Best Small Arms of WW2

If you could equip the ideal small arms of an Infantry Division in 1940, what weapons would you pick and why? Small arms generally includes pistols, rifles, sub-machine guns, machine guns and anti-tank weapons. I'll also include mortars or other small scale infantry support weapons.

Consideration should mostly be given to producing a high quality division. However bonus points if you come up with an alternate list which primarily considers it from a cost-benefit point of view.
 
Something like:
Pistols: M1911 pistol
Rifle: M2 carbine thirty round mag (unsure how it will affect shooting ability when laying down) also modified so a bayonet could be attached + M1918 Browning Automatic Rifles
Sub Machine gun: PPSh-41
Machine Guns: Mg 42.
Anti-Tank weapons: Panzerfaust

just a personal list :)
 
Last edited:
Two premises

From an American view with two different premises...1 stuck with a full power round (.30-06) 2 using a smaller round (probably .276 Pedersen with minor improvements, no need for waxing or lube).
1. 1911 pistol or Browning HiPower (9mm); M3 in either round; Garand, BAR or Johnson 1941 with a better magazine (staggered column); replace 1919A4/6 with an MG42 in .30 (slow rate of fire to 700 or so); I would keep some 1917A1's in the Heavy Weapons Co.; use the M2 60mm mortar and the M1 81mm; upgrade the bazooka to over 75 mm (lighter Panzershrek). Carbine...don't know...possibly make it slightly larger and put a spitzer bullet on the round or just don't bother.
2. Same pistol and SMG options. Johnson Auto Carbine (looks awesome http://milpas.cc/rifles/ZFiles/Semi-automatic%20Rifles/US/Johnson%20Carbine/Johnson%20Carbine.htm) or in this case an M1 will still suffice; Johnson 1941 but 2 per squad with previous improved magazine improvements;again MG 42 in full power cartridge in a Plt MG squad or in a CO Weapons platoon (4-6 weapons); again 1917A1's in fullpower at Bn level. Same Mortars and Bazookas...Have always thought having some sort of M79 launcher would have been great in WW2 but the engineering wasn't there. No reason for a carbine in this case.
I must admit that this question is my obsession and I ponder it several different ways over different nations. Even when I was a Rifle and TOW PL in 88-91 (XO the last year), I never put much thought into these things and the study we did in the basic course did not appear to me to invite it. But later when I read just for fun/mind expansion I was appalled at how underequipped the USA infantry of all types were against the Germans in particular. They were often berated for relying on mortars, artillery and airpower instead of the fire and manuever they were taught. But, the lack of a flashless/smokeless powder and the lack of auto support...only 3 BARs per platoon (with its limits of 20 round mags, no changing barrel) and only 2 1919's per company meant that any smart German squad could pin down a platoon plus simply by the firepower of one or two MG34/42's. More auto rifles or handier and more available mg's would have evened it out...ie even existing weapons in a better ration (2 BAR's per squad, 6 1919's per company with better powder) would have been much better for the WW2 GI. US mortars were great in weight and perfomance. The bazooka could have been a game changer until 1943 if available in big numbers, but after the intro of Panthers and T-34's it was marginal at best.
Thanks for the opportunity to rant.
 
From an American view with two different premises...1 stuck with a full power round (.30-06) 2 using a smaller round (probably .276 Pedersen with minor improvements, no need for waxing or lube).
1. 1911 pistol or Browning HiPower (9mm); M3 in either round; Garand, BAR or Johnson 1941 with a better magazine (staggered column); replace 1919A4/6 with an MG42 in .30 (slow rate of fire to 700 or so); I would keep some 1917A1's in the Heavy Weapons Co.; use the M2 60mm mortar and the M1 81mm; upgrade the bazooka to over 75 mm (lighter Panzershrek). Carbine...don't know...possibly make it slightly larger and put a spitzer bullet on the round or just don't bother.
2. Same pistol and SMG options. Johnson Auto Carbine (looks awesome http://milpas.cc/rifles/ZFiles/Semi-automatic%20Rifles/US/Johnson%20Carbine/Johnson%20Carbine.htm) or in this case an M1 will still suffice; Johnson 1941 but 2 per squad with previous improved magazine improvements;again MG 42 in full power cartridge in a Plt MG squad or in a CO Weapons platoon (4-6 weapons); again 1917A1's in fullpower at Bn level. Same Mortars and Bazookas...Have always thought having some sort of M79 launcher would have been great in WW2 but the engineering wasn't there. No reason for a carbine in this case.
I must admit that this question is my obsession and I ponder it several different ways over different nations. Even when I was a Rifle and TOW PL in 88-91 (XO the last year), I never put much thought into these things and the study we did in the basic course did not appear to me to invite it. But later when I read just for fun/mind expansion I was appalled at how underequipped the USA infantry of all types were against the Germans in particular. They were often berated for relying on mortars, artillery and airpower instead of the fire and manuever they were taught. But, the lack of a flashless/smokeless powder and the lack of auto support...only 3 BARs per platoon (with its limits of 20 round mags, no changing barrel) and only 2 1919's per company meant that any smart German squad could pin down a platoon plus simply by the firepower of one or two MG34/42's. More auto rifles or handier and more available mg's would have evened it out...ie even existing weapons in a better ration (2 BAR's per squad, 6 1919's per company with better powder) would have been much better for the WW2 GI. US mortars were great in weight and perfomance. The bazooka could have been a game changer until 1943 if available in big numbers, but after the intro of Panthers and T-34's it was marginal at best.
Thanks for the opportunity to rant.

Not at all. Good response.

I've read that when the Bazooka's were first going through the acceptance trials some in the US Army argued it should be enlarged before being rolled out. Funnily enough this is what the Germans did when they created the highly effective Panzershrek, based primarily on the Bazooka. If this initial advice was heeded arguably you have a highly effective anti-tank weapon that is competitive throughout the entire war.
 
Should edit this in.

I know many would say why use an AR, why not just skip to BREN or better yet a German like GPMG. Basically, I am a believer in maneuver and the equal fireteam squad...maybe because that's what was ingrained into me in my ROTC and Army days. The weakness of the GPMG at squad was that maneuver was limited as you only had one auto support weapon and moving it required atleast 2 guys really humping it (the 26lbs and awkward gun, its kit, and hundreds if not thousand + rounds). An AR done right was much more easily a one man job and more easily fired while moving/assaulting.
I am not sure (never studied in that vein) why the bazooka was developed so small. General McNair in charge of Army Ground Forces kept everything very austere and unimaginative. I imagine that we short sighted Americans just thought that tank armour would not improve or get thicker during the next 3-4 years of conflict, so why bother making a more capable weapon. We were still paying for that one in 1950.
 
Last edited:
Can we mod these weapon choices?

My take, British Empire:

For the infantry rifle, start off with the .303 SMLE and a No. 5 and/or No. 6 'Jungle Carbine' in .240 Magnum Flanged in mixed service. The .240 out of that length barrel should produce ballistics similar to the 6.5mm Grendel (while the size of the case + plus the low pressure level should minimise muzzle flash, even with a deep seated bullet to match the rifle action's length. Hopefully). As the war progresses, have the larger rifle phased out in favour of the carbine.

The shortened Mark 3 Bren in the smaller calibre as section machine gun should eventually replace the larger .303 Brens as platoon/section weapons.

Yes, this means eventually no .303 at platoon level, with the exception of whatever older WWI-era rifle NCOs and officers might want to carry in that calibre. And I understand that the old deerhunting .240 is a round that's roughly the same size as .303, so its adoption doesn't mean the platoon gets to carry more ammo, as they would if they had a modern intermediate size cartridge. But you can't just go and chamber a 6.8mm SPC or a 6.5mm Grendel or a 6.25mm British experimental in a Lee action during this era, and I prefer to keep that bolt gun, in keeping with the OP 1940 baseline.

SMG: The Welgun looks like a promising weapon, and I've read it performed better than the Sten. Chambered for 9mm Parabellum as per OTL? In which case, either a longer barrel and a fixed stock are in order to make it infantry friendly; or if it's to be issued as a smallish weapon, then chambering it in the weaker 9mm Browning Long might be the trade-off necessary to prevent recoil issues. I'll handwave and say that BSA can design the Welgun at the same time OTL's Sten was thought up, right after Dunkirk (seeing as they weren't asked to in OTL, it's reasonable to assume the SOE/BSA types who designed it in 1942 could have brought the thing forward two years if need be.)

If 9x20mm is to be the standard autoloader round, then the blowback Webley and Browning 1903 designs that were available IOTL can be the service side arm.

But if 9x19 is to be the official auto round, then just chamber it in the Hi-Power for limited para and commando issue, while keeping a revolver as the main sidearm. Instead of .380 in a smaller version of the Mark VI as IOTL, I'd go with .41 Long Colt, in a reduced sized WG revolver. Colt Police .41 models can be bought from America to supplement the medium size WG, also I guess you can have 5-shot Smith and Wesson M&Ps in that calibre.

Hmmm, need a more GPMG-type weapon for company level; I think a belt-fed version of the stocked Vickers K Gun, in .303 SAA. (Considering how big the VGO receiver is, with all that room for new gas-operation stuff, then engineering it for belt feed should be a much easier proposition than with the Bren. Yes, I know about the Taden Gun, but I don't trust the ability of weapons technology to make a reliable belt-fed Bren in .303 for that era.)

Heavy Vickers .303 remain attached to battalions.

I've gone with these choices because they're not screamingly impossible for 1940-moving-forwards, but even then I think you need SMGs and small calibre rifles to have proven themselves as viable alternatives to the .303 SMLE before the war. Perhaps during the Imperial brushfire skirmishes of the 20s and 30s.

It would be cool to say 'select fire 7mm bullpups for everyone!!11!!!', but that's not happening.:D
 
Maybe if the British supplied Spanish regulars with these prototype weapons it would have given them the field experience to confirm their effectiveness. Such support is technically in breach of the neutrality policy but then compared to Germany and Italy's involvement it's hardly significant.
 
I have given similar information elsewhere but it boils down to:
Pistol: ban them
SMG:Lanchester (the general issue)
Rifle:Sniper SMLE
LMG:BREN (x2 per platoon)
HMG:Vickers (in HMG Platoon)
Anti Tank:pIAT (+6 pounder&APDS)
Indirect fire:3" Mortar (in Mortar Platoon)
Dug in defence attack:Boys AT rifle (carried in B Echelon)

nb:HMG, Mortars & Snipers in HQ Coy.
6 pounders as a Brigade resource.

Cheapening, Patchett in lieu of Lanchester

This is Commonwealth forces based of course.
German:
Pistol:banned
SMG:Something you can fire prone from cover(?)
Rifle:Sniper Mauser 98K
LMG:Czech ZB vz 26
HMG:MG42
AT:panzerfaust (PAK 40)
Indirect Fire:80mm mortar
Dug in defence attack:3.7cm PAK36

USA:
Pistol:banned
SMG:Thompson (cheapo M3)
Rifle:Sniper M1
LMG:Korean experience was the Browning M1919A6
HMG:Browning M1919/M3
AT:Bazooka (57mm Gun M1)
Indirect fire:M2 mortar
Dug in defence: 37mm AT gun

Soviet Union:
Pistol:banned
SMG:pPsh-41
Rifle:Sniper Moisin-Nagant
LMG: DPM (or RP46 if allowed)
HMG: DShK
AT: PTRD-41 (sorry chaps) (76.2 artillery)
Indirect fire:120mm mortar
Dug in defence: PTRD-41

If I could mix and match:
Pistol:banned (did I mention they would be banned?)
SMG:Lanchester (would accept Patchett)
Rifle:Sniper SMLE
LMG:BREN
HMG:Vickers
AT:pIAT
Indirect fire: Soviet 120mm mortar
Dug in defence: PTRD-41

All in all, I am tending towards 0.280" EM-2 and Taden at platoon level if allowed however.
 
Last edited:
For Brens in the Commonwealth...did you mean Brens x2 per platoon or x2 per section/squad? I don't like pistols either. Became a company XO just prior to going to Desert Shield/Storm. Had to trade my Beretta (never fired it though it felt neat) to Discom HHC for a M16A2...never could hit anything with any pistol and the M16A2 was a great rifle to shoot as I could even shoot expert with it.
Euromellows: I would think that the empire would have given the UK all sorts of opportunity to test weapons, but it doesn't seem they did. I think it was mainly austerity.
 
Burtle has the right of it.

It depends on what your rifle squad tactics/doctrine is built around. If its German style then an MG38/42 with ammo handlers, who happen to carry other things.

If its UK (or US or Sov or anyone else style) then its a Bren, and another Bren, with probably the spare Bren and the Bren that was lost long enough to indent for the replacement Bren.
 
All in all I agree with the proposals for the British Empire, but would throw out an alternative to the Vickers Gun for sustained fire support. My alternative would be the land warfare version of the Vickers K gas operated machine gun, with its 100 round pan magazines. It's lighter than the old Vickers gun, with a high rate of fire and was used quite successfully by the Commandos, Paras and Raf regiment.
 
Only using weapons that are (or could be) available in 1940 (so no Panzerfaust or MG42):

Pistol: Browning Hi-Power
Rifle: SVT-40 in 7.92x57mm (picked over the Garand because it can be loaded from stripper clips or with individual bullets and because it has 2 more rounds)
SMG: MP-40, with a more reliable double feed magazine that feeds from the side and a decent hand-grip, chambered in 9x25mm Mauser (more powerful than 9x19mm)
GPMG: MG 34
Anti-tank: Lahti L-39 & the more portable Panzebüchse 39 or Wz. 35 (the Soviet 14.5mm aren't available before next year so...)
Mortars: A type 89 grenade discharger in every platoon, 2 Brandt Mle 1935 in every company, 4 81mm Brandt Mle 27/31 at battalion level and finally some 120mm M1938 mortars in independent mortar units (which is based on a Brandt design)
 
Let's throw in a variant for Finland

SMG: Suomi KP/-31
Rifle:m/39
LMG: Lahti L-34 Sampo
HMG: Maxim M32/33
AT: Initially Lahti L-39 20mm AT rifle, to be replaced in late war with domestic AT grenades (similar to RPG-6) + Panzershrecks and -fausts
Indirect fire: Tampella 120 Krh/40
 

Mookie

Banned
Pistol: Luger (to officers)
SMG:MP-40 (to oficers)
Rifle:Kar-98 bayonet attachment
LMG:MG34
HMG:MG41
Anti Tank:panzershreck/Panzerfaust

Basicaly a german infantry squad, keeping the majoritiy of the squad armed with Long range rifles to ensure effectivness on long and mid range, LMGs and HMG should be more than enough to keep dominance on short mid and long range.
 
If I don't have to worry about existing stocks (i.e, I get enough existing weapons and ammo, without additional production, to equip the force for a good while) and get to pick any gun in existance then something like this.

Rifle: M1 Garand/M1 Carbine
SMG: PPSh 41
LMG: MG42
MMG: MG42
HMG: M2
Sidearm: P38/P09

The Garand is the best choice as a standard weapon IMO, as it's semi auto, and whilst there are other semi autos around at the time, they're not as reliable from what I've read. It's not a particularly good sniper weapon however. Problem is that augmenting it with another rifle such as the K98 or Mosin Nagant is going to cause logistical issues. The PPSh is pretty rugged, easy to make and good for an SMG. The MG42 should be obvious, the M2 provides heavier fire. As for sidearms, either the Luger or P38 are fine, both are accurate, light and use the same ammo.
 
Pistol: Modified Colt M1911A1 firing 9x25Mauser (for people who might need to actually shoot it) or Walther PP in 9x17mm (.380ACP) (for those who mostly don't)
SMG/PDW: Modified M2 Carbine firing 9x25Mauser
Rifle: Modified (lighter) M1 Garand with removable magazine in 6.5x50 Arisaka caliber
LMG: VZ30 in 6.5x50mm
HMG: M2HB Browning
 
I'm amazed that nobody has mentioned the Japanese knee mortar.

They weren't mortars and they had nothing to do with knees. They were the Imperial Japanese Army's standard grenade launcher. And they were one of the great unsung weapons systems of World War Two.

Light, cheap, simple, easy to carry and maintain, and utterly ubiquitous. One of the few weapons systems where the Japanese managed to outproduce everyone else. The Brits and Americans averaged two or three grenade launchers per infantry company. (The Marines were an interesting exception. The USMC was very sensible about mortars.) The Japanese had one per /squad/. And while their throw weight was light, these little monsters could drop a grenade on your head from 600+ yards away with terrifying accuracy.

They were simple, but they weren't primitive. Their clunky, ugly appearance belied a great deal of careful thought and development. The engagement mechanism for the rifling was elegant, but also easy to disassemble and clean, and made of a copper alloy that had exactly the right mix of flexibility and strength. The whole thing could be broken down into four lightweight pieces, just a few pounds each, which could be carried without difficulty by various squad members then reassembled in a few moments.

Sighted with two lug nuts -- a monkey could do it. But in practiced hands (and because they were ubiquitous and cheap, there were a lot of practiced hands), amazingly accurate. Fully functional under conditions from rain forest downpour to Aleutian blizzards. Easy to use, almost impossible to break.

Read any US memoir of the Pacific War, and you'll realize just how much American soldiers came to hate and fear these things. Knee mortars killed far more Americans than Zeroes or Long Lances ever did, and at a tiny fraction of the cost.

All the other combatants had grenade launchers too, of course. But they tended to be bigger -- the standard US 60mm launcher weighed 43 pounds as opposed to 12 for the knee mortar -- and much less common.

(True, the US grenade launcher had a throw weight about 50% greater and nearly three times the range. But not many WWII infantry actions took place at a range of 2000 yards. To simplify a complex reality, the US weapon was overpowered.)

It wasn't an antitank or counterfire weapon. It was simply and purely an infantry killer. But it was a really, really good infantry killer. If one of the European powers had developed something like it... well, a lot of small tactical engagements might have had a different outcome.


Doug M.
 
Yeah but when you really need to put half a million rounds downrange from each gun, Vickers Mk1.

Fine in fixed possitions but if you need to move the thing often it's bloody heavy. The modern GPMG is a heavy enough beast the lug around (trust me I know from experience) but the Vickers Gun good as it was is just far too heavy for mobile warfare.
 
Top