"Game Changers"

There were to many "Important" people which competed with others to be Hitlers best guy. They didn´t connect their power and knowledge to reach an target, every single one made his own way and so they splitted their power.

Insightful comment on the nature of dictatorship. In theory one of the advantages is that it would be able to impose things like standardization - hoping the regime would pick the right things to standardize on - but as Nazi Germany illustrates, it can also open the door for empire building.

 

Agreed, I was just focusing on the technology because that seemed to me the subject of the thread. I agree with TA's point, like I mentioned above its just a difference in perspective (of the question).

 

Maybe not so much of a game changer in WW, but the 7.92MM Kurz round sure made a difference in weapons design since.

tom

 

Please explain

 

I order to preserve the integrety of the thread I think we should limit us to one gamechanger at a time (no lists of several things) and explain why it was a gamechanger.

 

I totally agree were going off on too many perameters here

 

Sorry, I'm at work, I'll elaborate later tonight. I had the thought and didn't want to lose track of it.

tom

 

I think I know where you're going to go with it and you will be disappointed. Remember the title of the thread "Game Changers" it's not "How German Research into Wonder Weapons influenced current weapons"

 

Sorry, never mind. I won't bother and I'll not bother with this thread any more.


tom

 

Another game changer: mines. WW 2 is the first war to see widespread use of land mines and in particular, anti-personnel mines like the infamous S-Mine. This development really changed tactics, training and, the need for counter technologies.

 

Terry...not how anything changed warfare; but, what did one side have that the other did not which affected the outcome of the war by either being beneficial or detrimental to their efforts.

 

The allies didn't have Hitler - Hitler lost the war for the Germans many times over, the Germans had him....the allies didn't.
A little facetious but stacked with truth.
Hitler was the game changer. I know thats not where people are going but "what did one side have that the other did not which affected the outcome of the war by either being beneficial or detrimental to their efforts" - Hitler. Easy the biggest one thing that had a detrimental effect on the outcome of the war. There are far too many examples to even begin.
Oh okay, i'll go now.

 

Hahaha, not to the topic but it contains a bit of truth indeed!

 

The S-mine in 1939 -40 was unique. It represents the first widely deployed and highly effective anti-personnel mine. The French, in the one offensive they tried, ran into this mine for the first time and were stunned by its effects. It was a new and unexpected weapon that their doctrine had no way of immediately coping with. Of course, as the war progressed everyone adopted such mines and used them widely.

 

I would personally class that as a game changer as every body adopted it!

 

The question remains though did the Germans use it effectively? Mines like any other obstacle on the battlefield are meant to delay enemy forces, channelize movement, protect exposed areas and deny enemy access. When incorporated into a comprehensive 'Fire Support Plan' the delaying action the mines have on enemy forces can be devastating. When minefields are not incorporated they prove to be an inconvienience; again causing the enemy to slow their advance or pursuit.

The Canadians developed the 'Mine Clearing Line Charge' (MCLC-Mick Lick) known as the 'Viper' in 1941 which has become standard equipment in all mechanised Armies. The US has used them in both Gulf Wars and Afghanistan.

I am not sure if the S-Mine (34/44) can be called a "Game Changer" though. Did they prevent anything or just delay the inevitable? could they have been utilized more effectively in a manner that would have had an impact on the outcome of the war? Did they represent a detremental allocation of resources or did they 'free up' resources to be used elsewhere more effectively?

 

But shorly if the opposition have to adapt to counter act them, then that must be a game changer!

 

I don't know about that. Countering the mines didn't cause any undue burden nor did it change the war as it was being fought. The only exception to my reasoning is operation "Market Garden". Were mines responsible for delaying the advance of XXX Corps to Arnhem? If we can attribute that delay to the German use of mines then it most certainly would be a "Game Changer" as that prolonged the War and lead to the "Ardennes Offensive".

 

Mines played little role in the failure of Market-Garden, for the simple reason that the operation mainly took place behind German lines. Even the front lines had only stabilized about a week earlier. I've seen few references to mines in that battle - anyone?

One specific situation in which mines might be called a game-changer was El Alamein. The Qattara Depression limited the scope of the battlefield to a manageable size for mining. Minefields played a major role in Rommel's defense and forced Montgomery to fight a different type of battle than the desert campaign had previously involved. On the other hand we might note that the "mine marshes" used by the British at Gazala were less effective, since there was scope for Rommel to maneuver around them.

Mines were certainly an asset to defense of fixed positions, but that mainly meant that a bit more effort and preparation was required of the attacker. Not sure that qualifies as game-changing.

 

I'm talking about the S-mines in 39-40 which was a new weapon at that time and changed the tactics of the opponents to the extreme of using different tactics ie changing tactics to overcome the situation. Surely that should count.