History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
Which Single Weapon Did the Most to End WWII?
mmeier
Visit this Community
Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
Member Since: October 22, 2008
entire network: 1,280 Posts
KitMaker Network: 213 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - 03:07 AM UTC
The Tiger Tank, The MAUS, the A4/V2 and post-1941 the ME109. Together they delayed/derailed and prevented enough USEFUL german military projects and consumed enough production resources to make sure the Allies won
Silantra
Visit this Community
Putrajaya, Malaysia
Member Since: March 04, 2004
entire network: 2,511 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,296 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - 03:55 AM UTC
it was a single pistol... walther ppk 7.65mm.... the one that kill Hitler...

quote from Band of Brothers final episode " he should have kill him self 3 years ago and save the trouble...."

at least, when he dies the ETO dies too.........

just my 2 cents
LuckyBlunder
Visit this Community
Kansas, United States
Member Since: February 02, 2006
entire network: 273 Posts
KitMaker Network: 107 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 - 04:37 PM UTC
The Douglas DC-3 (AKA C-47) : The Liberty ship and: The 2 1/2 Ton truck.
retiredyank
Visit this Community
Arkansas, United States
Member Since: June 29, 2009
entire network: 11,610 Posts
KitMaker Network: 3,657 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - 09:05 AM UTC

Quoted Text

it was a single pistol... walther ppk 7.65mm.... the one that kill Hitler...

quote from Band of Brothers final episode " he should have kill him self 3 years ago and save the trouble...."

at least, when he dies the ETO dies too.........

just my 2 cents


My thoughts, exactly. And the Enola Gay in the PTO. "Drop that f*cker! Twice!" Capt. Ramsey
padawan_82
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Member Since: December 10, 2008
entire network: 817 Posts
KitMaker Network: 122 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - 09:44 AM UTC
the decisive weapon in my opinion was the bomber, not just heavy but medium and ground attack the A-bomb couldn't have been dropped if there wasn't a B-29 to carry it then there was the day and night bombing of germany hampering their war machine plus the bomber put the end to the battleship as queen of the sea it was high altitude and torpeado bombers that sunk the japanese fleet in the pacific and it was lancaster bombers that sunk the tirpitz so for me the bomber in whatever guise they came won the war Ant.
retiredyank
Visit this Community
Arkansas, United States
Member Since: June 29, 2009
entire network: 11,610 Posts
KitMaker Network: 3,657 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - 10:31 AM UTC

Quoted Text

the decisive weapon in my opinion was the bomber, not just heavy but medium and ground attack the A-bomb couldn't have been dropped if there wasn't a B-29 to carry it then there was the day and night bombing of germany hampering their war machine plus the bomber put the end to the battleship as queen of the sea it was high altitude and torpeado bombers that sunk the japanese fleet in the pacific and it was lancaster bombers that sunk the tirpitz so for me the bomber in whatever guise they came won the war Ant.


The bombing of German factories did little to impede its military. Most of their manufacturing had been or was moved to underground bunkers. One of the most important being their ball bearing factory. Most of their airforce, later in the war, was assembled in these bunkers. Other than the destruction of Imperial Japan's navy, bombers had little effect on its army. They were dug in to underground bunkers and tunnel systems. Bombers were able to strike the mainland in operations near the end of the war. The invasion of the mainland was estimated to take the lives of 100000 Allied servicemen. The Enola Gay made short work of Japanese moral and military machines.
Snowhand
Visit this Community
Zuid-Holland, Netherlands
Member Since: January 08, 2005
entire network: 1,066 Posts
KitMaker Network: 324 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - 10:41 AM UTC
Every win or defeat in WW2 can be brought down to 2 things: either logistics or... stupidity... In their time, Germany did make a lot of stupid decisions, and the allies made a lot of stupid decisions in the early days of the war.

So I go with the logistics side: All those ships that had to carry everyone from the UK to mainland europe and allowed the marines to hop islands in the pacific.
retiredbee2
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Member Since: May 04, 2008
entire network: 757 Posts
KitMaker Network: 180 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - 06:09 PM UTC
And all the tools of the trade and the ships to get them there were made by that formidable weapon.......................... Rosie............I win
padawan_82
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Member Since: December 10, 2008
entire network: 817 Posts
KitMaker Network: 122 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - 10:29 PM UTC

Quoted Text

The bombing of German factories did little to impede its military. Most of their manufacturing had been or was moved to underground bunkers. One of the most important being their ball bearing factory. Most of their airforce, later in the war, was assembled in these bunkers. Other than the destruction of Imperial Japan's navy, bombers had little effect on its army. They were dug in to underground bunkers and tunnel systems. Bombers were able to strike the mainland in operations near the end of the war. The invasion of the mainland was estimated to take the lives of 100000 Allied servicemen. The Enola Gay made short work of Japanese moral and military machines.
e


i agree with your point Matt to a degree yes the germans did move their factories underground so the heavy bomber raids on their industry was not as effective, but even with these underground factories the Luftwaffe would never again retake the skies because of the manufacturing capability of the US which the germans nor the japanese could bomb, but on another note the allied fire bombing of cities like Hamburg and Dresden though questionable now really hit the Nazi moral. The same can be said for the fire bombing raids on Japan itself, which caused more deaths than Horishima or Nagasaki. also the fact that the allies had air superiority meant the german armoured units had no freedom of movement and neither did their logistical units because of being dive-bombed by rocket armed Typhoons, Tempests and Thunderbolts of the allies on the western front and the Il-2's of the Soviets on the Eastern front. the allied armoured units however could move by day or night unimpeded. but i agree the nuclear bombs did shorten the pacific conflict but they still needed a bomber to get them there lol
retiredyank
Visit this Community
Arkansas, United States
Member Since: June 29, 2009
entire network: 11,610 Posts
KitMaker Network: 3,657 Posts
Posted: Thursday, July 21, 2011 - 01:46 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

The bombing of German factories did little to impede its military. Most of their manufacturing had been or was moved to underground bunkers. One of the most important being their ball bearing factory. Most of their airforce, later in the war, was assembled in these bunkers. Other than the destruction of Imperial Japan's navy, bombers had little effect on its army. They were dug in to underground bunkers and tunnel systems. Bombers were able to strike the mainland in operations near the end of the war. The invasion of the mainland was estimated to take the lives of 100000 Allied servicemen. The Enola Gay made short work of Japanese moral and military machines.
e


i agree with your point Matt to a degree yes the germans did move their factories underground so the heavy bomber raids on their industry was not as effective, but even with these underground factories the Luftwaffe would never again retake the skies because of the manufacturing capability of the US which the germans nor the japanese could bomb, but on another note the allied fire bombing of cities like Hamburg and Dresden though questionable now really hit the Nazi moral. The same can be said for the fire bombing raids on Japan itself, which caused more deaths than Horishima or Nagasaki. also the fact that the allies had air superiority meant the german armoured units had no freedom of movement and neither did their logistical units because of being dive-bombed by rocket armed Typhoons, Tempests and Thunderbolts of the allies on the western front and the Il-2's of the Soviets on the Eastern front. the allied armoured units however could move by day or night unimpeded. but i agree the nuclear bombs did shorten the pacific conflict but they still needed a bomber to get them there lol


Just one bomber... The Enola Gay. Yes firebombing Japan did help to demoralize them, but it took several aircraft to do this. With just one aircraft, the US showed Imperial Japan that it could level a city and inflict 100% casualties. Even with the fire bombing, the Allies were looking at 100000 casualties during the assault on Japan's homeland. Both of my grandfathers served in the PTO during WWII. One even had the luck to man a gun, when his group sailed into Tokyo Bay. "Shoot everything" was the standing order. That must rank up there with demoralizing the Japanese peoples.
magicsub
Visit this Community
New South Wales, Australia
Member Since: July 13, 2011
entire network: 103 Posts
KitMaker Network: 22 Posts
Posted: Thursday, July 21, 2011 - 04:29 AM UTC
I think the soviets, in enough time would have won the war. The nuclear bombing of japan was not really an important part of the war. The war was pretty much already over and the US wanted to test out its new bomb on living people. This was one of the greatest crimes of WW2, rivaling Unit 731 and the National Socialist deathcamps. You cannot go and bomb a civilian city were probably the only legitimate targets were some 12 year olds holding 17th century rifles.

The real winning weapon was the T-34. The best tank of its day, it was proven to beat the shermans in the Korean war and normal bazooka rockets could hardly do anything. It was quick and easy to manufacture too.
retiredyank
Visit this Community
Arkansas, United States
Member Since: June 29, 2009
entire network: 11,610 Posts
KitMaker Network: 3,657 Posts
Posted: Thursday, July 21, 2011 - 08:20 PM UTC

Quoted Text

The nuclear bombing of japan was not really an important part of the war. The war was pretty much already over and the US wanted to test out its new bomb on living people. ...


What part of 100000 expected American casualties do you not get?
padawan_82
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Member Since: December 10, 2008
entire network: 817 Posts
KitMaker Network: 122 Posts
Posted: Friday, July 22, 2011 - 09:36 AM UTC
100000 was the estimate in truth it would have been higher some argue it could have been as high as half a million casualties, don't forget after the war ended the Japanese coastline was hit by the worst typhoon in decades in essence the 'divine wind' came but the war was already over so had the war still been going the US invasion fleet would have taken a sever battering and 1000's would have been lost before they would have landed.

on another note one could argue the most decisive weapon to end the war could be any weapon made by John Browning Colt 1911, B.A.R. .30 cal .50 cal used by all services and his .30 and .50 cals were mounted on armour and all aircraft. Ant.
firstcircle
Visit this Community
England - South East, United Kingdom
Member Since: November 19, 2008
entire network: 2,249 Posts
KitMaker Network: 198 Posts
Posted: Friday, July 22, 2011 - 10:44 AM UTC
I think if you read about the progress of the war in Europe you more or less end up with the conclusion that the failure of Operation Citadel was the turning point. Germany had hoped to divide and encircle Soviet forces as they had managed to do at the start of their invasion, but instead a large bulk of German armour was destroyed and never replaced. This was achieved largely through Soviet mines and artillery being deployed in overwhelming density so that decisive breatkthroughs were not possible. So I think those that said Russian artillery are the closest.

By the same token, the turning point in the Pacific was probably Midway, the decisive weapon here being the aircraft carriers that enabled the US fleet to destroy enough Japanese ships at long range by using aircraft, thus avoiding a direct naval duel which they might have lost.

In both theatres, following these battles, the tide had turned and defeat became only a matter of time, so long as resources favoured the allies in both theatres, which they surely did.

On the subject of the atom bomb, one explanation that has been put forward as to why it was deemed necessary to use it in order to bring the war to a swift conclusion, was that with the war in Europe over already, the Soviet Union, as it had promised, attacked Manchuria, and on the evidence of the totally ruthless way in which Stalin was prepared to deploy his forces, it seems likely that he wouldn't have hesitated to invade the Japanese mainland, no matter what the cost.

Now, I would like to put in a word for the code breakers that produced the "Ultra" intelligence, deciphering the encrypted messages used by all the axis powers, and to a quite great extent, this was done by using primitive computers.
To quote Wikipedia on Ultra:Many observers, at the time and later, regarded Ultra as immensely valuable to the Allies. Winston Churchill told King George VI: "It was thanks to Ultra that we won the war."[4] F. W. Winterbotham, quoted the western Supreme Allied Commander, Dwight D. Eisenhower, at war's end describing Ultra as having been "decisive" to Allied victory.[5] Sir Harry Hinsley, official historian of British Intelligence in World War II, made a similar assessment about Ultra, saying that it shortened the war "by not less than two years and probably by four years"; moreover, in the absence of Ultra, it is uncertain how the war would have ended.

Much of that remained a secret until the 1970s, and so perhaps only managed to stake a claim in history when the concrete of history and myth was already setting as it were. Additionally, a great deal of effort was put into making it not at all obvious at the time that transmissions were being regularly deciphered as there was a real fear that the enemy forces would realise that it was happening, and start using new machines and codes to create their messages.

So, maybe my vote is that most new-fangled of all weapons, the computer, and let's not forget this man: Alan Turing.
magicsub
Visit this Community
New South Wales, Australia
Member Since: July 13, 2011
entire network: 103 Posts
KitMaker Network: 22 Posts
Posted: Saturday, July 23, 2011 - 02:07 AM UTC
If you put the war against Japan in comparison with the rest of ww2, you would find that it is only a minor part. Try compare it to the 20 million people who died fighting on the Eastern Front. even the Western front pales significantly to it. The only thing that comes close to the Eastern front is the Japanese slaughter of the chinese.
lukiftian
Visit this Community
British Columbia, Canada
Member Since: March 12, 2010
entire network: 791 Posts
KitMaker Network: 198 Posts
Posted: Saturday, July 23, 2011 - 08:21 AM UTC
Logistics on the white star, cannon fodder on the red.
lukiftian
Visit this Community
British Columbia, Canada
Member Since: March 12, 2010
entire network: 791 Posts
KitMaker Network: 198 Posts
Posted: Saturday, July 23, 2011 - 08:28 AM UTC

Quoted Text

I agree with everyone, but we need to clarify...are we talking about the most important piece of hardware, or the most important weapon? Soldiers (at least to the generals) are considered weapons...

My vote for the most important piece of non-living, non-biological equipment has to be the 500lb General Purpose bomb, the 30.06cal rifle round, and the .50cal round. Without those, we'd be throwing rocks.

Of course, the M1, CCKW, Jeep, C-47, B-17, B-24, P-51, Fletcher Class destroyer, Essex Class carrier...the list is endless really...hell, we could even say that the most important weapon of WW2 was the decoding of Ultra and Orange, or a box of rations...there's valid arguments for all of them.

Its kinda like saying what's the best beer out there? No one is going to agree as we all think _____________ is the best beer.

J




The best beer out there is Big Rock McNally's extra.

For weapons, the red star-- T-34s and Sturmoviks
for the white-- B-17s and bazookas.

If the Germans had turned out more panzerfausts and less tigers, the war on the ground might have been very different.

The Japanese were doomed from the day after Midway, and they knew it.
lukiftian
Visit this Community
British Columbia, Canada
Member Since: March 12, 2010
entire network: 791 Posts
KitMaker Network: 198 Posts
Posted: Saturday, July 23, 2011 - 08:39 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

The nuclear bombing of japan was not really an important part of the war. The war was pretty much already over and the US wanted to test out its new bomb on living people. ...


What part of 100000 expected American casualties do you not get?



I guess that means that 1 American soldier is worth 4 Japanese women, children, and old men, Matt?

It was a war crime, Matt. Collective punishment of a civilian population is a war crime.
firstcircle
Visit this Community
England - South East, United Kingdom
Member Since: November 19, 2008
entire network: 2,249 Posts
KitMaker Network: 198 Posts
Posted: Sunday, July 24, 2011 - 08:23 PM UTC
Tut, you're veering off into an irrelevency and trying to have an argument that will only wind up with getting this otherwise interesting thread locked or deleted. What you meant to say was, "Mow, Matthew, I'd never seen it that way before, you've given me a whole new perspective on the war by taking into account things like intelligence and subterfuge and really new ways of waging war that were not really conventional weapons . . . and I think you're probably right!"
retiredyank
Visit this Community
Arkansas, United States
Member Since: June 29, 2009
entire network: 11,610 Posts
KitMaker Network: 3,657 Posts
Posted: Monday, July 25, 2011 - 01:54 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text


Quoted Text

The nuclear bombing of japan was not really an important part of the war. The war was pretty much already over and the US wanted to test out its new bomb on living people. ...


What part of 100000 expected American casualties do you not get?



I guess that means that 1 American soldier is worth 4 Japanese women, children, and old men, Matt?

It was a war crime, Matt. Collective punishment of a civilian population is a war crime.


Nagasaki and Hiroshima were both major military production facilities. That was the reason they were selected as the two cities on which to drop the atomic bomb. This crippled major military manufacturing and showed that the Allied forces could anialate such military powerhouses using only one aircraft. They were not selected due to their population, military or otherwise. But, I don't debate with you because you like to try and cause problems in the forums. Therefore, I do not accept nor even contimplate anything that you say from this point on.
pseudorealityx
Visit this Community
Georgia, United States
Member Since: January 31, 2010
entire network: 2,191 Posts
KitMaker Network: 357 Posts
Posted: Monday, July 25, 2011 - 03:51 AM UTC
The way the question is worded, the "weapon" that "ENDED" the war was the Atomic Bomb. VE had already past, and while the Russians were sitting on the border, that 'fear' did not cause the Japanese to surrender, the A-bombs did.

That said, to NOT call it a war crime is disingenuous at best. So was the fire-bombing. LeMay knew it, and went so far as to say it during the war. We were the victors, there, a bit of a blind eye passed over our actions during the war.

I also believe that Russia likely would have eventually won over Germany even if the Western front was never further realized. By '43, the Red Army was marching West, and Germany could have held longer, but they were simply going to run out of men and material before the Russians were.
magicsub
Visit this Community
New South Wales, Australia
Member Since: July 13, 2011
entire network: 103 Posts
KitMaker Network: 22 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 - 12:27 AM UTC
I think we are getting confused about what weapon ENDED the war and which weapon DID THE MOST to end WW2. As much as I do not like what the Japanese did (Unit 731, Rape of Nanking, Battle of Lake Khasan, Battle of Khalkin Ghol, ETC) The Nuclear bombing was still a war crime.

The soviets were on the border of Manchuko and were going to free their Chinese comrades after the war sooner or later, even if the Allies were not fighting them at the time. NOTHING the Japs had at the end of the war could compare to new soviet weapons like the SKS, LA-7, and the Stalin tank. Admittedly this could have been because of pressure from the war in America, but occupying the whole of China gave them a hard time too.

pseudorealityx
Visit this Community
Georgia, United States
Member Since: January 31, 2010
entire network: 2,191 Posts
KitMaker Network: 357 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 - 01:37 AM UTC

Quoted Text

I think we are getting confused about what weapon ENDED the war and which weapon DID THE MOST to end WW2. As much as I do not like what the Japanese did (Unit 731, Rape of Nanking, Battle of Lake Khasan, Battle of Khalkin Ghol, ETC) The Nuclear bombing was still a war crime.

The soviets were on the border of Manchuko and were going to free their Chinese comrades after the war sooner or later, even if the Allies were not fighting them at the time. NOTHING the Japs had at the end of the war could compare to new soviet weapons like the SKS, LA-7, and the Stalin tank. Admittedly this could have been because of pressure from the war in America, but occupying the whole of China gave them a hard time too.




Calling it 'freeing their comrades' is an interesting way to look at it. Mao's version of communism wasn't the same as Soviet communism. And the Soviets ended up occupying parts of Northern China anyway, and not much as a liberation force other than in name only.

Emperor Hirohito finally decided to stop action after the Atomic Bombs. They were fine with being inflicted with tremendous military losses. That they would lose parts of China did not factor into it.
magicsub
Visit this Community
New South Wales, Australia
Member Since: July 13, 2011
entire network: 103 Posts
KitMaker Network: 22 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 - 02:21 AM UTC
I am saying that had Japan not started a war with America, then possibly they could have created a vast modernized army to counter the inevitable soviet invasion.
4-BO-Green
Visit this Community
Noord-Holland, Netherlands
Member Since: March 30, 2011
entire network: 270 Posts
KitMaker Network: 17 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 - 06:13 PM UTC
Hmm, intresting debate here...

The A-bomb ended the war with only two bombs and a country surrenders...
But the most credit i award, is to the soviet army.
The atitude of fight or die is notable and cost a lot of men. The western countrys had surrender with far less victims...
The A-bomb was used becouse the soviets were joining the war against Japan. The allies dont want to split up Japan in a north (soviet) and South (allies) Japan as was the case in Europe (Soviet occupied and Allied occupied sectors). And they knew in the future a conflict with the Soviets was possible.

My conclusions;

1- The Abomb ended ww 2 completly

2- Without the Soviets WW 2 had not be won by the allies alone...
The Germans were better in tactics and weapons (STG-44, panzerfaust and the Me-262, he -162) The allies and Soviets had more quantity... and that is won WW 2

Just my opinion...

Regards,

Remco