Most underrated WWII weapon

[manstein39]

@Kreuzfeld:

@suprise:

How about oil and gasoline….or the radio

many agree that the T34 is the best tank of th war, it was cheaper, easier to operate and stronger than most german tanks. (leaving out the panther and tiger)

then how did the germans manage to beat them with tanks that where inferior on paper? Better radios. The radio almost nullified the advantage of the T34, it gave better coordination inside the units and made it easier to call in close airsupport, and in tankbattles nothing is more important.

Radio was not the only advantage enjoyed by German tanks vis a vis the Russians.  The Germans used a 5 man crew in all of their tanks from the PzKw. III through the King Tiger.  All Russian tanks had 3 man crews.

What that means is that you have a 3 man turret in the German tank with a much more efficient separation of duties.  You have a gunner, loader, and commander.  This allowed the Germans to achieve a significantly higher rate of fire than the Russians could ever dream to achieve.  Combined with vastly superior optics, communications equipment, and command and control and it is obvious why the “inferior” tanks of the Germans were so successful.

[Gargantua]

Yeah but all those “superior” components would break down more regularily…

and for every 1 German tank, there were 3 Russian tanks or more!

[manstein39]

@Gargantua:

Yeah but all those “superior” components would break down more regularily…

and for every 1 German tank, there were 3 Russian tanks or more!

When one looks at the economic base of the Axis powers, it becomes fairly obvious that they were virtually doomed to fail from the start.

The break-down myth is an interesting area to study actually (of course new designs had teething issues, which was true for the Russians and the US as well).  The biggest reasons for breakdowns of German armor, especially on the eastern front, was not unreliability of parts, but the distances that tanks were required to cover.  In the west in 1940 for example armor was moved to rail heads, and then deployed to battle near by.  The situation in Russia was completely different during the 1941 and 1942 summer campaigns.  In both campaigns Germany was on the attack, and due to the need to convert Russian rail to the standard European gauge, German armor and transport had to drive to the front.  This resulted in armor covering thousands of kilometers of territory on unimproved roads.  By the time any replacements reached the front they would have traveled hundreds of kilometers from the nearest rail head before firing a single shot in anger.

During this relentless advance, and thanks to the lack of rail transport, armor was not only covering more ground than it was intended to do, but maintenance/service intervals were stretched far beyond their breaking point.  All of this adds up to a calamity waiting to happen when it comes to available armor.  If you look at the daily logs of a Panzer division’s tank strength, which normally list available, short term repair, and long term repair status as well as reasons for each status (ex. mechanical breakdown), you will find that on average German armor suffered mechanical failures during offensive campaigns on a similar rate to other armies on the western front.

[Gargantua]

So it was the Mileage!  Interesting…

That said, there is a cultural arguement too… as Germans for example, did not own and operate their own cars as often as Americans did.  Thereby reducing the amount of mechanically inclined individuals who could exact repairs in the field.

[ABWorsham4]

There is no doubt that the Russian lack of infrastructure helped the Soviets recover from the shock of 1941. Connecting large cities was usally a single improved road. Which led to the break down in transportion. Germany started the 1941 attack on Russia with a large amount of captured French, British and various civilian vehicles, these vehicles did not hold up to the rough travels in the USSR and parts for repairs were hard to obtain. Much of the Russian rural areas looked the same in 1941 as it did in 1812.

[Last Jack]

@Herr:

The horse. Technically speaking not a weapon of course, but a vital logistic component during World War II, especially to Germany and the Soviet Union. Horses are often viewed as a relic from a different age of warfare, and while that may be true for modern armies of today, the WW2 situation was very different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_World_War_II

A great answer

[CWO Marc]

@Last:

@Herr:

The horse. Technically speaking not a weapon of course, but a vital logistic component during World War II, especially to Germany and the Soviet Union. Horses are often viewed as a relic from a different age of warfare, and while that may be true for modern armies of today, the WW2 situation was very different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_World_War_II

A great answer

Horses have the additional advantage that, in a dire supply situation, you can eat them (as the Germans cut off at Stalingrad ended up doing –raw, if I recall correctly).  So in this respect they’re superior to jeeps, which are tough to chew and have low nutritional value (other than their high iron content).

[aequitas-et-veritas]

@CWO:

@Last:

@Herr:

The horse. Technically speaking not a weapon of course, but a vital logistic component during World War II, especially to Germany and the Soviet Union. Horses are often viewed as a relic from a different age of warfare, and while that may be true for modern armies of today, the WW2 situation was very different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_World_War_II

A great answer

Horses have the additional advantage that, in a dire supply situation, you can eat them (as the Germans cut off at Stalingrad ended up doing –raw, if I recall correctly).  So in this respect they’re superior to jeeps, which are tough to chew and have low nutritional value (other than their high iron content).

Raw? _what do you think Germans are?…_they eat `em with salt and pepper ,cooked or slow cooked.
There is a Scandal right now in Europe, because Horsemeat was found in TV dinners. They came from England and had been found in German Food like TV Dinner and in Netherland, too.

[Gargantua]

I actually wouldn’t mind trying horsemeat.

But my local Ikea says they are horsemeat free :S

[Kreuzfeld]

horsemeat is really boring imo, in norway we have horsemeat sausages in every groceries store.  Also pretty sure the main issue isn’t that it is horse in the food, more that there is horse, when the packaging says otherwise, makes you wonder how many corners they cut, and what quality meat they put in there….

[manstein39]

@Kreuzfeld:

horsemeat is really boring imo, in norway we have horsemeat sausages in every groceries store.  Also pretty sure the main issue isn’t that it is horse in the food, more that there is horse, when the packaging says otherwise, makes you wonder how many corners they cut, and what quality meat they put in there….

That’s the real issue IMHO.  I don’t understand what anyone’s aversion to eating horse meat is.  Its an animal, just like a cow is an animal.  What’s the difference?

[aequitas-et-veritas]

The Problem is that people don´t like to eat a Animal what is more or less considered a Pet; Dogs, Cats etc.
While Horse is not neccessary in the same group (Pet) People still consider Horse as a Pet because they take it for a ride etc., bla bla bla…

On the other Hand ,People don´t like to eat Horse because the Urin runs through the whole Body (System) of the Horse.

And last but not least, like Kreuzfeld allready explained it perfectly, If you wanna eat Cow, Cow meat should be in it, or LABEL it correctly!!

[BJCard]

in 1939, the Submarine was most probably the most underrated weapon at least by the Japanese.  The Aircraft Carrier was underrated by everyone.

In hindsight, the most underrated weapon was not a physical weapon at all- it was the tactics of mobile warfare and combined arms.

[221B Baker Street]

I think that a declaration of the most underrated weapon has an implicit assumption that WWII was essentially static in terms of weaponry and tactics.  This is most definitely not the case; both tactics and technology were constantly changing during the war such that I find it difficult to compare the value of individual weapons.

For example, lets take just fighter planes.  At the beginning of the war, either the German BF-109 or British Spitfighter was the best fighter (depending on who you ask).  However the BF-109 was replaced by the FW190 (generally considered superior to the BF109) and later by the incomparable ME262.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke_Wulf_Fw_190  :

When the Fw 190 started flying operationally over France in August 1941, it quickly proved itself to be superior in all but turn radius to the Royal Air Force’s main front-line fighter, the Spitfire Mk. V.[1] The 190 wrested air superiority away from the RAF until the introduction of the vastly improved Spitfire Mk. IX in July 1942 restored qualitative parity.[2] The Fw 190 made its air combat debut on the Eastern Front in November/December 1942; though Soviet pilots considered the Bf 109 the greater threat, the Fw 190 made a significant impact. The fighter and its pilots proved just as capable as the Bf 109 in aerial combat, and in the opinion of German pilots who flew both, provided increased firepower and manoeuvrability at low to medium altitude.

Which of these three fighters had the most impact?  In 1939, obviously the BF109.  In 1943, probably the FW190 (though there were still many BF109s being flown by Germany).  In March 1945, obviously the ME262 because any other German fighter would be quickly shot out of the sky.  In 1939 I would have to say the BF109 was essential for the Germans, but in 1945 the essential fighter was the ME262 (too bad for Germany they couldn’t make enough).

Tactics changed also.  In 1939, the British were fighting over southern England so that they tried to lengthen and prolong any dogfights as a tactic knowing that the German BF109 would have to leave or risk running out of fuel.  In 1945, allied fighters generally prefered to shoot at ME262 fighters when they were on the ground.  They commonly followed (when they could) the ME262 planes back to their runway and then proceeded to strafe it when it landed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262  :

Allied pilots soon found the only reliable way of dealing with the jets, as with the even faster Me 163 Komet rocket fighters, was to attack them on the ground and during takeoff or landing. Luftwaffe airfields identified as jet bases were frequently bombed by medium bombers, and Allied fighters patrolled over the fields to attack jets trying to land.

That said, I really like the answer of “horse”.

[Gargantua]

Allied pilots soon found the only reliable way of dealing with the jets, as with the even faster Me 163 Komet rocket fighters, was to attack them on the ground and during takeoff or landing. Luftwaffe airfields identified as jet bases were frequently bombed by medium bombers, and Allied fighters patrolled over the fields to attack jets trying to land.

Grumbles

Spawn Campers…

[Witt]

221B Baker Street: fantastic post.
Best I have read in a while.
Thank you.

[221B Baker Street]

Wittman,

To add to my previous post, consider the role of the Thatch weave fighter tactic in the Pacific:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thach_Weave

This short article is well worth reading, I’ll just provide one quote from it:

Marines flying Wildcats from Henderson Field on Guadalcanal also adopted the Thach Weave. The Japanese Zero pilots flying out of Rabaul were initially confounded by the tactic.
Saburō Sakai, the famous Japanese ace, relates their reaction to the Thach Weave when they encountered Guadalcanal Wildcats using it:[1]
For the first time Lt. Commander Tadashi Nakajima encountered what was to become a famous double-team maneuver on the part of the enemy. Two Wildcats jumped on the commander’s plane. He had no trouble in getting on the tail of an enemy fighter, but never had a chance to fire before the Grumman’s team-mate roared at him from the side. Nakajima was raging when he got back to Rabaul; he had been forced to dive and run for safety.

Here, a simple tactical change resulted in the Japanese zero being the superior fighter (due to its speed and manuverability) to being immediately inferior (due to its inability to sustain damage - the very thing that gave it speed) to the slower and less manuverable (but very durable) American fighters.

[BJCard]

Thought part of the problem with Japan aircraft was that they had small numbers of ‘expert’ pilots whereas the US rotated their pilots back to training schools so we had a large number of ‘good’ pilots.

So when the ‘expert’ Japanese pilots were shot down they were replaced by ‘newbies’ that could not compete with the scores of ‘good’ US pilots.

[Gargantua]

Speaking of ‘expert’ Japanese pilots

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroyoshi_Nishizawa

Hiroyoshi_Nishizawa, arguably the best Japanese Pilot of the war, was shot down as a passenger on a transport plane!

[ABWorsham4]

Japan postion in the late 1930 and early 40’s demanded light weight planes.

In the 30’s the best Japanese engines could generate 800 horsepower. To build a fighter able to compete with the West any item that added weight and drag was scrappped from the drawing board. The Zero was clever designers attempt to compensate for economic disadvantages.

Being the the most basic figher plane in WWII, it was the easiest to fly, but the most dangerous to go into battle with.