Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Worst weapons of WWII

The Amrican Torpedo for the first part of WW II were unreliable. We never were able to match the performance of the Japanese Long Lance type 93 torpedo.

Yes, the U.S. Navy had a serious problem with torpedoes at first. Worst regular issue pistol had to have been most any of the Japanese. Without question the worst manufactured pistol had to have been to U.S. Liberator, but it was a special purpose weapon not designed to be issued to regular troops. The worst rifle prize should go to the Italian Carcano. Second place worst to the Japanese. Having said that, I am told that the action of the Jap Arisaka rifle is very strong, but the rest of the rifle to me apears to be junk. Some of the worst fighter aircraft were probably the U.S. Brewster Buffaloes and the P-39 Airacobras. However, the Russians did find that the Airacobras were good ground attack planes. The U.S. Reising submachinegun was very unreliable in combat conditions.

Something that I have never been quite able to understand is the U.S. Sherman tank. It was obviously inferior to most any German tank or anti-tank gun in Europe. Certainly good against fortifications, light armored vehicles, trucks, etc., and as direct infantry support, but from what I hear for most of the war, the main gun of a Sherman was ineffective on about all German tanks. U.S. shells regularly just bounced off of German tanks, but almost any shot from German tanks or anti-tank guns easily penetrated the Shermans and set them ablaze, hence the German nickname "Ronson" ("lights first time, everytime"). That being the case, if it is true, how could a Sherman go into combat against a German tank and do anything but lose? Maybe disable the German's tracs and bypass it? I really would like for someone to explain this as I have always been baffled by how they did it.

While it was pre-WWII (and pre-WWI) it did see service in WWII: the Mosin-Nagant revolver. To paraphrase one gun writer, "Its the perfect weapon for your enemies: bad trigger pull, anemic cartridge, and very slow to reload." I used to own one for for awhile... a revolver without an ejector system? Really? So I have to take out a cleaning rod or pencil to poke my empties out? Who thought that was a good idea? (yes I know about how the gas seal makes a silencer work but that's a small benefit...)

My vote goes to the Italian Carcano. Although it seemed to work well for Oswald

Has a cool factor, and I'd love to see one in the metal, but I imagine the Boys anti tank rifle became superceded fairly quickly during the war.
Hate to be anything un-armoured on the receiving end though.

The Sherman was an example of the U.S. Military going for production capability vs. upgrading performance capability. When first put into production the Sherman was viable but was soon found wanting as far as crew protection and ability to to take on the German heavy tanks was concerned. Since the Sherman was a medium and the German Panther and Tiger were heavies it was a mismatch from the get go. It took the Israelis to show what a Sherman could really do. Super Shermans with 105mm guns going toe to toe with T54/55s and T62s over twenty years after our Military deemed them obsolete.

As to what was the worst how about the British mini-subs that pretty much invariably killed their crews.

Our ex local Dentist had a 55 cal Boyes when he was here, he used it on old car bodies for the fun of it, he is over in Wagga now-a-days...one of my mates played with another out at the local range about two weeks ago...he still has a big stupid grin on his mug.

Not something that ever interested me though.

The Sherman is getting a bad rap. While it was bested in many cases, it also killed one helluva lot of German armor. When the Brits up gunned it with a 17 pounder 76.2mm gun, it was more than able to take on the Panther and Tiger.
Along with the better gun, came 'wet storage' for the tank ammo, which really cut down on fires after being hit.
The Sherman was upgraded in 1944 with heavier armor. This version, with the 76mm gun and extra 10,000 pounds of steel was the equal of a Panther.
Biggest advantage the Sherman had was numbers. We produced over 45,000 of them , or about twice as many Shermans as all of the tanks the Germans produced.

Spot on..a version of the Sherman was also produced with a diesel engine but I have no idea why this never became standard? Maybe to prevent overly complicating the logistics chain?

I think I remember that the Israelis still have Shermans in service as hull down along the boarders. I believe that they also have m-48s and m-60s for the same purpose.

Jim

I've got two worse than the Brewster Buffalo and the Devastator. At the start of the war we still had some Vought Vindicator's soldiering on. They were way past their prime.

Another lemon came from the British. The Fairey Battle and the Boulton Paul Defiant failed miserably and were eventually relegated to target tug status. Many good men died before they pulled those birds off the front lines.

The Stuka was outmatched in air-to-air combat, obviously, but talk to the guys on the ground who faced this plane, and you will get a far different story. Dad said the Stuka was feared and hated universally by the ground troops, as it extracted a horrible toll and demoralized many troops with it's screaming dives.

Quite likely..Towards the end of WW2, the British introded the Comet, an improved version of the Cromwell, and that stayed in service with various armies around the world untill the 1970's..

The Israelis also did a lot of development work to both the Sherman (became known as the Super Sherman) and the British Centurion, and I know both stayed in service along time..

Operation Aphrodite.

I agree. We produced so many of the Shermans, numerical superiority eventually was ours.

[quote=gophergunnerthe Boulton Paul Defiant failed miserably and were eventually relegated to target tug status. Many good men died before they pulled those birds off the front lines. [/quote]

Actually, althougth the Defiant was a flop as a day fighter, it went on to give decent service as a night fighter before getting religated to a target tug....

It seems crazy to build a fighter without any forward facing guns, but it was based on a WW1 concept..early in the war, the Royal Navy had a similar turret fighter, although I forget the name..Both became obsolete in fairly short order..

The PIAT was a pretty lousy anti-tank weapon.
Incredibly difficult to load and punishing to shoot.

Amen.

One of my uncles, a sergeant in The Royal Canadian Artillery, was an instructor on these and other weapons, before becoming an officer cadet and was injured by one of these "PIAT" guns. He was a volunteer and was chosen to become an officer, however, he deliberately gave this up and the safety of service in Canada, to volunteer as an infantry replacement when Canada, was so short of men for combat during the "Rhineland" campaign.

I never knew about this as most Canadian vets, of the scores I have known, were very reticent in discussing their service or what they had experienced. His younger brother told me about it at his funeral, and I have always admired a man who would leave a position as an officer in Canada, to serve in combat and quite possibly be killed.

I am so humbly grateful that I am the first eldest son of my mother's family in literally centuries who did not serve for at least a part of his life as a British or Canadian infantry officer; my generation has been SO blessed and we should always think about how bloody good, overall, we have had it in life.

Cousins of mine, US-born served in Vietnam and a couple of friends from WA. state were killed in that tragic conflict, again, boy, I often think of this and how a mere 50 miles of "geography" saved me from a similar fate at age 21 or so.

The worst "weapon" of WWII, Adolf Hitler, thank God.

That diesel was a Caterpillar design. 9 cylinder radial diesel, and was not at all successful. I don't think that they made more than 100 of them. The model was M4A6.