Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
what was the greatest world war 2 gun?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by shiftyakacampo (U13757098) on Friday, 9th January 2009
Me and my friend were discussing which gun was the most effective during world war 2? id like to hear your thoughts
-
Message 2
Posted by -frederik- (U13721647) on Saturday, 10th January 2009
Define effective
*Number of kills made by a certain type of gun during the entire war?
*"Number of kills" devided by "Number of rounds fired"?
*the absence of what type of gun would have changed the outcome of the war? (this would be counterfactual deduction)
*having to do with quality? (maintenence, reliability?) -
Message 3
Posted by ambi (U13776277) on Saturday, 10th January 2009
Also side-arm, machinegun or artillery piece etc
-
Message 4
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Saturday, 10th January 2009
The dreaded 88, though the 25 pounder did sterling work from the deserts to the jungles.
-
Message 5
Posted by shiftyakacampo (U13757098) on Monday, 12th January 2009
Sorry about the vague message, was at work had to be quick!
well we`re discussing the importance of guns, from the 88 to mg42, to naval guns to the bayonet. basically guns in general. and there tactics and how they are best used.
"The dreaded 88, though the 25 pounder did sterling work from the deserts to the jungles"
that was my argument, the only weapon that could stop russian tanks. -
Message 6
Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Monday, 12th January 2009
You mean the only gun that could penetrate the armour of the T-34 & KV-1 in 1941.
Herman Bix(in a Pz III) of the 4th Panzer Division was the first tanker to knockout a KV-1, after firing dozens of shots at the turret and side armour he finally put a shot threw the barrel of the KV's gun. -
Message 7
Posted by shiftyakacampo (U13757098) on Tuesday, 13th January 2009
yer i remember reading about that, wasn`t it the first time the germans had seen the t34s? if i remember correctly they drove through the german lines and no german tank could penetrate their armour? until they came accross a couple of 88s?
may be wrong though? -
Message 8
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Tuesday, 13th January 2009
shifty
The first time this happenend that the 88s stopped a tank attack was at the battle of Arras 1940.Rommels P-II with their 20mm guns and P-III with at that time a 37.5 mm gun couldnt penetrate the Mathildas armour same with the 37,5 mm anti tank guns so Rommel ordered in the 88s made for AA use and stopped the allied counterattack.
My vote goes for the 88 with the Bofors AA gun used both on land and sea as runner up.
Hasse -
Message 9
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 14th January 2009
Hasse
The 8.8cms stopping the Matildas at Arras is a bit of a myth, as is Rommel's role in bringing them into action.
The two tank battalions were pretty disorganised by the time they came up to the German gunline, and it was actually the 10.5cm field guns of 78th Artillery Regiment that halted them. The only guns Rommel personally directed were some 2 cm flak mounts; it was while he was doing this that his aide was killed at his side.
The divisional 8.8cms did engage, but did not have the effect they had had in Spain. Sadly for the British, the lesson the Wehrmacht took away was that their 8.8cms needed a dedicated anti-tank round instead of simply using AA ammunition. A year later, at Halfaya Pass, the result of this rethink was starkly demonstrated.
The 8.8cm was a very effective gun, but as a an anti-tank weapon in the field its reputation was based as much on the inability of the British to come up with an effective counter (which was, effectively, the 25lbr used for suppression). It is noticeable that in unit accounts from the end of Normandy on, the fearsomeness of the "88" falls away as effective tactics become the norm (I'm not suggesting that "88"s ceased to take a toll). Arguably, the German 7.5cm and the British 17lbr were better anti-tank guns, being more manoeuvrable, less conspicuous and with an effective punch.
I would vote for your second choice, the 40mm Bofors, the most effective weapon of its type, in service with all three armed services in Germany, the British Empire, and the United States in WWII. And, of course, still in service today in various countries(last combat use in British service during the Falklands in 1982).
In the field gun category, the 25lbr for its flexibility and effectiveness, with the Russian 76.2cm as a contender.
Cheers LW -
Message 10
Posted by ambi (U13776277) on Thursday, 15th January 2009
In terms of sheer numbers killed, the German infantry rifle (KAR 98?)probably holds that dubious record due to the Russian war with its huge number of casualties, and the unfortunate number of executions carried out with it. I have a Canadian hunting friend who tells me that the action from this rifle is still sought after by guys who make up their own custom-made rifles.
-
Message 11
Posted by shiftyakacampo (U13757098) on Friday, 16th January 2009
yer the mauser(sp) was the main german infatry weapon, but they also used the gewehr(sp)
i didnt think the kar98 was that effective though is it? -
Message 12
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Friday, 16th January 2009
If you want one, although it'll need a lot of work, go the Halbe Forest with a metal detector.
The place is littered with the refuse of war. -
Message 13
Posted by ambi (U13776277) on Friday, 16th January 2009
I'd guess most of the main 20C infantry rifles (Garand, Lee-Enfield etc) were decent weapons, since like the 'poor bloody infantry', they did most of the hard graft.
-
Message 14
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Sunday, 18th January 2009
Lost, how did the 25s supress the 88mm? Never heard about that but then I'm more of a aircraft/radio buff....
-
Message 15
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Monday, 19th January 2009
Scotty
Using HE. The 8.8 was a very difficult gun to dig in, so was vulnerable to artillery fire, as indeed was any gun in the open. The British armoured brigades in NW Europe had a field artillery regiment in direct support, so it was theoretically easy to organise.
The British had actually identified the need for field artillery to suppress the German anti-tank screen as early as the middle of 1941, after BATLEAXE. 4th Armoured Brigade was given an artillery regiment (and an infantry battalion) for CRUSADER and although it was not a complete success, all armoured brigades were reconfigured this way.
Part of the problem was that towed artillery could not keep up with tanks. Once the M7 Priest and then the Sexton arrived, this was solved. By the end of the North African campaign, artillery support for a/tk suppression was standard procedure.
In the more crowded environment of Europe, the problem was keeping the guns up. The standard image of GOODWOOD is of the massed British armour being brewed up by 8.8s (in fact, not just them, all sorts of a/tk) on Bourgebous ridge. This tends to ignore the fact that the original German screen had been totally suppressed (by bombers as well as artillery), but there had been no room for the guns to follow up the tanks, and by the time they reached the ridge, they were on their own.
Trouble is, an account that says "we encountered an 88, lost a tank, then the FOO brought down a stonk and we drove on" doesn't grip the history books like half a regiment burning on the open plain, so most of the histories only give you the latter in lurid detail.
Michael Carver's "Tobruk" is pretty good on the trials and tribulations of armour/artillery co-operation between BATTLEAXE and Alamein. -
Message 16
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Tuesday, 20th January 2009
Thanks mate - great explanation!
-
Message 17
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Tuesday, 20th January 2009
Co-operation really is a big deal isn't it? When I was a younger fellow I just assumed it was a simple equation of (best x most)= winner but thats far from the truth isn't it? I suppose nobody has videos on Youtube of the latest cool radio sets, or satellite communications, or navigation systems, but they are rather important. Just a bit dull.
-
Message 18
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Tuesday, 20th January 2009
A bit dull, except when you suddenly haven't got any fire support, or the fire support is falling on you, alas. 2nd Rifle Brigade in the "Snipe" action at Alamein were deprived of access to artillery when their attached FOO got lost on a shovel recce, and then, in the words of the COs after action report, had "Insult added to injury" when the same guns - and various others - shelled their position at various times during the day (24 Armd Bde also shot them up).
Snipe is a tremendous account of British heroism and determination. It is also, sadly, almost a textbook case on how not to do all-arms co-operation.
There's a good site on the RA in WWII, for anyone who hasn't seen it:
Cheers
LW -
Message 19
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Wednesday, 21st January 2009
Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:48 GMT, in reply to shiftyakacampo in message 11
er the mauser(sp) was the main german infatry weapon, but they also used the gewehr(sp)
i didnt think the kar98 was that effective though is it?Β
They're all the same thing - the Mauser Gewehr 98 was the WWII version of the veteran Mauser Kar98, which had been doing sterling service with the German Army in its various incarnations since, as the name suggests, 1898. So far as I am aware, there isn't a great deal of difference between it and its opposite numbers in the Allied Forces.
But of course, like everyone else, the Germans had a range of infantry weapons at their disposal, such as the famous the MP40 (often erroneously referred to as the Schmeisser, which was a different gun altogether), the FG42 Paratroop Rifle and the excellent SG42 Assault Rifle. -
Message 20
Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Wednesday, 21st January 2009
Anglo-Norman,
You've got them the wrong way around.
The Gewehr 98 was the standard WWI rifle, the Kar 98k was a shortened version that evolved from the Gewehr 98 and was adopted as the standard German rifle in 1935.
'SG42 Assault Rifle'
Your mixing two guns together with that one.
The Asault Rifle was the MP44, renamed the StG44 in December 1944.
The MG42 was the famous machine gun, which(in slightly altered form) is still manufactured as the MG3. -
Message 21
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Wednesday, 21st January 2009
Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:11 GMT, in reply to Steelers708 in message 20
44, not 42... well spotted! I was just.. testing you... *shifty eyes*
It wasn't a mixing up, as such - I am well aware of the difference between the two; just a mental aberration!
You are, of course, correct about the Gw98 coming first. -
Message 22
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Thursday, 22nd January 2009
I think there is only one fire-arm that hasn't be improved since the war - The Browning 9mm HP.
It's still in use now - that says it all? I'd go for that! -
Message 23
Posted by Snezzypeanut (U13980840) on Saturday, 23rd May 2009
88mm in anti tank role, MG 40/42, flakwierling, or the british Sten.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.