Most Important Technology for Allies in WW2

That would seem to have been one of our disadvantages that we one in spite of, not because of. I've seen former German pilots talking in interviews about using a dogfighting technique of first climbing above an enemy plane and then diving back at it because they knew that Allied planes didn't have the engine power to climb like they could. And the Thach Weave that someone else mentioned before was explicitly designed to overcome enemy planes' superior climb rates and turning rates.

Eh? German fighters (sometimes) had an advantage in rate of climb because they were pitting lightweight and lightly loaded point defense interceptors optimized for climb against much more armored Allied escort fighters, carrying more ammunition for extended combat, and heavily laden with fuel so they could fly so far and still make it home.

It had nothing to do with engines, and indeed the Allies were consistently ahead in both piston and jet engine techology during the war. The P&W R-2800, for instance, was both more reliable than, and had a higher power to weight ratio than the BMW 801 or Jumo 213. The problem is only worsened by the much higher quality fuel consistently available to the Allies. The Germans tried to make up for this with heavily adulterated fuel, which reduced range and engine lifespan, and temporary cheats like nitrous injection which further reduce reliability and still barely broke even by making their aircraft much more lightly loaded than the Allies were comfortable with.

As for the Thatch Weave, the Japanese gained climb and turning rates by stripping absolutely everything from Zeros and Oscars, including even radios, something they resorted to because they were unable to produce engines of sufficient power or fuel better than 87 octane. An advantage bought at great cost and lost once the Americans came out with the Hellcat and Corsair, each packing over twice the horsepower giving them equivalent or superior performance while still carrying heavy armor and armament.
 
My vote goes to the V1 and V2 rockets.
The space program of today owes a great deal to this WW2 technology.
 
Yep computers for code breaking and fire tables. Indeed the whole artillery Fire Direction Center.

Production technology.

It wouldn´t have mattered if the Allies hadn´t had all those fancy modern gadget, as long as they could bury the Axis under heaps of newly built tanks, planes and warships.
The biggie in my view. Lots of "good enough" rather an a tiny number of superb weapons systems.

Wasn't the mass production of penicillin figured out during WWII? I would rate that quite highly.
Yes, Peoria's greatest contribution to WW2, a moldy cantaloupe.
Though I think DDT may have saved more lives in absolute terms.

Actually, hadn't really thought of Sonar. (Probably should have included it in the list, but I'm not familiar with any particular allied 'advantage' in technology.)

Again, something I'm not that familiar with.
Allied SONAR (passive mostly) was somewhat more advanced but far more important in anti-submarine operations that it was to Germany or Japan.

Not sure if it's a technology or a philosophy or just a way of life, but the Allies understood logistics in a way that the Axis never really did. I'd probably rank codebreaking above logistics as war-winning technologies for the Allies, but logistics was still a huge (if unglamorous) factor.
You know the saying "smart generals study logistics"?

I don't think you can state a single most important thing in a war as massive as WWII. There are dozens of Allied inventions that were critical to the war.

You didn't mention Higgins boats, Liberty ships and the jeep!

BTW: I thought the Norden bombsight was more myth than reality and that it was pretty much outdated by the start of US involvement.
The Norden bombsight had little read world impact on bombing accuracy; German bombsights, such as the Lotfe 7, were at least as accurate and much simpler.
The liberty ship, and especially its simplified construction, was a significant factor in winning the Battle of the Atlantic.

The main U.S. weapon was the M1, a semi-automatic rifle with an 8 round capacity. The germans were using the 98k, which was a bolt-action rifle with a 6 round capacity. Thus, I think the American weapon would have the lead here. (The 98K may have been more accurate but I don't think it would have mattered much.)
The (Canadian:)) Garand gave US forces a density of fire unmatched my other nations; no one else issued a semi-automatic rifle as a standard infantry weapon1. However pretty much every other country integrated superior light machine guns (Bren, MG34/42 et cetera) at section/squad level for fire support while the US used the BAR.

According to the Wikipedia Page, the walkie talkie was largely developed in America. Not sure if the Germans adopted them, but if not it might have given an edge to the Allies.
The US manufactured more radios than all other combatants combined; this ubiquitous communications gave US forces a significant edge.

1 Ironic given France planned to introduce one just prior to WW1 and Britain has ordered one into mass production at the end of WW1.
 
My vote goes to the V1 and V2 rockets.
The space program of today owes a great deal to this WW2 technology.
Yes the V weapons were a major boon to the Allies; the tied up resources and has negligible military impact.
 
German optics were incredibly superior throughout the war. The US, and most allied nations looked upon binoculars and such as items to be used ,broken and replaced. The Axis looked upon them as critical items. This showed when Germany shared their industrial methods with Japan and meant that submarine hunting could be tricky. Those huge binoculars could see the hunter planes far enough away for the sub to dive and get to safety.
Slightly off topic anecdote. When sniping became important in WW1 Britain looked around for the best source for telescopic sights, as native supplies and production were limited. The answer of course was Germany. So a mission was sent to neutral Switzerland to see what could be arranged. Bizarrely the German government was willing to supply optics to Britain, in exchange for rubber, though the deal never went through...........
 
Yes the V weapons were a major boon to the Allies; the tied up resources and has negligible military impact.

In the bigger picture: 9000 dead , 25,000 injured and much infrastructure damage is not a large percentage of total death and destruction.

The V3 never got to be fired in anger. The topic of the thread is about technology and not death and destruction per se.

So my vote is still rocket technology for the allies even though it was only after the war.:)
 
That part of what I mean by "production technology" - having a design that can be built quickly, cheaply and in large numbers.

For example, sonar and decryption and the Hedgehog played a role in the Battle of the Atlantic, even a big role - but in the end they did not matter all that much, because the Allies, mostly the US, built ships faster than the Germans could sink them.

The production aspect ties in neatly with the logistics side of things mentioned above.

The werhmacht had problems with logistics anyway (not being particularly mechanised), but these were exacerbated by havig few standard parts for things like their AFVs. A lot of their equipment was design from scratch.

The allies (especially the US and Soviets) kit had a lot of swappable parts...and were generally a lot easier to maintain.

But, to be honest, the defining technology probably depends on which period fo the war (and which aspect) you're looking at.
 
I do recognize that much of the allied success in the war came from superior production (especially in the U.S.). But was there any particular technology that favored the allies? I always assumed it was just because the U.S. had A: a large population/more infrastructure, B: was relatively isolated (so they didn't have to worry about factories getting bombed), and C: made a few wise production decisions (favoring quantity over quality in some cases).


Yeah, manufacturing infrastructure out of reach of enemy bombers, along with safe access to mineral wealth, is the major factor. The Soviet Union, though a relatively non-industrialized country, produced over 65,000 T-34 tanks beyond the Urals during the war.

It doesn't answer the question about technology edge so much as overwhelm it.
 
You might be the first one that read that as "bombes" and not "bombs". :D

Fear not. Not everyone who smiled at that responded.

I'm inclined to say it was the T-34. If there was anything aside from sheer weight of numbers which allowed the Russians to turn the tide, then it was probably the simple, robust, well-armoured T-34.

And if it wasn't for those Soviet divisions advancing West, I suspect there would have been considerably less urgency for the Western allies to get ashore in France in the first place, and there would have been stiffer German resistance on the Western front when they did. Also, since the Germans would have had the Caucasus oilfields, what if the Tigers hadn't run out of fuel in the Battle of the Bulge?
 
Also, since the Germans would have had the Caucasus oilfields, what if the Tigers hadn't run out of fuel in the Battle of the Bulge?

Not much would have changed. As soon as the weather cleared, the Thunderbolts would have plied their trade. Tigers moving or stopped are still just targets
 
The Warthogs and the Typhoons were firing 5" rockets. Same size warhead as our destroyers packed. Der panzer ist kaput.

In terms of technology, naval gunnery underwent some pretty impressive improvements in accuracy. I recall reading accounts of King Tigers being picked off by Battleship gunnery at 18 miles in the early phases of D Day.

One eyewitness account describes 70 tons of tank being thrown 75 feet into the air and landing on its roof.
 
You're all wrong! The answer to the OP is...

Dried Eggs.

And SPAM!

:cool:

I do not like Dried Eggs and Spam.
I do not like them, Aitch-I-am.

I do not like them at Ardennes.
I do not like them with a Bren.

I do not like them untersee
I do not like them at Leyte.

I do not like them dodging flak.
I do not like them flying back.

I do not like them in the Blitz.
I do not like them flying Spits.

I do not like them on patrols.
I do not like them digging holes.

I do not like Dried Eggs and Spam.
I do not like them, Aitch-I-am.

. . . with apologies to Theodor Geisel
 
In terms of technology, naval gunnery underwent some pretty impressive improvements in accuracy. I recall reading accounts of King Tigers being picked off by Battleship gunnery at 18 miles in the early phases of D Day.

One eyewitness account describes 70 tons of tank being thrown 75 feet into the air and landing on its roof.
That wasn't "sharpshooting" by any means. The BBs averaged seven salvos to hit a target. The DDs inshore did about the same. (The legend about a tincan shooting a church spire suspected of being a observation post with a single shot is true except for the single shot part.)

von Rundstedt and Rommel both credited the BB bombardments as a major factor in their inability to move around the battlefield.
 
That wasn't "sharpshooting" by any means. The BBs averaged seven salvos to hit a target. The DDs inshore did about the same. (The legend about a tincan shooting a church spire suspected of being a observation post with a single shot is true except for the single shot part.)

Well, they did hit the spire with a single shot.
The other half dozen or so missed...:)
 
Again, something I'm not that familiar with.

Hedgehog mortar was a ship-borne mortar that fired a spread of small contact-controlled depth charges to a certain distance. The problem with sonar at the time was that it couldn't keep a lock during the final moments of a depth charge run. Germans knew that and had a tendency to change direction abruptly when the allied destroyer was approaching and was very close by.
The distruptions caused by the depth charges made sound detection in the general area just about impossible for up to 10 minutes, giving the submarine valuable time to escape, hence the average success rate of depth charge attacks was a less than impressive 4%.

Hedgehog mortar improved that to about 25%, it was also helped by the fact that the shells it fired were contact ignited and any explosion meant the sub was hit and also gave you a rough reading where it was.

All in all, it probably wasn't decisive, but it certainly was a technology that made a disproportionate amount of change to the balance of power in the Atlantic :)

McHrozni
 

Back
Top Bottom