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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Squad automatic, or squad light machine gun candidates:
MG42
MG34
BAR
M1919A6 (used by paratroopers as a SAW)

Including crew served, chain fed medium MG's in with the BAR doesn't make much sense. The BAR would fall into the same general category as the Degtyaryov or the Lewis Gun. In that category, either the BAR or the awesome DP-27 would be better than anything the Germans had in the field. IIRC, the Germans were stuck trying to use MG34's with a box magazine, which is nutty.

For submachine guns, the winner is the Suomi followed by the PPSh. All others are flawed :D
 
The M1 is also nearly identical to the G43 and it's a real toss-up. The M1 was better made and had better sightes, but the G43 used detatchable box magazines.
the M1 and G43 are not nearly identical. and german doctrine would have had men loading the G43 via stripper clips not detachable mags if i remember correctly.
 
I have a few things to add

As someone who has studied WWII and it's weapons for the last 40 years, I would like to add a few things to the discussion.

First of all, there are two different ways of measuring "better", by design, and by success in use. There were a number of German designs which were superior to those in use by the Allies, but were not produced in sufficient numbers to have a significant effect on the war effort. The most famous of these are the jet fighters, the Sturmgewehr, and the last model U-boats.

Infantry weapons; Yes, the M1 Garand clearly proved itself to be the premier infantry rifle of WWII. However, Garands were not as widely used as some here tend to think. Many US Army units fought the entire war carrying M1903 Springfields, and our Marines fought all of the early island campaign with the 1903 as their primary rifle. It wasn't until about the middle of the war that the Garand became the primary combat rifle in terms of numbers.

Many have made mention of the fact that the Germans did not have a heavy machinegun to match our M2 .50cal. True, however, it was only due to their doctrine, not their engineering/manufacturing potential. The MG 34 and later the MG 42 were dual purpose machineguns. Tripod mounted the filled the heavy machinegun role. And the Germans fielded large numbers of 20mm cannon, which went along way to matching the ground role for a heavy MG.

The German Navy never had a chance. Because of Hitler. When Hitler took power he assured his armed forces that there would be no war before 1945. Kriegsmarine construction was based on that assurance. When Hitler launched the war in Sept 1939, the Kriegsmarine was caught far behind, and never caught up. For example, it was determined that 300 U-boats were needed to close the Atlantic. They went to war with about 100, and nearly got the job done anyway. But they paid a heavy price, during the war 40,000 young Germans went to sea in U-boats. 30,000 never came home. The surface fleet would have been small, but well balanced and powerful in 1945 as well, with modern battleships and aricraft carriers. It likely would not have made a difference in the long run, but they never got the chance to find out. As others have noted, they never got the bugs out of their powerplant designs, and the small numbers of capital ships and the way they were used allowed the Royal Navy to overwhelm them.

As far as German soldiers being unable to act without orders, those of you who think this need to do more research, in particular the accounts of men who were there. More than one veteran US officer was of the opinion that the most dangerous opponent to face was a German soldier without orders. German soldiers at lower levels were trained to adapt and improvise in the absence of orders, and the Wehrmacht relied heavily in "saddle orders", which basically is "take the objective", relying on the initative of junior officers to get the job done. It worked rather well on the tactical level.

There are lots of places where the Germans made what turned out to be very serious mistakes, but the most serious one was Adolph Hitler. His leadership got them to start the war before their military was ready, and later his micromanaging cost them dearly. Another "mistake" was one that the Japanese fell victim to as well, at first, they were successfull. In fact they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. For a while. They then fell victim to "Victory Disease".

Both Germany and Japan retarded or abandoned future weapons design and developement for a time, because they were "not needed". Until reverses on the combat fronts proved them wrong. The time lag to design and bring superior weapons into service was never made up. There are many examples of this, notably in aircraft. By the time superior designs were built, combat pressure did not allow them to be built in sufficient quantity to be effective. Limited industrial capability, compared to the USA and the Soviet Union also played a large role. Both germany and Japan could not afford to interrupt the production of the Me 109 and the Zero to switch over to better fighters, even though those two designs had reached their peak potential by 1943. The US, on the other hand, with vase resources, and the luxury of time was able to gear up to production levels that allowed sufficient supplies for combat and produce improved designs, and integrate them into the combat forces.

Roosevelt turning this nation into the "Arsenel of Democracy" years before we actually went into combat went a long way to laying the goundwork for our success.

Both Germany and Japan based their plans on a short war, and when the Allies refused to make peace after being beaten, it screwed up their plans. They had not planned for, nor equipped for a long war. They had no long range heavy bombers, for example. The Germans had no long range single engine fighters, by their doctrine, they didn't need them. Neither did the British for that matter. The Japanese did, but only because they planned from the beginning to fight over long ocean distances.

By the way, the Sturmgewehr (MP 43, 44, and Stg 44) were forbidden to be made by Hitler. His armies didn't need another rifle, which is why they were originally called MPs (Maschinen Pistole -machine pistols-submachine guns). It was only because of some Wehrmacht officers working around Hitler's orders that they got any into the hands of the troops. After they were in use on the Eastern Front (in small numbers) and proved sucessful did Hitler relent and authorize production. Again, too little, too late.

Hitler did something similar with the jet fighter. After seeing the prototypes (which could have been fielded a year earlier but for Victory Disease), he ordered them to be converted to bombers, which delayed their operational use by another half a year.

The war is full of blunders like that, many on our side as well. Our policy of having tanks support infantry and having tank destroyers fight enemy tanks turned out to be seriously flawed. But in the end it can be summed up in one of my favorite old jokes;

German officer (being questioned):
"Ve haff ze best tanks in ze vorlt! One uf our tanks iz wurth ten uf your tanks!
Cocky GI:
"oh yeah? Then how come we're kicking your ass?!
German Officer:
"Because you alvays haff elefen!:(
 
-----quote-------
If these figures are accurate, then I don't think anyone could say that Russia was the major culprit in defeating Germany, it was irrefutably the United States war effort
-----------------

70% of Axis divisions were deployed on the Eastern Front, and well over 70% of German casualties occurred on the Eastern Front.

Lend-lease kicked in and made a major difference after 1942. Before that, the amount of aid from the Western allies was trivial. The Soviets fought the Wehrmacht at its strongest in Barbaraossa and Operation Blue; fought them to a standstill at Moscow and broke their back at Stalingrad. After that, there was no way Germany was going to win the war.

That's about when US aid really started to flow. US fuel, food, trucks, and other supplies certainly helped the Soviets sustain their offensives much further and deeper than they could have on their own resources and no doubt significantly shortened the war. But you can't make the case that the Germans would have won the war but for US aid, and you certainly can't make the case that defeating Germany was "primarily a US effort." By the time US aid kicked in, Germany was already well on the way to defeat.
 
Last edited:
Baba Louie,

I don't know which famous general said, "Amateurs study tactics, experts study logistics.", but it dovetails perfectly with your statement.
 
Lend-lease kicked in and made a major difference after 1942.

i remember hearing some where that of the several hundred new locomotive engines in russia during ww2. only like a dozen or so were soviet made, the rest were lend lease.

that always got me. cause while the soviets may have made all thier own rifles and planes and what not. they couldnt have done it if we didnt give them the trucks and trains.
 
One can argue details forever, however if I may note the following, it might prove interesting.

American industrial capabilities are what won the war/defeated Germany and Japan too. Of course, nobody was bombing out industrial facilities, which likely helped, but interested parties might consider an observation attributed to Erwin Rommel.

Rommel was supposed to have offered, after the beating U.S. forces took at the Caserene Pass, however it's spelled, the following. No matter how much of their equipment we destroy, they can replace it faster than we can replace our losses. Also, while their forces were green and poorly led, that only happens once. He also noted that if the Americans can find or build a port ANYWHERE IN AFRICA, they will beat us, their manufacturing capacity and capabilities are such. The above are not exact quotes, however as memory serves, they do accurately reflect comment attributed to Rommel at the time..
 
Were German weapons of WWII superior to U.S. weapons?

Yes, but quantity sure beats quality in a land war.

The U.S. enjoyed a 14:1 ratio of Sherman to Panther tanks. While the Panthers were superior in terms of armour and firepower, the true role of the tank is infantry support, not just tank-on-tank fighting.

The Sherman was more manuverable, faster, able to cross more bridges and there were a heck of a lot more of them to deploy to meet daily objectives.

"Film" is superior to "DVD" or "Video" in many respects, but they serve different purposes.
 
I didn't read all the post's either but I do remember reading somewhere that it was the outright aggresivness of the us soldier that won the war for the allies.
 
The US supplied the trucks and the Russians supplied the bodies. I'm not sure if you can get more aggressive than human wave attacks but the Russians sure tried.
 
almost even overall

Lets see the BAR U.S's only kinda ar too heavy, never actually heard any complaints by vets though.
So I give Germans the advantage there they had the paratrooper rifle mp 42 and the mp44.
the later uses the first successful intermediate round I have heard the rumor the ak was based off it.
I believe both were burst or full auto with single at a toggle.

We had the battle rifles m1a1 30,06 goofy strippers aside a solid weapon.
And the less than powerful m1a1 30 cal carbine, which I see supposedly had a select fire version.
Germans had the Mauser k98 good gun but bolt action, only one I rember.
So in the outdated battle rifle category we win!

Pistols we had the 1911 .45 the manstopper seven rounds nuff said also super reliable at the time.
I know very little about the luger but it was in development for a long time.
So I will go by the math a luger has eight, the p38 has seven both 9mm standard.
So we win by size alone, however there was a drum fed version of the luger 32 rounds of the devastating 9mm ammo.

Mgs I think the Germans win for gp but hey we had the .50 cal, I'm sure they had a heavy mg or an anti-aircraft gun they could have used.
7.92 with water cooling beat 30cal carbine with air any day as far as I'm concerned.

Smgs no real contest .45 is better than 9mm and we had at least two different guns Thompsons some of which could accept drums and the ugly but effective grease gun.
Germans mp40 9mm on average holding more ammo.
We win again

Sniper or marksman rifles I for the life of me thought they had something automatic.
However I can't find any info on it so k98 with scope, against a Springfield 06
I vote Springfield I have put a few rounds through my vintage ww1 gun.
Never used a Mauser but they have a following and are responsible for most bolt action designs I know of.

Grenades I think the Germans they had more range and accuracy as per info gleaned.

Rockets probably Germans again, but I bet the bazooka was a lot cheaper to make.

Tanks I won't even go into no competition at all Germans.
We did have jeeps..

They also had subs and naval vessels arguably better, I know too little about naval to comment.
 
More like the Allies are lucky we destroyed/crippled, or overran the german research facilities before they had a chance to finish developing the components of either of their proposed nuclear weapon systems (granted the Antipoidal bomber wouldn't have worked), and decided to go ahead and kill new york or london.

Germany gave up serious nuclear research in '43.

Don't forget the US Tank destroyers. They scored up to 6:1 kill ratios against German tanks according to US army studies. We built nearly 7,000 M10s and plenty more M18s and 90mm M36s. M36s arrived in France in September 1944, and entered combat in early October. The 90mm gun was a definite improvement, able to penetrate the Panther glacis at up to 500yd, in addition, the powerful 90mm shell could cause the glacis to collapse if struck with multiple non-penetrating shells, and still score a kill. One of the first Panther kills occurred at 1,500 yds, a M36 from the 776th TD Battalion scored 2 hits, one broke the track, and the second entered the turret, destroyed the breechblock of the 75mm cannon, and blew the top off the turret.
 
Germany gave up serious nuclear research in '43.

"serious nuclear research", and by extention a "nuclear explosion" is not needed to kill a city. just sufficient amounts of radioactive material

the germans had plans involving the use of what we now think of as a "dirty bomb" (radioactive sand and a bursting charge), delivered by a sea launched, souped up V2, against New York city.

even if they couldn't hit a US city. As long as the germans had access to a source of Pitchblende (uranium ore) they posed a "radiological threat" to the allies, and both Germany and Czechoslovakia contain such deposits.

but this is kinda, way off topic so i'll stop there.
 
The Soviets fought the Wehrmacht at its strongest in Barbaraossa and Operation Blue; fought them to a standstill at Moscow and broke their back at Stalingrad. After that, there was no way Germany was going to win the war.

I think "broke their back at Stalingrad" would have been a somewhat premature death knell for the Wermacht.

Russia did indeed defend Moscow, Stalingrad, and Leningrad, and inflict huge losses on the Germans. However, the first offensive after Stalingrad, (Rzhev) was disastrous for the Soviets. In fact, most of the victories in the first half of the war by the Soviets came while they were "on defense", not offense. Even the much latter Battle of Kursk was a defensive victory, for the most part.

However, stalemate isn't really victory. To kick Germany out of Russia and the Balkans, and then move into Berlin, the Soviets needed things that moved. Planes, trains, tanks and trucks.

Postwar Soviet propoganda has built up a myth that the Russians were some sort of industrial juggernaut during the war, but let's look at some figures.

The Germans produced four times as much steel as the Russians, and 3 1/2 times as much coal. The Russians produced twice as much oil as the Germans and Romanians, but the U.S. produced (and shared) eight times as much as the Soviet Union did, with much of their shared products being refined into aviation gasoline, hauled to Russia's front door step.

Germany produced more aircraft than the USSR during WWII, 189,000 to 157,000. The United States built almost 325,000.

The Germans produced about 346,000 trucks, the Russians 197,000, and the Americans 2,38200. Russia got over 425,000 freebies in Lend Lease, which was huge for making the Motorized rifle divisions motorized, and able to keep up with the Russian tanks.

As for tanks and self propelled guns, Russia was the champ with 105,000, vs. almost 47,000 for the Germans and 88,000 and change for the Yanks. Of course, as already mentioned, it's pretty easy to build over 100,000 tanks if someone else is supplying the steel for 70,000 of them, and you don't have to build those 425,000 trucks.

Remember also, that in a straight "German vs. Russian" show of strength, German factories, railways, and industrial centers were being hammered around the clock by British and American heavy bombers, and tens of thousands of skilled factory workers were killed by those air raids.

Now consider if even HALF those 10,600 total 88, 105, and 128 mm Flak guns and their crews that were futilely trying to defend the Fatherland were put on the Eastern Front as tank killers.

Heck, just think of how many factory workers were able to become soldiers in the Soviet Union because of Lend Lease.

I do not subscribe to the theory that the Soviet Union was the single biggest reason that Germany lost the war. I believe it was the United States.
 
Yes, the MG42 lives on today as the M3 in use by Austria (not sure about Germany). In addition to the M60, there is a much closer descendant used in Spain, I forget the nomenclature but it is essentially a down-sized MG42 firing 5.56mm.

AFAIK, the Spaish Ameli 5.56 LMG was taken out of service due to low durability. Most examples shook themselves to pieces...a consequence of flimsy plastic receiver.
 
Logistics mean a good bit. I understand the Germans were using horses when fuel supplies ran low. Us, we up and built a pipeline right after Normandy, IIRC.

MBR versus MBR, the US and UK win - US with the semi-auto Garand goodness, and the Brits with a 10-rd bolt action - may not be as accurate as some Mausers, but double ammunition sure can't hurt.
The Germans had some sort of semi-auto, and so did the Russians - but neither one was issued from the get-go, so I imagine supplies weren't high enough. Don't know of the reliability of either one.

The Germans had some teriffic weapons, but they generally weren't around in enough quantity/at the right time to make a difference. My favorite is the FG-42. Basically an early M-14, it's a very classy, distinctive gun. More than a match for the Garand, I reckon - but it doesn't have the 'ping'.

SMG versus SMG: Russians win the range contest with their PPSh, Thompson wins the class, looks, and 'oomph' contest. Grease Gun, Sten, and MP38/40 tie for the ugly-but-functional gun award.
 
Random thoughts....

Nobody has yet mentioned the use of radar by the English as a pivotal influence on the Battle of Britain. This, and the rate as which English industry was manufacturing fighter aircraft, arguably kept Britain in the war and hence prevented Hitler's attack on Russia from being purely a single-front war. Not to mention providing the Allies with a base for the Invasion.

Antony Beevor in his analysis of Stalingrad and Berlin campaigns, points out that both Russian and German armed forces routinely shot their own men "pour encourager les autres". It is believed that the Red Army executed the equivalent of a full infantry division of their own, during the Stalingrad battle alone.

In terms of strict comparison, the German Blitzkrieg was not an outstanding example of rapid movement. Allenby's Megiddo campaign had a higher rate of advance back in WW1. Apparently, even in the early days of WW2, the Germans relied heavily on horse-drawn transport for their general transport, while Allenby was pioneering mechanised transport for infantry. I've also been lead to understand that Tobruk was the first occasion in which Blitzkrieg tactics were defeated by allied troops. The infantry refused to surrender when over-run by German tanks. (Which rather surprised the Germans) The infantry dealt with German infantry while the Panzers were permitted to pass through until stopped by mine belts and AT artillery sited in depth. AAA demonstrated that the gunners were actually safer if they stayed at their guns - Stuka's being deterred by return fire. So to the extent that Tobruk contributed to the Axis defeat in Nth Africa, it was due to superior tactics, rather than weaponry.

Chester Wilmot argues that the following contributed to the Allied victory in Normandy.
Air superiority and its effect on the German ability to move formations in response to Allied attacks was crucial.
Allied deception and counter-intelligence which led the German high command to maintain large forces in northern France which would have made a considerable difference had they been reallocated to the defence of Normandy.
Allied strategy led the Germans to concentrate their better armoured formations opposite the northern sectors of the Normandy beach-head, allowing the breakout and subsequent encirclement of the Falaise area by Allied formations on the southern flank of the beach-head.
The landing of amphibious tanks and armoured vehicles in support of the initial infantry assaults made a significant difference. US casualties were highest in the assault in which these weapons were not used, or were used relatively sparingly. Whether this fits under the heading of Logistics or Weapons, I'll leave you to decide.

Credit to American industry. Even at the height of the U-Boat campaign, American shipyards were building ships faster than the Germans could sink them.

Cordially......... Peter
 
German weapons were ahead of their time

The German weapons were so innovative that their design had a huge influence on gun manufacturing in other countrys. The 1903 Springfield is a slightly modified copy of the 98 mauser. The M60 machinegun that the U.S. military used for so long is actually a ****ed over rebuilt copy of an MG42. The AK47 contains many ideas used in the mp44. I really hate the Germans for what they did to the Jews during WW2, but when it comes to gun design these guys really had their **** together.
 
The Sherman tank was significantly inferior to the larger German tanks. But, in defense of our designers, the Sherman had limitations dictated by our ability to transport them from the factories and to the battle field: size limits! Larger tanks would have been impossible to pass through rail tunnels in the US, making shipment to ports more difficult. It would also have made it much more difficult to load them into the cargo ships available and again unloading them at the distant ports. We KNEW the Sherman would be at some disadvantage against some forces but didn't realise just how bad it would get.

The Germans inability to make ball bearings in sufficent quanities is why you hear loud squeaking from their tanks in movies; they had to resort to sleeve bearings! But that wasn't too great a problem since most of their tanks didn't live long enough to wear the sleeves out.

Over all, our small arms were the equal of any at the time, and better than most.
 
FYI Battle of Britain

Yes, radar did help the English, but what cost the Germans the Battle of Britain were the Germans themselves, and Winston Churchill.

The Luftwaffe failed to achieve air superiority over England because of a couple of factors, one of which was the short range of the Me 109 fighter. While the Messerschmitt had a range roughly equal to the RAF Spitfire and Hurricane, the distance from the French airfields was just great enough that they only had about 15 minutes "stay time" over southern England. As many (if not more) German fighters were lost due to running out of fuel on the way back as were shot down by the RAF. The failure of foresight to allow their primary fighter to be equipped with a drop tank cost them dearly.

English aircraft (fighter) production managed a miracle under Lord Beaverbrook, by being able to keep up with their losses, in fighter planes. Where the RAF ran into trouble was replacing their losses in pilots. Even transfering pilots from Bomber Command and using foreign (Czech, Pole, French, and even a few US) pilots, they were losing pilots faster than they could replace them.

In the initial stages of the Battle of Britian, the Luftwaffe concentrated on RAF airfields, and several senior RAF officers have stated that they were down to two weeks. Two more weeks at that rate of loss, and the RAF would cease to be an effectve fighting force.

Then came the Luftwaffe error that started the chain of events that changed everything. On the night of August 24th, 1940, a Luftwaffe bomber got lost, and accidently dropped their bombs on central London. Prior to this, bombing of non-military targets was forbidden. The London docks, and the nearby arsenal were valid military targets, but residential central London was not. Both sides had generally held to this so far in the course of the war.

The next day, Churchill gambled with the fate of his nation. And ultimately, he won. He sent a small force of RAF bombers to bomb Berlin that night. Hitler was so enraged at the bombing of his capitol (which did very little real damage) that he ordered the Luftwaffe to destroy English cities above all else. This took the pressure off the RAF airfields, and at the expense of "the Blitz" on English cities, allowed the RAF to recover, and ultimately defeat the Luftwaffe. After it finally became clear to Hitler that his Luftwaffe could not defeat the RAF, he turned his attention to the east, never to return in significant numbers.
 
the 1903 Springield series was highly influenced by the Mauser action.

The 1903 was a licensed version of the Mauser, which is more than highly influenced :)

Many US Army units fought the entire war carrying M1903 Springfields, and our Marines fought all of the early island campaign with the 1903 as their primary rifle.

Which Army units did so? I bet they were not front-line combat units. And after Guadalcanal (spelled it wrong, I'm sure) where did Marines go into action with the 1903 as the primary weapon? Again, I believe it was support units and those needing sniper rifles or grenade-launching rifles who deliberately used the 1903 in combat.

The M60 machinegun that the U.S. military used for so long is actually a ****ed over rebuilt copy of an MG42.

Grammer aside Capstick, I disagree. The M60 parts below the feed mechanism are most certainly NOT the MG-42. It was a short-recoil operated weapon with a bolt that didn't rotate to lock, and the M60 is a gas operated one with a rotary bolt.

Bart Noir
 
Interesting fact

A while back I remember reading an article about this German Luger that was chambered for .45ACP of all things. I think this was a prototype and was never released. I'm sure that pistols worth alot of money today.
 
A while back I remember reading an article about this German Luger that was chambered for .45ACP of all things.

A few (2?) were made as prototypes and they went through the trials for a new US service pistol. The 1911 won, and the prototype that went through the torture trials was destroyed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top