Worst Weapon?

I didn't read through all the posts cause I'm lazy...but was the goliath discused? Or how about Russian dogs with bombs atached to them?
Both somewhat "creative" but not the most effective. I read somewhere that in some cases the dogs would come back blow up thier owners.

 

the french mg. i cant remember the name. the U.S. army used it becuse they didnt want to use the BAR, afraid the German army would capture the technology. but whatever it was called. it jammed, the clip on the top was a descrace, it had a dam hold in the side, so if u dive in some dirt your s.o.l. it was inaccuarte, pretty much everything was wrong with it.

 

It sounds like you may be referring the French Chauchat, (pronounced 'show-shaw'). Designed by Hungarian Rudolph Frommer, it was the primary French light machine gun of WWI, first introduced in 1907. It is generally regarded as one of the great engineering failures in the history of firearms. Here are some of the pros and cons of the weapon.
1) It weighed only about 10kg. (unusually light for the day)
2) It was manufactured utilizing the relatively modern technique of "metal stamping".
3) It was made in huge numbers, more than any other automatic weapon in the Great War.
4) The Chauchat was very prone to jamming.
Two reasons: Veiwing ports in the magazine (lets in dirt and mud), and the weapon used the "long recoil" system. That means that the barrel moved against a spring during recoil, not the bolt. All that mass jumping back and forth made the piece extremely hard to handle.
5) Slow rate of fire, 250 rpm.
6) Finally, it only accepted 20 round box magazines. Between the jamming and the frequent reloading, it was easy to get killed using the Chauchat.
Originally, the Yanks had to accept the weapon for political reasons. Eventually though, as the Browning weapon became available, the soldiers dumped the troublesome French weapon in favor of the B.A.R.

 

According to what I have read, the Soviets originally taught the dogs to run under tanks by giving them food through the escape hatch under the hull. Problem was they used their own tanks, and so the dogs associated the Soviet tanks with food and ran back... When this was discovered, captured and knocked-out German tanks were used, which made the whole devious plan work a whole lot better. Apparently the (not yet utilized one would suppose) bomb dogs served their purpose well enough to be included in the Moscow victory parade, following Germany's surrender.

 

WHich version of the Brewster Buffalo are you talking about the Americain version was armoured up thus makeing its manuverability a lot worse. But the FAF(Finnish Air Force) took off the armour and they did very well in them sporting a 32 to 1 k:d ratio. So by no meens is it a failure.

 

You are talking against Russian foes.
Hartman 352 kills.
The rest of the "vaunted" Green Hearts group who racked up kills galore in Russia.
These same pilots made NO effect against the better trained pilots of the RAF, and USAAF.
They were the Allies KILLS.
Training...all training.
The early Japanese pilots were very good, with probably the best dogfighter of the early war. the Zero.
The Buffalo just converted from a Bi-Plane, and the early war tactics of "Cowboy-ish" dogfighting was virtual suicide.
The I-16 had a good record with a good pilot too, as did that "Woofer" P-39. There is always the exception to the rule.
With a choice of any fighter aircraft to fly, would you choose the Buffalo?
Until the F4F and the "Thatch" weave, and better tactics of the P-38 (diving through enemy formations, shooting them up at high speed)(repeat), with little if any dogfighting, left the Japanese frustrated, and without their advantage.
This same change of tactics worked for Hellcats and Corsairs too.
I believe even Hartman said..."If the fight de-generates into a circle, get out or die!"
For the reason that you are too busy to see if someone else has entered your circle behind you. This may have been the end of the "Red Baron".
No credit away from the Finns! They pretty much "Whooped" the Russians with whatever equipment they had. Salute!

 

SW you better do some more research on JG 54

III./JG 54 at Normandie was the highest scoring Luftwaffe gruppe during the battle over French skies with over 100 confirmed kills to their credit many of the top scorers were aces on the Ost front. the unit had been in the Reich defence armed with the Bf 109G-6 kanonvogel during the spring of 44 against the Viermots, re-equipped with the Fw 190A-8 just in time for die Invasion.

E

 

I knew what I said would come back at me while I was at work today.
I did not mean they weren't good pilots.
What I meant to say is that the scores against Western pilots were smaller compared to the scores tallied against Russian foes.
The point I was trying to make about the quality of Russian pilots/machines early in the war, which resulted in the Finnish Buffalo scoring such a remarkable record. While failing so miserably against the Japanese.
I was trying to suggest that training and expierence is the major factor (which the Green Hearts Had)(JG 54) and not the machine, though it helped.
Good machines go down with bad pilots.
Bad machines stay up with good pilots.
Many inferior machines made a good accounting of themselves in desperate situations because of pilot skill and expierence.
The Finns (Buffalo)
The Flying Tigers, (P-40)
The Cactus Air Force, (F4F, P-400)
the three Gladiators of Malta (Faith, Hope, and Charity)
There are pilots, fighter pilots, and airplane drivers.
Top 10 U.S. fighter groups
Group...Air...Ground...Total (kills)
354th- 701- 255- 956
56th- 677- 328.5- 1005.5
4th- 539- 463- 1002
355th- 362- 493- 855
352nd- 493.5- 278- 771.5
353rd- 320- 412- 732
339th- 249- 443- 692
78th- 327.5- 359- 686.5
357th- 575.5- 110- 685.5
55th- 304- 275- 579

56th started operations April 1943
4th started operations March 1943
355th started operations September 1943
354th started operations December 1st 1943

Almost 8,000 German aircraft destroyed from the Storch to the Me 262, 4,500 in air to air combat.

[ 02. May 2006, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: skunk works ]

 

The Buffaloes the Dutch used in the defense of Java did really well also, until they were overwhelemed in numbers of Japanese. I don't have the numbers but read about it years ago.

The dog's use as a weapon reminds me of the US Navy using Dolfins for spy work and weapons post WWII.

 

Japanese Type 97 nothing like having to aim your grenade at a rock

 

I just watched that goofy movie "Wind Talkers" again the other day.
Now that you mention it, throughout that show the Japanese are constantly hitting themselves in the helmet with their grenades.
I never paid attention to it before, but it's all I see now.
I can't help but laugh.

 

Japanese Type 94 Pistol, hands down. The thing would fire if you pressed on one of the projecting sears. I'd rather go unarmed than have to use that piece of junk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_94_8_mm_Pistol

 

the sherman tank, that thing ahad about 2 inches of armor on it. they had to put sandbags all around it and that didnt even help

 

The Sherman took casualties no doubt.

Belton Coopers book "Death Traps" states...
3rd Armored had 232 medium tanks, and about 2/3rds that in light tanks (M-5/M-3)"Stewies"
Regular armored divisions had roughly equal numbers of both, which is why the 3rd was considered a "heavy" armored division.
Back to numbers
700 lost due to combat
648 totaled (Turret ring hit, burned out)
1,100 in need of repair

That means 1,350 lost...
That equals 580%
12th army reported compairable numbers.
Yet, they still won the day !

The Germans had some good tanks ! Some awfully big tanks, long range guns, home turf...
Yet, they lost all of them (except the ones in museums).

I have no numbers for the T-34, which was the Russian Sherman.
Same results, it was still there when the Germans were not.

I have no numbers on German losses, but just look up production numbers, and that will be close enough to what they lost.

 

One word in defense of the Italian tanks: Some were used as base for decent assault guns.

 

I would probably say that one of the worst weapons of WW2 would be the Italian or the Romanian Soldier

 

I'm sorry, Slava, but I can't agree with you. There are no bad soldiers, only bad officers, command structures or bad leaders.

Those who are at the sharp end of the stick can not be blamed by the failings of those that do not properly train, equip, arm, command them or are able to provide them with an adequate policy and strategy for victory. IMHO a Romanian or Italian private would be as good a soldier if he carried British, German, Finnish, US, Soviet, Canadian, younameit, identity papers.

 

Za my friend I unfortunelty I can only agree with you to a point. Soldierly also runs int the blood. Take the Germans for example these people have been fighting for thousands of years fighting is in their blood, they can be great with a leader and can be good without. Yes the Italians had the magnificent Roman empire but havent fought like that for thousands of years same thing with the Egyptions, and most other acient civilizations. However you are also correct when talking about leadership especially in regards to the French ( great with Napolean, nothing really without ) If a people for the most part are a peacefull people they cant really be as good soldiers as the ones that have been fighting for generations. Wouldnt you agree?

 

No, I don't agree. Let's take your Germans. Do you mean all of them? Are you sure the ear-and-stomach battalions or the Volksturm had the same performance as the SS Hitlerjugend PzDiv?

How do you explain the Red Army then, composed of masses of descendents of muzhiks, the least aggressive of all people, fighting all the way from Stalingrad to Berlin?

I find your view outdated. The "scum of the earth" (as Wellington called his army, partly composed of half-starved Irishmen, but see the rest of the context) can be trained, commanded, given a purpose, and forged into a fighting force. That's what drill sergeants are there for.

 

I see your point Za. But then would you rank a people and their fighting capabilities soley bases on leadership? Wouldnt a soldiers ability to stand and fight no matter what be accounted for anything? Yes Za I believe that leadership is more then a must for a military but what about the actual soldier?