All of which had little impact on the outcome. The BOB wasn't won because of them, Kamikazes did comparatively little damage, as did the V1s.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
What Weapon Had the Largest Impact on the Outcome of WWII?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by leibstandarte10 View PostAll of which had little impact on the outcome. The BOB wasn't won because of them,Kamikazes did comparatively little damage,
as did the V1s.In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Leibniz
Comment
-
Originally posted by gunnut View PostThe one ubiquitous equipment that we had which was heads and shoulders above everyone else was the M-1 Garand. No one else had a rifle with that much firepower. Not the Enfield. Not the Mauser. Not the Arisaka. Not the Mosin. Our infantry squads pack 4 times the firepower of any other infantry squads not armed with the Garand. Patton said the Garand was the greatest battlefield implement ever devised.Rule 1: Never trust a Frenchman
Rule 2: Treat all members of the press as French
Comment
-
Originally posted by Parihaka View PostAny German division caught in the open was decimated. It was certainly a major factor.I wonder why? When they hit, they did a LOT of damage
Again, I wonder why."The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man
Comment
-
[QUOTE=gunnut;343919]Yeah, but without the massive numbers of the 4 engine bombers, the bombing campaign wouldn't have been that successful.
Germans had 4 engine bombers. HE-177 was a 4 engine bomber. It was an exceptional machine. Unfortunately the German high command insisted on using it as a dive bomber and insisted on putting 2 engines in a tandem in a single nacelle to drive a single prop.
No. The He 177 Greif (Griffon) was an unmitigated disaster. The RLM insistence on dive bombing was simply cretinous. The designer Seigfried Gunter could not get engines sufficiently powerful so he was compelled to try coupling 2 x 1,000 hp Daimler-Benz DB 601s together. The resultant power unit was called the DB 605 which gave 2,600 hp for take-off, but was prone to catching fire. More were lost to accidents than to enemy action.
The true 4 engine version, HE-277, was better than everything we had except for the B-29
The first attempt to put 4 engines on the Greif was the He 274. As Heinkel were overloaded with work, the construction was transferred to France. Farman didn't rush themselves and the only example to fly didn't leave the ground until December 1945.
The He 277 was the He 177 with 4 x 1,300hp DB 603A engines (the same as the He 274) but the prototypes suffered directional instability problems until the single fin and rudders were replaced by twin endpate units. The first of only 8 built switched to 4 x 2,060 hp Junkers Jumo 213F engines, but all work was stopped on bombers in July 1944 in favour of the emergency fighter programme.
In my opinion (which is not especially humble) the most efficient allied bomber in Europe was the De Havilland Mosquito. This wooden aeroplane with 2 engines and 2 crew could carry a 4,000lb bomb to Berlin from the UK - and do it faster than any other bomber.Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.
Comment
-
Originally posted by leibstandarte10 View PostBut none of these were nearly significant enough to change the course of the war one way or another, like the A-bomb or heavy bombers did. The Allies were going to win regardless of the proximity fuse, in other words.In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Leibniz
Comment
-
Originally posted by glyn View PostThe He 277 was the He 177 with 4 x 1,300hp DB 603A engines (the same as the He 274) but the prototypes suffered directional instability problems until the single fin and rudders were replaced by twin endpate units. The first of only 8 built switched to 4 x 2,060 hp Junkers Jumo 213F engines, but all work was stopped on bombers in July 1944 in favour of the emergency fighter programme.
B-29 also suffered from mechanical problems. The engines often overheated. But we could cover for that by producing more and launch more on raids.
The Soviets copy of B-29, the Tu-4, was such a perfect copy that it also suffered from engine trouble.
Originally posted by glyn View PostIn my opinion (which is not especially humble) the most efficient allied bomber in Europe was the De Havilland Mosquito. This wooden aeroplane with 2 engines and 2 crew could carry a 4,000lb bomb to Berlin from the UK - and do it faster than any other bomber.
I often tell others that the Mosquito is one of the most beautiful planes ever made. And it performs even better than it looks."Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Parihaka View PostBy that logic you can rule out virtually every weapon mentioned here, as without any single weapon the allies were going to win regardless, making the entire thread pointless."The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man
Comment
-
Originally posted by leibstandarte10 View PostI'm not saying any one weapon was the cause of the outcome of the war. I'm saying that some weapons had a lot more impact than others did.In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Leibniz
Comment
-
I think you're misunderstanding me.
What I'm saying is that the A-bomb and other weapons had a greater impact on the outcome of the war than something comparatively insignificant, say, the Krummerlauf."The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man
Comment
-
i say the weapon which had the biggest impace on ww2, would have to be the Liberty ship. With out it, no supplies would have reached britain or mainland europe, and we would have never been involved in any theater.
I mean its pretty hard to fight a war and fuel a army when your not even at the battle field, lol
Comment
-
Originally posted by gunnut View PostYeah, but without the massive numbers of the 4 engine bombers, the bombing campaign wouldn't have been that successful.
Germans had 4 engine bombers. HE-177 was a 4 engine bomber. It was an exceptional machine. Unfortunately the German high command insisted on using it as a dive bomber and insisted on putting 2 engines in a tandem in a single nacelle to drive a single prop. The true 4 engine version, HE-277, was better than everything we had except for the B-29. If the Germans managed to build enough of those and use them correctly as strategic bombers, the war could have lasted a bit longer.
I was thinking, there weren't many items that we built which was heads and shoulders above the axis equivalent. B-29 was one. No axis bomber came close. But it was only used in 1 theater, against Japan.
The one ubiquitous equipment that we had which was heads and shoulders above everyone else was the M-1 Garand. No one else had a rifle with that much firepower. Not the Enfield. Not the Mauser. Not the Arisaka. Not the Mosin. Our infantry squads pack 4 times the firepower of any other infantry squads not armed with the Garand. Patton said the Garand was the greatest battlefield implement ever devised.
I don't want to say the Garand had the greatest impact on the war. But it sure had the greatest impact on our guys on the ground.
I stick by my nomination, though.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Parihaka View PostBombers schmomers
My proximity fuse kills your massed heavy bombers at a fraction of the cost.
Also the only way to achieve total victory is to put troops on the ground, and the best way to kill large numbers of enemy troops in WWII? Proximity fuses.
Comment
-
Originally posted by sappersgt View PostBombers, radar, proximity fuse, all good answers but were not available until late in the conflict and or in some theatres. Which weapon was available from the beginning in 1939 and or in all theatres thus having the most effect? The radio, it was available and used extensively on all fronts from the beginning.
The radio speeded up the tempo of ground operations by an order of magnitude. Forces lacking in effective radios suffered a quick and inevitable defeat. Without the improvements in radio it would WWI all over again, a slow brutal slug match, no Blitzkrieg, no bomber offensive, no maneuver warfare.
But what I take the word to mean is 'decisive'. And if both sides had it (and they did), then it didn't decide ANYthing.
Four-engined heavy bombers literally changed the face of the enemy's homelands, and NOTHING else - not battleship guns, not tactical aviation, not heavy artillery - could go 500 miles into enemy territory and obliterate a city in a single 24-hour period, while losing less than a thousand men...simply because we decided to do it. It couldn't be prevented, even though the enemy was bound to try, which led to a vast waste of his dwindling resource base.
Seriously, what else could deliver results like THIS:
Comment
Comment