bad WW2 weapons

[harmonica]

what were some bad weapons of WW2?
here's the PIAT anti-tank weapon
says effective range about 100 yds--but in reality it was much shorter
over 30lbs compared to about 14 for the bazooka

The PIAT’s cocking system bordered on the bizarre. Inside the tube of the weapon was an enormous spring. The soldier unlatched the shoulder pad, stood on it, gave the weapon a half-turn to unlock the body from the shoulder pad, then lifted the weapon straight up, which cocked the spring. When the gunner heard a click, he knew the weapon was cocked. He then reattached the shoulder pad with another half-turn, raised the weapon to his shoulder, and took aim. Cocking the PIAT took a lot of strength. If the gunner could not get enough leverage to overcome the power of the spring, he simply had to start the process over.

Warfare History Network » Ordnance: The British PIAT (Projector Infantry Anti-Tank) Gun

 

[Marion Morrison]

Sticky bombs.

 

[harmonica]

Sticky bombs.

but they worked in Saving Private Ryan
hahahahah
This is what you need to know about the real WWII anti-tank sticky bomb

 

[Marion Morrison]

Bazookas, some..thing that fired from an M1, and M18s, up to artillery.

That m18 is a bad mofo.

 

[harmonica]

Bazookas, some..thing that fired from an M1, and M18s, up to artillery.

That m18 is a bad mofo.

my dad was anti-tank USMC bazooka in Korea
...they came upon 4 T34s [ my dad said 3 or 4 ] and blasted them....also recoilless rifles were used
page 227 here
https://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/...ines in the Korean War PCN 10600000100_9.pdf

 

[Pilot1]

Bad as in BAD, or bad as in good?

If just plain BAD, my vote goes to the ubiquitous M4 Sherman. Why U.S. industry and/or the military couldn't up with something better than that POS was an embarrassment. Especially after we captured some superior German stuff. Couldn't we have copied some of the better features of those? Many soldiers died needlessly due to the Sherman.

 

[harmonica]

Bad as in BAD, or bad as in good?

If just plain BAD, my vote goes to the ubiquitous M4 Sherman. Why U.S. industry and/or the military couldn't up with something better than that POS was an embarrassment. Especially after we captured some superior German stuff. Couldn't we have copied some of the better features of those? Many soldiers died needlessly due to the Sherman.

good call--and this is what the Germans did after they came up against the T34

During operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union, that started on Sunday, 22 June 1941, German forces encountered Soviet T–34 tanks for the first time. Battlefield reports were sent back to Berlin. They praised the Soviet tank’s wide tracks and sloping armor and powerful anti-tank gun. A panel of experts were sent to examine knocked out T-34 tanks and speak with the tank crews. In early 1942 the German High Command issued new specifications for a 30-ton class tank that included many of the same design features used on the T-34 tank

Panzer V Panther

 

[Pilot1]

^^^^^^Yep. The Panther was designed to counter the T-34, and it did that well. It was also better than anything the other Allies had. I always thought the Germans would have been better off with focusing on Panther production, than Tigers, or King Tigers.

 

[harmonica]

^^^^^^Yep. The Panther was designed to counter the T-34, and it did that well. It was also better than anything the other Allies had. I always thought the Germans would have been better off with focusing on Panther production, than Tigers, or King Tigers.

yes--I think the cost of a Tiger was twice that of a Panther

The average cost of a Tiger was 250,000 Reichsmarks. In comparison, a PzKpfw III cost RM 96,200, a PzKpfw IV RM 103,500, and a PzKpfw V Panther RM 117,000

Tiger I Information Center - Tiger history

 

[Pilot1]

The Tiger was an awesome weapons platform. The 88mm gun was a marvel. I think the Tiger, and MG-42 scared more allied soldiers than anything, and for good reason.

 

[harmonica]

The Tiger was an awesome weapons platform. The 88mm gun was a marvel. I think the Tiger, and MG-42 scared more allied soldiers than anything, and for good reason.

....of course the Russians were getting their ''monster'' IS tanks ...so the Germans needed to counter that...the Tiger was in development before the IS I think
...
another ''bad'' weapon
the Bishop SP gun was not that good of a weapon
high silhouette/slow/poor elevation/small traverse
Bishop (artillery) - Wikipedia

 

[harmonica]

The Tiger was an awesome weapons platform. The 88mm gun was a marvel. I think the Tiger, and MG-42 scared more allied soldiers than anything, and for good reason.

....I just so happen to have a book in my lap now about the Gothic Line...and just read about some well positioned MG 42s..so not only a good weapon, they knew how to position them well = critical

 

[Pilot1]

I don't know if it was a "bad" weapon but certainly less popular than the Thompson. Reising submachine gun.

 

[harmonica]

I don't know if it was a "bad" weapon but certainly less popular than the Thompson. Reising submachine gun.

yes--I did read that..if I recall correctly, the Marines used them somewhat
at the Canal and maybe Makin?
good call

 

[whitehall]

One thing you learn pretty quick in infantry training is to not get behind a recoiless weapon like a bazooka or what the Marines call a 3.5 rocket launcher when it is fired. This includes the 106RR and the monstrosity called the Ontos.

 

[Unkotare]

Bazookas, some..thing that fired from an M1, and M18s, up to artillery.

That m18 is a bad mofo.

Up to the late 90s the marines trained on a similar anti-tank weapon called the dragon. Basically the same idea but with a micro fiber optic line attached that let the shooter to guide the round right into the target.

 

[harmonica]

Bazookas, some..thing that fired from an M1, and M18s, up to artillery.

That m18 is a bad mofo.

Up to the late 90s the marines trained on a similar anti-tank weapon called the dragon. Basically the same idea but with a micro fiber optic line attached that let the shooter to guide the round right into the target.

.....I've seen these fired and move across the desert.....they sort of ''skip along' ' because of the thrusters/guidance
...I've also have had a TOW round go close past us because they didn't know we were in the area ..we didn't see the missile, but felt the ''backblast'' and then saw the wires
Marines should be capitalized, ty

 

[harmonica]

One thing you learn pretty quick in infantry training is to not get behind a recoiless weapon like a bazooka or what the Marines call a 3.5 rocket launcher when it is fired. This includes the 106RR and the monstrosity called the Ontos.

my dad was an anti-tank bazooka Marine
now that you mention it, I'm pissed at myself that I never asked him about that
.....his unit did blow up 3 or 4 NKorean tanks around Sudong ......

 

[whitehall]

The 3.5 rocket launcher (Marines) bazooka (Army) had a problem that it spewed unburnt junk in cold weather. Training with the weapon mostly consisted of wearing a hood in cold weather. I got a bloody lip one time in training firing the weapon in North Carolina in the winter.

 

[fncceo]

Russian La-GG3

Referred to by the pilots who flew them as 'varnished coffins'.

Under-powered, no armor, poor top speed, poor climb, and defective landing gear which resulted in many deaths even when not flying combat.