Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What Weapon Had the Largest Impact on the Outcome of WWII?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    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.
    "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


    • #32
      Originally posted by leibstandarte10 View Post
      All of which had little impact on the outcome. The BOB wasn't won because of them,
      Any German division caught in the open was decimated. It was certainly a major factor.
      Kamikazes did comparatively little damage,
      I wonder why? When they hit, they did a LOT of damage



      as did the V1s.
      Again, I wonder why.
      In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

      Leibniz

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by gunnut View Post
        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.
        M1 Garand rate of fire is quoted at 16-25 RPM (Wiki, but should be close). Just about any trained soldier could manage 15 RPM with a Lee-Enfield, and the record is 37 aimed shots in a "mad minute". AIUI 20-25 shots hitting the target per minute was considered typical for a trained soldier with an SMLE. Once you pick up the trick to it (cocking with thumb and forefinger, firing with your little finger) it becomes very fast indeed.
        Rule 1: Never trust a Frenchman
        Rule 2: Treat all members of the press as French

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
          Any 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.
          But 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.
          "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


          • #35
            [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


            • #36
              Originally posted by leibstandarte10 View Post
              But 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.
              By 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.
              In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

              Leibniz

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by glyn View Post
                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.
                Had the Germans had time to perfect the He-277, it would have been a serious bomber.

                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 Post
                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.
                That I am in complete agreement.

                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


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                  By 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.
                  I'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.
                  "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


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by leibstandarte10 View Post
                    I'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.
                    Cool, how would you say the Atomic bomb had more impact then? The Japanese were going to loose anyway. And the Russians didn't have heavy bombers, yet pushed the Germans back?
                    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                    Leibniz

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      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


                      • #41
                        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


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                          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. 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.
                          EFFECTIVELY speaking, we were the only ones with four-engined heavy bombers, because they can't be employed singly or in squadron strength to capitalize on their capability. FLEETS of 'em, and then we're talkin'.

                          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.
                          Okay, I relent on this point. The Garand was SO dam' good, it actually DOES out-strip the others in its class. I yield the point: It IS a player for the title.

                          I stick by my nomination, though.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                            Bombers schmomers
                            My proximity fuse kills your massed heavy bombers at a fraction of the cost.
                            Didn't happen, though. The bombers ALWAYS got through, and when they DID get through...Gotterdamerung, and whatever the Japanese word for 'end of the friggin' opera' is. Fuses, schmoozes.

                            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.
                            It's not a weapon; it's weapon PART.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by sappersgt View Post
                              Bombers, 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.
                              We may have different definitions of the word 'IMPACT', here. If you say that it means 'transformative', I guess this would be a good answer (although I don't think it's a weapon per se; I think it's an aid to the warfighter, without lethal potential in and of itself), because it certainly changed how the war would be fought.

                              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:
                              Attached Files

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Looks like a game board of Clue.

                                Probable answer: the Mighty Eighth Air Force, 24,000 feet over Bremen, with a B-17.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X