cool all your points are valid (especially the Panzerfaust one), and i see your point on the MG 42, i never said it was a perfect weapon,there is no 'perfect' weapon.


There was no doubt that the MG42 was a very good defensive machine gun with its high rate of fire and quick change barrel design, but it's too heavy and cumbersome (as well as been two-men operated) for infantry attacks. And in strictly defensive battles, water cooled designs such as the British Maxim* gun and the American M1917 would be superior as they can be kept in action longer - with or without rapid barrel change. And the 0.50in M2 would have been superior to anything the Germans had. Again taking an example from the Battle of the Bulge, on the opening night, an Intel and Recce platoon held up the advance of an entire battalion with M2's and M1917's mounted on jeeps.

* I'm sure u meant vickers

here's the rub, u slam the MG 42 for being too heavy and crew intensive yet these weapons u mention had to be carried on vehicles or by a crew of three ( one for the gun, one for the tripod, one for the water can, not to mention ammo.)

The US basically had two types of automatic weapons issued to squads (the BAR and the .30 browning) whereas the germans had one type the MG42 and it's cheaper, but still effective cousin the MG 34. The allies dreaded going up against these guns because they were ferocious. Add to this that the germans had a higher concentration of MGs per squad and you see the germans had a bit of an edge in the firepower stakes (at the squad level anyway). At one point in time the US gave serious consideration to copying them (in fact if i remember correctly the M60 is based on the MG 42). The BAR was no lightweight weapon itself and the bipod made it cumbersome (there are plenty pics of GIs and marines with the bipod removed) add to this that it had 'only' a 20 round magazine.

Now look at the MG 42/34. heavy yes, but belt fed, possessing an awesome rate of fire, capable of being operated by one man(i know in practice it wasn't but it didn't need a tripod so it is capable of one man operation), and can be employed in the sustained fire role. Now the browning .30 cal was a good design, but most versions required two men (one to carry a tripod) and it had the same limitations u said the MG 42 had.

And to be honest all ww2 machine guns had two man crews I have seen plenty of pics of brens with a two man team (one to fire the weapon the other to change mags) If i had the choice between having a BAR in my squad or a MG 42...well the BAR would lose.

The Bren was a better weapon more suited to an infantry squad (which is why i said the US shoulda adopted the Bren) but in terms of firepower there is no comparison to the MG 42. I remember the british army saying the LSW had replaced the ol heavy GPMG (FN MAG), but when they went to war (gulf wars 1 and 2) they reappeared in the hands of the infantry. U think the US Marines in Fallujah mind having a M240 (FN MAG) backing them up?

All infantry men curse at what they have to carry, they have been doing it since there have been infantry men, it's their lot in life (the lighter they make the weapon the more ammo they make u carry). I'm sure the hoplites would have liked lighter armor and those spears musta been a bitch to carry but ask the persians what they thought after Thermopolae after facing the phalanx. I think if u had to lug a weapon around a battlefield IMO u would want one that the enemy absolutely feared.

As to your whole SMG point I can't really say. Everyone i have read from said the MP 38/40 was an excellent weapon. If u say that it was unreliable, i won't argue, although the Whermacht seemed to be happy with them. But none of us has fired any of the types mentioned in combat so who is to really know?

first off you have it bacwards the mg42 is the cheaper cousin to the mg34. why would a country switch to a more expensive wepaon in war time?

second, by nearly all critisisims i hear of the mg42 rate of fire was about teh first thing to come up. it is not efective it lead to quick use of all ammo and caused it to over heat fast. honestly for defesive positions the browing water cooled is superious by far.

second you said that if you had to choose between and mg42 or a bar in your squad you dchoose the mg42, yet the mg42 is a two man weapon the bar a one man weaopn. so how about mg42 or bar x2. and you have a much mobil automatic weapon as the weapon does not god if it cant get to the fight fast enough. and if you needed fire power nothing in the german arsenal can beet an m2.

the mg42 was in a way a compromise, instead of having a different weapon to preform every task good the germans wents with one wepaon that can preform all tasks okay. is it better? well it depend on your point of view.

as for the stg44, it was a design ahead of its time but it was not the best for that time. the cartridge was not standard, it was heavier then other rifles and quite francly if people are shooting at me with full power rifles id want to shoot back with full power rifles. the m1 garand was a very good design and a well made quality rifle. the interest of the germans with such technology probly cost them teh war as all this money was wasted on things that appeard only in the closing months of the war in small numbers.

[/b]

[Catch22]

Just a small addition to this topic with regard on MG34/42 and MP38/40. I remember I talked once with some old resistance fighter who fought with germans. His troop was so called "forest one" - they focused on ambushing conwoys, sabotaging trains and so... He mentioned that they sometimes captured a MG42 or 34 but for guerilla warfare it was preety useless since it was too heavy, required a lot of carefull maintenance (esp. MG34) and also its high ROF effected in constant troubles with ammobelts. He was impressed with german quality of these weapons nevertheless. As for their GPMG they relied mostly on pre-war polish made wz.29 (basically licensed version of BAR) and later also on russian Degitariev DP - he considered it a very good weapon for their tasks. As for SMG's he said they used german MP's quite widely and they were good weapons - at least he liked them far better than PPSh or Sten. That's what I remember from our conversation - it was a few years ago, but I hope I haven't mixed any details.

just my 0,02 ;)

[Mark Sman]

The STEN was a good design.

The early versions were manufactured like words you don't use in front of the family. I magine alot of welded STEN Mk Is would be destroyed in a drop. Then there was the lovely habit of going off full auto if they fell just right.

Supposedly Mk II cured many of these ills, but by then they had a rep,, just like the M-16.

My favorite cheapy is the M-3 "Grease Gun"

Little know fact , M-3s could be used in .45 or 9 mm. Had to change barrels (Screw out, screw in) and the bolt. Don't believe this was used much, but the M-3 managed to stay in inventory until the 70s.

[ogukuo72]

* I'm sure u meant vickers

here's the rub, u slam the MG 42 for being too heavy and crew intensive yet these weapons u mention had to be carried on vehicles or by a crew of three ( one for the gun, one for the tripod, one for the water can, not to mention ammo.)

The US basically had two types of automatic weapons issued to squads (the BAR and the .30 browning) whereas the germans had one type the MG42 and it's cheaper, but still effective cousin the MG 34. The allies dreaded going up against these guns because they were ferocious. Add to this that the germans had a higher concentration of MGs per squad and you see the germans had a bit of an edge in the firepower stakes (at the squad level anyway). At one point in time the US gave serious consideration to copying them (in fact if i remember correctly the M60 is based on the MG 42). The BAR was no lightweight weapon itself and the bipod made it cumbersome (there are plenty pics of GIs and marines with the bipod removed) add to this that it had 'only' a 20 round magazine.

Now look at the MG 42/34. heavy yes, but belt fed, possessing an awesome rate of fire, capable of being operated by one man(i know in practice it wasn't but it didn't need a tripod so it is capable of one man operation), and can be employed in the sustained fire role. Now the browning .30 cal was a good design, but most versions required two men (one to carry a tripod) and it had the same limitations u said the MG 42 had.

And to be honest all ww2 machine guns had two man crews I have seen plenty of pics of brens with a two man team (one to fire the weapon the other to change mags) If i had the choice between having a BAR in my squad or a MG 42...well the BAR would lose.

The Bren was a better weapon more suited to an infantry squad (which is why i said the US shoulda adopted the Bren) but in terms of firepower there is no comparison to the MG 42. I remember the british army saying the LSW had replaced the ol heavy GPMG (FN MAG), but when they went to war (gulf wars 1 and 2) they reappeared in the hands of the infantry. U think the US Marines in Fallujah mind having a M240 (FN MAG) backing them up?

All infantry men curse at what they have to carry, they have been doing it since there have been infantry men, it's their lot in life (the lighter they make the weapon the more ammo they make u carry). I'm sure the hoplites would have liked lighter armor and those spears musta been a bitch to carry but ask the persians what they thought after Thermopolae after facing the phalanx. I think if u had to lug a weapon around a battlefield IMO u would want one that the enemy absolutely feared.


You are right. It's a Vickers, not a Maxim.

I think we can both agree that the MG42 is a formidable machine-gun on the defense, and that for infantrymen on the attack, something like the Bren was better. In fact, I think the American system was superior - rather than have a compromise gun that was heavy and crew-served, they have a BAR for the average infantry squad on the attack. These squads are in turn supported by a bi-pod and air-cooled mounted M1917 sited to pour suppressive fire on enemy positions. Together with the fact that each infantryman carried an M1, this meant that the American infantrymen had a lot of fire-power on the attack.

Much has been written about how the German infantry had more firepower because they had more MG's issued to the platoon. This is great on the defensive, but would actually mean less firepower on the attack.

First, no infantryman I know of can fire a GPMG from the hip with any accuracy, and certainly not on the move. An American infantryman can fire his BAR not just from his hip, but from his shoulder.

Second, a MG42 would be very cumbersome to deploy in fire and movement. The infantryman with a BAR or Bren can hit the ground and immediately fire a few burst to support his colleagues, then get up and move on. The heavier and more cumbersome, the longer this will take, especially if the weapon is crew served.

This meant that a German section armed with MG42's and K98's on the assault would not put as many rounds and move at the same speed as an American infantry squad armed with M1's and BARs.

This is OK in 1944/5 as the German's need was defensive. But the American Infantrymen were not too badly equipped either for their own needs - which was offensive. And as we've seen at BOB, even on the defensive, the American infantrymen armed with weapons such as the M1, BAR's, and M1917's could throw up a lot of fire, chewing up German infantry assaults. I believe those poor German infantrymen assaulting American infantry positions simply could not throw up enough offensive fire to suppress American defensive fire.

I think that it is simply not true that the US infantrymen were somehow equipped with inferior weapons when compared to the Germans.

I have said before that the Germans had an obsession with technology. Instead of coming up with a perfectly serviceable weapon, they go to the extreme to find the 'perfect' weapon. The MG42 was theorectically the 'perfect' weapon that can both be used as an LMG like the BAR on the assault or a HMG like the Vickers on the defensive. In reality, it is more suited for the latter role, and not as good as the BAR or Bren in the former role.

[Mark Sman]

The evolutiuon of the US M1917 and M1919 MG saw many iterations.

The most widely fielded during WWII was the M1919A4. 438,971 were produced.

http://www.thejucketts.com/ww2website/machine_gun.jpg
Air cooled obviously
Weight 41 Pounds With Tripod
Length 41 Inches

My favorite version is the M1919A6 though. Only 43,500 produced during WWII though.
http://www.korteng.com/KWjpg/m1919a6l.jpg
Weight 32.5lbs with bipod
Overall length 53 in

However I have to say that if someone was ordering me to carry the M1917A1 they better be meaner than me.
http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/images/30mghv2.jpg
93 lbs, approx, with tripod and water
Get a load of the size of that beast.
One reference says that this weapon was liked in defensive positions during the Korean War though.

I think I would take a MG-42 over all of these though. Just need to train well.

[ronin2172]

First, no infantryman I know of can fire a GPMG from the hip with any accuracy, and certainly not on the move. An American infantryman can fire his BAR not just from his hip, but from his shoulder.

Ok, but IMO this is not a big advantage since a whole squad running towards a prepared defensive position borders on suicide. I'd rather have a MG42 laying down suppressive fire at a rate of 1200 rpm forcing the enemy to keep his head down, which would allow my infantry squad to move in and take the position. What good is a BAR man running and firing from the hip? He would make himself a big fat target, and he couldn't lay down supressive fire while he is running. That tactic is from hollywood.

I think we can both agree that the MG42 is a formidable machine-gun on the defense, and that for infantrymen on the attack, something like the Bren was better. In fact, I think the American system was superior - rather than have a compromise gun that was heavy and crew-served, they have a BAR for the average infantry squad on the attack. These squads are in turn supported by a bi-pod and air-cooled mounted M1917 sited to pour suppressive fire on enemy positions. Together with the fact that each infantryman carried an M1, this meant that the American infantrymen had a lot of fire-power on the attack.

but a German infantry squad didn't have to wait for a heavy weapons squad to provide supressive fire. They already had a weapon to do that at the basic squad level.

Second, a MG42 would be very cumbersome to deploy in fire and movement. The infantryman with a BAR or Bren can hit the ground and immediately fire a few burst to support his colleagues, then get up and move on. The heavier and more cumbersome, the longer this will take, especially if the weapon is crew served.

And at 40 pounds fully loaded with ammo the BAR wasn't cumbersome? No GI carrying that would have been able to move too quickly. Besides a single BAR couldn't dominate an area like a MG 42 can. The MG 42 may have been crew served, but it didn't require a tripod and when equipped with a drum or saddle magazine it could be used in the assault role, and operated by one man.


This meant that a German section armed with MG42's and K98's on the assault would not put as many rounds and move at the same speed as an American infantry squad armed with M1's and BARs.

Hmm precisely WHY the germans began to use the Stg44. They realised a rifle firing a full powered round was a waste. What was needed was a rifle that could fire on full auto with an intermediate round. Hence the popularity of that rifle.

I believe those poor German infantrymen assaulting American infantry positions simply could not throw up enough offensive fire to suppress American defensive fire.

This makes no sense when u consider that a MG 42 has a rate of fire of 1200 rpm and vs the BAR which has a rate of 550 rpm. This means that (theoretically and all of our arguments r theory)2 BAR's cannot equal the firepower of one MG 42, add to that that the germans liberally deployed MG's and i think the Germans could lay down a fearsome amount of fire. Supressive fire can be utilised on both the offense and the defense, correct? Let's not forget the Nebelwerfer which was another ferocious weapon the germans employed. In the BOB the Germans were pressed for time, they had to get as much done as possible before the weather cleared. And taking a well defended position, maned by well trained and motivated troops no matter what u r equipped with is not gonna be easy.The allies have always comented on the fact the germans were able to lay down huge volumes of fire.

The MG42 was theorectically the 'perfect' weapon that can both be used as an LMG like the BAR on the assault or a HMG like the Vickers on the defensive. In reality, it is more suited for the latter role, and not as good as the BAR or Bren in the former role.

If that is the case y did the worlds armies then design and field various types of GPMG's if they already had the right weapons? Ask the US Marines in Fallijah if they would want to assault the city without the M240?

My point is no MG had the flexibility of the MG 42, sure u can say that the water cooled vickers and browning were better in defense, but they were not easily emplyed on offense. Sure u can say that the Bren and BAR were better on offense but they were not as good for defence. That flexibility combined with it's firepower made the MG 42 the best MG of the war. Nice pics Mark Sman

[Mark Sman]

Well, the ideas of move and fire, while they existed in Allied and Axis armies, varied widely in practice.

A soldier with a full loadout for the BAR, can move on the attack. Also, he will not fire from the hip. He will move to a position and then provide cover. Sometimes with the bipod deployed, sometimes not. What may be generally forgotten about the BAR is how accurate the action is in single fir e mode. Browning firearms company continues to manufature the Browning Automatic Rifle for civillian use in the US. Albeit in greatly modified form, but the action is accurate and sound.

A BAR user could fire on the move. Also fireing on the move is not as ineffective as you might think. Especially when combined with the overall squad plan.

What that means is that while a unit moving foward under fire may be popping rounds, their fire is not expected to be effective. It is intended to be suppressive. The cover unit's fire is intended to be effective.

Another part of the US squad concept was the fact that the assaulting group would have some mix of the M1 Garand, M1 Carbine and Thompsons or M3s. A cursory survey of the available US weapons will reveal that obviously hurling lead had been an important idea to this military even before the war.

All of these weapons can be fired on the move, Of particular note is the Garands last round clip eject. When on the attack, if you empty your weapon it is ready to reload immediately. When you press the clip down, the bolt comes home (Garand Thumb). The value of this cannot be underestimated. It isn't foolproof, because Lord knows nothing can keep up with the technical advancement in fools, but it is effective.

For a more complete analysis of the evolution of the US squad concept it might be useful to look to the Asian theater of conflict in WWII.

The Marines modifed the basic structure of their squad/platoon/company structure a few times. As did the Germans. You can see in these modifications the later formalisation of the fire team as a maneuver unit.

The number of BAR men increased, and the number of riflemen decreased. Heavy MG elements were moved to the company level, but were tasked to whatever unit needed them.

Again, I say this when I have stated that I believe the Stg44 the best rifle deployed for WWII, and the MG42 the best MG. (Garand is second best rifle for war in WWII)

I think the M1919A6 is not that far behind the MG42, However as posted above the issued numbers were not impressive for a military the size of the US.

Now my favorite rifle from WWII? The Lee-Enfield No.1 MkIII. Thats not about best, its about favorite. p-)

Yeah I know No1. is a WWI gun, but it was widely issued and deployed in every theater.

Good thread though guys.

I must say that the most effective weapon in that, and most wars that followed is the radio.

[ronin2172]

first off you have it bacwards the mg42 is the cheaper cousin to the mg34. why would a country switch to a more expensive wepaon in war time?

Quite right i stand corrected rob!

the interest of the germans with such technology probly cost them teh war as all this money was wasted on things that appeard only in the closing months of the war in small numbers.

I can't agree with u there rob. The war was already lost by then and production numbers show that these new weapons (v1, v2 not included) did not signifigantly imapct the German war effort. What defeated the germans was the strain of fighting on two fronts against two enemies with vast resources. And this bad situation was the direct result of Hitler's bad decision making (bless his heart!lol). He should have given Rommel more troops and tanks instead of Invading russia when he did, and what was he thinking DECLARING war on the US after Pearl Harbor? Other than Moral and economic help for England the US had no intention of fighting Germany until Hitler declared war on the US

Now my favorite rifle from WWII? The Lee-Enfield No.1 MkIII. Thats not about best, its about favorite.

Nothing is wrong with the Enfield no.1, it served his majesty's armed forces well enough!

I agree with u on the MG 42 (obviously) but i lean towards the Garand being the best rifle. I rate the Garand higher mainly from the numerical standpoint (it was the standard for the US military while the Stg was not).

Just because i believe the germans (overall) had the qualitative edge in weapons doesn't mean the allies had garbage. Everybody has shown examples of excellent weapons produced by all the combatants, except for perhaps the Japanese who had some of the worst weapons i saw (except for their LMG that wasn't too bad).

It would have been interesting to see if the US had adopted the Bren to replace the BAR. I think the Bren and the Garand would have complimented each other nicely.

I must say that the most effective weapon in that, and most wars that followed is the radio.

That and a good logistical system!

again good discussion everyone!

[Mark_Aspen]

Both the MG 34/42 and .30 caliber also require ammo on the move. I was a MAGist (The FN MAG) in the IDF and it is a great weapon for cover and suppression, but weight and ready ammo are primary concerns. Spare barrel nearby was a rarity. The balance is having enough ammo to serve the unit, and not too much so that you're worthless because you're bringing up the rear. Of course I had nothing but sympathy for the poor shmucks carrying the 81mm and M2 .50 cal.

I have to wonder if the BAR wasn't a better weapon in the PTO, and I know the marines swore by it in Korea.

Since this is a German v. American or allies thread, I'll get back to it. How much of US production was determined by the need to ship it overseas? Producing a Panther or Tiger means that many fewer tanks per shipload. I also think the unmentioned weapons here are the ones' Ike directly and indirectly credited: US mobility. The absolute reliance and matching infrastructure from C-47s to Deuce-and-a-halfs.

[martinexsquaddie]

In any prepared post.
the vickers beats any other MG including the M2
range with map predicited fire out to 4 miles ability to fire constantly for over 24 hours constantly if you've got the ammo it will just keep shooting
thats the benefit of water cooling no need to change barrels.
its more relilable than an FN mag.
Map predicted fire you use a MG like a mortar and fire rounds into a beaten zone will really piss off the enemy especially if they thought they were safe in dead ground.

[Mark Sman]

Especially as units on the move seldom worry about top cover.

But I'll take ma deuce if anyone is handing out MGs. Preferably in a dual setup.

It may not be the best, but it sure does pack a wallop.

[Mark Sman]

If you are a real vicous evil bastard and have time to prepare ground, you can even modify the terrain in your area so that you do have an arc into depressions and what not.

One well placed hole high up in a wall can turn a room that looks like cover into a bullet bonanza when they start falling in and bouncing around.

[The Clip]

:bash: Russian "Katysha" was the best field artillery weapon. When the Nazis heard the sound tey too cover immediatly. Mostly was too late. :-*$ . For Germans it was not possibl to win. Russia had 40% of it's entire force fighting the Germans and we still won. The Other 60% was in the dalnoi vostock, far east. Waiting for japanese to attack. First assault rifle was Russian, 1914 few secret rifles delivers to frontline for field test. AVS-36 was assault rifle before German MP-44.

[Mark Sman]

And the Nebelwerfer was feared as well.

However, Soviet artillerly lacked adequate fire control and communications. They did very well in pre-planned bombardments, but less so in fluid situations.

[Haiw]

:bash: Russian "Katysha" was the best field artillery weapon. When the Nazis heard the sound tey too cover immediatly. Mostly was too late. :-*$ . For Germans it was not possibl to win. Russia had 40% of it's entire force fighting the Germans and we still won. The Other 60% was in the dalnoi vostock, far east. Waiting for japanese to attack. First assault rifle was Russian, 1914 few secret rifles delivers to frontline for field test. AVS-36 was assault rifle before German MP-44.
I wouldn't be so sure about the impossibility of German succes; if it wasn't for Hitlers intervention they actually had quite a good chance at success.
And for the AR discussion I'll just refer you to REMOV. :P
And like Mark Sman said; the Nebelwerfer wasn't exactely a favorite of the allies either.

[ogukuo72]

Yep. Artillery is widely thought of as the one area where the Allies had an undisputed advantage over the Germans. The Americans had their 105mm, 155mm and 8in guns. The Brits had their 25 pounders. With POZIT or VT fuses, Western Allied artillery were formidable indeed. The Katysha and Nebelwerfer were formidable as well, but only as area weapons. Both lack the accuracy of tubes, and both could not have provided prolonged artillery support.

Another area where the Allies had a technological edge was the war at sea. The Battle of the Atlantic was won by good equipment (anti-submarine escorts, D/F equipment, Hedge Hogs, and air dropped acoustic torpedoes) and good anti-submarine tactics that German U-boat crews could not overcome in their obsolescent boats. Modifications such as snorkels, anti-escort acoustic torpedoes, etc. were not enough to turn the tide. Only the new generation submarines (Type XXIII?) that came in 1945 could conceivably have given the brave U-boat crews a chance, but as with many of the weapon systems discussed here, they came too little too late.

Yet another crucial area where the Allies had a technological advantage was in logistics. It is unglamourous, which is perhaps why no one ever talks about them, but the Allied armies had a decisive advantage over the Germans in terms of the quality and quantity of their trucks. Much of the German army was still using horse-drawn carts as their logistics back-bone. Even the Soviet army had better logistics system because of the large numbers of Dodge trucks provided by Lend Lease.

Of course, there is one ultimate weapon that is of such undisputed superiority that the German had nothing in their arsenal to counter it. Not even the V2, the Me 262 or the Arado bombers could counter it.

It's the atom bomb.

[foxtrot023]

Well in artillery the germans did have the excellent dual use 88mm. I know is not a proper artillery piece, but even then....

Regards

[FallenAngel]

Of course, there is one ultimate weapon that is of such undisputed superiority that the German had nothing in their arsenal to counter it. Not even the V2, the Me 262 or the Arado bombers could counter it.

It's the atom bomb.

Actually, you'd be surprised how close the Germans were. You forget that some of the key figures in the manhatten proj. were german (Einstien anyone?)

At the end of the war, the Germans send uranium and the basic plans for an atom bomb bu sub to Japan. Thankfully the sub never arrived and was never heard from again, but it's likely that, had the war gone on another year or so, Germany too, would have been a nuclear power. The bomb might have been smaller and/or less efficient, but they would have one.

And they weren't going to waste their time putting it on a V2. The Horton brothers had a plan in the final stages of planning called the "Amerika Bomber" which would have been able to deliever that atomic bomb not on Washington....but on New York.

Scary isn't it?

[martinexsquaddie]

the british did have the 3.5 inch aa gun very similar in performance to the 88mm but was never used against tanks now if that had been mounted on cromwells or even the matilda chassis.
things might have been very diffrent ;)

[oldsoak]

didnt the Germans capture some at Dunkirk and actually went so far as to manufacture ammunition for it ?
Use a powerful AA gun as an anti tank gun just like the Jerries ? Look here, no-one but no-one is going to accuse us British of ripping off a good idea from the opposition... ;)

[foxtrot023]

The one thing germans were very good at was at the tactical level leadership, which allowed them to fight on, even when armed with crappy (K98) and good weapons.

[seventy6er]

First, no infantryman I know of can fire a GPMG from the hip with any accuracy, and certainly not on the move. An American infantryman can fire his BAR not just from his hip, but from his shoulder.


That's not right. Even I (although I'm only 5"8 and 174 lbs) can shoot an MG3 from the hip and while on the move. Can you imagine what a big dude can do with an MG42/MG3? I have homevideos, where you can see a guy from my company (6"4 at 295 lbs) do some nice accurate bursts while on the move and while firing from the hip. Not as accurate as in ****e position but accurate enough to suppress enemy fire while attacking.

[seventy6er]

Here's a little video of my buddy conducting some "on-the-move-firing" with the MG3

click here for VIDEO (http://www.seventy6er.de/bilder/ebay/MG3_milphotos_01.mpg)

FIXED LInk

[Haiw]

Video ain't working. :( 404 :(

[bloddyaxe]

The Type XXI submarine, was actually almost invincible at the time. Very few warships were as fast.
One of them was on sea the day the germans surrendered, and met with a british carrier group. It played a little with the group and was easily in position to sink the carrier, while its escorts couldn't even go as fast as the Type XXI. The sub captain eventually didn't fire because the war was over and it would have been an illegal warcrime.

[foxtrot023]

The Panther G, probably the best tank in WW2 (with the T34/85 a close second) even had some form of thermal periscope, according to the magazine WORLD WAR 2. Can anyone confirm that?

Thks

[Mark Sman]

Wouldn't say the type XXI was invincible.
It was untested in combat and never fired a shot.

Cool site http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2003/11/detail_uboot_xxi.htm

A top submerged speed of nearly 18 knots is excellent for the day, but it is not particulary fast for a surface warship of the day

Iowa class BB 33 knots
Gearing class DD 35 knots.
Buckley Class DE 23 knots and so on

If the type XXI's had actually seen service they would have been destroyed at the dock, or when they revealed their position by transmissions.

[ogukuo72]

Of course, there is one ultimate weapon that is of such undisputed superiority that the German had nothing in their arsenal to counter it. Not even the V2, the Me 262 or the Arado bombers could counter it.

It's the atom bomb.

Actually, you'd be surprised how close the Germans were. You forget that some of the key figures in the manhatten proj. were german (Einstien anyone?)

At the end of the war, the Germans send uranium and the basic plans for an atom bomb bu sub to Japan. Thankfully the sub never arrived and was never heard from again, but it's likely that, had the war gone on another year or so, Germany too, would have been a nuclear power. The bomb might have been smaller and/or less efficient, but they would have one.

And they weren't going to waste their time putting it on a V2. The Horton brothers had a plan in the final stages of planning called the "Amerika Bomber" which would have been able to deliever that atomic bomb not on Washington....but on New York.

Scary isn't it?

And most of these Germans were Jews thrown out of Germany. This is one great argument for multi-racialism.

I don't believe that the Germans were anywhere near having an atomic weapon, but those who know more about the history of the German atomic programme would probably be in a better position to say this.

seventy6er wrote:

That's not right. Even I (although I'm only 5"8 and 174 lbs) can shoot an MG3 from the hip and while on the move. Can you imagine what a big dude can do with an MG42/MG3? I have homevideos, where you can see a guy from my company (6"4 at 295 lbs) do some nice accurate bursts while on the move and while firing from the hip. Not as accurate as in ****e position but accurate enough to suppress enemy fire while attacking.

seventy6er,

I stand corrected ... I now know of ONE soldier who could fire a GPMG from the hip while on the move! But why isn't it done more often, both during WWII and nowadays, I wonder?

By the way, I still believed that an American squad was better equipped for an offensive war than a German squad, and that the BAR and M1 combo is a superior arrangement in portable firepower.

[Shadow]

And most of these Germans were Jews thrown out of Germany.

Mhh i know only one.
@Nuke
Sure they knew how to build one but it was hard to get pure U-235.

[seventy6er]

seventy6er wrote:

That's not right. Even I (although I'm only 5"8 and 174 lbs) can shoot an MG3 from the hip and while on the move. Can you imagine what a big dude can do with an MG42/MG3? I have homevideos, where you can see a guy from my company (6"4 at 295 lbs) do some nice accurate bursts while on the move and while firing from the hip. Not as accurate as in ****e position but accurate enough to suppress enemy fire while attacking.

seventy6er,

I stand corrected ... I now know of ONE soldier who could fire a GPMG from the hip while on the move! But why isn't it done more often, both during WWII and nowadays, I wonder?


When we we're on the range on that particular day, EVERY dude of the platoon did some on-the-move-firing with the MG3, although I must admit that one really smallguy didn't manage to fire the MG3 from either the hip or on-the-move. But: SIZE matters. The bigger the guy, the better the results.


MG3 VIDEO (http://www.seventy6er.de/bilder/ebay/MG3_milphotos_01.mpg)


MG3 VIDEO (http://www.seventy6er.de/bilder/ebay/MG3_milphotos_02.mpg)

[army cadet_ngcsu]

Woulda shoulda coulda...didn't! What's done is done, I think the Germans would have lost no matter what. What ever they developed we would have countered. Not to mention the N-Bomb.

[Kitsune]

After such a somewhat bragging remark it is perhaps time to mention the fact, that it whas the Soviet Union who did most of the fighting. America joint in the real hard part of fighting in Europe only after two and a half year stockpiling troops and equipment, even then 70% of the German troops fought in the east.

[foxtrot023]

After such a somewhat bragging remark it is perhaps time to mention the fact, that it whas the Soviet Union who did most of the fighting. America joint in the real hard part of fighting in Europe only after two and a half year stockpiling troops and equipment, even then 70% of the German troops fought in the east.

Correct in several points.

Let me go throught several things-

1. US aid to Rusia. At least 50% of all motorized vehicles in the Red Army were from US origin.
2. The Second Front. Until the opening of the second front, the german heer kept 70% of all troops in Russia. However from 1944 onwards, some troops were shifted to the Western Front in preparation for an invasion. By the time of the normandy landings, 60% of the Heer was in Russia and 40% in Western Europe.
3. About the fighting. If you compare in terms of casualties Stalingrad to the surrendering of afrika Corps, you come away with similar numbers.
4. The Air campaign caused the Luftwaffe to pull most of its planes to defend germany.

Etc, etc.

BTW, Russia did defeat the majority of german ground troops, and they also hold on in 1941 without allied help. But it was the Allies (all including Russia) that defeated Germany. They all contributed.

Regards

[Kitsune]

But it was the Allies (all including Russia) that defeated Germany.

That was exactly what I wanted to point out.

[FLaKKeY]

the winter in russia was pretty bad for german armour "panzers" because they ran on petrol and not diesel like the russians.. the russian diesel engines wouldnt get frozen up in the cold where as the germans engines would...

[Mark Sman]

Huh, I had always thought the german tanks were diesel. This site seems to indicate you are right

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/ussr/engines.html

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/germany/engines.html

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/usa/engines.html

[ogukuo72]

After such a somewhat bragging remark it is perhaps time to mention the fact, that it whas the Soviet Union who did most of the fighting. America joint in the real hard part of fighting in Europe only after two and a half year stockpiling troops and equipment, even then 70% of the German troops fought in the east.

Very good point - which leads to another point I should have made right from the beginning.

You can't separate the men from the machines. Training and combat experience count for a lot. The Western Allies probably had a hard time in Normandy because they had a lot of green tank crews and infantrymen, whereas they face a few veteran German units that had fought on the Eastern Front.

A good example is Michael Wittman and his crew, which already had much combat experience in Russia before meeting the unfortunate British tanks in Normandy. To make matters worse, Wittman was in a Tiger in a good defensive position in Bocage country, while the Brits were attacking in Cromwell tanks, muddling forward without recce. On top of that, despite the fact that the 7th Armoured was a veteran unit, a lot of the Brit crews were green.

This probably explained the results: poor tactics + lack of experience + poor recce + difficult offensive terrain probably led to the disaster that followed.

How much of it is the machine, and how much of it is the men?

[foxtrot023]

After such a somewhat bragging remark it is perhaps time to mention the fact, that it whas the Soviet Union who did most of the fighting. America joint in the real hard part of fighting in Europe only after two and a half year stockpiling troops and equipment, even then 70% of the German troops fought in the east.

Very good point - which leads to another point I should have made right from the beginning.

You can't separate the men from the machines. Training and combat experience count for a lot. The Western Allies probably had a hard time in Normandy because they had a lot of green tank crews and infantrymen, whereas they face a few veteran German units that had fought on the Eastern Front.

A good example is Michael Wittman and his crew, which already had much combat experience in Russia before meeting the unfortunate British tanks in Normandy. To make matters worse, Wittman was in a Tiger in a good defensive position in Bocage country, while the Brits were attacking in Cromwell tanks, muddling forward without recce. On top of that, despite the fact that the 7th Armoured was a veteran unit, a lot of the Brit crews were green.

This probably explained the results: poor tactics + lack of experience + poor recce + difficult offensive terrain probably led to the disaster that followed.

How much of it is the machine, and how much of it is the men?

A little of both. While Germany did have some crack units at Normandy, it also had some pretty crappy one (the static defense ones). In regards with tanks, both the Panther and the Tiger were vastly superior to anything the allies had (with the only exception in terms of firepower- the UK firefly). They didn`t call the Sherman the ¨Ronson¨ for naught.

Regards

[wiking]

to point out he Germans could have had a nuke in '43 or '44 IF they had been able to get heavy water. as some of you may know norwegian resistance fighters destroyed both the factory and the stockpile of heavy water in '43 during operation Grouse and Gunnerside. If this had not happened, the germans could easily have nuked England and\or Russia into a radio active wasteland and then threatened The USA into surrendering.

[ronin2172]

After such a somewhat bragging remark it is perhaps time to mention the fact, that it whas the Soviet Union who did most of the fighting. America joint in the real hard part of fighting in Europe only after two and a half year stockpiling troops and equipment, even then 70% of the German troops fought in the east.

Very good point - which leads to another point I should have made right from the beginning.

You can't separate the men from the machines. Training and combat experience count for a lot. The Western Allies probably had a hard time in Normandy because they had a lot of green tank crews and infantrymen, whereas they face a few veteran German units that had fought on the Eastern Front.

A good example is Michael Wittman and his crew, which already had much combat experience in Russia before meeting the unfortunate British tanks in Normandy. To make matters worse, Wittman was in a Tiger in a good defensive position in Bocage country, while the Brits were attacking in Cromwell tanks, muddling forward without recce. On top of that, despite the fact that the 7th Armoured was a veteran unit, a lot of the Brit crews were green.

This probably explained the results: poor tactics + lack of experience + poor recce + difficult offensive terrain probably led to the disaster that followed.

How much of it is the machine, and how much of it is the men?

good point but did u know that the germans had more than their fair share of green soldiers. Several of the key SS panzer units which fought after d-day in france were units that suffered over 70% casualties on the russian front. one unit had less than 10 tanks after the battle of Kursk. Yet these units were back to full strength by the time of D-day. Also one of the main units fighting the battle was only formed a few months before (hitlerjugend) and did their training on the job so to speak. yet these units performed outstandingly against a numerically superior opponent.

[Mark Sman]

German units may have had green recruits, but they were always careful to try to balance this with experienced NCOs.

It is to their credit that even under massive pressure, and with the fronts cracking everywhere, discipline was maintained.

Other armies tried this as well with varying degrees of sucess.

[W(M)D]

Also one of the main units fighting the battle was only formed a few months before (hitlerjugend) and did their training on the job so to speak. yet these units performed outstandingly against a numerically superior opponent.

Hitlerjugend: a result of superb training, superb arming and brainwashing

[mmackem]

First, no infantryman I know of can fire a GPMG from the hip with any accuracy, and certainly not on the move. An American infantryman can fire his BAR not just from his hip, but from his shoulder.

Well it ain't impossible to fire a Jimpy from the hip or shoulder!

http://www.sasrogues.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/QalaiJanghi.rm

[Valuk]

When talking about the Battle of Kursk and especially the battle of Pokhorovka, we must now understand that it is probably just a myth, full of incorrect data and speculations. I am reffering to an article from the WW II 1943 "A year in review"issue, entitled Kursk reconsidered: Germany's Lost Victory?. It is probably accessible on the net, on the history.net www page.
Yes, it was the largest single tank battle in history, but it ended far less catastrophicaly than was previously believed and it had far more seriously endangered the Soviet positions in the Ukraine, whiping out complete Soviet tank corpses. The big success at Kharkow in March '43 is just one evidence that the Kursk battle was not so costly for the Germans as previous books told. While Hauser's II SS Panzer Corps had only 211+ operational tanks (and not 700 as some previously believed) to start the deciding Prokh. battle and had lost just 70+ tanks in the end, Soviet tank armies lost about 600-650 tanks per army! The article is based on Waffen SS formations' records which were not declasified until 1978-1981. By that time, many of the major works on the Eastern Front had already been published and the damage been done.

In the end, probably only Hitler's loss of will to fight in the southern Ukraine in 1943 saved the day for the allies, as only Hitler prevented Mainstein to throw his unused reserves (3 panzer div.) into battle!

How about the crappy books on ww2 and Eastern front we were tought from in school in the former Yugoslavia. ;) They were so full of such high profile socialistic/communistic propaganda that even now my stomach turns when I think of them. It was all about young brave Russian farmers single handedly destroying scores of Tigers, Panthers (were not there at all!!) and Ferdinands... One guy even destroyed 8! panzers before his AT position was run over. :roll:

Not to mention the entirely fictional battleground at Prokhorovka, where T-34s clashed head on with tightly packed SS formations, outmanoeuvred and destroyed hundreds of Tigers and Panthers. Curiously, only 15!! Tigers were available to Hauser's corps on the eve of battle of P. That's 15 out of 211+ tanks...
:cantbeli:

[Valuk]

Furthermore, german efforts to complete the A-bomb were not successfull at all. Their programme was so bad that it can be said that it hadn't started at all. Run by W. Heisenberg, the theory used was completely wrong, let only the materials used. They had no pure Uranium and they wanted to create the chain reaction using Uranium oxide :cantbeli: , having achieved multiplicative factors of about 1,8 in late '43 or 44, I believe. :oops: When things went completely wrong and the German lines crumbled, what was left of the few experimental reactors was thrown into the Rhine (creating a geyser because of the heat created by the UOxide) and burried into a manure hole somewhere in Austria or Bavaria (sorry, forgot)! :P

It is understandable why this happened. After the partly successfull Blitzkrieg campaign in '41 Hitler cancelled all future offensive weapons and almost the same fate struck the A-bomb. It was never considered as a decisive weapon of war very seriously, as the Nazi gang had their hands full with killing Jews and stealling gold&art. Nor was there enough money and political support given by the regime. Heisenberg, afraid for his life in case of not giving any results, lied to Hitler and constantly misinformed his superiors. The only hope laid in an Austrian woman scientist, who was fortunately not listened to by the Nazis.
Germany also had one big drawback, when comparing her industry to the Arsenal of democracy: her big industrials were very very influential and constantly interfering in MOD issues. Many questions remain, why the FW didn't get the liquid cooled engines for it's 190s before 1944, why so many Bf 109 were produced instead of better planes, why good planes such as Hs 129 had such poor engines :| , while Me 110 were getting the cream of the crops... There were clashes between Porsche and Henschel about the new panzer turrets (Tiger II), which delayed the programme start etc. :bash:

[OldRecon]

The ability of German Panther and Tiger tanks to destroy Allied tanks from a safe distance thx to their superior combination of protection and gun power, in my opinion perhaps prolonged the war as it made Allied tankers cautios.
If the Allies (particularly USA and Britain) had been in possesion of tanks with a superior combination of gunpower and protection they would undoubtedly appeared on the battlefield in a more aggressive and ashured manner.
On the other hand the Soviet JS tanks and ISU heavy self propelled assault guns appear to have benefited the Red Army greatly.
On a comparison of statistics, one for one the T-34/85 still didn't compete with the Panther in terms of firepower and protection. Yet it was a wast improvement on the T-34/76, both in firepower and crew layout and, being produced in far greater numbers than the Panthers and Tigers, was more than capable of doing the job.
On some occasions under favourable conditions the T-34/85 could even do astonishing feats on the tactical level, as when the Soviets first encountered the Tiger 2 on the battlefield (3 Tiger 2's knocked out by one T-34/85 who survived the encounter unscated).
Strangely M-4 Shermans equipped with the 76 mm gun seems to have had an advantage over the T-34/84 tank for tank during the Korean war.
As for the performance of the MG-42, it may have been an ammo-waster through its high rate of fire, but the quality of a weapon should not only be considered on the basis of its accuracy and ability to kill but also on its ability to make the enemy keep their heads down.
And in that sense the high rate of fire and increase mobility over water cooled mg's fitted the German infiltration tactics quite well. Being able to distract the opponents with suppressive fire while the rest of the squad or platoon moved to a point vs. the enemy position under attack from which they could kill or trigger the flight response in the enemy soldiers defending the position under attack.
Again can confirm that it isn't all that difficult to fire an MG-42 on the move hipwise (at least it's not that difficult with the MG-3, which is allmost the same gun as the MG-42). Though have also encountered some unreliable examples of MG-3 during my conscript days.
As for the defensive qualities of the MG-42 I'm not so shure.
Perhaps they did the job quite well in combination with mortar fire.
Allied infantry seems to have had a healty respect for German mortarmen and mortar and german mortar fire caused a lot of troubles for the Allies in the Normandy battles (to the extent that the Western Allies speedily developed the first examples mortar locating radar for employment during the clearing of the Rhineland later in 1944).
Strangely in the book on operation Overlord by Max Hastings, the author seems to put the Nebelwerfer in the same category as the german 80 and 120 mm Brant/Stokes type mortars.
As far as the German MP-38/40 family of SMGs, it was a pionering gun in its day, with its no wood furniture and (in particular for the MP-40) its method of construction. Relying to a large extent on stampings, pining and welding rather than machining. During my time in the Norwegian home guard youth those instructors issued with the MP-40 tended to limit numbers of rounds in the magazines to 28 rather than 30 to prevent stoppage. As the MP-40's used by the Home guard had been modified with a weaker main spring in order to fire new ammo of lower power than the original, it was not working as well as the original configuration of the gun. Runaway fire, where the bolt would be pushed far enough backwards to load a new round, but not far enough to reach the trigger catch, being a common problem.
As for the combat merits of the MP-40, the German gun was definitely superior to both the Sten and the Thompson (despite the higher rate of fire of the Thompson). On the other hand the higher rate of fire of the Soviet Ppsh over the MP-40, seems to have given the germans a sort of psychological inferiority complex in close combat situations, similar to the inferiority complex of Allied troops on the receiving end for fire from the german MG-34 and 42's.
As for superior Allied logistics, didn't Himler once try to blackmail the Allies to supply Germany with trucks in return for sparing the lives of Hungarian jews??
As for German jet aircraft, the german jet engine engine programme seems to have suffered from inferior metalurgy compared to the similar programme run by Frank Whittle on the Allied side. Leading to short engine life.

[Valuk]

I believe the Red army had bigger problems with bad training and lack of qualified personnel, rather than with the quality of their equipment. Tank crews had very high losses, so many times tanks went into battle occupied with only 4 instead of the full crew of 5. Because of the lack of experienced crews, rookies never really had good chances of survival. Soviet tank commanders had tanks equiped with radios, while others didn’t have them, I believe! Can someone confirm this? Therefore, when action started crews often just followed their commanding tank around like chickens do with their mother and shot at the same target as their commander did!! That reduced their effectiveness drammatically. Germans exploited that and with the first few rounds knocked out the commanding vehicle and with that causing total confusion, which to often resulted in suicidal head on attacks by entire platoons. Something simmilar happened in the Kursk battle, when T-34’s and T-70’s broke through the slowly advancing germans and got finished off by rear guards after the initial german defensive barage forced infantry to jump off the fast advancing tanks.

[ogukuo72]

Spoke to a tankee over the weekend. I came away with a better understanding of armoured warfare.

Any tank design is a balance of: 1. survivability (armour + silhoutte + acceleration + active defense - e.g. smoke screen), 2. firepower (gun calibre + rate of fire + accuracy of fire) and 3. mobility (reliability + range + speed - both cross-country and on roads). To achieve more of one, you will need to give up some of the others.

German tank WW2 designs sacrificed a lot of 3. to achieve 1. and 2., primarily in terms of reliability and range. Simply put, engine technology then was not up to the task of moving such huge bulks. They need to work harder to propell the heavier tanks. This both put more stress on the engines, and also consumes more fuel. 3. was definitely a failure - German tanks were too heavy for their engines.

Was this a good trade off? He believes that German tanks had much poorer acceleration than Allied tank designs (except for the IS series). This means they could not sprint from cover to cover as well as Allied tanks. Also, their silhoutte were much too high. Both the Tiger and Panther were around three-metre in height, and were wide vehicles. This presented a lot of target. While the thick frontal armour more than made up for it from the front, none of the armour around the sides and rear could take a hit from even a Sherman 75mm gun, and both tanks presented very large broadside targets. This is not a good trade-off. If you examine photos of German tanks destroyed on the Western front, you'll see many penetrations on the large turrets of these tanks. On balance, the trade off in 1. was not very good.

What about 2. - firepower - then? There is absolutely no dispute here that the 88mm and 75mm guns on the German tanks were very good tank killer weapons.

He believed that experienced German tank crews should be able to achieve decent rates of fire with these weapons given the roomy interior of the Tiger and Panther. He had some doubts that Soviet crews could achieve similar rates of fire given the tighter space they had to work with. American and British crew would probably do quite well, depending on their experience level.

On the matter of accuracy, this was a function of the gun's inherent accuracy, the optics used to aim the gun, and the crew's skill. All tank guns used by all sides in 1944/5 were probably accurate for their days. The Germans traditionally had good optics. Theorectically, the gyroscope mechanism in the Sherman tank should allow American and British crews to fire on the move, but this technology was primitive in comparison with modern technology, and the crews would fire when stopped.

There is no dispute in 2. German tanks does have superior firepower.

So are German tanks a good balance of all these?

Sorry folks, the answer will have to be a NO.

Poor 3. made German tanks ill suited for the kind of armoured sweeps launched by the Americans and Russians in the summer of 1944, and then again in the spring of 1945. Mechanical breakdown and fuel shortage was a big problem every time the Germans went on the offensive with their big machines (in Kursk, at Morteim, and in the Ardennes).

The American army might have overcome this with their superior logistics, but it was beyond the German's logistical capability to support these machines in an armoured sweep. As it is, both the American and Russians ran out of momentum (and petrol) in summer 1944 because of logistical difficulties.

While the same quality that led to poor 3. - decent 1. and excellent 2. - also made these tanks formidable opponent on the defensive, it must be emphasised that these tanks only make good TACTICAL defensive weapons. But in STRATEGIC defense, these tanks were not so good.

We must not think in terms of defense like infantryman - i.e. manning fixed positions. For a tankee, defense means moving armoured reserves to cut off enemy advance, attacking his flanks and setting up ambushes along his line of advance. Armour must be used as a cutting sword, not a shield, even on the defense.

Which makes 3. very important again. Simply put you need to move enough tanks very quickly to where they are needed.

As we saw in France and Belorussia in the summer of 1944, German panzer units had a hard time containing Allied advance once the defense lines were breached and armoured units poured through the holes. This was partly because of the lack of reserves (not a problem with Sherman equipped armies - these tanks were built in HUGE numbers) and whatever was available simply could not move quickly enough to where they were needed.

In contrast, American tank units moved very rapidly to where they were needed. If you read any account of the Battle of the Bulge, you will find many examples of how Allied armour arrive just in the nick of time to set up road blocks and ambush, or to threaten enemy flanks.

So, while a Sherman might a poor comparison to a Tiger tactically, strategically, it was a good weapon for armoured warfare.

[El'Potato]

While the thick frontal armour more than made up for it from the front, none of the armour around the sides and rear could take a hit from even a Sherman 75mm gun, and both tanks presented very large broadside targets. This is not a good trade-off. If you examine photos of German tanks destroyed on the Western front, you'll see many penetrations on the large turrets of these tanks. On balance, the trade off in 1. was not very good.

Well I just have to disagree with you about the Tiger VIE's side and rear armor. In fact, it was very thick and not even the american 76mm AT gun that was supposed to defeat the Tigers frontal armor couldn't even take it on the sides.

Reason for that being the frontal armor was 102mm thick, and side armor 82mm.
While I agree with the Panthers and Jagdpanthers on weak side armor (about 40-50mm only) that does not in any case apply to the Tiger that could withstand numerous hits by most weapon, even from 76mm Shermans that was of a distance of 500m or more.

[OldRecon]

The 76 mm gun on the later models of Sherman in use with the US army from 1944 could penetrate the side of a Tiger 1 tank with HVAP ammunition (which generaly didn't become generaly available before around the time of the Ardenne battle, and then only in an ammount sufficient for about one or two rounds per tank.
Otherwise I believe both 75 mm and 76 mm gun shermans only could destroy the Tiger 1 with shots in the rear from close range.
The 17 pounder on the Sherman Firefly, with a basic armour penetration performance of around 118 mm of armour at 60˚ at 1000 m for APCB and between 140-150 mm for APDS at same slant and range, I guess shouldn't have that much problems with penetrating the armour of a Tiger. In fact on paper the performance of the 17 pounder and the 76 mm gun on the Panther both had superior performance to the 56 calibre 88 mm gun on the Tiger 1.
On the debit side the Tiger had slow turret traverse, which under some circumstances made it possible for Sherman tanks to stay off target by driving so fast the Tiger gunner couldn't traverse the turret fast enough to catch the Sherman tank.
As for size a Sherman with a height of around 3,15 m wasn't exactly a small tank with low profile either. And before introduction of HVSS with broader tracks during late 1944 also had a rather high ground pressure.
As for mileage per amount of fuel, both Shermans and Panthers had a road range of 160 km, while the road range of both models of Tiger tanks were around 110 km (according to the official statistics).
As a comparison both the M-46/M-47 Patton tanks, as well as the 120 mm equiped US heavy tank (M-103??), of immediate post WW-2 wintage had a similar mediocre range to the German WW-2 tigers.
The main problem with fuel consumption in German tanks, wasn't the tanks themselves, rather it was the overall strategic logistic situation the German armed forces were working under from 1941 on with an insufficient access to supplies of Petroleum fuels. In particular so when the Western Allies focused their strategic bombing campaign on destroying the facilities for petroleum production available to the Germans from the mid 1944 on.
As for the quality of the armour plating on German tanks, British analysis of captured Pzkw III's found that the steel employed had a high carbon content (which generaly tend to make steel brittle) and that the quality of the welding was poor. Not that this goes for all the other models of German WW-2 tanks.
As for automotive reliability of German tanks even the German light and medium tanks (Pzkw I - IV) had a lower standard of reliability than the Sherman and British Cromwell tank. On the Panther there were some problems with the transmission that were gradualy improved but never solved entirely.

[Valuk]

T-34 was probably the best tank of ww2, because it was available, quite reliable and because there haven't been many tanks in the world, where so few compromises were made, as in this case. Mobile, good firepower, good protection, cheap and in big numbers. None of the German tanks achieved that, we all agree on that. Panther had huge problems with it's mobility, Tiger with it's weight and mobility and so on. What made German tanks so famous were their crews and superb commanders, individuals who, if survived long enough, made their crews almost invincible. However, didn't German generals give a proposition to build their own version of T-34?

Of course, 34 had it's flaws. One was the unreliable transmision, which was even worse than the German Olvar combined with the enormous weight of their tanks. Russian crews very often chain strapped a spare transmision to their engine cover. Yes, T-34 was low, but it's gun couldn't be depressed satisfactorily. It's suspension was reliable, simple and easy to fix, but it took a lot of space in an already cramped tank! It was expensive, but it proved reliable and endurable. Tanks from the early '40 were made of even better steel than in the west (354/400 brinel), but the quality of assembly and material deteriorated from 1942 on. The biggest problem with the /76 model was the commanders inability to observe, orientate, command and control his crew properly. Lack of radios forced commanders to communicate with flags! Try doing that in a battle, when the commander was also the gunner, since tanks till -85 series had only four crew members! They tried to fix the problem with a smaller hatch but of course it didn't work because of lack of visibility. Sometimes there were no PT-6 panoramic periscopes available, so they had to do it with a single periscope and with cupola bulletproff openings in shoulder height!! Therefore, commanders often sat on the turret observing and still had visibility problems with the huge single plate hatch! What made it even worse, only the commanding tank had radio antennas! And Germans knew that very well! Some of the problems were solved with the 85 series, but now there weren't enough crew members around for the 5 man crew, so that the seat of the machine gunner was often left empty.

I guess that Soviet crews were never so inventive as the crews of US Shermans, which often cut glacis of knocked out Panthers and welded it on their tanks, which gave them a sort of Jumbo look. Or maybe we just lack of stories from the Red army tank crews. Who knows ;)

[OldRecon]

Thought the transmission problems with the T-34 was limited to the early models up to 1941?
Considering that some of the armour on the T-34 was only 40 mm tick, the steel quality must have been very good, even if the sloping angle of the plates helped a lot.

[Valuk]

Thought the transmission problems with the T-34 was limited to the early models up to 1941?
Considering that some of the armour on the T-34 was only 40 mm tick, the steel quality must have been very good, even if the sloping angle of the plates helped a lot.

My point exactly! About the transmission: I read they never solved the problem satisfactorily. In 1944 they tried to replace the old gearbox with a new one, which had just 4 gears, while the old one had 5. But it didn't work, only a few hundred tanks had been given the new gearbox, before they resumed with installing the old one. However, it is also true that T-34's transmission was far less problematic and much cheaper when compared to PzKpfw 4 or Sherman, cause it had driving-wheels in the back, enabling the tank's silhouette to be quite low.

But, these are only second hand information and speculation. I would prefer to read some genuine first hand accounts from people, participating in the fightings on the Eastern front or the great Patriotic war.

[Kitsune]

@Valuk:

Furthermore, german efforts to complete the A-bomb were not successfull at all. Their programme was so bad that it can be said that it hadn't started at all. Run by W. Heisenberg, the theory used was completely wrong, let only the materials used.

While it is true that there was never a true German atomic bomb program, what you state here is wrong. Heisenberg never worked on something like it.

It is a bit the surprising, that the US, who weren't exactly a big shot in physics at the time, build the nuclear bomb, while Germany, who was the leading nation in that field, did not.
After the war in Europe the elite of the German physicists, among them Heisenberg, Hahn and v. Weizsäcker were held in confinemant in Britain. Listening devices ensured that everything they said could be heard. In August they were given the information that Hiroshima was destroyed by a nuclear bomb, there discussions afterward were recorded and kept secret till the late nineties.
They began there discussions with the question wether the Hiroshima information was a propaganda lie, some said it must be, because such a bomb would be impossible. Otto Hahn literally burst into tears, because of the thought that research he participated in could lead to such terrible wepons. Heisenberg said:"Some of you think such a bomb can't work? Well..." And he, with help of the others started to work on the theorie...and solved probems the Americans had taken month to solve in the next few days. The audio recordings were listened to by experts from the Manhattan project, who were impressed. Assessment: there can be no doubt that German scientists had the capability to build a nuclear bomb (the building of an German nuclear bomb had been the main justification for the American project).
Why had they not done so? Well, reason is, no one had mentioned to the Nazis that such a device would be possible...many physicists had a low opinion of Hitlers regime, which had a tendency to presume, that they could dictate natures laws like social ones: Einsteins theory of relativety had to be wrong, according to the Nazis, since it was invented by a jew...things like these did not make them very popular with people like Heisenberg, let alone the pacifist Hahn.
So many great physicists of Germany had either left the countries or, if they stayed in Germany like Heisenberg, laid low.
Sry for those Norwegian guerillas...but the facility they destroyed in Norway (experimenting with heavy water or stuff) was not very important, let alone close to building a nuclear bomb.

[Valuk]

The Nazi A Bomb story:

The Nazis were disturbed by the fact that the two theories that set ground for an A-bomb: Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum mechanics (Planck, Einstein, Bohr, de Broglie and later Schroediger, Heisenberg, Bohr, Dirac, Jordan and Pauli), were developed mainly by Jewish scientists. Although all of these men already were Nobel prize winners in 1939, they weren't highly appreciated by the Nazis. Especially two German physicists, also Nobel prize winners (Johannes Stark and Philip Lenard) objected these theory (-ies) and named it Juedische Physik. The much less provocative experimental physics was named The Deutsche Physik. Even Heisenberg as a leader of German nuclear program in later years asked Himmler for help in defending him from atacks by Stark. Heisenberg's mom knew Himmlers mom and that helped a lot. Himmler wrote a letter to Heisenberg in which he directed him not to mention people like Einstein, Bohr or Born and their theories in his lectures! Imagine, that if this were pressures, put on Heisenberg as the highest ranking scientists in WW2 Germany, who knows what happened to people lower in hierarchy!
Since the war progressed so well in 1940, nobody was giving any particular effort to make an A-bomb. In 1940 Germans occupied Belgium and took possession of 1200 tons of Uranium ore and in Norway they found the only European heavy water (D2O) plant in perfectly good order. However, they lacked skilled men, because many were away, fighting in the Wehrmacht. Even more of them emigrated to US, where they were employed in the Manhattan project which was started on request by Einstein, who after Hiroschima regreted his move and said it was the biggest mistake of his life. From september 1939 on, many German scientists frequently mentioned the possibility of an A-bomb in their lectures to army officers. However, by February 1942 everybody was convinced this effort would be to costly and time consuming. Therefore, the army withdrew from the program and it was also the time when Werner Heisenberg was named the director of nuclear program or rather what was left of it. But, Heisenberg was far to modest and never harrased Albert Speer to give him extra people, money and materials needed to start the business seriously. Because the project was never considered to be kriegsentscheidend (decisive for the war effort), he never dared to tell Hitler that they could really make an A-bomb, because Hitler always gave his men only two years to complete a project (9 months in late war years)! The risk of not making a bomb was so great that nobody tried to mention it to Hitler even in 1940! When Otto Haxel joined in, he asked his superior (Abraham Esau, Bevollmaechtiger fuer Kernphysik) what to do. He was given the direction to control all the information available on nuclear experiments and prevent it to fall into Nazi hands. Working in a laboratory was far more comfortable than Ostfront, therefore all young scientists were saying: a bomb no, a reactor maybe! On the other side, just the idea of Hitler having such a weapon, convinced many scientists not to work on such a project. At least that is what they said after the war and it is probably quite correct! The realization that only Uranium 235 is suitable for a bomb turned their minds into producing a reactor (Uranbrenner), which could be used in submarines etc. Because of this idea, they were given some resources, but not nearly as many as in US. Many different reactors were produced during the war. The Leipzig team (R. and K. Doeppel, Heisenberg) produced 4 (L1 - L4), the Gottow group (Berkel, Czusilus, Diebner, Hartwig, Hermann) produced 3 (G1 – G3) and the Dahlem (Kaiser-Wilhelm Institut) group (Bopp, Fischer, Heisenberg, Wirtz) made 8 (B1 – B8) of them, of which the last one was made in the final months of war in a cave in Haigerloch, western Germany. Bothe, Jensen and Ritter from the KWI also worked on the B8. We don't know exactly why Bothe decided for heavy water as the moderator instead of graphite, since heavy wather is much more expensive and hard to get, while the graphite used must be of a very high purity, which also made great problems for Fermi in US. Moderator is used to slow down neutrons, because only slow neutrons can split the U235 core, the fast neutrons are absorbed by U238 (99,3% of natural Uranium, the rest is U235). Today we use enriched Uranium with 3,5% U235, therefore the moderator can be usual water H2O. Probably Bothe used D2O deliberatively because of his nationalistic but antinazi attitude, which caused him a lot of trouble with the Gestapo. This decision seriously obstructed their work on the reactors, to which the destruction of Norsk Hydro D2O plant by the allied commando and air raids only contributed.
Reactors constructed by the three groups showed almost no activity, except B8 which was near critical mass (Z (multiplying factor ) = 6,8). Accidents happened often because uranium dust caughts fire easily. Once they dropped the heating mass into river Neckar, causing a laud explosion of steam, which produced a big geyser. Reactor L4 did manage to explode and the false rumours that scientists were killed in the explosion caused letters of congratulations to come to Heisenberg, crediting him with inventing the A-bomb. Fortunately, only hydrogen had exploded when the reacting chamber was leaking water from outside. But general Groves, the head of US nuclear project, didn't know that so he decided to end the German program. KWI and Heisenberg's house in Leipzig were destroyed by precise bombing from Lancasters on 3rd Dec. 1943. Because that didn't kill him, they decided to take him out, when he was in Switzerland in Dec. 1944. Agent Moe Berg had many opportunities to kill him, but he didn't because he realized that if the head of Nazi A-bomb is in Switzerland so late in the war, that means that the program is going nowhere and he was right.
In none of Heisenberg's documents can the right theory for a triggered chain reaction be found. Therefore, his idea of an A-bomb was just a nuclear reactor meltdown and not the principle of joining two or more masses of U235 into critical mass to start a chain reaction, which is held together by the surrounding mass till some 80 chain reactions take place. Heisenberg also made false asumptions that only slow neutrons can start a chain reaction. In 1 microsecond available, only fast neutrons are fast enough, therefore pureU 235 must be used, which Germany had none and also had no means and technology capable enough to get it.

People that were on the right trail were Manfred von Ardenne and Fritz Houtermanns. But Fritz was deported to Soviet Union and then again back to Germany as a German spy (was not one), where he was again imprisoned by the Gestapo. He knew nothing about the agreement about not telling the Nazis anything, but he was alone so terrified of examinations (had no teeth left from Soviet and Gestapo prisons) that he was quiet about his findings of Plutonium, an isotope of U235, suitable to build an A-bomb. He managed to give another warning to US through Fritz Reiche, a jewish physicist that also escaped to US. In all, 19 such reports were given to US government, enough to start their own project. If built, an U235 separating factory would probably be destroyed by allies almost certainly!

In the end, we can conclude that Hitler never had a chance of having an atomic bomb.

[Kitsune]

Yeah, detailed but not 100% true.

What I said earlier stands, Heisenberg managed to develope the theoretical foundations during captivity in England with astounding speed. This was recorded.

Heisenberg was no friend of the Nazis, he was no Jew, but for example Niels Bohr was one of his closest friends.

Einstein is often brought into connection with the American nuclear project. This is a myth. Einstein never worked on it. Einstein did not even really demand it (he was a staunch pacifist). He was given a paper about mentioning the possibility of a nuclear device by somebody, which he seems to have signed, that about sums up his involvement into Manhattan.

Just for the record: his theories of special and general relativity are not extremely important for the developement of a nuclear bomb, on the other hand Einstein was a lifelong sceptic when it came to Quantum Theorie, which is important.

You're assessment that Hitler had "never a chance" to possess a bomb is plainly wrong. Germany had the best physicists in the world, even after the exodus just after the Nazis came to power it was positioned not too bad. Had anybody "infected" Hitler with the idea that a nuclear bomb is possible...let's say in 1936...we would probybla conduct this discussion in German now.

This was actually a dangerous time and we got lucky. The invention of a nuclear bomb was somewhow in the air. It was just the question who would do it. One of the main mistakes of the Nazis was that they, contrary to common myth, never planned for a lenghty total war. They wanted short and decisive campaigns and were totally surprised when the western nations allies with the Sovietunion against Germany, something they simply could not understand. Probably that is the reason for the Shoa, before that the Nazis were content to send the Jews away (after thoroughly relieving them of worldy possessions). It seems it was this American/British/Soviet alliance, that brought Hitlers paranoia to a new height...a Jewish conspiracy must be behind it, or something. But, unfortunately for the Nazis, they did not really saw this coming, Germany and his armed forces were never prepared for a lengthy or total war. As they tried to changed it (ironically it was Göbbels, who coined the phrase "total war") it was already too late.
Had only a few things been different, the outcome may have been as well. While Germany was not up to confront the vast economic strenght of the USA, the Sovietunion and Great Britain combined, the nuclear bomb would have been just the factor that would have more than evened the odds...and Germanies ability to develope it was there.