Most Important Technology for Allies in WW2

[TraneWreck]

I have nothing to add, just wanted to say that I enjoyed the thread. I learned a lot, thanks for posting.

 

[Andy_Ross]

WW2 was also interesting in that there were quite a few technological 'dead ends' that were still actually used. Sometimes it was just a case of one side imitating the other. Some examples:

Tank Destroyers: These were put to good use by the Germans who made a decent variety of them.They were an economical way to get a decent fighting machine out of the old Panzer hulls: Just don't bother with the turret, put a huge gun on the thing (for the size of the frame) and point the tank manually. It worked well for the Germans as it meant they could have more vehicles out there by using old designs. Since they were often on the defensive the Tank Destroyers could be used in ambushes where their disadvantages didn't come into play as much. Some on the US Army though TD's were a swell idea and made their own versions. These were mostly a waste of resources and manpower that could have been used to produce and man actually tanks, which is what the US needed to fight.

Halftracks The bastard child of tank and truck. They were popular during the war and then pretty much disappeared from the world's armories. They were more expensive pound per pound than tanks and a fully tracked infantry vehicle might have made more sense.


Anti-Tank Rifles These were all but obsolete when the war started, yet they were still extensively used through the middle of the war and the Soviets were even using them at the end of the war. Interestingly the US never produced an ATR, probably because they got into the war later and partly because the 50 cal machine gun actually filled a lot of that limited role and more.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head. They are some biggies, though.

US Tank Destroyers were completely different to German TDs.

US doctrine was to fight Tanks with Tank Destroyers, these were effectively open turreted Tanks with bigger guns than those fitted to Tanks.
Tanks were supposed to support Infantry and then exploit a breakthrough int othe enemy rear. Unfortunately you can't always have a Tank Destroyer where the enemy has it's Tanks and in battle experience showed that what you need is tanks capable of destroying enemy tanks and exploiting a breakthrough.

Germany started the war like the British with a mix of Infantry Tanks (Pz4) and Tanks designed for fighting other Tanks (PZ3) they quickly realised that they needed a 'Universal' tank. and the PZ4s were upgunned. They started to produce 'Assault Guns' on the Pz3 and later Pz4 chassis to provide mobile armoured assault guns to support he infantry. These didn't need a turret as they were seen as just mobile artillery. As the war progressed these were progressively upgunned until they too had Anti Tank guns.

As you say it aslo allowed otherwise obsolete tank chassis to be kept in production and also allowed huge guns to be mounted on the Panther and King Tiger chassis.

Halftracks were seen as all terrain lorries by the US. Tracked infantry Vehicles capable of fighting alongside tanks were first put into action bythe Canadians. When they got the 'Sexton' Self Propelling gun armed with a British 25lber (more or less the same as the US supplied Priest but with a standard 'Commonwealth gun to ease supply lines) they removed the guns from the Priests creating a large fighting compartment that was used to transport infantry into battle. Canadian built 'Ram' tanks were also used in the same way with the turret removed.

US supplied Half tracks were used by the British but we prefered our 'high mobility' 4 and 6 wheel drive trucks.

 

[Skwinty]

I submit one, Joseph Stalin.

In terms of insanity, we're as close to a push as you can get with Adolph.

Stalin's insanity was less devastating to the war effort than Hitler's issues, but he was crazy.

Stalin was the one that got away. I think he was responsible for more deaths than Hitler.

 

[Corsair 115]

[/I]Thanks for the link Corsair. I'll have a look through it.

Thank you for making me open up some of my books again. It seems I may have understimated the effect of Ruhr battle in my earlier comments, though from those sources it seems Tooze may be somewhat overstating its effectiveness. There are a lot of circumstances to disentangle. In any event, I'm definitely going to keep an eye out for his book the next time I'm at the bookstore or library.

At Taranto the Navy shouldn't have been relying on open cockpit canvas biplanes as their main strike force.

Indeed, had there been any sort of air cover, the Swordfish would have been shot out of the sky in droves, much as the TBD Devastators were shot out of the skies at Midway. Obsolete designs tend to suffer greatly when coming up against superior designs or when lacking fighter cover.

Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe - The first Operational Jet Fighter Craft. Had they gotten it out earlier in the war when they still had a goodly number of experienced pilots, it could have been much uglier for the Allies.

The He 280 jet fighter prototype first flew under jet engine power more than a year before the Me 262 did. But, remarkably, nothing came of it.

Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet - To date, the only operational rocket-powered fighter craft. Built and designed to take out Allied Bombers.

Yes, it had fantastic speed and an amazing rate of climb, but it was nevertheless ineffective as a bomber interceptor. The faster the aircraft, the more skill you need at the controls to make the most of it. Then there were the extremely volatile fuels which added enormously to the difficulties of operating the aircraft.

The amount of resources poured into the Me 163 might have been better directed at jet fighter development or the later Me 109 and Fw 190 variants/offshoots (the Ta 152, for example, was outstanding).

 

[akenlon]

The He 280 jet fighter prototype first flew under jet engine power more than a year before the Me 262 did. But, remarkably, nothing came of it.

Hence my saying that the 262 was the first operational and in production jet fighter to see combat. Regardless of the prototyping, regardless of the designs regardless of the design flaws, the 262 was the one that got in the air and exchanging lead with the allied aircraft.

Yes, it had fantastic speed and an amazing rate of climb, but it was nevertheless ineffective as a bomber interceptor. The faster the aircraft, the more skill you need at the controls to make the most of it. Then there were the extremely volatile fuels which added enormously to the difficulties of operating the aircraft.

Can someone explain to me why my point that the Germans were innovators and had a strong R&D team is invalidated by the fact that the gorram 163 was crap? The post that I responded to was one that was refuting another post stating that the Germans were not innovators. My argument agrees with the poster that I quoted by listing several examples of how the German R&D team was innovative.

And since when does 100% Success equal innovation? There are many examples in history where what we learned from our failures was more valuable than if we had succeeded.

After Thomas Edison’s seven-hundredth unsuccessful attempt to invent electric light, he was asked by a New York Times reporter, “How does it feel to have failed seven hundred times?” The great inventor responded, “I have not failed seven hundred times. I have not failed once. I have succeeded in proving that those seven hundred ways will not work. When I have eliminated the ways that will not work, I will find the way that will work.”

Many more attempts were done and just as many of them were successful examples of how those attempts would not work. Eventually he learned what worked.

And more importantly, by trying all of those materials to make a light bulb, he learned a significant amount about them and what their properties. I'm certain that with his extensive and almost anal-retentive note keeping he was able to discover properties that were able to assist him in other unrelated tasks.

So yes the 163 was a flying death trap. Yes the 229 never made it into combat. They were the basis of the designs of future aircraft such as the B2 Spirit. And yes that craft has flaws but we learn from those flaws and use that acquired knowledge to try something else.

So again I ask. How does the fact that many of the German ideas never panned out invalidate the point that the Germans were innovators and pioneers in their own right and were very much into a research and development mindset?

 

[Shangrila]

Yes the 229 never made it into combat. They were the basis of the designs of future aircraft such as the B2 Spirit.

That's a myth. The B-2 is descended from the long line of Northrop flying wings which were in turn inspired by the Horton gliders of the 1930s. Of course, the Ho 229 is also descended from those gliders, but modern flying wing design owe nothing to the 229.

Now, your basic point does have merit. Certainly the Germans did do some impressive R&D and pioneering work. They just had the misfortune of going into a lot of dead ends and having their successes utterly overshadowed by those of the Allies except in the minds of Napkinwaffe fanboys.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Napkinwaffe fanboys

all those model kits of 'secret' German aircraft and tanks you mean? lol

 

[Soapy Sam]

Doughnut machines. My father was at Anzio. The next unit to his was American. They arrived with two doughnut machines and announced all allied troops in their area would be issued two doughnuts a day, each. That's when my father knew he was on the winning side. He concluded anyone who can squander resources that freely in wartime is unbeatable. He used to say that if the Hermann Goering Division had been told about the doughnuts, they would have drawn the same concluion he did - and gone home smartish.

 

[Andy_Ross]

As for Aircraft Carriers, the Germans had an aircraft carrier, the Graf Zeppelin. It was never completed and work on it stopped and started as it came in and out of favour throughout the war. A second carrier was never launched and broken up on the slipway.
Effort was concentrated on the U-Boats and the surface fleet languished and was broken up as the war progressed. Hitler was like Napoleon and thought in terms of Land warfare and armies, not Ships and fleet actions. Those capital ships that were built were designed for commerce raiding not surface action and blockade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_carrier_Graf_Zeppelin

 

[Sabretooth]

Now, your basic point does have merit. Certainly the Germans did do some impressive R&D and pioneering work. They just had the misfortune of going into a lot of dead ends and having their successes utterly overshadowed by those of the Allies except in the minds of Napkinwaffe fanboys.

Good point. But it also goes well past "technological" advances. Don't wanna get O/T, but I believe a lot of the inhumane medical experiments the Nazi's performed on prisoners turned out to have some value in the real world...

The Germans weren't idiots...just mass-murders and woefully inept in using the information they found.

 

[dasmiller]

I submit one, Joseph Stalin.

In terms of insanity, we're as close to a push as you can get with Adolph.

Stalin's insanity was less devastating to the war effort than Hitler's issues, but he was crazy.

That's a fair point.

 

[Doubt]

US Tank Destroyers were completely different to German TDs.

US doctrine was to fight Tanks with Tank Destroyers, these were effectively open turreted Tanks with bigger guns than those fitted to Tanks.
Tanks were supposed to support Infantry and then exploit a breakthrough int othe enemy rear. Unfortunately you can't always have a Tank Destroyer where the enemy has it's Tanks and in battle experience showed that what you need is tanks capable of destroying enemy tanks and exploiting a breakthrough.

Germany started the war like the British with a mix of Infantry Tanks (Pz4) and Tanks designed for fighting other Tanks (PZ3) they quickly realised that they needed a 'Universal' tank. and the PZ4s were upgunned. They started to produce 'Assault Guns' on the Pz3 and later Pz4 chassis to provide mobile armoured assault guns to support he infantry. These didn't need a turret as they were seen as just mobile artillery. As the war progressed these were progressively upgunned until they too had Anti Tank guns.

As you say it aslo allowed otherwise obsolete tank chassis to be kept in production and also allowed huge guns to be mounted on the Panther and King Tiger chassis.

Halftracks were seen as all terrain lorries by the US. Tracked infantry Vehicles capable of fighting alongside tanks were first put into action bythe Canadians. When they got the 'Sexton' Self Propelling gun armed with a British 25lber (more or less the same as the US supplied Priest but with a standard 'Commonwealth gun to ease supply lines) they removed the guns from the Priests creating a large fighting compartment that was used to transport infantry into battle. Canadian built 'Ram' tanks were also used in the same way with the turret removed.

US supplied Half tracks were used by the British but we prefered our 'high mobility' 4 and 6 wheel drive trucks.

Probably the most concise post about armor doctrine I have ever seen on this board. I do have a couple of minor quibbles and a little more info.

One additional problem with the US tank destroyers was that they were not well enough armored. They looked like tanks but the armor was to thin to take a hit from another tank. Also the US was planning on tank destroyers before getting into the war. In North Africa, half tracks with 75mm guns were used in place of real tank destroyers since they were not in full production yet.

The UK also would produce two versions of a lot of tanks early on in the war. One to fight tanks and one to fight infantry. The tank fighters did not fire HE rounds and that meant the could not support infantry very well. The infantry support versions did not fire armor piercing rounds and that meant they were not good at dealing with other tanks. This lack of versatility hampered them since the Germans already figured out combined arms before attacking France. The UK did get better about this stuff by the end of the war. The US did not correct it's short comings until it was to late to make a difference.

Germany did not start with the Pz3 or Pz4. But they did the majority of the work for real tanks. Also don't forget that one Czechoslovakian tank the Germans used early on.

It would be interesting to compare the armor doctrines of all the major players in WWII since it looks like they all had some major errors going in.

 

[MG1962]

It would be interesting to compare the armor doctrines of all the major players in WWII since it looks like they all had some major errors going in.

I think the Soviets doctrine wise were pretty good. The biggest hamper for them was lack of understanding how to handle the tanks their technology was producing

 

[kookbreaker]

I think the Soviets doctrine wise were pretty good. The biggest hamper for them was lack of understanding how to handle the tanks their technology was producing

I dunno about that. They had those silly tanks with multiple turrets and an awful lot of 'Amphibious tanks' of dubious purpose. Once they got tanks like the T-34 (not its predecessors) they did much better.

 

[Corsair 115]

Hence my saying that the 262 was the first operational and in production jet fighter to see combat.

The point was that with the He 280 taking to the air a year earlier, had the Luftwaffe expressed interest, and all other things being equal, it could have entered operational service a year before the actually Me 262 did. Appearing one year earlier might have made all the difference.

Can someone explain to me why my point that the Germans were innovators and had a strong R&D team is invalidated by the fact that the gorram 163 was crap?

I'd say it's the difference between innovation and useful innovation. The V-1 and V-2 programs were very innovative, but as weapons both were militarily useless and a waste of resources that could have been put to much better use. Any military commander worth his salt should have been able to recognize the the innovations offered by the V-1 and V-2 were not going to contribute anything positive to the German war effort. And if it's not going to contribute meaningfully to the war, then the innovation is effectively pointless.

 

[MG1962]

I dunno about that. They had those silly tanks with multiple turrets and an awful lot of 'Amphibious tanks' of dubious purpose. Once they got tanks like the T-34 (not its predecessors) they did much better.

Yes the T28 and T35 were interesting ideas. However even by 1937 the Soviets knew they had problems, reinforced by the decrepit performances during the winter war a couple of years later

In terms of technology they did well. Banging out 59,000 T34's during the war. They could match the US pound for pound in production. But couldn't finess the way the US did, and the final product showed that

 

[dasmiller]

The point was that with the He 280 taking to the air a year earlier, had the Luftwaffe expressed interest, and all other things being equal, it could have entered operational service a year before the actually Me 262 did. Appearing one year earlier might have made all the difference.

Both programs (He 280 and Me 262) were ultimately held back by development and manufacturing problems with their engines (HeS 8 and, my favorite, the Junkers Jumo 004, respectively). No doubt, if more resources had been devoted, the engines could have been developed & productized somewhat earlier, but new technologies are notoriously difficult to hurry.

 

[akenlon]

useful[/I] innovation. The V-1 and V-2 programs were very innovative, but as weapons both were militarily useless and a waste of resources that could have been put to much better use. Any military commander worth his salt should have been able to recognize the the innovations offered by the V-1 and V-2 were not going to contribute anything positive to the German war effort. And if it's not going to contribute meaningfully to the war, then the innovation is effectively pointless.

And I have to disagree there. Yes the V-1 didn't really do much for the war effort in the grand scheme of things the lessons learned from the pulse jet of the V-1 allowed us to find other, more valuable uses for them.

Some current uses are:
Target Drone Aircraft
Model Aircraft (control line as well as Radio Controlled)
Fog generators
Industrial Drying
Home Heating equipment

The last two are largely due to the fact that the pulse jet system are very efficient ways of converting fuel into heat.

And they are still looking into the pulse jet for new applications.

Now let's take a look at the V-2. Again yes, didn't really help the German War effort much. Scared a few people, caused a few soiled drawers in the various Allied war ministries, and did some damage. But no real effect worthy of the development and production costs.

However...

The scientists who worked on the V-2 (von Braun, etc) were snatched up along with as many V-2 rockets and parts as we could get our grubby protuberances on (trying to stay ahead of the Soviets who were trying to do the same thing). The lessons and innovations that developed the V-2 were what drove the space race. The direct descendants of the V-2 got us to the moon and helped get our network of GPS, Communication, and Weather satellites into orbit and allowed us to launch probes into space where we are learning a hell of a lot.

So while the innovations were not all that great for Nazi Germany, the innovations were very valuable to the rest of the world in so many other ways.

Many innovations start out that way. Someone develops something and it does nothing for that person. Someone else comes along and sees it and goes "Hrmm...that gives me an idea" and the "useless" innovation drives a useful one.

All innovations are useful. Some are hits right off the bat, some are before their time and drive other innovations, and some are valuable for the simple reason that they are a good lesson on why you do not do that.

 

[dasmiller]

And I have to disagree there. Yes the V-1 didn't really do much for the war effort in the grand scheme of things the lessons learned from the pulse jet of the V-1 allowed us to find other, more valuable uses for them.

Some current uses are:
Target Drone Aircraft
Model Aircraft (control line as well as Radio Controlled)

FWIW, pulse jets are just an historical footnote for model aircraft.

 

[Delvo]

Doughnut machines. My father was at Anzio. The next unit to his was American. They arrived with two doughnut machines and announced all allied troops in their area would be issued two doughnuts a day, each. That's when my father knew he was on the winning side. He concluded anyone who can squander resources that freely in wartime is unbeatable.

These are getting funny. I've never seen a collection of little moments "when X knew who would win" like this. I've only ever heard of two others before, and they were much more direct: the views of the sea, as seen from land, just covered in Allied ships from left to right and from shore to horizon, at both Normandy and Iwo Jima. Now y'all have me wondering what little tales like that there might be from any other wars...

They could match the US pound for pound in production. But couldn't finess the way the US did, and the final product showed that

This goes back to an issue on which I've seen opposite assertions more than once now: whether Allied mass production was purely a matter of numbers and safe distance, or also a matter of production technology. The latter would mean that one un-bombed Allied factory or employee was generally more productive, or produced more reliable and consistent quality of stuff, than one un-bombed Axis factory or employee. Production would still be in the Allies' favor either way, but the difference is whether they were better at it or just able to do more of it. The answer is not clear from this thread so far.

the V-1 didn't really do much for the war effort in the grand scheme of things the lessons learned from the pulse jet of the V-1 allowed us to find other, more valuable uses for them.

Some current uses are:
Target Drone Aircraft
Model Aircraft (control line as well as Radio Controlled)
Fog generators
Industrial Drying
Home Heating equipment

...The direct descendants of the V-2 got us to the moon and helped get our network of GPS, Communication, and Weather satellites into orbit and allowed us to launch probes into space

This reminds me of an issue that sometimes concerns me just a bit about present and future technological development. People in research and engineering are getting more and more specialized into separate, more-and-more-specialized fields. Does that mean that something developed for one specialty is less likely to find its way into another one where it could be useful if only someone were there to make the connection?