Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Top 10 Inventions Of WWII


  • Please log in to reply
156 replies to this topic

#1 Herroberst

Herroberst

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 787 posts

Posted 09 February 2006 - 07:12 AM

<span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:100%">What were the best inventions of WWII</span>
  • 0
Coir a glaive

Nemo me impune lacessit

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

#2 Kitty

Kitty

    Very Senior Member

  • Banned
  • 2,138 posts

Posted 09 February 2006 - 10:31 AM

Come on Oberst! Where do you start? For me it's anything by Barnes Wallis. Just take your pick.
:blink:
  • 0

#3 Gnomey

Gnomey

    World Travelling Doctor?

  • Registered Users
  • 1,128 posts

Posted 09 February 2006 - 10:45 AM

There are lots. As Mossie said anything by Barnes Wallis, also Werner Von Braun and the V1 and V2. Although developed before the war it was not perfected until the end of the war; the jet engine. There are others almost too numerous to list, of course the is the atomic bomb but I don't think that it is the best invention of the war.
  • 0
Posted Image
"Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few"
Sir Winston Chuchill, Summer 1940

"To him the people of Britain and the free world owe largely the way of life they enjoy today"
Ensciption on Hugh Dowding's (AOC Fighter Command 1936-1940) Statue in London

Moderator: Aircraft of World War 2 Forum - A Warbird Forum

#4 Max (UK)

Max (UK)

    Member

  • Registered Users
  • PipPipPip
  • 43 posts

Posted 09 February 2006 - 11:07 AM

(Herr Oberst @ Feb 9 2006, 06:12 AM) [post=45453]<span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:100%">What were the best inventions of WWII</span>
[/b]

Hollywood films.
  • 0

#5 spidge

spidge

    Very Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 11,308 posts
  • LocationMelbourne - Australia

Posted 09 February 2006 - 11:14 AM

(mosquito617 @ Feb 9 2006, 08:31 PM) [post=45460]Come on Oberst! Where do you start? For me it's anything by Barnes Wallis. Just take your pick.
:blink:
[/b]

Invention from necessity. Everyone pulling in the same direction for a change.

Many things were on the horizon and quickly brought to completion from necessity.

Radar: Working effectively

Sonar:

Penicillin invented by Howard Florey & Ernst Chain as a "practical" antibiotic. (My tip for number one as it saved lives not only during the war but continued to give life to all peoples of the world)

Ballistic Missiles, Atomic Weapons, Jet Aircraft,

Norden bomb sight, Bazooka and Panzerschreck Rocket propelled grenade, PIAT Anti-tank weapon.

Tank destroyer, Flail tanks, Flame tank, Submersible Tank.

Glide bomb, V-1 flying bomb, V-2 rocket, Katyusha rocket

HEAT and HESH Anti Armour warheads.

Synthetic Rubber

Owen sub machine gun

Fallschirmjägergewehr 42 (FG 42) - Sturmgewehr 44

Proximity fuze for shells, bombs and rockets.
  • 0


Spidge,


My project is the collection of over 11,400+ RAAF Headstone/Memorial photos located in 70 countries during WW2 and the 360+ from WW1. Can you assist? Do you know someone that can?
-------------------------------------------------------
My Signature photo is the Battalion history of WW2 and the patch of the 2/8th battalion. (Blood & Bandages)
My Avatar is my dad, Gunner Frederick Edwin Swallow "C" Company, 2/8th Battalion, 19th Brigade, 6th Division AIF. Critically wounded on the first attack on Tobruk, January 21st 1941.



 


#6 Kiwiwriter

Kiwiwriter

    Very Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 1,787 posts

Posted 09 February 2006 - 03:13 PM

I would go with penicillin and anti-biotics, because they (along with radar, electronics, computers, modularized construction, 100 octane fuel, jeeps, landing craft, and combined operations) were one of the few World War II innovations that had a positive effect on humanity.

Penicillin and anti-biotics saved millions of lives, and turned once-fatal epidemic diseases into minor nuisances.
  • 0
"My intensity is intense." -- Roger Clemens

"We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender." -- Winston Churchill.

"I am not a hero. The heroes are all dead. I am a survivor." -- Sgt. William Guarnere, Easy Company, 506th Parachute Regiment, 101st Airborne Division.

Check out my little contributions to World War II history at my web pages:

World War II Plus 55

or

http://davidhlippman...illguarnere.com

#7 jimbotosome

jimbotosome

    Discharged

  • Banned
  • 927 posts

Posted 09 February 2006 - 08:39 PM

(Kiwiwriter @ Feb 9 2006, 09:13 AM) [post=45480]I would go with penicillin and anti-biotics, because they (along with radar, electronics, computers, modularized construction, 100 octane fuel, jeeps, landing craft, and combined operations) were one of the few World War II innovations that had a positive effect on humanity.

Penicillin and anti-biotics saved millions of lives, and turned once-fatal epidemic diseases into minor nuisances.
[/b]

I agree with Kiwi and spidge. The count of how many lives it saved has to considered with the compounded perspective of how many German's died from minor battlefield injuries due to infection, Germans that might have returned to the battlefield to kill more. Otto Carius laments that Germany didn't have penicillin like the allies and how they lost so many due to things that anti-biotics could have cured. Without the boys from "down under" there is a good chance if not a probability that sapper would have died from his wounds from infection alone.

It is very ironic that in the mind boggling plethora of innovations, that range from the obvious to the sublime, that were invented by American, British and German ingenuity that the biggest contribution to WWII came from one of the least populous and therefore least likely members of the Grand Alliance. Seems like the History Channel could give it it’s “props”.

BTW Kiwi, 100 octane fuel or AvGas came from the late 1920s. Jimbo Doolittle working for Shell Oil pushed them to develop it that as well as create its markets during his racing days. It opened the door for the new generation of high performance aircraft developed in the mid to late 1930s.


Folks, I am a little disappointed that no one mentioned "Spam"! (though actually invented two years before the war). According to Krushchev, "Without SPAM, we wouldn't have been able to feed our army". Not to mention is post war contribution to Monty Python's success!!! :D
  • 0

#8 Herroberst

Herroberst

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 787 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 12:53 AM

Well see when I posted very specific posts, no one replied so I posted a broad topic which people could discuss so let me refine the question.

<span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:100%">What were the top ten inventions of WWII?</span>
  • 0
Coir a glaive

Nemo me impune lacessit

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

#9 spidge

spidge

    Very Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 11,308 posts
  • LocationMelbourne - Australia

Posted 10 February 2006 - 02:23 AM

Hi Herr Oberst,

My number one still applies.

Do you want us to name 10 each or are you going to put them all together and have a vote?


1. Penicillin invented & developed by Howard Florey & Ernst Chain as a "practical" antibiotic.


Go for it members as it would be an interesting result.
  • 0


Spidge,


My project is the collection of over 11,400+ RAAF Headstone/Memorial photos located in 70 countries during WW2 and the 360+ from WW1. Can you assist? Do you know someone that can?
-------------------------------------------------------
My Signature photo is the Battalion history of WW2 and the patch of the 2/8th battalion. (Blood & Bandages)
My Avatar is my dad, Gunner Frederick Edwin Swallow "C" Company, 2/8th Battalion, 19th Brigade, 6th Division AIF. Critically wounded on the first attack on Tobruk, January 21st 1941.



 


#10 Herroberst

Herroberst

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 787 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 04:05 AM

Hi Geoff, I am partial to penicillin being one of the most important developments. Would you call it an invention or a discovery? I don't know alot about medicines.

Let's try everyone respond with their top ten list of WWII inventions.

Should prove interesting.
  • 0
Coir a glaive

Nemo me impune lacessit

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

#11 spidge

spidge

    Very Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 11,308 posts
  • LocationMelbourne - Australia

Posted 10 February 2006 - 04:50 AM

(Herr Oberst @ Feb 10 2006, 02:05 PM) [post=45524]Hi Geoff, I am partial to penicillin being one of the most important developments. Would you call it an invention or a discovery? I don't know alot about medecines.

Let's try everyone respond with their top ten list of WWII inventions.

Should prove interesting.
[/b]

1. Penicillin - Invention of the development process and practical use of.

2. Radar

3. Electronics in General

4. Jet Aircraft

5. Computer Technology

6. Synthetic Rubber (more produced than the real thing)

The above as they were inventions that altered the world post war as well.

7. Sonar

8. Jeep

9. Nordon Bomb Sight (With this they could at least nearly hit their target)

10. Atomic Bomb ( More so the technology for the creation of the nuclear age)
  • 0


Spidge,


My project is the collection of over 11,400+ RAAF Headstone/Memorial photos located in 70 countries during WW2 and the 360+ from WW1. Can you assist? Do you know someone that can?
-------------------------------------------------------
My Signature photo is the Battalion history of WW2 and the patch of the 2/8th battalion. (Blood & Bandages)
My Avatar is my dad, Gunner Frederick Edwin Swallow "C" Company, 2/8th Battalion, 19th Brigade, 6th Division AIF. Critically wounded on the first attack on Tobruk, January 21st 1941.



 


#12 Gnomey

Gnomey

    World Travelling Doctor?

  • Registered Users
  • 1,128 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 08:36 AM

I would agree with that list Geoff. I would also have somewhere (although probably and number 11) the V2.
  • 0
Posted Image
"Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few"
Sir Winston Chuchill, Summer 1940

"To him the people of Britain and the free world owe largely the way of life they enjoy today"
Ensciption on Hugh Dowding's (AOC Fighter Command 1936-1940) Statue in London

Moderator: Aircraft of World War 2 Forum - A Warbird Forum

#13 sapper

sapper

    WW2 Veteran

  • Veterans
  • 3,316 posts
  • LocationSeaside town Dorset

Posted 10 February 2006 - 10:48 AM

There is no doubt that one invention had a terrific effect on the war. They came under the collective and general term of:

"Hobarts Funnies" The were mainly "AVRE" Armoured Vehicles Royal Engineers,To see the real value of "The Funnies" look them up...What a great shame that the Americans spurned the use of the "Funnies" they were offered them.. For they would have drastically reduced their casualties.

With the American Gung Ho attitude, they thought that they would sweep all before them. It did niot turn out that way, and I think that their refusal to use the "Funnies" was a great mistake. and one that they paid a great price for.
Sapper
  • 0

#14 spidge

spidge

    Very Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 11,308 posts
  • LocationMelbourne - Australia

Posted 10 February 2006 - 12:11 PM

(sapper @ Feb 10 2006, 08:48 PM) [post=45555]There is no doubt that one invention had a terrific effect on the war. They came under the collective and general term of:

"Hobarts Funnies" The were mainly "AVRE" Armoured Vehicles Royal Engineers,To see the real value of "The Funnies" look them up...What a great shame that the Americans spurned the use of the "Funnies" they were offered them.. For they would have drastically reduced their casualties.

With the American Gung Ho attitude, they thought that they would sweep all before them. It did niot turn out that way, and I think that their refusal to use the "Funnies" was a great mistake. and one that they paid a great price for.
Sapper
[/b]

One of these Sapper?

[attachment=1507:attachment]

Armored Vehicle Royal Engineers. A Petard 29cm caliber mortar was fitted to turret. Fired 40lb bomb 80 yards. 180 available by D-Day. 1st Assault Brigade of 79th Armored Division. 574 more were converted. Some were equipped to care fascines and CIRD for mine-clearing.

The development of the 79th Armoured Division was strongly encouraged and supported by General Montgomery as he prepared to assault through Generalfeldmarshall Rommel's defenses again, this time the Atlantic Wall in Normandy. General Montgomery was determined to be better prepared for the tricks of the Desert Fox'

The pioneers on D-Day than he had been at El Alamein. It should be noted, that some historians attribute the disparity between British and American casualties on D-Day to the decision by General Omar Bradley to use primarily dismounted engineers to breach the beach obstacles, while the 'funnies' of the 79th Armoured Division were able to execute a mounted breach of the Atlantic Wall".
  • 0


Spidge,


My project is the collection of over 11,400+ RAAF Headstone/Memorial photos located in 70 countries during WW2 and the 360+ from WW1. Can you assist? Do you know someone that can?
-------------------------------------------------------
My Signature photo is the Battalion history of WW2 and the patch of the 2/8th battalion. (Blood & Bandages)
My Avatar is my dad, Gunner Frederick Edwin Swallow "C" Company, 2/8th Battalion, 19th Brigade, 6th Division AIF. Critically wounded on the first attack on Tobruk, January 21st 1941.



 


#15 jimbotosome

jimbotosome

    Discharged

  • Banned
  • 927 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 01:13 PM

(spidge @ Feb 10 2006, 06:11 AM) [post=45556]
Armored Vehicle Royal Engineers. A Petard 29cm caliber mortar was fitted to turret. Fired 40lb bomb 80 yards. 180 available by D-Day. 1st Assault Brigade of 79th Armored Division. 574 more were converted. Some were equipped to care fascines and CIRD for mine-clearing.

The development of the 79th Armoured Division was strongly encouraged and supported by General Montgomery as he prepared to assault through Generalfeldmarshall Rommel's defenses again, this time the Atlantic Wall in Normandy. General Montgomery was determined to be better prepared for the tricks of the Desert Fox'

The pioneers on D-Day than he had been at El Alamein. It should be noted, that some historians attribute the disparity between British and American casualties on D-Day to the decision by General Omar Bradley to use primarily dismounted engineers to breach the beach obstacles, while the 'funnies' of the 79th Armoured Division were able to execute a mounted breach of the Atlantic Wall".
[/b]

If the American's couldn't get Shermans ashore because of the low tide and high waves at the time they attacked, then why would anyone think you could have gotten a behemoth like that ashore? It's range was only 80 yards so it can't suppress the enemy and it is therefore a sitting duck to the artillery and anti-tank fire or even Panzershreks. I don't see its benefit. I mean the Germans would have simply blown their tracks off and created an even bigger obstacle since they needn't fear it's ability to range them. Am I missing something here?
  • 0

#16 angie999

angie999

    Very Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 1,312 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 01:51 PM

(jimbotosome @ Feb 10 2006, 12:13 PM) [post=45559] If the American's couldn't get Shermans ashore because of the low tide and high waves at the time they attacked, then why would anyone think you could have gotten a behemoth like that ashore? It's range was only 80 yards so it can't suppress the enemy and it is therefore a sitting duck to the artillery and anti-tank fire or even Panzershreks. I don't see its benefit. I mean the Germans would have simply blown their tracks off and created an even bigger obstacle since they needn't fear it's ability to range them. Am I missing something here?
[/b]

Yes, you are missing something. The British used them and they worked. Their descendants are still found today in the engineer components of armoured divisions.

The AVRE with the Petard mortar was basically a Churchill tank. They were not adapted for DD drive, so they landed via LCTs. Their role was to deliver a demolition charge to fortified positions and they were very effective in doing this. The British continued to use them to attack fortifications until the end of the war.
  • 0
Angie

"History is lived forward but it is written in retrospect. We know the end before we consider the beginning and we can never wholly recapture what it was like to know the beginning only." C V Wedgewood

#17 Glider

Glider

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 201 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:22 PM

One invention that was used in WW2, that isn't used today, but could be of significant benefit.

Synthetic Oil

Germany produced many thousands of tons of Synthetic Oil using coal. Today countries like the USA and definately Europe are depending on the Middle East countries for oil while we have large stocks of coal.

With modern technology we should be able to produce it more efficiently than Germany did

Just a thought
  • 0

#18 jimbotosome

jimbotosome

    Discharged

  • Banned
  • 927 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 07:50 PM

(angie999 @ Feb 10 2006, 07:51 AM) [post=45561]
Yes, you are missing something. The British used them and they worked. Their descendants are still found today in the engineer components of armoured divisions.

The AVRE with the Petard mortar was basically a Churchill tank. They were not adapted for DD drive, so they landed via LCTs. Their role was to deliver a demolition charge to fortified positions and they were very effective in doing this. The British continued to use them to attack fortifications until the end of the war.
[/b]


The issue here was why didn’t the Americans want them. The inference was that they were just gung-ho idiots.

As far as the DDay invasion you(they?) are comparing apples to oranges. The British invasion was completely different from the American invasion. The British invasion happened much later and with higher tide than the American attack along with massive pre-bombardment from air and navy. The context was not “did it work for the British”, but was it the best solution for the Americans. For that matter American engineers blowing up the traps worked for the Americans even out in the water, and worked terrifically on shore once they got some armor on the beach, so that does not address the article’s claim that it cost the US in the invasion. If you can’t get a Sherman on the shore you can’t get a “AVRE” ashore.

A Sherman is lighter than a Churchill and the Americans couldn’t get them to shore in the LCTs either because they got hung up in the underwater obstacles which the AVRE could not have helped move either, they didn’t simply rely on DDs which were overwhelmed by the high seas at early light. The AVREs would have been scrap iron had you have even got it ashore on Omaha early in the morning of June 6th.

But in the context of the value of a fortification destroyer, there were other solutions that worked much better. For instance the M7s, M8s, M12s (mobile long toms), M37s M43s, T92/93s most of which could fire from 16 miles direct or howitzer style rounds from 105-240mm. I have yet to hear (until to day) anyone make an argument that the US had trouble destroying fixed fortifications. Patton crossed the Siegfried Line in three places just rolling the M7s up close enough to the lines for direct fire and letting them quickly blow the fortifications to pieces. He didn’t even have to wait for the heavy stuff. Not to mention the convenience of precision air strikes. All of these weapons could destroy the heaviest fixed fortifications from a distance without having to take out the German heavy armor first. The “Funnies” had to fear mines, anti-tank guns, other tanks and even infantry hidden in the bushes with panzershreks and panzerfausts. Why would the Americans have needed it in any scenario over any other type of vehicle in their inventory that would warrant an inference that they were over-zealous and too stupid to realize it? The American strategy was mobile warfare. It sounds like a liability to me unless you are waging tank on tank static warfare. That’s what I don’t get.
  • 0

#19 Herroberst

Herroberst

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 787 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 11:44 PM

Jim, I think we dropped our DD tanks too far out and they sunk in the swells. That's why there wasn't any armour at Omaha to support the initial landings.

Thanks for bringing up the funnies Sapper.

I think the crocodile would have been particularly effective.

I remember hearing that the US commanders kid of hurumphed at the funnies. They were highly effective for the British...oops we should have used them. They would be vulnerable to heavy AT fire...but would have overall made the op more effective.
  • 0
Coir a glaive

Nemo me impune lacessit

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

#20 Run N Gun

Run N Gun

    Discharged

  • Banned
  • 138 posts

Posted 11 February 2006 - 12:02 AM

You guys think the M1 garand should be in there? the top 10 i mean.
  • 0
War is hell, but war is also mystery and terror and. In truth war is also beauty. You stare out at tracer rounds unwinding through the dark.The fluid symmetries of troops on the move. The sheets of metal-fire down from a gunship, the illumination rounds, It's astonishing. You hate it,yes, but your eyes do not. Any battle or bombing raid has absolute moral indifference- a powerful beauty. and a true war story will tell the truth about this, though the truth is ugly

#21 jimbotosome

jimbotosome

    Discharged

  • Banned
  • 927 posts

Posted 11 February 2006 - 12:33 AM

(Herr Oberst @ Feb 10 2006, 05:44 PM) [post=45584]Jim, I think we dropped our DD tanks too far out and they sunk in the swells. That's why there wasn't any armour at Omaha to support the initial landings.

Thanks for bringing up the funnies Sapper.

I think the crocodile would have been particularly effective.

I remember hearing that the US commanders kid of hurumphed at the funnies. They were highly effective for the British...oops we should have used them. They would be vulnerable to heavy AT fire...but would have overall made the op more effective.
[/b]


Agreed on the DDs. But what does that have to do with missing an opportunity? We had LCTs too. Most of them got caught up on the underwater obsticles of morning invasion. Shermans could have defended themselves. An M7 could have but artillery rounds straight through the openings of the fortresses without even being completely on the beach. Roll up a small number of M7s off of the LCTs and the Germans would have fled the bunkers even before the infantry got there. Then you can remove all the obsticles you want without having your engineers shot at. Funnies can't do any of that. I fail to see it's utility. Even if it had utility that something else wouldn't it was a one trick pony. But blaming losses at Omaha on not having Funnies is beyond the frey.

If I had the chance to be in one or the other, I would rather have something that could defend itself and supress the enemies fire. Removing anti-tank obsticles is just not that big of a deal. We did it just fine with engineers so why waste money on a piece of equipment that doesn't buy you anything and stands a good chance of becoming a tank block that even the engineers couldn't remove? Just my personal opinion. I would have preferred a formation of B-17s to clear the beach in one fell swoop. That was the US plan, the engineers were a backup if the weather didn't hold.
  • 0

#22 trumpetplayer992

trumpetplayer992

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 122 posts

Posted 11 February 2006 - 01:48 AM

The Garand was a great gun
  • 0
Anyone who has myspace, request me.. it's public FYI

www.myspace.com/asutillman

#23 Glider

Glider

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 201 posts

Posted 11 February 2006 - 04:42 AM

'We had LCTs too. Most of them got caught up on the underwater obsticles of morning invasion. Shermans could have defended themselves. '

[/i]
'An M7 could have but artillery rounds straight through the openings of the fortresses without even being completely on the beach. Roll up a small number of M7s off of the LCTs and the Germans would have fled the bunkers even before the infantry got there.'

I don't think so. The open top M7 would have its crews shot to pieces from MG's firing down from the cliffs. I would suggest the Shermans armed with 105's would be a better alternative.

'Then you can remove all the obsticles you want without having your engineers shot at. Funnies can't do any of that. I fail to see it's utility. Even if it had utility that something else wouldn't it was a one trick pony. But blaming losses at Omaha on not having Funnies is beyond the frey. '

What I think you are missing was the range of funnies. We had ones that layed track on the beaches so the tanks wouldn't get bogged down in soft sand. We also had others that enabled the tanks to climb sea walls. It was the combination that allowed the British armour the ability to move and support their troops. It was the lack of such tools plus of course the failure to land the DD tanks that forced the PBI to managed with little if any support.
In addition to the Funnies we had a range of landing craft that were armed with 25pd or 17pd guns in turrets that could land with the landing craft and give direct fire support to the troops on the beaches targeting the bunkers. Again the American infantry were without this aid and were on their own.
What cannot be doubted was that a lot of American Lives were lost because of the failure of the Senior Officers to take advantage of what was available.

'If I had the chance to be in one or the other, I would rather have something that could defend itself and supress the enemies fire. Removing anti-tank obsticles is just not that big of a deal.'

Removing the Anti Tank obsticles was key. Without it all the armour in the world might as well be on Mars for all the help they can give.

'We did it just fine with engineers so why waste money on a piece of equipment that doesn't buy you anything and stands a good chance of becoming a tank block that even the engineers couldn't remove?'

The USA did it just fine because by saving money you lost lives and that is not a good combination. The Engineer losses were huge and a lot more than the would have been with adaquate support.

'Just my personal opinion. I would have preferred a formation of B-17s to clear the beach in one fell swoop. That was the US plan, the engineers were a backup if the weather didn't hold.'

Ask any infantry man of any country of their confidence of any heavy bomber raid clearing a path trough defences like that and I strongly suspect that they would invite you to go first. It never worked on any landing anywhere in WW2. The bombs wouldn't be big enough or concentrated enough and it would be almost impossile to co ordinate it with the landing.
You might want to ask the Bomber crews of their confidence in the Naval ships holding fire. They were notoriously trigger happy and the bomber crews would be sitting ducks.

[i]
  • 0

#24 Herroberst

Herroberst

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 787 posts

Posted 11 February 2006 - 04:55 AM

</div><div class='quotemain'>The Garand was a great gun[/b]

Have you ever fired one?


***************************

</div><div class='quotemain'>Synthetic Oil

Germany produced many thousands of tons of Synthetic Oil using coal[/b]

IG Farben

***************************


Thanks, Geoff

Seems to me you're the only one to come up with a top ten list. Gnomey agreed.

Anyone else? Bueller?

***************************
Jim, The crocodile does a good job of getting men out of Bunkers.

***************************

I think that the German Infrared scope was a top contributor to warfare (ZG 1229 Vampir)

I had to say the first cruise missile(V-1) and the forefather of the ICBM (V-2)

I am in agreement with Spidge






</div><div class='quotemain'>The open top M7 would have its crews shot to pieces from MG's firing down from the cliffs.[/b]

You were typing the same time I was thinking about the scene from Saving Private Ryan when the MG 42s
go through the assault troops in that Higgins boat like a deck of cards.
  • 0
Coir a glaive

Nemo me impune lacessit

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

#25 jimbotosome

jimbotosome

    Discharged

  • Banned
  • 927 posts

Posted 11 February 2006 - 06:07 AM

(Herr Oberst @ Feb 10 2006, 10:55 PM) [post=45604]Jim, The crocodile does a good job of getting men out of Bunkers.
[/b]

Well, not if the guys in the bunker have panzershreks and panzerfausts or an 88 mounted there. A panzerfaust does a better job of getting the men out of a crocodile especially if they have to move it within 80 yards of a target. To do that effectively you need to back off out of range of their anti-tank weaponry.

The M7s and other variants have front shielding so they simply stay low and aim through its optics. It would simply not miss at that range. The principle of suppressive fire is that when you are firing at the enemy, he does not dare raise his head to fire back, especially if he is firing 105mm HEs at your sector. That’s a heck of a demolishing round coming every five seconds or so. Artillery has a very profound affect on soldiers. You are not going to sit there like a sitting duck holding on to a MG-42 while 105 rounds are blowing the positions to the right and left of you to smithereens working its way to you. It's not only time to stay down but time to get out of Dodge. Same thing when the Sherman’s made it to shore, game over for MGs. No one is going to sit there and fire an MG when a tank is aiming to vaporize you if you do. But, if you have something against an M7, then use a Sherman. It's still more functional and lethal than a "Funny". The “Funny” was not an offensive weapon. In an attack you have to move and you have to hit the enemy before he hits you. The enemy would laugh if you tried to move that thing up close enough to him to dislodge him. If he is gone from the morning heavy aerial bombing and navy shelling like it was on the British beaches, it probably doesn’t matter what you use, you no matter what you use, you could say it “worked for the Brits”.

Keep the subject in focus. The subject of my response was that the American's were foolish to eschew the Funny and choose what they believe was better weapons to do the job, not, did it work in the case of the British invasion. It's already been stated that it did. What was good enough for Sword, Juno, and Gold, would not necessarily been good for Omaha. They were not the same type of battles at the water’s edge where the obstacles were. If we couldn't get a Sherman (DD or LCT) to shore at Omaha, surely you are not suggesting we could have gotten a Funny to shore are you? Again, something keeps getting lost in the counterarguments here. There was nothing magical about a Funny that would have gotten it to shore to "save the day" at Omaha. If a Sherman gets to shore the game changes. You can't say that about a "Funny". There is a good possibility it would quickly be turned into scrap iron due to its inability to defend itself or supress fire.

Also keep in mind, the American’s and the British had two almost completely different doctrines of armor usage. I will be posting some new revelations on these differences when I get finished with the book I am reading. It is quite eye-opening. More to come on that issue...
  • 0

#26 angie999

angie999

    Very Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 1,312 posts

Posted 11 February 2006 - 11:44 AM

(Herr Oberst @ Feb 10 2006, 10:44 PM) [post=45584]Jim, I think we dropped our DD tanks too far out and they sunk in the swells. That's why there wasn't any armour at Omaha to support the initial landings.
[/b]

Some of the armour at Omaha was landed by LCT. For instance, in the Easy Green and Dog Red sectors, A Coy, 743rd Tank Battalion, was scheduled to land by LCT at H-hour.
  • 0
Angie

"History is lived forward but it is written in retrospect. We know the end before we consider the beginning and we can never wholly recapture what it was like to know the beginning only." C V Wedgewood

#27 sapper

sapper

    WW2 Veteran

  • Veterans
  • 3,316 posts
  • LocationSeaside town Dorset

Posted 11 February 2006 - 12:31 PM

The Funnies!
What must be remembered is that Hobart’s funnies came in many different guises, From flails, to tanks that fired huge explosive charges, to bridging, And those that carried huge bundles of chestnut palings to fill gaps. The whole range of AVRE had something pretty much for any situation. But it all had to work in unison with the rest of the forces.

Where the British scored so highly was the organisation. For example: the British army had dedicated teams of assault engineers to land before anyone else, with the task of clearing the beach obstacles. This they did. Unfortunately the water and tide driven by the wind made a much higher watermark than anticipated, narrowing he beach area considerably. Therefore the landing area was reduced.

During this time the Assault Engineers continued to make the beach obstacles safe, by continuing to swim amongst the defences removing mines and shells, as the tide rose even higher, many of those men while still carrying on with the tasks were drowned.

But their sacrifice made everything possible. At about the same time other dedicated Assault demolition and Assault mine clearing teams landed with task of creating mine free paths, from the beach to the lateral road. With the explosive charges (Beehives) to remove or destroy any enemy concrete gun, or defensive positions.

All that was completed as ordered. It must be remembered that nowhere on the Normandy Invasion Coast, did there exist the strength of enemy defences that the Assault troops had to face on Sword Beach.

I know that in American circles, Sword Beach was looked on as “Easy” never was. The heaviest enemy defences, and in depth.

The following from one of the assault ships log, lays this misinformation to rest, what follows later, is Stan Hough’s record taken from the log of one of the ships that carried the Assault craft. Princess Astrid. Bless her! She hit a mine in the channel after the war and sunk!
The Princess lost 4 out of her 8 Assault landing craft.
Princess Charlotte lost 7 out of 8
MV Victoria lost 5 out of 6.
Prince Henry lost 5 out of 8.
Finally Prince David lost all 8.
On reflection, the loss of 29 Assault craft out of a total of 38 with only 9 saved, hardly bears out the idea of an "Easy landing" In passing, the continuous rain of films and documentaries over the last 60 years about the war, have created a rather one sided view, at times having very little do to with what actually took place. But, such is the power of propaganda that these myths are assumed to be true and become fixed as part of the Legend of D Day.

One of those huge defensive positions was “Hillman” 650 meters by 450 meters. Successfully breached by Lt Arthur Heal C de G, from My RE Company. In the company of the infantry.

I suppose it would be well to name these companies that gave so much.
5th Assault Regiment Royal Engineers
629th Field Squadron Royal Engineers
263rd Field Company RE
246th Field Company RE
17th Field Company RE
253rd Field Company RE
79th Assault Squadron RE
591st Para Squadron RE

With that in mind, the question must be asked? Would bloody Omaha ever have happened if they had adopted these special dedicated assault Engineer teams? In my mind they were unprepared, and paid a terrible price for that. That gives me no satisfaction at all. It just seems such a terrible shame that so many young men had to perish.
Sapper
  • 0

#28 Glider

Glider

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 201 posts

Posted 11 February 2006 - 02:46 PM

Top ten inventions

Penecillin
No one would deny this.

Development of Jet Engine
More development was packed into those few years than at any time

Education
WW2 was the first war to use highly complex equipment at every level in all the armed forces. The vast majority of troops had neve driven a car before the war. In the war these ill trained and educated people in their hundreds of thousands, had to learn to build and maintain hugely complex engines and other electrical equipment. A significant achievement

Electronics
Radios, radars, sonar all these were improved many times during the war.

Computers
Didn't exist before the war apart from in theory.

Infantry Weapons
Almost all armies started with bolt action rifles and an LMG, plus an anti tank rifle. By the end all major armies (Britain excepted) were heading towards, SLR's, assult rifles, GPMG's and deadly anti tank weapons

Rockets
Again these didn't exist before the war. By the end you had a large range with V1, V2 down to the aircraft launched rockets for ground attack.

Guided Weapons
The first smart bombs and guided weapons were being tested and in some cases used. What we see today started then.

Navigation Aids
Again before the war it was little more than guesswork with some radio bearings. By the end of the war there were a number of aids that allowed accurate long distance flights.

Synthetics
Big topic this but there were all sorts of synthetic items in production from clothing to oil and rubber. To a large degree these came from nowhere.

For what its worth thats my ten.
  • 0

#29 jimbotosome

jimbotosome

    Discharged

  • Banned
  • 927 posts

Posted 11 February 2006 - 05:18 PM

(angie999 @ Feb 11 2006, 05:44 AM) [post=45627]

(Herr Oberst @ Feb 10 2006, 10:44 PM) [post=45584]Jim, I think we dropped our DD tanks too far out and they sunk in the swells. That's why there wasn't any armour at Omaha to support the initial landings.
[/b]

Some of the armour at Omaha was landed by LCT. For instance, in the Easy Green and Dog Red sectors, A Coy, 743rd Tank Battalion, was scheduled to land by LCT at H-hour.
[/b]

Yes, I stated this in post #21 above. The primary problem at Omaha (as I understand it) was the inability to get armor ashore NOT the fact that they didn't have "Funnies". My claim is that on Omaha, had a "Funny" have been unloaded on the beach it would not have been successful because of the direct fire on it and its ability to suppress enemy fire 100s of yards away. I just don’t buy that it was the negligence of not using it that caused so many Omaha casualties.
  • 0

#30 angie999

angie999

    Very Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 1,312 posts

Posted 12 February 2006 - 12:20 PM

(jimbotosome @ Feb 11 2006, 04:18 PM) [post=45639]

(angie999 @ Feb 11 2006, 05:44 AM) [post=45627]

(Herr Oberst @ Feb 10 2006, 10:44 PM) [post=45584]Jim, I think we dropped our DD tanks too far out and they sunk in the swells. That's why there wasn't any armour at Omaha to support the initial landings.
[/b]

Some of the armour at Omaha was landed by LCT. For instance, in the Easy Green and Dog Red sectors, A Coy, 743rd Tank Battalion, was scheduled to land by LCT at H-hour.
[/b]

Yes, I stated this in post #21 above. The primary problem at Omaha (as I understand it) was the inability to get armor ashore NOT the fact that they didn't have "Funnies". My claim is that on Omaha, had a "Funny" have been unloaded on the beach it would not have been successful because of the direct fire on it and its ability to suppress enemy fire 100s of yards away. I just don’t buy that it was the negligence of not using it that caused so many Omaha casualties.
[/b]

I certainly agree that the issues at Omaha beach are much mor ecomples than whether ot not there should have been specialist armour. However, this is taking us way off topic. There is an old Omaha thread on the board which I will find and bump to the top so that we can continue this there.
  • 0
Angie

"History is lived forward but it is written in retrospect. We know the end before we consider the beginning and we can never wholly recapture what it was like to know the beginning only." C V Wedgewood




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users