Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Military Best and Worst of WWII

All,

Anyone who has seen my posts can tell I have very eclectic tastes in firearms�Essentially, there are very few I don�t like.

So, what are you favorites of WWII, and what do you think are the real stinkers?

Best Infantry Rifle
M1 Garand � Duh!!
MP-44 is the best weapon to come out of the war, but had little impact.

Worst Infantry Rifle
Tokarev

Best Bolt Action Rifle
No 4 MK1 Enfield

Worst Bolt Action Rifle
Mosin Nagant 91/30

Best SMG
Patchett
Sterling � evolved from the Patchett at the end of the war�Awesome subgun.

Worst SMG
MP 40 (ok, just my least favorite)

Best Handgun
M1911 � Duh!!
Hi Power � Better pistol, inferior cartridge

Worst Handgun
Nambu

Best Machinegun
MG 42

Worst Machinegun
Japanese Type 97

Honorable mentions
M1/M2 Carbine � More accurate, more reliable and more powerful than any SMG or handgun. The ideal PDW, and I don�t think there�s a better PDW today even.
PPSH 41 � A bit on the heavy side, but one very effective SMG

Most interesting
FG42 � Just plain cool
MP-44 Vampir

I concur.

I agree, especially the comment about the HiPower....I had one in 9mm, and often wished for one in .45ACP.
Concerning the bolt action rifles, can we give the Schmidt-Rubin k31 an honorable mention?

That depends on what you base your judgement on. The most dependable rifle in WWII was the Mauser M98 wihtout doubt. But the Garand was semi-auto, and in combat that is an advantage. MG42 was the best machine-gun. It was so good that H&k did some small changes and named it MG 3, and it is still produced. I had the honour of carrying one around when I was in the army.

The battle of Stalingrad was won with PPZH -41 SMG, handgrenades and Mosin-Nagant sniper rifles. It was in fact here the 3. Reich concealed it`s destiny, so when it comes to importance in the outcome of the war, soviet weapons played and important role.

Nagant - Worst?

I have shot mine alot at the range and I would much rather take it to a fight than any WWII bolt gun from Japan, Italy, or France.

This is just a personal preference: I like the Nagant's sight picture better than the K-98. But, the K-98 is handier and stronger.

I will agree with your choice of the SMLE as the best bolt gun.

The Walther P-38 is a fine personal sidearm. I would add it to your best short list (1911 and HiPower).

I just don't have enough personal experience with sub-guns and belt fed machine guns to argue one way or the other.

Fredrick,

To the best of my knowledge, H&K has never made the MG3 (although they may have made barrels). The MG3 was reverse engineered by Rheinmetall after the war from a stack of MG42�s because the original plans for the MG42 were lost. H&K has always made a competing product (HK21) that has been received with mixed success. The MG42/3 is far from perfect, but it�s one hell of a GPMG. By far, the coolest belt fed gun I�ve ever shot (MG42).

As for the reliability thing, SMLE vs. Mauser. It�s hard to argue your logic. In the field, I think the SMLE functioned very well. It used a lower pressure cartridge in oversized chambers, which made these rifles very difficult to stop. .

In the �80�s I worked for a small arms importer and we had a warehouse full of WWII military surplus arms. We had perhaps 10 Mausers for every Enfield, but I have to admit, broken Enfields were more common than broken Mausers. 99% of the time, it was broken stocks, but the springs in the Enfield�s could be found in different states of disrepair. Rarely did I encounter a Mauser that wouldn�t function.

Regardless, if I had to go into battle with a bolt gun, I�d take the Enfield, so that�s why I put it at the top of my list�But that�s just my list and my opinion.

Sheffieldshooter,

No doubt the Mosin-Nagant was a good rifle and served the Soviets well. I put it under the �worst� because in comparison to all other rifles of the war, it�s the last one I�d want to be stuck with. This goes to show, that the bolt action military rifle had reached its peak, because they were all very good by WWII. I put the MN at the bottom of the list because by WWII, it was the least developed. The rifle was not much different from what they used in WWI. The bolt is unnecessarily complicated, the buttstock is a horrible design and the rifle is just too long overall. Regardless, it did serve with distinction and there are a whole lot of dead Germans to testify to the fact. In the end, while it was clearly behind the rest of the world, the MN was up to the task and served well.

I have a PU Sniper version and I think it�s just plain cool.

Good points Kevin.

Still mulling over that WWI list of yours.

My favorite military rifle is my very nice 6.5 Swedish long rifle (matching numbers and all the best brass disc marks). Did the Swedes even fire any shots in anger in "The Great War"? I think I recall reading that the Fins used alot of 6.5 Swedes against the Russians in their pre-WWII winter war.

I once put three 140 grain Hornady reloads (Norma brass) into a half inch at 100 yards from the concrete bench rest at our local range. Kinda shut the deer hunters up at the neighboring benches. That is the best open sight 100 yard group I have ever shot.

My favorites: Browning M2 .50 caliber heavy machine gun. Devastating firepower, so good it has yet to be replaced. The bazooka. It gave the ground pounder a way to counter armored vehicles. The flame thrower: burn those SOB's out of there if they won't come out! The Garand, lovely, heavy duty, would have been better as the M1A without the en bloc cartridge clip. The Bren gun; it's design, mixed with features from the MG42, became the basis for the United States light duty machine gun for many many years, the M-60. If only they hadn't FU'd the design by not putting the handle on the barrel, to make changing screaming hot barrels easier. The MG 42 had too high a rate of fire, making it difficult to control, the Germans used it like a shotgun, quick blasts from a bump of the trigger, to slow it down enough to have any effect other than just spray and pray. The Johnson Rifle was interesting, but too quirky. The M-1 carbine seemed to work very well, never heard anybody who served in WWII or Korea to slam it in any way. Lots of obsolete weapons made it to the fray, best some countries could do with what they were faced with. Lots of junk as it got closer to wars end also, production quality fell into the pits on all the Axis weapons. Hard to turn out good stuff with bombs falling on your head!

SS,

No the Swedes never fired their rifles in anger, which is why they came to our shores in such great condition. And yes, those are accurate and fine rifles in every way.

Phillip � you have the Bren gun with an excruciatingly slow rate of fire and the MG42 with a rate of fire so high they called it Hitler�s Zipper. I think when the M60 was designed, they took some good ideas and executed them rather poorly, and made one of the worst GPMG�s ever.

The Bren was fine weapon and exceptionally reliable, but being magazine fed, it was at a disadvantage. The MG42 was far from perfect, but it set the standards for a GPMG for decades to follow. I also love how the MG42 swaps barrels�Quick.

Also � Good call on the flame thrower � quite effective against the Japanese in the Island Hopping campaign.

The Bren was a design basically stolen from the Czech ZB 29 and ZB 30. Both extensively used by Waffen SS troops who loved them.

+1 for the Browning M2. Those things are a blast to shoot...my favorite over the M249 and M240.

I would argue that the USA had the best soldiers. In his book Ambrose stated that the rapid advance across Europe was due to the ingenuity of the average American soldier. While the enemy left many units and gear behind that would not start or were damaged it seemed that many of the Americans could fix their own stuff.

In RVN I had the rather unpleasant experience of being shot at by an MG 42. VERY unsettling!! Fortunately the gook machine gunner did NOT know his business. If he did half the squad would have bit the dust.

Savage 99,

That�s a tough call. The ingenuity of the American soldier is truly a marvel that persists to this day. But our enemies had some good qualities as well.

1. The Japanese soldiers were ferocious, blood thirsty and fanatical. They wouldn�t surrender a single inch. Although few would say it out loud, this is what a commander dreams of in a fighting unit. The Japanese lacked good leadership, thank God.
2. The Germans (until very late in the war) were simply awesome. I�ve never really quite understood it, because our soldiers were better trained, but German soldiers had a discipline level that would make the Marines look like lost school children. Couple that with the fact that they were led by the finest officer corps in the world and you had a simply awesome fighting force indeed. Until 1945, anyone who squared off against the Germans in a fair fight got creamed.

Many historians have always said that if you had Japanese soldiers led by German officers equipped and supplied by American logistics, you have the most capable force the world has ever seen.

I think the US soldiers of today are the most competent and capable fighting force the world has ever seen (although Israeli infantry is probably just as good). Anyone who squares off against US soldiers comes out the loser, even if they have us horribly out numbered�Our boys are the best!

ET,

I remember reading one WWII history book that detailed the experiences of US soldiers (may have been one of Ambrose�s book) and their comments on the MG34�s and 42�s. The Germans made much use of their MG�s and each platoon had 4 machinegunners assigned.

I remember the quote in the book was something like, �Every German had a damn machinegun, you just couldn�t get away from them.� We had BAR�s which although was a great weapon, it was no match for an MG42. I think we countered well by the combined firepower of the BAR�s and the M1 Garand.

Although it sucked to face off with MG42�s, it had to suck to face off with BAR�s and Garands.

I can�t imagine what it would be like to be in the receiving end of a 42.

The Nazi's lacked intelligence. That made all the uniforms, cruelty, bluster and weapons a failure.

The Nazi's had their codes broken, had the wrong tactics for the strong enemies and in general were humiliated. Getting your country occupied by the enemy for half a century is just one of the results.

When I learned why the Germans WANTED such a high rate of fire, I was even more relieved that the Gook gunner didn't know his business. The German concept was that a battle was a series of "time pictures" and the enemy would be visible for 1-3 seconds at most. The MG-42 reason for being was to put as many projectiles into that time picture in that 1-3 seconds as possible. With the 42, they found that when the gunner was properly trained, the casualty rate in the time picture was OVER 95%. Trust me on this, being on the receiving end of an MG-42 with a nitwit gunner is a VERY scary experience.