How does the firepower of World War II weapons compare to modern weapons?

Modern weapons have evolved but are primarily stealthy and accurate, whereas World War II-era weapons were less stealthy and accurate but had larger calibers and used more gunpowder.

So, could WWII weapons be comparable to modern weapons in terms of pure destructive power?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I have also often wondered how long perfected Tiger IIs would have lasted hypothetically in the Cold War. It certainly would have held its ground against the IS series, since these were (despite the imposing and modern look) a bunch of Potemkin junk tanks made to please Stalin.
    How would it have fared against T54s, though? And whatever the Yanks and others had around that time. I heard some tank nerds say Tiger IIs were immediately obsolete, but IIRC that was from a Leddit armchair, so take it with a grain of salt.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The main problems of the Tiger II were being very underpowered, especially when you consider it's immense weight and the low quality of it's steel because molybdenum was not really available anymore in Germany by the time it entered production. This cost the steel a lot of toughness and caused dangerous splittering in the crew compartment from non-penetrating hits.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Still in service in the 40s and then in the 50s moved to secondary roles and gradually phased out by the end of same decade. No upgrades outside the easily replaceable equipment like radios, possibility for the transmission and engine getting a proper peacetime work over.

      Other than that, it would've been definitely outgunned by the T-54/T-55, thanks to the availability of more modern APDS and HEAT shells.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The fundamental flaw in the Tiger II design is the high profile and lack of significant armor sloping. For comparison the Pershing and Patton tanks weighed nearly 20 tons less while having comparable armor protection, and as a result were faster, more fuel efficient, and easier to maintain.

        Even if you upgraded the gun and drivetrain to early cold war standards you're left with something that's still worse overall. Might have had some use in the mothball fleet or reserve units for strictly defensive purposes.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Tiger II
      This

      https://i.imgur.com/WfKe3RH.jpg

      Still in service in the 40s and then in the 50s moved to secondary roles and gradually phased out by the end of same decade. No upgrades outside the easily replaceable equipment like radios, possibility for the transmission and engine getting a proper peacetime work over.

      Other than that, it would've been definitely outgunned by the T-54/T-55, thanks to the availability of more modern APDS and HEAT shells.

      Probably similar service life to IS-3, maybe less depending on the Cold War situation (2 way, or 3 with an intact USSR?) with upgrades to transmission & final drive.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >how long perfected Tiger IIs would have lasted
      The whole heavy tank concept rapidly fell apart post-war because without composite armor, trying to protect against post-war HEAT munitions is just not in the cards.

      The Tiger II also would need a significant redesign of the turret to mount something bigger than the long 88mm gun, which was already looking at having problems to deal with IS-3 and T-54 and would have left it undergunned compared to western medium tanks once the 105mm L7 comes out.

      Overall, it'd perform worse than the Conqueror, M103 and T-10M, and all of those were already questionable and then rapidly abandoned the moment medium tanks got upgunned further.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They would have most likely converged on a 10.5cm armed heavy-medium tank replacing both the Panther and KT, not necessarily the E-50/E-75, but perhaps a further development.
      Then most likely something between E-75/E-100 with the 12.8cm for the Heavy-Heavy tank before dropping it in early 60s like the other Powers did with their heavies.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I do know the ships had much chunkier armour than any ship today.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >World War II-era weapons had larger calibers and used more gunpowder
    ???
    Unless you're exclusively talking about individual infantryman rounds, this is completely wrong.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I hope all of those animals in that picture were killed

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They weren't any worse than other country's grunts, anon. Blame the politicians.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Even if you're a westaboo, you've got to admit they did good work in Russia

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They wasted their time murdering a bunch of women and children. Maybe if they weren't so high on meth they could have won the war by focusing on killing Russian soldiers.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There’s no need to inpoteinly seethe at pictures anon.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Hello moishe

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Hating Nazis makes one a israelite, yes. Just like those famous israelites Sir Arthur Harris, Franklin Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >small arms
    M16A1 absolutely outguns all bolt-action or semi-auto rifles
    5-10 shots of .30cal is useless against 20-30 rounds of 5.56 on full auto
    only the germans had a GPMG that would have been equal to cold war weapons, the Mg42 is just an MG3 in nazi caliber, but otherwise the M1919s and type92 tripod-mounted machine guns are absolutely destroyed by the FN MAG, M60, and PKM

    a cold war infantry platoon with 2 rifle squads equipped with M16s and M60s would have the firepower of 4 WW2 era riflesquads, even wihen reinforced with extra BARs
    >AT weapons
    M9 bazooka was already obsoleted by the M20
    the M72 LAW is leaps and bounds better than any WW2 weapon, even panzerfaust 100
    guided weapons from the late cold war, even crappy MCLOS ones, would absolutely demolish not just handheld but even crew-served weapons

    >tanks
    no contest after the 50s
    the T-55 has king tiger armor, king tiger firepower, and panther mobility with less than tiger weight
    and the M48A3 had a coincidence rangefinder slaved to a ballistic computer, allowing it to fire the moment range was set

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is this stealth vatnik thread trying to prepare for WW2 tanks return to battlefield?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Mental illness

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How in the frick do Russians have jets. In a real war they would have a fighting chance

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Firepower didn't increase much.
    What increased is the precision and efficiency.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Sturmtiger was a ridiculously powerful mortar I don't think anything modern can compete with the energy released.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Gee, you're right. We don't have anything today that can match ~125kg of explosives, no sir.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >nuclear weapons

        OP is obviously talking about conventional.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Also not a mortar.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Anon, did it never occur to you to wonder why no one wasted their time and effort building an equivalent to the Sturmtiger?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Well, technically.... It was also more practical.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *