Best Army of WWII?

[BeBMan]

QUOTE:
*****
I never thought about it that way but I was completely aware of all these weird, half-baked, weapons that the Germans had, like air-defense missiles, dozens of different jet designs, anti-ship missiles, the biggest tanks in the world, the biggest siege artillery ever made etc... I always thought it was spurred by Hitler in his search for "the easy way to win the War: the Wonder Weapon"...
*****


Just an addition: the large number of these so called "wonder weapons" doesn´t mean that Germany was so far ahead in weapons technologies. Despite some really innovations, many of the "weird" designs show only the desperation of the Germans, which layed their hope in such "unfinished" weapons.


------------------
Civ2000
[This message has been edited by BeBro (edited September 08, 2000).]

[Captain Nemo]

Harlan, you make some very good points and I agree with you as to the ideas the Germans came up with. Many of them worked well (V-1, V-2, Me163, Me262, Nebelwerfer etc...) however they weren't worth their cost and were produced in such small numbers that they could not achieve anything... Even such an advanced plane as the Me262 was made ineffective by Hitler's meddling making the Luftwaffe use it as a bomber (Like Germany was likely to go on the offensive in 1944...) then the lack of fuel, pilot & parts.
Something as obscure as the American bomber sight and bomb release timing system probably had a far greater impact on the War as all the German wonder weapons put together...

I am also curious about planes with "forward sweeping wings". I know the German jet with that weird design but I haven't seen any modern planes (Except a few unsuccessful prototypes) with that design.

[Evil Capitalist]

quote: Originally posted by Captain Nemo on 09-09-2000 12:33 AM I am also curious about planes with "forward sweeping wings". I know the German jet with that weird design but I haven't seen any modern planes (Except a few unsuccessful prototypes) with that design.

The 5th generation Russian S37 Berkoot fighter has swept forward wings (sorry, I can't think of a link).

[BeBMan]

Harlan, perhaps other countries haven´t builded such things like jets with forward sweeping wings because their more conventional designs were really successful. For instance the Grumman X-29 prototype with such a wing configuration was tested during nearly the same time as the two different prototypes for the new F-22 fighter. Both of these prototypes were more conventional designed (but "stealthy") and highly agile, most important for an air superiority fighter.

Nemo, why do you think the Me 163 worked well? I´ve only read that it had problems because the Me 163 pilots simply hadn´t enough time in the air for succesful attacks on the allied bombers (the rocket engine used to much fuel). Have you some more info about the combat missions of the 163 for me?

------------------
Civ2000

[Captain Nemo]

BeBro:
I did not suggest the Me163 was a great plane, but it was good enough to stay airborne and not kill the pilot as some of the other jet engined prototypes did.
It also was capable of the high altitudes required to intercept the B-29 bombers and was produced in sufficient numbers to actually have an operational record as did the Me262. The Me163s did account for a number of B-17/B-24 shootdowns, I don't know how many total but at least 20 by one Jaegerswarde (Spelling?). All the other German jet/rocket planes ended up being toys/engineering projects that were never used in any scale, even the good ones like the Arado.

[BeBMan]

Nemo, thanks for the info.

Jaegerswarde is Jagdgeschwader, which means fighter wing (just an info, not that I will correct you ).

The only fact about the Arado I know is that the Ar 234 (?) was a good jet for reconnaisance missions, but the bomber version wasn´t as good as the recce version (or unfinished)

------------------
Civ2000
[This message has been edited by BeBro (edited September 12, 2000).]

[Case]

I think that the Me163 was considered a failure. The Me163 was basically an aerodynamic tank full of rocket fuel and lacking a proper under carriage, making it very dangerous to land. Also, the Me163s speed was actually a disadvantage as a Me163 would only ever have 3 seconds to shoot at a B-17 due to their high closing speed and short range of the Me163's guns. Whilst Me163's did shoot down a fair few bombers, all the Allies had to do to limit their losses was reroute their bombers to avoid coming within range of Me163 bases (which were easily identifiable due to their long concrete runways).

[Captain Nemo]

I am in general agreement with the fact that the Me163 was a failure as a weapon. But it was nevertheless one of the few jetplanes that flew during WWII, and one of only 2 that actually had significant operational combat experience. It also was an inexpensive plane to produce, contrary to most other German weapons systems, which deserves a mention.

[klesh]

Let's all play WWII Online! and find out for ourselves!

------------------
I am the Ukrainian Anti-Pope!
Grossdeutschland!

[Prometeus]

I know that italian army wasn't the best of WWII ( and please note not for value ), but, of the Axis tanks, after Germans Tiger and Panther, the most feared by Allies was the italian howitzer-tank M41 75/18.

------------------
¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø
¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤ Ave atque vale... ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø
¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø

E-mail? Click goddi_diego@yahoo.com

[Captain Nemo]

Prometeus:
I hate to burst your bubble but I don't quite agree with your assessment of the "Semovente M.41M da 90/43".

The M41 was not a tank, or even a tank hunter. It was anti-tank gun mounted on a M13 tank chassis. It was so poorly designed that the crew had to stand on the ground behind the vehicle to operate the gun which meant it could not fire while moving and the gun crew had to sit in the open on the front of the hull when the vehicle was being moved, or travel in another vehicle. It carried no ammunition itself, meaning that it had alway to be accompanied by an ammunition carrier vehicle, more like a towed anti-tank gun.

The gun was certainly powerful (Originated as a 90mm Flak gun) and did inspire respect among the very few Allied forces that had to face it (Only 48 were ever built!)(In comparison, the Jagdtiger, which is considered never really to have gone into full scale production, reached 77 units built).

The equivalent German designed "Open" Tank-Hunters, the Marder II and III and the Nashorn were all far superior to M41 being able to fire on the move and providing better protection for their crews. The Nashorn carried the powerful Flak 88 gun, the Marder III a 76mm gun.

The German "Enclosed" Tank-Hunter the JagdPanzer IV, JagdPanther V, Hetzer, Elefant and JagdTiger were all far superior to the M41 (Though the Elefant was a dismal design itself) and 2 of them (The Hetzer and the JagdPanther V) are considered as perhaps the two most advanced tank designs of WWII.

Since the Allies only faced German and Italian tanks in Europe (And the Japanese tanks were dismal) the best that can be said for the M41 is that it was the most feared, non-German, vehicle that the Allies had to face...

Prometeus, I don't want to antagonize you, I just love the subject of WWII armor and decided to research your statement. This is what I found.

[Captain Nemo]

Here is another interesting fact about WWII armor...
It is well known that the American tanks were far inferior to the German Panthers and Tigers, right. Of course the Allies made up for it by killing a lot of the German tanks with air power...

But what happened when German and American tankers met in the field?
The "Barkmann" encounter is a well documented engagement, where a lone German ace in a Panther knocked out a dozen Sherman tanks. The Wittmann battle at Villers-Bocage against British tankers is about the best known such encounter.
But here are a couple that I found where American tankers came out ahead:

* The US 776th Tank Destroyer battalion (M10s) engaged a battalion of Pzkw IVs on March 27 1944 (in Algeria) and knocked out 14 German tanks losing only 2 themselves.

* During the Italian campaign the 894th Tank Destroyer Battalion claimed 46 German tanks and 39 other vehicles with losses of only 14 of their own M10s.

* In France the 704th TD Battalion equipped with M-18 Hellcats engaged armored units of the 11th Panzer division near Arracourt and killed 19 German tanks (including 8 Panthers) losing only 3 M-18s themselves.

* The 702nd TD Battalion equipped with M-36 fought German armor in eastern France in the last week of November 1944. Their scorecard: 8 Pzkw IV, 15 Panthers, 2 Hummels and one King Tiger for losses of only 8 M-36s themselves.

My conclusion: The German armor was better but the American tanks and especially the tank destroyers were not nearly as bad as many would make them. I also believe the Americans used their equipment better than the Germans, in general.

[The ANZAC]

quote: * The US 776th Tank Destroyer battalion (M10s) engaged a battalion of Pzkw IVs on March 27 1944 (in Algeria) and knocked out 14 German tanks losing only 2 themselves.

Don't you mean 1943 and Tunisia?

[CapTVK]

I might have a small snippet of information about the way German field infantry was so well organized...

Most german actual field units came from specific regions in germany. In many cases a unit would consist of a bunch of 'farmboys' from surrounding villages with a known local regular, like say a butcher or teacher as their sergeant. Higher up in the command structure there also could be a local constable, lawyer etc...Anyway, apart from the social bonding that seems to develop in a unit there was also a strong regional bond. This might be the reason that German infantry nearly always stayed their ground when the going became though.


I might have something about Kursk somewhere, I'll have to dig it up.

[Captain Nemo]

Anzac:
Of course it was 1943, my mistake. By 1944 all the fighting in North Africa was over... The exact location was "Maknassy", but no country is mentionned in the article. The 776th TD battalion was moved to "Phillipville, Algeria" and from there moved to Maknassy where the engagement took place...Could have been on either side of the border.

CapTVK:
I think the Wehrmacht organization did create an extremely powerful force, however I think the bonds that build between men in the field after just a few weeks or facing danger together, far surpass the "acquaintance" level relationship that people would have from living in the same town or area. So I don't think that would have played that great a role in the German's ability to fight.
I think the character of the people plays a greater role.

The Germans, disciplined and having extreme respect for authority... hence willingness to obey ANY order and ability to fight to the end without question.

The Japanese, extreme sense of Honor, hence more willing to die than to surrender. Willing to sacrifice their life for the "common good"

The Americans, organized and inventive hence very innovative strategies and a systematic approach to warfare.

And so forth...

The question remains, who was the most effective?