Ww2 germany vs usa vs soviet union

The Browning M2 rapes the MG42 kiddos. There's a reason modern militaries still use the M2 while the MG42 is just a neat-o meme.

Literally all of the opinions in this thread come from call of duty

litearally none of that matters in balls out war.

>HMG is comparable to a GPMG
Christ it's summer already eh?

Attached: MG3 gurl.jpg (800x534, 303K)

MG42 is a GPMG you colossal retard

>meme

Attached: mg3 sea.jpg (750x499, 350K)

>Rifles
U.S.
>SMG
U.S. .45 STRONK
>Machine Guns
Germany
Russian guns are only good as peasant fodder, PPSh and the other 7.62Tok were only lethal if you dumped half the mag in them.
Also
>M3
That fucker served till 1997.
Also WEEP at this.
americanrifleman.org/articles/2017/5/1/the-m2-submachine-gun/

Dp28 is shit
Fuck off boomer

Soviets by far as actually something you bring into a war. Theirs worked and worked well enough and cheap to make. Also that ppsh and pps43 is just freaking aesthetic.

>vatnikintensifies.gif

>Rifle
USA
>SMG
Italy
>LMG
Germany

Motherfuckers don't know about that Beretta Model 38

Japan had best bolt action imo.

>ppsh's are not guaranteed to work with every mag in the field
>best
It has a nice rate of fire and controllable recoil but that's all it has

>Rifle
US with the M1.
>SMG,
USSR with the PPS-43.
>LMG
Germany with the MG-42.

Rifle: US
SMG US (greasegun, not that pos tompshon)
MG: Germans
HMG: US

>MG42 is just a neat-o meme
>most modern LMGs based off its design

Attached: image.gif (480x264, 1.54M)

PPSh is pretty much the objective best SMG. Garand is pretty much the objective best rifle. Pick whatever machine gun you want.

>he thinks a grease gun is better than either a PPSh or an MP-40

Attached: Brainlet2.png (621x702, 56K)

It's pretty commonly known that they are.

Attached: m3a1greasegun_1008_3ed.jpg (520x360, 58K)

PPSH is borderline useless in full auto

Turn off your computer.

>all these people saying the USA had the best rifles
>implying Sturmgewehr

There is a reason that we use intermediate cartridges, detachable magazines, and select fire.

Attached: 1354353830100.jpg (800x591, 82K)

And that reason is Vladimir Grigoryevich Fyodorov.

Attached: V_G_Fyodorov.jpg (350x455, 87K)

M1 garand, Mp40, and Mg42 is objectively the correct answer

Better cartridge, worse rifle.

There is a reason that nobody makes recoil operated assault rifles.

>Rifle
US: M1, you can't really beat the volume of fire it can produce

>SMG

USSR: PPs-43, amazingly cheap and easy to produce, easy to use

>MG

Germany: MG-34/42

Too bad it was built shitty

>Too bad it was built shitty

I keep hearing this, but I never see sources.

Have you ever seen one fired outside of your video games kid?

Grease gun has an extra barrel for firing 9mm and .45, so it gets an edge on other SMG's for that fact alone.

Mah nigga

>Rifle
USA hands down
>SMG
Germany. Thompson had more uncontrollable recoil, and the PpSh had huuuge reliability issues. Mags were a hit n miss, that's a true nigger
>LMG/HMG
USA/Germany
USA cuz the m2 can cut down people and vehicles (not tanks obviously)
Germany cuz the MG34/42 are much more mobile than the m2.

The StG-44 placed too much logistical burden on the Germans to be the best rifle. It was not uncommon for rifles to be issued with only a single magazine and there was never enough ammunition.

The M1 used far simpler enbloc clips and used the same cartridge as the other US weapons while retaining semi-auto fire. It was the superior rifle for fighting a global war.

Germany wins LMG section, USA wins rifle section and russia wins SMG section

>what is an mg3

>Rifle
USA with the Garand, semi auto 30-06 with an 8 round capacity and a quick reload is basically better than any other countries rifle in every way
>SMG
USSR with the PPSh, only issue with it was magazine quality.
>Machine gun
Germany with the MG-42, it quite literally changed the entire worlds machine gun doctrines and designs

If countries besides those are allowed then the Suomi wins for best SMG though

Stamped steel rifle is still easier to manufacture than a forged rifle, and the magazines are just as easy to produce as submachinegun magazines.

>missing a major point

Are we talking effective or overall spec wise?

On paper
>Swedish m42 rifle
Lemme explain before I get reees. It's a direct impingement (minimal moving parts)
tiling bolt (easy to make)
Stripper clip or detachable magazine
Fired a softer cartridge than the trucks that other nations where using, meaning faster follow up shots meaning better effective fire.

However it didn't see enough use to matter. And practically the king of rifles in ww2 was the m1 garand. The enbloc system in the garand is so smooth, you can maintain about the same effective fire rate as 20 rounder 308 guns. Yea modern guns have 20 rounds, but the enbloc loading is so much faster (unless you do retarded ipshit things like throw your magazine away) you can maintain a good rate of fire.

>smg
Paper: stg 44. I don't care about autism about assault rifles, the stg was replacement for the mp40. Even if it turned out to be a new thing.
Practice: pps43 or Owen gun, maybe grease gun. There's a lot of good smgs desu.

>MG
Cluster fuck of an argument of basically semantics. General purpose, heavy, light, automatic rifle. Etc.

THIS

I don't think it's a good point.

An assault rifle is going to give a fire team more firepower than a clip fed semi-automatic, so the firepower/cost ratio is tilted in favor of the assault rifle.

Producing an Stg 44 and four magazines is still probably cheaper than making one Garand, given that metal stamping is so much more cost-effective than forging.

Assault rifles don't require more ammunition or magazines than submachineguns, and all of the combatants in WW2 were able to field submachineguns, so the argument that assault rifles present a unique and intolerable logistical burden doesn't make sense.

>stamped steel rifle was easier.
No it wasn't. Not in 1944 when complex stamping was literally bleeding edge technology. Forging was a well understood process. Seriously, stgs are not guns that will last, the fucking reciever where warped and thinner in places and shearing, etc. There's a reason the slavs had stamping troubles too.

>as easy to make as a smg magazine.
So not easy? Magazines are often what make or break auto loading weapons. Getting that shit right takes a lot of time, especially for a new cutting edge gun.

Who said anything about the ppsh? The pps43 is the best subgun of the war.

You seem to be forgetting Germany was suffering ammunition shortages and that stamping used in the STG-44 used was actually pretty advanced for the time.

>Forged rifle
smuganimegirl.jpg
Also, Germany didn't have the tech or the machines or the material to stamp StG receivers, even Russia which had FAR more materials and took all the German gun designers and had plenty of their own took 15 years after the war to stamp AKs

The M3 Grease Gun was stamped steel and they made millions of them for five dollars a unit. Built like a brick shithouse too.

Sure, there were teething problems, but the cost per unit is still much lower because you don't need anywhere near as many hours of machining or as much training.

I just can't see a way for the Stg 44 to not be more cost effective than a Garand. The DoD estimated that an 8 man squad with M16s had the same firepower as an 11 man squad with M14s, and the firepower difference between the M1 and the Stg was much greater than the firepower difference between those.

>OP doesn't know the difference between LMGs, GPMGs and HMGs

what about when you drop it you might not ever fire it again

>There is a reason that we use intermediate cartridges, detachable magazines, and select fire.
Convergent evolution. Detachable mags where already going to be the future. Most modern guns at the time wanted detachable boxes.

>select fire
The fucking sten gun is select fire. Pretty much every smg was select fire. Not a new technology at all.

>intermediate cartridge
Already kinda happening around the world. The japs were using 6.5 and only went to 7.7 because it performed better at peircing light tanks. The Italians and swedes also had that. Intermediate was going to happen regardless, just in different ways. The 8mm kurz and later 762x39. Which I belive was based on an Italian meme, where basically boosted pistol rounds. Vs things like 556 (or 30 carbine) enfield rounds and the like are detuned rifle cartridges. And consider the stg is an smg, just like the ak (doctrine wise).

>Germany didn't have the tech or the machines or the material to stamp StG receivers

Except for the 400,000 that they made during the war.

Wikipedia tells me it was simpler and faster to make than a Kar 98k.

If I'm reading this shit right, and if wikipedia isn't lying to me, the problem was that it was introduced so late in the war, and that the ammunition infrastructure was tooled for 7.92x57.

If we're just comparing the cost-effectiveness of weapon types without looking at the costs of adopting a new technology, the Stg was far and away the most efficient service rifle of the war.

The 400,000 which totally fell apart and destroyed themselves and mostly just didn't work. Don't forget that most of those weren't issued, and the ones that were obviously didn't make a huge difference where they were at. If Germany had made them standard issue 5-10 years before the war and developed them and had the tooling and ammo supply and actually issued them, they could have been the super weapon you act like they were (and that's still stretching it).

US had the two best rifles in ww2
M1 Garand
M1 Carbine

While many consider the M1 Carbine to be a joke lacking stopping power, it was short, light and did the job.

A lot of German """""""""""""""super weapons"""""""""""" were far too little, too late.

>greese gun
Very very simple "stamping" in the old days this was referred to as pressed metal. Like the pots where made. Not at all compared to the monumental task of stamping a locking breach gas operated reciever for a non pistol cartridge.

>cost per unit
Except for the fact the stg had a lot of machining required in its operating parts. Ignoring that, the cost was not bearable for a nation that was getting firebombed day and night.

>I just can't see a war for the stg to not be more cost effective.
Then I can't help you. Historical context is the most important thing in any discussion of development. And in historical context, the stg was a poor financial decision.

>Wikipedia tells me it was simpler and faster to make than a Kar 98k.

"Simpler and faster" doesn't tell you the full story, this was a cutting edge manufacturing method that was far from being perfected.

Yep.

thats a 1919 in 30-06 not a m2 ...

>The 400,000 which totally fell apart and destroyed themselves and mostly just didn't work

gib sauce

>the super weapon you act like they were

I'm just saying, it was the most efficient design of WW2. In real life, it didn't make a difference, but that isn't a reflection of the design, it's a reflection of the particular logistical situation in WW2 era Germany.

As a design, it was the best design that was implemented during the war. If you had to outfit an army with WW2 era weapons, and you had the luxury to start from scratch without existing logistical constraints, the Stg would be the obvious choice.

>Most efficient design
>They apparently made 400,000 of them and they were all reliable and tough
>Made 0 difference
Something's not adding up here

>have entire industry built around 7.62x57mm
>have stockpiles of untold millions of bolt guns
>decide late in a war, as your logistical system is collapsing, to switch to new design
>doesn't make a whole lot of difference
>no conceivable design would have

Best design: Stg 44

Best implementation: M1 Garand

>7.62x57
Wrong
>Germany just had millions of extra rifles
So why were they so desperate for guns?
>M1 is known as the best battle implement ever devised and the StG is known as just another Nazi prototype that failed to go anywhere

The source is apocryphal second hand stories of late war models that were build in someone's garrage or a bombed out factory somewhere having feeding issues that may or may not have been caused by poor machining or declining powder quality.

>simpler than the k98
That's because the k98 was unneededly complex for a bolt gun. And needed a lot of precision among other things.

Also give me Wikipedia source for that claim, the stg delevopment is a cluster fuck and most documentation was destroyed.

>if we're just comparing the cost effectiveness of the weapon types.
Then you're just dumb. Things don't exist in a bubble, they have rhyme reason. There's a reason the Germans continued using an 1898 design with very little updates as their primary weapon while the rest of the world had atleast updated thier old gun design to be competitive. Like the Lee or arisaka or even carcano. And your kind of "on paper" thinking is pretty much the reason people think German stuff was so good. It's just the Germans where in a shitty spot, they can't make smgs or rifles fast enough, so they wanna make a gun that can do both but neither all that well.

The stg is also actually a pretty poor design. The spring would die because it was bent in the stock, the stick would crack and trunnion would shear. The head space was set by pouring lead behind the locking block after screwing it in, this was only not too bad because of the use of steel cased ammo. . The gas system had to be really over gassed to reliably cycle, which beat the already fragile recievers up. Life span of a stg is like a thousand rounds.

MG3 Weight with Bipod: 23.15 lbs
Browning M2 Weight with Tripod: 127.87 lbs

Attached: dumb wojak 2.png (645x729, 63K)

i heard the french actually made a superior version of the standard american rifle,a frenchy m1 garand i think.

>So why were they so desperate for guns?

For the same reason everyone was desperate for guns. World wars require a lot of guns.

Unfortunately for the Third Reich, the German economy collapsed in 1944-45, and small arms production of every kind tanked. This is also why they implemented the VG series and the MP3008.

That has nothing to do with actual merits of the Stg series. No design, no matter how good, would have done well if it was introduced by Nazi Germany in late 1944.

>M1 is known as the best battle implement ever devised and the Stg is known as just another Nazi prototype that failed to go anywhere

If you ask the average person in any country, they'll tell you that the AK was the best battle implement ever designed. The Stg is remembered as the inspiration for the AK.

"Best" is asinine and real life is not an RPG blah blah blah different weapons for different purposes blah blah blah

But in a perfect world m1 Garand for rifle PPSH/PPS43 for SMG MG42 for GMG.

SVT40 was miles ahead of the m1, which is a POS even by todays standards.

>unreliable

>cant shoot full power 30-06 without breaking

>innacurate

>non top offable enbloc clips

>Also give me Wikipedia source for that claim

>While the Sturmgewehr required specialized tooling to manufacture it, it consumed less materials and was faster and easier to make than a Kar 98k.

Stamped steel requires a lot of tooling to get up and running, but when you get it up and running it's the cheapest type of small arms manufacturing.

>The stg is also actually a pretty poor design

I can never find actual sources for this.

>SVT40
>poorly made and constructed
>garbage reliability

Garand was better.

it would have been neat to have studied a all matching non refurbed SVT, whats left of them are finicky with problems.

theres nothing good about a M1, its a heavy, innacurate, prone to fouling and unreliable canadian shitheap.

Rifles, comparing US ww2 trash with WW1 rifles.
How bout you compare M1 to SVT40 and StG44 ( no it wasnt an SMG)?

Is this b8 or genuine slav retardation? I've owned 5 svts at this point, and they are inherently finicky guns. Specifically the gas system. With the same steel cased non surplus ammo, I've had extraction problem in -10. While literally last week I blasted 230 rounds with no issues. The gas adjustment on the svt can change day to day.

3006 ball mk2 WAS full power 3006, you brainlet.

>inaccurate
>garand
>says svt is better
Noguns gtfo.

>can't top off
Topping off is a meme and never actually practiced. Also confirmed b8, it's not hard to top off a garand.

Not really. They're just a finicky design. I've owned 5, and they don't have any real "problems" other than being finicky. I think they're great shooting guns, the muzzle brakes are genius, I can't say anything bad about the svt on a personal level. It's just an early generation of semi auto and all of them had thier quirks and problems. The svts archilles heel is the gas system, it's design is over complicated, makes each component weak. And the adjustment is very important to have reliable function.

By the way. The svt will not beat itself to death or whatever meme, if you adjust the gas system right.

And the other semi-autos of the war were worse in ever way.

>Rifle
US
>SMG
Germany
>LMG
Germany

Well that's easy. M1 is practically the best of the bunch. It's not a over complicated (for the soldier) mess like the svt, and had a country that could afford to make it.

The stg is an smg (no matter what you say in brackets, because doctrine is more important than just designation) and the m1 is again the practically better gun for the same reasons.

Weapons may influence fights. Tactics ultimately win battles. Logistic is what wins wars.

Between the MP40, the M3, and the PPSh-43, which one had the best magazines?

It seems to me that one of these three is the best submachinegun, and the deciding factor is probably the reliability of the magazine, being that they're all simple blowback subguns.

They won the meme war, the only war that matters

While no doubt the M2 can be and has been transported by soldiers it is a HMG and in an entirely different category than GMPGs. The M1919 was neat no doubt, but not nearly as effective as it's German counterpart who's derivatives are still used by militaries far and wide.

we arent comparing logistics here though, also germans had a SVT copy (Gewehr 43) too if you want to compare *pure* rifles

The Mas49. They perfected the semi auto rifle at a time when the rest of the world was moving to select fire auto rifles.

Except they never won a war.

well germans loved PPSh and used it over mp40 wherever they could so theres that

I'll pick
garand/bar
tommy gun with drum
mg42 because its cool

honorable mention

m1 carbine
stg44
grease gun

They got to keep Independance wich was great, but they LOST the wars, both of em

wasnt BAR an mg?

Theoretically.

Grease gun mags are very good. Mp40 mags are also good. Ppsh mags can be good if they're matched to the gun. None of these guns where sten bad where you could jam by holding in the wrong place.

That is a moot comparison. Practical stgs sucked, but stg fags like to bring up the "perfect stg" once all the flaws in manufacturing and the like are ironed out and all that. Which is an impossible comparison because you're asking to compare a fictional gun.

Things don't exist in a vacuum. You can have a perfect idea, if your execution sucks, it was all shitty, regardless of the merit of the idea.

It's an automatic rifle. Don't question it. It's a class that had 2 guns ever and was obsolete as soon as ww1 ended.

Posh kills you if you drop it, might kill your buddies too.

Yes and no, doctrine wise it was an automatic rifle featuring "Walking fire" tm copyright reserved.
Technically it was a lmg.