Most underrated WWII weapon

Speaking of homemade.

Most underrated weapon of WWII?

Mothers.

If germany had more mothers in 1925 on, say triple or quadruple… maybe they would have pulled something off.

And lets not forget to mention the ladies working in factories, pumping out the weapons of the world!

@Gargantua:

Speaking of homemade. Most underrated weapon of WWII? Mothers. If germany had more mothers in 1925 on, say triple or quadruple… maybe they would have pulled something off.

Germany’s leaders appear to have thought likewise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Honor_of_the_German_Mother

The decoration was conferred from between 1939 until 1945 in three classes of order, bronze, silver, and gold to Reichsdeutsche mothers who exhibited probity, exemplary motherhood, and who conceived and raised at least four or more children in the role of a parent.

Partisans ,underestimated and feared to the end because of their ability to knock over the balance of a war with inconvenient warfare.

@Gargantua:

The Landing Craft.
No one appreciated them -except- the Japanese, until the war broke out.
I remember reading about some American Colonel, who was studying japanese deployment of these in the late 30’s.  The files he sent to the pentagon were archived under “The work of some nut in china”.
Only later to be pulled out, broken down, and developed into mainstream landing craft.  Which made it possible for the allies to land in Fortress Europe a few years later.

––Garg,…You’re speaking about “Brute” Krulak. He witnessed the Japanese landing craft with front ramps on the attack  while in China. The “idea” was passed along to Andrew Higgins, the Louisiana builder of the LCVP’s.
––Krulak became a Marine Raider so I have many books concerning him and the Raiders, the best being his
“Raise Hell” decoy mission on Chossiel in the Solomons.

“Tall Paul”

How about oil and gasoline….or the radio
V-1
V-2
Look at the Tomahawk and the I.C.B.M.

I think you all are just grasping for straws here just so you can have something to post about. A WW II weapon would be used to kill the enemy, save lives in your own army and win the battle.

@Fishmoto37:

I think you all are just grasping for straws here just so you can have something to post about. A WW II weapon would be used to kill the enemy, save lives in your own army and win the battle.

That´s simple then! It´s a mirror…

You can use it as an attachment, and it´s saving life´s and you can win urban battles with it!

try to look arround a corner without one.

OK I’ve got it!

Tactical Smart Missles
Phase Plasma Pulse Rifles
Sonic Electronic BALL Breakers!

Knives… SHARP STICKS!

and a team of ultimate bad-asses!

@suprise:

How about oil and gasoline….or the radio

these where the 2 main things to concider in tank warfare

many agree that the T34 is the best tank of th war, it was cheaper, easier to operate and stronger than most german tanks. (leaving out the panther and tiger)

then how did the germans manage to beat them with tanks that where inferior on paper? Better radios. The radio almost nullified the advantage of the T34, it gave better coordination inside the units and made it easier to call in close airsupport, and in tankbattles nothing is more important.

Well, perhaps gasoline, the russians where able to build huge quantities of tanks, while not worrying about gasoline efficency. your tank and planes cannot fly without it.

I have heard stories of 20k+ german fighters being found, unused after the war, simply bc they missed the gasoline to fly them (have not verified it tho, so it is hear say at this point)

@Kreuzfeld:

@suprise:

How about oil and gasoline….or the radio

many agree that the T34 is the best tank of th war, it was cheaper, easier to operate and stronger than most german tanks. (leaving out the panther and tiger)

then how did the germans manage to beat them with tanks that where inferior on paper? Better radios. The radio almost nullified the advantage of the T34, it gave better coordination inside the units and made it easier to call in close airsupport, and in tankbattles nothing is more important.

Radio was not the only advantage enjoyed by German tanks vis a vis the Russians.  The Germans used a 5 man crew in all of their tanks from the PzKw. III through the King Tiger.  All Russian tanks had 3 man crews.

What that means is that you have a 3 man turret in the German tank with a much more efficient separation of duties.  You have a gunner, loader, and commander.  This allowed the Germans to achieve a significantly higher rate of fire than the Russians could ever dream to achieve.  Combined with vastly superior optics, communications equipment, and command and control and it is obvious why the “inferior” tanks of the Germans were so successful.

Yeah but all those “superior” components would break down more regularily…

and for every 1 German tank, there were 3 Russian tanks or more!

@Gargantua:

Yeah but all those “superior” components would break down more regularily…

and for every 1 German tank, there were 3 Russian tanks or more!

When one looks at the economic base of the Axis powers, it becomes fairly obvious that they were virtually doomed to fail from the start.

The break-down myth is an interesting area to study actually (of course new designs had teething issues, which was true for the Russians and the US as well).  The biggest reasons for breakdowns of German armor, especially on the eastern front, was not unreliability of parts, but the distances that tanks were required to cover.  In the west in 1940 for example armor was moved to rail heads, and then deployed to battle near by.  The situation in Russia was completely different during the 1941 and 1942 summer campaigns.  In both campaigns Germany was on the attack, and due to the need to convert Russian rail to the standard European gauge, German armor and transport had to drive to the front.  This resulted in armor covering thousands of kilometers of territory on unimproved roads.  By the time any replacements reached the front they would have traveled hundreds of kilometers from the nearest rail head before firing a single shot in anger.

During this relentless advance, and thanks to the lack of rail transport, armor was not only covering more ground than it was intended to do, but maintenance/service intervals were stretched far beyond their breaking point.  All of this adds up to a calamity waiting to happen when it comes to available armor.  If you look at the daily logs of a Panzer division’s tank strength, which normally list available, short term repair, and long term repair status as well as reasons for each status (ex. mechanical breakdown), you will find that on average German armor suffered mechanical failures during offensive campaigns on a similar rate to other armies on the western front.

So it was the Mileage!  Interesting…

That said, there is a cultural arguement too… as Germans for example, did not own and operate their own cars as often as Americans did.  Thereby reducing the amount of mechanically inclined individuals who could exact repairs in the field.

@Herr:

The horse. Technically speaking not a weapon of course, but a vital logistic component during World War II, especially to Germany and the Soviet Union. Horses are often viewed as a relic from a different age of warfare, and while that may be true for modern armies of today, the WW2 situation was very different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_World_War_II

A great answer

@Last:

@Herr:

The horse. Technically speaking not a weapon of course, but a vital logistic component during World War II, especially to Germany and the Soviet Union. Horses are often viewed as a relic from a different age of warfare, and while that may be true for modern armies of today, the WW2 situation was very different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_World_War_II

A great answer

Horses have the additional advantage that, in a dire supply situation, you can eat them (as the Germans cut off at Stalingrad ended up doing –raw, if I recall correctly).  So in this respect they’re superior to jeeps, which are tough to chew and have low nutritional value (other than their high iron content).

@CWO:

@Last:

@Herr:

The horse. Technically speaking not a weapon of course, but a vital logistic component during World War II, especially to Germany and the Soviet Union. Horses are often viewed as a relic from a different age of warfare, and while that may be true for modern armies of today, the WW2 situation was very different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_World_War_II

A great answer

Horses have the additional advantage that, in a dire supply situation, you can eat them (as the Germans cut off at Stalingrad ended up doing –raw, if I recall correctly).  So in this respect they’re superior to jeeps, which are tough to chew and have low nutritional value (other than their high iron content).

Raw? _what do you think Germans are?…_they eat `em with salt and pepper ,cooked or slow cooked.
There is a Scandal right now in Europe, because Horsemeat was found in TV dinners. They came from England and had been found in German Food like TV Dinner and in Netherland, too.

I actually wouldn’t mind trying horsemeat.

But my local Ikea says they are horsemeat free :S