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

What folks don't realize, the 17lb gun used the Firefly was actually a better, more powerful gun than the 88mm used in the Tigers, and the Firefly could defeat the armor on the Tiger's and that the gunners sights on the Sherman was better than on many versions of the various Panzer's.

The Sherman was an evolutionary design that had been a long time on the drawing board and as a project, was not without it problems..The same could be said for the M26 Pershing which did not fair well in Korea a few years later and was later upgraded/developed into the Patton..

Us Brits had similar problems developing the Cromwell and the Comet and while both eventually became good tanks, and in some respects slightly better than the late model Shermans, they simply weren't available in numbers like the Sherman..

The German Panzer IV was their version of the Sherman, not perfect, but a work horse that continued to evolve through the war. As noted by others, until it was up gunned mid way through the war, it struggled to penetrate the armour on the better Allied tanks..

In the end, Allied air power so serious disrupted German industry she was forced to "down grade" to simpler production models to try to keep up with losses in the field..

I've always wondered how the STEN and the M3 compared, given they were both "cheap and cheerful" by design..I've used a STERLING SMG, the "delux" successor to the STEN and even that was pretty spartan..

Liberator Pistol

Not sure I'd want to pull the trigger on that!

All accounts I've read of the Sherman Firefly was that it's gun was effective against German Tanks. So much so that that the Germans prioritized killing it over other Sherman Tanks.
But the biggest threat to German armor in Western Europe was our artillery, and tactical fighter-bombers with rockets and napalm.

I totally agree..From a perspective of war rather than just interesting discussions, it always the "big picture" that's important...

The STEN and M3 were both perfection of the simple blowback SMG design. Both were models of manufacturing efficiency and low cost design. Both were open bolt, both fired from double column single feed magazines. Double column single feed magazines were VERY reliable if you kept the magazine clean, but became problematic in heavy dust or sand. Still dust and sand were rarely a problem because spare magazines were always in a pouch. Both guns had a heavy bolt reciprocating back and forth, but obviously the M3�s bolt was heavier.

I�ve shot both quite a bit and I�ll say flat out, the STEN is the superior weapon. Both were extremely reliable, two of the most reliable SMG�s of the war. But the M3 had horrible ergonomics and the rate of fire was so slow that full auto fire wasn�t very effective. The STEN actually balanced rather well. The STEN even though it had a higher cyclic rate, was more controllable than the M3, lighter weight, and generally easier for the user to employ effectively. The Brits were really onto something with the side magazine, a design curiously overlooked by most everyone else. When fire is incoming, a soldier can�t seem to get close enough to the ground, and the side mag really helps there. For CQB I�ve never found the magazine to be a hindrance at all. It never catches on doorways as its detractors claim it would and it doesn�t make the weapon want to roll in your hands. In short, it works very well.

At $9.00 per copy it was the most brilliant SMG created. And of course, it would later be refined into the Sterling, which is without a doubt the finest SMG ever built. There�s a reason why there were more Sterling�s built than any other sub gun in the world.

Sir Sam's reputation has been unjustly sullied in the past two decades due to the feud between the "Turner-Hughes" and the "Currie" factions in The Great War. Some popular historians, who lionize Currie, a common thief, for all his other virtues, have denigrated Hughes and in a vicious and foolish manner.

With his various issues addressed, it is the factual truth that Sir Samuel Hughes, D.S.O. was THE man who founded and largely built the basis of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, that became the finest military force of WWI, as the legendary "Canadian Corps". He blustered, badgered, browbeat and bullschitted the creation of "The Old Red Patch", the First Canadian Division, to get to France and become, as one British general called them, "the pride and honour of the British Army".

Hughes, is an important figure in our history and his family still serve in Canada's Forces to this day. He was my maternal great-grandmother's first cousin and my grandfather, Lt. D.N. McCallum, wounded at Courcelette and, badly, at Passchendaele, was his "nephew" and served in the 21stBatt.C.E.F, under Sam's younger brother, later Brig.-Gen. William St. Pierre Hughes,D.S.O.

After, 50+ years of reading history, I have learned that much of what is written about any figure is largely a result of the biases of the author, Churchill comes to mind and was, himself, guilty of a lot of this sort of "history".

Wasn't ol' Sam the main sponsor of those wonderful Ross rifles used by the CEF?

Lots of tank talk - they don't "always" improve...

Broken pull through will cause that!

Gunsmith version,,,,,

"I loaned my tank to my brother in law this past weekend and,,,,,,"

I got a Krieger I'll sell them for replacement.

Caption...

"I don't know L-Tee, we all went out for a beer, and when we got back, it was just like that."

Or better yet...

"See L-Tee, it was the cross-eye'd guy from Arkansas. He said hold my beer and watch this..."

Glock makes a tank?

Wasn't there a POJ 45 cal single shot pistol made out of stampings? Maybe it wasn't an issued weapon but were they dropped for the French Resistence or something?

Yup, and we bought ammo from sources that we should not have, plus the English ammo did not fit the Ross's chambers, IIRC. There were not enough Lee-Enfields at first, so, there are all sorts of theories as to why the Ross was chosen.

It was much like the US Army with no artillery, no transport, no ships, etc and they had to use whatever the Brits. and French would spare although their commander, Pershing, kept them out of actual combat for most of the time any US soldiers were in France.

Nobody, except the French and the Germans, were prepared for the huge "war of attrition" that soon evolved in western "Yurp" and everyone made some serious errors, BUT, Sam, got us into the fight forthwith and he deserves a LOT more credit than he has been given.

Most Canadians, now, know more about the US Civil War than the feats of their own men,due to the excessive presence here of US media, another serious issue in itself.

"Most Canadians, now, know more about the US Civil War than the feats of their own men,due to the excessive presence here of US media, another serious issue in itself."

Hey what are neighbors for???? Consider it our little gift you you guys!

BTW, spot on about the US Army! But Pershing was nice and offered the French The entire US Marine expeditionary force including the 2nd US Inf Div as well as the 36th Division! I don't think Johnny P wanted to mess with them....

George, I believe that was the Liberator that has been covered.