Which army was proportionally the most lethal in World War II?

[Failzero]

I don't have any Empires Tithead, we all know you are a Nazi who supported the UPA you called them anti soviet fighters, they were Nazi collaborators asshole.

In 1939 46% of Americans were Kluxer Collaborators

 

[Mushroom]

The 1919 is more reliable.

It was also a great weapon for when it was made, in the wake of WWI.

It was out of date at the start of WWII as a front line battlefield weapon, and horribly obsolete by the end of that war.

Reliability no longer matters if it is no longer effective in the role it was intended for. That is why weapons systems change and adapt, or are replaced. That is why the M16 is still in service, even though the modern M4 only barely looks like an M16 from 50 years ago.

Like so many others, you are completely missing the era in which it was made. The Army knew how obsolete the M1919 was after the Korean War, and started looking into a replacement because it simply could not cut it on the more mobile battlefield. And things are even more mobile today, which is why all of those older systems have long ago been retired.

Other than the M2. But that is an exception, and still far more commonly used mounted on vehicles than anything else. No modern M2 team expects to be carrying their gun forward by hand in an assault and setting it up again.

I think one of the interesting things is that over the decades I got to see several generations of weapon systems come and go. I even got to see some of them go away, then return.

I think one of the most interesting was the 40mm grenade launcher. Now I actually date to the M203 era, but at my first duty station we had several of the older M79 for use in lobbing flares and smoke grenades. And for most uses, it was really handy when almost everybody in a rifle squad had a 203.

But the 203 pretty much had to be attached to a rifle to be used, and that could be a pain if it was not needed very often. So now it's being replaced by the M320. Same idea, and it can be mounted under a rifle like the M203, or carried and used by itself like the M79.

If you notice, when I discuss weapons like this I make sure to place it into the era it was intended for. Using such systems outside of their era is almost always a failure.

And of course the M1919 will always be heavier. It was designed as a fixed position weapon, just like the M2. To be used from the tripod mount and operated by a 4 man team. It was never designed to be carried around a battlefield and be operated as such by a single individual.

At least the M60 could be used in either role. Defensively as a crew served weapon with others carrying the tripod and T&E as well as extra ammo. Or it could be detached and only be a team of 2, one with the gun and the other with extra ammo.

Or outside their intended use. I did work in a military armory in the early 1990s where we had sub-machine guns. And granted, SMGs are pretty much a pointless and useless weapon for military uses. Other than in situations like MOUT. And all of the MAC-10 SMGs we had in the armory were intended for use in MOUT and nothing else.

Almost nobody in WWII was able to do a John Basilone and actually carry one around a battlefield and use it.



Even more impressive when one realizes Manilla Joe did that not with the air cooled M1919, but the water cooled M1917.

 

[Failzero]

In 1939 46% of Americans were Kluxer Collaborators

QFT ( in 1929 it was 51% )

 

[AZrailwhale]

It was also a great weapon for when it was made, in the wake of WWI.

It was out of date at the start of WWII as a front line battlefield weapon, and horribly obsolete by the end of that war.

Reliability no longer matters if it is no longer effective in the role it was intended for. That is why weapons systems change and adapt, or are replaced. That is why the M16 is still in service, even though the modern M4 only barely looks like an M16 from 50 years ago.

Like so many others, you are completely missing the era in which it was made. The Army knew how obsolete the M1919 was after the Korean War, and started looking into a replacement because it simply could not cut it on the more mobile battlefield. And things are even more mobile today, which is why all of those older systems have long ago been retired.

Other than the M2. But that is an exception, and still far more commonly used mounted on vehicles than anything else. No modern M2 team expects to be carrying their gun forward by hand in an assault and setting it up again.

I think one of the interesting things is that over the decades I got to see several generations of weapon systems come and go. I even got to see some of them go away, then return.

I think one of the most interesting was the 40mm grenade launcher. Now I actually date to the M203 era, but at my first duty station we had several of the older M79 for use in lobbing flares and smoke grenades. And for most uses, it was really handy when almost everybody in a rifle squad had a 203.

But the 203 pretty much had to be attached to a rifle to be used, and that could be a pain if it was not needed very often. So now it's being replaced by the M320. Same idea, and it can be mounted under a rifle like the M203, or carried and used by itself like the M79.

If you notice, when I discuss weapons like this I make sure to place it into the era it was intended for. Using such systems outside of their era is almost always a failure.

And of course the M1919 will always be heavier. It was designed as a fixed position weapon, just like the M2. To be used from the tripod mount and operated by a 4 man team. It was never designed to be carried around a battlefield and be operated as such by a single individual.

At least the M60 could be used in either role. Defensively as a crew served weapon with others carrying the tripod and T&E as well as extra ammo. Or it could be detached and only be a team of 2, one with the gun and the other with extra ammo.

Or outside their intended use. I did work in a military armory in the early 1990s where we had sub-machine guns. And granted, SMGs are pretty much a pointless and useless weapon for military uses. Other than in situations like MOUT. And all of the MAC-10 SMGs we had in the armory were intended for use in MOUT and nothing else.

Almost nobody in WWII was able to do a John Basilone and actually carry one around a battlefield and use it.



Even more impressive when one realizes Manilla Joe did that not with the air cooled M1919, but the water cooled M1917.

I carried both an M-79 and M-203. The 79 was a far superior weapon, it was lighter so the gunner could carry more grenades, it was more accurate and had a far higher rate of fire. I was pretty average, but I could get five grenades in the air for area suppression fire at 350 meters before the first impacted. With a 203, I was lucky to get two with that clumsy slide action. The downside of the M-79 was that your back-up weapon was a pistol unless you could liberate an M-3 Grease Gun.

 

[AZrailwhale]

QFT ( in 1929 it was 51% )

Which shows how far whites have come in regard to equality of the races. The percentage today is below five percent. There are only between 5,000 and 9,000 KKK members out of the 340,000,000 American citizens.

 

[Failzero]

Which shows how far whites have come in regard to equality of the races. The percentage today is below five percent. There are only between 5,000 and 9,000 KKK members out of the 340,000,000 American citizens.

Those remaining are Wannabes & Splinter Groups ( the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan was litigated out of existence in 1986 )

 

[Litwin]

I don't have any Empires

you dirty working mouth, you do work here 7/24 for Mongol - Moscow empire , for the very last predatory Mongol, ghaza ulus .

Thread 'Chinese academic Deng Xize : "No more Mongol-Muscovy style empire: Thoughts on the war in Ukraine, ...such empires will no longer be tolerated."'

Sep 20, 2023

Chinese academic Deng Xize : "No more Mongol-Muscovy style empire: Thoughts on the war in Ukraine, The global reaction to the war in Ukraine in fact shows that such empires will no longer be tolerated."​

The Mongol-Muscovy style empire could be defined as a dominating, rapacious empire upheld by violence, especially unruly violence, and exhibiting three prominent characteristics.


First, it uses unruly violence as a regular means of resolving international disputes. While violence is common and sometimes necessary in political or social governance, rules...

• Litwin

 

[westwall]

It was also a great weapon for when it was made, in the wake of WWI.

It was out of date at the start of WWII as a front line battlefield weapon, and horribly obsolete by the end of that war.

Reliability no longer matters if it is no longer effective in the role it was intended for. That is why weapons systems change and adapt, or are replaced. That is why the M16 is still in service, even though the modern M4 only barely looks like an M16 from 50 years ago.

Like so many others, you are completely missing the era in which it was made. The Army knew how obsolete the M1919 was after the Korean War, and started looking into a replacement because it simply could not cut it on the more mobile battlefield. And things are even more mobile today, which is why all of those older systems have long ago been retired.

Other than the M2. But that is an exception, and still far more commonly used mounted on vehicles than anything else. No modern M2 team expects to be carrying their gun forward by hand in an assault and setting it up again.

I think one of the interesting things is that over the decades I got to see several generations of weapon systems come and go. I even got to see some of them go away, then return.

I think one of the most interesting was the 40mm grenade launcher. Now I actually date to the M203 era, but at my first duty station we had several of the older M79 for use in lobbing flares and smoke grenades. And for most uses, it was really handy when almost everybody in a rifle squad had a 203.

But the 203 pretty much had to be attached to a rifle to be used, and that could be a pain if it was not needed very often. So now it's being replaced by the M320. Same idea, and it can be mounted under a rifle like the M203, or carried and used by itself like the M79.

If you notice, when I discuss weapons like this I make sure to place it into the era it was intended for. Using such systems outside of their era is almost always a failure.

And of course the M1919 will always be heavier. It was designed as a fixed position weapon, just like the M2. To be used from the tripod mount and operated by a 4 man team. It was never designed to be carried around a battlefield and be operated as such by a single individual.

At least the M60 could be used in either role. Defensively as a crew served weapon with others carrying the tripod and T&E as well as extra ammo. Or it could be detached and only be a team of 2, one with the gun and the other with extra ammo.

Or outside their intended use. I did work in a military armory in the early 1990s where we had sub-machine guns. And granted, SMGs are pretty much a pointless and useless weapon for military uses. Other than in situations like MOUT. And all of the MAC-10 SMGs we had in the armory were intended for use in MOUT and nothing else.

Almost nobody in WWII was able to do a John Basilone and actually carry one around a battlefield and use it.



Even more impressive when one realizes Manilla Joe did that not with the air cooled M1919, but the water cooled M1917.

Oh, I fully understand the time frame that the weapon was developed in.

Hell, WWII was still being fought when I was born.

I am merely comparing the differences.

 

[westwall]

I carried both an M-79 and M-203. The 79 was a far superior weapon, it was lighter so the gunner could carry more grenades, it was more accurate and had a far higher rate of fire. I was pretty average, but I could get five grenades in the air for area suppression fire at 350 meters before the first impacted. With a 203, I was lucky to get two with that clumsy slide action. The downside of the M-79 was that your back-up weapon was a pistol unless you could liberate an M-3 Grease Gun.

A friend owned 4 M79's. He also had dozens of crates of the chalk training rounds. I got pretty good with the 79. I could consistently drop a round into a 55 gallon drum from 300 meters.

 

[Ringo]

 

[Deadstick]

Oh, I fully understand the time frame that the weapon was developed in.

Hell, WWII was still being fought when I was born.

I am merely comparing the differences.

I always thought the Browning Automatic rifle looked an interesting infantry weapon from WW2 if a little heavy, i did hold one on a visit to the Netherlands some years ago, have you ever experienced one?

 

[westwall]

I always thought the Browning Automatic rifle looked an interesting infantry weapon from WW2 if a little heavy, i did hold one on a visit to the Netherlands some years ago, have you ever experienced one?

Yes, I used to own two of them. They are fun, but yes, a bit heavy.

 

[Litwin]

ivan, read this, this what you did to us , the white Europeans . #theHague

Soviet war crimes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Litwin]

Greece perhaps? Finland? Netherlands? Im judging this based on the fight within not technological dominance. All were small nation The Greeks were out manned and outweaponed but Italy couldn't conquer them they might be my pick.

Finland.

How Finnish Pilots Made the Brewster Buffalo a Legend in WWII​

Thread 'Brewster Buffalo Series Pt 4: Finnish Reconquest (from Moscow Marxist empire ) of Karelia'

Jul 22, 2024

Gloster Gladiator,Morane Saulnier,Fokker DXXI,thats the kind of planes we had to managed in 39-40.When those pilots sat and fight first time in Brewsters,its no wonder that they gave her nickname as "Pearl of Sky"It is so freaking goodcompares to those KITEs. Think that 33:1 is accurate.

In Karelia , a monument to the victims of the "Finnish occupation" will be erected at the place of STALIN´S mass executions

bizarre world of Muscovite imperialism. They 🇷🇺 🐖 blame German National- Socialists for execution of 300 000 Belarusians in Kurapty as well , its part of Moscow´s imperial politic , unfortunately our extreme left and right very often swallow / use Moscow propaganda narratives In Karelia...

www.usmessageboard.com

• Litwin

 

[Litwin]

The key word is the ambiguous word "proportionate". It opens up a lot of avenues for argument and misplaced foreign loyalty. Leave it to a foreign war monger to dig up an issue like this. The good old USA had the manufacturing capability and the most lethal fighting force. Still does.

Actually the most lethal army of WW2 was the Bolshevik "army". On top of killing enemy soldiers they also killed their own.

 

[Litwin]

The Bolshevik imperialists seemed to use the same doctrine to train pilots as they did to manufacture planes and tanks. "Don't have to make them very good, just make a lot of them"

 

[Litwin]

It’s surprising to see how the Brewster Buffalo, often remembered as an underdog, actually turned into a reliable fighter in Finland’s hands. The way they adapted tactics to squeeze every advantage out of it says a lot about skill over machinery.

 

[westwall]

It’s surprising to see how the Brewster Buffalo, often remembered as an underdog, actually turned into a reliable fighter in Finland’s hands. The way they adapted tactics to squeeze every advantage out of it says a lot about skill over machinery.

Going up against Polikarpov I-15 and I-16 the Buffalo was superior

 

[Litwin]

Going up against Polikarpov I-15 and I-16 the Buffalo was superior

Whatever you give the Fins, they make it work!