Most Important Technology for Allies in WW2

[Corsair 115]

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

Within the context of discussing the war, current uses are irrelevant. What matters is the contribution to the war effort (if any). And on that score the V-1, V-2, and several other German programs contributed nothing towards an Axis victory. Indeed, they may have hindered it by diverting resources away from more militarily useful projects. (Needless to say, such diversion was good for the Allies.)

 

[akenlon]

...contributed nothing towards an Axis victory. Indeed, they may have hindered it by diverting resources away from more militarily useful projects. (Needless to say, such diversion was good for the Allies.)

Funny, that presents us with the implication that the most important technology for the Allies in WWII was the German R&D teams.

Which wouldn't be all that far fetched when you think about it.

Some of the Third Reich's problems was the micromanagement that prevented some of the innovations from seeing the light of day. That lack of producible innovations made it easier for the Allied innovations to quickly gain the upper hand.

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

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.

Yeah, you're right, he was crazy in some aspects. The strategies he employed on the Eastern front, however, were proven to work (eg. scorched earth) and completely rational given the circumstances.

If anything, they were rational and ruthless. As reflected in the number of Soviet casualties, IIRC ~30M.

 

[akenlon]

To put this thread back on track, I just thought of a technology that would count as being very important for the Allies.

The Atomic Fission Bomb.

Reasons

It was innovative. Many were trying to develop it, we got there first.

It was a useful innovation as it was very efficient. To do the damage of both bombs, we would have had to drop simultaneously 42,000 2,000 bombs (21 Kiloton yield each).

It was successful. Both bombs did what they were designed to do.

And the most important reason, had we not dropped those bombs, Japan was not going to surrender. The Emperor was giving the commands to arm every last man, woman and child and to fight to the death. Something we saw many times in the island hopping campaign as in some cases we were scouring the islands inch by inch to make sure that the area was secure.

Some Japanese pilots (trained to be kamikaze) were very thankful Especially those who were slated to go on the next wave of attacks had we not nuked them.

So there is my vote. It was something that the allies had and no one else had (at least in a weapon ready, deliverable format), and it played a major role in saving countless lives, both Japanese and American.

 

[catsmate]

One could think that a ship-class is just an idea for what to do with existing technology, rather than actually different technology, like a pickup truck uses the same technology as a car. But, presuming that aircraft of the time needed runways more than several hundred feet long to launch or land under their own power, an aircraft carrier does need a couple of specific inventions that other ships don't need: the catapult and the arresting cable. Are those what kept Germany & Italy from making the ships, or did they know how to make those and just not decide to follow through with the idea?

Steam catapults weren't used on WW2 carriers, they're a post war development first used on HMS Perseus in 1950. They were used on cruisers and battleships (from 1918) to launch reconnaissance/gunlaying aircraft which landed on the water for recovery by crane.
Both Germany and Italy did lay down carriers (Graf Zeppelin and Aquila respectively) but neither was completed during the war, for a number of reasons.

 

[catsmate]

OK; thanks.

http://www.alternatehistory.com/
http://althistory.wikia.com/
http://www.uchronia.net/

They're endemic with Philip K. Dick fans. Or so I've heard.

Hey!

 

[catsmate]

This is wrong German Radar was stuck in the multi meter band. It was simple and crude compared with German and British Centimetric and Millimetric equipment.

At the beginning of WW2 German RADAR was probably superior to Britain's however the development in Britain of the cavity magnetron allowed the use of shorter wavelengths and Germany fell behind. There's also the issue of priorities, Britain expected massive air attacks (as predicted by various military theoreticians) while Germany didn't.

German Radio guidance wasn't that advanced, once the British worked out how they were doing it they put in countermeasures that 'bent' the German beamns and put them off target without the Germans even realising it was being done. British Oboe was a more sophisticated development that allowed a Pathfinder aircraft to be targeted amost onto an individual building rather than a whole city. H2S Navigation Radar meant that it was obsolete as the Pathfinder aircraft had a moving 'Radar Map' of their location

The Battle of the Beams which, slightly off topic, led to Britain adopting the 'Rainbow' system for assigning codenames to military projects....

 

[catsmate]

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.

Yes British tank doctrine in the early war with the 'Infantry', 'Light' and 'Cruiser' classes and the 'close support' variants didn't work well.

 

[catsmate]

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.

Well Israel made extensive use of half tracks, and still does. They were better for rough country mobility than trucks and true tracked carriers were mostly converted obsolete tanks due to production priorities.
Interestingly anti-tank rifles were used to small extent as long range sniping weapons, foreshadowing more recent ideas.

 

[catsmate]

To put this thread back on track, I just thought of a technology that would count as being very important for the Allies.

The Atomic Fission Bomb.

Reasons

It was innovative. Many were trying to develop it, we got there first.

It was a useful innovation as it was very efficient. To do the damage of both bombs, we would have had to drop simultaneously 42,000 2,000 bombs (21 Kiloton yield each).

Rather more, a "2,000lb" bomb only contains about 50% filler.

It was successful. Both bombs did what they were designed to do.

And the most important reason, had we not dropped those bombs, Japan was not going to surrender. The Emperor was giving the commands to arm every last man, woman and child and to fight to the death. Something we saw many times in the island hopping campaign as in some cases we were scouring the islands inch by inch to make sure that the area was secure.

The 'Ketsu-Go' defense plan with it's charming slogan: "One Hundred Million Will Die for the Emperor and Nation". I've discussed 'Downfall' elsewhere on this forum with those who considered the use of atomic weapons unnecessary.

Some Japanese pilots (trained to be kamikaze) were very thankful Especially those who were slated to go on the next wave of attacks had we not nuked them.

So there is my vote. It was something that the allies had and no one else had (at least in a weapon ready, deliverable format), and it played a major role in saving countless lives, both Japanese and American.

Yep. WW2 was won in a small town in New Mexico¹. Even if the Me262 had stopped the Allied air offensive, even if 'Overlord' had been stopped on the beaches, even if the V1s carried nerve gas, hell even if the Germans had built a couple of nukes, they'd still have lost. The US had the resources for series production of Mk-IIIs, the B36 to deliver them and the will to use them.


¹ Yes I know a lot of the research was done elsewhere, but it doesn't sound as dramatic....

 

[Andy_Ross]

Part of the problem at the start of the war was the capability of guns. A good Armour Piercing AT gun was of too low a calibre to fire an effective HE round. Even the Germans had seperate tanks for different jobs. PZ3 had a 37mm gun for armour peircing and the PZ4 had a 75mm gun better suited to HE.

As the war progressed dual purpose weapons were produced but there was always a compramise.

One way round it was to mount 2 seperate weapons but this made for a cumbersome arrangement. US and French tanks put a 75mm in the hull and an AT gun in a turret. Britian tried a terrible '3 gun' turret with a 2pounder, 95mm howitzer and a machine gun. Russia had tanks with multiple turrets.

Britain didn't have different version of the same tank they had seperate designs for the job. Unfortunately they were all bad at the start of the war. Tank design and production was left in the hands of the manufacturers. A War Office proposal would be issued and various tenders submitted. As the spending was low the only manufacturers and designers interested tended to be those companies that didn't have full order books for the civil market. For example the Covananter was so badly designed and built it was declared unfit for action before it was even in service. As orders for several thousand had been placed they were produced and purchased. All were declared 'training' vehicles. In practice they spent all their time in the garage with engine, suspension and electrical faults. Crusader Tanks were using the WW1 vintage 'liberty' engine as their power plant up into the war. When they were sent to the western desert their open valve gear ground itself to dust in a few days. A ecception to this is the Matilda II, this was a well armoured and armed diesel powered tank. It was designed as an Infantry tank but that was a task it was unsuited for. It's gun was the 2pounder 40mm, probably the best AT gun at the start of the war but it couldn't fire HE and it had no hull machine gun. It was howerver a very good battle tank.
Get a copy of Anthony Prestons two parter on the history of British Armour in WW2 'The Great Tank Scandal' is part one and 'The Universal Tank' is part two. They are HMSO publications and detail how British armour went from the useless heaps of scrap they were at the start of the war to the production of the Centurion at the end, probably one of the best tank designs ever.

As for the US Tank Destroyers, they were lightly armoured because they weren't Tanks, they were supposed to be fast and stealthy artillery.
Half Tracks were used early in the war because the US hadn't put into production a Turret Ring big enough to take the size of turret needed. That didn't come until the M4 SHerman went in to production. It was initiated in response to a British order for tanks and the first batches went to the 8th Army in the Western Desert in time for El Alemain before US forces got them where they were the match of any armour the Germans had in the field at the time.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Rather more, a "2,000lb" bomb only contains about 50% filler.

The charge/weight ratio for USN 2000# bombs in WWII was:

AN-M34
A* = 51.9%
T* = 53.1%

AN-M66
A* = 52.0%
T* = 53.0%

AN-M66A1
A* = 53.0%
T* = 53.0%

*A = Amatol
*T = T.N.T.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

As for the US Tank Destroyers, they were lightly armoured because they weren't Tanks, they were supposed to be fast and stealthy artillery.

The German marders also had open tops, thin armour. I guess the distinction is the fully revolving turret on USA vehicles. I GUESS US tank detroyers were intended to get into the action and drive off quickly while Marders were intended to pick off from a distance. ( however I'm guessing)

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Yes British tank doctrine in the early war with the 'Infantry', 'Light' and 'Cruiser' classes and the 'close support' variants didn't work well.

It is my understanding that the additional problem for the British was turret ring size. They insisted that all vehicles could fit through rail tunnels.

The PzKpfw III was dropped because of its small turret ring and could not be upgraded. The Churchill and Matildas had an even smaller ring.

 

[akenlon]

Yep. WW2 was won in a small town in New Mexico¹. Even if the Me262 had stopped the Allied air offensive, even if 'Overlord' had been stopped on the beaches, even if the V1s carried nerve gas, hell even if the Germans had built a couple of nukes, they'd still have lost. The US had the resources for series production of Mk-IIIs, the B36 to deliver them and the will to use them.

I never said that the war was won by the bomb. Technically the war in the Pacific was already won by the time we had dropped the bombs. The only thing the bombs did was to finally get someone in Japan to see reason and realize that little fact and stop sending throwing people against the onslaught that was heading towards them.

Hell the war in Europe was already over and had been for roughly three months before we dropped the nukes.

The thing that is starting to bother the hell out of me here is the fact that no matter what anyone says, someone tries to shut them down. The 163 was innovative I say, someone says that it was a deathtrap. Someone says that we had "X" someone else says "Well "Y" had them too".

Fine. You know what won the war? The war was won because one side was far better at the art of death than the other. Oh, waitaminute...someone will argue that the Nazi's were better at death because they killed slaughtered Jews. Never-fragging-Mind.

 

[Corsair 115]

The thing that is starting to bother the hell out of me here is the fact that no matter what anyone says, someone tries to shut them down. The 163 was innovative I say, someone says that it was a deathtrap. Someone says that we had "X" someone else says "Well "Y" had them too".

It's not a question of shutting someone down, it's a question of putting the various points made into context. Sure, the Me 163 was a very innovative project, but the military usefulness of the final product is worth considering if we wish to factor in the outcome of any innovation and whether that outcome was worth the effort put into the innovation.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The German marders also had open tops, thin armour. I guess the distinction is the fully revolving turret on USA vehicles. I GUESS US tank detroyers were intended to get into the action and drive off quickly while Marders were intended to pick off from a distance. ( however I'm guessing)

Tank destroyers were not supposed to hunt tanks. They were defensive units. "The best way to get killed in a TD is to go looking for trouble."

 

[Segnosaur]

Within the context of discussing the war, current uses are irrelevant. What matters is the contribution to the war effort (if any). And on that score the V-1, V-2, and several other German programs contributed nothing towards an Axis victory. Indeed, they may have hindered it by diverting resources away from more militarily useful projects. (Needless to say, such diversion was good for the Allies.)

You're right in that the V1 and V2 didn't cause significant damage to the Allied side and didn't help the Germans win. But it still may not have been 'bad' for the Germans to invest in such weapons. The Allies would still have had to deploy their own resources to stop the attacks. (Every bomber sent to try to neutralize a V1/V2 launch site would have meant one less bomber available to attack a German factory/military target.)

Granted, it wouldn't have been enough to 'win the war', but it might not have been a total waste either.

Its kind of like the Doolittle raids... the attacks themselves caused little damage to Japan, but it did cause Japan to divert some of its ships to better defend itself (instead of having them attack allied shipping.)

 

[Chaos]

You're right in that the V1 and V2 didn't cause significant damage to the Allied side and didn't help the Germans win. But it still may not have been 'bad' for the Germans to invest in such weapons. The Allies would still have had to deploy their own resources to stop the attacks. (Every bomber sent to try to neutralize a V1/V2 launch site would have meant one less bomber available to attack a German factory/military target.)

But were they actually worth it? Wouldn´t building more fighters to shoot down bombers have been more effective in reducing the effect of Allied strategic bombing?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

But were they actually worth it? Wouldn´t building more fighters to shoot down bombers have been more effective in reducing the effect of Allied strategic bombing?

"Cost/benefit" analysis. The Nazis weren't good at that.