Did the Germans have the best weapons and equipment in both

>>31471033
not really, though dont tell the wehraboos

>>31471033
No.

>>31471033
No. Their training and doctrine made up for a good many deficiencies. Also their habit of mugging entire countries that didn't want to fight helped.

>>31471033
Yeah. Better primary weapon for their infantry squads, better tanks (Panthers and Tigers vs Ronsons + slavshit), better aircraft (look at all the aces)

Literally only lost due to being outnumbered. Whenever they had even numbers they won.

>>31471251
>The best tank possible is over-engineered, breaks down frequently and is only produced in very small numbers

No. Nazi soldiers hated their equipment so much they made bootleg versions of Sten guns to fix shortage and looted PPsh's from Ivan whenever they could.

>>31471471
That's not hating their equipment, that's fucking shortage, as in not having enough of them.

>>31471495
>and looted PPsh's from Ivan whenever they could.

>>31471506
>as in not having enough of them.
You realize even Ivan and yanks looted MP39/40 too right?

Yes, they had the best horse drawn wagons and handcarts of the whole war.

>>31471251
Wehraboo memes-the post.
Impressed that you actually went all in with the ronson-part as well. 2/10

>>31471033
In some fields yes. They had the best medium machineguns for sure. Other fields not so much.

File: 1390995095220.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

M1 Garand

>>31471033
Simple phrases don't do this topic justice, but the short answer is: not really.
A majority of their equipment tended to require an extremely high amount of maintenance and were not designed to withstand unforgiving conditions.

The MP-40, for example, while an overall fine gun, lacked the reliability and suppression to act as a war winning SMG. They were regularly traded in for Allied/Comintern replacements on the field.

Another example would be their logistics equipment, which was the worst of all major countries. Not to mention that most of their logistics was horse-driven, but their trucks were under-preforming, prone to breakdown, and couldn't drive in off-rode conditions due to the weak traction and the fact the narrow wheels sank deep into mud.

>>31471033
They had decent/good enough standard issue equipment, plus some cool/revolutionary concepts in R&D. The German army has historically never performed well do to superior technology/logistics/production, they perform well due to good training and excellent field commanders to give them a tactical edge.

>>31471580
How the fuck was the MP40 unreliable and lacked "suppression"?

They were only regular traded for fucking PPsh, you don't see germans trooping carrying Thompson for a reason.

Daily reminder that the best SMG of the war was the PPS 43

>>31471641
This

>>31471612
>you don't see germans trooping carrying Thompson for a reason.


That reason would be that Germans overran and slaughtered millions of Russkies and therefore had lots of opportunities to pick up dropped arms.

As opposed to fighting a retreating war against the yanks, and almost no opportunities to pick up Thompsons.

>>31471612
>you don't see germans trooping carrying Thompson for a reason.
That reason would be that Germans overran and slaughtered millions of Russkies and therefore had lots of opportunities to pick up dropped arms.

As opposed to fighting a retreating war against the yanks, and almost no opportunities to pick up Thompsons.

The real question is: what was a better battle rifle, the M1 Garand or SVT 40?

>>31471251
gtfo wheraboo

no. The germans didn't have the best stuff. The K98k was not the best rifle of the war. Neither was the Gw98. The MP40 was not the best SMG of the war. The Tiger and Panther were not the best tanks of the war, not a chance. The Bf-109 and Fw-190 were not the best fighters of the war.

I'd hope the small arms are self explanatory. For the tanks, the fact is that the tiger was obsolete by the time it hit service. It had 100mm of frontal hull armor with no slope. Fuck, Shermans and T-34's had that much frontal armor, and the later versions of Shermans and T-34's had as much and more armor. It had a good gun, but again, the Russian 85mm Zis-S-53 was pretty much as good, and the later American 76mm with HVAP was as good. That's not even counting guns like the American 90mm and the Soviet 122mm tank guns, which shat all over the Tiger's gun. It was also too expensive, hard to manufacture, and didn't have the greatest reliability. Most of its fearsome reputation was earned by Panzer Mk IV's that the Allies just called "Tiger" anyways. The PzIV was a much more effective armored vehicle for the germans, as was the StuG III/IV.

The Panther had as many and more reliability problems as the Tiger, had the same manufacturing problems, and again just wasn't that fantastic. It's frontal hull is only equivalent 140mm thick. That's not that much more than Allied tanks. Most recent statistics soundly disprove the "4 shermans for every panther" meme, with there being more than one occasion where shermans went up against panther divisions and came out on top, with better kill ratios against them.

The Bf-109 and Fw-190 were fantastic fighters. The problem is that the Allies easily equalled them. Post-war tests showed that the Fw-190 was roughly on par with the F4U Corsair and the F6F Hellcat. The absurdly high kill counts of german aces came from shooting down tons of soviet planes in turkey shoots against noob pilots who were just thrown into the fight.

>>31471612
>They were only regular traded for fucking PPsh, you don't see germans trooping carrying Thompson for a reason.
I believe the Germans preferred the Grease gun over the Thompson, as did the GIs

>>31471033
Yes. Their equipment was vastly superior to anything any other army issued in the entire war. The German Army was simply superior in every way, doctrine, equipment, training, leadership, everything. They were stretched too thin and out produced. Don't tell UKucks, Freedums, or Slavs that though. It triggers them.

>>31471033
the problem was, all the stuff need to win the was still on the drawing board, they had no long range heavy bombers. They under produced most of the weapons like assault rifles and cheap tanks.

>>31471641
>not the Suomi KP-31

>>31471033
Logistical failures out the ass bogged them down badly. Take operation Barbarossa for example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_3R-Rkn_98

>>31471666
>he thinks being on the defensive means you are constantly moving backwards
how cute

>>31471729
Over 10lbs unloaded, how about no.

File: german liberty ships.jpg (48KB, 800x535px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 800x535px

>>31471529
/thread

Kraut horse drawn carriages shat all over their Allied counterparts

>>31471681
>Most recent statistics soundly disprove the "4 shermans for every panther" meme

Last time I saw the statistics analyzed the conclusion was that Americans in Western Europe destroyed 3 German armored vehicles for every 2 they lost

>>31471681
>and shermans and t-34s also routinely got shit on by the Panzers and especially tigers

Actually read some history. In France, the only reason American armor was able to push through was because they vastly outnumbered the German armor and they still took heavy losses. America alone took 7,000 armored losses against an already beaten down German army. German armor wasn't the most reliable, but it was by far the most effective.

You can read Russian manuals that explicitly say never to fight German armor in a 1 to 1 ratio. The Russian plan for fighting German armor was to shoot it with artillery. There was no plan for tank-tank combat. The Russians at Kursk would literally slam their tanks into German armor in hopes of putting the German armor out of commission. For all the talk of "muh sloped armor" t34s were still a pile of dogshit. They had a peashooter WWI tier cannon and a garbage engine. The only thing the t34 had going for it was it's sloped armor.

You don't have to take my word for it. You can read the accounts of tank drivers from the period and they all universally feared German armor and for good reason. Tigers aren't the fist of God, but to say they weren't the best of WWII on a 1 to 1 basis is total bs. German armor was absolutely the best, the system supporting that system was the issue. >>31471845

>>31471760

That's not what I said.

How many russian divisions were captured, overrun, destroyed?

How many American?

The answer to that is why Germans carried Papashas and not Thompsons.

>>31471033
They didn't have nukes or carriers, so no.

>>31471804
Anyone have that guncam-clip of a Typhoon killing a "tiger tank"?

>>31471688
>implying the Sten, MP40, and M3 Greasegun were significantly different in capability from each other

fucks sake guys the mags were even compatible on the Sten and MP40

>>31471697
>superior in every way
>muh stretched out too thin
>still lost evenly-matched battles

>>31471870
lol so many memes, so little time
>muh allies overwhelmed them with superior numbers meme
>ignores examples of shermans getting superior kill ratios against panthers in evenly matched conflicts
>muh soviet tanks had to resort to ramming german tanks
>ignores the fact that the T-34 had the same thickness frontal armor as a Tiger, thicker than a PzIV, and the T-34-85 had a gun that could penetrate Tigers and Panthers.
>reminder that the soviets produced almost as many T-34-85's as they did regular T-34's
>lies about the soviets not planning for tank-to-tank combat

explain to me how a tank with relatively mediocre armor, crappy mobility and reliability, low production numbers and shitty manufacturing, with its best feature being a gun that was quickly equaled by Allied tanks, is somehow the best tank of the war.

It's ok to still like the tank and admit that it wasn't the best tank of the war. I love the panther, it's probably my favorite WWII tank. But it was far from the best. The Tiger is an undeniably cool tank, but again, it's far from the best.

>>31471681
>and shermans and t-34s also routinely got shit on by the Panzers and especially tigers

Actually read some history. In France, the only reason American armor was able to push through was because they vastly outnumbered the German armor and they still took heavy losses. America alone took 7,000 armored losses against an already beaten down German army. German armor wasn't the most reliable, but it was by far the most effective.

You can read Russian manuals that explicitly say never to fight German armor in a 1 to 1 ratio. The Russian plan for fighting German armor was to shoot it with artillery. There was no plan for tank-tank combat. The Russians at Kursk would literally slam their tanks into German armor in hopes of putting the German armor out of commission. For all the talk of "muh sloped armor" t34s were still a pile of dogshit. They had a peashooter WWI tier cannon and a garbage engine. The only thing the t34 had going for it was it's sloped armor.

You don't have to take my word for it. You can read the accounts of tank drivers from the period and they all universally feared German armor and for good reason. Tigers aren't the fist of God, but to say they weren't the best of WWII on a 1 to 1 basis is total bs. German armor was absolutely the best, the system supporting that system was the issue.

File: 1459043783417.jpg (3MB, 3648x2736px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3648x2736px

they didn't have the ping machine so no

>>31471495
Should've had weapons that were better for production.

>>31471969
>Shermans was gud in WWII
How about a scholarly article that says you're a faggot?

http://archives.library.illinois.edu/blog/poor-defense-sherman-tanks-ww2/

>Pic related of tank ramming
>With a moment of free time, you can literally google hundreds of images and reports of t34s ramming German armour because their guns were useless
>THERE IS LITERALLY A MONUMENT BUILT BY THE RUSSIANS DEPICTING T34S RAMMING GERMAN TANKS AT KURSK

Actually go read about Russian armour tactics during WWII. Their only plan for attacking German armour head on was to use KV's and position them at a high enough or low enough angle that the German Panzers couldn't respond efficiently. They would couple this ambush with presighted artillery bombardments.

>T-34s/Shermans were just as good as "X"
No, no they weren't. You can look at loss ratios between the two and still see that despite losing the war, Germany still knocked out more Allied/Soviet tanks than vice versa. The allies didn't have good grasp on important armor concepts at the time they designed tanks like the Stuart and Sherman and the Soviets just needed something that could be mass produced to try and halt the onslaught. Tigers and Panzers were tanks that were purpose built for years prior to their manufacture. They were purpose built for what they did. They were overly complicated, especially in the face of total war, but they were absolutely the best tank on the field in WWII without question.

>>31471033
No, that would be the Allies, particularly the Western Allies.

>>31472218
>US lost ~7000 tanks on the Western Front
>Germany lost ~17000 tanks on the Western Front
>still pretending that the german tanks had awesome KDR against Shermans
sorry wheraboo, you're plain wrong.

>thinks that a single incident or two of soviet tankers ramming a german tank is indicative of actual soviet military tactics just because it was used as a propaganda piece by the soviets to demonstrate how tenacious and hard they were fighting

show me these hundreds of images and reports of this happening. You're lying. Show the source. The fact that you think tank ramming was a serious major armored warfare tactic used by the soviets makes you horribly retarded. I'm so sorry.

>>31472298
>inb4 "but muh losses to allied air support!!!" tears

>>31471681
>ameriboo thinking the primary weapon of infantry squads was the rifle and not the GPMG

top kek, learn history you cuck

>>31472338
ok, so compare GPMG's. Which, by the way, wasn't even a term used back then, so I'd like to know which MG's you're referring to. Lemme guess, you're one of the "OMG MG42 BEST MG EVAAARRRR" guys, right?

Sure, the MG-42 was a great machine gun.

File: 070123185337_t-34_3.jpg (34KB, 542x308px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 542x308px

>>31472298
>17,000 at the end of the war
>That figure includes the THOUSANDS captured during the final stages of the war
>Figure includes SPGs and Half-Tracks: IE not tanks

Look at actual battles. You will rarely see the Germans on the losing end of tank-tank combat. The Germans did have considerable losses, but not to Sherman tanks. You would know that if you read the source I posted.

File: CHERRIO HANS, HOWSABOUT A CUPPA TEA.jpg (2MB, 3426x2765px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3426x2765px

>>31471033
>both world wars
See filename

>>31472298
Also, read "Memoirs of A Red Army Tank Commander" by Vasily Krysov. He details numerous instances where he personally witnessed Soviet tanks deliberately ram into German armour.

File: Little_boy.jpg (156KB, 703x462px)

156KB, 703x462px

No.

>>31471681
>THE FW-190, THE BF-109
>literally thinks there were only two fighters in service in the LW, and they were the same from beginning to end.

The 109 series was steadily equal to or better than any allied fighter all the way up to 1944, the FW-190D9 was one of most superb prop fighters ever made, and far outclassed US fighters, by comparison to the F4U, it was much faster, lighter, enjoyed a higher roll rate, and a better high alt fighter, not to mention the high tech pilot comfort features of ground breaking automated systems that lead the cockpit to look more like a modern fighter's rather than your typical sloppy mid 40's dash and control setup. But these are all things a plebs like yourself would have trouble grasping, I'm sure

>>31471681

BTFO by
>>31471997

All soldiers took arms from their foes, doesn't prove anything.
The tiger could knock out shermans before their guns could even hit accurately, less make a dent in the tigers non-sloped armor. Who cares? If you can kill someone before they even see you, who cares what your armor looks like.

Most tigers were killed by planes, allied air power and sheer numbers defended the axis armor, not superior tanks.

I agree the germans should have made more Panzer 4s and STUG 3s.
K98 action still copied and used today.
STG 44 lead the way to modern military arms,
All the allies built heavy tanks to deal with German heavy armor.
Lead the way in Aircraft.
Lead the way in Rocketry.
Lead the way in Missile technology.

>>31472607
>Lead the way in Aircraft.
>Lead the way in Rocketry.
>Lead the way in Missile technology.
It's funny because they didn't do any of these things.

>>31472644
It was the Russians, German just stole it and shit.

>>31472445
>rarely lost tank-tank combat
LOL. ok bud.

>>31472495
ok but so what? I never denied that it did happen sometimes, I am laughing at the idea that it somehow proves the glorious superiority of german tanks.

>>31472526
yes, I'm well aware that there were many versions of those planes that changed over the course of the war, thank you.

See, this is why people hate you wheraboos. You can A) never admit that a piece of german equipment wasn't the best, and B) can never admit that anything else equaled them

Fucks sake I agree, the Fw-190 (especially the later D versions) was one of the best fighters of the entire war. But to claim it was significantly better than the late war American and British fighters is just stupid and you're in denial of actual tests that were done. And what is this nonsense you're having a fap about with the cockpit? It looks pretty much the same as other late-war fighters.

>>31472607
actual studies done on tank kill ranges shows that most allied and german tank kills happened at similar ranges. tank kills at 1000m range, (much less 1500m range) were extremely rare. The idea that Tigers were sitting back picking off allied tanks from super long range is a meme.

And here's your reminder that A) the Sherman had around the same frontal armor as the Tiger, and B) that the 76mm armed Shermans (of which there were many more of than there were Tigers) could easily penetrate the Tiger's armor.

Again with the memes about poor outnumbered germans killing hordes of allied tanks. Look up the actual facts. In the Battle of Arrancourt, the germans had a significant numerical advantage against the allied tanks, with many of the german tanks being Panthers, and most of the allied tanks being shermans. The Panthers got BTFO, with the allies getting a 4:1 kill ratio.

There's always an excuse though right?

K98 action still used today? As are many other bolt actions. So what?

>>31472399
wow, this whole post

>ok, so compare GPMG's.
Already did

>Which, by the way, wasn't even a term used back then
... relevance?

>so I'd like to know which MG's you're referring to.
Probably the ones they used, numbnuts. Which do you think it'd be?

>Lemme guess, you're one of the "OMG MG42 BEST MG EVAAARRRR" guys, right?
>Sure, the MG-42 was a great machine gun.
so are you strawmanning or are you that guy?

Regardless, German infantry squads had the better weapon and organization. Next?

>>31472607
are you seriously arguing that the K98 was significantly better than the SMLE no.4? Or the Springfield 1903? or the M1 Garand? Or the Mosin-Nagant M91/30? Explain to me how it was significantly better.

>>31472814
you never compared "GPMG's".

the fact that it's a term that didn't exist back then is relevant because it means you need to define which weapons you're talking about. You haven't yet.

and is it a strawman? You just said that the German infantry squads had the better weapon. Which weapon are you talking about?

>>31472786
>But to claim it was significantly better than the late war American and British fighters is just stupid and you're in denial

It doesn't seem like you realize that claiming the opposite (american fighters being far superior) is entirely wildly innacurate as well. Pound for pound, the D9 did outclass most allied fighters, and was equaled by the P-47M, and late 51D's and suped up late '45 Spit models. The VVS had nothing comparable to any of those planes, nor the japs

>>31472445
Arracourt. They got their heads kicked in there.
>includes halftracks
Not a chance. It'd be 5 times that if it was.

>>31472786
>yes, I'm well aware that there were many versions of those planes

You clearly didn't, until just now

>>31472607
>Most tigers were killed by planes, allied air power and sheer numbers defended the axis armor, not superior tanks.
More like 5-10%.
Something like 150 of them were destroyed in France, of which only 14 were killed from the air, and 8 of those were from the preliminary bombardments from strategic bombers.

>>31471575
was and continues to be the jammingest, worst piece of military equipment aside from the M16 in human history.

>>31473586
>Lets compare the best of the Germans and apply it in general terms
The Germans were at best, at parity for most of the war.

File: image.jpg (299KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 1920x1080px

As a Waffen SS reenactor no....GOD NO. All the gear hooks together and with little rings and straps and is a pain to get on and off. You basically have to take it apart every time it goes on and off. Once it's on its fine but it still sucks.

>inb4 cheap shit no it's all from atthefront.

>>31471652
They got a bunch of Thompson from all the airdrops to various Allies countries.

They still don't use them much.

The PPsh is really good shit though.

>>31473727
The 109 E through K were all either equal, or flat out better than their contemporary opponents.

>>31472674
Isn't that the reverse, especially rocket technology?

>>31473774

In some respects, and worse in others. Their roll rates and turning radius's were never that impressive, and their low altitude performances were never quite up to the Soviets.

That's alright, they were intended to be fast planes with good climb rates, but they were certainly, like a lot of planes, specialists.

>>31473773
Hurri and Spit Mk1s couldn't even follow 109s into a negative G pusher over. The Eastern front was a turkey shoot again I-16s and I-153s, Jesus christ

>>31473822
>into a negative G pusher over
Of course they could, they just flipped their aircraft, much like the Germans did as part of the manurer anyway.

>>31473869
>I clearly have no idea about early RAF carburetors
>I also don't actually know what a negative G is

>>31473935
Reading comprehension, motherfucker. Learn it. You pull back on the stick any, the aircraft had the G's whatever it's attitude to allow for fuel to flow without incident, and in any case there were quickly field-based workarounds before fuel injection was installed as standard.

The germans still make best weapons, see H&K, see Rheinmetal.

H&K even sued the German govt and beat them over the quality of their guns.

>>31473869
>>31473989

>I also clearly have no idea that the slow roll rate of the Spitfire and it's weak carburetor were exploited by the Germans who would in fact make abrupt nose downward negative G pushes knowing this would throw the brits off because they couldn't immediately follow

>>31474025
>I clearly have no idea about the roll rate of the Spitfire
>I clearly have no idea what organisational knowledge management means or it's implications for the air force
>I clearly have no idea how short a period the carburettor problem actually mattered
>Muh Luftwaffe super aces.

>>31474044
>I greentexted the Spitfire's roll rate for some reason
>even though it had one of the longest roll rates of any front line allied fighter
>I also refuse to acknowledge basic tactical facts of the Battle of Britain

File: gk3Z64A.png (3KB, 247x290px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 247x290px

>>31471033
Not really, there really was not a single combatant nation that was flat out besit in all areas of equipment in either conflict. There are pros and cons to pretty much all approaches, how tactics are utilized to increase the pros and reduce the cons is what the Germans excelled at early, but they were fairly hopeless on the industrial front in the end.

>>31472826
not that anon, but he just said K98 action was good enough to still be used today

>SMLE
good rifle, but weaker action

>Springfield 1903
Essentially a copy, so I'd put this as a tie

>M1 Garand
Was definitely more useful

>Mosin-Nagant M91/30
Anyone who thinks a Nugget is in any way or shape a better rifle than the K98 is a troll

>>31474017

Are you talking about the G36s that were proven to deform and refuse to hold accuracy or zeroing?

>>31474494

The Arisaka was the best bolt action of the war anyway.

The M1 was the best standard issue rifle, hands down, no contest.

>>31471033
Their shit was usually quality, but it was heavily over engineered, especially in World War II. The German procurement system was so fucked initially that Speer was able to improve output through mid-late1944 even as the allied bombing campaigns took a heavy toll on the industrial base.

Richard Overy has a fantastic book called Why the Allies Won and it has great chapters on the strengths and weaknesses of each belligerent's wartime economy.

File: muh krupp stahl.png (45KB, 330x241px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 330x241px

Germany having the best weapons and equipment of the wars is a huge wehraboo meme.

They're shit wasn't shit but it was not the best.

>horses

>>31474787
>The German procurement system was so fucked initially
Can you give us a thumbnail sketch as to how and why?

>>31474822
Basically the German military had too much say in the design, and it went too far down into the chain of command. Down to maybe the division level, officers could turn to factories and say, "hey this design needs fixing, or we need a specific vehicle for this task." While this may seem like a great system it actually really hurt the procurement process as the Germans were going to war with many more models of vehicle in service, which naturally places a strain on your logistics chain as things need to be repaired and replaced. Furthermore the Germans tended to look down upon mass production, believing that it lead to inferior quality goods. While this was definitely the case, it also meant Germany was vastly outproduced.

Here's the full chapter here, good read if you're curious: https://www.docdroid.net/iG1sl0E/why-the-allies-won-chapter-7-a-war-of-engines-1.pdf.html#page=3

>>31471033
No,
"German Engineering" is a meme
everyone who is saying yes is drawing their knowledge from video games.

>>31474822
>>31474898
Wrong chapter, go to page 198 for German experience: https://www.docdroid.net/eQmCEBU/why-the-allies-won-ww-norton-1997-chapter-6-a-genius-for-mass-production-180-207-1.pdf.html

>>31471033
Someone mentioned that he need not mention small arms. I suppose that's true for most readers here, but for some... no. Handgun production was slow, and done by true craftsmen, during the first war, and even into the early years of the second. The P-08 was and is a beautiful handgun, but it has too many moving parts, and the ejection port was easily jammed by the slightest grit. The P-38 was a foolish design - a DAO for combat?? Even then, the P-08 was issued until at least 1942. And machine gun crews were issued carbine versions of the Luger for the most part. The submachine gun (of any make) was in short supply, high demand. The USA had the Colt/Browning design; could drop it in mud, slosh it around in a bit of water, and it would be working again. Few have improved on that design since.

>>31474966
>the ejection port was easily jammed by the slightest grit
Not true.
>And machine gun crews were issued carbine versions of the Luger for the most part
Most P08's were on their way out by 1943. Only Naval and artillery troops got issued the 7" and 9" variants.
>Few have improved on that design since.
By ignoring the lighter, controllable submachineguns that have come since?

>>31474966
And the P38 is not DAO.

File: Battle of Arracourt.png (30KB, 313x607px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 313x607px

>>31472445

> 2 Panzer Brigades
> regiments from 2 more Panzer Divisions

vs

> 1 combined arms armored regiment
> No air support

Germans completely BTFO, -80 panthers.

>>31473586
P-47M, P-51H, and F4U-4 shits all over FW-190 D9.

P-47M
> 473 MPH @ 32,000 feet
> 4,000 feet/minute rate of climb @ 10,000 feet

P-51H
> 471 MPH @ 22,700 feet
> 5210 feet/minute climb @ 5000 feet

F4U-4
> 440 MPH @ 29,990 feet
> 4360 feet/second @ sea level

FW-190 D-9
> 435 MPH@17,000 feet, drops down to just 405 MPH@29,000 feet
> 3329 feet/min @ sea level, dropping off much faster with altitude

D9 is at best a match for P-51D, which has the penalty of carrying around the fuckhuge fuel tank that lets it fly 3 times farther than D9.

>>31474711
Yes, the very same G36 that has been proven quality in court against the German government.

german government buying low quality G36 =/= G36 being low quality.

>>31475203
>3rd armor vs kiddies in tanks for the first time.
Much wow.

>>31471969
>still lost evenly-matched battles
I doubt they fought many of those. I have a hard time imagining they managed to find battles wherein the enemy actually managed to have worse logistics than them.

>>31475203
Attack versus defend should expect 3x casualties - nothing to see here

>>31475396
>still lost

>>31471580
>They were regularly traded in for Allied/Comintern replacements

Did you mean "Soviet"? "Comintern" was not a country that produced weapons.

>couldn't drive in off-rode conditions

"off-rode"

>>31475323
One regiment of 4th armored division thank you very much. Mind you, by this point 4th armored had already been engaged in combat since Operation Cobra 2 months earlier. In the two months between Operation Cobra and Arracourt, the Division first moved south to Nantes, north to Coutances, then finally to Nancy and Arracourt, a distance of over 1400 kilometers, averaging 35 km per day for 2 months. Just this amount of automotive movement would be impossible for any WW2 tank except the Sherman. While the Germans could maintain this rate of advance for a week during the Battle of France, 4th AD kept it up over 6 weeks, which was extremely exhausting for the men.

In comparison, all the Panzer units committed at Arracourt were fresh, but green. Even so, 2 brigades and two regiments getting their asses handed to them by one reinforced regiment with "inferior vehicles"...

makes you think

>>31475246
Apparently speed was everything back then

>>31475469

It's a pretty big deal since you can just run away, keep the enemy out of gun range and be perfectly save. Once you opened up the distance, you can climb to gain an altitude and energy advantage, which makes the other guy's life really hard.

What that data shows is that against the Allied late war fighters, FW-190 D-9 gets outrun, get outclimbed, and both P-51 and F4U-4 can out turn a FW-190, although they can't roll as well. In a dive all 3 can catch a FW-190 D-9 with zero problems, which also means all 3 can dive away from a D-9 to relative safety.

>>31475246
P-51H did not serve in WW2, came too late.

>>31474901
Some of the best weapons of the war were things germans captured and improved upon. German engineering is good when you take it to mean german improvisational engineering. Germans are shit at designing things from the ground up, they are good at improving things.

>>31475486
Isn't that mostly due to engine power and isn't that mostly due to the high octane gas that allies could produce in quantity?
On that Germany was gimped by geography. Not by mismanagement (other than starting the war shit).

>>31471033
So this the power of 4chan contrarianism...
>10 years ago /k/
>YEA DEY WURR D BEST.

That said, in WWII they did have bog-standard bolt action rifles like most cunts, but their other firearms are quality

>>31471033
It depends. In many categories they were the Superior, but not in all. In some categories other countries is better

>>31471870
>Actually read some history. In France, the only reason American armor was able to push through was because they vastly outnumbered the German armor and they still took heavy losses. America alone took 7,000 armored losses against an already beaten down German army. German armor wasn't the most reliable, but it was by far the most effective.

Yes, clearly all 7,000 tanks were lost to German tanks, and not to artillery, mines, static anti-tank guns, close-assault infantry, anti-tank rockets, accidents and friendly fire.

http://ftr.wot-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/BritTankLossess1.png

>>31473726
Are you a fucking retard? Explain the G43.

>>31471919
>The answer to that is why Germans carried Papashas and not Thompsons.

That's definitely true. But add to that the fact that PPshs were produced by the millions and Thompsons were relatively rare. They were labor intensive and expensive to make, so they were quickly replaced for most SMG roles by the grease gun. I think the airborne units were the only ones who kept a high number of them in general issue....everyone else who rated an SMG got an M3 or carbine more and more often as the war went on.

>>31472008

The Garand was objectively the best general issue rifle of the war. if you open the catagory up to include the STG-44, you could make some arguments between the two. Leave it out, and the answer is clear.

>>31471919
Lets not forget the logistical aspect, Germans aren't going to have much easy access to .45ACP, 7.62 is going to be available through capture from bother overrun Soviet positions and their satellite states.

>>31471919
Except the germans do get hold of Thompson in various airdrops, they still do not use them much compared to MP40.
>>31475663
There were millions of Thompson post WW2, it's actually the grease gun that is rare.

>>31475684
The germs like PPsh so much they modify it to fire 9mm though.

>>31472338
>>ameriboo thinking the primary weapon of infantry squads was the rifle and not the GPMG

>retard wehraboo thinking US infantry squads had machineguns.

File: Chachaut.jpg (84KB, 1027x443px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 1027x443px

>>31473726
>was and continues to be the jammingest, worst piece of military equipment aside from the M16 in human history.

Confirmed for dumbest retard in thread.

>>31475673
I'd argue the SVT-40 was a better gun, and made in similar numbers. Not completely general issue, yes, but the Russians had a shit ton of men to equip.

>>31475736
the chachaut in its original caliber is a good, reliable gun. The 30 06 version was the shit one.

>>31475685
>Except the germans do get hold of Thompson in various airdrops, they still do not use them much compared to MP40.

How many do you think they could get a hold of through capturing "airdrops"?

>There were millions of Thompson post WW2,

Total production was about 1.5 million, so....no.

>it's actually the grease gun that is rare.

You're probably actually right, there. They made about half as many M3s as Thompsons.

>>31475779
>How many do you think they could get a hold of through capturing "airdrops"?
Probably hundreds or thousands?
>Total production was about 1.5 million, so....no.
I really doubt that since the chinks got a lot of thompson through lend-lease.

>>31475773
>Open side magazine
>Reliable

You must choose, my child.

>>31475796
>Probably hundreds or thousands?

And you say "they don't use them much compared to MP40" as though that would be surprising or some sort of argument that MP40 is superior?

>I really doubt that since the chinks got a lot of thompson through lend-lease.

Go ahead and doubt it if you like. I really don't care. Maybe you'll go look for yourself.

>>31475396
>Trys to brush off battle by saying attackers will always have higher casualties
>turns around and says allied armor was trash because they took high casualties even through they were on the offensive most of the war

>>31475773
>The 30 06 version was the shit one.

Doesn't really matter, does it? So the .30-06 was the shit model... the existence of the .30-06 version puts the (self-evidently retarded, anyway) claim that the Garand and M16 are the worst pieces of military equipment in human history to the lie.

It's such a ridiculous claim that I'm amazed I have to say anything, and that the original poster of that comment hasn't gone off and killed himself in embarassment, anyway.

>asking this question in a American jerkoff board

File: upyoursfritz.jpg (338KB, 1755x1746px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 1755x1746px

>>31472488
this kek

>>31475818
>And you say "they don't use them much compared to MP40" as though that would be surprising or some sort of argument that MP40 is superior?
If they were superior, a lot more would be using them, I mean, the germs were fucking desperate.
>Go ahead and doubt it if you like. I really don't care. Maybe you'll go look for yourself.
I go look it up and it says this:
>Over 1.5 million military Thompson submachine guns were produced during World War II.[31]
So this is just an estimation.

>>31475866
>If they were superior, a lot more would be using them, I mean, the germs were fucking desperate.

Except you can't just say "sir, I like this american gun I found better than the one I was issued, okay if I keep it?" and expect not to get slapped upside the head by your sergeant for wasting the lieutenant's time. Also, where are you going to find ammo for this submachinegun you were somehow allowed to keep from a captured airdrop instead of loading onto a truck to be taken to the rear? Let me guess... "airdrops."

>So this is just an estimation.

You're right. Obviously, the real number must be much higher, because you doubt it out of some vague idea that the Chinese got millions of them or something.

>>31471033
Better in most cases, but their complexity went against them for mass production, and vaity projects got in the way of more needed requirements like a proper 4 engine bomber. Not being able to hit your enemies biggest shipbuilding cities like Glasgow and Belfast wth anything meaningful is pretty pathetic.

>>31475888
>Except you can't just say "sir, I like this american gun I found better than the one I was issued, okay if I keep it?" and expect not to get slapped upside the head by your sergeant for wasting the lieutenant's time. Also, where are you going to find ammo for this submachinegun you were somehow allowed to keep from a captured airdrop instead of loading onto a truck to be taken to the rear? Let me guess... "airdrops."
They can modify the thompson to fire 9mm like they did with the PPsh, then again, it would be too much trouble considering the MP40 already does all the thing the Thompson does.
>You're right. Obviously, the real number must be much higher, because you doubt it out of some vague idea that the Chinese got millions of them or something.
Chinks were actually cloning the thompson at the time, so I guess some of those thompsons weren't american.

>>31473935
do you think you're the only person here who knows about WWII? Fucks sake anon, probably everyone here has heard the old "british planes have gravity carburetors and couldn't pull negative G's" thing. Fucks sake you're reciting History-Channel-tier knowledge and acting as if you're some expert.

>>31475323
>>31475396
see, there's always excuses.

Germans rack up ridiculous kill ratios on the Eastern Front against a horribly gutted soviet army, and it's "muh superior german engineering", but Panthers get BTFO by Shermans on the Western Front and it's "b-b-b-b-but muh air support and muh attack vs defend"

>>31475827
because that's what wheraboos do. If the Germans lost, or if German tanks got raped, there's ALWAYS excuses. They blame the battle's terrain, the battle's circumstances, they blame attacking vs defending, they blame air support, artillery support, anything you can think of. But when German tanks win, it's clear-cut MUH SUPERIOR GERMAN STAHL

>>31475930
>it would be too much trouble considering the MP40 already does all the thing the Thompson does.

It's just that the Thompson in .45 is better.

>>31475930
>They can modify the thompson to fire 9mm like they did with the PPsh, then again, it would be too much trouble

It'd be too much trouble given that the overwhelming majority of German soldiers wouldn't have the time, facilities, materials, or skill to do so.

This is really daytime /k/ stuff, man. Rebarreling and rechambering a gun isn't like in a video game where you just make a couple of clicks and swap out parts.

>>31476018
>muh stopping power

is there any real way that it's significantly better? effective range? price/manufacturing? reliability? I don't want to hear about how much more mystical man-stopping firepower it has.

>>31471033
No.

They've had some cool stuff and some garbage.

>>31475685
Have you ever thought about how many factories there were in Germany making .45 ACP, a caliber that none of their weapons used, and ammo which they would rarely capture.

>>31471033
No.

>>31476000
>gets caught not knowing basic facts
>gets mad because other people knew them

File: nkl26.jpg (33KB, 675x421px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 675x421px

>>31471033
>WW1
German infantry equipment and guns in general were pretty good, not too much better or worse than allied equipment (no points awarded)
German Aircraft miles ahead of allied aircraft to start with (thanks to one dutch fokker), but they soon caught up (1 point awarded to Germany)
Allies led the way with the whole tank thing though, so Germans lose that race (1 point to Allies)
>WW1 Result: 1 to 1: even

>WW2
I'll give the Germans points for their MG42's, rifle-grenades, Panzerschreck, panzerfausts, and the first assault rifles (Stgs) also their paratrooper rifles (FG-42) were pretty damn nifty. (1 point to Germans)
Early war armor was actually inferior to many other countries: Polish tanks were superior to Pz. Is and IIs, and modern Russian tanks were superior to the Pz. IIIs and IVs, albeit in smaller numbers, and far worse crewed. (1 point to non german equipment)
Mid and late war German armor was .... ok. While the tanks were well armored and had good weapons, they weren't always easy to maintain, and performed poorly in shit terrain. over-complicated, but pretty good on the defensive or with excellent crews. I think the allied strategy of build a shit ton of maneuverable mediums was a better one than relying on a few heavies, just my personal opinion, and you end up losing a lot more tanks, but used well in infantry support you can still do well (1 point awarded to non germans)
Artillery and anti tank guns, I gotta say the Flak88 was excellent as an anti tank gun, same with the Pak-40 and its interesting to see HEAT rounds used in things like the Pak-38 to extend their life and make them useful in late war. I will give this to the germans (1 point)
Aircraft, Germans had the advantage to start with, their fuel injection was pretty good for fighters compared to British aircraft of the time. I will award 1 point to the Germans here. (1 point)

>WW2 total:
Non Germans: 2
Germans: 3

totals for my personal opinion:
German: 4 points
Allied: 3 points

>>31471033
Lee enfield existed in both wars. So no.

>>31476733
Lee-Enfield is a nice rifle, but it wasn't the best. The rifle was mechanically not as strong as the Mauser, or even the Mosin-Nagant.

>>31471033
in some areas but im to busy to go into it in depth
i gotta get off /k/ and slog through this final semester i havent done shit yet and i got exams

>>31472218
>[1] Letter to a Mr. von der Weiden from Henry J. Earl (1983). Haynes Dugan Papers, Record Series 26/20/76, Box 1, Folder, Jan-June, 1985.

>[2] Cooper, Belton. Death Traps. Random House, 1998. xii.

>[3] Correspondence from Haynes Dugan to Walter Stitt. Book Review, Record Series 26/20/76, Box 10, Folder 1998, January-September, p. 2.

>[4] Correspondence from Haynes Dugan to Walter Stitt. Book Review, Record Series 26/20/76, Box 10, Folder 1998, January-September, p.4.

>[5] Cooper, Belton. Death Traps. Random House, 1998. xiii.

>Death traps two times
Instantly disregarded.

>>31472298
>>US lost ~7000 tanks on the Western Front
>>Germany lost ~17000 tanks on the Western Front
Are you sure the numbers aren't reversed? I don't believe the Germany military even had 17000 at even their height.

>>31471641

Yep. If you ever get to shoot one it will be immediately clear why it shits all over contemporary SMGs.

>>31474720
The arisaka, again, is essentially a k98 copy.

>>31475845
cheeky/10

>>31471845
>Americans in Western Europe destroyed 3 German armored vehicles for every 2 they lost

I highly doubt that. Just got done reading Tiger by Bruce Culver and the kills that got racked up where astonishing. Especially considering they were fighting the best WW2 Allied tank, the T-34, and not Sherman trash.

>>31477026
Nice bait.

>>31476733
If ww1 wouldnt have broken out when it did the lee enfield would have been replaced for a mauser type bolt with a british type cocking action. P14 baby.

>>31477026
The T-34 was quite poor in all iterations. It was extremely unreliable even when it could depend on its armour and gun early on in the war. The 85 mm made it better than the PzIVs but still had poor penetration against the larger German tanks and had shitty accuracy like almost all Ruskie tank guns.
The Easy 8s encountered T-34-85s in Korea and found them easy enough to knock out.

>>31471678
M1 hands down

>>31476026
As said, they did retool the PPsh and make 9mm version of it, I believe that takes about the same or even more effort than converting a .45 gun to fire 9mm.

>>31471033
No. Their tanks were sub-par (except the Stug which was excellent). The Kar98k was average and the STG wasn't produced in enough numbers to make a difference,

Early Me109s and FW190s swept the skies of Spitfires, but were soon outclasses by Mustangs and later Spitfires, while their tanks were destroyed on the Eastern Front by T-34-85s and IS-2s.

>>31471580
Also, their Armored Cars were assumed to only drive on the road. They werent made for off-road.

>>31471251
oh man, enjoy your delusion fampai

>>31475246
FW190s were operational in 1941, something like the merlin engined P51 didn't show up until basically early 1944

>>31477026
It's according to P. Chamberlain, Zaloga, and other sources.

Yes, on the eastern front the Soviets lost many more tanks. But the t-34 wasnt as good as the Sherman and the Soviet army was crap for the first half of the war

>>31477149
Everyone forgets about the IS and IS-2. Those things crapped all over panthers and tigers.

>>31471057
Wjat countries are you talking about?

>>31477217
They were also inaccurate as shit and and the 122mm could only reload something like twice a minute.

>>31471251
>K98k superior to M1 Garand

You're a special kind of retard.

As much as I hate commie fucks, there's nothing more irritating than a Wehraboo.

>>31471678
SVT 40 hands down

>>31471678
Despite being a total American fanboy, I'd have to say SVT 40.

>>31471033
No. Too stuck in their old ways.

>>31477149
>Early Me109s and FW190s swept the skies of Spitfires
When exactly did that happen?

>>31471681
i hate wehraboos as much as anyone but alot of this post is not correct. you really have to talk about weapons during different time periods.

for example:
with regard to airplanes, the 109 and 190 were hands down the best fighters in the world during the early and mid war years.

>>31477228
It was slow to reload, but it's a myth that it was inaccurate. Stop trusting World of Tanks for your tank knowledge. The 122mm on the IS-2 had accuracy on par with the Tiger's mythical 88mm. If you deny this, you're a fool. Go look it up.

>>31471033
sure, butthurt burgers will deny though.
muh garand...

>>31471804
I mean, i guess they could have in a literal sense.

>>31477294
the 109E through F was easily superior to its contemporaneous spitfire. only during the late war did the spitfire begin to outclass the 109.

the 190 was hands down the best fighter in the world during 1941. it was rocking IIRC 500 more hp than the contemporaneous spitfire. but tdaimler benz failed miserably to improve the engine for like... 3 years and the 190 fell way behind by the time of the a-8

>>31477149
>stug
>tank
lol

>>31477284
>Blitzkrieg
>old way
literally surprised the entire world with a brand new, unexpected way of waging war
German tactics in WW2 were actually excellent.

>>31477217
By the time IS-2's were around, all the best German tank crews were dead. likewise T-34/85s.

Tigers and Panthers could still annihilate a T-34/85 no problem if they got the first shot. At long range, they didn't have too much to fear from a D-5T 85mm. the German 88 or long barrel 75mm could easily wreck a T-34 at 1000m +, before the T-34 even knew what was going on. Beyond 1000m the 85mm couldn't get through 100mm which is the rough equivalent front armor of both tiger and panther (panther potentially even more due to slope - 80mm sloped pretty heavily, some sources give an equivalent armor of up to 140mm)

>>31477322
It's not a myth, that's from soviet testing.

http://ftr-wot.blogspot.ie/2013/06/gun-accuracy-in-real-life.html

>>31477220

Czech-slovakia for instance.they got quite a bit of equipment from them.Though they pretty much took from anyone.

>>31471033

Didnt the Americans and maybe the British have the best weapons of both world wars?

>>31477373
And early war Soviet tank crew were shit. So what? Why are there always excuses? The IS-2 absolutely raped tigers and panthers.

And I'm talking about strict mechanical accuracy. The Soviet 122mm used on the IS-2 was as accurate as the German short 88 used in the tiger.

And yes, most tank combat was actually about getting the first shot. And very few tank kills ever occurred at those kind of ranges. The vast majority of tank kills for both the allies and the Germans occurred at roughly the same ranges. Sure, theoretically the German guns often had longer ranges, but that's not the reality of warfare sometimes.

Also keep in mind, when looking up penetration data, you need to be careful with what standards the test used. There were differences in Soviet and german tank gun testing and what one considered a successful penetration could be considered a failure by the other's standards. This skews the stats and you need to accoint for that and normalize.

The tigers 88 had only around 100-120mm penetration at the ranges you're talking about. That's only slightly higher than the penetration of the Soviet 85mm used on the T-34-85. And the T-34-85 had comparable frontal armor to the tiger.

You're severely overestimating the Tigers abilities.

>>31477443
>The tigers 88 had only around 100-120mm penetration at the ranges you're talking about
plenty to smash a T-34/85

Tigers and panthers were designed to annihilate T-34s (and any medium tank), and they did a great job. IS-2 are certainly their equivalent. They were designed to counter them - so you would hope they would be equal, despite arriving 2 years after Tigers and Panthers. Main drawback of the IS-2 is the 2-part ammunition which made it much slower to fire.

>>31475246
>I don't understand air combat
>I went to Wikipedia and copy pasted the speeds from fighters that didn't even see service in WW2 and think this means something

>>31477339

Still better than muh best bolt action ever designed.

>>31471033
No.

>>31477484
The IS series was not designed to counter tanks. It was designed as a breakthrough tank to spearhead attacks against fortified positions.

The Russians considered the 85mm gun on the T-34 good enough to deal with Panthers and Tigers. Why cart a big, expensive heavy tank hundreds of miles across Russian just for the occasional German heavy tank it might encounter?

>>31472786
>the Sherman had around the same frontal armor as the Tiger
so 4in = 2in ? even at 50deg the sherman armor wasn't as thick as the tiger's
> that the 76mm armed Shermans (of which there were many more of than there were Tigers) could easily penetrate the Tiger's armor
not really at 1000m, Also tiger drivers often angled their armor giving the more than 4in.
but anyway the tiger was a pretty rare tank and the panther was more easy to pen, the mark IV and Mark III were paper thin and far more common

>>31477393
Dude read the source you posted. It lists the dispersion of the 122mm D-25 as 2.4cm at 100m. The 88mm L71 which was the gun used on the king tiger is 2.6cm at 100m. So the IS-2 gun was more accurate than even the long 88 on the king tiger.

>>31477672
The Sherman had 50mm thick front hull armor at 56 degrees, which is at least 93mm effective thickness. The later models had even thicker armor. The turret and gun mantlet was even thicker still. The tiger had 100mm frontal armor at almost no slope. So congrats on looking at the Sherman armor thicknesses without accounting for angle, something that critically affects effective armor thickness

>>31477723
PS how often do you think tank engagements happened at 1000m range?

So yes. The Sherman had almost the same amount of armor as the tiger. And it could penetrate the Tiger's armor at typical combat ranges.

Seriously, let it sink in for a bit. Your glorious tiger tank with its styler German engineered steel armor was about the same amount of armor as the Sherman.

File: 1474852460466.jpg (337KB, 633x576px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 633x576px

>>31477751
>Seriously, let it sink in for a bit. Your glorious tiger tank with its styler German engineered steel armor was about the same amount of armor as the Sherman.
Physical autism
keep telling yourself that kiddo

They had the most innovation.

>>31477723
the M4A1 slope was 50deg, didn't know about the A2 or A3, you are right, but as I said >even at 50deg the sherman armor wasn't as thick as the tiger's
also did you not read what I said ???
>Also tiger drivers often angled their armor giving the more than 4in.
anyway the tiger armor was shit against the glorious 122mm D-25

Japanese had the best weapons of ww2 desu

>>31477832
A Sherman can angle it's armor too. It's slope is in the vertical plane, so it can change the tanks angle horizontally to increase effective thickness too, just like the tiger.

And it's not quite as thick, but it's just about there. The Sherman's turret is where it suffers a bit compared to the tiger.

But still, considering that the Sherman was a dirt cheap, reliable, mass produced medium tank, and the tiger was a special snowflake unreliable heavy tank, it's still pretty crazy.

The tiger really was an outdated design. The panther was a big improvement in some regards, but still had its problems

>>31478052
baka gaijin

File: 1458570930417.jpg (116KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 800x533px

>>31471251
>Overengineered logistics clusterfucks consistently BTFO by smaller, faster, cheaper Allied tanks.
>Retarded procurement policies ensured ludicrously-expensive, underperforming weapons for wehraboos to masturbate to 70 years later on mongolian toe art appreciation forums
>Air force was a mismanaged mess that only achieved some semblance of victory over untrained Soviet pilots with entirely different doctrines and missions
>implying the Nazis didn't repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot with a schizophrenic command structure, unsustainable economic scheme, retarded R&D, and a peculiar Germanic insistence on being invaded from both sides by the entirety of Europe

Wehraboo: the fucking Post

>>31471033
First world war they where more or less on foot with the rest of the participants, although the british had a slightly better uniform system and more tanks. As far as i heard, the A7V was better thatn the Mark's, but there where only 20 of them ever build, so... Sturmtruppen on the other hand where more or less the proper adaption to modern war, something which the other countries didnt do as well, but better equipment? No.

Second world war the germans had good machines, but they where unreliable and few. They went into war with boltactions and horses, while other armies frantically tried to get semiautos. Fx the americans did even get garands for every soldier.

The germans had good equpment, in some parts maybe even better then the counterparts, but it was always too few, too late. Tactics on the other hand, they where always good at it.

>>31478374
I love when they use the excuse of "but they were stretched out on two fronts"

Like whose fucking fault was that

>>31477534

>P-47M
>F4U-4
>Didn't see combat

Hans please.

>>31477308
>with regard to airplanes, the 109 and 190 were hands down the best fighters in the world during the early and mid war years.

thats bullshit, pure and simple, the BF109 never enjoyed superiority over the spitfire for long before a new mark of spit surpassed it, the FW190 was better but again surpassed by contemporary allied designs, notably the tempest, p47 and corsair all were better

>>31476626
>German infantry equipment and guns in general were pretty good, not too much better or worse than allied equipment (no points awarded)
lewis guns had no real equivalent in german service and the vickers .303 machine gun was superior if not greatly so to the german maxim

>Artillery and anti tank guns, I gotta say the Flak88 was excellent as an anti tank gun, same with the Pak-40 and its interesting to see HEAT rounds used in things like the Pak-38 to extend their life and make them useful in late war. I will give this to the germans (1 point)
allies had the 25pounder field gun which was the best infantry gun of the war, better specialised anti tank and anti air guns and far better artillery control techniques as well as VT fuses

>Aircraft, Germans had the advantage to start with, their fuel injection was pretty good for fighters compared to British aircraft of the time. I will award 1 point to the Germans here. (1 point)
no heavy bomber, inferior medium bombers, nothing to match the mossie, fighters struggled to maintain technical parity with the allies, jets were good but the allies better and most of the 'super secret kraut magic' wasnt significantly better than what the allies had on the drawing boards, also again the allies were far ahead in areas such as aerial radar

>>31476763
>The rifle was mechanically not as strong as the Mauser, or even the Mosin-Nagant.
it was however strong enough to withstand regular combat usage and emerge with a reputation for reliability. the fact that other actions were theoretically stronger matters post war when somebody is handloading hot loads but matters little in wartime if the rifle is capable of firing its designed service round. as long as the rifle is strong enough and accurate enough to kill reliably at combat ranges then RoF matters more and the mag capacity and action of a SMLE pt it ahead of any other bolt action service rifle used in either war, only the Garand was better

>>31477149
>Early Me109s and FW190s swept the skies of Spitfires

except the parts where they didnt, that is to say any part of the sky where they actually met.

>>31471033
no, but they had the capacity to implement improvements, which due to the nature of the fascist-corporatist state, they often couldn't

>>31478805
>I'm posting lies and I do this all day ever day

>>31471033
They lost, so, no.

>>31479988
The Germans had good aces, but that was about it. Their planes were pretty much the epitome of adequate. Unless you're talking about the Poles and French, and legacy Soviet designs. Against the Americans and British, it was down to the pilots and the situation. Hence the general inability of the Luftwaffe to accomplish much. Any advantage they apparently had in the air was at best ephemeral.
>in before economic determinism

>>31476004
>everyone on 4chan is the same person
Much wow indeed.

>>31478911
The allies certainly didn't have a jet to match the 262.

Hell, Eric Brown loved the He 162 as well.

>>31471033
No. They had some cool shit here in there but most german soldiers had a bolt action rifle for the entirety of both world wars.

Don't Believe Battlefield 1, only the French issued semi auto rifles in any significant numbers and thise were spread out as one or two special weapons per squad and yeah there were automatic rifles like chaut chaut and later the BAR, but once again those were like one every squad.

Submachine gun and automatic pistols existed but once again, rare squad support weapons or for elite engineer/pioneer/storm troopers.

In ww2 germans had some impressive tanks and mechanized infantry...but more often than not, a german soldier marched on foot into Russia or rode in horse drawn carts.

>>31471287
This...Tigers and Panthers were Black Dogs and boogie men in the shadows that were rarelly encountered because the Air force strafed and rocket bombed them when travelling to and fro.

>>31477751

It's not true though. Sherman's frontal armor had many shell traps that reduced it's effectiveness. Overall it had worse frontal protection than Tiger. And much worse side protection.

>>31478052

They had great planes and ships, but their land army was garbage. They had the best bolt action of the war though.

>>31471681

k98 is arguably the best bolt action rifle of all time..

German gear was pretty bad, But I'll give them one for having the fucking craziest ideas for weapons.

>>31473586
>The VVS had nothing comparable to any of those planes, nor the japs

Griffon Spits were better than Fw190D9 in literally everything but dive speed.

Ki-84 was better in everything but speed.

>muh panthers and tigers a myth
that feel when the eastern front was the actual war


get fucked, burgers.

>>31471969
But that's wrong, objectively fucking wrong you idiot.
The T-34 had an ANGLED 45mm plate that, even AT THE ANGLE, was LESS than 100mm.
Jesus FUCKING Christ.
Same with the Sherman but I know you'll disregard what I've said because you're an idiot.

File: P80-1_300.jpg (392KB, 1795x1389px) Image search: [Google]

392KB, 1795x1389px

>>31481384
>>31481384
>The allies certainly didn't have a jet to match the 262.

These were in europe before the war even ended

>>31481552
Wrong on both counts, especially the Jap Ki's ever being good. They had the worst aircraft of any country for the the entire war

>>31475684
The Ppsh was covered since they had plenty of 7.63 Mauser ammunition. The difference between 7.62 Tok and 7.63 Mauser is that the Tok has a higher pressure than the Mauser (The Tokarev ammunition is literally an enhanced 7.63 Mauser cartridge). You coud put 7.62 Mauser in 7.62 Tok firearms but not the latter.

>>31481929
They killed more Americans than they did Germans in the war lol

>>31481929
Yeah, the fireball was quite a sight.

File: 140828132531-01-world-war-ii-0828-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg (148KB, 980x552px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 980x552px

>>31471033
I don't know if it was a matter of better weapons and equipments or better military discipline.

I remember as a kid a teacher taught us that Allies never fought axis soldiers unless you were in a 3:1 ratio. And russians only fought axis when they were at 5:1 ratio.

So maybe they were just better soldiers

For all the hate Russia gets, it sounds like the Soviets had some pretty good equipment during the war.

>>31481384
They didn't need one, considering how many 262s got rely by P-51s while they were landing or taking off.

>>31481459
The Germans had good mechanized units, but the Soviets and Americans had much higher percentages of their units motorized and mechanized.

>>31481494
Source on the Sherman having shell traps. The hull is just a big sloping rounded surface, and the turret chin doesn't have any obvious shot trap like the panther did. Turret is pretty round and domed, with a flat mantlet.

Like I said, yes, the Tigers was a little bit better. But considering how the tiger was an expensive and limited production heavy tank that you wheraboos claim was the best tank ever, and the Sherman was a cheap, reliable, mass produced spam medium tank, that's pretty sad. Overplaying the Tigers armor is useless. 100mm frontal armor just isn't that impressive by the middle of the war.

>>31481851
Because 90mm effective thickness is SOOOOOO much less than the Tigers 100mm right? Fucks sake, the T-34 was even more cheap spam medium tank than the Sherman was, and it almost equals the glorious tigers armor.

>>31482152
Your teacher was a faggot that watched too much history channel back when it was the nazi propaganda channel.

>>31482240
They did. Early war, they suffered because of Stalin's purges and shit tier training. By the end of the war they were at least as good at the allies. Their Deep Battle doctrine was essentially what developed into most militaries modern warfare doctrines, not the Blitzkrieg of the germans.

>>31481940

they were good on paper, but their manufacturing technology wasn't good enough to build the things as good as the specifications.

The Homare engine in the Ki-84 was supposed to deliver 2000 horsepower while being considerably smaller and lighter than a double wasp. However, when the USN tested captured Homare engines post war, the average was around 1500, and some barely produced more than 1200. Poor gasket seals, poor piston and ignition timing, and flexing of the engine frame/arms all sapped energy from the Homares nominal output.

IIRC they found 3 engines that performed up to spec out of hundreds, and when equipped with that engine and good quality fuel, the Ki-84 performed fantastically.

>>31474787
Overy was proven wrong re: weakness of the German economy by Tooze and others.

Garand, SVT40 > k98k

>>31482152
No, it's because if you're on the attack you ALWAYS attack with superior numbers. This isn't a fucking CoD match where you're obligated to bring even teams.

>>31482578
That actually makes sense

>>31482469
Semi auto rifle>bolt action rifle
?!?!?!?!?!?

>>31481384
meteor was slower but much more reliable and the vampire was in development to enter service in late 45 and was also a superior plane to the 262, the 262 was getting wrecked daily by mustangs

File: 1474342390268.jpg (245KB, 570x845px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 570x845px

>>31477047
The Lee Enfield of the Boer War was outclassed by the Mauser action, which provided the impetus for the P14. But concurrent with P14 development, the Lee-Enfield was improved to the point where supplanting it with a Mauser style rifle was unnecessary. The shorter bolt throw, 10 round magazine, and faster cock on close action. Also, the British had the interwar period to discard the Lee Enfield and adopt a "superior" Mauser action, but never did. I'm really sick and tired of this gay meme that faggots like you ceaselessly spout as "evidence" that the Lee-Enfield is an inferior rifle.

>>31483282
the real issue in the boer war wasnt the rifles it was marksmanship

more emphasis on individual aimed fire in training more than made up for any difference in the mechanical accuracy of the guns.

and nobody in world war 1 was firing at the ranges the boers were

File: 1474595365413.jpg (480KB, 1000x681px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 1000x681px

>>WWI
>Armor
The A7V was poo, the Renault FT paved the way for the vehicles to follow.
>Small arms
Lee Enfield is arguably superior with double mag capacity and shorter bolt throw. German handguns were excellent, but handguns are pretty irrelevant. Heavy MG's are effectively equal. Lewis gun had no German equivalent.
>Aircraft
German initial advantage was huge with the interrupter gear, but after bloody April, once the Allies adapted, you never really see any huge German advances, aside from the Fokker D.7, which was not peerless. Admittedly, I don't know a whole lot about the minutia of WWI aviation, but I do know that aside from the Richthofens and Udet, there weren't many German aces to speak of, maybe not topical, given that this thread is about equipment.
>Navy
I don't know much about boats Tbh, but it seems that the German surface Navy's shortcomings lay in command and geography, not so much technological. As for the U-boats, they wreaked havoc initially, but, maybe I'm understanding this incorrectly, it seems like they lost their luster later on as the US was able to successfully transport a sizeable force across the Atlantic
So, in short, they seemed slightly subpart in WWI

>>31483401
Yeah, you're right, I don't know whay I thought it was a rifle problem in the Boer War, but it's still no excuse for the dumb meme to persist, given the other facts.

>>31476973
The bolt designs are actually quite different.

>>31483474
>mag

>>31483570
Not that anon, but yes. Mag.

A bolt action rifle that is loaded with stripper clips still has a magazine. And the lee Enfield had double the magazine size of the k98

File: sports-day-lazytown-33121069.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>31477351
underrated post

>>WWII (1939-1940)
>Armor
Early war German tanks were awful, effective combined-arms tactics won the early battles. The whole concept of having the roles of antipersonnell (Pz 4) and antitank (Pz 3) split into 2 vehicles is pretty stupid. What's more is the Pz 3's gun was pretty bad, making it ineffective in its intended role. It required the Luftwaffe to take care of scary things like the Char B.1.
>Small arms
Pretty good, where it mattered, e.g. excellent machine gun. Kinda sucked in that they didn't have a semi auto rifle or a rifle that could have a scope easily mounted, but that's not super important early war.
> Artillery
Not super familiar with stuff outside autocannons and antitank/antiair guns, but in those categories performed well during the early stages.
> Aircraft
The 109e was pretty great. Shortcomings were short range and the cannons on it had low muzzle velocity, limiting their range. 110 was a turd in daylight conditions. Heinkels and Dorniers were trash compared to allied medium bombers, effective lack of heavy bombers was a serious shortcoming throughout the war. Junkers 88 was good, but misused early on.
>Navy
Again, not a boat guy, but aside from u boats, the Kriegsmarine was largely inferior

>>WWII (1941-1943)
>Armor
Pz 3 is effectively discarded with its chassis now being used almost entirely for the StuG III, Germany's most produced armored vehicle. With the short 75mm gun discarded, and replaced with the PAK40, essentially, it performs adequately, as a tank destroyer, but unlike the trend of Soviet casemate assault guns, often used as tank destroyers, its armament is no stronger than that of the medium tank it served aside, the now upgunned Pz 4. The Pz 4 was the most numerically significant German tank. Not intended initially for antitank warfare, the necessary gun and armor upgrades placed greater-than-intended loads on the suspension. Also, it had narrow tracks, resulting in poor mud performance. Only serious advantage over Soviet counterparts was better visibility. Tiger and Panther were made in stupid small quantities and are really inconsequential to the war as a whole, but the early Soviet IS1 bested the Tiger in terms of armor. The vaunted 88 and its optics on the Tiger was the best thing about the tank. Its maintenance and mobility were its primary flaws. The Panther was shit, no two ways about it. It was extraordinary unreliable and maintenance was a nightmare. Its gun, while great at piercing armor, fired at such great velocities that it required thicker projectile walls, limiting HE content, making it terrible at antipersonnell use. To compound this problem, shells often ended up deeply embedding themselves in dirt, increasing the likelihood of enemy troop survival. Aside from its front, it had weak armor, and it only had 1 reverse gear, limiting successful engagement conditions.

File: 2jfgjeb.jpg (14KB, 400x238px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 400x238px

(Cunt)
>Small arms
Soviets had a semi auto rifle, Germans didn't. Soviets and Brits had cheap subguns, Germans didn't. Also, while I will sing the mg42's praises all day, it's cyclic rate was an issue in that it was a strain on logistics, a dark art to Germany. As for the panzerschreck and panzerfaust, the panzerschreck was a bazooka rip-off, and the panzerfaust was difficult to impossible to use at ranges at which the tank wouldn't easily notice and kill. Hell, it lacked a front sight.
>Artillery
AT guns, PAK 40 aside, are so horribly useless that AA guns must be pressed into service of killing tanks. PAK 40 took its time to gain widespread use, and is largely successful against all but the heaviest if heavies. Tbh unfamiliar with allied AT altogether. Honestly, I'm talking out of my ass here and I shouldn't even be typing this out
>Aircraft Armament
Decided to give it its own section to describe how shit it was, generally. Low velocity projectiles were the main problem. The German 20mm mg 151, which would replace the awful mg ff, used in the 109e, fired 700 M/s at 750 rpm vs the hispano mk iI firing at 870 M/s at 700 rpm. While not entirely inadequate, and sporting highly explosive shells, it possessed no definite advantage over the British gun. The mk108 30mm cannon was effective, if rounds connected, which was difficult to do with a muzzle velocity of 540 M/s, wholly pathetic. The only impressive aircraft gun was the 30mm mk103, firing at 940 M/s in the AT role, which was not produced in great quantity, and was only used in the attack role, due to its weight. Still, it could do pic rel to a KV1.

This is actually a really complex question with a really simple answer. Did the Germans have the best equipment of WWII? Well, they a nation of about 70 million, managed to hold off the largest nation in existence, the two largest empires ever, the world's largest navy, the world's largest army and the world's largest industrial power for six years across 4 different fronts. This is a nation about half the size of Texas managing to hold off every major western nation with combined militaries at least 7 times the size of their own. Regardless of whether or not Germany had the best equipment, they were far and away the best fighting force to have ever existed. Even Napoleon didn't face such odds against the various coalitions he fought.

File: 1474499704467.jpg (42KB, 500x501px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x501px

>>31471251

>>31483691
German ship design suffered from having their design bureau disbanded after WWI. See:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-044.htm

File: 1473640645159.gif (334KB, 651x511px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 651x511px

(Cunt)
>Fighters
109F and 190 were pretty much masters of the skies upon introduction, spurred the British to improve the spitfire, resulting in the impressive mk.ix, which bested the 109, generally, and began to match the 190. 109g2 was quite effective, with the new db605, unarmed G6 was awful with increased weight and equipped with the mk108. Also, the G6 was the most widely produced 109, harming its perception. G10 was better, but aside from climb rate, it was entirely bested by the USAF and RAF. 190D's were good, but couldn't dive with the USAF and couldn't turn or dive with the RAF. Also, the lack of a low altitude fighter hindered their performance against the Tempest and VVS as a whole. As for jets, the Me262 was inferior to the meteor. Armed with 4 mk108s and propelled by engines subject to flameout during their brief operational life, the me262 never fought meteors because the British didn't want the Germans to see what good engines looked like in the event of the loss of a meteor.
>Not fighters
No heavy bombers in significant numbers, what they did have caught fire readily, without enemy input. See earlier post on heinkels and Dorniers. Ju88 was the closest they had to a mosquito, and while an impressive aircraft, it had shorter range, smaller bomb capacity, and lower top speed, than its wooden counterpart
>Navy
Surface fleet docked, awaiting enemy bombing, U-boats getting fucked by allied aircraft.
In short, they generally had substandard equipment in "quantity", and the wunderwaffe they did sport fell short of the best the Allies had. t. Former wehraboo

File: [SighingIntensifies].gif (3MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x240px

>>31484192
>Soviets had a semi auto rifle, Germans didn't.

>>31472849
Are you pretending to be retarded or just desperate to quibble over irrelevant semantics? I'm guessing you're illiterate or historically ignorant since you still seem to be desperately grasping at what the best infantry weapon was. Use you brain, bright eyes. What do you think it is? What weapon have I talked about?

>>31484547
I'm not going to bother with 1944,1945, writing was on the wall, any innovation that occurred in Germany required ash and bones as sole materials used as both the Soviets and the Western Allies pounded them into submission, the Tiger II was a maintenance and reliability disaster, and the handful of 109k's made could not compare to griffon spitfires. As for the STG 44, it was revolutionary, but insignificant numerically.

>>31484678
>not knowing the G10 was the best version of the 109

>>31484567
My bad, the Mauser G41 was an overcomplicated, overweight, unreliable rifle that didn't see much, if anything in the way of combat, the Walter g41 was unreliable and again, barely saw any conflict, if ever. The g43 was a tokarev copy, and the Johnson machine gun was functionally the same as the fg42, happy?

>>31484745
I agree, but it still fell flat on its face compared to a mustang or griffon spitfire.

In the first world War they possed all the arms expected of a modern military and some of the largest artillery pieces ever made. They innovated well, and possed a contemporary navy. I'd say they were probably the best army to take the field in 1914.

>>31472526
>The 190D outclassed Mustangs and Thunderbolts
Try harder faggot

>>31477149
>Early Me109s and FW190s swept the skies of Spitfires
hahahaha

>>31484884
The only way they 109d significantly outclasses the mustang or thunderbolt is how fast it gives a wehraboo a boner.

>>31484345
Depends what you mean by "hold off".

They blindsided France and Poland, and yes, beat them soundly because of a superior war machine and strategy. They overran a gutted Soviet army that had shit training and a gutted officer Corp because of Stalin's purges. And yet, they still couldn't actually defeat the Soviets. This German string of victories lasted until around 1942, at which point, it was basically just constant losing until they surrendered.

So their only real victories came early in the war against pretty tame opposition. Navally, they basically were irrelevant except for subs, which became less and less successful as the war went on. They soundly lost the air war. And from 1942 they got absolutely rekt by the Soviets on the eastern front, and then got rekt by the US and UK from 1943 in Africa and Italy and Europe.

So you can call it "holding off" I guess. I mean, sure, turns out it takes a couple years to push back and defeat a large and skilled military. But to proclaim it as some testimony that they were the best? Come on now. They were good, but your claim of "holding off" all those "worlds largest" factors, that really only applies to a span of maybe a year or two.

This is silly. The German military had some early success that was impressive, but as soon as other nations really mobilized for the war they got BTFO.

>>31475930
>The MP-40 lacked the reliability and suppression
Off to a great start.
>They can modify
Right, so it never happened.
>Except the germans do get hold of Thompson in various airdrops
Any numbers the Germans captured was not tangible enough. The PPSH was converted because it used 7.63 ammunition, and they were on the defensive at the Eastern front.

File: 1461984279421.jpg (37KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x600px

>>31471251

>>31482400
>Deep Battle

never heard of this before

>>31484774
Except that didn't, but air combat and planes in general should really be banned from discussion on this board

File: 1461678485446.jpg (68KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 500x500px

>>31471681
By your logic you lost 16 million men to germans with paper planes and wooden tanks.

>>31471033
Short answer.

No.

File: wehrmachbingo.png (142KB, 1380x1600px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1380x1600px

>>31472607
>>31471870

>You can read Russian manuals that explicitly say never to fight German armor in a 1 to 1 ratio.

You mean any manual in any military ever that specifies how to attack? The ideal attack ratio of forces is 1:3 in favor of the attacker.

The Soviets were always thinking in larger manoeuvre formations compared to the West. In their mind, the single smallest formation size capable of carrying out an attack in any way was a COMPANY. Not a platoon, and rightfully so.

If you would actually bother to read history, or memoirs with a critical eye and look through the wehrabooism in lets say, Tigers in the Mud by Otto Carius, you could read that almost every time his platoon in Schwere panzerabteilung 502 went on attack against prepared defensive positions, they had to retreat because of damage taken to one or more of the tanks. He only survived because insane luck on multiple occasions.

And those were DA MIGHTY TOIGAS THAT REKT COMMIE SHIT ALL THE TIME.

He also describes quite accurately the ability of the Soviets to simply /out general/ the Wehrmacht at critical times. Ie: tie them down on a wide front and break through somewhere, followed by a breakthrough exploitation so fast it sends DIVISIONS running in fear of getting into a 2nd Stalingrad type scenario.

He also specifically mentions his Tigers vulnerability to soviet guns. He writes T34-76s were a threat to his front armor within 600m, and to his side within 1200m


>T34 was a pile of dogshit
Lol okay fritz, don't let it bother you that it was peer level to anything but Panther and Tiger/Tiger-B
I mean its not like the 76mm F34 was capable of knocking out any german tank within 1.5km before Panzer III Ls came around with spaced applique armor.

Fucking christ wehraboos are a cancer.

>>31484192
i like you anon but this part is incorrect
>The German 20mm mg 151, which would replace the awful mg ff, used in the 109e, fired 700 M/s at 750 rpm vs the hispano mk iI firing at 870 M/s at 700 rpm. While not entirely inadequate, and sporting highly explosive shells, it possessed no definite advantage over the British gun.
the 151 is lighter than the hispano II IIRC, much lighter. and it also benefits from superior meinengeshoss ammunition, which greatly increased explosive content of the shells

>>31487323
>He writes T34-76s were a threat to his front armor within 600m, and to his side within 1200m
thats a lie
t3476 cant pen the tiger frontally from any distance.
you must be thinking of 85s not 76s. the within 600m is pretty m uch the exact performance of the 85

>>31484898
dude, the 190A-3 had like... 500 more horsepower than the contemporaneous spitfire

>>31487444
Try like 250 more.

And the 190 was around 1400kg heavier loaded weight.

From my quick calculations that means contemporary spitfires had a higher TWR......

>>31471681
>The absurdly high kill counts of german aces came from shooting down tons of soviet planes in turkey shoots against noob pilots who were just thrown into the fight.
Nah there are 2 reasons for it:
Others maintained ace-rotation so aces after getting 10 kills or so were sent back.

And shit reporting. It wasn't unusual for luftwaffe to report destroying more airplanes than the enemy had in the theatre. Sometimes twice as many, sometimes more.

>>31487427
>t3476 cant pen the tiger frontally from any distance.
Let me check:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-34_tank_gun
APCR did 92@500 metres. I wouldn't be surprised it if went through regularly at 400 metres ors so.

>>31487547
God the German military was consistently SHIT at reporting kills, whether it's tanks or planes.

>>31487561
And armor penetration isn't a binary thing. It isn't just either you penetrated or didn't. If a gun can penetrate 92mm and your armor is 100mm thick, a couple of hits from that gun will still have a decent chance of fucking you up. First of all, there are plenty of weak points that are less than 100mm thick on a tank whose nominal frontal hull is 100mm like the tiger. Second, shells aren't always going to pen the same amount. There will be some degree of variation. Third, there's also effects like spalling that can fuck up a tank even on a non-penetrating hit. With a gun whose penetration is just shy of the armor thickness, you can bet that it's still a threat to that tank.

File: 1473720026339.gif (457KB, 450x281px) Image search: [Google]

457KB, 450x281px

>>31471697
Wow, I'm seeing like, four or five memes in one post. Congrats, that must've been difficult to pull off

>>31478923
Actually the early 190s really have the Mk. VB Spits trouble. It was markedly inferior to the190, which is why the Mk. XI with its uprated Merlin was rushed into service.

File: 1474864051947.png (48KB, 468x214px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 468x214px

>>31477026
>This bait

>>31471471
>No. Nazi soldiers hated their equipment so much they made bootleg versions of Sten guns to fix shortage
That's because they were losing the war and needed quick-to-make mass-producible weaponry

>>31487858
Don't respond to bait, there's clearly only two people in this whole topic who even study air combat and WW2 aircraft performance

>>31487858
Ok hold on though. Is the argument that the Fw-190 was at one point the best plane in a certain theater? Because pretty sure the original argument was "Germans had best fighters of the entire war like the fw-190".

Nobody would deny that fighters from opposing countries pretty much played leapfrog in terms of superiority, and that the fw-190 was certainly a great plane, and ONE OF the best. But to claim that it was THE best fighter of the war, when late war mustangs, spitfires, hellcats, and corsairs could all equal it at various periods and different versions, if not best it, is total BS

>>31484836
BEF probably had the edge as it has the most experience and was completely professional. It's small size means it didn't last too long though.

>>31478911

>lewis guns had no real equivalent in german service

What about the 08/15?

>>31472826
Slow down slavaboo, the M1 garand was better and maybe the SMLE and 1903 were on par but the mosin is utter shit and only popular because you could buy them for $80 5-10 years ago and a tin of surplus ammo also was cheap

>>31471033
No.
The German Empire preferred focusing on naval warfare rather than land warfare, and the Third Reich didn't really have much technology to begin withbecause of the Treaty of Versailles.

>>31488267

Lol, read a history book once in a while.

>>31488045
>he'll cats and F4Us besting 190s

Nope.

>>31471251
>unironically uses 'Ronsons'

into the trash it goes

>>31488267
>and the Third Reich didn't really have much technology to begin withbecause of the Treaty of Versailles.
Even in Weimar era they've done "undercover" R&D via proxy companies.

>>31488728
Post war studies done comparing the hellcat, corsair, and fw-190 showed them to all be overall approximately evenly matched. People underestimate the hellcat and corsair because they never really faced much of a challenge in the Pacific.

I never claimed the hellcat and corsair were better than the 190. But to claim that the 190 is significantly better than them, to declare it "the best of the war"? That's bullshit.

>>31482362
>Because 90mm effective thickness is SOOOOOO much less than the Tigers 100mm right?
in terms of World War II tank warfare, thickness was a quality in itself, since armor resistance is mainly determined by the ratio between armor thickness and projectile diameter (T/d). The T/d relationship regarding armor penetration demonstrates that the more the thickness of the armor plate overmatches the diameter of any incoming armor piercing round, the harder it is for the projectile to achieve a penetration. On the other side, the greater the diameter of the incoming projectile relatively to the thickness of the armor plate which it strikes, the greater the probability of penetration. This explains why the side armor of the Tiger I, being 80 mm thick, was so difficult to be penetrated at combat ranges by most Allied anti-tank and tank guns, whose calibers were overmatched by the thickness of the Tiger I armor.

>>31471678
Marine with a kbar

>>31488907
Are you claiming that a 100mm thick plate that's perpendicular to the incoming shell is somehow more protective than a 50mm plate sloped at 60 degrees, providing 100mm of effective thickness as well as a higher chance of ricochets?

And the Tigers front armor wasnt even impervious to allied tanks. Who told you the side armor was? Even the crappy T-34s 76mm could penetrate the side armor at long ranges

>>31489081
>Are you claiming that a 100mm thick plate that's perpendicular to the incoming shell is somehow more protective than a 50mm plate sloped at 60 degrees,

What is overmatch for 500 Alex?
Fucking idiot.

>>31477443
>The tigers 88 had only around 100-120mm penetration at the ranges you're talking about. That's only slightly higher than the penetration of the Soviet 85mm used on the T-34-85. And the T-34-85 had comparable frontal armor to the tiger.

No they didn't. Overmatching, which is not just a WOT phenomenon, severely degrades the armor of the T-34 glacis

>>31488091
5 kilos heavier, or 10 pounds heavier if you prefer imperial, it was heavier, bulkier, less ergonomic, harder to move with and noted for poor accuracy in anything but very short bursts.

>>31471729

>a kilogram heavier, fires a ballistically inferior projectile at lower muzzle velocity, more expensive to make

how about no

it's a fine SMG and all, but it wasn't the best one tbqh

>>31489439
>>31489585
I'm aware of what overmatch is. But i think you two are vastly overestimated how much of an effect it has.

In the case of a StuG with 75mm gun firing at a T-34-85, the overmatch factored in results in the T-34+85 having an effective frontal hull armor of 85.5mm (instead of 112.5mm without overmatch). Certainly not insignificant of course. But the point still remains that a mass produced cheap slavshit spam medium tank had comparable front armor to the glorious tiger. No, not quite as good. But considering the difference in cost, numbers, etc, it's really not too bad.

Again, I'm not claiming the T-34 or Sherman had better armor than the tiger. I'm simply saying that they were pretty damn close considering the massive differences in cost and numbers.

>>31490177
>it was totally impossible for russians to add 2 inches of steel to the front of their tank
>but thankfully they had geometric jewish space magic that the germans simply could not comprehend, and this is the sole reason they lost the war

Stop this meme.

>>31490177

You're missing the whole fucking point of the argument.
45mm plate angled at like what, 60 degrees, is not anywhere NEAR as effective as a 102mm plate angled at 9 degrees.
You can meme all you want about effective armor because "muh angles" but in the end a kwk42 is still going to push straight through the T-34-85's ufp any day of the week.

>>31472338
>cuck

>>>/pol/

>>31490218
What are you talking about? By mid war everyone was using sloped armor, it wasnt some magical mystery. And who said anything about being the reason Germany lost the war?

Fuck you wheraboos are annoying.

I was just pointing out that the tiger really wasnt that impressive of a tank. Fucking wheraboos cant handle the fact that untermensch slavshit tanks that were pumped out of factories by conscripts and slaves were almost as good as muh master crafted German stahl war machines

Get over it faggots.

File: 1458755028467.gif (737KB, 200x250px) Image search: [Google]

737KB, 200x250px

>>31490709
>muh /pol/ boogeyman

>>31490311
You're the one that's confused. Notice how if you read my comment, including my original comments about it, I said that yes, the tigers front hull was thicker than the t-34.

My entire point was simply that considering how expensive, heavy, hard to manufacture, and unreliable the tiger was, it's armor was only marginally better than thr t-34 or Sherman. Yes, it WAS better. But only by a small amount compared to thr differences in price, reliability, etc.

In the end, what's better, one tank that breaks down a lot, but has 100mm of front hull armor, or 4 tanks that are more reliable, and have 80-90mm of front hull armor?

>>31490177
Actually, that 86mm of armor allows for penetration of the UFP out 1000m with the L48 gun. Or, in layman's terms, the most common anti-tank gun in the Wehrmacht inventory post -42 could penetrate a T-34 of any model frontally at all reasonable combat distances.

>>31491556
Yep. And you're comparing a gun that started being used in 1942 with a medium tank that started being used in 1940.

Of course, I could do the same and compare the T-35-85 with its gun that was being used in 1944, and it could easily penetrate any German medium at any range, and could penetrate the heavy tiger tank at 1000m

So, to put it in layman's terms, the most common Soviet tank after 1944 could penetrate just about every German armored vehicle at all combat ranges.

And we're not even looking at the KV-85 or IS tanks.

>>31475396
>attack vs defend

It was a meeting engagement, dipshit. 3rd Armor on the advance met by an attempted counterattack.

Absurd thread. The F8F Bearcat ran circles around German fighter aircraft.

>>31492302
Bearcat was not in service in WW2.

>>31488845
FW-190A6 (1943) - Empty weight 2,960kg
Maximum Speed:: 670km/h
Cruising Speed: 495km/h

F6F-3 (1943) - Empty weight 9,042. Maximum Speed 376 mph at 23,400 ft.
Cruise Speed: 268 mph

FW-190D9 (1944-5) - Empty weight 3,490kg. Max speed Speed:705kmh, cruising speed: 510kmh

F6F-5 (1944-5) - Empty weight: 9,238 lb. Max Speed: 388, cruise speed 270mph

F6F was heaver, slower, and all around more sluggish than the FW, the same goes true for the F4U. hint: it's almost never a good idea to compare naval fighters to land based ones.

>>31487520
That's great. Yet somehow the Butcher Bird managed to enjoy unrivalled superiority for almsot a year when it was introduced.

File: _20160929_004140.jpg (157KB, 1080x1071px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1080x1071px

>>31471251
>Whenever they had even numbers they won.

>>31475416
Comintern was an military faction, much like the Allies were.
It's accurate to say the Allies absorbed the Comintern by the midpoint of the war, but they were still a thing.

And yes, I misspelled a word, it by no means makes you intelligent.

>>31492654
>Compares only speed
F6F had better wing loading, better climb rate, much better range

But it's nice that you think a 30 kph max speed advantage is so important.

It's ok Fritz. We can agree that the Fw-190 was a fantastic fighter. But why do you need to be so insistent that you think it was the absolute best ever when it wasn't?

>>31493488
>compares only speed
>literally has no idea what weight contributes to ac performance
>literally has no idea the FW had higher roll rate, vertical climb, and higher energy retention

>>31493488
You don't have to be an aeronautical engineer to know that the aircraft that weighs MORE, and is SLOWER, is going to have worse performance than an aircraft that are both lighter and faster, but this is /k/ so I really shouldn't expect much intelligence here...

>>31493643
>>31493830
Lol go look up the stats. The hellcat had a higher climb rate.

>>31471571
I don't think that's true. They just used them better

>>31476943
contemporary or its contemporaries?

>>31477067
meme: the post

it wasn't unreliable, however it did have frequent maintenance, because it wasn't meant to survive long. why buy a resiliant tank when most dont make it long? better to have more frquent mainteinance.

Easy 8 vs T34 in korea? Implying this was anything beside crew training is absurd.

>>31488198
>bolt action
>5rd capacity
>minute-of-man accuracy

i'm not seeing where the k98 is so, so, so much better.

it's not a "which is better made?" competition. In a squad, in combat, there is literally zero operational difference.

>>31471997
>cites losses
>forgets about pakfront tactics

do you know how many times tigers came into contact with US forces? 3 times. ever. 3.

That's not enough data to draw ANY conclusion. (Even though each of those 3 times the Tiger was knocked out by sherman 75s). So, I know you want to love the Tiger, but you gotta chase you dream on the eastern front, because data is against you in the west.

>>31474017
lol HK, everything HK does FN does better

>>31474494
>>31495233