Most successful Weapon of WWII

**Bluesman** · 04 Jan 12,, 17:49

Originally Posted by Doktor

WWII weapon?

If those other non-answers are to be considered answers to the OP, then, YEAH, he was a weapon. Went on to be the most successful one, too.

**Doktor** · 04 Jan 12,, 17:51

Damn you could've name Ike or Patton

**Bluesman** · 04 Jan 12,, 18:09

Originally Posted by Doktor

Damn you could've name Ike or Patton

Patton: DEAD. Ike: undistinguished one-termer.

But REAGAN...unquestionably the most successful WWII-era 'weapon'.

At any rate, it was tongue-in-cheek, making fun of the silly, clever-boy answers, like 'Hershey bars', or 'Bill Mauldin', or 'the chick that recorded Lili Marlene'.

**tgbyhn** · 04 Jan 12,, 18:54

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Because if those other non-weapon things ARE proper answers, then is simply no other possible correct answer than Ronald Reagan. Carried 93 states in two run-away landslide elections as a two-term Titan of a President of the United States, the unchallenged hyper-power of the goddamned galaxy.

THAT, my friends, is SUCCESS, and nothing else is even close.

I win.

For all we know, the solar system is a nature preserve set aside by a galactic civilization.

Ronald Reagan could have very well been the president of the Sol System Galactic Park - and not even known it.

**Z timezone** · 08 Apr 12,, 10:27

In semi-automatic rifle.M1 is the best.
In submachine gun.PPSH41
In automatic rifle.there's only one
P51 F6F KING TIGER OR M26 BF109 yamto .

**Chogy** · 09 Apr 12,, 16:30

The Bf-109 was a fine airplane, but nowhere near the best. The 109's claim to fame was being an early, highly successful monoplane fighter. In other words, it was one of the first of the breed of fighters that came to dominate WW2. The first Spitfire was roughly contemporary.

The FW-190 is acknowledged to be superior to the 109, as was later Spitfires, the P-51, and very likely some of the radial engined fighters which saw use in the Pacific theater.

Agree with the P-51 and F6F as superb examples of fighter aircraft. Some of the later Japanese designs were also quite good, but none of them came in decent quantity, and pilot quality was poor. Pop culture focuses on the Zero, but the only thing the Zero really had going for it was agility and good range.

PPSH-41: Agreed, the Soviet submachine gun mentality, which saw vast quantities of high-capacity pistol caliber subguns issued en masse, served them well for the urban combat which ground so many units to dust on the Eastern front. The U.S. M3 "Grease gun" was a finely crafted piece compared to the crude stampings of the Russian variants, but they worked, and worked well. The USSR could probably make a dozen of them for the cost of a single Thompson subgun.

**astralis** · 09 Apr 12,, 16:58

i wanted to correct my old answer.

most successful weapon: atom bomb.

**USSWisconsin** · 09 Apr 12,, 17:05

So many factors to consider, each year there was a best weapon, do we consider weapons produced in quantity or just how good a weapon was on its individual merits?

The King Tiger and the JS-3 were superb heavy tanks, but they were produced in small numbers during the war and didn't change the course of the war. Aircraft like the FW-190, Hellcat and P-51 were great fighters - and all were produced in substantial numbers - enough to make a difference. The Me-262 was perhaps the ultimate fighter aircraft of WWII, but it entered service too late to make a difference. The B-29 was a superb bomber, it reached the war in very large numbers and rained unprecedented death and destruction on the Japanese - it was so good it remained in service for another decade (admittedly it was modified to the B-50). Some weapons were unique - like the V-2 missile, forerunner of the ICBM -it is frightening to consider how it might have been used had it been available sooner.

Some weapons were the best of their type throughout the war, the M1 Garand rifle for example. The Essex class carrier was another war winner, it sucked to be on the other side when these reached the battlefield AND they came in large numbers (for capital warships). Some great aircraft came on the tail end and didn't get a chance to make a difference, the previously mentioned Me262 and the F8F Bearcat. The Zero was one of the best carrier aircraft available at the beginning of the war, but by the end - it was long in the tooth. Of course the Iowa class battleship, and the awesome Yamato's were contenders for the most powerful battleships ever built, but battleships had already been replaced by the carrier, and their contributions were not as essential to winning the war as the carriers. The M26 Pershing was a fine tank, but only fielded about 50 machines - so made little difference - the Sherman had much greater impact. The Centurion could have been the Allied tiger, but didn't make it in time. The Jagdtiger was a formidable machine, but really didn't matter that much, the Panther was built in quantity and did matter. The T34 was an amazing tank in 1940, and with the T34-85, it continued to be a great tank all through the war, their production numbers were also impressive - armor, firepower and mobility were all outstanding - but crews, optics and radios were substandard by Western standards, somewhat reducing their effectiveness (these factors could easily be overlooked in a simple spec's comparison).

**Genosaurer** · 09 Apr 12,, 17:56

I've heard the WWII Imperial Japanese Army described as 'the pinnacle of the WWI army, three decades late', which I feel is a pretty cutting (and accurate) indictment of their capabilities and weaknesses. I've always viewed the A6M in similar fashion - it was king of the WWI acrobatic dogfighters, but it showed up for the wrong war. All the weaknesses that sent them down in droves over Guadalcanal and the Philippine Sea - poor or absent radios, lack of armor, focus on low-speed maneuverability, and a mediocre main gun - existed from the day the first one rolled off the factory floor; even the contemporary F4F (which tends, unfairly in my opinion, to be portrayed as an obsolete clunker in popular history) had all the modern "energy fighter" tools needed to take the Zero apart.

Despite its centerpiece role in a lot of narratives of the pacific theater, on the whole I would hesitate to call the Zero a successful weapon. (Unless you meant in the sense that it had successfully decimated the Japanese pilot corps by the middle of the war...)

**1979** · 09 Apr 12,, 18:31

Originally Posted by Genosaurer

I've always viewed the A6M in similar fashion - it was king of the WWI acrobatic dogfighters, but it showed up for the wrong war.

Not quite , the turning circle of a Zero is 3 times larger than a ww1 fighter .
it still retains some good horizontal maneuverability but just not comparable with ww1 dogfighters.

**USSWisconsin** · 09 Apr 12,, 20:03

Originally Posted by Genosaurer

I've heard the WWII Imperial Japanese Army described as 'the pinnacle of the WWI army, three decades late', which I feel is a pretty cutting (and accurate) indictment of their capabilities and weaknesses. I've always viewed the A6M in similar fashion - it was king of the WWI acrobatic dogfighters, but it showed up for the wrong war. All the weaknesses that sent them down in droves over Guadalcanal and the Philippine Sea - poor or absent radios, lack of armor, focus on low-speed maneuverability, and a mediocre main gun - existed from the day the first one rolled off the factory floor; even the contemporary F4F (which tends, unfairly in my opinion, to be portrayed as an obsolete clunker in popular history) had all the modern "energy fighter" tools needed to take the Zero apart.

Despite its centerpiece role in a lot of narratives of the pacific theater, on the whole I would hesitate to call the Zero a successful weapon. (Unless you meant in the sense that it had successfully decimated the Japanese pilot corps by the middle of the war...)

At the beginning of the war, the Zero was faster than the F4F, its armament of 2 x20mm and 2 x 7.62mm was effective and shot down plenty of F4F's, in the hands of a typical Japanese pilot, against a typical American pilot, it was an aircraft to be reckoned with - all aircraft have strengths and weaknesses, the Zero was no different. The US was very concerned about the Zero, until they got the F6F into the field, by mid-war, the Zero had been overmatched by the USN carrier pilots, even when flying the later F4F's. Of course in good hands, planes like the the F4F could master the Zero. There is no way the Zero was a WWI aircraft.

**1979** · 09 Apr 12,, 22:40

some documentary I had watched about German paratrooper demolition equipment and tactics.

The Fall Of Fort Eben Emael (Part 1/5) - YouTube

**Genosaurer** · 09 Apr 12,, 23:36

Even in the first six months of the war (when popular history has the elite Japanese carrier aviators sweeping the unprepared and poorly equipped Allies from the skies over the Pacific), the A6M never managed to achieve a positive combat exchange ratio against the F4F. Midway and the Guadalcanal campaign pushed the ratio to nearly 2:1 in the Wildcats' favor by the end of the first year.

Aside from its truly exceptional range, the Zero is a vastly overrated piece of equipment.

**Z timezone** · 10 Apr 12,, 06:39

Originally Posted by Chogy

The Bf-109 was a fine airplane, but nowhere near the best. The 109's claim to fame was being an early, highly successful monoplane fighter. In other words, it was one of the first of the breed of fighters that came to dominate WW2. The first Spitfire was roughly contemporary.

The FW-190 is acknowledged to be superior to the 109, as was later Spitfires, the P-51, and very likely some of the radial engined fighters which saw use in the Pacific theater.

Agree with the P-51 and F6F as superb examples of fighter aircraft. Some of the later Japanese designs were also quite good, but none of them came in decent quantity, and pilot quality was poor. Pop culture focuses on the Zero, but the only thing the Zero really had going for it was agility and good range.

PPSH-41: Agreed, the Soviet submachine gun mentality, which saw vast quantities of high-capacity pistol caliber subguns issued en masse, served them well for the urban combat which ground so many units to dust on the Eastern front. The U.S. M3 "Grease gun" was a finely crafted piece compared to the crude stampings of the Russian variants, but they worked, and worked well. The USSR could probably make a dozen of them for the cost of a single Thompson subgun.

That's the best what weapoonmaker can do .I mean in users'country.FW109 was the best suitbale for nazi.
You're right. no BF109

**1979** · 10 Apr 12,, 07:40

Originally Posted by Genosaurer

Even in the first six months of the war (when popular history has the elite Japanese carrier aviators sweeping the unprepared and poorly equipped Allies from the skies over the Pacific), the A6M never managed to achieve a positive combat exchange ratio against the F4F. Midway and the Guadalcanal campaign pushed the ratio to nearly 2:1 in the Wildcats' favor by the end of the first year.

Aside from its truly exceptional range, the Zero is a vastly overrated piece of equipment.

" In connection with the performance of the Zero fighter, any success we had against the Zero is not due to the performance of the airplane we fly, but is the result of comparatively poor marksmanship on the part of the Japanese, stupid mistakes made by a few of their pilots and superior marksmanship and teamwork on the part of some of our pilots ... "

John S. Thach.