Choose one of the following ground forces, then choose between two weapon choices. US Army, Wehrmacht, USMC Pistol; 08 semi auto or M 1911 SMG; MP40 or tommy M1a1 Bolt action rifle; 98K or M1903 Semi auto rifle; Gewehr 43 or M1garand Full auto rifle; Stg44 or BAR (guess which I'd choose LMG MG34 or M1919 HMG MG42 w/tripod or M2 Anti tank panzerschreck or bazooka Flamethrower 35 or flamethrower M1 Tank Tiger 1 or Sherman firefly Light artillery 2" pal 38 anti tank cannon or M3 1.5 anti tank Medium artillery 10.5 cm 18M or 10.5cm M2A1 Heavy artillery MRS 18 21cm mortar or 20.3 M1 howitzer
Some pairings are absurd but I'll byte I would take the P38 over both the M1911 and the Luger, as it's not my primary weapon I still think weight is the key parameter so P08. MP40 as I want a folding stock otherwise the Thompson would be better if not for cost. Had you put in the grease gun instead it would have been a toss up. K98k or Spingfield ? the similarities are much greater than the differences, but I will take the K98k unless it's a late war low quality control one. M1 though a well made G43 there is not really much different. As a rifle? MP44 of course, the BAR should really be compared to the FG42 MG34, even the M1919A5 is not an ideal LMG (neither is the MG 34 that is designed as a GPMG but it's still better, the ZG34 would be my pick). MG 42 vs Browning HB ? let's be serious please, for all it's qualities the M2 is useless unless you have some sort of motor transport, not only the weapon is considerably heavier but the ammo weights a lot more so will always be a "nice to have" for normal WW2 infantry that moves on foot. So MG42, will need something heavier if I have to face an M2 in a strongpoint but that's what mortars are for. Based on the performance of the WW2 model bazooka in Korea I will take the panzershreck with it's larger warhead even if it's heavier and less flexible. No idea but the US flamethrower looks more compact The PAK 38 should really be compared to the 57mm weapon not the 37mm one, both are specialized AT guns with secondary HE capability, and as an AT gun the PAK is better despite it's weight as it armour penetration is much better. The HE shell is also larger. Unless I have to draw it by horses give me an M2A1, range is the deciding factor here I would go for the M1 Howitzer as it's both lighter and longer ranged. (now has you said the 17cm gun that is my idea of counterbattery weapon ....)
Well if you are throwing other weapons into the mix I'd suggest the M1 carbine or the M3 grease gun as alternatives to a pistol. If I have to have one I'd choose the M1911 for US forces and the P08 for the German ones (troop confidence in them being the primary reason). Based on previous discussions I thought the consensus was the M1903 had slightly better battlefield sights. All in all though the British entry seemed to me to have a slight edge over both. I'm not sure anyone else in WW2 had a weapon that is easily compared to the BAR. Whether or not that's a good thing is another question. Well if you picked a US force you would have lots of vehicles to carry it and it's ammo around. A German force not so much. For hand held AT work my choices in order of preference would be: Panzerfaust, US 3.5" rocket launcher, US 2.36" rocket launcher, PIAT, Panzershreck. The backplast and protective gear are a deal breaker for the Panzershreck as far as I'm concenred. For choices of rifle, semi automatic riifle, automatic rifle, LMG, and perhaps HMG ammo comanality would be a significant concern. Another advantage of the M1911 when paired with the Grease gun or the Thompson.
Pistol; 08 semi auto or M 1911-The 1911 all the way, reliable and a lot of stopping power. As a machinegunner carried one for years, loved it and was pretty darned good with it. SMG; MP40 or tommy M1a1-Thompson all the way, capable round and reliable weapon. If you're assigning it to ill trained personnel the MP40 because the .45 requires more training than the 9mm to use the weapon effectively. Bolt action rifle; 98K or M1903-A toss up, but would go with the M1903 only for ammunition compatability, .30-06 is a great round, and my service rifle would be chambered for it. Semi auto rifle; Gewehr 43 or M1garand-no contest the M1 Garand, tough as nails, accurate and shoots a powerful round. Full auto rifle; Stg44 or BAR (guess which I'd choose BAR-commonality of round with bolt and service rifles, in it's proper role as a base of fire weapon when using fireteams to fire and maneuver. If I could have a Bren gun in .30-06, even though slightly heavier, I might go with it. The Stg isn't really suitable as a base of fire weapon. LMG MG34 or M1919; MG34 HMG MG42 w/tripod or M2; Actually, a more appropriate comparison would be MG42 vs M1917 water-cooled, as it was considered a HMG during WWII, where rate of and sustainability of fire was the determining factor not the size of the round. The MG42 should actually be in the GPMG category, but depending upon the mount used could be a LMG or HMG. I'd choose the M1917 hands down, much heavier than the MG42, but still infantry portable and on the defensive where you need an HMG, reliability and sustainability of fire are superior. Keep it supplied with water and ammo and it can fire until the bad guys run out of people. The M2 Browning, Ma Deuce, was and still is the heavy vehicle mounted champion. Anti tank panzerschreck or bazooka- Depends upon the version, first to last I'd choose, 3.5" bazooka, Panzerschreck, 2.36 rocket launcher, based upon anti-armor performance. For variety of rounds, providing for versatility and the tactical employment problems with the Panzerschreck, (blast, back blast, inability to use in enclosed areas) the 2.36 was better, than the German copy. Flamethrower 35 or flamethrower M1; M1A1 because Napalm is a superior flame agent, longer range and more burn time. Tank Tiger 1 or Sherman firefly; Firefly because when you need a tank you need a tank. Reliability and maintainability. Light artillery 2" pal 38 anti tank cannon or M3 1.5 anti tank; Not sure how it would be employed. As an anti-tank gun the Pak 38 is superior with it's 50mm round. As a general purpose weapon the 37mm M3 is lighter, easily manhandled, has a superior anti-personnel round and a decent HE round. Wouldn't a comparison between the 37mm M3 and the 37mm Pak 36 or the 50mm Pak 38 vs the 57mm M1 be more appropriate? Medium artillery 10.5 cm 18M or 10.5cm M2A1; 105mm M2A1 all the way. Heavy artillery MRS 18 21cm mortar or 20.3 M1 howitzer; I'd take the M1, lighter and greater range, but why did you skip the 155mm category? The 150/155mm artillery is the real workhorse of artillery.
Good topic for discussion. With the caveat that I am not a small-arms expert, I think there's some spillover between the roles of the various weapons cited. The StG-44 was an individual weapon. The BAR was conceived as such but ended up being used as a squad support weapon, comparable to the Bren or the MG34/42 in LMG mode. Speaking of which, one of the virtues of the MG34/42 was that the same weapon could serve as either LMG or HMG. As USMCPrice mentioned, the .50-caliber is a different class of weapon. Nominally an anti-aircraft gun, it's overkill in the anti-personnel role, although it can be useful for firing into jungle, buildings, or other cover. Its ammo is almost five times the weight of .30, not very practical for infantry. A full-sized .30 or 7.92mm is adequate for most infantry action, and the higher volume of fire works for both suppresive fire and defense. "vehicle mounted champion" makes the point pretty well. I may make too much of this, but in choosing the handgun and SMG I would want to standardize ammuntion, though it's a bit of a quandary - .45 is great in a pistol, 9mm probably better for the SMG. Side note, for the same reason I'm reluctant to introduce another cartridge like the .30-caliber carbine. There actually are a few pistols chambered for it. I also find the Soviet 7.62x25 interesting in that it can be used in both pistol and SMG; the latter seem close to the carbine or assault rifle concept. For an infantry anti-tank weapon, I'd go with the Panzerschreck. The goal here isn't so much to destroy vast numbers of tanks as to hinder their operations and elevate infantry out of the helpless target category. When any piece of cover or fold in the ground might conceal an infantryman with a weapon that can kill your tank, tanks get way more cautious.
Hold on , only the British , Canadians & Poles used the Firefly . If you are only allowing US Army / USMC then choose another Sherman variant.
Artillery nomnclature can be a bit confusing. Both the US and German armies referred to 105mm howitzers as light artillery. The Germans called their 150mm a heavy howitzer, but we used "medium artillery" for the 155 and "heavy" for heavier stuff like the 8". In WWII field artillery was primarily used in the indirect fire role; some armies like the German had a separate type of short-barreled "infantry gun" for direct support. Antitank guns are yet another category, and as a couple of posters have mentioned, the comparable weapons would be the 37mm M3 and the 37mm Pak 36 or the 50mm Pak 38 vs the 57mm M1.
