German Infantry weapons of WW2

[timmy]

They are difficult to remove the bolt from compared to most anything else, and the safety is not the handiest thing in the world -- about on the par with the Mosin Nagant safety: positive, but not so convenient to engage and disengage.

I'm not sure that it says very much to note that any battle rifle made by any of the WW2 combatants during peacetime was nicely finished -- I'm trying to think of one that was not. Carcano, SMLE, M98, M1903, Mosin Nagant, whatever: during peacetime, they were all made nicely, and during wartime, not so nicely. I've seen some fairly rough M1903A3s, as far as that goes.

The length of the Arisaka is also clumsy. You may correctly point out that a Mosin Nagant in M1891 (31") or M91/30 (28") are also very long, but both the stock and the barrel are slender, and even at this length, they point and balance in a way that is quite natural. One would not think so, for such a long rifle. The Arisaka doesn't share this property.

I will admit, the Arisaka's length did owe to its intended purpose as a bayonet pole, like the Mosin Nagant. However, the average Japanese soldier was smaller and the Arisaka's use in jungle fighting was not as convenient as, say, an SMLE, much less its Jungle Carbine derivative. Perhaps the fault may lie in the Japanese war planning looking more toward a replay of Manchuria, 1905, rather than fighting in New Guinea or Burma, as many wars are fought according to the previous war's lessons.

None the less, I consider a Mosin Nagant somewhat clumsy to operate, and I don't see the Arisaka as being any better. Getting a bolt out of and back into a Mosin Nagant is certainly much easier, but then again, in that area a Mosin Nagant is quite convenient compared to any battle rifle.

[TwoRivers]

Yes, the bolt stop is a bit harder to operate than that of others, but still a lot easier that that of the P14/M17. How often do you need to remove the bolt during combat ?

The safety is much easier that that of M/N. Once you figure out the "how" it isn't difficult or clumsy at all.

Jungle fighting certainly wasn't part of any nations doctrine. And the Japanese did have several carbine versions of the 6.5 Arisaka.

[timmy]

Fair enough, but the Mosin Nagant safety has a few tricks to it, as well, which don't require the palm of the hand.

I will grant you that a bolt may not need to be removed too often in battle, unless one sticks the muzzle in the mud (think about theaters of operation here).

Certainly there were paratroop and carbine versions of the Arisaka, but the British response to jungle fighting with the No. 5 Mk. 1 was much quicker and of greater quantity. You may correctly point out that the British, though stretched to the limit themselves, had greater resources, however I think the Japanese saw little need to change. Besides the Type 99 Rifle had not replaced the Type 38 anyway, and the Japanese situation was much more like the Italians, trying to support 2 rifles and 2 calibers, than the British with 2 rifles and only one caliber.

[timmy]

He also mentioned that in WW 2 what Allies were always in awe of was General Staff corp officers of Germany Army who could plan operations and then execute them to T or the staff officers of Gen Patton who afforded him the ability of turning army in 90 degress and then driving great distance to take care of Battle of Bulge - common thing between both was training and doctrine for their armies.

Exactly so!

The turning point of WW2 was the point at which Hitler switched from attacking the RAF in the Battle of Britain to terror bombing London. The RAF was on the ropes at that point, and had Britain lost its air cover, the invasion was sure to succeed. Perhaps the Royal Navy could have dispersed to the colonies, but how long would such a beheaded empire last? What would India had done, if Britain had fallen in 1940?

Far more than eliminating a thorn in his side, as Hitler then saw Britain, he would have had access to British manufacturing and war materiel stores. My view is that Hitler's war on the Soviet Union was a foregone conclusion -- a loss -- and the amazing thing was that he got as far as he did. Stalingrad was exactly analogous to the Battle of Midway in the Pacific: Not so much a turning point as it was the point where the inevitable took place.

Hiter's major bungles also included calling off the Wehrmacht when he had the British on the ropes at Dunkirk and declaring war on the USA -- the Japanese had effectively taken Hitler off the hook regarding the USA, but he made sure 90% of the USA's manufacturing capacity and eventually warmaking capacity would be directed toward Germany.

But let's not focus too much on Hitler's bungling: British bungling took place when the Anglo-German Naval Agreement began to unilaterally dismantle Versailles in 1935, when the Rhineland was invaded in 1936, when the Anschluss was concluded in 1938, and at Munich in 1938. Each time, Hitler called his shots right by predicting that the British would ignore their chance to call his bluff. Let's also not blame Baldwin and Chamberlain inordinately, either: their policies were dictated by the public's opinion, which was adverse to war at any cost (which certainly would have been nil in the Rhineland and a drop in the bucket compared to WW2 at Munich). The difference between the British and the French was that, when the Germans took Czechoslovakia, the British stiffened and the French continued to waffle, as they would until the fall of the 3rd Republic.

As Navi rightly says, the things that determine victory or defeat are not the choice of battle rifle, or sniper rifle. Wars are decided on much larger things -- even such as plain old dumb luck.