Most Fearsome German Weapons

Does Zyklon B count. And this is a serious question.

 

My Uncle told us that, as an infantry man, he hated the Stukas. They were nicknamed 'sh*tehawks' .... although an 88 or a Tiger would probably do it for me!

 

(GarandGuy @ Oct 2 2005, 03:52 PM) [post=39626]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!
[/b]

An interesting observation about U-Boats I found quite interesting were the figures below. I realise there were Peaks & Troughs of effectiveness for the U-Boat as the allies secured more proficient and effective ways of dealing with them as the years went on however.............................

"While nearly 55% of all allied merchant shipping sunk in the Atlantic during WW2 was by submarine / U-Boats, submarine "kills" represented only 1% of total merchantmen sailings.

I am not being flippant here in loss of life however I was amazed at the eventual figure.

 

The K98k was the least effective of all German weapons. It was a 19th century design soldiering on at the halfway mark of the 20th century. It's magazine held only 5 rounds and it was a slow firing bolt-action. However it did give tolerable service and was accurate and reliable. However when looking at Germany's enemies it was woefully undergunned. The M1 rifle was semiautomatic, every bit as accurate as a 98k, every bit as reliable, and held 8 rounds. The Lee-Enfield was as accurate, held 10 rounds, and had a faster bolt, and the Russians fielded the decent but not excellent SVT40 semiauto in significant numbers. While undergunned with rifles Germany did however perfect the GPMG with the MG42.

 

What about the Gewehr 43 Semiautomatic rifle GarandGuy it had (I think) a 10 round clip and was accurate and well machined although it arrived to late to really make an impact.

 

I would think that no matter which side you were on or what front you fought on, the "Jabos" (fighter/bombers) would be the most fearsome by a pretty large margin. The reason for this is that they have the most destructive power and unlimited range with the ability to attack anywhere, anytime without warning. It might be with bullets, it might be with a bomb it might be with rockets, but one thing is for sure, it won’t be good. Ground strafing was so effective at killing troops because the pilots on their strafing approach would kick both rudder pedals back and forth causing the plane to rapidly yaw from side to side and creating a large spray of bullets that would take out anything in the corridor. The narrow two lines of bullets that are fired where the soldier stands in the middle with his pistol firing at the plane strafing (like in the movie Patton) and the bullets straddling him on each side, is (as one British gent on this forum put it) is “pants” (whatever that means). Fortunately, the Allies had very little experience with these kinds of attacks because they owned air superiority to air supremacy from North Africa on. The opinion of what the most fearsome weapons were might be different if they had not had it. In addition, it might have been a completely different war where casualties in the Allies were more like those of the Germans on the western front.

 

The G43 was not a very good semiauto rifle. It was derived from the SVT40 which once again wasn't all that great. The G43 had poor sights, was crudely made, and had just acceptable accuracy. I own one and the only thing I do with it is look at it. It was very hard to keep clean and suffered from jams often also. The weapon that it was developed from was even more pathetic. The G41 utilized the 'Bang' system developed by Norwegian designed Soren Bang. The Bang system trapped gases at the muzzle with a ring shaped cone which caused an incredible amount of fouling and malfunctions ensued. In short, the G43 was just like the SVT40 tolerable, and an improvement over the bolt-actions, but nothing special.

 

I own a G43 as well, the M1 is a better rifle hands down.

One interesting weapon was the FG42, never produced in great numbers, intended for airborne troops.

http://world.guns.ru/rifle/fg42-1.jpg
Cheers
Bob

 

Weapons are made to kill, but we will all agree that it's the man that old it that will make the difference.

However a certain German weapon, never produced, but tested and worked was the Wasserfall Missile.
It was a Surface-To-Air missile guided by radar with an operator, reaching supersonic speed with a an explosive warhead of 100kg it could have turned the side of the war.

Germany developed many SA missiles but they were never used VS allies due to their massive bombing:

Enzian
Rheintochter
Wasserfall Missile
Schmetterling
Bachem Ba 349

Just imagine what could hapenned if they were massively used...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_missiles_of_WW2

BTW: I voted for the mighty Panther!

 

The FG42 was an interesting weapon but it didn't come up to the full potential it had, the main reason being that it was supposed to fill the role of the rifle, submachine gun, and LMG of a Fallshirmjager squad. It weighed in at about 8 lbs and fired at about 800 rpm. Any lightweight rifle firing on full automatic is extremely difficult to control. Many moons ago during the sixties I carried an M14 and fired it on full auto one time and could barely hit a target 25m away. Another problem with the FG42 is its complicated design. It was made to extreme tolerances like the MG34 and suffered reliability problems. Everything the FG42 could do the Stg.44 could do better. That being said I don't think the Stg.44 was a great design. It was revolutionary, but the assault rifle in my opinion is a bad idea. It lacks the range of a MBR and in desert, mountain, and arctic warfare, it makes an infantry squad useless at normal combat ranges.

 

At different stages in the war several of these weapons had a big impact. For example, the Me109 and Fw190 kept our bombers from destroying vital german factories so they could make the rest of this stuff. In the early and mid war the U Boat menace was paramount, till we developed better countermeasures. The Pz IV tank chassis was one of the most prolific of the whole war with many types of guns and artillery developed on it, so in terms of the Blitzkrieg and Ostfront it played a vital role at some points. The German 88mm gun was also a fearsome field piece in the AA and also the AT role, feared by many a Tank crew. One could even argue the luftwaffe workhorse JU52 was a pivotal aircraft. All those Blitzkrieg Paratroop drops, the invasion of Crete and the Airbourne landings, so it was vital to the germans at that point.
Interesting pole though!
regards
MG

 

Which of these weapons made the biggest contribution to the Nazi war effort


The Stuka as far as the BEF is concerned.

 

I put my vote behind the U-Boat. Many of the weapons shown had only a tactical application and, for some, their actual influence was of short duration.
The U-boat carried by far the biggest strategic implication and was a factor from 1939-1945.
Unlike most of the choices in the poll, a failure to defeat the U-Boat would potentially have meant losing the war.

 

Know body has mentioned a sniper so far. My father lives in fear today because of snipers. Anybody who was in the army would defiantly be scared to death of them. I would rank them high.

 

Hey lets be sure about this if it was not for the U-Boat the 88's would have had twice as much to shoot at!!

 

The 88 would have to be the most widespread, used as AA, anti-tank, against soldiers, used later on in tanks. I dont theink too may people wanted to face it in any mode!


regards

Robert

 

If "most fearsome" includes buttock clenching may I mention this thread:

http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/weapons-technology-equipment/18904-mortars-~-how-do-they-work.html#post302198

As a wireless op in Light Ack Ack, we occasionally found ourselves at the receiving end of Jerry Nebelwerfers which, as Brian correctly pointed out, were more often known as Moaning Minnies. When I finished up in the Hussars, for whatever reason, they had stopped using these contraptions and seemed to rely more on mortars and spandaus.

The peculiar noise the Nebewerfers made was in itself fairly bowel loosening and before they had even finished their "pattern" the hot metal was landing at the receiving end.


Ron

 

I would have to opt for the 88mm A/T gun followed by the Nebelwerfer and the Spandau as i was wounded by all three- and still feel their effects now and again and as recently as last thursday when yet another surgeon tried to alleviate some pains -nothing against U boats BUT they didn't even try to hurt me even though I had four "luxury" cruises - Atlantic/Mediterranian - Mediterranian- and two down the Adriatic in big white ships- all free !Cheers

 

I settled for the 88. for its accuracy. Its high velocity, and also because the bugger got me for good in Holland.

I thought the Schu mine and the S mines were worthy of mention, they caused tremendous casualties. And again: it was the S Mine that got me in Normandy.....

I still carry bits around with me today. Got a steel ball in my head.... Never had it removed. Talked a radiologist in to take a picture of it... Big Grin

Like all the Vets here, the wounds did not spoil us... we are still dashed handsome .

I know you will all agree. and that I speak without fear of contradiction. Even bugger grin!

 

I voted for the FW-190 as a fighter it outclassed that which we had when it first appeared and it had an excellent qualities, development life and it could "multi task".

What it did it did on a day to day basis and as such could be overlooked.

Didn't vote for UBoats as by 1941-42 they were obsolete in terms of design and could only really succeed where defences were low or over stretched.
As a weapons system they had a limited window of opportunity which with the help of the US we weathered.
Their successes were down to the experience and determination of their crews who were quite outstanding in the initial phases of the war , efficiency declined as crews were diluted to provide experience in an expanding service which suffered as all German services did by inadequate training resource and shortages.

The Tiger tempted but do we still suffer from "Tigerphobia" ?
Tank wise the Panther was the better of the two IMO , the skilled and production hours required to produce one went against it t was not suited to mass production and was too complex. Mk.V had similar issues).