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?
firstcircle
Visit this Community
England - South East, United Kingdom
Member Since: November 19, 2008
entire network: 2,249 Posts
KitMaker Network: 198 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 - 09:00 PM UTC
... by the way, Ultra intelligence was routinely passed to the Soviet Union, as early as them being given advanced and detailed warning of Barbarossa in 1941, but it was only after this disaster that Stalin started to believe in its accuracy. Just an interesting thought.
4-BO-Green
Visit this Community
Noord-Holland, Netherlands
Member Since: March 30, 2011
entire network: 270 Posts
KitMaker Network: 17 Posts
Posted: Saturday, July 30, 2011 - 11:29 PM UTC

Quoted Text

... by the way, Ultra intelligence was routinely passed to the Soviet Union, as early as them being given advanced and detailed warning of Barbarossa in 1941, but it was only after this disaster that Stalin started to believe in its accuracy. Just an interesting thought.



I see that seeing is believing... Same story with the Japanese attack on Hawaii, pearl harbor. The fleet was spotted before the attack (just like the build up troops on the German/ soviet border) but the Japanese consul was talking in Washington DC about a peace between the two countries ( just like the non attack pact between Stalin and Hitler) and made a ''surprise attack'' possible.
With the conclusion that the ''intelligence'' works... The west had Ultra and the Soviets had the Red Orchestra.

Regards,

Remco
4-BO-Green
Visit this Community
Noord-Holland, Netherlands
Member Since: March 30, 2011
entire network: 270 Posts
KitMaker Network: 17 Posts
Posted: Saturday, July 30, 2011 - 11:45 PM UTC
[quote]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.

Matthew,

Operation Citadel was NOT a failure by the Germans... The attack was called off by Hitler because the Allies had invaded Italy (Operation Husky and Neptune) and all forces were called from the Citadel front to assist the new Italian front ...

The Soviets are calling it a big win, but the southern front had only to break to the last defensive emplacement of the soviets. If the Germans had proceed the attack they would probably win the battle but had completely run out of reserve units and had barely capable combat units because of the losses here...

Regards,

Remco
firstcircle
Visit this Community
England - South East, United Kingdom
Member Since: November 19, 2008
entire network: 2,249 Posts
KitMaker Network: 198 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 - 11:06 AM UTC

Quoted Text

The attack was called off by Hitler because the Allies had invaded Italy


Although things weren't exactly going well at that point . . .


Quoted Text

If the Germans had proceed the attack they would probably win the battle but had completely run out of reserve units and had barely capable combat units because of the losses here...


If... probably...completely out of reserve...barely capable... hmm, quite. I think out of reserve was the big problem. Without the second front opening up, it seems to me that the retreat west might have been delayed, but not indefinitely.

In fact the question at the top of the thread in some ways doesn't work, as it decidedly wasn't a single weapon, but the absolute number of them. Remco, that's what you just said...!

Perhaps if we ask the same question about WW1, we can get a more decisive answer...
dioman13
Visit this Community
Indiana, United States
Member Since: August 19, 2007
entire network: 2,184 Posts
KitMaker Network: 356 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 - 11:33 AM UTC
Lets see. After reading these pages, I see a lot of weapons that helped end the war. A bomb to bullets to people to ships ect. I'd have to toss in the proximety fuse for artillery. Hope I spelled that right. It is probably the most detrimental weapon to health, body and mind that I can think of right now. And it was the one weapon that turned the tide at the battle of the buldge.
4-BO-Green
Visit this Community
Noord-Holland, Netherlands
Member Since: March 30, 2011
entire network: 270 Posts
KitMaker Network: 17 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 - 06:13 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Lets see. After reading these pages, I see a lot of weapons that helped end the war. A bomb to bullets to people to ships ect. I'd have to toss in the proximety fuse for artillery. Hope I spelled that right. It is probably the most detrimental weapon to health, body and mind that I can think of right now. And it was the one weapon that turned the tide at the battle of the buldge.



Bob,

The proximety fuse for artillery is a good one, its was even a top secret weapon for that time. Just like the hollow charge was used for the first time by fort ebben ebanel in belgium by the germans. The '' Simple" weapons (stg 44, panzerfaust, hollow charge and equipment) are verry decicive and easy for mass production (again the quantity...)

Matthew,

Thats true, its the numbers that won WW II because the was was turning out to be a production war. The Allies and Soviets had by far the most capabillity.

Our also right about the topic because a single weapon did not won WW II...

Maybe we can open up a topic like ''which factor/ battle/ tactic won WW II'' or
"Which factor/ tactic delayed the WW II victory'' Are you with me Matthew??

Regards,

Remco
retiredyank
Visit this Community
Arkansas, United States
Member Since: June 29, 2009
entire network: 11,610 Posts
KitMaker Network: 3,657 Posts
Posted: Thursday, August 04, 2011 - 01:28 AM UTC
Simply put, both of my grandfathers served in the PTO. Both of them would have be part of the first wave. Most likely, both would have been killed. Neither my mother or my father would have been conceived. I would not have existed. The A-bomb saved my life.
firstcircle
Visit this Community
England - South East, United Kingdom
Member Since: November 19, 2008
entire network: 2,249 Posts
KitMaker Network: 198 Posts
Posted: Thursday, August 04, 2011 - 06:05 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Maybe we can open up a topic like ''which factor/ battle/ tactic won WW II'' or "Which factor/ tactic delayed the WW II victory'' Are you with me Matthew??


Not sure there is any need for a separate thread on it any more . . .
But talking about the ending of WW2, I have just started on AJP Taylor's Origins of the Second World War. He says:
Reason for WW1: what the new order in Europe should be.
Reason for WW2: to check if that was right.
Sorry, a bit really, but the pithiness of that really stuck in my mind.
mmeier
Visit this Community
Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
Member Since: October 22, 2008
entire network: 1,280 Posts
KitMaker Network: 213 Posts
Posted: Friday, August 05, 2011 - 08:14 AM UTC
Air power did a lot in the west. There are some things you can not dig in easily like large coal fired power plants and their mines. And there are some things you can not dig in! Like railroads and channels.

The allied air attacks on the german traffic network had a HUGE effect on the war effort. Quite a lot of tanks where not delivered or had to be destroyed because the railroad was down. A lot of raw material from the Ruhr valley did not get to Braunschweig (MIAG) or Bad Oeynhausen (Weserhütte) causing shortages. And WHEN transports ran the military had priority causing food shortages.

Herchealer
Visit this Community
Indiana, United States
Member Since: July 31, 2003
entire network: 1,523 Posts
KitMaker Network: 626 Posts
Posted: Friday, August 05, 2011 - 04:46 PM UTC
Best weapon in the European theater? Hitlers Greediness!!!

And the T-34

Best weapon in the Pacific theater? A-BOMB But since it really isnt a weapon but ordinance.....

Hand grenades and Flame throwers! How else do you get guys out of caves and bunkers? Seriously though I would say the B-29 or TBF/TBM Avenger.

retiredyank
Visit this Community
Arkansas, United States
Member Since: June 29, 2009
entire network: 11,610 Posts
KitMaker Network: 3,657 Posts
Posted: Saturday, August 06, 2011 - 10:54 AM UTC
As far as vehicles in the PTO, I would say the aircraft carrier and the B-29. Armor and landing craft were out of their element, as the Japanese would let the Allies take the beach head and open up once it was crowded. In Europe, the Spitfire or the P51. However, aircraft and ships can't take the ground. It's up to the troops and armor. So, in all fairness, the Sherman in Europe and the flamethrower in the PTO. Get some Marines! Get some!
4-BO-Green
Visit this Community
Noord-Holland, Netherlands
Member Since: March 30, 2011
entire network: 270 Posts
KitMaker Network: 17 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 - 03:10 AM UTC

Quoted Text

As far as vehicles in the PTO, I would say the aircraft carrier and the B-29. Armor and landing craft were out of their element, as the Japanese would let the Allies take the beach head and open up once it was crowded. In Europe, the Spitfire or the P51. However, aircraft and ships can't take the ground. It's up to the troops and armor. So, in all fairness, the Sherman in Europe and the flamethrower in the PTO. Get some Marines! Get some!



Hey Matt,

I share your opinion in the PTO, But in Europe i have to disagree.
The Spitfire was equel to the BF-109 type E. The later versions outclassed the Spitfire on almost all fronts. The P51 was a suberb aifcraft for the allies in the European front, only it had met its match against the FW 190 type D and TA 154
who outpreform the P51 on most fronts...
The sherman was of all allied main armor the weakest link. A panzer 4 was better armed and had slightly better armor. The sheman was called by the germans a " tommycooker'' and by the americans "the ronson'' because the tank was set on fire so easely. Later was the problem a bit solved. The sheman scores high on production, maintanance and numbers, but one on one i place my bet on the panzer 4, panther or tiger...

In my opinion the outcome of the war was fought out on the eastern front, not on the western front... 70 % of all material would go to the eastern front and not the western front. Even if 100% of the material would go to the east, they didn't win it from the Soviets...
magicsub
Visit this Community
New South Wales, Australia
Member Since: July 13, 2011
entire network: 103 Posts
KitMaker Network: 22 Posts
Posted: Saturday, August 20, 2011 - 10:03 PM UTC
Actually the russians did most of the fighting. Around %80, so for all those saying the .303 and .50 won the war, It would actually be the 7.62x54R and 12.7x108.
retiredyank
Visit this Community
Arkansas, United States
Member Since: June 29, 2009
entire network: 11,610 Posts
KitMaker Network: 3,657 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 - 01:35 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

As far as vehicles in the PTO, I would say the aircraft carrier and the B-29. Armor and landing craft were out of their element, as the Japanese would let the Allies take the beach head and open up once it was crowded. In Europe, the Spitfire or the P51. However, aircraft and ships can't take the ground. It's up to the troops and armor. So, in all fairness, the Sherman in Europe and the flamethrower in the PTO. Get some Marines! Get some!



Hey Matt,

I share your opinion in the PTO, But in Europe i have to disagree.
The Spitfire was equel to the BF-109 type E. The later versions outclassed the Spitfire on almost all fronts. The P51 was a suberb aifcraft for the allies in the European front, only it had met its match against the FW 190 type D and TA 154
who outpreform the P51 on most fronts...
The sherman was of all allied main armor the weakest link. A panzer 4 was better armed and had slightly better armor. The sheman was called by the germans a " tommycooker'' and by the americans "the ronson'' because the tank was set on fire so easely. Later was the problem a bit solved. The sheman scores high on production, maintanance and numbers, but one on one i place my bet on the panzer 4, panther or tiger...

In my opinion the outcome of the war was fought out on the eastern front, not on the western front... 70 % of all material would go to the eastern front and not the western front. Even if 100% of the material would go to the east, they didn't win it from the Soviets...



Point taken on the aircraft. As for the Sherman, you can't compare them on a 1:1 basis. It was found that six Shermans could take out any Axis ground vehicle. They were produced in much greater quantities than the panzers just for this reason. Every army in the Allied forces used Shermans. When you have a bazillion Shermans facing off against a few thousand panzers, the victor is clear.
4-BO-Green
Visit this Community
Noord-Holland, Netherlands
Member Since: March 30, 2011
entire network: 270 Posts
KitMaker Network: 17 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 - 11:58 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text


Quoted Text

As far as vehicles in the PTO, I would say the aircraft carrier and the B-29. Armor and landing craft were out of their element, as the Japanese would let the Allies take the beach head and open up once it was crowded. In Europe, the Spitfire or the P51. However, aircraft and ships can't take the ground. It's up to the troops and armor. So, in all fairness, the Sherman in Europe and the flamethrower in the PTO. Get some Marines! Get some!



Hey Matt,

I share your opinion in the PTO, But in Europe i have to disagree.
The Spitfire was equel to the BF-109 type E. The later versions outclassed the Spitfire on almost all fronts. The P51 was a suberb aifcraft for the allies in the European front, only it had met its match against the FW 190 type D and TA 154
who outpreform the P51 on most fronts...
The sherman was of all allied main armor the weakest link. A panzer 4 was better armed and had slightly better armor. The sheman was called by the germans a " tommycooker'' and by the americans "the ronson'' because the tank was set on fire so easely. Later was the problem a bit solved. The sheman scores high on production, maintanance and numbers, but one on one i place my bet on the panzer 4, panther or tiger...

In my opinion the outcome of the war was fought out on the eastern front, not on the western front... 70 % of all material would go to the eastern front and not the western front. Even if 100% of the material would go to the east, they didn't win it from the Soviets...



Point taken on the aircraft. As for the Sherman, you can't compare them on a 1:1 basis. It was found that six Shermans could take out any Axis ground vehicle. They were produced in much greater quantities than the panzers just for this reason. Every army in the Allied forces used Shermans. When you have a bazillion Shermans facing off against a few thousand panzers, the victor is clear.



Hey matt,

I partly agree. The numbers were the decisive factor. No doubt. But the allied tankers feared the german panzer. Free french tankers with captured panthers were encouraged to engage the panzers, becouse the sherman was not a worthy opponent. Exept the firefly version. That was the only allied gun that matched the panthers gun. Even on pointblanc range was the 75mm of the sherman not capable to penetrate the front of the tigertank...
An American tanker quote; The sherman is the best in training, driving and a nice paradetank, but in combat its a potential coffin...
The russians liked western tanks( Sherman, general lee, mathilda) of ther comfort, not for combat. The T-34 was in much points superior to the sherman.

Talking about the numbersgame in this theory is the same that the T-55 is a better tank than the American Abram tank, becose of the numbers
(aprox. 55.000 T-55 vs 9000 Abram tanks).
The most armor of the Germans was shot to pieces by rocket fireing thunderbolts and typhoons. Not by Shermans...

The airforce in Westen Europe was the big star in this game. The germans did not really made an atempt to stop the groundforces of the allies. The only atempt was the battle for the bulge. And they preform well on this front. When the weather changed, the allied airforce did much havoc on the grond...

Regards,

Remco

retiredyank
Visit this Community
Arkansas, United States
Member Since: June 29, 2009
entire network: 11,610 Posts
KitMaker Network: 3,657 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 - 01:35 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text


Quoted Text


Quoted Text

As far as vehicles in the PTO, I would say the aircraft carrier and the B-29. Armor and landing craft were out of their element, as the Japanese would let the Allies take the beach head and open up once it was crowded. In Europe, the Spitfire or the P51. However, aircraft and ships can't take the ground. It's up to the troops and armor. So, in all fairness, the Sherman in Europe and the flamethrower in the PTO. Get some Marines! Get some!



Hey Matt,

I share your opinion in the PTO, But in Europe i have to disagree.
The Spitfire was equel to the BF-109 type E. The later versions outclassed the Spitfire on almost all fronts. The P51 was a suberb aifcraft for the allies in the European front, only it had met its match against the FW 190 type D and TA 154
who outpreform the P51 on most fronts...
The sherman was of all allied main armor the weakest link. A panzer 4 was better armed and had slightly better armor. The sheman was called by the germans a " tommycooker'' and by the americans "the ronson'' because the tank was set on fire so easely. Later was the problem a bit solved. The sheman scores high on production, maintanance and numbers, but one on one i place my bet on the panzer 4, panther or tiger...

In my opinion the outcome of the war was fought out on the eastern front, not on the western front... 70 % of all material would go to the eastern front and not the western front. Even if 100% of the material would go to the east, they didn't win it from the Soviets...



Point taken on the aircraft. As for the Sherman, you can't compare them on a 1:1 basis. It was found that six Shermans could take out any Axis ground vehicle. They were produced in much greater quantities than the panzers just for this reason. Every army in the Allied forces used Shermans. When you have a bazillion Shermans facing off against a few thousand panzers, the victor is clear.



Hey matt,

I partly agree. The numbers were the decisive factor. No doubt. But the allied tankers feared the german panzer. Free french tankers with captured panthers were encouraged to engage the panzers, becouse the sherman was not a worthy opponent. Exept the firefly version. That was the only allied gun that matched the panthers gun. Even on pointblanc range was the 75mm of the sherman not capable to penetrate the front of the tigertank...
An American tanker quote; The sherman is the best in training, driving and a nice paradetank, but in combat its a potential coffin...
The russians liked western tanks( Sherman, general lee, mathilda) of ther comfort, not for combat. The T-34 was in much points superior to the sherman.

Talking about the numbersgame in this theory is the same that the T-55 is a better tank than the American Abram tank, becose of the numbers
(aprox. 55.000 T-55 vs 9000 Abram tanks).
The most armor of the Germans was shot to pieces by rocket fireing thunderbolts and typhoons. Not by Shermans...

The airforce in Westen Europe was the big star in this game. The germans did not really made an atempt to stop the groundforces of the allies. The only atempt was the battle for the bulge. And they preform well on this front. When the weather changed, the allied airforce did much havoc on the grond...

Regards,

Remco



The Shermans plugged the gap, so to speak. The number of them simply outweighed the more advanced German tanks. They were effective enough to elicit the desire of many other countries to bolster their ranks with Shermans. Some are still in use to this day. The T-55 was a important factor, but the Russians used Shermans until they had enough T-55s to take on and route the German army. And, you are asking for one weapon. Overall the Sherman was more widely and successfully used tank in the war.
magicsub
Visit this Community
New South Wales, Australia
Member Since: July 13, 2011
entire network: 103 Posts
KitMaker Network: 22 Posts
Posted: Friday, August 26, 2011 - 02:57 AM UTC
15 years is a bit long to wait for some T-55s....
telsono
Visit this Community
California, United States
Member Since: March 27, 2007
entire network: 76 Posts
KitMaker Network: 25 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 - 10:29 AM UTC
There ae alot of facets to this discussion. Albert Speer in an interview after the war stated that theuse of American women as laborers was a significant help to the Allied cause. Germany was still on a peace time economy until 1942! Slave labor didn't produce quality equipment. I have read stories that the slave laboures devloped techniques that they taught others to make "hollow" welds when building tanks. The welds looked good on inspection but when that part of the armor was hit, the armor would split at the weld. There were many aircraft engines that just wouldn't work because of labor sabatoge as well. The use of German women would have improved the quality as they would be making the weapons that would help their lovers and loved ones survive better.
Although the Sherman was inferior to the Panther, it could be said that it was at least equal to the Pz IV. One thing that it did have was mechanical dependability, you anc drive 100 miles over broken terrain with a Sherman and you would hope for 10 miles in a Tiger or Panther before it broke down. There's the old comment by a German tank commander who said that a Panther was worth 11 Shermans, but we always had 12! After the war the Ferench Army used the Panther as their main battle tank, but after a couple of years they bought Shermans to replace them as their tanks were always in the shop!
Remember that the German army was never fully mechanized as that of the Americans and British. "Operation Sealowe" would have stripped all of the military and civilian motorized transport in western Europe in order to have a chance of success. The major means of transport in a German infantry division was the horse! Yes, the horse! more horses were used the the military forces in WWII than any other previous conflict or since. This situation was wosre with their allies. Italian infantry divisions wee practically in a dearth when it came to motorized transport. That is one of the reasons for the massed surrenders. No transport, no ammo, no food, no water, and 100 miles (or even just 20) of desert to the new front line, I would surrender as well.
Exhaustion was setting in to all combatants by the time 1945 came about. The British were canabalizing divisions for manpower as soon as Normandy. Replacement depots for the US Army were in need of men. We were also thinking if not doing, dismantling of incoming divisions as well for replacements.
The force of the industrial might of the US along with the Soviet industries were the hammer and anvil for the Axis demise. The two future super powers were producing steamrollers to flatten the Axis powers and Rosie the Riviter and her soviet counterpart were at the whell of those machines.
Even though it could be said that Mussolini hampered the Italian military by sending it piecemeal all over the place. More Italian troops actually were used and lost on the Eastern front than used in North Africa. With the Italian units each unit that was designated as a division was actually of the same size of a British brigade. concentration of his forces or, even a neutrality that was pro-German would have hampered us more.
The Japanese were on the defensive since the time they were on the defensive in the Solomons and New Guinea. Their elite naval aviators and carries were down to a cadre of what they once were. The home islands are sparse of natural resources making them more vulerable to our submarine tactics in the Pacific. By 1945, many Japanese vessels were using raw petroleum as the means to refine it was unavailable. "Operatiion Olympic" (the invasion of Honshu island) was in full planning at the time the atomic bombs were dropped. It was predicted to be very bloody and the planning data was among the material that Truman used in his decison to drop those bombs.
I am getting long winded and will end it here.
Redprol
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Member Since: August 10, 2011
entire network: 103 Posts
KitMaker Network: 13 Posts
Posted: Sunday, September 09, 2012 - 09:18 AM UTC
The reason the Allies won, as Eisenhower is said to have said, " we won on a wave of Oil"
plastickjunkie
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Member Since: December 31, 2009
entire network: 399 Posts
KitMaker Network: 92 Posts
Posted: Saturday, September 15, 2012 - 06:42 AM UTC
IMO, the A Bomb was the single weapon that forced Japan to surrender, otherwise they would have fought to the last woman and child still standing.
David_StoryModels
Visit this Community
England - North West, United Kingdom
Member Since: January 11, 2012
entire network: 113 Posts
KitMaker Network: 79 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - 08:34 AM UTC
Another vote for A-Bomb from me.
It stopped Stalin to go further West as he dreamed of.
Otherwise the War would last much longer .
Kencelot
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Member Since: December 27, 2001
entire network: 4,268 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,174 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - 09:41 AM UTC
Freedom, the single most powerful weapon. Period.
casailor
Member Since: June 22, 2007
entire network: 165 Posts
KitMaker Network: 56 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 - 07:04 PM UTC
Japan simply didn't have the industrial might to build a large, modern army. It didn't have the resource base, or the population either. By December 1941 Japan had expanded it's military as far as it could. If nothing else the American embargo would have strangled the Japanese economy to the point where it couldn't maintain the military it already had built and trained.
Removed by original poster on 12/05/12 - 13:36:32 (GMT).
spacewolfdad
Visit this Community
England - West Midlands, United Kingdom
Member Since: May 23, 2010
entire network: 642 Posts
KitMaker Network: 43 Posts
Posted: Saturday, December 15, 2012 - 02:07 PM UTC
I feel that the humble 'Jeep' must have had a big part in contributing to victory in WWII,there were about 640,000 Jeeps built during the war, which accounted for approximately 18% of all the wheeled military vehicles built in the U.S. during the war. Surely that has to be significant?

All the best,

Paul