Over rated weapons of WW II

[swampyankee]

Thomson SMG. Heavy, expensive, low mv

 

[Shortround6]

The accuracy of rifles can vary over quite a range. And that is if you feed them good ammo or ammo that individual rifle likes or dislikes.
For .22s that can vary from lot number to lot number of the same make and grade of ammo.
With centerfield military rifles you have wartime and peacetime production of both rifles and ammo and some of the wartime stuff can be pretty poor. Bit that is not an indication of design or peacetime quality control.

 

[Shortround6]

The German 88 gun, in my mind, is like what the Ju88 was for aircraft. Very versatile performing a lot of duties well, even if not great at any one of them. I'd like to hear why it may be overrated.

It was not quite as versatile as often portrayed.
It's use as an anti-tank gun was almost as much a desperation move as was the British use of the 25pdr as an anti-tank gun. In France the 50mm AT gun had yet to be issued so anti-tank duties fell to the 37mm AT guns, and in emergencies to whatever artillery the tanks happened to run across. The Germans having the foresight to realize that tanks might appear from unexpected directions and in unexpected places, they provided their field artillery (and AA guns) with armor piercing ammunition rather than providing the gun batteries with a few anti-tank rifles or 1-2 AT-guns per battery (or battalion) for local defense. However the scale of issue was small (at least in the early part of the war) like around 5 projectiles per gun.
However you run into the problems of not only low quantities of AP ammo but the inescapable fact that if the field guns (and AA guns) are located up front within visual distance of the enemy, they are not doing their primary job of providing artilley support (HE and smoke) or providing AA fire. Sticking guns up front where your enemy can see them went out of fashion about the 2nd week of WW I. (sarcasm)
These big AA guns (include the American 90mm and the British 3.7in) are very large and hard to dig in, very heavy so they require large artillery tractors/tow vehicles and are pretty much impossible to move without the tow vehicle over more than a few feet in very favourable circumstances. They also wear out barrels much, much quicker than regular field artillery. They generally also have larger crews.

Now as general artillery (back behind the front line and firing HE support) some countries have made use of medium/large AA guns but usually only when they had a surplus of AA guns, this "surplus" was usually created by a lack of attacking enemy aircraft in that theater or section of the front. SInce the guns (and ammo ) were there, they were used.

For the Germans, they ran into problems with both the Russians and the British fielding tanks that the new 50mm PAK38 could not deal with and neither could any of the normal field artillery so the 88 was pressed into service again and higher quantities of AP ammo provided (as a frantic hunt for an effective hollow charge projectile for the 105 howitzer went on).

88s that were deployed for AT work were never tied into an air defense net or fire control system and if "loaned" (they usually belonged to the Luftwaffe) out too long to the ground troops the AA specific equipment (like follow the dial aiming systems and fuse setters) had an alarming tendency to either disappear or become nonfunctional do to lack of maintenance rendering the gun unuseable as an AA gun should the AA battery ever get the guns back or be employed as an AA gun.

The gun (and mounting) may have been able to be used in 3 roles but never at the same time and often only in two roles if expected to shift back and forth.

Using AA guns to fire artillery barrages uses up propellent and gun barrels at a pretty high rate for a small delivery of explosives. The 88mm used a fixed charge of 2.41kg of propellent to deliver a 9.4kg shell with 0.87kg of explosive. Granted it could shoot further than the German 105 howitzer but the standard 105 howitzer used 0.984kg of propellent (charge 6) to deliver a 14.81kg shell with 1.38kg of HE.

The American 90mm and the British 3.7in were both heavier than the "short" 88 gun and while actually better AA guns suffered the same (or more) problems if employed as AT guns or field artillery (both were employed as field artillery late in the war when the Luftwaffe, a few last ditch attacks aside had largely lost it's ability to attack US and British troops in NW Europe and Italy.)

 

[Shortround6]

Well, there were over 80,000 t-34's produced in WWII. By contrast, only about 1200 Tiger I's were made. Russia was producing 3 times the number of T-34's in one month than Germany produced Tigers for the whole war.
To the earlier comment on T-34's being the most knocked out, that is true. I think over 44,000 were lost in action.

Are these new figures? like from the 1990s or later?

80,000 is about 24-25,000 more than some books say, but many books don't come close to agreeing on the number of T-34s and T-34/85s built during the war or the number of T-34/85s built after the war. The Number of SU-122s, SU-85s and SU-100s don't seem to come close to making up the difference.

 

[soulezoo]

SR6, I was vague in my post as I was going off of faulty memory from a conglomeration of past reads, I couldn't provide sources. However a quick look at wiki (I know, I know) backs up those numbers. I in no way stand fast on them or am ready to argue them. However, numbers correct or not, the overall point remains. Let's take your provisional quantity at 55,000... this still illustrates the number advantage rather well. (55,000>1200) A tiger (forgetting Panthers or others for the moment that had the innate ability to be better than the t-34) would have to destroy 46 T-34's for every loss it takes (I think historical is something closer to 10-1). And that's provided the tiger is not broke down somewhere with its well documented mechanical issues (Panther as well).
For me, T-34 and V2 in my mind are the overrated weapons. Lenin was right (or was it Stalin or Trotsky? I see different credits abound) when stating "quantity has a quality all it's own".

 

[The Basket]

There is a point here that reliable and accurate by ww2 standards is not the same as today standards.

The M1 carbine maybe unreliable by today's standards but it was ok by ww2 standards. Some expert I was listening to said that mags for the carbine were junked often and replaced often as the mags were seen as weak links but having a fresh supply mitigate that problem.

MOA was barn door size in comparison to today so even a ww2 sniper rifle was certainly wide of the mark.

The most obvious small arms which are considered poorly are the Mosin rifle, Nagant revolver, the Type 14 Nambu pistol and Type 94 Nambu pistol, Sten Gun, G41 and G43 rifles, Breda 30, PIAT,

Thompson was said to be too heavy to be popular with the rank and file

 

[GrauGeist]

There is no way that the V-2 could be over-rated.

It was an unstoppable weapon with no known counter-measures and it was the herald of things to come - quite possibly one of the most terrifying weapons of WWII short of the atomic bomb.

 

[The Basket]

V2 was a fantastic technology.
But as a weapon of war it was meh.
V1 was more capable.
Considering it all the V2 turned out to be a huge waste of resources which would have been better spent on something else.

 

[KiwiBiggles]

V2 was a fantastic technology.
But as a weapon of war it was meh.
V1 was more capable.
Considering it all the V2 turned out to be a huge waste of resources which would have been better spent on something else.

Sums up pretty much every German wonder-weapon.

 

[GrauGeist]

The A4 program was a transitional point in warfare.
Rest assured, if the British or Americans had the technology and hardware, they would not have hesitated to deploy them.

The V-1 program may have also been seen as a waste, but it did acheive some limited success - and let's compare how many V-1s were intercepted versus how many V-2s were intercepted, which would be none. There simply wasn't any countermeasures against a ballistic missile at the time and the V-2's targeting was hampered by the British releasing false reports, causing the Germans to incorrectly adjust their aim.

The U.S. had a similar program with the TDR drone system intended to be deployed against the Japanese, but delays and eventual successes against the Japanese later in the war reduced the need for the TDR, so it saw very limited deployment.

In warfare, you use every option at hand and oddly enough, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles happen to be in every major power's inventory...not too bad for a "wonder weapon", eh?

 

[The Basket]

The v-2 as a concept is ok but Germany paid a very expensive bill for something that didn't do much.

Oddly the fact the V-1 could be intercepted was a bonus! It meant fighters and guns and men were used in defence of UK rather than in other areas and fighters were lost and material were used for little loss to the Germans.

 

[michael rauls]

The A4 program was a transitional point in warfare.
Rest assured, if the British or Americans had the technology and hardware, they would not have hesitated to deploy them.

The V-1 program may have also been seen as a waste, but it did acheive some limited success - and let's compare how many V-1s were intercepted versus how many V-2s were intercepted, which would be none. There simply wasn't any countermeasures against a ballistic missile at the time and the V-2's targeting was hampered by the British releasing false reports, causing the Germans to incorrectly adjust their aim.

The U.S. had a similar program with the TDR drone system intended to be deployed against the Japanese, but delays and eventual successes against the Japanese later in the war reduced the need for the TDR, so it saw very limited deployment.

In warfare, you use every option at hand and oddly enough, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles happen to be in every major power's inventory...not too bad for a "wonder weapon", eh?

I think this highlights an interesting dichotomy in decision making facing military planners. That is spend resources on alot of older technology or fewer numbers of new. When viewed in relatively.short time frames it is easy to think it's better to go with more of the older technology but viewed in slightly longer time frames this kind of thinking will lead to fighting jets with biplanes so at some point you have to push ahead with new technology even if the cost per unit is many times higher.
Not that this is always the right decision but something that needs to be considered.

 

[GrauGeist]

The V-1 was relatively inexpensive and quick to manufacture, easy to deploy from fixed or mobile launch platforms and yeilded highly effective results compared to the cost of manned missions.

The A4 (V-2) program was of course expensive, as complex technology (even today) will be, but the ballistic missile could carry a higher payload and as I've mentioned before: had no countermeasures. The V-2's targets had no idea of it's approach until it was inbound and generating one (or more) sonic-booms moments before impact.

Many people laugh at Germany's "wonder weapons" but in reality, it's a sobering thought if one considers that a great deal of Germany's "wonder weapons" were grabbed up by the Allies after the war and that technology was the core of the Superpower's arsenal during the Cold War. The U.S. Redstone rocket was a direct descendant of the A4, and the Redstone was not only a nuclear weapon delivery system, it was also the backbone of the early Mercury Space missions.

Even before the Cold War, the U.S. was prepared to unleash the V-2, as the JB-2/KGW-1, against Japan during the invasion of the home islands.

It is true that the A4 consumed a great deal of expenses, material and manpower, but in total warfare, if you have a weapon that may offer an edge over the enemy, you pursue it.

Fortunately for the Allies, Germany did not have the sustained economic, industrial base, raw materials or most importantly: time, to bring their technology to maturity.

 

[soulezoo]

I was going to jump in here but some of my typing has been saved. No disagreement with the last post by GrauGeist. Without the V2 and its development, we may not have had the space race or the man on the moon. The V2 was extraordinarily valuable to where we are today in most "space based" things. Without Werner Von Braun, (and company), it may be arguable whether we have things like GPS or DirecTV or sputnik (satellite based technology needing rockets to get it there).

I was simply limiting my comment to its usefulness (overrated-ness?) as a weapon as used in WW II, not about future potential. If it was able to have even a small nuke (say little boy sized) and deliver to the UK, would that not have changed everything? But it didn't. It definitely was indefensible (once launched anyway) but smallish payload and inaccuracies simply gave it a cost to produce and deliver that was greater than the actual damage caused (psychological notwithstanding). Understanding the potential (hindsight is 20/20) I would have likely pursued it as well.

 

[pbehn]

Well I don't know that the V1 and V2 were overrated, the V3 was useless.

 

[GrauGeist]

I was going to jump in here but some of my typing has been saved. No disagreement with the last post by GrauGeist. Without the V2 and its development, we may not have had the space race or the man on the moon. The V2 was extraordinarily valuable to where we are today in most "space based" things. Without Werner Von Braun, (and company), it may be arguable whether we have things like GPS or DirecTV or sputnik (satellite based technology needing rockets to get it there).

I was simply limiting my comment to its usefulness (overrated-ness?) as a weapon as used in WW II, not about future potential. If it was able to have even a small nuke (say little boy sized) and deliver to the UK, would that not have changed everything? But it didn't. It definitely was indefensible (once launched anyway) but smallish payload and inaccuracies simply gave it a cost to produce and deliver that was greater than the actual damage caused (psychological notwithstanding). Understanding the potential (hindsight is 20/20) I would have likely pursued it as well.

Each V-2 delivered a payload of about 2,200 pounds at a speed of roughly 1,700mph, creating close to battleship weapon sized craters and the Germans launched close to 2,000 of them at Britain (London most often).

The weapon itself was fearsome technology and had the potential to inflict great damage and harm, except for the fact the the British acted quickly with disinformation that led the Germans astray. This act was what saved countless lives and property and relegated the V-2 to history as a failure.
Had the Germans had a spotter on the ground to correct the V-2's target or at least a more accurate targeting computer, then the V-2's legacy would have been much, much different.

 

[The Basket]

The Americans did have the capacity to build and develop their own V2 as the V2 was based on the work of Robert Goddard.

A story is that after WW2 when the rocket scientists were been interrogated they were asked about the science and the answers were 'ask Goddard'. Goddard didn't get a fraction of the V2 budget.

My view is that the V2 has to be seen in the context of how much was spent V what it did. A huge technical achievement but didn't do much for Germany.

In the end it may have got Werner Von Braun a better suit and good English language skills but that didn't help the Nazi war effort.

 

[Milosh]

Are these new figures? like from the 1990s or later?

80,000 is about 24-25,000 more than some books say, but many books don't come close to agreeing on the number of T-34s and T-34/85s built during the war or the number of T-34/85s built after the war. The Number of SU-122s, SU-85s and SU-100s don't seem to come close to making up the difference.

Zaloga in his book on Soviet tanks says 29,430 T-34s and 35,119 T-34/85s built, for 64,549 total. That 80K+ has to include post WW2 production as the T-34,T-34/85 was produced til 1958.

 

[The Basket]

The reason the Germans went for rockets is the Versailles treaty.
They were not mentioned so no subject to restriction.

 

[fliger747]

I do collect and shoot WWII Milsurps including the Mausers, Springfields and Mosins. The basic Mosin is an OK weapon, trigger sometimes likened to dragging a cat across Velcro, but accurate enough. The 7.62 x 54R round is an accurate round. The Finns put their own barrels on them (ie. Sako) customized the triggers and free floated the barrel in the stock, making a true silk purse. Springfields probably the Cadillac of the bunch, though the Mausers are quite nice, the Swedish being the best of the bunch, though anything that says Bruno on it is usually excellent. However the M1 Garand really eclipsed the 1903 in US service. I could shoot one of those all day, not so the bolt guns.

BAR, hard hitting, reliable, meant to be used like a rifle with aimed concentrated fire, not a spray and pray weapon really. heavy, but to be used in that role it had to be. The M14 was really too light for automatic fire with a powerful cartridge.