Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

The best weapon of WW2?

Discussion in 'Weapons & Technology in WWII' started by Onthefield, Sep 17, 2003.

  1. Gerneralfeldmarshall Manstein

    Gerneralfeldmarshall Manstein Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2009
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    The best weapon of ww2 was the 88mm artitillery piece.The germans sometimes even tried to shoot it at one person running across a field.
     
  2. Sentinel

    Sentinel Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    365
    Likes Received:
    47

    Now that's just mean. :eek:
     
  3. Tomcat

    Tomcat The One From Down Under

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,048
    Likes Received:
    266

    Why would they waste a shell on one person, considering the ammo shortages. I am not saying that it didn't happen but I doubt it was on a regular basis.
     
  4. Sentinel

    Sentinel Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    365
    Likes Received:
    47
    Actually, there's a question nabout the 88 that's been bothering me.

    It was originally designed as an anti-aircraft weapon. During the invasion of France, as I recall, at one stage Rommel was confronted by Allied tanks that were too heavily armoured to be stopped by his own small anti-tank guns. Reputedly, he ordered the 88s to fire on the enemy tanks, which at first they refused to do since they were supposed to be anti-aircraft guns only. But in the end Rommel persuaded the gunners and won the battle -- beginning the 88's long and successful career as an anti-tank weapon.

    My question is -- if this story is true, what sort of ammunition were the 88s using? Presumably they would have been supplied only with Flak shells, since they were not originally intended for anti-tank use. If so, how did they kill the tanks? Was their shell simply so big and fast that the lack of AP shot didn't matter?
     
  5. Wolfy

    Wolfy Ace

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    90
    The Flak 88mm guns were used in the A/T and artillery role since the Spanish Civil war. They were used in the A/T role in France.
     
  6. Sentinel

    Sentinel Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    365
    Likes Received:
    47
    Thanks. I guess that account I read was wrong then.
     
  7. Tomcat

    Tomcat The One From Down Under

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,048
    Likes Received:
    266


    Who would Rommel need to persuade them, he says fire at the tanks, they start firing, they wouldn't have questioned a superior officer, especially if they were attached to his units.
     
  8. Wolfy

    Wolfy Ace

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    90
    In operation Goodwood, there is an account of Colonel von Luck angrily forcing a scared Flak battery to engage a mass of Allied armor.
     
  9. Xtrbacklash

    Xtrbacklash Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2009
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    1
    In my opinion, I think one of the best weapons were the Katyusha Missile launchers invented by the Russians.

    They were highly mobile (could be attached to trucks and vehicles), and pretty much destroyed the area they fired at.
     
  10. Wolfy

    Wolfy Ace

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    90
    The missile launchers had a more psychological rather than destructive effect.
     
  11. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Location:
    Michigan
    What are appropriate criteria for "best"?

    For instance: If it's overall effect on the war psychological effects are probably more important than pure destructive effects.

    In any case it's awfully hard to choose "a" best weapon although the atomic bomb might be worth considering.
     
  12. Jaeger

    Jaeger Ace

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    223
    Wolfy likes this.
  13. Wolfy

    Wolfy Ace

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    90
    The german broadcast in the end, complete with the uber alles song, had me in tears..
     
  14. justdags

    justdags Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2008
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    1
    I would say that the Iowa Class battleships were the finest built fighting ship ever and they were used on active duty until the 1990's need i say more
     
  15. STURMTRUPPEN

    STURMTRUPPEN Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    4
    it had to be the 88mm gun by far
     
  16. CAC

    CAC Ace of Spades

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    7,185
    Likes Received:
    1,606
    I think some people are confusing "best" with "coolest"...Best to me means most effective. Best tank? Tiger Tank. The T-34 was mass produced and out numbered the germans, the Russians finally learnt tank strategy off the germans and the Tiger Tank became vulnerable too far from its support, was maintenance hungry and required heaps of fuel constantly.
    best weapon? Nuclear bomb (All bombs are atomic bombs because the reaction occurs at an atomic level, where with a nuclear bomb the reaction takes place at the nucleaus of an atom hence Nuclear bomb....been mistitled for years!!!) No other weapon ENDED the war...They are so powerful even today that they are used to PREVENT war now.
    Best weapon other than THE BOMB?: hmmm.....MG-42? 88mm? Sherman? Depends on the situation.
    Best aircraft? Me 262 easily. Best piston engined? FW190 - Vought Corsair? Spifire?
    The two most effective aircraft i think though were the Lancaster and the B-17....Had more say in how the war was going.
    But thinking out of the box, THE best two weapons of the war, or most effective to the outcome were merchant shipping and the civilian population...get your head round that one! :)
     
  17. Proeliator

    Proeliator Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    20
    How about ULTRA? Pretty much saved Britain from becoming completely blockaded, as-well as preventing a major Soviet defeat at Kursk, amongst many other things...

    Knowing your enemies next move is a pretty good advantage to have I'd say...
     
    4th wilts likes this.
  18. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Location:
    Michigan
    That's been extensivly debated on this board and elsewhere. Suffice it to say that claim is somewhat controversial.
    Not really. They occur at the molecular level i.e. rely on a difference in chemical energy between molecules.
    The convention has been atomic bombs = fission, nuclear = fusion. Somewhat arbitrary but that's the working defintion and in common usage so it's hardly "mistitled".
    Again a position that has a history of extensive debate so no not "easily".
    The question is can these really be considered "weapons"? Most wouldn't consider them so but they were clearly important.
     
  19. CAC

    CAC Ace of Spades

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    7,185
    Likes Received:
    1,606
    Tiger Tank is only contoversial depending on what you judge as the best - Quantitively it can be proved as the best or most powerful...as a standard tank anyway...there are always prototypes. But i will accept that there are plenty of front runners.

    Molecular level? Molecules are constructed of atoms- of different elements. Scientifically speaking (if i may) the reaction is a atomic reaction, including molecular reactions - molecules are the ocean, atoms are the drops of water. Fission and Fusion are the different sides of the same coin, one rips and the other joins, again the reaction occurs at a sub-atomic level (neutrons) in both instances. The convention as you put it, has been mislabled. This bit of info comes from a Physics professor, so your arguing with him on this.

    262? See first answer.

    I agree, civilian populations and merchant navies DO have massive effect on the outcome of a war (WW2), but they are NOT weapons.
     
  20. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Location:
    Michigan
    That's a tautology is it not?
    Depending very much on your defintion of "best". If for instance you include operational and strategic mobility factors as part of that definition said proof is very much in question. Other factors can also be considered that are very reasonable and at the same time will count against the Tiger.
    The energy released from chemical explosives is due to the rearangement of molecular bonds. The reaction is not atomic because it doesn't result in any fundamental change to the atoms.
    The reaction occurs because that atoms are split or joined. That's the atomic lievel. While neutrons are involved so are protons and other particles.
    It's a defintion. As such it simply is. You may consider it confusing or inappropriate and even reject it.
    From the physics viewpoint that's entirely reasonable. From the veiw point of common usage it's irrelevant.
    Would similar logic not result in the Maus being considered the best tank? Good luck defending that one.
     

Share This Page