German vs. American army weapons in WWII

[MarkOttawa]

David Frum posts two messages he has received:

Reader Mail!
http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzY1NWM5NzE0ZjQyMTZkZGQxNTI3ZjBkZDU4M2YxNTU=

NRO readers know their small arms. A reader writes to dispute my citation of Max Hastings' opinion on the superiority of most German equipment in World War II:

'I have read all three books you mentioned & your review is very perceptive.  But your generalizations, while quite true in the broad sense, nonetheless conceal some error.

You mention "rifles."  I can assure you the M-1 is a vastly superior infantry rifle to the Mauser carried by the Germans.  That is not to say the Mauser was a bad weapon.  The rifle the M-1 Garand replaced is the M1903 Springfield, very much the equivalent of the Mauser.  The Springfield was still in service in limited ways when I was in the Marine Corps in the late 60's, which shows just how good it is.  That said, the M-1 was just as accurate at combat ranges as the Mauser and had a much higher rate of fire.  I have use the M-1 in combat and it's very similar successor the M-14.  I have also used the Springfield.  Trust me, any soldier worth his salt would take the Garand over the Mauser in a heartbeat.

With regard to pistols, not exactly a decisive issue I admit, I would argue the Browning M1911 is superior as a combat weapon to the Walthers & Mausers preferred by the Germans. The stopping power of the Browning (.45 cal/11.4mm vs. 9mm/.35 cal) is vastly superior and the mechanism more robust & reliable.  Again, I have used the Browning in combat.  (A very old one it was.  In 1968 the Marines had not purchased a pistol since 1945.)  I have also used 9mm pistols.

As between the old Mauser from WWI & the Browning, the Browing is better on every point: faster cycle, less prone to jam, easier to maintain, and must more stopping power.
That said, this is very much a subject of diverse opinion.  There are those that prefer 9mm pistols (Walther, Beretta, etc.) as easier  to use & easier to shoot accurately.  But by no means superior.'

A Small Arms Rebuttal
http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmNhMGQxMTBjN2MwYzdlNDliMDQ2ZWQ0OGFkOWNkOGM=

This is a subject our NRO readers really know. A rebuttal to the letter below from reader Thomas J. Leak, a major in the US Army Reserve military police:

'You've opened a can of worms. I agree with Hastings. To summarize:

German machine gun: MG-42 twice the rate of fire of and way more reliable than the Browning .30 cal.

German Sturmgewehr 43: No American equivalent. Became the prototype for the AK-47, M16 and every other modern military assault rifle. Fires a smaller, less powerful bullet than traditional rifles, but at a much higher rate of fire from 30 round magazines compared to 8 round clips for the M1 Garand.

German MP40 submachine gun: Vastly superior to American Tommy Gun (popularized by 1920s gangsters) and the M3 Grease Gun.

German Panzerfaust: Jim Gavin, commander of the 82nd Airborne, describes translating German manuals into English and then rehearsing, but not actually firing, captured German panzerfausts because the American bazooka was utterly worthless.

I doubt you want much more detail, but for tanks, antitank guns and assault guns (Americans didn't even have any), the German equipment was superior.

A huge part of the reason the German soldier did so well compared to the American, and British and Commonwealth, was the blatant superiority of his weapons.'

Mark
Ottawa

 

[a_majoor]

In October 1415, the French arrived on a battlefield with an overwhelming number of mounted heavy cavalry, armed with the best cavalry weapons of the day and protected by plate armour superior to what the enemy King's troops wore. Indeed, most of these King's troops were clad in leather armour hardened in boiling oil or reinforced with metal studs, and were armed with knives and mallets as their close combat weapons.

Today, almost 600 years later, we still recite Shakespear's stirring "Band of Brother's" speech, and remember how the day was won by the superior tactics and command and control that King Henry V had over his forces.

Superior weapons, like everything else, only have a limited effect on the outcome of military conflicts. Roman Legions were overwhelmed by both Hannibal and the Barbarian hordes, the British rifle was defeated once by Zulu spears, and Western armies of today are using high tech weapons and sensors against crude home made bombs. In all cases, these armies recovered and went on to crush their enemies on the field. Far more important is the training and cohesion of the troops, and the logistical support they receive. For the ultimate in how cohesion works, think of the 300 at the Battle of Thermopylae. For the importance of logistics, the Americans in WW II did have inferior infantry weapons and tanks to the Germans, but there were always more of them, more ammunition, more spare parts, more food for the soldiers, more fuel.....

Unless there is a radical difference in weaponry (Ironclads vs wooden Ships of the Line, for example), look to training, cohesion and logistics as the prime reasons for victory.

 

[1feral1]

The 'US Rifle', .30 M1 'Garand' was the first semi auto rifle adopted by an Army. The year was 1936. John Garand was a Canadian.

The fellow mentions the Browning M1911, perhaps he means the Colt M1911A1.

I own both a P38 and P08 (both wartime byf's). The P38 is a great pistol, with both single and double action, with an 8 rd mag. The P08, is a different bird altogether, nothing special about it, still has 8 shots, and has been around since pre 1914. For some reason the 'Luger' has always appeared more collectable than the P38.

My 2 cents,

Wes