Best Weapon of WW2? -1 reply

Please wait...

Revenge VIP Member

Shizzle my nizzle

117,165 XP

28th July 2004

0 Uploads

10,354 Posts

0 Threads

#1 14 years ago

What do you think is the best weapon of World War 2? I have seen a good few points made in the "Who participated most in WW2" thread, and maybe we could filter them into a thread of it's own. My opinion is (without knowing the full facts about every gun) the FG-42. BUT, I don't know if this was a rare weapon for the Germans, or if any other countries had better weapons, so don't scream at me. I just want to know other peoples opinions.




Bodo Baby

Mostly harmless...

50 XP

12th August 2004

0 Uploads

176 Posts

0 Threads

#2 14 years ago

I don't want to be picky, but isn't there already a thread on that topic open?

http://www.gamingforums.com/showthread.php?t=136265 And then you need to define weapon - a tank and a plane can be classed as a weapon just as a rocked or gun... Anyway - the best weapon in my book is the Atom bomb... Now don't dismiss it just yet - there is a trrain of thought behind it - after Hiroshima and Nagasaki these bombs prevented us from having a third world war. Maybe we didn't have total peace, but the world has become a safer, and more understanding place...




gopaloo

people aren't ready for me.

50 XP

5th August 2004

0 Uploads

548 Posts

0 Threads

#3 14 years ago

yeah, just keep the same topic. lol even though its turning into modern world stuff.




WiseBobo

Most loved forum member.

50 XP

9th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,668 Posts

0 Threads

#4 14 years ago
Reven My opinion is (without knowing the full facts about every gun) the FG-42. BUT, I don't know if this was a rare weapon for the Germans, or if any other countries had better weapons, so don't scream at me. I just want to know other peoples opinions.

Not understanding the logic about this one; You chose a weapon that had little-to-no impact on the war, and failed to fulfill it's purpose? Bah, oh well. As you said you don't know, so meh. Only 7,000 were manufactured throughout WWII in it's entirety, and were only used by the Fallschirmager, which were German Paratroopers. The rifle had alot of faults; such as an insanse amount of kick, and being a bit too complex with internal components. For me, my choice for rifles goes to the M1 Garand for obvious reasons, and if we are talking about small-arms only, then the MG-42 is right along there with it.




Bodo Baby

Mostly harmless...

50 XP

12th August 2004

0 Uploads

176 Posts

0 Threads

#5 14 years ago

WiseBoboNot understanding the logic about this one;

You chose a weapon that had little-to-no impact on the war, and failed to fulfill it's purpose?

Bah, oh well. As you said you don't know, so meh.

Only 7,000 were manufactured throughout WWII in it's entirety, and were only used by the Fallschirmager, which were German Paratroopers. The rifle had alot of faults; such as an insanse amount of kick, and being a bit too complex with internal components.

For me, my choice for rifles goes to the M1 Garand for obvious reasons, and if we are talking about small-arms only, then the MG-42 is right along there with it. [color=black]I was under the impression that it had more to do with the magazine being on the side, therefore unbalancing the FG-42. Yes, it is true that it had a kick back like a mule, but it was not really meant to be fired standing up - I think the only other disadvantage of that weapon was the muzzle flash - one shot and you lost your target in the fire... [/color] [color=black][/color] [color=black][/color] [color=black]Though come to think of it I liked the look of the Boys Mark I - when I first saw it on display I thought it was a sniper rifle, till they explaint to me that it was used to shoot tanks... :)[/color]




WiseBobo

Most loved forum member.

50 XP

9th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,668 Posts

0 Threads

#6 14 years ago

Well it was a combination of the side-mounted magazine, and it being too light to fire the 7.92x57mm.

LOL at your Mark I.




gopaloo

people aren't ready for me.

50 XP

5th August 2004

0 Uploads

548 Posts

0 Threads

#7 14 years ago

but u gotta admit, the MG42 was a good idea. some adustments here and there, and i believe it could make a big impact on the war. right?




gopaloo

people aren't ready for me.

50 XP

5th August 2004

0 Uploads

548 Posts

0 Threads

#8 14 years ago

FG42, not MG42....danke.




WiseBobo

Most loved forum member.

50 XP

9th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,668 Posts

0 Threads

#9 14 years ago

It needed to be heavier, and the magazine be fed from the bottom. More refinements on the internal workings of it, and it'd be a damn good versatile weapon.




Bodo Baby

Mostly harmless...

50 XP

12th August 2004

0 Uploads

176 Posts

0 Threads

#10 14 years ago
WiseBoboLOL at your Mark I.

ok, what? There was nothing fundamentally wrong with it and it did it's job - at the beginning of the war anyway... And if I remember correctly the Germans took the gun and then modified it slightly for their own use - would have to look it up what they did exactly and what they called it, but they still used it for fighting tanks...