Europa Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 What was in your oppinion the single most important equipment during the waron any side? Mostly interested in equipment that made a positive difference for the side tat used it. Like the T-34. Cost efficient, strong and fast. This means that a thing like the king tiger don't qualify since it, in my oppinion, did cost to much to manufacture compared to the impact it had on the battlefield. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 For Some Reason the P51 Mustang comes to mind... Or the Corsair Was there not ONE decisive Allied WWII fighter that was supposed to have turned the tide? What about the B17, produce in LARGE numbers yes? I am not sure of the "exact" meaning and nature of the question? -tom w Originally posted by Europa: What was in your oppinion the single most important equipment during the waron any side? Mostly interested in equipment that made a positive difference for the side tat used it. Like the T-34. Cost efficient, strong and fast. This means that a thing like the king tiger don't qualify since it, in my oppinion, did cost to much to manufacture compared to the impact it had on the battlefield. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Europa Posted January 3, 2005 Author Share Posted January 3, 2005 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: For Some Reason the P51 Mustang comes to mind... Or the Corsair Was there not ONE decisive Allied WWII fighter that was supposed to have turned the tide? What about the B17, produce in LARGE numbers yes? I am not sure of the "exact" meaning and nature of the question? -tom w </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Europa: What was in your oppinion the single most important equipment during the waron any side? Mostly interested in equipment that made a positive difference for the side tat used it. Like the T-34. Cost efficient, strong and fast. This means that a thing like the king tiger don't qualify since it, in my oppinion, did cost to much to manufacture compared to the impact it had on the battlefield. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave H Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 For the US, I'd say the almost 3,300 Liberty and Victory ships. Everything the Army and the Marines accomplished on land was made possible by this fleet of cheap, roomy, mass-produced cargo ships. A single ship could carry 9,000 tons of cargo. Put in other terms, one ship carried up to 2,840 jeeps or 440 tanks or 230 million rounds of rifle ammunition. That's a pretty good return for a ship costing about $2,000,000. Of course, Eisenhower said the Higgins LCVPs were the weapons that made open-beach invasions possible for the Allies and changed the strategy of the war. He seems like someone in a good position to make this call. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DzrtFox Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Don't forget about the American infantry weapons. I have seen both the M-1 Garand and the Thompson SMG referred to as "the guns that won the war." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DzrtFox Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 I guess I should add though that infantry weapons would've been useless without air superiority and such a huge advantage in tank numbers... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oi_you_nutter Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 deuce and a half truck used by all the allies everywhere 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Transport of all varieties - hands down. The war would still have been won if the US were using Springfields IMO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 U.S. and British trucks have the most important role in winning the war. The T-34 is not bad either. The MG-34 in the light squad role was important for the early war, the other sides were just not getting what huge advantage it is to have real MGs pop up everywhere where a squad can go. The Stuka had a role in the Blitzkrieg, too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yacinator Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 The Uboat and the Liberty ship. The Uboat came <tt> that </tt> close to starving out the Brits. The Liberty ship turned back the tide of defeat and deliverd food and weapons to the battlefield. The Liberty ships were manufactured in such great numbers that the Germans couldn't sink them fast enough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Oh boy! Another useless popularity contest. I vote for the Sturmgewehr 44. As was demonstrated in the CMBB forum, the issue of small arms made all the difference in the world, and the world's first assault rifle helped the Germans to win the war! Truly, the most significant piece of equipment ever to be fielded. If it wasn't for those nutty Nazis and the MP44, I'd probably be speaking English today. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: the world's first assault rifleer... but it wasn't The Italian Cei-Rigotti (developed in the 1890s) was... didn't help them (ok, so it never saw military service) The Russians did get their Federov Avtomat (1916) into milirtary service... hmmm, they did win the war... Best weapon of WW2? Easy... the men carrying the rifles, driving the tanks, flying the planes, sailing the boats... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Originally posted by Berlichtingen: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: the world's first assault rifleer... but it wasn't The Italian Cei-Rigotti (developed in the 1890s) was... didn't help them (ok, so it never saw military service) The Russians did get their Federov Avtomat (1916) into milirtary service... hmmm, they did win the war... Best weapon of WW2? Easy... the men carrying the rifles, driving the tanks, flying the planes, sailing the boats... </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 What a bloody relief! I thought this might be a thread devoted to Australians discussing their 'wedding tackle'... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DzrtFox Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Berlichtingen, I think you came up with the best answer yet... None of that equipment would've been worth a hill of beans if it weren't for the men using it. Good points too about the trucks. I read once that at the beginning of the Battle of the Bulge we transported over 250,000 men into the Ardennes in a week's time. Now THAT is what I call mobility. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Originally posted by DzrtFox: Berlichtingen, I think you came up with the best answer yet... Don't encourage him, Dessert Fox. He's damn near insufferable as it is... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: What about the Pederson device on the Springfield? ... Now, did these guns you mention have kurz ammunition? The Pederson device doesn't count cause it used full size rifle ammo. (Trick question.) The Cei-Rigotti used a 6.5 mm round (no info on length, but that's not a full power rifle round for the 1890's). 730 mps, selective fire, 900 rps The Federov Avtomat used the Japanese Arisaka 6.5x50mm rifle cartridge. Also selective fire and chambering an underpowered rifle round As for the Pederson device, didn't that just turn a bolt action rifle into an under powered semi auto rifle? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_the_wino Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I vote for the Sturmgewehr 44.Ah, Herr Grog Dorosh you sackless, monkey-touching, sister-hunping mime what you fail to put into perspective is the squad level tactics that exploit the use of such weapons. Prior to WW2, and in the opening days of, these weapons would have meant squat when standing in a line 100-150 yards from you opponent, slowly marching towards your foe. :mad: :mad: :mad: What you put forward is a piece of equipment AND a fundamental shift in tactical doctrine...doncha tink? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leopard_2 Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 A question that can't really be answered. For one, the wording "important equipment" more or less implies that German equipment is not included as they didn't win so their equipment "wasn't as important". And even then there's a world of difference between "effective" and "good"... Tanks The Sherman was a decisive factor because it could be mass-produced in previously unknown quantities, but I wouldn't dream of calling it a good piece of equipment compared to its peers on the tank battlefield (where I'd look at the T-34 and the Panther). Fighters The P51 was the most decisive airplane in the end, but what would have been if the Me262 would have had numbers, fuel, air superiority over it's airfields, and the proper raw materials for its engines (i.e., if Germany hadn't effectively lost the war already when it appeared)? The Fw190 wasn't that bad either. Bombers I have a strong dislike of the whole issue of "strategic bombing" so I'll gracefully skip the issue and simply give an honorable mention to the Ju87 (for precision) and the Ju88 (for versatility, doubling as night fighter, air destroyer, transport, ...). Infantry Weapons The Sturmgewehr44 and the MG42 were easy to produce and handle, rugged, and of excellent performance. Sorry but I don't see any Allied weapons close to them. Ships The Liberty ships had quite some impact, yes, but my vote goes to the Bismark class battleships (i.e., the Bismark and the Tirpitz). Just two of them, and neither made it into the open sea, but look at the panic they instilled and how many ressources they did bind... On the Allied side, I'd add aircraft carriers, as without them (the Arc Royal, actually) the Bismark might even have gotten away. They also won the US naval war in the pacific. Misc Dry-cell batteries. They enabled the US forces to give a radio to just about everyone, an advantage not to be ignored. The 8.8 gun, for versality and the "bring 'em on!" morale boost it gave the troops. Winner Radar. It won the Battle of Britain, and it defeated the submarines, which - if it weren't for radar and sonar - would have had a heyday among those cheap Liberty ships with their not-so-cheap cargo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Originally posted by Leopard_2: Tanks The Sherman was a decisive factor because it could be mass-produced in previously unknown quantities, but I wouldn't dream of calling it a good piece of equipment compared to its peers on the tank battlefield (where I'd look at the T-34 and the Panther). Can't agree with this - the Sherman pretty much out-performed any T34 built at hte same time. It had better layout, better equipment (radio, sights, etc), a gun that was at least as good (75 vs 76, 76 vs 85) for most purposes (the 85 prolly had a better HE round than the 76), and it's armour was at least as good too IIRC - remmber the T34's went with 45-47mm front hull armour for the whole war - significantly less than any mark of Sherman! The Panther was, of course, better than both! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skolman Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 What about the nuclear Bombs dropped on Japan ? They kept the russians at bay after the war also... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leopard_2 Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 @ Skolman: Same issue as strategic bombers (of that time): they target civilians, or at least, consider large numbers of civilian deaths "acceptable collateral damage". As such, I deny them the "honor" to be considered weapons of war. That would be like calling pox and measles the most important equipment of the Indian Wars... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Originally posted by Leopard_2: As such, I deny them the "honor" to be considered weapons of war.You have a truly Victorian view of war. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skolman Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 My Englisch isn´t that good so can you tell me what "pox and measles" are ? Sorry, The Skolman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Now, did these guns you mention have kurz ammunition? The Pederson device doesn't count cause it used full size rifle ammo. (Trick question.) Now that is the most important question, since after the war, only the Russians chose to use lower caliber rifle rounds, ultimately feeding the AK-47. The western countries lumbered around with the severely overpowered 7.62x51 round on their new rifles, until the development of the 5.56 round by the... Americans? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.