Most Fearsome German Weapons

Which of the above do you feel did the most damage to the allies, or is there something else that you feel should be in the above list.

 

The U-boats had a tremendous impact as a whole, but any Tommy or GI who fought in North Africa, Italy or the Rhineland would probably point to the 88, the Nebelwerfer, or the S-mine. But I'll let Sapper -- a court-certified expert on the infantryman/combat engineer's war in Europe -- give the definitive opinion.

 

There is the story that in many post war british legion clubs; when the bingo caller called "88" many veterns of the 8th army would shout "Driver! reverse". this would show the effect of that particular weapon!

But the Uboats were IMO the decisive weapon of the war.

 

Originally posted by morse1001@Jan 18 2005, 08:06 PM
But the Uboats were IMO the decisive weapon of the war.
[post=30731]Quoted post[/post]

No offence, but how could the U Boats be the decisive weapon of the war when they failed to be 'decisive'? They were a major contribution yes, and a huge problem for the allies supply lines from the US, but once technology and tactics had improved they were no longer the major drain on the convoys that they once were.

The 88mm was an effective and feared anti-tank gun, on it's own, in fixed defences or mounted in the turret of a Tiger, right up to the end of the war and was never really effectivley countered 100%. Not bad considering it was designed as an anti-aircraft gun, a roll it was used in until the end of the war.

 

Hiya plant-pilot

Churchill had said that the U-Boats had come within an ace of strangling Britain in 1941, and cutting the nation off from its regular supply stream, and if the Royal Navy had not found the Enigma machine in a Sinking U-Boat along with its code book, Britain may well have surrendered before the Americans came into the War.

 

Originally posted by paulyb102@Jan 18 2005, 09:37 PM
Hiya plant-pilot

Churchill had said that the U-Boats had come within an ace of strangling Britain in 1941, and cutting the nation off from its regular supply stream, and if the Royal Navy had not found the Enigma machine in a Sinking U-Boat along with its code book, Britain may well have surrendered before the Americans came into the War.


[post=30735]Quoted post[/post]

I don't doubt or deny the fact, but the phrase used was.... Uboats were IMO the decisive weapon of the war

As such, a 'decisive' weapon would be the one that ensured the final result of the war. The U Boats I conceed, were a major factor and could have been the decisive weapon if they had brought Britain to it's knees. That wasn't the case and so can't be called 'decisive'. Awesome, terrible or feared, yes.

 

What does IMO mean plant-pilot??

That,s probably where we,ve strayed!

Paulyb102

 

I voted for the Ju-87 Stuka, The sound and the damge that these planes left would have been a nightmare.

The sound of a stuka diving sends chills down my spine.

 

I would say the 88 based on my fathers and other vets stories about it. Dad said you had no incoming whine to give a warning to take cover because of its low trajectory and caused massive casualties but the damage it did to tanks was terrible. It out gunned and outranged all the British armour, this is in North Africa and Italy where the New Zealand Division served ,that my opinion is based on, and to many battles were lost at the start of the campaign because armour was destroyed with out making its objective or in several cases refusing to support the infantry as ordered because of the 88s. It was a feared weapon where ever used. As an aside, the British 3.7 inch Anti Aircraft gun was much superior to the 88 but because of stupid High Command wrangling was never used as an an anti tank or infantry support artillery. If it had been the Desert War would certainly been shortened.

 

I am going to stand by the Flak I think that it could take out a tank and anything else in its path. Low income of those...

 

Regarded more of a nuisance than fearsome weapons, but how about both the V1 and V2.
Especially the latter.

Mark

p.s.

Paulyb. IMO abbr' for "In My Opinion"

 

88-Flak. It blows up too many allied tanks. And Tiger without this gun would be nothing more than "big infantry tank". You just can't see German tank and - bang! - you are in flame.

 

As for me,
Tiger I, seems created fears among allieds troops as well. ".. One instance recorded of a single tiger holding an entire allied division, and brought down 25 tanks and ACs before it was finally stalked and defeated.."
some says,.. if tigers were produced the same capacity as T34s and Shermans,.
the history might be different,..
Sovyet political officer will then execute any of their tanker if caught on Tigerphobia.

 

Originally posted by GUMALANGI@Apr 19 2005, 08:08 PM
As for me,
Tiger I, seems created fears among allieds troops as well. ".. One instance recorded of a single tiger holding an entire allied division, and brought down 25 tanks and ACs before it was finally stalked and defeated.."
some says,.. if tigers were produced the same capacity as T34s and Shermans,.
the history might be different,..
Sovyet political officer will then execute any of their tanker if caught on Tigerphobia.
[post=33309]Quoted post[/post]

The reason that Tigers were not built in the same numbers as T-34s and Shermans was their size and complexity. It was also this complexity that made them so difficult to maintain and so unreliable.

What made the Tiger such a feared tank was not that from the front it was so heavily armoured, but that its main gun, the 88mm, could obtain a first shot 'kill' on almost any allied tank. If it was on its own it could be out 'hunted' or stalked by packs of allied tanks although there were too few of them to really make any great difference.

So again, it would IMO (in my opinion) be the 88mm flak gun used in the anti-tank roll that was the real decisive weapon. The Tiger Tank was just a means of getting it around the battlefield while remaining protected.

 

[/quote]

The reason that Tigers were not built in the same numbers as T-34s and Shermans was their size and complexity. It was also this complexity that made them so difficult to maintain and so unreliable.

What made the Tiger such a feared tank was not that from the front it was so heavily armoured, but that its main gun, the 88mm, could obtain a first shot 'kill' on almost any allied tank. If it was on its own it could be out 'hunted' or stalked by packs of allied tanks although there were too few of them to really make any great difference.

So again, it would IMO (in my opinion) be the 88mm flak gun used in the anti-tank roll that was the real decisive weapon. The Tiger Tank was just a means of getting it around the battlefield while remaining protected.
[post=33313]Quoted post[/post]
[/quote]

Then again,.. its armour its gun its teething problem, its enourmous track,..
all were come into one package,. that cannot be separated,.. you dont call them tiger if it has no armour nor turret,.. you call them nashorn,.. or perhaps something else.

"...the Pz Kpfw VI with its heavy armour, dual purpose armament and fighting ability was basically an excellent tank, and, constituted a considerable advance on any allied tank..." - British Report from 1943 based on a study of Tiger I captured in Tunisia. (with full tropical air filter 'Feifel' system - November 1942 to August 1943)

 

Teh Me-109. It destroyed hundreds of bombers. Had its contribution been smaller, the war would have been shortened.

 

Got to be the Uboats.

Rgds

Tim

 

I don't think you can pick a weapon and call it fearsom. For instance, there was nothing special about U-boats, even though some of the later models were innovative. If there was anything special, it was in terms of the development of German tactics. Even so, they were beaten decisively in 1943 by superior allied weapons and tactics and thereafter did comparatively little damage.

You could also call Nebelwerfers innovative, although not so much that the US or UK felt the need to copy them then or later. But the situation with German ammunition supply in the Normandy campaigh was such that they always had to be used sparingly and therefore to less effect. Overall, they were nothing compared to allied mortar firepower.

Taking weapon systems, tactics and logistocs, therefore, nothing stands out.

 

Originally posted by angie999@May 2 2005, 12:10 PM
Even so, they were beaten decisively in 1943 by superior allied weapons and tactics and thereafter did comparatively little damage.
[post=33852]Quoted post[/post]

Angie, do you think this could have been said of most German weaponry?

As later in the war the Allies had thought of "A Way Round" most Axis weapons.

Still think the V2 should be (Semi) included in the list, if they had come to light earlier, Lord knows what sort of damage they could have done.
Although, with the dangerously heady cocktail of fuels, they were probably more "Fearsome" for the German launch teams...

Talk about "Light at Arms Length, and Run like Hell".

Mark.

 

Originally posted by Pte1643@May 2 2005, 11:23 AM

Angie, do you think this could have been said of most German weaponry?

As later in the war the Allies had thought of "A Way Round" most Axis weapons.

[post=33853]Quoted post[/post]


Quite possibly. It usually happens that when a new development of weapon systems gains the upper hand, the other side finds a way to overcome it.

Leaving aside WWI tank design, because there was very little useful design work in the inter-war years, we can see how tanks have continuously developed from the start of WWII to the end of the Cold War because of this process of action and reaction.

As to V2s, although devastating individually, they were not capable of inflicting significant military damage and I doubt that the Germans would have been able to increase production much, so I do not see that they would have had any influence on the outcome if used for longer - but they were used as they were used and I personally avoid going deeply into counter-factual history.