Military sites and forums have huge amounts of information and debates about the relative merits of small arms of different armies and why they were superior or inferior.
A lot of these debates seem artificial to me, particularly when one weapon is extolled as the ‘best’. This is compounded by the apparent attraction of certain weapons and their mythical status, so that various SMG’s or assault rifles or machine pistols are held out as the greatest weapon ever because they were great pieces of design and engineering. All true, but what did it matter on the battlefield?
For example, a section / squad with SMG’s is probably going to make a mess of an equal number of equally trained enemy troops with bolt action repeater long arms in heavy jungle or close urban fighting. Put the same troops in open country with little cover and the advantage switches to the long arms with longer range, never mind the rate of fire of the short-range SMG’s.
Or, the Japanese J handle bayonet was a clever idea for capturing the enemy’s bayonet and disarming him, but how many soldiers were killed through this clever idea and exactly what impact did it have on the war?
Artillery, in all its forms from knee mortars upwards and air attack killed a lot more troops than small arms.
All armies in WWII had roughly equivalent small arms which in the hands of competent troops would do equal damage to the enemy. Some were more reliable than others and some could survive worse conditions than others, but most of them worked satisfactorily most of the time.
Does anyone think that the small arms of opposing forces really made a critical difference in the vast bulk of engagements and, more importantly, that any one of them stands out as a war winner?
I don’t. I think that the quality of the soldier and unit using the weapons, whatever they were, counted for a lot more in winning actions and the war.