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

Overrated Allied Weaponry in World War II

Recommended Posts

I'm pretty sure that any piston engine that had the nutso power densities of late WWII aero engines would need frequent overhaul and maintenance.  Pistons just aren't happy reciprocating that quickly.  Hell, one of the reasons jets got popular so quickly is because they required less maintenance, and the early jets had absolutely awful engine lifespans.

 

You'll note that every tank with an aeroderivative engine had it massively downrated to promote longer maintenance intervals and better lifespan.

Cooling becomes a much more series issue when you shove an engine into a tank compared to an airplane as well.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a weapons systems impact on the war shouldnt invalidate the weapon system itself

The T-44 was arguably the best tank built during the second world war, but had fuck all to do with winning the war

If the weapon's mythology claims it was a major factor, yet it wasn't. Then it can be called overrated in my opinion.

If it was believed that the T-44 brought about the final victory in Europe I'd call it overrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The B-24 had better be a better bomber. It's nearly five years newer than the B-17. And while the overrated -admittedly even for this Seattle boy - Flying Fortress and the notion of unescorted bombing missions was very nearly functionally obsolete by the time it was used in the war from 1942 on, the B-17 was still light years ahead of anything that the Germans and its Axis minions could produce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The B-24 had better be a better bomber. It's nearly five years newer than the B-17. And while the overrated -admittedly even for this Seattle boy - Flying Fortress and the notion of unescorted bombing missions was very nearly functionally obsolete by the time it was used in the war from 1942 on, the B-17 was still light years ahead of anything that the Germans and its Axis minions could produce.

 

Except the 8th Air Force claimed that the B-17 was more survivable which is why they wanted more B-17s rather than B-24s; even though it emerged that the prime determinant of bomber survival was in fact top speed to allow the bombers to better outrun enemy interceptors. There were serious studies done during the war showing that B-17s were better off ditching all the guns and gunner crew so they could fly higher and faster; but 8th Air Force was obsessed with its self-defending mythology and loved all the publicity from displaying "rugged" B-17s that returned despite being all shot up... and ignoring how planes like the Mosquito simply returned without fanfare and with lower losses despite perennially drawing the hardest and most dangerous assignments .

 

Quite simply, the B-17's reputation is built out of a lot of outright lies by the Eight Air Force. Sure, it's still better than anything the Germans ever built, but it was terribly misused to a level of criminal negligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno - something weird happened to them after the US rebuilt. I submit German and Japanese porn as proof of the psychological devestation of getting Americanised.

 

 

 

 

But the Southern USA doesn't have any similar bizarre sexual predilections.  I mean, they obviously have a reputation for being into whips and chains, but that is for entirely different reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the Southern USA doesn't have any similar bizarre sexual predilections.  I mean, they obviously have a reputation for being into whips and chains, but that is for entirely different reasons.

4qUGHJ9.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys kinda nailed them all. The Firefly, Thompson, and Garand are definitely there. I guess I could add the Char B1 bis, since it seems to have this myth attributed to it that the French would have won if they had more. I'd also throw in the PPSh as another possible one (mostly hindsight since the PPS-43 is so good). I'm also curious just how well the Bren performed because I haven't really dug into reading anything on its performance or why it's touted as the "greatest LMG."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who thinks that the PPS-43 is better than the PPSh-41 has never fired both of them.

The PPS-43 is the embodiment of "A Gun". That is the level of finesse that it rises to. Shooting it is like using a garden hose and a staple gun at the same time, only it's cruder than either of those.

The PPSh-41, on the other hand, is a pretty boring subgun experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys kinda nailed them all. The Firefly, Thompson, and Garand are definitely there. I guess I could add the Char B1 bis, since it seems to have this myth attributed to it that the French would have won if they had more. I'd also throw in the PPSh as another possible one (mostly hindsight since the PPS-43 is so good). I'm also curious just how well the Bren performed because I haven't really dug into reading anything on its performance or why it's touted as the "greatest LMG."

 

The Garand wasn't perfect but anyone who things its overrated as a word war 2 firearm (not a firearm in general Nathan) needs to stop playing Monday night football coach. It gave your average American rifleman a much higher volume of accurate fire while being reasonably easy to use and accurate, not to mention more reliable than the piece your average Axis goon had. 

 

I dont know about the Bren, i dont think its underrate at all, but one has to wonder which is the best LMG of world war 2 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Garand wasn't perfect but anyone who things its overrated as a word war 2 firearm (not a firearm in general Nathan) needs to stop playing Monday night football coach. It gave your average American rifleman a much higher volume of accurate fire while being reasonably easy to use and accurate, not to mention more reliable than the piece your average Axis goon had. 

 

I dont know about the Bren, i dont think its underrate at all, but one has to wonder which is the best LMG of world war 2 

LMG3 chambered in 7.92x57mm

hon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PPS felt a lot nicer to me than the PPSh, it must have been the reduced rate of fire and not having to hammer the drum magazine in with my feeble teenager hands. I can't imagine an adult having trouble with it though.

 

It's a crude gun, but its biggest shortcoming is the extremely long delay between pulling the trigger and the first round going off. All open bolt guns have this, but the PPS feels like it's about three times longer than, say, an MP40 or Thompson.

 

The Garand wasn't perfect but anyone who things its overrated as a word war 2 firearm (not a firearm in general Nathan) needs to stop playing Monday night football coach. It gave your average American rifleman a much higher volume of accurate fire while being reasonably easy to use and accurate, not to mention more reliable than the piece your average Axis goon had. 

 

I dont know about the Bren, i dont think its underrate at all, but one has to wonder which is the best LMG of world war 2 

 

It is overrated. It's also a masterpiece of early selfloader engineering, and I firmly believe that Garand's hard work is why the US entered WWII with a selfloading rifle and no one else did. Still, it manages to be overrated, especially when certain people act as thought it's on part with modern rifles like the AR-15.

 

LMG3 chambered in 7.92x57mm

hon

 

What the fuck is an "LMG3"?

 

My vote is ether the MG-42 or SG-43 Goryunov 

 

The MG-42 is like the Garand. Despite being excellent and a really new idea, it's still overrated. I doubt anyone ever called it "Hitler's Zipper" at the time, except maybe as a joke during breaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It is overrated. It's also a masterpiece of early selfloader engineering, and I firmly believe that Garand's hard work is why the US entered WWII with a selfloading rifle and no one else did. Still, it manages to be overrated, especially when certain people act as thought it's on part with modern rifles like the AR-15.

 

Nobody here thinks that, i even would go as far to say the STG-44 is probably a better gun if you had to pick one to be mass-issued, but the STG wasnt and the m1 was

 

 

What the fuck is an "LMG3"?

 

i think me means Mg-42

 

 

The MG-42 is like the Garand. Despite being excellent and a really new idea, it's still overrated. I doubt anyone ever called it "Hitler's Zipper" at the time, except maybe as a joke during breaks.

 

The gun itself maybe overrated, but nothing is overrated about THAT more firepower in  a gun battle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

It is overrated. It's also a masterpiece of early selfloader engineering, and I firmly believe that Garand's hard work is why the US entered WWII with a selfloading rifle and no one else did. Still, it manages to be overrated, especially when certain people act as thought it's on part with modern rifles like the AR-15.

 

Nobody here thinks that, i even would go as far to say the STG-44 is probably a better gun if you had to pick one to be mass-issued, but the STG wasnt and the m1 was

 

 

What the fuck is an "LMG3"?

 

i think me means Mg-42

 

 

The MG-42 is like the Garand. Despite being excellent and a really new idea, it's still overrated. I doubt anyone ever called it "Hitler's Zipper" at the time, except maybe as a joke during breaks.

 

The gun itself maybe overrated, but nothing is overrated about THAT more firepower in  a gun battle

 

 

Are we talking about the perceptions of people here, or in general?

Because in general the MG-42 and Garand are both overrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again. There's the definition. Overrated does not equal "bad". I think both the Garand and MG42 both fall in the overrated category despite both being very good firearms for the time. The MG42 as we know still is serving today in various countries as the MG3/MG74.

 

The Garand was a great rifle. I would consider it to be obsolete right now as a military firearm. Does any country still use it? And, no, it isn't even "functionally" obsolete like say, an SMLE Enfield or Mauser 98K or Mosin Nagant would be a functionally obsolete weapon in that some goat herder in the Stans might still have one on hand that he is able to make ammo for by hand in order to take pot shots at The Infidel. The en bloc clip in the Garand sorta adds one more bit of complication for this sort of guerrilla activity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like I shouldn't have to say the Garand is obsolete, but I do. That's why I wrote Hindsight is 30/06. Over and over again I'd heard chest-beating type things like "the M1 Garand is a perfectly viable weapon today, just as good as an AR-15", etc.

I wanted to show that in reality, while the Garand is a huge achievement in firearms history, it's fundamentally 1920s tech, and we've learned a lot since then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like I shouldn't have to say the Garand is obsolete, but I do. That's why I wrote Hindsight is 30/06. Over and over again I'd heard chest-beating type things like "the M1 Garand is a perfectly viable weapon today, just as good as an AR-15", etc.

I wanted to show that in reality, while the Garand is a huge achievement in firearms history, it's fundamentally 1920s tech, and we've learned a lot since then.

 

Yes its fundamentally 20s tech, yes on a technical standpoint its not a great rifle, maybe even mediocre, but was does matter is the armies it fought were using 1910's tech mostly. Ask any American veteran if he cares that his rifle was 20 years behind the curve, he cares that he could pull the trigger 8 times in the time it toke the other guy to pull it twice at best 

You cant overrate something like that, sure, the Americans would of won eventually if they were armed enitrely with fucking springfields if the shit came down to it, but the M1 garand saved alot of Allied lives, and you cant say something like that should be taken down a peg or two 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Garand wasn't perfect but anyone who things its overrated as a word war 2 firearm (not a firearm in general Nathan) needs to stop playing Monday night football coach. It gave your average American rifleman a much higher volume of accurate fire while being reasonably easy to use and accurate, not to mention more reliable than the piece your average Axis goon had. 

 

I dont know about the Bren, i dont think its underrate at all, but one has to wonder which is the best LMG of world war 2 

We've done "overrated vs. bad." It's not bad, far from it. Tactically, it put the American infantryman in one hell of a great position and gave them a massive edge, but having to hear the Patton quote every time it shows up in a video or book gets grating. I'm not taking it down a peg. I'm just pointing where the peg it's always been resting at is.

 

The PPSh was perfectly fine, the PPS was just cheaper and faster to make.

I've fired both. If I were a submachine gunner or a tanker, I'd choose the PPS. If I wanted one to own, I would choose the PPSh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've done "overrated vs. bad." It's not bad, far from it. Tactically, it put the American infantryman in one hell of a great position and gave them a massive edge, but having to hear the Patton quote every time it shows up in a video or book gets grating. I'm not taking it down a peg. I'm just pointing where the peg it's always been resting at is.

 

I've fired both. If I were a submachine gunner or a tanker, I'd choose the PPS. If I wanted one to own, I would choose the PPSh.

 

Patton also said the Russians were mongoloids and hated the Jews, every thing he has ever said should be taken with a bigger grain of salt than the pile of fluff books written about him 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes its fundamentally 20s tech, yes on a technical standpoint its not a great rifle, maybe even mediocre, but was does matter is the armies it fought were using 1910's tech mostly. Ask any American veteran if he cares that his rifle was 20 years behind the curve, he cares that he could pull the trigger 8 times in the time it toke the other guy to pull it twice at best 

You cant overrate something like that, sure, the Americans would of won eventually if they were armed enitrely with fucking springfields if the shit came down to it, but the M1 garand saved alot of Allied lives, and you cant say something like that should be taken down a peg or two 

 

If we're gonna make that comparison, then it was 1920s tech vs. late 1880s tech.

My point when saying it's 1920s tech is to rebuke people who equivocate it to more modern rifles. They exist, though I'm not saying anyone here is doing that.

 

We've done "overrated vs. bad." It's not bad, far from it. Tactically, it put the American infantryman in one hell of a great position and gave them a massive edge, but having to hear the Patton quote every time it shows up in a video or book gets grating. I'm not taking it down a peg. I'm just pointing where the peg it's always been resting at is.

 

I've fired both. If I were a submachine gunner or a tanker, I'd choose the PPS. If I wanted one to own, I would choose the PPSh.

 

You guys must have shot a different PPS than I did, I dunno. If I had to rate subguns of that era, the PPS would be down at the bottom. The one I shot had ridiculous dwell time.

Maybe it needed a spring change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're gonna make that comparison, then it was 1920s tech vs. late 1880s tech.

My point when saying it's 1920s tech is to rebuke people who equivocate it to more modern rifles. They exist, though I'm not saying anyone here is doing that.

 

 

You guys must have shot a different PPS than I did, I dunno. If I had to rate subguns of that era, the PPS would be down at the bottom. The one I shot had ridiculous dwell time.

Maybe it needed a spring change?

 

And people says the Isreali exploits of the Supersherman versus incompetent Arabs means the Sherman is comparable to a T-55

 

That dosent make the Sherman bad, it makes whoever said that a asshat 

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  

×