The best weapon of WW2?

lwd,

CAC has a good point with the Me262, when it was in the air and in the hands of a good pilot nothing could touch it. It had issues with the engines because they couldn't be constructed fully of heat resistant metals where needed. As such the engines only last 25 hours each before an overhaul was needed. The design was sound however, an engine having been constructed of the proper metals running at full power for over 100 hours non-stop without a single mishap.

As for the Tiger, it was probably the most feared weapon of the war and definitely had a huge effect, and as such can definitely considered as the best tank of the war, albeit it is debatable depending on which factors are given the most importance; and that applies to all 'which was best' discussions.

One could for example argue that the best aircraft of WW2 was the C47 Dakota, few aircraft having contributed as much to the war effort. Furthermore the aircraft has a sterling record in the areas of capability, reliability & ruggedness.

 

I would say the A-bomb was the best weapon,as someone else remarked that two were dropped and that finished ww2.
But mr Proeliator has a good point.Can the computers made and used at Station-X be considered as weapons?.
I personally think the people and machines there helped bring about the victories the allies needed to defeat the axis powers.how many months or even years did station-x shorten the war by?,I don't know,but on a television program I saw a few years ago,a scientist reckoned maybe 2 years.thanks everyone,Lee.

 

"Best" threads inevitably come down to a matter of how the terms are defined. They can be interesting and useful if the discussion doesn't get to strident but especially when unvoiced differences in defintion end up being defended to the last they become rather counter productive. So far this one has avoided those pitfals in spite of the problem that both "best" and "weapon" are not well defined.

 

Well, in my opinion the production and testing of the atom bomb alone would put a huge delay on these being actually used, where as you can take some 3000 pound bombs and drop them out of almost every good bomber in WWII. I really dislike the atom bomb in terms of the time delays before it actually hits the ground.

 

The Atomic Bombs, dropped on Japan, were both 'proximatey fuzed'; meaning they detonated before 'hitting the ground'.

 

my idea of a "best" weapon is one i can bring/ride into the battlefield and make me (feel) invincible. therefore i'd choose either the me-262 or the p-51D.

 

Hello,
The best weapon of WW2 may have been the M2 .50 cal. machine gun. Fitted on vehicles, aircraft, ships and tripods, this has to be the most usefull weapn in the American arsenal. With a rate of fire of 450 to 575 rpm and interchangable parts (M2 and M1921.) More .50 cal guns were produced
than any other machine gun. Give me a "Ma Deuce" any day!

Peter

 

This is my first post in this forum so I salute all members and I hope to learn much from your knowledge. The T-34 tank which won the war for Stalin. The 88 gun, a real jack of all trades. The Higgings landing craft. How could McCarthur jump from one island to the other withourt it. The P-51. And one that could never be used at it most because of Hitler interference....The German High Command.

 

Best weapon of WW2? I had relatives on both sides of the war (British, American and German) so I'm going to throw something different in - the "Vampir" infrared night sight sniper system (the first of it's kind in the world) and you could hunt 24/7 with that thing if you had plenty of ammo.

 

The only problem being the Vampir never saw service and the US version (Snooperscope Infrared, M2 on T3 carbine) did.

Fight at Night: U.S Army Night Vision 1945-1980

Another German 'first' bites the dust

 

The best weapon depends on what you're doing at the time. The M1 Garand was probably the best infantry rifle in WWII, but wouldn't amount to much if you were on a ship under Kamikaze attack, in which case proximity fused shells are your best friend.

 

I was thinking about this too ironically enough. I think this weapon was not the "Best" weapon during the Second World War because of the length it takes to develop one of these weapons. Also the statistics compared to something like a M1 Garand; The Garand has many many more kills then either the "Fat Man" or the "Little Boy", it seems to me that these Nuclear devices just don't have the statistics to go up against something like an M1. If the amount of time consumed to biuld one of these was less; I would change my opinion but it's just not a quick weapon to put out in the battlefield.
Total Casualties | The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki | Historical Documents | atomicarchive.com
Which is more dangerous: A gun or a swimming pool?

 

The best weapon, is the one you need under the given circumstances at the given time.

 

When it comes to return for any given resource, the MG-42 is the best weapon of WWII. Millions were made, and they killed millions. They were relatively cheap, and were the main killer in any German unit. The vast majority of combat was with infantry, and the MG-42 was the primary weapon of the German infantry squad. Everything else revolved around the MG, and so it killed more than any other weapon.

When it comes to "tanks", there is no question at all. The Stug is undoubtedly the best "tank" of the war. It killed more armored vehicles than all others, COMBINED. It destroyed nearly half of all T-34 produced. Its really hard to choose a best Allied tank, because there is no one tank which was irreplaceable. The T-34 could have easily been replaced by existing Allied tanks. In fact, nothing better than a Stuart tank would have been needed until late 1943, and it remained effective for a remarkable amount of time. Even the M3 medium tank was effective against the Germans in 1942, so the T-34 was not absolutely irreplaceable. In fact, it probably caused more harm than help, as it lead to the production of more heavy tanks than would have ever been produced otherwise.
The Stug on the other hand, was absolutely irreplaceable. It was, simply, was an excellent weapon.

When it comes to Bombers, the B-29 hands down. Just think about it, no other aircraft had such impunity and destruction. Supposedly awesome weapons like the ME-262 were still very vulnerable, but the B-29 was nearly untouchable. It flew too high, too fast, and a raid could easily kill more people than the A-bomb. How many other weapons can kill more people than a A-bomb in a single day? NONE. It is simply the most powerful weapon system developed, and it could be used far more often than an A-bomb.

When it comes to fighters, Its almost a tie. The 109 and P-47 are absolutely the most important fighters. Yes, both could have been replaced, but only later in the war. The 109 would not have an equivalent until 1941, while the P-47 did not until 1944. No other aircraft could have replaced them, and they both had the largest effect on the enemy.
Many people would like to say the P-51 was the most important, because it allowed daylight bombing, but that assumes daylight bombing worked. It didnt. Daylight bombing was only good for one thing, drawing the Luftwaffe up to be destroyed. The bombers were simply bait.
The P-47 was important as it destroyed an insane amount of German forces, and it took a lower percent of casualties than any other Allied fighter. It was reliable, and it could have been used to do anything the P-51 did that ever mattered.
The 109 was simply the most destructive fighter of any side. It simply killed so many people, it did it well, and it stood its ground for so many years. Its just a very effective weapon. It was never to be taken lightly, even at the end of the war it was not something you would joke around with, it could kill you really fast if you werent playing your A-game.

 

Well, this is just not so, 70-75% of all combat casualties are caused by fragmentation weapons, so artillery would be your biggest killer.

I agree the A-Bomb was the most powerful weapons system developed during the war. The B-29 was a great bomber but it was it's payload that was the killer. The common incendiary bomb killed more people than the A-Bombs. Dresden 25,000., Hamburg 50,000., Tokyo 100,000. to name a few, and they were carried by a number of different bomber types.

 

I must put in this "qualifier", the atomics were the most efficient killers of the enemy as per a single weapon, a single use. The incendiary attacks took more planes, more bombs, more risk to those delivering the weapon. Like it or not, atomics were the most "efficient" killers, they were ghastly expensive to produce (only America had the resources) for each weapon, and yet their power had no defense.

 

How about a beautiful woman? Loose lips sink ships. Are spy's considered weapons? Hard to quantify a spy. How many inches of armor could a spy defeat if fired at a 10 degree angle?

 

spy's could be considerd weapons, depending what there role is, if the spy's role is assasination or sabotage then yes they could be considerd a weapon

 

You are thinking WWI. The vast majority of fighting in WWII was infantry without fire support. Neither the Russians or the Germans had low level fire support, it was divisional or higher, except for mortars and AT guns.

Yes, but the B-29 did it with fewer aircraft, longer range, and far far fewer casualties. They were practically immune, not something you can say about any bomber that served in Europe.

 

being a bomber crewman in europe is almost a death wish unless you had good fighter support