Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  
LostCosmonaut

Overrated Allied Weaponry in World War II

Recommended Posts

The Thompson is about as "less optimal" as they come, besides the Jap subguns.

10+ pounds unloaded and only firing a pistol cartridge.  I mean, I want one.  Kinda alot. But it's not an optimal weapon design, even for the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to have to defend the P-51 here.  Is the performance all that?  No; the P-47M/N and a number of other Allied fighters could out-fly it.

 

However, it could run down anything the Axis had in the skies save very rare opponents like ME-262s, KI-84s and TA-152s.

 

Also, it was much cheaper than any Allied design that was greatly superior.  Also, it had insanely long legs for a fighter of its cost.

 

A handful of fighters, Axis and Allied were better individually, but as a long-range implement of strategic air superiority, it was good enough and, more importantly, numerous enough to kill the last remaining Axis air power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is all i got

M1_Carbine_Mk_I_-_USA_-_Arm%C3%A9museum.

 

The topic is "Overrated" Tied, not "Underrated". I've slogged through enough M1 Carbines Bounced Off Of ChiCom Uniforms at Chosin comments to earn royalties from the David Marshall Williams estate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Yes. And the M1 Carbine fit the role in which it was designed for, being a light, handy weapon to arm second-line troops, officers and support elements with so they didn't have to lug around a heavy M1 Garand while being more useful than a M1911 pistol. Once it got select fire capability, the weapon was better than a Thompson or an M3 submachine gun (IMHO)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the Su-76 was always the 2nd most important to war effort, but equating the T-70 to a Panzer 3 is alittle hopeful. Im not saying the T-70 is by no means a bad tank, and i hate to tote the boo's tagline, but the Panzer 3 has much better situational awareness and strategic use than a light tank

 

Yeah the Panzer III is better in those regards, but that comes at the price of being 15 tons heavier.

 

Armor-wise they're actually very similar in thickness level and the gun is about as good as the Panzer III with the short 50mm. That's again a surprising amount of capability for something designed under one year using a lot of civilian parts. The SU-76 then pretty much rectifies most of the problems to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't doubt the ability of the SU 152 to knock out an enemy heavy tank, I just doubt that they really had the chance to do it very often.   

   That Assault gun/TD is not much "overrated". I never heard about hordes of ISU-152s hunting for German cats, or anything of similar level of overblowing real situation. Actually, according to what i see and hear in English-speaking part of internet, SU-152 and ISU are slightly underrated weapon systems, as they rarely appear in discussions or when they appear, they are a "side note" at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't doubt the ability of the SU 152 to knock out an enemy heavy tank, I just doubt that they really had the chance to do it very often.   

 

being that they are assualt guns made for infrantry support, i doubt they did

 

Think of them like the sherman 105 in the Pacific, sure they spent alot of time making their name by blasting Jap positions, but they can also knock any Japanese tank into next week (which is also what normal shermans can do,  but it looks less amazing) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   That Assault gun/TD is not much "overrated". I never heard about hordes of ISU-152s hunting for German cats, or anything of similar level of overblowing real situation. Actually, according to what i see and hear in English-speaking part of internet, SU-152 and ISU are slightly underrated weapon systems, as they rarely appear in discussions or when they appear, they are a "side note" at best.

I just remember as a kid every book on tanks that I read called the IS-152 a "Beast Killer" and gave the impression that the Red Army used them to blow up Tiger tanks all the time.  I'm sure it was a very useful direct fire support vehicle.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Su-152 was a beast killer to tigers just as Shermans were beast killers to panzer 4s

 

They could do the job alright, but they earned their grit by lodging HE at infantry 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those more conversant with Russian-language sources than I am, how much of a psychological impression did the big cats make on the Soviets?  I have heard that after Kursk many of the newspapers announced that "The Tigers are Burning!" and a few other stories that would seem to indicate that the tiger definitely got the Soviets' attention despite not being a particularly effective weapon overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×