Most effective weapons of WWII

[Xru]

I'd like to ask others to suggest what weapon of WWII they consider the most effective in battle.

I believe that statistical analysis of casualties in WWII show that artillery caused around 70% of them.

I would suggest that the infantryman was the most important and deadly weapon in WWII.

Any other suggestions?

[Xru]

I'd like to ask others to suggest what weapon of WWII they consider the most effective in battle.

I believe that statistical analysis of casualties in WWII show that artillery caused around 70% of them.

I would suggest that the infantryman was the most important and deadly weapon in WWII.

Any other suggestions?


Well . . .since no one seems willing to go first I will. Since I mentioned artillery as the most lethal weapon in WWII I'll start there.

Some examples of U.S. artillery:


155mm Long Tom - shot an HE shell weighing 42.96kg at a muzzle velocity of 853 m/s (2559ft/sec) with a range of 23,513 m (76,539ft).



The M 101 105mm Howitzer (left) and self-propelled version - shot HE weighing 19.08 / 14.97, with an explosive filler of TNT or 50/50 amatol, 2.18 kg with a muzzle velocity of 472 m/s and a range of 11,160 m.

Just a couple of examples. Of course there were many other types such as the M1 8" howitzer and the 240mm howitzer. Allies and Axis had equivalents to these examples.

Artillery such as those mentioned above were extremely lethal especially when proximity fuses enabled the bursting of shells at a predetermined height above the ground. The "boots" on the ground were terrified of air-bursts and rightfully so. Impact bursts tended to send shrapnel up and out giving boots in foxholes at least some protection. Air-burst however, at say 10 yards above the ground showered shrapnel down into foxholes. The best defense against air-burst or tree bursts was to stand in place to present a smaller target for the shrapnel coming from above.

The most devastating use of artillery was TOT:
Time On Target (TOT) is the military co-ordination of artillery fire by many weapons so that all the munitions arrive at the target at precisely the same time. The military standard[who?] is plus or minus three seconds from the prescribed time of impact. In terms of place, the historical standard was for the impact to occur within one circular error probable (CEP) of the designated target. (Wikipedia)

In big TOT plans, say 20 acres of field or orchard might be targeted by the combined artillery of several Divisions, and if as in Normandy, warships were within range guns as large as 16" could be used. I read a description of a TOT in Normandy. The fella described a field of corn 'bout 20 acres on a warm July day in 1944. TOT came in and in an instant the field became a seething caldron of explosions, flashes, churning dirt, and smoke. For thirty seconds . . . then stopped. What had once been a beautiful field of corn had been transformed into a barren waste of overturned brown dirt piled irregularly with a thick pall of cordite smoke lingering over it. Nothing was alive there. Any foxholes, dugouts, or pillboxes were obliterated along with their occupants. The solider moved forward, not over the field as it was 3' of soft soil, but around it.

A quote from a link you might want to go to:
The field artillery had a critical role in World War II. General George Patton, Third Army commander, said in his biography that "we won the war, and it was largely won by the artillery" (1). The importance of the artillery is often overlooked by those that are not students of World War II; however, every infantry soldier will attest to the importance of the artillery support in battle. An American officer said that "we let the arty fight the war as much as possible" (2). Even the Germans, who were critical of the American infantry, consistently praised the artillery (2). The ability of the American artillery to fire multiple batteries in a "Time on Target" (TOT) mode was particularly devastating, and German prisoners attested to the catastrophic effects of the TOT firing. What we lacked in other areas we more than made up for it with our strong suit - the artillery (2).

http://www.timeontarget.us/book.html

There are sample chapters that give highlights of the devastation wrought by artillery of both sides in WWII, but much perfected by the Allies.

Cheers.

[Xru]

Perhaps the second most effective weapon of WWII was the Garand M1 rifle.
66441
A company of infantry usually around 120 rifles on the firing line could put out a huge volume of fire using the Garand. A single soldier could maintain 40 to 50 accurate shots at 300 yards. That makes a volume of 6,000 rounds per minute, the equivalent of today's mini-guns. Additionally, the .30-06 is a heavy hitter compared to the .223 rounds now used in the M-16. Not a sexy weapon but extremely lethal.

[One Bad Pig]

Fat Man and Little Boy.

:outtie:

[moreta]

If you're going that route, howzabout Bockscar and Enola Gay? After all, the bombs didn't get there on their own. However, I think I agree with TD in the first post. that the infantryman was the most effective weapon of WWII, and not just the American infantry. I think all the allied soldiers were (and are) to be commended.

[Xru]

Fat Man and Little Boy.

:outtie:

uhmm . . . right. What am I thinking. I missed that one, ha ha ha.

[moreta]

To be really pedantic, it should be Little Boy and Fat Man. Little Boy was the first one.

:teeth:

Bad habit of mine. I'm ( sort of) sorry.

[Xru]

I don't know about most effective but these are pretty cool:
66739
This is a 10,000 lbs Tall Boy.

66740
This is the Tall Boy 12,000 Earth Quake bomb which was designed to hit close by the target and cause a mini-earthquake.

Here's a link to youtube showing the drop of a 22,000 lbs earthquake bomb called the Grand-slam.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeUQKl81aN4

If ya like big explosions like Xru try this video ot the Tsar Bomba:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxD44HO8dNQ&NR=1&feature=fvwp

[moreta]

:bomb:


BOOM!!!!! No more bad guy.

[Xru]

:bomb:

BOOM!!!!! No more bad guy.

The Tall Boy (12,000 lbs) was used in an attack on the German battleship Tirpitz after many other British air and sea attacks failed to sink the huge and dangerous battleship, the sister ship to the Bismark.
66760

"A force of 32 Lancasters from No 9 and 617 squadrons dropped 29 Tallboys on the ship, with two direct hits and one near miss.[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Tirpitz#cite_note-B26-43)"
66759

"One bomb penetrated the ship's deck between turrets Anton and Bruno but failed to explode. A second hit amidships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amidships) between the aircraft catapult and the funnel and caused severe damage. A very large hole was blown into the ship's side and bottom; the entire section of belt armor abreast of the bomb hit was completely destroyed. A third bomb may have struck the ship on the port side of turret Caesar."[51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Tirpitz#cite_note-GD272-53)

"At 9:58, thirteen minutes after the attack began, a massive explosion rocked turret Caesar."

"Tirpitz then rapidly rolled over and buried her superstructure in the sea floor."[52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Tirpitz#cite_note-GD273-54)
66761


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Tirpitz#British_attacks_on_Tirpitz

[Littlejoe]

For clearing enemy bunkers....the Flame Thrower was quite effective....

LJ

[Hamster]

Russian snow

[Cow Poke]

Perhaps the second most effective weapon of WWII was the Garand M1 rifle.
66441
A company of infantry usually around 120 rifles on the firing line could put out a huge volume of fire using the Garand. A single soldier could maintain 40 to 50 accurate shots at 300 yards. That makes a volume of 6,000 rounds per minute, the equivalent of today's mini-guns. Additionally, the .30-06 is a heavy hitter compared to the .223 rounds now used in the M-16. Not a sexy weapon but extremely lethal.

Just an aside -- a lot of the old timers cursed the Garand as the cause of the decline of the "hit ratio" of the average soldier. It made it easier to "throw bullets down range" hoping they would hit something, as opposed to the bolt-action that required you to aim, concentrate, sqeeeeeeeeeeeze the trigger...

But, yeah, I like the Garand. Last night I saw, on "Top Ten" (or one of those shows), the newest version of the military's Gatling Gun - 6,600 rounds a minute (M61A2).

[Xru]

Just an aside -- a lot of the old timers cursed the Garand as the cause of the decline of the "hit ratio" of the average soldier. It made it easier to "throw bullets down range" hoping they would hit something, as opposed to the bolt-action that required you to aim, concentrate, sqeeeeeeeeeeeze the trigger...

But, yeah, I like the Garand. Last night I saw, on "Top Ten" (or one of those shows), the newest version of the military's Gatling Gun - 6,600 rounds a minute (M61A2).

Yup . . . GI's used to do whats called "walking fire" which is so I'm told a company or larger group walking forward with the M1 at their hip slinging slugs out there as fast as they could.

[Xru]

For clearing enemy bunkers....the Flame Thrower was quite effective....

LJ

Ya . . . if the operator could get close enough. Late in the war, commanders got tired of loosing men assaulting bunkers and started bringing up 6" arti to do the bunker at point blank range. That really rang their bells. Worked every time.

[Cow Poke]

But have you ever seen a QUAD .50 cal machinegun?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m225CyqeEAs

[Xru]

But have you ever seen a QUAD .50 cal machinegun?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m225CyqeEAs

Thanks CP. That is great. The Germans really hated those quad's. The US Army used to like to line them up during a crossing of a river and light up the other side with suppressing fire . . . 'bout 100 of them over a couple miles. Made the crossings easy.

[Xru]

I will discuss two of the most cost effective tanks of WWII: the Soviet T-34 and the Sherman Firefly.

One of the most effective or widely used weapons during WWII was the tank. Many argue that the Soviet T-34 was one of the best if not the best tank produced by any combatant in WWII.
66889
“The T-34 was a Soviet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) medium tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_tank) produced from 1940 to 1958. Although its armour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle) and armament were surpassed by later tanks of the era, it has been often credited as the most effective, efficient and influential design of World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II).”*


“At its introduction, it was the tank with the best balanced attributes of firepower, mobility, protection and ruggedness, although initially its battlefield effectiveness suffered from the unsatisfactory ergonomic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergonomics) layout of its crew compartment, scarcity of radios (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat-net_radio), and poor tactical employment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tactics).”


Steven J. Zaloga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Zaloga), an American historian and well-known author on military technology called the T-34 “The technological pace-setter of World War II tank design.”


“Experience at the Battle of Kursk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk) and reports from front-line commanders indicated that the T-34's 76.2 mm gun was now inadequate. An existing 85 mm (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=85_mm_air_defence_gun_M1939_%2852-K%29&action=edit&redlink=1) (3.3 in) anti-aircraft gun was identified as effective against the new German tanks, and could be adapted to tank use.”


Although, still not a match for the Panther, the improved T34-85's main gun armour-penetration and turret frontal-armour thickness both nearly doubled.


The Soviet's developed the IS or Iosif Stalin series of heavy tanks to deal with the German Panther V, Tiger I and Tiger II or the King Tiger.


While the American's didn't deploy a tank capable of defeating the Panther and Tiger heavy tanks (except for 20 M-26 heavy tanks deployed to Europe), the British developed the Sherman Firefly, a modified M4 with the British 17 pounder anti-tank gun.
66890




The Sherman Firefly had all the advantages of the M-4 medium tank, reliability, easy maintenance, and high turret transverse speed.


The 17 pounder was the most effective anti-tank gun of the war.
66891
“The 17-pounder used two types of anti-tank ammunition. APCBC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APCBC) (Armour Piercing, Capped, Ballistic Capped) ammunition could penetrate 140 mm of armour at 457 metres and 131 mm at 914 m at a 30 degree angle. APDS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APDS) (Armour Piercing, Discarding Sabot) could penetrate 208 mm of armour at 457 m and 192 mm at 914 m at a 30 degree angle, allowing it to penetrate the armour of even the redoubtable King Tiger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II) tank. However, APDS was much less accurate than APCBC ammunition, and did not do nearly as much damage to an enemy tank if it did penetrate. APCBC ammunition was standard; APDS shot was used for about 6% of the average loadout of a 17-pdr equipped British tank.”


“It soon became highly valued as the only British tank capable of defeating the Panther (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank) and Tiger tanks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I) it faced in Normandy at standard combat ranges.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly


*All quotes are from Wikipedia unless otherwise indicated.

[Der Kanzler]

If we're talking about effectiveness tactically, the ME-262 was definitely up there, as was the STG 44.

Strategically, I'd go with the M1 carbine, the 88, or the carrier.

[Xru]

Strategically, I'd go with the M1 carbine,
I agree with the M1! It gave a typical infantry company a lot of fire power.

[cujo006]

I agree with the M1! It gave a typical infantry company a lot of fire power.

You're right. I saw from the military history channel (I think) that compared to the Kar98's 5-10 rounds per minute (correct me if I'm wrong), the M1 could do like 50 and it had the same power and accuracy.

[Cow Poke]

You're right. I saw from the military history channel (I think) that compared to the Kar98's 5-10 rounds per minute (correct me if I'm wrong), the M1 could do like 50 and it had the same power and accuracy.

There's always a trade-off, of course, between the speed with which we can put multiple projectiles down range, and the accuracy with which we can do it.

A sniper, of course, is committed to "one shot - one kill". Accuracy is paramount.

Semi-auto, of course, decreases the absolute necessity of accuracy, and full-auto makes it even less critical.

Since a critical factor in fielding an army is the "Beans and Bullets" supply tail, soldiers end up carrying far more rounds of ammo, and the "shots to kills" ratio goes way down.

There are a few other factors that I'll allow somebody else to throw in here. :smile:

[micah719]

Propaganda. It is still working today, even in this thread.

The most lethal weapon of ww2 was famine, followed by pestilence, carbon monoxide gas, aerial urban- firebombing, massed artillery, and the atomic bomb merely the most spectacular; but back of it all the lies of propaganda to motivate men to slaughter one another. The worst is yet to come.

[KingsGambit]

Propaganda.

Very interesting angle. I actually took a course in college just on the Holocaust, and we extensively studied some of the propaganda used in Germany in the early years of the Third Reich. The one example that really sticks out at me was a children's book that said that you could tell who was Jewish because their nose would supposedly look like the number 6. This stuff actually was effective.

[ActionHero]

Sorry I couldn't pipe in sooner, but I just joined the forum today. Still, wanted to contribute my $0.02 worth.

First, I think a question like this is difficult to answer without some specific parameters applied. How do you define "most efficient"? The type of weapon that killed the most people? The weapon that killed the most people with a single press of a button. The weapon that killed the most people per dollar spent?

(I loved the Russian Winter answer, by the way)

One (U.S.) general says the M-1 Garand won the war, while another says it was the Higgens boat. I don't think any weapon of the period could have been "most effective" on its own. Infantry without artillery? Artillery without infantry? Carriers without escorts? I think an argument can be made that the battle generally goes to the side that's best at combined arms operations, but only when their morale is good and they've been well trained and well led.

Which brings us to what (in my humble opinion) is the right answer:


http://www.pattonhq.com/textfiles/effect.html

"When Samson took the fresh jawbone of an ass and slew a thousand men therewith, he probably started such a vogue for the weapon, particularly among the Philistines, that for years no prudent donkey dared to bray."

How could you not be curious about what follows?

[Cow Poke]

First, I think a question like this is difficult to answer without some specific parameters applied. How do you define "most efficient"?

First, welcome to Tweb! :hi:

Second, you ask for parameters, but overlooked the ones in the title -- "the most effective (not efficient) weapons of WWII".

Interesting 2 cents, though.

:smile:

[ActionHero]

First, welcome to Tweb! :hi:

Second, you ask for parameters, but overlooked the ones in the title -- "the most effective (not efficient) weapons of WWII".

Interesting 2 cents, though.

:smile:

Thanks for the welcome, fellow Texian.

I blame the error on the fact I was up past my bedtime.

[Cow Poke]

I blame the error on the fact I was up past my bedtime.

I have used that excuse many times, myself.

And, with regards to your signature, ain't it great to live in the only State in the Union where good case for justifiable homicide can be made by telling the Judge....

"yer honor -- he JUST needed killin!" :smile:

[ActionHero]

ain't it great to live in the only State in the Union where good case for justifiable homicide can be made by telling the Judge....

"yer honor -- he JUST needed killin!" :smile:

Indeed. And in my case, I'm sure I would never be convicted of homicide. All I'd have to do is subpoena my ex wife, let her talk a while, then say "Now, if I didn't kill her, what makes you think I'd kill anyone else?"

[Cow Poke]

Indeed. And in my case, I'm sure I would never be convicted of homicide. All I'd have to do is subpoena my ex wife, let her talk a while, then say "Now, if I didn't kill her, what makes you think I'd kill anyone else?"

Laughing... that's BAD!!!! :smile:

[Teallaura]

:brood:


Back on topic (sorta): The US industrial might. Greatest gun in the world is useless if it just stays on the drawing board or enough aren't made and shipped.

[Stefcui]

Tokyo Rose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Rose) was by far the most explosive weapon of WW2.

God Bless

[Cow Poke]

Tokyo Rose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Rose) was by far the most explosive weapon of WW2.

God Bless

The Japanese were big into "PsyOps" long before it was cool.

Have you ever read about the helium balloons the Japanese launched - using the knowledge they had of the Jet Stream (at that time not yet studied in the Western World) to drop fire bombs on the Western US?

[Stefcui]

The Japanese were big into "PsyOps" long before it was cool.

Have you ever read about the helium balloons the Japanese launched - using the knowledge they had of the Jet Stream (at that time not yet studied in the Western World) to drop fire bombs on the Western US?

Yep, they used a bunch of school kids to make the bomb-balloons. It was the only time that America was bombed, as far as I know?

God Bless

[Cow Poke]

Yep, they used a bunch of school kids to make the bomb-balloons. It was the only time that America was bombed, as far as I know?

God Bless

Back in those days, the Media was able to keep their mouths shut. If word had leaked out that there actually WERE fires started by these bombs, and DEATHS (a family on a picnic after Church) there would have been real panic, and that was, indeed, the intent.

[Stefcui]

I think they rounded up about 110,000 Japanese Americans and placed them into internment camps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment) ("War Relocation Camps") to protect them. I can't remember if that was before or after the bomb-balloons. Apparently people in America were getting pretty agitated by the presence of the Japanese. That was a very strange war. The Japanese were exceptional engineers; they were building an A-bomb at the time of Hiroshima, and giant ray-guns. Thank goodness they turned their minds to making games.

[GlobalWolf]

The Japanese were exceptional engineers; they were building an A-bomb at the time of Hiroshima, and giant ray-guns. Thank goodness they turned their minds to making games.

I think how exceptional they were at engineering is pretty debatable. They lagged a little bit behind us technologically.

As far as the Japanese A-bomb project is concerned, though, I'm pretty sure that they had given up on it long before Hiroshima. The process of constructing an atomic bomb using uranium requires pretty copious amounts of the isotope U-235, which is really rare in nature (U-238 is the more common isotope, and although it will undergo fission under fast neutron bombardment, it isn't fissile and mostly acts to slow down or stop a chain reaction by capturing mid-speed neutrons that will split U-235). Japan experimented with obtaining highly pure U-235 via gaseous diffusion of uranium hexaflouride, but UF6 is highly corrosive, and just generally a poor candidate for gaseous diffusion because of its physical properties. The U.S. used quite a few different methods to get enough U-235 for the Little Boy bomb dropped on Hiroshima, but to make an entire arsenal with uranium would have been an achievement in physical science the likes of which the world has never known. We realized (along with the Nazis), that you can get U-238 to transmute to neptunium and then to decay to plutonium by allowing it to capture a neutron and then decay naturally, and that plutonium is both highly fissile and separable chemically from Uranium, but the Japanese never figured that out and the Nazis never made use of it.