Some nice pics of the weapons used by Germans in WWII

Here's some nice pics of the weapons used by Germans in WWII. Gamers have the opportunity to use this weapons in various video games. But the real fun is for the people who have some of these.

1. Granatbüchse Modell 39 (GrB 39)



2. Panzerschrek



3. Flammenwerfer 41



4. Panzerfaust 30



5. MP34


6. Gewehr 43



7. Model 24 Stielhandgranate



8. STG 44



9. MG 42



10. MG 13

 

Here's more:

11. MG34



12. Gewehr 98



13. Luger P08 (Parabellum)



14. Mauser C96



15. FG42 (Fallschirmjäger Gewehr 42)



16. Walther P38



17. 8 cm Schwerer Granatwerfer 34



19. MP 40 (Maschinenpistole 40)



20. S-mine (Schrapnellmine)



21. MG 08

 

I am puzzled by the concept of any picture of a machine for killing being "nice".

 

I'm puzzled that you are puzzled. The obvious implication is that by "nice" he means that they are good quality photos. Which I would agree with in this case.

 

From an engineering point of view, they can be appreciated...I LOVE aircraft but don't like flying...These are precision pieces..."His weapon will fire...will mine? Care of arms is care of life" - These tools decide life or death, does a "machine" get any more important?

 

Iwd is right, I have hundreds of good quality pics of of old and modern weapons and armor, tanks, aircrafts... (1 pic for every type) and I use them for my desktop background. It took me years to collect them, because finding decent pics is very difficult. You can have google find these pics and see for your self, they are huge. Try to find quality pic of any subject on your own, then you really be puzzled!

CAC has a good point of view too. How can you look at MG 42 or the legendary Mauser Gewehr 98 and ignore the magnificent engineering?
Man first uses every new technology for military purposes (e.g. internet), and if you research you'll notice that many of the most sophisticated creations use simple old weapon technology (e.g. old canon tech is vital for Bullet Trains).

And the world is full of people who still endeavor to slaughter, invade, plunder... and maybe some day you'll be forced to take arms and then you'll wish to have a weapon of the best quality.

 

As a child I was taught that some things were "not nice". Killing was one of them. Logical extension of the principle suggests that machines for killing are "not nice", and further extension suggests that pictures whose purpose appears to be to present such machines favourably are also "not nice".

As to being "forced to take arms", the last occasion on which I felt so constrained, it was to immediately place them in a black bag for disposal.

.

 

Oh, I thought Gandhi was dead. I respect your opinion but always remember this quotes:

So long as there are men there will be wars. Albert Einstein

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. Albert Einstein

Where a goat can go, a man can go, where a man can go, he can drag a gun. William Philips, British artillery general (1731-1781)

 

While most here would agree that killing other people is not "nice". Your argument becomes progressively more deficient. For one thing military weapons are built for more than simply killing. Failure to understand or acknowledge that renders your "logical extension" some what less than logical. Then there is just how the term "nice" is used. As pointed out it can be the moral usage as you seem to be insisting on but it can also be in the design and/or execution of the engineering and the devices it produced. It become even less logical when extended to pictures. Here it clearly describes the quality of the picture as has been mentioned and in that context the term is completely appropriate. Your obstinate insistence in using only your definition and refusal to look at it from the POV of others in particularly the original poster has no merit and in this forum simply makes you look childish.

 

Maybe it's time to question what you were 'taught' as a child? Killing can be a perfectly nice thing, depending on whom you kill. Killing a Nazi or Jihadi is a service to all of mankind. Killing somebody who wants to take your life, or your wife, or your belongings with violence is a service to yourself and your family. The tool used to take life can be beautiful or not, depending on your personal aesthetics. I find great beauty in a Mauser 98 (look at the lines of that ski-jump rear sight), something you won't find in more modern, utilitarian weapons. Still, even in the stark engineering of something like the MP40 there is something to be admired in the utilitarian practicality.

 

As to whether "killing can be a perfectly nice thing", let us turn to the soldier poet Wilfred Owen (himself killed exactly one week before the 1918 Armistice), and remembering that he did not distinguish in victimhood between friend or foe - "I am the enemy you killed, my friend" - let us reflect on his comment on the essential ugliness if war;

"If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile incurable sores on innocent tongues -
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.*

To "find great beaurty" in any machine for killing is, a century on, to repeat the old Lie to yet another generation.

When shall we ever learn?


.

 

Or not. The original comment was, as has been explained to you about the quality of the photos yet you harp on about the machines. Cars kill more people than rifles yet some consider them beautiful. Swords have little use other than as ornaments aside from use against other people yet few people I've met don't consider a well made sword a thing of beautiful. Then there are nature's "killing machines" such as Polar bears, sharks, etc yet many find them beautiful as well. That you personally don't like such things is your business. Insisting that yours is the only valid view or that others should share your vies is rude as is continuing to try and force this thread off track.

If there is one who seems unable to learn here I don't think you need to be looking in the mirror.

*** edit to correct the last sentence above. Changed wording in mid thought and left in "don't" where it wasn't appropriate ***

 

Ho ho, I never thought posting some pics can result in a philosophical debate.

 

Well, we are in exalted company so philosophically debating.

Did not Winston Churchill insist, "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war"?

And his host on that occasion, Dwight Eisenhower, had already trenchantly pointed out:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

In questioning enthusiasm for the purported beauty of weaponry I am inviting no more than a sense of balance, Is not the vaunted artistry, whether of the artefacts themselves, their engineering ingenuity, or of the photographic images displayed, a calculated attempt to disguise the ultimate purpose of such machinery?

Cigarettes cannot now be displayed without realsitic warning images of the health hazards - gone are the romantic images of "M(whatever) Country". What about the same for weapons?

 

You remind me of John Lennon's Imagine. Of course it would be marvelous if every one disgusted war and weapons... You are talking about an ideal/imaginary world, something like Kronos's golden age.

But it's not the case, we are living in a world of reality. Weapons are double-edged swords, they cause murder and mayhem, in the mean time they are protecting our lives. If an imaginary goat does not consider a wolf as a bloodthirsty enemy, it's his problem because the wolf wont change his mind. Did Gandhi's ultra goodness save him from being assassinated? Or Neville Chamberlain's attitude towards Hitler, changed Nazis mind from invading more countries.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke

When bad men combine, the good must associate else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggles. Edmund Burke

And in most cases the evil will only be destroyed with weapons, nice ones, better than that of the bad guys.

 

He may have but how is it relevant to the topic at hand?

Which is so obviously wrong that it is either out of context or purely political in nature.

No.

I think your comparison is badly flawed. Of course the images you speak of aren't really gone either are they. As for warnings I remember even .22 ammo boxes had a warning on them back in the 60's and I'm pretty sure they go back further than that

 

All modern firearms that I can think of at the very least have warnings in or on the box. Some, like the "new" Rugers (I think this has been going on for 20+ years), have safety warnings engraved onto the firearm itself. All established firing ranges will have warnings - in great detail - posted including step-by-step walkthroughs of safety procedures such as how to ensure a gun is unloaded. How any given dork chooses to handle his firearm beyond that is beyond any regulatory control; if he wants to chamber a round, handle the firearm in an unsafe manner, and then proceeds accidentally shoot himself in the foot, no warning will stop that. You can't fix stupid.

Now, the purpose of this piece of machinery is to push the limits of the road (i.e. by providing obscene amounts of power in a sporty package that permits/encourages the driver to drive in what is most likely a reckless and illegal manner). Also, the engine is far too large to accomplish the mission requirement of an automobile (which is driving at no more than the posted speed limit, which is <=60mph), which means it is needlessly emits profuse amounts of greenhouse gases which according to Mr. Gore are killing the polar bears, in addition to contributing to the rising price of oil and all the violent conflicts connected to the same. Being pre-21st century, the safety aspects of this machine are of course not up to modern standards, which means that compared to a modern vehicle this is less safe to drive. So, we have a comparatively unsafe vehicle, which is killing the planet, driving up the price of oil/spreading armed conflict, and encourages the driver to be a hazard to others and violate laws. Does that mean this cannot be considered a "nice" picture, because it is "a calculated attempt to disguise the ultimate purpose of such machinery"?

 

Is this all not an extension of man the tool maker? And all that comes with that persuasion?

 

I believe that the intent of the gun user is either good or bad but not the gun itself. Taking away guns is not going to eliminate evil intent. Killing isn't "good" but sometimes it's necessary. I have dozens of guns, some of which are like the ones pictured in the original post but I've never killed anyone. However, should someone try to physically harm me or my family I believe I would shoot them, or at least try to. A few years back I'm sure the fact that I had a gun in my possession kept me from being hurt or killed. In this case the gun was good because the man left me alone and we both walked away alive. This illustrates the fact that weapons can be a deterring factor to violence.