WWII: which infantry company had the most firepower?

[McFuu]

Correct, but all that is why I added "until they were massively overwhelmed".

I got what you mean by that now. Most people that would say something like that would say it would require 4 Sherman's to take out one Cat or something along those lines. Which... Just isn't a quantifiable statement, Allied doctrine was to move tanks in columns of 4-6, 1 on 1 engagements just never happened. It wasn't a matter of overwhelming odds, if Germany could get 4x the tanks to battle that they did, the Allies would have fielded an equal amount more.
As it goes for doctrine, the Allies never had "overwhelming" numbers, 43-45 was the time of 2 to 1 troop deployment. With 45 really being the year it became the golden rule of 3 to 1 or better. But that wasn't because the Allies were sending more to field, simply the Germans couldn't replace their losses at all.

[Slant]

Germany. MG42. 'nuff said.

[Puupi]

Technically wrong about Americans they also had mechanized troops. American officers down to the platoon level could call in for artillery support. It's been said that the deadlsoldier on the WW2 battle field was a Lt. with a radio.

When I was in the army I remember we were being told that 75% of casualties are caused by artillery.

[AboikoS]

American.

People are probably going to say Germany because they issued an LMG to each squad but nothing anyone else used compares to having a semi automatic rifle instead of bolt action as your standard issue weapon.

But you realize that was already in 1944? Germans had Gewehr 43 and lots of MP40's by that time, not to mention STG44's.

[ghotihook]

Off topic.

In USA, can you buy machine gun and shoot it in your backyard? Any complaint from neighbor? What if the gun hits someone far away?

The answer is "It Depends" I live in a suburban neighborhood. In a "No discharge" zone. So legally I can't even shoot pellet or BB guns unless I am more than 200' (60M) from my neighbors buildings.

[Flarelaine]

I got what you mean by that now. Most people that would say something like that would say it would require 4 Sherman's to take out one Cat or something along those lines. Which... Just isn't a quantifiable statement, Allied doctrine was to move tanks in columns of 4-6, 1 on 1 engagements just never happened. It wasn't a matter of overwhelming odds, if Germany could get 4x the tanks to battle that they did, the Allies would have fielded an equal amount more.
As it goes for doctrine, the Allies never had "overwhelming" numbers, 43-45 was the time of 2 to 1 troop deployment. With 45 really being the year it became the golden rule of 3 to 1 or better. But that wasn't because the Allies were sending more to field, simply the Germans couldn't replace their losses at all.

I agree on tank doctrine. Also you are probably correct in troop number comparisons, but the amount of equipment and general supply was more lopsided.

[AboikoS]

Between what's listed, and considering them at their optimal strength...
America with Russia a close second.
Germany is mainly built on myth, their average tank was worse than the Allies average tank, and that's not getting into reliability and supply chain. The Germans most fearsome weapon was likely the stukka dive bomber and their artillery arrangements / anti tank guns.
America and Russia were just better. I know we don't consider Russia too much, but their tank and plane core were top notch, and when properly supplied their troops were fearsome.

Yeah thats why they statistically took down so much more allied tanks than they lost, get a life dude, saying Germans had superior equipment and tanks in WW2 is not being a Nazi, you kinda sound like you really took your political views into this comment.

The only reason Germans lost WW2 is because they were greatly outnumbered and thats also while fighting on multiple fronts, period.
Just deal with the fact that their army and tactics were far superior to any other army at the time, admiting it really wont make you Nazis guys ffs.

[Gaaz]

Are we talking average, or specific company? Also, are we talking about standard personal equipment, or special loadouts for different conditions? If we are talking specifics, I would probably say that German special groups like Otto Scorceni's armed with FG-42 (issued to most distinguished SS soldiers only), Russian AVT-40 armed special forces or US/British BAR equipped groups had highest range-firepower ratio IMO. A small advantage goes to Russians and Germans though, since their rifles could be used for sniping purposes and equipped accordingly. Ludmila Pavlichenko (top female sniper of all time) used a semi auto version, SVT-40 (A stands for "Automatic" in AVT-40, S for "Self loading" in SVT-40).
If we are talking about averages, I would say that US had an advantage in firepower. Both Russians and Germans relied more on bolt action on the Eastern Front as a cheapest and most efficient method of delivering lead at longer distances, whereas US had a standard issue Garand M1. That said, Russian PPSh-41 and German MP-38/MP-40 were devastating in close quarters. It is just they preferred separating close range and longer range weaponry, and not combine them into one package, with notable exceptions of SVT, AVT and FG-42 rifles. By the way, Germans valued SVT extremely highly. That rifle was actually issued to top German snipers as a prize and a mark of service.



- - - Updated - - -

Yeah thats why they statistically took down so much more allied tanks than they lost, get a life dude, saying Germans had superior equipment and tanks in WW2 is not being a Nazi, you kinda sound like you really took your political views into this comment.

The only reason Germans lost WW2 is because they were greatly outnumbered and thats also while fighting on multiple fronts, period.
Just deal with the fact that their army and tactics were far superior to any other army at the time, admiting it really wont make you Nazis guys ffs.

You are not correct. As with many things, it all comes down to details. Germans indeed lost fewer vehicles and had less casualties on paper than... lets say Russians or US tankers. The trick is knowing how they counted their casualties. I will just give you one example, the Kursk Offensive operation. Germans lost only a third of personnel and equipment compared to Russian losses numbers. However, Germans did not count anyone who did not die directly on the field as a combat casualty. That means that if a person got wounded and had ANY medical attention before passing (even if a medic just managed to basically tap his shoulder before his dying breath), that was not considered a combat loss. Any tank disabled by Soviets was not considered a loss unless if fell into enemy hands. Destroyed vehicles that could be recovered physically were not counted as combat losses, even if they were totally destroyed on the inside. Finally, Kursk Offensive for Germans was just that - an area directly near city of Kursk.
Compare it with Russian methodology of loss counting, when a loss of a track on a tank was considered a combat loss (since that tank could no longer engage the enemy, until repair that is). That led to some bizarre situations when a single serial number on a tank was counted as 3-4 (sometimes more) combat losses. Also, the area that Russians considered Kursk Offensive operation was not just Kursk, but this:

People who died in that area were considered combat casualties during Kursk Operation for Soviets. Basically, entire Eastern Front.
British had a similar system as well. A damaged main gun or a track loss was considered a loss of a vehicle. But for Germans, unless the vehicle was actually unrecoverable, it was not considered a loss.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

The one with the nukes /duh

Which nation fielded infantry units with nukes? Was it Finland? It was probably Finland.

[Mormolyce]

Well Hitler had the Spear of Destiny and zombie supersoldiers so I'd have to say it was the Germans.

[yetgdhfgh]

What do you mean by the most firepower?

Are we talking about how good the weapons, tanks and artillery was? Or are we talking about something else altogther?

[Miyagie]

Which nation fielded infantry units with nukes? Was it Finland? It was probably Finland.

Nah, Finland saw a few russian tanks and waved the national flag of france.

[yetgdhfgh]

Not sure where i put the highest but i know where i would put the lowest and it would be a toss up between Italy and Japan.

Japan had amazing fighting spirit but there weapons was shit and was simply not designed for jungle warfare plus they hardly had any sub machine guns which is the best weapon to use in Jungle fighting and was the reason America was able to out gun them.

As for Italys weapons... well lets not talk about that shall we

[Airlick]

for 2 years Russia was thrust into the war without warning, fending off an attack from an "Ally" of theirs.

... no warning? I think it's a consensus among WW2 historians that Russians got roflstomped during the early phase of their war against Germany because their armies were preparing for the offensive. Hence they massed their forces on the demarcation line, and after they got massacred right away, they had nothing left to defend with deeper in the country. They lost most of their combat-ready forces there and then. They had plenty of warnings from their spies, as well, Stalin just dismissed all reports of Germans preparing for a large-scale offensive.

It's funny because WW2 would never have gotten to the point that it had if Russians attacked first or if they deployed defensively.

[McFuu]

I agree on tank doctrine. Also you are probably correct in troop number comparisons, but the amount of equipment and general supply was more lopsided.

Ohh logistically... Absolutely.
Germany was destined to lose from day one. They might have stood a chance if they chose different Allies and maintained them. You could make the argument that if they turned straight for the Balkans and secured resources... A ton of what ifs. All we know in hindsight Germany never stood a chance.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

Nah, Finland saw a few russian tanks and waved the national flag of france.

You mean despite being massively outmanned and outgunned managed to inflict roughly 5x the number of casualties they received while also costing the Soviets thousands of tanks and hundreds of aircraft?

[Puupi]

Nah, Finland saw a few russian tanks and waved the national flag of france.

Finland was the only continental European country that wasn't occupied by enemy forces during WW2.

[McFuu]

... no warning? I think it's a consensus among WW2 historians that Russians got roflstomped during the early phase of their war against Germany because their armies were preparing for the offensive. Hence they massed their forces on the demarcation line, and after they got massacred right away, they had nothing left to defend with deeper in the country. They lost most of their combat-ready forces there and then. They had plenty of warnings from their spies, as well, Stalin just dismissed all reports of Germans preparing for a large-scale offensive.

When it looked like Germany was going to attack Russia did amass what they could muster, but they were quickly over taken, mainly because of how poorly supplied they were. It was a surprise as in Germany knew they were going to invade and prepared for it, Russia did not know they were going to be invaded and their reaction to the news that it would likely happen was go on the offensive first.
Think of if war broke out tomorrow, the available troops would be immediately mobilized, what supplies we had would go to that, and production would shift gears to that front.
Now imagine it's communist Russia in that situation. They never really had reserves and supplies and you are talking about waking up production in historically standing factories that need to be retooled and recommisioned. That it was Russia faced.

[Flarelaine]

Ohh logistically... Absolutely.
Germany was destined to lose from day one. They might have stood a chance if they chose different Allies and maintained them. You could make the argument that if they turned straight for the Balkans and secured resources... A ton of what ifs. All we know in hindsight Germany never stood a chance.

Full agreement there. Realistically, they probably made the most of their situation by shocking France out of the war.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

Finland was the only continental European country that wasn't occupied by enemy forces during WW2.

Switzerland. Portugal. Sweden. Spain.