Most Fearsome German Weapons

Psychologically speaking, I think it would have been three:

1) MG-42. It was by far the best heavy machine gun of the war and one of the great killers of Allied soldiers. Its effects were well-known by them, and, therefore, quite feared, or, at least, respected.

2) Tiger I and II. These innovative and very effective tank models infliced more damage to Allied morale rather than to their military strenght. All Allied soldiers reported having seen Tigers everywhere and at all moments, like if all German tanks would have been Tigers… we now know that there were only 2.000 or so Tigers during the entire war, not in Normandy, as the G. I.s and Tommies thought…

3) Nebelwerfer. These rocket launchers made a really horrible and loud noise, thus having a big psychological effect on the enemy, even if its accuracy was limited.

 

the U-boats had germany had over 600 at 1939 as Doanitz wanted would've brought UK to its knees. the Tiger I/II had Germany been able to produce more of them with perhaps a simpler design would've had a major impact, had the Panther been implemented later with all design problems (or most problems) fixed would've had a far greater impact on the eastern front. The V-1's V-2's were a complete waste of resources. Germany should've concentrated on the AA rockets able to reach the ever higher flying allied bombers and would've been able to produce many many more of those then V-2's. The 88 was a feared weapon and not much could've been done to improve since it was pretty damn close to being the best AT/AA gun in the war.

Pretty much, any of Germanies weapons could've had a far greater impact if far more of them been built, faster, and earlier. Course' to manage this Germany's production would've had to have been greater. etc etc.

 

Originally posted by Ryuujin@May 6 2005, 01:05 PM

the U-boats had germany had over 600 at 1939 as Doanitz wanted would've brought UK to its knees. the Tiger I/II had Germany been able to produce more of them with perhaps a simpler design would've had a major impact, had the Panther been implemented later with all design problems (or most problems) fixed would've had a far greater impact on the eastern front. The V-1's V-2's were a complete waste of resources. Germany should've concentrated on the AA rockets able to reach the ever higher flying allied bombers and would've been able to produce many many more of those then V-2's. The 88 was a feared weapon and not much could've been done to improve since it was pretty damn close to being the best AT/AA gun in the war.

Pretty much, any of Germanies weapons could've had a far greater impact if far more of them been built, faster, and earlier. Course' to manage this Germany's production would've had to have been greater. etc etc.
[post=34145]Quoted post[/post]

u boats anything that had churchill worried is good enough for me and i agree with ryuujin if germany had more u-boats no question who would have won

 

The one weapon that is still talked about amongst the Vets is the 88, anyone that came under its higly accurate, and high velocity shell, will know what I am talking about. 60 years on, it is still regarded almost with awe, as the most fearsome weapon.

Oddly enough, it may have been the weapon that terminated my war, on a lonely road between Overloon and Venraij at about 1 o'clock in the morning, I had been back to get the next days battle orders.

I never knew what it was, apart from a very loud bang. That road had been under what was termed as "desultory shell fire"
Sapper

 

My vote has gone to the 88 as the options stand. I would also like to put forward the MG34/MG42 for similar reasons to those given by Sapper - many veteran accounts acknowlege their fearsome reputation. They were also pivotal in defining german combat tactics. Another weapon that was highly effective, but appears to have been overlooked are the german mortars, particularly the 81mm. Not only were these weapons superior to our own the germans were very proficient in their use. I believe that a good 80% or so of allied casualties in Normandy were caused by these weapons.

 

What about the Spandau?
I believe I'm correct in saying that this was the German infantry support weapon, but was certainly superior to the Bren used by the British.

My dad was in the Warwickshire Regiment as a Bren gunner and he thought the MG 42 was a much better weapon as it had a greater rate of fire (or more "keep their heads down" ability) and it was easy and quick to change barrels.

I have read accounts of Allied infantry reporting that they knew when a Spandau was in use, because it made ZZZZZZZZZZZip noise, quite distinct from the dada-dada-dada noise of the Bren.


What do you think?

 

The best way to describe the sound of a German spandau. or to put it another way, the most realistic way to reproduce that sound is to tear a bit of very dry canvas,

I do know of a man actually cut in half by a burst. He was cut in half through his waist line.

I have unfortunately been under direct fire from one in a corn field....Not nice! Did not get me. but I can testify this! bullets as the go by your ear, do not make a whistling sound....far from it, as the bullet goes by, it makes a BANG! I do not understand the scientific reason>? but I have been told that the sound is made by the vacuum closing behind the bullets path. But I can assure anyone that a bullet makes a bang as it goes past your lug hole!

Sapper

 

Sapper, the crack-bang of high-velocity rounds it easily explained.

The Bang as it passes you is the sonic boom of the round passing you faster than the speed of sound. That's the crack. The next and quieter bang is the sound of the round being fired. With an MG42 all you'd get is a series of cracks as the bangs of the rounds being fired would be lost amongst them.

This means that the round passes you before you hear it being fired.

The MG34 and the MG42 were good weapons and believe it or not, it is their high rate of fire that is quoted as a disadvantage. At least as an all round section weapon. In defence the high rate of fire was an advantage because it could keep the attackers under pressure and you could have the ammunition stockpiled. In the attack however the nightmare was keeping enough ammunition being moved to the right place to keep the weapon supplied.

I still wouldn't like to be on the receiving end of an MG42 with a good crew though and it is a testament to how good the weapon is by the fact that the exact same weapon, called the MG1 is still used by the German armed forces today.

 

Originally posted by plant-pilot@Aug 28 2005, 01:53 PM
I still wouldn't like to be on the receiving end of an MG42 with a good crew though and it is a testament to how good the weapon is by the fact that the exact same weapon, called the MG1 is still used by the German armed forces today.
[post=38287]Quoted post[/post]

The M60 was an "improved" American version of the MG42. It had about half the rate of fire of the original and was less reliable. It makes you wonder why the U.S. military didn't just make a direct copy.

 

Originally posted by plant-pilot@Aug 29 2005, 06:53 AM
Sapper, the crack-bang of high-velocity rounds it easily explained.
This means that the round passes you before you hear it being fired.

Is this the reason for the saying?

It is the one that you don't hear....................!!!!

 

Originally posted by spidge@Aug 29 2005, 02:37 AM

Is this the reason for the saying?

It is the one that you don't hear....................!!!!
[post=38299]Quoted post[/post]

No, as far as I know that is refering to the 'whizz' of the artillery shells. You only hear that if they are going over your head, so you don't hear the one that 'gets' you.

 

Interesting that people choose Tiger 1 before the Panther, in my opinion the best tank of the war. The panther was lighter and more mobile than the Tiger, but were still better both in armour piercing and front protection. Also, being half as expensive and suitable for serial production, several times more panthers were built during the war than tigers. Whatever way you look at it, the panther did a lot more contribution to the war effort than the tiger could ever do.

 

Originally posted by Strumpfabwehr@Sep 4 2005, 10:18 PM
Interesting that people choose Tiger 1 before the Panther, in my opinion the best tank of the war. The panther was lighter and more mobile than the Tiger, but were still better both in armour piercing and front protection. Also, being half as expensive and suitable for serial production, several times more panthers were built during the war than tigers. Whatever way you look at it, the panther did a lot more contribution to the war effort than the tiger could ever do.
[post=38597]Quoted post[/post]

All true. But the question was not about an equipment's contribution to the war, but which was "the most fearsome German weapon".

 

Having just finished reading "The Guns of War" by George Balckburn (which I would recommend) I would vote for the Neblewerfer for shear "terror" some of Blackburn's descriptions are very vivid. For destruction the 88 has to get my vote, versatile and very effective, perticularly in Normandy, Falaise etc.

Chris Attwood

 

Sorry Plant-pilot, read the topic again.

 

Of all the weapons that we encountered, the most feared was the 88, the high velocity, the accuracy, its ability to act in different modes. I have been under fire from 88 more times that I would like, it was the greatest and most feared by the Soldiers. It is still taked about in almost in awe by the war Veterans. Well my mates do.
Sapper

 

In terms of effectiveness the 88 was definitely a feared and respected weapon, but the 88 was never really a weapon that could've turned the tide of the war. A battle defintely, but the war, no. My vote is for the U-Boat and I turn to Sir Winston Churchill to second my opinion. He once said ''... the only thing that ever really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril''. I find it hard to argue with one of the greatest world leaders in history. The U-Boats nearly halted merchant shipping from the U.S. to England so in that since could have definitely been a war winner and if they scared the PM then they were also most definitely fearsome!

 

Of all the German weapons, I would say the K 98 k was the most important weapon by far. Of those listed, however, the Pz.Kpfw.IV was the one tank which followed the Wehrmacht throughout the war, just like the Bf 109 was the aircraft following the Luftwaffe all the war. I was torn between the latter two, but went for the Pz.Kpfw.IV eventually.

The 8,8 cm Flak 36 was much dreaded, just like the Tiger, however neither gun did anywhere near the damage which has been attributed to them. The 7,5 cm Pak L/48 took out far more tanks than the 8,8 cm Flak 36, for example.

 

Hmmmmm.....interesting comments one and all!! My vote was for the 88mm as a weapon, However as a service branch, the U-Boats left their mark in a big way, dispite the very heavy loss of German personel (29,000?) and all the required efforts of support facilities, sub-pens, Condor Recon flights, Etc.

I would think the quality of German torpedoes had much to do with the sucess of the U-Boats, as well as their deck guns and crew training. Now with that in mind, is the U-Boat a weapon? or Her torpedoes? And if the Latter is the case, maybe I should vote for 88mm ammunition?


Cheers
Bob

 

I chose the 88. Reason being that it was so versitile. One particular case on making my point is Operation Goodwood. Col. Han Von Luck of the German 21st Panzer Regiment used 4 88mm guns that were intially being used as flak guns, he then turned them onto an advacing British column and litterally wiped them out. This while the battery had NO infrantry protection.