Most Important Technology for Allies in WW2

[akenlon]

I'm not sure if you would call this a technological advantage, but I'd have to say that our best weapon in WWII was the Aircraft Carrier. I'm not as much of a study of the European war as I am of the Pacific war, but you had the German Super Battleship (the Bismark) sunk 9 days after it set sail by a British Aircraft Carrier (HMS Ark Royal) and her antiquated squadron of Swordfish Torpedo Bombers.

In this case, the concept of Aircraft Carrier sea war was so much better than the old thinking of traditional (at the time) naval tactics of two or more ships going toe-to-toe with each other (or exchanging broadsides as it were) that even Early '30's tech. technology was able to kick the arse of a state of the art battleship.

In the Pacific War, at one point we had only one Yorktown or Essex class carrier (USS Enterprise CV-6) in the water and we were still whittling down the Japanese naval capability. In the Pacific war, there was only one incidence of an American Battleship sinking a Japanese one. A significant number of the rest of the Battleships that Japan had were taken down by Carrier-based Dive Bombers like the Helldiver.

So I'd have to say that at least in the case of the Pacific War, the Carrier was the weapon tech of choice. WWII was the death knell of the Battleship.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I recall the quote of a captured German general. He was being driven to a POW camp in France and went through an intersection where one black GI was using a bulldozer to fill in shell holes. At the same intersection, he had once seen fifty German soldiers filling in similar holes with shovels. At that moment, he recalled, he knew the war was lost.

Sounds like a myth to me.

I do not know about this specific anecdote, but the German lack of mechanical equipment/vehicles for road work and use of soldier labour is stated in a Concord Publication on panzer movements and logistics.

I can confirm the similar anecdote where Rommel observes captured US airfreight and that the mothers of individual American soldiers are flying cakes to North Africa when he could not get basics delivered.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

So do you think they should have called it? A doodle bug

I think Gawdzilla is being a bit fussy on this. On one hand the V-1 could be considered no more than a rocket assisted shell that hit the dirt when it's its "clicker" turned off the power. On the other hand, it did "cruise" at a steady path....so I think "cruise missile" is OK. (but it doesn't really matter because we all know the specific differences for each weapon)

Did you watch Tony Robinson's "Blitz Street"
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/blitz-street/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1

They built a "typical English street" and tried different German weapons on it. They concluded the V-2 may have buried itself upon reaching the target and reduced the effectiveness of the payload. The V-1 was possibly the nastier weapon as it did not bury itself. It was a good show on the ABC down in Aussieland.

Here is a you tube of the test explosions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blZz5bo-GeQ

 

[dasmiller]

I'm not sure if you would call this a technological advantage, but I'd have to say that our best weapon in WWII was the Aircraft Carrier. I'm not as much of a study of the European war as I am of the Pacific war, but you had the German Super Battleship (the Bismark) sunk 9 days after it set sail by a British Aircraft Carrier (HMS Ark Royal) and her antiquated squadron of Swordfish Torpedo Bombers.

I agree with the conclusion, but I disagree with some of the details (this is JREF, after all). Bismarck was not sunk by the Ark Royal's Swordfish. It was damaged (after being previously damaged by Prince of Wales), and that kept it from being able to escape from the two British battleships that actually sank it.

<snip>
In the Pacific war, there was only one incidence of an American Battleship sinking a Japanese one. A significant number of the rest of the Battleships that Japan had were taken down by Carrier-based Dive Bombers like the Helldiver.

I'd attribute the sinking of both Kirishima and Yamashiro to U.S. battleships.
Granted, Kirishima was arguably a battlecruiser rather than a battleship (though I'd take Kirishima over Yamashiro).

So I'd have to say that at least in the case of the Pacific War, the Carrier was the weapon tech of choice. WWII was the death knell of the Battleship.

Well, yes, but as to the OP, the aircraft carrier wasn't a technology advantage for the US in the Pacific; Japan had 'em, too, and used them quite effectively. One could make a case that naval damage control was a substantial advantage for the US in WWII.

And don't discount the impact of US & allied submarines in the Pacific.

 

[Delvo]

you had the German Super Battleship (the Bismark) sunk 9 days after it set sail by a British Aircraft Carrier (HMS Ark Royal) and her antiquated squadron of Swordfish Torpedo Bombers.

In this case, the concept of Aircraft Carrier sea war was so much better than the old thinking of traditional (at the time) naval tactics of two or more ships going toe-to-toe with each other (or exchanging broadsides as it were) that even Early '30's tech. technology was able to kick the arse of a state of the art battleship.

Not a good example. The Bismarck was bigger than other gunships, but its technology wasn't particularly more advanced. And even its difference in size wasn't drastic; at one point a British cruiser was mistaken for it by sight. The importance of sinking it, for the Brits, was really symbolic more than anything else, since it was only marginally more dangerous than any other single battleship (otherwise it wouldn't have been sinkable) and would be outgunned when outnumbered just like any other battleship.

Meanwhile, the only contribution by the carrier and its aircraft in that story was a single hit which damaged a rudder and made the Bismarck easier for British gunships to catch and gang up on. The real damage and sinking came from a couple of battleships and a couple of cruisers the next morning, after five destroyers had kept the Bismarck busy all night. Earlier, when a torpedo plane pilot had mistaken the Sheffield for the Bismarck and attacked, the attack had failed with no damage to the Sheffield.

The story does demonstrate some of what would make aircraft carriers replace battleships as the dominant warships, but only in an indirect way if you look into the details or background. The plane that made the one hit did so when no battleship/cruiser/destroyer could have, because of the longer range. But once the heavy guns were on the way, the carrier just stood back because, in that kind of fight, it would be taking on too much risk in order to make too little contribution. That shows how each type of ship represented a trade-off one way or the other between massive firepower and long range, but doesn't illustrate why range would end up being considered more important than firepower. (For that, I'd look to the failure of the attack at Pearl Harbor to really cripple American power in the Pacific Ocean; the battleships were there that day but the carriers weren't.) Also, the reason the Brits were in a hurry to sink it was to get it done before the Bismarck got too close to Nazi-controlled French ports, where it would then have more protection from local destroyers and aircraft. But that was about land-based planes, so the concern only partially translates to carriers.

 

[akenlon]

I agree with the conclusion, but I disagree with some of the details (this is JREF, after all). Bismarck was not sunk by the Ark Royal's Swordfish. It was damaged (after being previously damaged by Prince of Wales), and that kept it from being able to escape from the two British battleships that actually sank it.

This is what I get for posting late at night. Correct, the Swordfish torpedo pranged the rudder and stuck it into a hard turn allowing other warships in the area to engage it. To this day they are not certain if it was sunk by the fleet or if it was scuttled. But my point stands, the Ark Royal was responsible for disabling the Bismark enough to allow it to be dealt with.

I'd attribute the sinking of both Kirishima and Yamashiro to U.S. battleships.
Granted, Kirishima was arguably a battlecruiser rather than a battleship (though I'd take Kirishima over Yamashiro).

The Kirishima was classed by the Japanese and the US as a Battlecruiser. I'll grant you that the difference between the two ships in tonnage is a case of splitting hairs, but the Battleship classification comes from the fact that the Yamashiro has 12 of the 14-inch guns while the Kirishima only had 8 14-inchers. From a firepower standpoint, the Kirishima was outclassed by the South Dakota and the Washington that took her out with their 16-inch guns.

Well, yes, but as to the OP, the aircraft carrier wasn't a technology advantage for the US in the Pacific; Japan had 'em, too, and used them quite effectively. One could make a case that naval damage control was a substantial advantage for the US in WWII.

True. The Japanese had more Aircraft Carriers (hell more ships period) at the beginning of the war and as I mentioned, we only had one carrier (And a handful of escort carriers) for a little while there. But somehow, through a combination of aircraft (Hellcats are a personal favorite), pilot skill and training, damage control tactics, in-craft radar, night tactics, we were able to turn a numerical disadvantage to a severe drubbing of the Japanese fleet. They had them and they had more of them. We used them better and we innovated new tech and tactics on the fly. The Japanese poked the hornet's nest and they got stung badly. I'm not saying it was easy, but we were motivated and did the job.

And don't discount the impact of US & allied submarines in the Pacific.

No way I could do that. They were very important as well. Besides. You have to give severe props to the USS Johnston in the Taffy-3 battle force. That ship and crew had balls the size of pumpkins to do what it did.

 

[Corsair 115]

He certainly makes a good argument against Gailbrath's US Strategic Bombing Survey and AJP Taylor's conclusions.

Well, the Strategic Bombing Survey has some impressive figures on its side as well. For those interested, the summary report on the European campaign bombing efforts can be read here.

Did Germany also have all of these technologies? I ask this because they had the bomb first.

Are you still spouting that nonsense? It's been utterly demolished several times now.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Another myth

Not a myth, at the start of the war the German Army was still largely based on horse drawn transport. Even at the end of the war it relied on horses for a lot of supply movement.

 

[MRC_Hans]

The Proximity artillery fuse and penicillin, as others have mentioned. The priority and funding for each of these was comparable to that of the Manhattan project.

Gen. Eisenhower and Gen. Patton declared the DC-3 cargo plane, the M-1 rifle and the jeep very important to the winning of the war.

Wasn't it the DC3, jeep, and Bazooka?

Hans

 

[Andy_Ross]

As for Aircraft Carriers, it was the Aircraft that were important as much as the Carriers. Probably the best example of this that drove the point home was the sinking of the Prince of Wales and the Renown by Japanese Aircraft.

It's a lesson that seems to have been forgotten by the current British Govt. Scrapping the current Ark Royal and retiring the Sea Harriers. It will be 4 years before the first of the new carriers is launched and nearly 10 before the JSF cdomes into service to fly from them. 6 Months till Argentina decide to take the Falklands back again?

Last time they did it only the Carriers and their aircraft allowed the RN to send a task force to take them back. Even then Thatcher had sold the new Carriers to foreign navies and the older ones were marked for scrapping. Another 6 months later and that expedition would have been doomed as well.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

That was not technology, that was ressources. The Germans probably had the most superior technology, and both Germany and Japan developed extremely efficient weapons during the war. But they could not produce them in significant quantity to change the outcome.

Hans

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So do you think they should have called it? A doodle bug

I would have been less surprised if someone had compared the Wright Flyer to a 747.

 

[MRC_Hans]

There are a number of things that have not being mentioned in this thread
1. The Allies used women in the factories. Germans kept them home.
2. Blood transfusions. If a German lost of lot of blood then he probably was dead. A British or American would get a blood transfusion.
3. The command. Hitler had to remove many of his top people because they were a threat to him.
4. Population. The Allies had far more people than the Germans. That does not include the Russians.
5. R&D. The Germans did not have much of this, after the start of the war.

#5 is incorrect. The Germans were very much op to date with R&D. As some have mentioned, sometimes almost too much; some of their designs were too complicated to be produced in volume, under war conditions.

Hans

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Not a myth, at the start of the war the German Army was still largely based on horse drawn transport. Even at the end of the war it relied on horses for a lot of supply movement.

The US Army had a lot of mules as well, especially on the Italian front. The saying was that when it was too rough or too dangerous for the four-legged mules to work, the two-legged ones got the job.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Not a good example. The Bismarck was bigger than other gunships, but its technology wasn't particularly more advanced.

The Bismarck was a WWI design that had been updated somewhat.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Nonsense, a National Socialist victory in Europe would have done little to change a countries customs or language.

That is certainly wrong. I can tell you that as citizen in a country that was occupied by Germany during WW2. And that was even one where the population was recognized as proper Aryans by the Germans. In countries populated by what was regarded as 'untermench', genocide, deportation, and enslavement proceeded.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Not a myth, at the start of the war the German Army was still largely based on horse drawn transport. Even at the end of the war it relied on horses for a lot of supply movement.

Well, near the end of the war, Germany was desperately short of fuel, so using horses made a lot of sense.

Hans

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well, near the end of the war, Germany was desperately short of fuel, so using horses made a lot of sense.

Hans

Most of the transport used during Operation Barbarossa was equine. This made it possible for the Heer to advance faster than the supply system could keep pace.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Horse Forage takes up a lot of space compared to petrol or diesel. It uses a larger percentage of your available cargo space to move the same distance. Horses also need more looking after than a truck and they need training to pull carts and have a limited and fixed production rate. Mules in mountains were used by choice not because it's all that was available. British Forces used mules and Elephants in the Far East because they could get through the Jungles and Hills where trucks couldn't 'horses for courses' if you like.

 

[Skwinty]

Operation Barbarossa used in excess of 600,000 vehicles and in excess of 700,000 horses. In any operation this big, use whatever you have to ensure the front was adequately supplied or your motorised battalions were rendered useless.

It wasn't about convenience but rather neccessity.