WW2 Warfare Discussion thread

This is just discussion thread about WW2 Warfare:

Artillery Guns
Tanks
Infantry weapons
etc

Some quick examples can include:

Panzer IV
Panzerfaust
M1911
Thompson
MP40
M4 Sherman

& LOTS MORE, COMPARE ANYTHING FROM ANY NATION  IN WW2

Feel free to argue, compare weapons, or provide information etc.

If this is about real life, i think it should go here:
http://easternfront.org/forums/index.php?board=7.0
Unless that's specifically about Eastern Front, i'm not sure. :-\

Either way, if your topic lacks direction, i don't think it will get very far...

Can anyone tell me difference between PzIV aufs H and sufs J? I read somewhere that one of them had inefficient turret traversing system.

Yeah it's based on real warfare weapons not anything in games

I think the topic is too general to get any popularity :/

If it were more specific I'm sure the rest of the community would be happy to chime in.

Well we do already have a question:

cephalos wrote:
Can anyone tell me difference between PzIV aufs H and sufs J? I read somewhere that one of them had inefficient turret traversing system.

I would like to know the answer too. ;D

As far as I know, Ausf. J had the so-called Thoma-Schilde (armoured skirts in form of a grid) to reduce the weight of the Panzer and save marterial. Here a picture:

pariah wrote:
Well we do already have a question:

cephalos wrote:
Can anyone tell me difference between PzIV aufs H and sufs J? I read somewhere that one of them had inefficient turret traversing system.

I would like to know the answer too. ;D

My personal advice: Walter J Spielberg - Panzer IV and its variants.
Here u will find all this information.

Here a quick information about the differences:
The electrical turret traversing system was replaced by a manual system.
A new 200L fuel tank.
A new "Seitenrichtmaschine" (dont know the english term):
The new machine made it easier to turn around the turret by hand.
And one, two smaller changes in consequence of the "major changes".

The Thoma-Schürze was no special sign of Ausf. J. Old tanks were equipped with this Schürzen, too.

And was it better than PzIV aufs H or not? I mean in which one would you fight yankee tanks or soviet ones?

Well - this changes arent as important as the change from Ausf. E to Ausf. F late (with longer 7,5cm Kwk).
Out of my view both tanks had the same combat value. Ausf. J is a bit better to handle and to service.

Right, thank you :)

Can anyone tell me (compare) how many and what kind of guns did a division have ? I want to compare a normal German division with any allied division. I know that Germans usually had more direct fire guns (thick AT screen) while US/UK more howitzers but I dont know any details.

I have always been fascinated by these unkown rare units. Like the 500th SS parachute battalion or airborne firefighters for exampel or latewars prototypes such as the Maus. So I have always been woundering. Scuba divers unit?

Did these exist or anything? Like a speciall formed unit for scuba infantry or something like that. I Know SAS and other commando troops maybe used Scuba equipment for some missions but Iam asking about troops specially focus on Scuba warfare? ^^

Sorry if it sounds like Iam being unserious but I would love to know :D

Btw I can already say that Iam not intressted in hearing about mini uboats or those little gizmos. Just pure Scuba divers :D No ofc no they dont have to fight under water a lá James Bond XD

Paciat wrote:
Can anyone tell me (compare) how many and what kind of guns did a division have ? I want to compare a normal German division with any allied division. I know that Germans usually had more direct fire guns (thick AT screen) while US/UK more howitzers but I dont know any details.

Soviet division had most artillery, US doctrine was 30% suppression/kill threshold. while soviet barrage at 30% was just getting started they aim to achieve 90%.

furthermore the artillery attack of US was more fluid an call in reliant as where a soviet barrage was planned for days or even weeks ahead of time. due to the lack of radios and communication in soviet army.

and soviet howitzers were employed in frequent direct fire mission for a number of reason, lack of ammo. or when you finished your barrage you were expected to tow your gun tot he front and contribute to assault!

I forget the source/number but im sure I could locate it again. it showed the ration of man hours needed to complete AT/howitzer guns between US/soviet/german plants.

So what have we learned? Soviet doctrine dictate that their number of guns was highest amongst country of the time. I want to say the commonwealth was second and US 3rd followed by the germans. this last paragraph is purely speculation

Do not forget, Soviet, Wermaht & Allies have different army organisation.
For exellent example - Frontline aviation.
Wermaht & RKKA army Air Force organisaton is Different ... subordination elements & army main perpose is different.

Artillery army perpose depend on frontline army tipe actions & army group strategy.

That was the difference.

Other measures - technological advance ...

Lord wrote:

pariah wrote:
Well we do already have a question:

cephalos wrote:
Can anyone tell me difference between PzIV aufs H and sufs J? I read somewhere that one of them had inefficient turret traversing system.

I would like to know the answer too. ;D

My personal advice: Walter J Spielberg - Panzer IV and its variants.
Here u will find all this information.

Here a quick information about the differences:
The electrical turret traversing system was replaced by a manual system.
A new 200L fuel tank.
A new "Seitenrichtmaschine" (dont know the english term):
The new machine made it easier to turn around the turret by hand.
And one, two smaller changes in consequence of the "major changes".

I believe there were improvements to the optical systems as well.
Skirts and the use of Zimmerit were field mods not a design series.
The Pz IV J was developed to increase production more than to improve the fighting capabilities over the "H".

http://http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-iv.htm#panzer4

What was so special about the Stg44?

Its the worlds first assault rifle. If you think about that it haves a whole new type of bullet. The führer himself was agaisnt the weapon in the beginnening but the OKW ( Ober kommando wehrmacht?)

made it in secret because they saw its potential under the name mp44 so Hitler thought it just was a new smg. Later when he found out he also found out the great succses the mp44 had been so he renamed it to stg44 (sturmgewhr) and decided for full scale production.

Mikhaeil Kalasnikov took insperation from it and created his ak47. However mechanical and such the ak47 and stg44 are totally differant machines. The stg44 however stand ground for the future postwar G3 rifle ^^

I think thats right? XD (taken from head!)

Sommarkatze wrote:
Mikhaeil Kalasnikov took insperation from it and created his ak47.

thats not confirmed

Killar wrote:

Sommarkatze wrote:
Mikhaeil Kalasnikov took insperation from it and created his ak47.

thats not confirmed

Well the Stg44 looks like a smaller version of the AK-47

those two guns were completly different developments afaik

Its only uncomfirmed beacause all we have to go on is what Kalashnikov says and he'll never admit (if he really did) that the pride and joy of the motherland was based on German designs.

Its not a direct copy of the german gun. In fact the way both weapons function are different except the gaspressureloader (wrong word but didnt find the right one), which was known before the Stg44 was invented. So ...

Its like saying that the Horten Go 229 was the direct predecessor of the B2. Norten did have in fact own aircrafts. A test flight of the Horten wasnt even done.

I can only speculate based on the evidence as I see it, the two ARs look somewhat similar at least on the exterior, the AK afaik was in the developement stages in '45 post war and having all these STGs lying around its kinda hard not to study their design. Of course it has parts that are of his unique design, he'd never have any credibility if he presented (more or less) a carbon copy of the STG44.

Was The Stg44 useful in combat?
I think that it wasn't as good as it is in OF or EF

it performed well in combat and the soldiers loved it, but it wasnt produced in any significant numbers to make a big impact

in real life it wasnt the buzzsaw that it is in COH however

Tankbuster wrote:
Was The Stg44 useful in combat?
I think that it wasn't as good as it is in OF or EF

It didnt have less recoil than Thompsons or more powerfull bullets than BREN guns. ;D It was just another smg - but with a better kick.

P.S.
The first assault rifle was the Russian Fedorov Avtomat made in 1915!!!:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedorov_Avtomat

So the Fedorov Avtomat was the granddaddy of the Stg44 which is the granddaddy of the AK-47 which is the granddaddy of almost all modern assault rifles. Did i get it right?

I did not know where write so has wrote here. Has Seen on picture tank IS-3. This mistake. The First party these tank was released at the last days of the war in 1945 and participation in battles he did not take. He never met with german. Never!
(Forgive my english.)

Who cares. They are great Ingame

Enigma wrote:
I did not know where write so has wrote here. Has Seen on picture tank IS-3. This mistake. The First party these tank was released at the last days of the war in 1945 and participation in battles he did not take. He never met with german. Never!

Tankbuster wrote:
Who cares. They are great Ingame

as silly as it is, i understand why, the is-3 is a thorn in the side of any axis player
so they have, and will continue, to complain about anything seen as a credible threat

Last edited July 7, 2011 at 7:49 AM by RedGuard

Getting back to the topic at hand...

Anyone have an actual documented account of the vampir(stg44 modified etc) weapons used in particular night fighting skirmishes that happened near the end of WW2..?

Been trying to ascertain credible accounts of these engagements. 

Tankbuster wrote:
So the Fedorov Avtomat was the granddaddy of the Stg44 which is the granddaddy of the AK-47 which is the granddaddy of almost all modern assault rifles. Did i get it right?

its a shaky theory, a very debatable one. but im sure theres at least some truth to that analogy. countrys tend to copy/reproduce and improve on one anothers military advances/technologys, and then they tend to deny that they have done so. so what you believe is open to interpretation

Not so shaky Tovarich. THe Fedorov used a rifle cartridge, (japanese to boot). THe THompson, M3, MP40 etc all used pistol ammunition, (optimized fo r25-50m range), and are referred to as SMGs or Machine Pistols. The SGT44 and subsequently the AK47 utilized specially designed rifle cartridges optimized for a range of < 300m. Fedorov did this too but the production economics of his cartridge were unacceptable to the Romanovs. An assault rifle fires rifle cartridges.

From the designer himself:

QuoteThe AK-47 is best described as a hybrid of previous rifle technology  innovations: the trigger, double locking lugs and unlocking raceway of  the M1 Garand/M1 carbine, the safety mechanism of the John Browning designed Remington Model 8 rifle, and the gas system and layout of the Sturmgewehr 44. Kalashnikov's team had access to all of these weapons and had no need to "reinvent the wheel", though he denied that his design was based on the German Sturmgewehr 44 assault rifle.  Kalashnikov himself observed: "A lot of [Soviet Army soldiers] ask me  how one can become a constructor, and how new weaponry is designed.  These are very difficult questions. Each designer seems to have his own  paths, his own successes and failures. But one thing is clear: before  attempting to create something new, it is vital to have a good  appreciation of everything that already exists in this field. I myself  have had many experiences confirming this to be so."

Actually I believe 7.92x33 kurz and 7.62x39mm are refered to as Intermediate Cartridges

That's right Doc. ;) IIRC rifle cartridges are optimized for 1000m.

Otto wrote:
The AK-47 is best described as a hybrid of previous rifle technology  innovations: the trigger, double locking lugs and unlocking raceway of  the M1 Garand/M1 carbine, the safety mechanism of the John Browning designed Remington Model 8 rifle, and the gas system and layout of the Sturmgewehr 44. Kalashnikov's team had access to all of these weapons and had no need to "reinvent the wheel", though he denied that his design was based on the German Sturmgewehr 44 assault rifle.

So Kalashnikov had access to the Sturmgewehr 44 which by the sounds of it was an excellent weapon, made a weapon that looked like a Sturmgewehr 44 Jumbo and then denied that his design was based on the German Sturmgewehr 44 assault rifle.Sounds fishy to me.
In case I have offended someone please find it in your hearts to forgive me. And please don't ban me. I joined last week .:'(

I always thought it was funny that in CoH the G43 and the SVT are really powerful rifles, but the M1 Garand (which is more or less the same thing) is mediocre at best.

DrRockzo1986 wrote:
I always thought it was funny that in CoH the G43 and the SVT are really powerful rifles, but the M1 Garand (which is more or less the same thing) is mediocre at best.

One Word: Balance

It's also about those who wield it remember. For example, the K98 is used by both volks and Stormtroopers but the K98s that Stormies use are much better than those that volks use. Strelky mosins>conscript mosins etc.

Also balance of course.

DrRockzo1986 wrote:
I always thought it was funny that in CoH the G43 and the SVT are really powerful rifles, but the M1 Garand (which is more or less the same thing) is mediocre at best.

Unless you give M1 to a vet 3 Rifleman.

I have a question about soviet sniper rifles(and possibly german sniper rifles too). Why is it tht in alot of WW2 movies they wrap cloth around it? In addition, some games have they're snipers wrapped n cloth. What is the purpose of this? Is it for camoflaugue? Does it make it more resilient to weather? Easier to carry? Someone enlighten me please :P.

Camo I would think. A rifle is a fairly easy to spot thing. Play any shooter and your eye will recognise the shape of a rifle from a mile away.

I think the weapons are wrapped to prevent light from glinting off the piece thereby identifying the shooters location.

Questions about tank traps:

-How is it the Czech hedgehogs are so effective against tanks? Considering the weight of a tank, why cant it ram into it and push past? Why must it go around?

-Also, how did one get rid of tanks traps besides using demolitions? Was it effective?

-Are they still used today?

For those of you that don't know what Czech hedgehogs are they are the things that American engineers build called tank traps. Particularly on bridges ^^

1. I guess czech hedgehogs are dug deep in to the ground, making it almost imposible to move, even with great strenght. also tank's weigh counts only IF the hedegehog would be under the tank.

2. Demolitions propably were effective because they were ripping hedgehogs apart without digging it out of the ground.

3. For sure they are! As the most effective and cheaper than AT mines they surely will find out a way to get on the modern battlefields.

But what special tanks were used to clear Czech hedgehogs? I think bulldozers only work in the game since the hedgehogs are dug in.

Also, how do mine clearing tanks work? For example the Sherman flail. Why doesnt the mine damage or destroy the flail? Or tank rollers(aka Aunt Jemina ^^). Why dont they get a hole in them when a mine explodes under them?

Fishhunterx wrote:
Questions about tank traps:

-How is it the Czech hedgehogs are so effective against tanks? Considering the weight of a tank, why cant it ram into it and push past? Why must it go around?

-Also, how did one get rid of tanks traps besides using demolitions? Was it effective?

-Are they still used today?

For those of you that don't know what Czech hedgehogs are they are the things that American engineers build called tank traps. Particularly on bridges ^^

-the design of the hedgehog mean't that if a tank attempted to drive over it, the tank would either roll over or just get stuck. the hedgehog was also built to some tight specifications, one being that it had to survive a certain amount of force,  (600 kN i believe) the other being the design itself, with cross beams that counteract weight so that the hedgehog could survive 10 times it's weight, as well as being dug deep in the ground.

-i believe the allies would just dig them out or use bulldozers, the hedgehog was not mean't to be dug in very deeply, it was made of 3 L shaped brackets, the L basically anchored the trap into the ground. allowing them to be moved relatively easily but widthstand massive weights.

-Of course, it's cheap, and effective, obviously the design has been improved with stronger allows and made slightly bigger to counteract the size of tanks today, but neverthless they are a cheap and effective soloution to the tank problem other than anti tank mines.

Another Q. Lets say a battle takes place an a bunch of soldeirs died :P. WHat happens to their gear? Do they collect it or just leave it there? I wouldn't think its left there or looting would occur and the enemy could take it. But what happens ???

The gear was often reused like the germans did in russia they used cannons and tanks that they had salvaged and they used russian winter gear becouse their own was just to bad.