Most Important Technology for Allies in WW2

Delvo said:
I wonder about obscure, mundane stuff that might go unnoticed. Were there differences between the two sides in what kinds of stuff the average soldier carried while marching from town to town... a gun less likely to jam or needing reloading less often or easier to aim... faster lighter ammo you could carry more of... boots less likely to cause blisters or infections... better preserved food or food containers making them less dependent on new supplies... better camouflage... more or better radios to make them better at coordinating with other units and aircraft... better binoculars or telescopes...? But I've never heard any such differences being discussed.
Click to expand...

Your right, the little things mean a lot.
 
paiute said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a myth to me.
 
BigAl said:
I've read that the Germans used horses and mules to move stuff right up to the end of the war. Late in the war when German POWs were being marched back to the rear, they were amazed to see our troops, equipment and supplies heading to the front in trucks and jeeps.
Click to expand...

Another myth
 
Along those lines... The Japanese were generally issued dreadful weapons and equipment. Towards the end of the war, some sources indicate that as many as half the cartridges issued to infantrymen would not fire.
The standard infantry machine gun was a poor thing, fed not by continuous-link belts but by a succession of 25-round strips. Greatly prone to jamming.
The Nambu pistol is generally regarded as one of the worst designs of the war.
Japanese tanks were essentially a joke compared to the armor of other services.

They did make good ships and aircraft, though the aircraft had shortcomings that were exploited by American flyers as they gained experience.
 
Spindrift said:
There are lots of anecdotes like that. There's a scene from the movie Battle of the Bulge where the German general finds a cake that had been sent over from the states and it's still fresh. He says if they can afford to ship cakes across the ocean, we've lost.
Click to expand...

I see you get you history from Hollywood.
 
Marduk said:
If it wasn't for Radar, Britain would have lost the war in 1941, leaving America unable to enter the European conflict and we would all currently be typing in German
;)
Click to expand...

Nonsense, a National Socialist victory in Europe would have done little to change a countries customs or language.
 
kookbreaker said:
There were quite a few:

The American Helmet was the best for the war. Other nations wore helmets dating from WW1, some eventually adapted but in Germany's case Hitler forbade any changes as he thought the "coal scuttle" was a major source of identity for the German soldier. 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.

In Europe, German and American soldiers thought the other side's rations were better than their own food.

American (and by extension a lot of the Allies) rifle gunpowder was more prone to making bigger flashes at night, meaning it was easier to spot where the shooter was. The brightness of the powder was enough to help daytime spotting.

There are plenty more, but that is a few to chew on.
Click to expand...

Ironic isn’t it that today the American helmet is based upon the designs of the WWII German helmet.
 
MaGZ said:
Ironic isn’t it that today the American helmet is based upon the designs of the WWII German helmet.
Click to expand...

Which is like saying that the F-22 is based on the Me-262 because they are both swept-wing, twin jet engined monoplanes.
 
Elind said:
That wasn't the question: It was "(something that either "won" the war for us, or at least gave us an edge to win the war sooner.)".

The Germans had better technology in essentially every category. It was how people used what they had, and kept up, that won the war, not any single technology.
Click to expand...

I would tend to agree in general with you statement. However I will say it was quantity not quality that defeated NS Germany.
 
Elind said:
To this and the other responses to me; The Germans had jet fighters, they had night fighters guided by radar, they had better tanks, they had the best conventional air fighters, they had cruise missiles, ballistic missiles; they had optically guided bombs, they had very good infantry weapons, they were working on fission weapons; and they had stupid leaders who didn't know how to make the most of their science.

They lost because they were out numbered and out smarted strategically.

OK, I will give one technology, probably already mentioned, and that was code breaking, but I wouldn't say that by itself won the war.

What won the war was the resources of the USA.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the inventory list. The chauvinists here have a difficult time accepting this.
 
Shangrila said:
That would fit into the superior high speed aerodynamics field. Nonetheless, the Allies had vastly superior engines that didn't burn out after 10 hours, making the Meteor at least equal as an actual weapons system. And the P-80 which didn't quite make it to combat and the British Vampire shortly after were the first to have engines in the fuselage and thus have greatly superior roll and turn rate, and also where greatly superior Allied engines overpowered German aerodynamics even in straight flight.



And German nightfighters were both greatly inferior in performance (compared with say, the Mosquito), and had greatly inferior radar, requiring big aerials that degraded performance further.



They had heavier tanks, that were grossly underpowered, fuel hogs, and unreliable. Not to mention too expensive to mass produce leading Panzer Divisions to continue relying on the medium Pz IV during the entire war. The Pz IV which was notably inferior to either the Sherman or the T-34.



Flat out false, as Allied fighters generally had equal performance but vastly greater range and reliability.



Both practically worthless...



Yes, primitive and easily jammed MCLOS weapons, compared to the Allies, who were able to mass produce TV-guided bombs, and the BAT radar guided glide bomb.



The army that had to rely on the ancient K98 as its primary rifle compared with the Americans who issued everyone and their mother a semi-auto Garand or the superb M1 carbine?



And getting nowhere due to getting the basic math wrong. Compared to the Allies who actually produced fission weapons....



They lost because they picked a fight with enemies who had more of everything. Everything including scientists, engineers, companies specializing in electronics, chemistry, etc. Look at the NACA laminar flow wing for instance. German scientists could never have done the calculations since there weren't enough of them with good enough equipment. Had they done the calculations, they still would have found it impossible to mass produce without American production tech and mass resources. So the Americans were able to put high efficiency wings on the P-51 allowing it to escort bombers all the way to Berlin, while the Germans could not because the Americans had more of everything.
Click to expand...

Hitler didn’t pick a fight with France, Britain or the United States. They picked a fight with him; and before you jump in and say Hitler declared war on the US remember the US was waging war against NS Germany using proxies like Britain and the Soviet Union before Pearl Harbor.
 
MaGZ said:
Hitler didn’t pick a fight with France, Britain or the United States. They picked a fight with him; and before you jump in and say Hitler declared war on the US remember the US was waging war against NS Germany using proxies like Britain and the Soviet Union before Pearl Harbor.
Click to expand...

You're really 9/11 Investigator, aren't you? I hope you are at least coherent in this persona.
 
MaGZ said:
Ironic isn’t it that today the American helmet is based upon the designs of the WWII German helmet.
Click to expand...

No it is not. It has a very vague similarity in shape with the back screen, and a slight rim like the Stahlhelm, but the overall design is very different, as well as the materials and purpose. The rim is much smaller, and the back screen is a much lower angle. Having tried on both models they have a very different feel when worn, not attributable to the materials.

The next generation of helmet will resemble it even less. It looks more like a heavy bike helmet than anything else.

The 'Coal Scuttle' was designed for trench warfare, and it was the best around. WW2 was not fought in trenches. Or are you going to call that a 'myth' as well?
 
kookbreaker said:
No it is not. It has a very vague similarity in shape with the back screen, and a slight rim like the Stahlhelm, but the overall design is very different, as well as the materials and purpose. The rim is much smaller, and the back screen is a much lower angle. Having tried on both models they have a very different feel when worn, not attributable to the materials.

The next generation of helmet will resemble it even less. It looks more like a heavy bike helmet than anything else.

The 'Coal Scuttle' was designed for trench warfare, and it was the best around. WW2 was not fought in trenches. Or are you going to call that a 'myth' as well?
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stahlhelm#Postwar
The U.S. Army's 1980s and 90s era kevlar Personnel Armor System for Ground Troops Helmet was sometimes called the "Fritz helmet" for its resemblance to the Stahlhelm The U.S. Army and Marines have continued to use a design akin to the PASGT helmet with the MICH TC-2000 Combat Helmet and Lightweight Helmet, respectively.
Click to expand...
:p
bought to you by the devils advocate marketing board : we all float down here
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom