The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 239

Weapons of WWII (Poland and other countries)


wildrover 98 | 4,451
3 Oct 2009 #61
German ME242(the first jet)

The first German jet was actually produced by Heinkel , but the first jet put into production was the me 262... another awesome aircraft was the me 163 comet , not jet powered , but rocket powered...read up on this beast its amazing..!

Mustn,t forget Kurt Tanks great invention , the fw 190 fighter , and its later improvement the ta152....

Many of the German weapons were way ahead of their time , but came too late , or in too small numbers to help the Germans , but went on to inspire the weapons of the fifties and beyond....
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,811
3 Oct 2009 #62
So naturally the Tiger which was much larger and heavier would be a safer tank to be in, etc.

....and you won in the end! :)
scrappleton - | 831
3 Oct 2009 #63
Maybe we all won. As to the thread, I can admit the German weaponry was more advanced. What the hell, everybody knows it.
blueboy 2 | 34
3 Oct 2009 #64
The weapons were good, but the leaders were morons! At the end of the day it's the soldier on the ground using the weapons who wins the battle. My conclusion is that the best weapon in World War 2 was the squaddie, in the case of WW2 - the Allies.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
3 Oct 2009 #65
The Jeep was junk? The M1?

Jesus Christ i know you're an idiot but now you're also an illiterate one, the Sherman was junk the jeep was good, simple enough for you? Read what others write before you decide to reply to someones post.

The Mustang (which was designed , built and put into action on 117 days)?

You're as always a sad little retard attempting discussion on topics that outgrow you. The total R&D for P-51 was 19 months, the prototype was delivered in 117 days thats all so no it was not designed, built and put into action in 117 days.

It was designed in 90 days, developed in over a year and a half (from prototype to the final version) and put into combat 2 years after the order has been placed (in 1942) you can go back to your cave now.

the Sherman was not conceived for tank to tank combat.

Yes it was pointed out by a guy who knows next to nothing about tanks and now supported by you, our village idiot.

The first batch of Shermans were direct replacements to Grant tanks and they were delivered to Africa specifically to fight German Pz IIIs and IVs so yeah the idea behind the Sherman was exactly to fight enemy armor.

But let me ask you what was Sherman built for according to you? As a mobile kitchen? A shield behind which infantry could take a crap? Why was the Sherman given the heaviest (in its time) possible anti-tank gun? Why was it loaded on AT ammo?

So naturally the Tiger which was much larger and heavier would be a safer tank to be in, etc.

A T-34 which was smaller and 5 tonnes lighter was a safer place to be too so whats your point? In fact so was late Pz IV with shields.

Many of the German weapons were way ahead of their time

Like what? Russians had better rocket artillery, Americans had better aircraft, Brits had better radar, all of the technologies Germans messed around were present at least from 1930s.

The technological superiority of German armed forces is a myth that doesnt hold up to closer scrutiny, the fact is that Germans had just invented a much more modern approach to war and could and did do more with weaker weapons but for obvious reasons West and Russia avoid it.

Take the American army where every trooper had an M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle, at the same time Germans used a 98Kar bolt action design that remembered WW1, Germans simply messed around with technologies hoping they'll save them but the same or similar level in almost every field was available both to East and West and more often then not Germans did fall behind.
scrappleton - | 831
3 Oct 2009 #66
You're as always a sad little retard attempting discussion on topics that outgrow you.

LOL.. Please fool .. You calling someone a retard and I do mean ANYONE.. Is like Hilter chastising someone for having a temper.

Why don't you give a lowdown of Polish weapons at the time?

Typical Sokrates criticize someone else's house when he sleeps under a bridge.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,811
3 Oct 2009 #67
At the end of the day it's the soldier on the ground using the weapons who wins the battle. My conclusion is that the best weapon in World War 2 was the squaddie, in the case of WW2 - the Allies.

Really!
Let's see what the Allies had to say about that in March 1945:
HANDBOOK ON GERMAN MILITARY FORCES
WAR DEPARTMENT · 15 MARCH 1945


ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Germany/HB/HB-1.html

Despite the supposed chronic disunity at the top, disaffection among the officer corps, and disloyalty in the rank and file, despite the acute lack of weapons, ammunition, fuel, transport, and human reserves, the German Army seems to function with its old precision and to overcome what appear to be insuperable difficulties with remarkable speed.

Only by patient and incessant hammering from all sides can its collapse be brought about....

Doesn't sound that way as you think, does it!
Seanus 15 | 19,706
3 Oct 2009 #68
BB, you are arguing with an experienced soldier. I happen to agree with him on this point.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,811
3 Oct 2009 #69
I happen to agree with him on this point.

Where you there Seanie? ;)

Quote from the handbook:

The German Army of 1939 was a model of efficiency, the best product of the concentrated military genius of the most scientifically military of nations.
A study of the German Army of 1945, however, older and wiser, hardened and battle-tested, cornered and desperate as it is, will show best how this military science and military genius operate in the practical exigencies of long-drawn-out total war....

Sokrates 8 | 3,346
3 Oct 2009 #70
Why don't you give a lowdown of Polish weapons at the time?

In 1939 Poles had among others THE most modern anti-tank rifle in the world, one of the most advanced light tanks and tactical bombers, our automatic rifle would be later copied in German gewehr43 and consequently become the basis of such designs for a decade to come and we invented the tank periscope that all armies use to this day and were the first to equip our tanks with them.

We were the leading country in Europe in calculating machines (known to you as ancestors to computers) and inventors of most of the advanced incryption and decryption devices, it was our matemathicians that later on cracked the enigma.

Typical Sokrates criticize someone else's house when he sleeps under bridge.

I'm not crisizing the US army of the time, it was a powerfull fighting machine, i'm critisizing you for talking off the top of your arse.

Let's see what the Allies had to say about that in March 1945:

And yet it took only Russia to bring you down.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,811
3 Oct 2009 #71
ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Germany/HB/HB-1.html

....
The three greatest nations on earth were forced to muster all their human and material power to crush the German military machine by the only possible method--overwhelming superiority of force....

Written in March 1945 by the allied war departement - says it all...really....
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
3 Oct 2009 #72
Written in March 1945 - says it all...really....

Oh please BB sometimes you sound like little Goebbels, Russia alone took you down using not even half of its available manpower and having lost at least a third of its industry (since you were sitting on the most populous parts).
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,811
3 Oct 2009 #73
And yet it took only Russia to bring you down.

Heh:) I didn't know we had a one-front war only???

Oh please BB sometimes you sound like little Goebbels,

I'm quoting a real source Sok....a source who should know what it is talking about.
That's the real stuff, no propaganda!

I better post it again, just for you Sokrates:

...The three greatest nations on earth were forced to muster all their human and material power to crush the German military machine by the only possible method--overwhelming superiority of force.

Praise right out of the mouth of the enemy!
tornado2007 11 | 2,275
3 Oct 2009 #74
I didn't know we had a one-front war only???

no but i think the Russians gave you a taste of your own ruthless medicine :) Didn't take prisoners, raped, looted, stole and killed anything that looked like Gerry. A strange thing Karma isn't it.....
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,811
3 Oct 2009 #75
no but i think the Russians gave you a taste of your own ruthless medicine :)

Well...who dishes out must be prepared to take it, only fair!

A strange thing Karma isn't it.....

But would you really call it Karma???
Russia paid a huge price and afterwards they had decades of more Gulags before them...compare that with Germany!

If that is Karma...curious thing...
tornado2007 11 | 2,275
3 Oct 2009 #76
Well...who dishes out must be prepared to take it, only fair!

fair play to you, a lot of people may have taken that as trying to be provocative, you saw it for what it was though, an explanation of what happens in wartime.

But would you really call it Karma???
Russia paid a huge price and afterwards they had decades of more Gulags before them...compare that with Germany!

If that is Karma...

actually that is a fair point as well
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
3 Oct 2009 #77
I didn't know we had a one-front war only???

Untill 1944 you had and you got your arse handed to you on a silver plate, up to Kurks the result was arguable, after it was over so was Germany.

I'm quoting a real source Sok....a source who should know what it is talking about.
That's the real stuff, no propaganda!

I know you are but its also a Western source, the fact is the West was weak, their soldiers were weak, their efforts werent all that great and where Russians trampled German armies like no tomorrow Western allies failed, its only natural they'd sing praises afterwords, it sounds much better then "we sucked, they didnt."

Also Kursk is also history and given that Russians kicked your ass and proceeded so far as to liberate Kiev is a pretty hard evidence that Germany had no juice left, Normandy didnt help end the war it helped end it quicker.

Well it didn't stop your drunk, biscuit eating a.sses for climbing in them , did it?
You begging ass wipe!

Actually Brits developed the only relatively good variant of the Sherman "Firefly" but Americans refused to use it as a principle of national pride.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,811
3 Oct 2009 #78
Untill 1944 you had and you got your arse handed to you on a silver plate, up to Kurks the result was arguable, after it was over so was Germany.

Erm....you are not calling the war on the eastern front an "arse handing", don't you?

I really understand and even appreciate your nationalism, your pride Sok but better stop here before you are making yourself looking like a fool.
You are not discussing seriously and objective here anymore...
tornado2007 11 | 2,275
3 Oct 2009 #79
Sokrates
are you on some sort of crusade to prove the Soviets were better or stronger than than Gerry?? lets be honest shall we, if they had compitant leaders making good sound military decisions and were not gready like Hitler. Germany could have done what the hell of what was left of Russia when they attacked, if the German high command had planned better (Decided to invade Russia later on in the war) Ivan would have been crushed.

I hate to admit it but the only thing that stopped the German war machine, was the Germans themselves, they got over confident and gready.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
3 Oct 2009 #80
Erm....you are not calling the war on the eastern front an "arse handing", don't you?

From 1943 onwards i do. When you look at Russian offensives and how they overran defensive lines (Hunyady's line for example) within days when Allies couldnt take Siegfrieds in weeks with forces 5 times that large you realise where statements about World having to pile up on the Wehrmacht come from.

Make no mistake Wehrmacht was the best army in the world from 13939 to 1945 but not that good.

Russians did beat you mainly through overwhelming numbers but they did it alone, its not like there were any British divisions in Russia in 1943 (or in Europe)
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,811
3 Oct 2009 #81
Oh they were THAT good....but you can only kill so many enemies till they are overrunning you.

You can look at every statistic but they show all the same numbers, the Russians lost several man and pieces for every german man and every piece of german metal...the german army was better, it just was not enough!
tornado2007 11 | 2,275
3 Oct 2009 #82
Sokrates
you talk absolute crap, if the German high command was even slightly competent then the Russians would of stood no chance, they would have been tactically, mechanically and moral wise been out done by a much stronger force.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
3 Oct 2009 #83
Oh they were THAT good....

Really? Then why did Russians win battles during Bagration using smaller forces.

You can look at every statistic but they show all the same numbers, the Russians lost several man and pieces for every german man and german metal...the german army was better, it just was not enough!

Absolutely but thats again because Russian military sucked uncomonly bad even for the period, apart from that Russians didnt outnumber the Wehrmacht as much as Western allies did and still got better results through sheer determination, apart from that it proves that Germany didnt need the world piling up to defeat it, all it took was Russia.

you talk absolute crap, if the German high command was even slightly competent then the Russians would of stood no chance,

So you mean that generals who practically invented mechanized warfare, in-depth defence and perfected blitzkrieg and combined arms combat used today by the entire world, and conquered militaries collectively numbering over 7 milion soldiers were incompetent?:)

Russia in 1940 had 5.3 milion soldiers, 3 times more tanks then all the armies of the rest of the world combined, twice the artillery, Red Army had more machineguns and smgs then all the armies of Europe, German generals were geniuses but it takes a bloody miracle for such a country to stand no chance.

they would have been tactically, mechanically and moral wise been out done by a much stronger force.

Sorry bud but a typical motorised unit in Russia was 30% larger and Red Army had them in ratio of 4 to 5, as for airplanes they had about 10 times more.
tornado2007 11 | 2,275
3 Oct 2009 #84
Absolutely but thats again because Russian military sucked uncomonly bad even for the period, apart from that Russians didnt outnumber the Wehrmacht as much as Western allies did and still got better results through sheer determination, apart from that it proves that Germany didnt need the world piling up to defeat it, all it took was Russia.

your missing the point a little, you took on the German army at its lowest possible point. It was over stretched, under bad leadership and nobody knew a jot what the hell was going on and where, even when the guys on the ground were telling the high command what was going on they ignored them!!!!

If you had taken them on in the height of their powers it would have been a no-contest.

So you mean that generals who practically invented mechanized warfare, in-depth defence and perfected blitzkrieg and combined arms combat used today by the entire world, and conquered militaries collectively numbering over 7 milion soldiers were incompetent?:)

those people were under command themselves, their hands were tied by the German high command, isn't that obvious to you??? Even in the book 'Stalingrad' it is made clear that Hitler had lost the plot and ignored all his generals.

Russia in 1940 had 5.3 milion soldiers, 3 times more tanks then all the armies of the rest of the world combined, twice the artillery, Red Army had more machineguns and smgs then all the armies of Europe, German generals were geniuses but it takes a bloody miracle for such a country to stand no chance.

yet they did not have enough guns for each man :) what sort of condition were the soldiers in??? i can tell you now, NOT GOOD. what good are guns if the guys holding them are fooked.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,811
3 Oct 2009 #85
Really? Then why did Russians win battles during Bagration using smaller forces.

Where did you get that?
Bagration is a prime example that the Russian needed the mass against the german class!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration

WWII Military Death
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Soviet Union
8,800,000 to 10,700,000

Germany
5,533,000

...and not all of Germany's casualties came from the eastern front but all of Russias came from
the Germans!

And yes the Russians always outnumbered the Germans and suffered an average of at least 1:2
tornado2007 11 | 2,275
3 Oct 2009 #86
Sokrates
look mate i'm off to bed and i'm sure i'll read the rest of this in the morning, just think of it like this, i'm a Brit. I'm a patriotic Brit at that, even i can see/admit that the German Army of WWII was the 2nd best military force in the whole of history.

You just have to look at what the army achieved in such a short period of time, look at the weapons development, field tactics development, the ruthless way it carried out its work, let alone the organisational side of things. On the ground the Gemans were awesome, in the skies they were ok but not as good as the RAF and in the sea probably better than most at the time.

Simples
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,811
3 Oct 2009 #87
Yeah...I'm leaving too...till tomorrow! :)
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
3 Oct 2009 #88
your missing the point a little, you took on the German army at its lowest possible point

When Germany was in their highest point around 1943/44 so was Russia, and the peak of Russian capacities was so absurdly above German ones the Reich didnt have a prayer by then.

It was over stretched, under bad leadership and nobody knew a jot what the hell was going on and where, even when the guys on the ground were telling the high command what was going on they ignored them!!!!

Actually Barbarossa was perfectly planned and executed, if you're talking about Kursk then no Germans were not overstretched, they syphoned all the troops they could from every place they could, at no point was Germany even close to Russian industrial and military capacities, the only moment when they came close to winning the war was under Moscow.

Where did you get that?

Bagration is a prime example that the Russian needed the mass against the german class!

The 9th armored brigade taking Bobrujsk from the German 14th motorised division for example, also if you consider that you typically needed to pile 3-1 ratio for any given offensive and there's only about 400.000 more Russians thats pretty impressive add to that the fact that you were fortified on par with what the allies encountered at the Siegfrieds line and the Russians just rolled over that.

Then you get (though thats not Bagration anymore) Russian break in into Hungary via Hunyady's line which was a mountain fortification line that made the Atlantic wall and Siegfrieds look like a joke, and they broke it in 24 hours.

If you want to get really anal then lets bring Stalingrad where at the most crucial moment about 150.000 troops factory workers, women conscripts stopped dead over 500.000 crack German troops.

Yes Wehrmacht was better but the disparity (in case of Russia) was not that huge, its mainly a myth propagated by the West (of a primitive cowardly peasant that had to be rushed en masse) to hide the fact how poorly the allies performed compared to the Russians.

3:37 time to snooze, night.
scrappleton - | 831
3 Oct 2009 #89
Actually Barbarossa was perfectly planned and executed

The hell it was.. Hitler fired key generals in the midst of it. The Germans took too much land too quickly and let supply lines stretch.. it's the only real reason they lost. That was actually poor planning. They tried the same blitzkrieg with that huge expanse of land and didn't really account for the cold.

Russian capacities was so absurdly above German ones the Reich didnt have a prayer by then.

Uhhh.. The Russians barely escaped the Finns. They were better in the trenches than the Germans, hand to hand, defending their own lands, cities. The best army in the war was the Wehrmacht. The Red Army pulled off an amazing comeback and they deserve respect for the rest of time but based on pure efficiency it was the Wehrmacht.
southern 75 | 7,096
3 Oct 2009 #90
A study of the German Army of 1945, however, older and wiser, hardened and battle-tested, cornered and desperate as it is, will show best how this military science and military genius operate in the practical exigencies of long-drawn-out total war....

Yes,Germany in 1939 was not prepared for long term war and had relatively few weapons which were consumped in each Blitzkrieg.Germany started to be ammunitied deep and in quantity in 1943.

Barbarossa was not perfectly planned because the german generals had hoped to capture Russia in a Blitzkrieg lasting 3 months that is to finish the war between June and September 1941.


Home / History / Weapons of WWII (Poland and other countries)
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.