WW2 military ratings.

The Russians, Germans, and British all had aircraft that used .50 cal or an equivalent thereto.

The Japanese also did, but not until nearer the end of the war.

 

The 90mm anti-aircraft gun/howitzer.

 

In a war where having your carriers get hit is a near certainty, I prefer that my multi-million dollar money pits be survivable.

 

That was exactly the British theory.

And of course another reason why the British carriers had so much impact on carrier vs carrier warfare in the Pacific.

 

Not really. The Americans were really the sole proponents of using our very capable .50 caliber. The few examples that were otherwise- the P-39 with its 37 mm and the P-38 were outliers. Virtually all mainstream American fighters used the .50(the F4, the F4U, F6, P-40, P-47, P-51.

The mainstays of the luftwaffe used 7.92 equivellents or 20 or 30 m.m. cannon- look to the BF109 and the FW. Likewise the Brits started off with .303(Hurricanes and Spitfires) and then went to 20 mm (Spitfires, Fireflies, Typhoons, Tempests). I can't think of any Brit fighter other than perhaps some nightfighter or carrier fighter that used the .50.

The Soviets- yeah they used the 12.7mm

I am not knocking the .50- great weapon- just stupid to claim that Zero's 20 mm was worthless when they carried a configuration almost identical to the same period BF 109.

 

Zeros carried between 60 and 100 rounds per cannon. Note: that was pretty standard among its contemporaries.

 

Shokaku survived between three and six 1000lb bomb hits at Santa Cruz...not only did she survive, she retired under her own power, still making 31 knots. Zuiho, a converted passenger liner, survived two 500lb bomb hits at the same time and also retired under her own power.

Note: American carriers, even the Essex-class, did NOT have armored decks!

 

The Fw-190 and later Bf109's mounted 13mm machine guns.

 

The Essex did have superior compartmentalization to make up for their lack of armor.

And Shokaku was a Yamato before being converted to a carrier.

 

The British used .50 cals on certain versions of the Mosquito and the Germans had a 13mm autocannon that was essentially identical to the .50.

 

Darn my faulty memory- you sir are of course correct.

 

I had forgotten about the 13 mm- my bad on that. The .50 on the Mosquito was an outlier.

 

And in 1942, Japanese carriers not only carried more aircraft than Brit carriers, they carried more effective aircraft. By 1944 and 1945- when the Brits actually had real carrier actions in the Pacific, the Japanese carriers were no longer viable. For example- in May 1942 the Illustrious carried 20 Martlets(Wildcats), 20 Swordfish and 1 Fulmar- compared to say the Akagi which carried 18 Zero's, 18 D3A and 27 B5N's- note the mix of dive bombers and torpedo bombers which the Brits didn't have, and 20 more planes all of which were as good(the Wildcats) or better(anything but the Swordfish) than the Brits carried.

Bottom line is that the Japanese carriers were formidable- they were fast modern carriers, and in 1942 carried as good, or better planes than any carriers in the world. But the Japanese had no bench- pilots, planes, spare parts, repair facilities- they couldn't keep up.

 

In 1939, the Germans had the strongest Army and Air Force (Luftwaffe)...but once the United States' war machine started up, it was overwhelming.

The B-29 was not a perfect aircraft, it had a tendency to crash on take-off which is why both A-bombs were armed in flight, rather than risk an aborted take-off
and crash while loaded with an armed atomic bomb. Might have made for a bad day on Tinian Island if that had happened. Both the cordite used in the bomb and the fuse mechanism
itself, were armed once the B-29 reached cruising altitude...once airborne and dropped, they functioned perfectly...detonated at the programmed height and only a few hundred yards off of the mark...thanks to the Norden bomb sight.

In terms of the most basic weapon on the battlefield during WW2..the infantry rifle...here's my thoughts on that.

I own the standard issue rifles for both Axis and Allies manufactured during the WWII era..and although not a gun expert by any means, the most accurate
rifle of the lot is the British Enfield...it's weakness being bolt-action...same for the German K98, Soviet Mosin-Nagant Italian Carcano, French MAS 36, and Japanese type 99...
all bolt actions.

The Garand, being semi-automatic, gives a definite advantage while still maintaining solid mid-range accuracy and a potent man-stopping 30.06 round.
It's main weakness, the distinctive "ping" as the magazine ejects, giving away to the bad guys within earshot, you're out of ammo...some soldiers used to carry empty magazines
and toss them on the ground to make the "ping" noise...when the bad guy stuck his head up thinking the Yank had to reload...bang.

Based on my, admittedly non-expert, opinion the M1 Garand was the best overall infantry rifle fielded in WW2

 

Does best me most powerful (size matters) or highest quality overall?

 

What in the world are you blathering about?! Aside from both being carriers built at Yokosuka, Shokaku had essentially NOTHING in common with Shiano (the Yamato-based carrier). She was less than half the displacement (32,000 tons versus 70,000), 50' shorter, 45' narrower, drew 6' less water. Shokaku was essentially an enlarged and improved Soryu.

 

Bottom line- before Midway- there is no question that the Japanese carrier forces were either the best or the second best carrier force in the world. Only the U.S. is a contender for that title. After Midway it was the U.S. all the way.

 

Well, like my uncle who was in the Battle of the Bulge and won a Silver Star said about the Germans ((*)(*)(*)(*)ed Krauts as he called them). "They were better fighters and had better equipment, they just did not have enough of it."

 

They had the best chow?

 

No, they didn't, they just managed to use their less powerful military better.

Man for man though during the war no one fought better than the Germans...... well, except the Aussies of course. Not biased.

 

Ok, you win there.

When, well, pretty much any city was taken off the Italians in North Africa the allies had the time of their lives. Wine, pasta, etc. The Italians had crap weapons but they knew how to eat.

 

Finns.

 

Herkdriver is correct, Germans were overwhelmed by both personnel numbers and equipment numbers even if they had better fighters or equipment.

 

My first comment is about the first part of his comment.

 

I would say the Japanese carrier force was at least equal to the US carrier force until losing 150+ veteran aircrew (including more than twenty section or flight leaders and five squadron leaders) at Santa Cruz.